[Before we go further, I have to share this amazing read (or listen) with you - Clay Shirky, at the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. (also read the first 3 links to the commentaries on the web, the fourth is a twitter feed)]

I’ll attempt a summary because the context is needed for the post. He talks about the temporary arrangement that had allowed accountable journalism to create an advertising based business model, and how in the internet era, specialist information sources have disrupted that model and allowed advertisers many more, and better options. He talks about how the newspapers’ way of bundling content, where readers and advertisers subsidised the content they didn’t want, doesn’t work now, and the aggregation has now moved from the ’server-side’ to the ‘client-side’. He sees “the newspapers’ ability to produce accountability journalism shrinking”, and is convinced that “those changes are secular, monotonic, and irreversible, rather than being merely cyclic and waiting for the next go around.”  He also points out a major and adverse side effect of this disruption – the absence of newspapers as a bulwark against civic corruption. (While there are other media and their ’sting ops’, I’d still say that the role of newspapers in this regard is still important). This is something I remember debating a few months back over at Iq’s blog, when he wrote on this issue.

He believes that newspapers are irreplaceable in accountability journalism, and sees three kinds of experiments happening in the new media landscape – market based (commercial, the traditional advertising model of publishers), public (funded by income other than revenue – like non-profit models) and social (crowdsourced models). The internet makes the first difficult to sustain, the second easier, and the third, easiest.

In a recent post, Umair Haque writes about the open ‘mediaconomy’, which offers tons of soda, but good wine too, and that’s the reason why most old media companies are in trouble now – ‘they’ve been for long producing generic soda, instead of distinctive kinds of wine.’ And in an economy where supply of soda far exceeds demand, how long will people continue to pay for it? As Umair points out, its not just about media, but any industry that’s doing the same.

Now, a few days back, when I was searching for some information for a holiday, I went to my list of regular suspects – a  few Indian hotel/destination review portals and a few travel portals. I did find information, but was given a choice of hotels that I wasnt too happy with. I had opened another tab for the traveler advice on WikiTravel, and happened to come across options in the ‘Stay’ section which I hadn’t seen anywhere else. In fact it gave me more options than I’d have liked and I was forced to choose from two equally good places, whose websites had all the information I wanted.

WikiTravel is free, created and curated by users, who take the time out to update and add information. They will obviously incur costs when doing this, and spend some time. They obviously are supported by a revenue model (personal) that allows this, a revenue model that most likely is part of the old economy (commercial, unlike public or social) And that’s what makes me worried about the transition period, the part when the old economy is too weak to support the new, and the new doesn’t have a way to support itself.

The other point is that the content is out there, but the soda and wine are all mixed, and I’m yet to figure a model where I’m sure I’m not missing something. Yes, there is Reader, Twitter and perhaps a couple of other places, but these do have a tendency to evolve into an echo chamber every now and then. Serendipity does lose out a lot when I put systems and processes in place. Newspapers were aggregators in their time. I can customise tools to give me the news on only those categories I’m interested in. (Rarely) Sometimes people add the serendipity. In many cases, when I’m searching for specific information, the tools (search) and the humans (crowdsourcing) have failed me. I have ended up ‘discovering’ new resources – sites/tools/people and then sharing it. Its not as organised a way as I’d like, but I guess we’re still evolving.

There is quite some work happening though. Google Reader recently added some ‘Magic’ which helps users discover interesting content faster. The new ‘Explore’ section has a generic popular items as well as recommended sources suggested basis the reader trends and web history (if opted in). Feeds can also now be sorted by ‘magic’, again basis the history of ‘like’ and ’share’.  Twitter lists will add a new dimension to discovering users and content, and with the deals with Bing and Google, search is going to be more real time, and more importantly, involve a human filter – using the lists layer to deliver better, more relevant search results. The impact on SEO should be fun. TweetMixx is a site I came upon recently, and looks interesting in this context.

Where will it land up? Is it possible to create an aggregator whose context is subjective preferences, but that will still bring in serendipity? (people who liked this also liked?) What kind of content aggregator will evolve that can either sustain itself without revenue, or convince me to pay for it? Or perhaps that single-entity era is over. It does make me wonder if at some point in time, everyone will be Hiro Protagonist like characters, paid for each piece of information they add into the overall system.

until next time, infobesity

Bonus Read: A very good read on ‘Why the great Indian media companies will fail on the internet‘

Related posts:

1. Flipping news models Google’s Fast Flip has been receiving quite a lot of...
2. The evolution of Content Marketing A few weeks back, the eMarketer released some statistics about...
3. Broken News models The Iran crisis once again brought the present day tools...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

until next time, surf around and get back next week

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Before you take me for some kind of Yahoo hater, I’m not. (Actually, I’m quite a fan of the Carol Bartz style of no-nonsense management – typified by the last few lines here) In fact my irritation with them stems from their relative disinterest towards a few tools that were original pathbreakers and that they’ve had for a long time – most importantly ‘delicious’, but I’ve written about that earlier, and some work on that service has happened since. So, anyway, Yahoo, this is not about you, you were simply a prolongued prologue, and a good example.

A couple of weeks back, when writing about Wave, I’d wondered  “is brand equity an excuse/surrogate for thin value, and exist only in theory, or until the last good product?” This entire activity above somehow reminded me of that. Brand equity, and the lord knows there’s no shortage of definitions. (ignore the newspaper brand references)  So why did I think brand equity is now a surrogate/excuse for thin value?

Every brand that enjoys good equity now must have provided ‘thick value’ at some point of time, to its audience. At some point though, did the ‘brand’ take over, and the focus become more on perception management, rather than as an aid to retaining/attracting customers. Is that the reason why brands in many industries cannot find a way past the disruption they’ve been facing – because they’ve been focused on creating brand equity basis communication and superficial value additions, and sticking way too close to the specifics, like competition, and not bothering about the generic fulfilment of a need?(classic example, newspapers and news delivery) Somewhere did brand and marketing communication start dominating the proceedings, at the cost of the basics – a product solving a need/a distribution that increases convenience/the factor that built the equity in the first place? And then did they shortchange consumers by putting a premium on the brand’s equity without delivering value? While trying to build the emotional connect and create a value perception beyond the commoditisation, did the means become the end?

Take Yahoo for example. By an unfortunate coincidence, last week, GMail replaced Yahoo Mail as the most popular email service in India. I can imagine why. Like many others, I have multiple Gmail ids, and a Yahoo id too. While I open Yahoo because of a couple of e-groups, GMail is my primary communication centre. It has never been static, features and tools have been added to a point where I wonder how I worked without them. (try operating in basic HTML for a while) I checked Yahoo out again, with as fresh a perspective as i could, and didn’t find anything that could make me consider a shift. I still use Delicious a lot, and it still has a lot of equity (in my mind) going for it. Yahoo’s brand campaigns have nothing to do with it.

Maybe the concept of brand equity had some merit when the audience didn’t talk to each other, but as WOM keeps getting bigger,  push brand communication is bound to become more meaningless. As consumption patterns change, needs change, distribution systems change, as real-time becomes the norm,  and exit barriers and costs for consumers come down, relying on a static and uni dimensional concept of brand equity is bound to be harmful. Also, with fragmenting media, fragmenting audiences, and an increasing importance for ‘my experience’, brand equity will be different things to different people at different times, and even the hazy setof objective measurements in vogue today, would be rendered ineffective. (Yes, it might have been the same before, but in an earlier era, consumers did not talk to each other, and it was easy to push the brand’s equity on to consumers). (Generalising, but) Take a look at the communication and taglines adopted by brands, their superficiality, the efforts that go into forcing the tagline’s emotion/value into the actual value provided, and thereby build/increase brand equity and you’ll see what I mean.

Perhaps, product equity will be the only measure that matters, and brand equity will be earned and burned real time, as consumers share feedback and rely on their trusted sources for updates, and historic performances will decrease in significance. (when the Fail Whale comes out on Twitter, evangelists become bloodhounds, or whatever..you know what I mean) And so perhaps, from a brand perspective, its about time that meaningless communication took a back seat, and we went back to the basics of brand equity, that may mean redefining the roles and responsibilities of everyone associated with ‘brand’ as a function. Because if you’re good, they’ll talk about you, and if you’re bad, they’ll talk more about you

But you know what, I had more fun when i thought about a parallel. Thought leaders. Replace ‘brand equity’ with ‘thought leaders’ (or personal brand equity) and tell me what you think.

UPDATE: Yahoo hires a new agency, tells Ogilvy “It’s not Y!ou”.. Damn, that was fast!!

UPDATE 2 Meanwhile, a homepage redesign gives them 9% more page views and 20% more time spent.

until next time, equitable solutions..

Bonus Reads:

Braggarts take over the web

Almost unrelated, but an excellent read – Jerry Yang’s Advice in Interesting Times (via @mukund)

Related posts:

1. Yodel Tales I’ve always wanted to catch a big web entity’s brand...
2. Don’t shoot the messenger….yet A few weeks back, I’d written about Yahoo India’s TVC...
3. Brand new lock We’ve seen Vodafone going through a massive exercise, we recently...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

While the video does generalise and could cause some heartburn among some who work on social media and do good work, the reason I found it funny was because I see around me, a lot of what is shown in there -- a preoccupation with the tools/platforms in vogue, and the lack of something as basic as an objective. As always, the tools are less important than the philosophy of sharing, collaborating, and 2 way communication that’s happening not just on social media sites, but across the web, though the former, because of their inherent nature, have taken it to a different level altogether. The combination of a client who has decided his brand needs to be on twitter, thanks to some article he read somewhere (or an even more vague reason) and the social media guru whose answer to any client is a templated Facebook page + twitter account + you tube, is quite lethal -- to two sets of people -- the agencies/individuals who are doing/interested in some genuinely useful work on the social media platforms and the brands who decide not to take the plunge basis the results of the poorly thought through/executed programs of other brands. It doesn’t help that the medium is still in its nascent stages and everyone is still learning.

While social media practices and practitioners might be fewer in India, as compared to the US, the challenges faced show very little such skew. I read two posts recently on the subject. Karthik wrote about ‘selling social media engagement in India‘, where, with the experience of working in a PR firm and pitching social media, he looks at the changes he’s seen in the acceptance of social media among clients over the last couple of years, and the key attributes for making the sale. He mentions how an existing communications partner has a ‘door opener’ advantage as compared to say, an exclusive social media agency, which helps them get the right  people from the client side involved in the pitch, and the need for proper articulation and simple guides which could be used by the client team to sell to their bosses.

In another extremely interesting post, Sanjay writes about “Advertising Agencies and Social Media: The Challenges“. He notes fundamental differences in the way an advertising agency looks at communication, and how communication actually happens in social media. The observations on ‘campaign’ focus, the obsession with perfection (copy), the mechanics of how communication is rolled out, are all spot on, and something that I too have experienced several times while dealing with creative agencies. He ends by mentioning that in the current scenario, agencies keep treating these platforms as broadcast media. That last thought is something I keep deploring regularly here, so I completely agree.

Now the thing is, while these are all perfectly valid points, I was looking at it from a different perspective. I wonder if, in the entire spiel, social media’s proximity to marketing/communication/brand as a function completely overshadows the cultural transition required by the client organisation. Does it get discussed at all? Even in my post rant some time back, I had only emphasised the usage of social media in the PR, research, advertising disciplines and the different stages of the product life cycle -- including sales, customer care etc, and barely mentioned the culture change.

The subject of a shift in culture is something I have written about in several contexts -- from basic thoughts on transparency in organisations and controlling employee communication internally and with the outside world, to the need for organisations to understand themselves and the value they provide before going overboard with listening and acting on consumer feedback, to whether the size and scale of the organisation dictates its culture and its internal and external communication processes,  and the necessity to tackle business problems and look at it as something that needs to be addressed at an enterprise level too and not just at a brand level. The Dachis Group presentation -- ‘Social Business by Design‘ illustrates this extremely well.

I examined it further in the framework of the Awesomeness manifesto, which i regard as an excellent set of fundamentals for organisations, if they want to operate profitably in the evolving business scenario, and in all four of its pillars, I could see the need for a more holistic approach to social media. Its obviously easier said than done. It involves a vision, the zeal and guts to translate that into internal and external business practices- from environment to employee friendliness, training of personnel, readjustment of business goals, hiring people who understand this new design -- like say, P&G’s technopologist, who can operate across functions to evangelise it and help apply it in different contexts. And that’s just a few things. Look at an application of this across your organisation, and you’ll see how massive an endeavor it is. Maybe only a few organisations are thinking about it now, but I think it might become an imperative very soon, decided by external forces beyond the organisation’s control. Whether this is spearheaded by the organisations themselves or an external agency would be a decision based on several subjective parameters. Maybe then, organisations will be able to figure out the ‘gurus’ better.

So while, it is good to see great social media efforts from brands, I wonder whether more needs to be done to integrate it more fundamentally within the organisation.

until next time, social nirvana

Bonus Reads:

Customer Twervice by Social Media Explorer (10 examples of companies using social media for customer service)

Social Media Policy Database (Via Six Pixels of Separation)

Why its time to do away with the Brand Manager

Related posts:

1. “Bridging the Social Media Divide” There’s this hashtag on Twitter – #bsmd, which stands for...
2. Conversations in social media The Facebook redesign and the possible redefining of brands’ interaction...
3. Inside Intel A video that was shared yeterday on Facebook by a...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Google’s brand identity has been dominated by search. For most people, it is their starting point on the web. But its not just that. From the iconic, simplistic, patented home page and the doodles it exhibits there, to its attempts to disrupt the real time conversation domain that is dominated by Facebook and Twitter with Wave, Google is many things. GMail, Orkut, Picasa, Blogger, YouTube, Maps, all operating on different domains, and brands in their own right. And they only make up one part of what Google is today. (link to an informative analysis of Google) Currently valued at $100 billion, and rising. Though wary of it, the brand has my respect, and for me, Google has been awesome.

Awesomeness. Umair Haque had an extremely interesting post about awesomeness recently. He wrote that innovation is passe, that it is ‘what is commercially novel’, doesn’t create anything fundamentally new, and that awesomeness is the new innovation. He lists ethical production, insanely great stuff, love, and thick value as the four pillars of awesomeness. Arguable, right from a semantics/ new buzzword premise. But I tend to agree, especially when I see the stuff being passed around as innovation.

Now, some of you might be aware of this, but for those who don’t, Google has a ten point corporate philosophy. An extremely interesting set of things, which you must take a look at.#10, I thought, was related to awesomeness. It goes “Great just isn’t good enough.” Google believes that great is just a starting point, and their “constant dissatisfaction with the way things are becomes the driving force behind everything we do.”

They obviously felt that the entire domain of real time communication, search, sharing and collaborating could do with some disruption, that would explain Wave. And from the time I saw the video, I’ve thought that it would be a game changer, and wrote as much. But the feedback so far has been less than encouraging. From productivity killer to RSS, The sequel, it has been called quite a few things. The opinions are from guys who know what they’re talking about.From the little I have tried it out, I’ve to admit it can totally knock off productivity, but then again so can Twitter. Its less fun if there aren’t many around. Twitter in 2007, for me. Most are still learning, because it IS quite different. Seth Godin called Twitter a protocol (yes I keep saying that because its absolutely apt), I still figure that Wave has the potential that it showed in the video, the potential to create its own protocol. After all, there must be a reason why they call it a preview.

But it did make me wonder about Google and awesomeness. Is Wave awesome, as opposed to an innovation? What if the idea is too advanced/difficult to provide ‘thick value’ now, does it still deserve to fail? Does that mean that sometimes innovation is better than awesomeness? How does ‘failure’ feature in the awesomeness manifesto? What does this do to the overall brand equity of Google? Or is brand equity an excuse/surrogate for thin value, and exist only in theory, or until the last good product?  But maybe Mitch is right when he says that we’re killing it before it begins. More after I play more with it.

until next time, a wave new world

PS: a few of my Wave tweets below

Related posts:

1. Wave Content And just when Microsoft seemed to get moving on Google,...
2. Brand equity in real time Media Post reports that Yahoo’s latest campaign caused its perception...
3. Add Sense Read a very nice article today on rediff, about Google’s...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I saw a couple of posts which asked an interesting question – whether by creating pages ‘anyway’, Godin was brandjacking. Godin had clarified that if a brand requested him to take a page off, he would do so. And in a later update (to clear the air) he took off the 200 sample pages that had been put up. Bravo! Not that there was anything technically wrong with it – after all, like one of the articles states, Google does something similar- sell ads next to contextually relevant others- generated content (search, ad sense on sites), but the non-paid for brand pages just didn’t sound right.

But it made me wonder again about the location of brand-consumer conversations. Before we get to that, another interesting news item in context, albeit a bit tangentially. Last week, Google launched Sidewiki, “which allows you to contribute helpful information next to any webpage. Google Sidewiki appears as a browser sidebar, where you can read and write entries along the side of the page.” The entries which are shown, are selected not by recency, but an algorithm that has among other things – the contributor’s previous entries and the feedback on the entry. Moreover the entry will also be used on sites with the same content. Users will have to be logged into Google for leaving comments and rating.

As Jason Falls notes in his post about Sidewiki, this adds another layer for brands to keep in touch with, because users may not even have to search for information about the website (or the product/service sold there). If they have the toolbar downloaded, they can see the information as they browse the site. He also rightly remarks (IMO) that we should expect ads (even that of competitors) in the wiki soon. Meanwhile, like any good social product, there is no control that a brand can exert on this content, as it exists on Google’s servers. Jeremiah Owyang  also has a post on the same subject, which offers several great insights and advice. Apparently, the comments a user leaves will also be displayed on his Google profile. The web as one giant social network, he’s right, that’s what Google’s after. There is also the option of sharing it on Facebook/Twitter. It’d be interesting to see a Facebook version of this whenever it happens – a play with Facebook Connect, the website, and perhaps, Facebook fan pages. The Facebook newsfeed means that it can bring the conversation back to Facebook. That’s something Google can’t do..yet.

Now, back to the location. Attempts are being made to aggregate these conversations, and in BIP’s case make it a conversation involving the brand itself. My problem was not with brandjacking, the conversations are happening anyway, and brands are free to create their own ways of aggregation and response, I was more concerned with two other things. One, the creation of a destination point , a ‘middle man’ whose only context connecting its users was the brand itself. Like a subject popping up while chatting over coffee vs a focus group – they both have their uses, but for me, the former is more social media, simply because of the difference in intent. To be fair, I’ve always thought aggregation was inevitable, but Chris Brogan wrote recently about ‘Feeling the Community‘, where he talks about how “we don’t join communities because we  happen to like a product or service. We gather around people who feel what we feel, and we share passion for things that bring us some sense of pleasure or joy, or even healing.” I can completely relate to that, it is the reason I’m not a fan of many things on FB, and was/am not an active member of the groups I’d joined. Now, I talk about all these things (whose group/fan page I am part of) on Twitter. I follow blogs and use these as conversation points there, on Twitter and offline, whenever I feel there is a context, and whenever I can identify with what’s being said on the subject.  What I’m trying to say is that the objects (brands) or even the platforms are not the important context, the people are. Even though the brand has an identity and a personality, different people associate to the same brand differently, and my conversations happen with people who I feel can relate to what I’m saying. Also, the aggregation may not really show the context in which a comment was made. (esp. Twitter). For that, the brand has to be present on Twitter. I’m not sure whether an aggregation point would have the same effect. Woods, trees, and mistakes.

The second issue I have is whether such destination points would tend to become band-aid fixes for a larger problem. Would brands approach the issues with a short term tactical mindset – highlight the issues that they’re able to solve, gloss over the ones they can’t? In essence, see this a point where they can control the conversations? Shouldn’t the greater priority for organisations be changing their internal processes and structures to adapt to social media, than having a dashboard responding to comments? I’m just not very sure it can work in parallel.

So, conversations on the brand website, on its side, and on some other site..actually everywhere. At some point, all data would have to become portable, and depending on context (and perhaps other parameters) I would choose the platform/service/location for interaction. For now, world wild web indeed.

until next time, a website with a sidekick

Related posts:

1. Revenge of the corporate website? A few weeks back, there was a discussion on one...
2. The new brand ambassador – you Sometime back, I saw a press release of an entity...
3. The brand…behind the scene The advantages that social media has to offer is best...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In the last few weeks, this is the second instance of Google engaging with publications and ‘helping’ them create a revenue stream. The first instance was Google sending a proposal for micropayments, in response to a request for paid content proposals from the Newspaper Association of America. As per an NYTimes blog, this would be an extension of Google Checkout. Google is only one of the companies that have sent a proposal, and the list includes Oracle, IBM, and Microsoft. The system is of course in its early planning stages, and the business model has a 30-70 split (Google-publisher). Though Google still doesn’t believe that paying for content will be the remedy for newspapers’ woes, it  still has a vision of a premium content ecosystem, which includes five key features that combine the Google’s e-commerce, search, and advertising platforms.

While Google is described by many as the single largest threat to newspapers, its definitely not the only one. From new hyperlocal community sites (eg. Patch) to remnants of old giants (AOL’s Digital City, Yahoo Local) and from new age media entities like Huffington Post to new and varied kinds of aggregators (Guzzle.it, OurSignal, MeeHive, Thoora) different services are catering to the different needs that newspapers used to satisfy. The important aspect is that the new entities are well versed in leveraging the latest tools and collaborating with those who can add to their utility value. A good example would be the tie up between Huffington Post and Facebook for HuffPost Social News. Social sharing, real time are changing the way news is being consumed. I recently read about The Twitter Times, which creates a customised ‘newspaper’ by checking the links from people you follow, and the popularity of those links. Even while massive changes are happening online, and affecting the lifestyle of individuals and society at large, newspapers are still grappling with how to evolve new business models. (a good, albeit dated read on battle plans)

There was a short but interesting discussion on Twitter a few days back, where Surekha brought up the example of PressDisplay’s business model (aggregation of various newspapers and consumers pay for access) to ask whether a DTH kind of model would work for newspapers. I didn’t think it would. The only other distribution network for television content is the local cable guy (ignoring the web for now). But ‘news’ and even the ‘features’ content can find its way to the consumer through multiple sources and media – TV, web, mobile, and multiple sources within that.  The entry barriers have fallen drastically. Scarcity model vs Abundance model. Keeping in mind the cost that newspapers incur in creating the content and the incremental value that they give the consumer, how much would a consumer pay a newspaper aggregator, and how much would the newspapers get out of that. Yes, Press Display will make money, but ask newspapers to survive only on that revenue or even that plus web advertising, and it would be a tough task. This is why newspapers are finding it hard to negotiate this transition stage (discussed earlier) because its not one answer and its definitely not a common answer. Again, as I’ve discussed here earlier, there are inherent differences between news gathering processes in the print and online space – batch processing vs real time processing. It calls for a (albeit cliched) leaner meaner structure, not just for operations’ sake, but also perhaps from a profitability perspective.

The more I think about it, the more I realise that its not just processes, there is a cultural angle to this. As Terry Heaton points out in “The Web’s widening stream“, the knack of creating and facing disruptive innovations. We’ve discussed David and Goliath before, David becomes version 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 faster and faster, each version better than the other (because he fixes the bugs in 1.1, 2.5 etc) while Goliath reels because it can’t even figure out the answer to 1.0.  His strength has become his weakness – scale, and he doesn’t have a culture that encourages moving fast, learning from mistakes, being open to changes amongst other things. In fact, newspapers have been lazy and guilty of doing the exact thing that Seth Godin warns about in “Flipping abundance and scarcity” – putting free on top of a business model, and now rapidly trying to change it.

I don’t think India is impervious to these changes, the time frame will vary because of several factors – technology adoption delays, vernacular content to name a couple, but as I keep repeating, its no time to be complacent. From Rediff and Instablogs which have evolved their own news collection systems to hyperlocal players of different kinds – governance based like Praja, Citizen Matters, local businesses review based like Burrp, and several other niches, the different domains of newspapers are being challenged. More importantly we’re increasingly getting used to ’streams’ – FB, Twitter etc. The principal revenue model of newspapers has been advertising (as opposed to circulation), they have been the medium to reach audiences, with the most basic of audience filtering. The radical change (as Heaton points out) is that advertisers can be part of the stream themselves, with such filtration techniques that they can target an individual if necessary. So, for newspapers, if the advertiser won’t pay, the reader has to. The reader , meanwhile has figured out that on the web, he has an abundance of choices.

until next time, stop press?

Related posts:

1. Broken News models The Iran crisis once again brought the present day tools...
2. News out of the paper Its not exactly breaking news that newspapers are almost in...
3. In the news Sometime back, I’d written about the need for newspapers to...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

There are several directions that come to mind when I think of local networks. I am quite a fan of Burrp, and rely on it to find out the new restaurants that have opened around town. (restaurant reviews are a major section in the personal blog)  I absolutely love their mobile interface, and look forward to the weekly Wassup mailer. They also have TV listings, events, spa/gym listings and a lifestyle section now. This category of sites is something I’d covered earlier. Burrp has since been acquired by Infomedia 18, but its strength continues to be the community.  But these categories are only one facet of local. There are are also those operating in niches like ticket booking (movies, plays and events eg. BuzzinTown), local discounts and offers (Letsheadto, Offersforshoppers, BangaloreCoupons etc),  to name a few.  And then there are sites which work more as directory listings. Pluggd.in recently had a good overview (with specific numbers) of the state of local search entities – AskLaila, Onyomo, Yahoo Local, Just Dial, Metromela and Burrp. If we go by directories, Sulekha is also a name that merits a mention. Maybe, in future, Burrp will be integrated into an entire directory like service under the web 18 group’s main site, so burrp.in.com

Another access to local information is through generic search engines – from local players like Guruji which has a city specific search, to Google. (local businesses via maps, movies, which also throw up review results. No reason why the same cannot be applied to restaurants and other services) Yahoo also has a version of local search. Though it could do with some design tinkering and a better UI, there is potential, especially if they continue to work on services like Neighbours, which adds an Answers layer to Local.

The third option I considered is mobile. In addition to the basic way of calling up a number for local search (like JustDial), search by SMS (JustDial, asklaila, onyomo, Google, Google Voice Search, Vodafone-MSN, Yahoo etc..its a pretty long list) and access through mobile web, or even things like the Ovi Lifecasting + Ovi Maps feature in the Nokia N97, using Facebook, I was interested in what could be tangential options. Adage had a good read on how location changes everything in digital marketing/experiences. Very bullish (I agree with the author), but sample this

Search, for example, solved a big part of the “what” problem — helping you find what you’re looking for. And while search didn’t know much about our social filters, social networking came in and offered up a “who” filter. Now we’re looking at the “where.” And it’s the combination of these filters that have the potential to change consumer and marketer behavior.

There are services like Brightkite, (recently acquired by Limbo) a location based social networking site that allows users to ‘check in’ using SMS, see people who are/have been there/nearby, and then add updates/photos to the place, which means that places have their ‘placestreams’ too.  Sometime back, I had read about Zcapes – an augmented reality application – a mini blog platform on the mobile similar in concept to placestreams. On registration, you can make your own zcape for an object/event or even an activity (watching a TV show), and search for real conversations about a particular keyword (object/event/activity). The augmented reality comes in this way – in addition to being able to share on Twitter/mail etc, after creation fo the zcape, the service provides an image of a QR barcode which you could easily stick somewhere in the real world. (RWW has a cool diagram here which explains how this connects the real and virtual worlds). [You should also read some more very interesting applications based on augmented reality like the MOBVIS project, and Yelp's recent 'secret' tool in its iPhone app, which when unlocked - by shaking the device three times!! -  pops up Yelp reviewed establishments  on your mobile screen, showing locations, ratings, and reviews for restaurants in your surrounding area!!). The recent Mobilize event also had a session on location aware mobile ads.

And then we have Twitter. Twitter's simplicity means that location based services as well as local businesses can easily have a presence on the network and offer real time assistance to consumers. I have seen both asklaila and burrp on Twitter, and the former seems to be doing some good work. Search Engine Land wrote recently about Idearc's Superpages account on Twitter, which uses the Superpages database to answer local search queries using DM. This can be used by other local search players too. TC had an article a few days back on another 411 service IMShopping, a human- powered shopping search site and Twitter shopping service. Twitter recently changed its TOS, leaving the door open for advertising. Twitter would do well to push the use of Twitter Connect.

And finally Facebook. While Facebook may not have done anything drastic so far in the local domain, the sheer amount of users, and their data is in itself a reason to look at the potential. There are services like Living Social, which operate in the review space, and which utilise the Facebook user base (among others) for increasing its reach. Facebook's search now also shows web search results, powered by Bing. Now add to this its recent acquisition Friendfeed's ability to aggregate data from various services, and finally add (potentially) the ability to add real time data to these search results from friends or further degrees of connections. This search could be any of things we discussed in local search - movies, restaurants, events, discounts, even regular directory listed services. That makes it vanilla search + real time+ social layer. The addition of the @  tags feature (like Twitter) means that it will be easier for people to share experiences with each other or to invite others. Though there are several things to iron out in this feature (privacy, security), also included will be the ability to add businesses/events etc through tags. So, through FB pages businesses can give basic information on FB itself, and even display @conversations directed at them. Now we're talking, eh? But the killer feature (though nothing new) hasn't been mentioned yet. Facebook Connect, which is being used by local hyperlocal services like City Search to add a social layer to search. This can be added to any local listings site/event etc, and add an additional benefit to searches done inside Facebook. Incidentally, you can log in to Brightkite using FB Connect too. Recently Facebook also announced that they're launching 'Facebook Connect for the Mobile Web'.

[ Have consciously not included traditional media. But in case you want to add to the above five directions, please do so in the comments section, and I shall update the post.]

So many options. For users to find the content they want, and for businesses to appear in context – place and time. An understanding of the intent of the search -from both sides would be essential for gratification. As the mashup of reality and virtuality progresses at a furious pace, the importance of local search will increase. Accuracy – including semantic ability, real time, social experience, all will play a part. Google is Google because of what it made out of  data, search and contextual ads.  Google is already moving in on the local web yellow pages in many markets, but as discussed above, they may not be the only players in the game. I think local search might be a more difficult battle.

until next time, location, location, location

Related posts:

1. Local Social Networks I’m guessing most of you reading this use GTalk. Recently,...
2. Going Glocal Heard here that Yahoo had launched its local search. I...
3. Talk of the Town A while back I’d read about Burrp, which started out...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Before we discuss the specific usage on social media, how exactly do brands become classified as luxury? According to the post above, “When linked to brands, it is characterized by a recognizable style, strong identity, high awareness, and enhanced emotional and symbolic associations. It evokes uniqueness and exclusivity, and is interpreted in products through high quality, controlled distribution and premium pricing”. I assume the above takes into the account the parameter of service – not just in the case of say, hospitality or other service luxury brands, but even regular luxury brands, since the overall experience (from the retail experience of shopping for the brand to post purchase service) is key to earning the tag of a luxury brand.

With regards to social media, I’d say that social media has this way of stripping the veneer, of removing the fluff around entities so that its reputation is made/broken basis its performance on the core value it provides. In fact, sometimes even the cost of ‘production’ is not taken into account, the audience expects things for free and the crowd makes its own sense of value for the product. (yes, I am referring to the interesting free vs paid debate) Wired has an excellent article titled ‘The Good Enough Revolution‘, where it takes examples from various sectors to show how, with advancing technology, consumers’ expectations from their purchases are changing drastically – the rise of the ‘good enough’ tools. While it is essentially attributed to the busy lives we lead now, the fact that it is also ideal for recessionary times is highlighted. From the article,

We now favor flexibility over high fidelity, convenience over features, quick and dirty over slow and polished. Having it here and now is more important than having it perfect. These changes run so deep and wide, they’re actually altering what we mean when we describe a product as “high-quality.”

Of course, there still is an audience that doesn’t live by these credos, but that’s perhaps not really a large number. One could argue that this was the only audience that mattered to luxury brands anyway, but If this trend catches on, then the entire premise of luxury branding becomes wobbly. PSFK has an interesting note on a Louis Vuitton Calabash – on mixing the notions of utility and luxury, and how the addition of a designer label on a commonplace item raises a question on the value of things. A lot of the luxury brand’s aura is through maintaining a perception among the audience, and keeping itself as an aspiration among potential consumers – couching utility in intangibles. This is not taking away anything from the quality of the product per se, but the entire concept of ‘brand’ is usually seen as a way to distinguish the product from similar products and take it to a level  above that of a commodity. A lot of communication these days is about the aura/show off value of the luxury brand than anything to do with the product superiority. In a way, its quite logical (and obvious) because if luxury brands focus on the utilitarian value of their product, they really wouldn’t get ahead. The counter point to this would be that the premium charged by the luxury brand is for the emotional high of using the brand, in addition to the (hopefully) superior quality that it provides. Does it mean that luxury brands would have to relook at the premiums they charge?

But having said all that, there are quite a few things that seem to point towards potential synergy between luxury brands and social media. One of the points that Jeremiah mentioned in his post is the usage of celebrity associations. Celebrities are now running rampant on social networks, and luxury brands have a good means of weaving themselves into the conversation, and increasing their aspiration value. Usage by a celebrity also gives them a context to kickstart conversations. Also, social media is about emotional connect and sharing. If much of a luxury brand’s aura is built on the emotional appeal, then it can use social media very well to its advantage. After all, what other medium offers such easy methods to spread some ’show off’ value? I thought the Mercedes Benz idea of a closed network would be great if they allowed users at least partial portability of data to other networks. (to, rather than from) The ’share’ aspect of social media will also help identify potential customers via existing ones. But most importantly, I feel the biggest use of social media (actually the web in general) for luxury brands is the audience data that is being generated on a regular basis, real time. It offers better segmenting and targeting opportunities, and while this is applicable to all brands, it is all the more important for luxury brands. This can be used for gaining more insights, encouraging sampling and so on.

It is definitely an interesting conundrum, but the web, thankfully has space for all kinds, I think. Will appreciate your thoughts.

until next time, the luxury of real time?

Related posts:

1. Social Media – beyond strategy Unilever CMO Simon Clift, at Ad Age’s Digital Conference, spoke...
2. Social Media Marketing/ DM 2.0 There’s a very interesting post I read at WATBlog, interesting...
3. Social Branding (3 of 3) I’d mentioned in my last post on the subject, about...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

One of the biggest gripes that come up when big brands arrive on social media services is how they use it as just another broadcast channel for their TVCs/microsite/contest etc without adding any value to the reader/consumer. I have seen many a brand on Twitter completely disappear when their promotion ends, perhaps it came up only because ‘Twitter account, Facebook page’ were the current flavours in the marketing communication checklist. These are obviously generalisations, and the three examples that I’d discussed in the last post are obvious exceptions.

While wondering why it has to be this way, I remembered an old post of mine, which though discussed the future role of a brand manager, had started out on a different premise. It had been triggered by a superb post by Russell Davies titled “the tyranny of the big idea“, and a couple of wonderful notes at Misentropy, which took the idea further. (All the three posts I have linked to are 1-3 years old, and I still find them great reads. What I’m trying to say is that you MUST read them)

In the last few days, I have seen a few posts that have explored this theme, from different perspectives. Six Pixels of Separation has a post that discusses how the combination of 3 factors – a conversation based social media, real time and fragmented media would mean that marketing strategy would have to move away from the big idea and be more involved with smaller ideas basis the type of people the brand talks to, the platform of discussion, and the context. Closer to home, I read a good post  on afaqs – a question posed – whether television is hogging the resources (financial and talent) because in India it is the most preferred medium (not basis revenue) for marketers as well as the advertising fraternity. L Bhat has a very pertinent post on regional branding, and how Indian brands approach it with a one-size-fits-all approach, relying on translations which don’t do justice to the original idea, or showing contexts which have no relevance to the local audience. He notes (illustrated with examples) that brands which have developed communication specifically for the region have touched a chord with the audience. Another indicator that media fragmentation is not just about the web, let alone social media.

With the advent of the internet, and specially social media, brands have the opportunity now to use this means of distribution to explore the long tail of audiences and marketing communication. The economies that dictate the usage of television, print etc – in terms of both production and distribution, do not really apply on the web. The NYT has an article on the rise of sentiment analysis – the social web as a ‘canary in the coalmine’, as a way to identify opinion leaders, as a forecasting tool, and so on. Its still early days yet, and we will obviously see much improvement in the current systems. In BlogAdda’s interview with Avinash Kaushik, Google’s Analytics evangelist, I had asked about the effect of the ‘emotional responses’ in social media on the field of analytics. As he explains, there cannot be a single tool that can capture all data, and those who monitor this, will have to get used to the idea of multiplicity. From just deciding where communication will be distributed (and to a certain extent, consumed) to  having to track where conversations are happening in an ‘everything reviewed‘ (Transparency, Trendwatching’s September trend)  world, and then deciding the what-why – that is quite a drastic change. These are obviously not mutually exclusive, but it still is a challenge.

The earlier models of communication (and even some elements of strategy) have perhaps been conceptualised and practised without factoring in instant two way communication, conversation among consumers, and multiple touch points. It was relatively easy for everyone concerned to have one big idea and push it into all the channels. That is perhaps what is happening as ’social’ is seen as just another ‘media’, but it works differently. It involves a whole new set of rules, some yet to be even thought of. While there will be quite a few advantages, there will also be several challenges for the brand- to be different within the core brand idea, to add value to the different kinds of audiences in context, to decide levels of transparency and be comfortable with it, to be a ‘media company’, to be also comfortable with the rigours of listening and possibly having to react real time. There will be challenges for the brand manager, like I mentioned in the post earlier. There will be challenges for the creative agencies – when they develop ideas, they have to be medium and context specific, and also know how to respond in real time. They will also have to be churning out fresh ideas on a regular basis. There will be challenges for media agencies – to find out the maximum possible touch points relevant for the brand. And this is not just to do with the web and social media alone, but the better usage of other media too. Brands can actually be different things to different people, and be relevant. In short, a drastic overhaul of the system which currently operates, before they an get to being a media company. Being a ‘media company’ and ‘always on’ means that the ‘content’ cannot solely be made of big ideas. Possible, but impractical, I’d say, unless its an idea with several rendition and execution possibilities. From one big idea every quarter/year to a stream of small ideas. Not necessarily, perhaps, but probably so. I wonder, how many big brands and agencies will be game for playing with small ideas.. and failing sometimes?

until next time, a tyrannosaurus hex

Related posts:

1. Any Ideas? Reading this post today, on how Tata Sky and Dish...
2. Brands – Maturity, Transparency, Objectivity On the day that gay sex was made legal in...
3. Creating Super Brands Found an excellent article shared via Reader (thanks to @vimoh)...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.