Maybe 2010 will be the year of real marketing change
Doc Searles, one of the original authors of the Cluetrain Manifesto
Last week Valeria Maltoni posted a great interview with Doc Searls, one of the four original authors of the Cluetrain Manifesto. Hard to believe it was nearly 11 years ago that this document emerged to declare that the “freedom and independence granted by the Net’s open and essentially ownerless platforms and protocols” would and should “equip individuals with their own instruments of independence and engagement.”
“We’re not there yet,” according to Searls, who in his re-write of the manifesto for a 10th anniversary edition added a chapter titled Markets are Relationships, suggesting that individuals and customers still don’t have the tools, data and access they deserve when it comes to doing business with companies. Perhaps his Project VRM, at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society will get us there faster.
But in reading Valeria’s post I want back and looked at the original 95 theses. Call them observations or predictions, it doesn’t matter. Seems like an awful lot are starting to come true; they may be far from universal, but they’re evident. And that’s a good thing.
Having just seen the Pepsi video about Project Refresh (true it’s a little self serving, and yes Doc Searls reminds us that the Cluetrain Manifesto was not a marketing document) I found that this highly visible project, at least as it’s being advertised, addresses at least eight of the 95 insights as to how the web would change the relationship between customers and brands.
Here they are. Remember they were written in 1999.
16. Already, companies that speak in the language of the pitch, the dog-and-pony show, are no longer speaking to anyone.
17. Companies that assume online markets are the same markets that used to watch their ads on television are kidding themselves.
23. Companies attempting to “position” themselves need to take a position. Optimally, it should relate to something their market actually cares about.
25. Companies need to come down from their Ivory Towers and talk to the people with whom they hope to create relationships.
38. Human communities are based on discourse—on human speech about human concerns.
57. Smart companies will get out of the way and help the inevitable to happen sooner.
67. As markets, as workers, we wonder why you’re not listening. You seem to be speaking a different language.
91. Our allegiance is to ourselves—our friends, our new allies and acquaintances, even our sparring partners. Companies that have no part in this world, also have no future.
It seems that at least some brands are starting to listen, to stop interrupting. Kudos to Pepsi if it joins the likes of other progressive companies striving to do business differently. They may not be creating the tools that put more of the power in the hands of the consumer (technology and people like Doc Searles are working on that) but they’ve finally got the message.
What do you think? Will 2010 be the year of real change? Is Pepsi a legitimate example or a contrived brand-centric attempt to appear customer focused?
Photo by: scripting news
Comments
Absolutely.In many ways this is a resurgence of public relations. A good PR person is no longer someone who simply sends out content and hopes the press delivers it. He/she is interacting with the community, generating content, responding in real time. The emerging generation of PR people are writers, videographers, content creators, pollsters and community builders. I think that the industry itself will start to attract a new kind of Renaissance person who is less a specialist and someone who is more comfortable working, interacting and creating in the new vernacular of the social web.
Agree with Ben here. This is a very small test and nowhere near a wholesale change in advertising strategy.
.-= Tyler Hurstu00c2u00b4s last blog ..This is not the community youu00e2u0080u0099re looking for =-.
Of course, social media fans could be reading too much into Pepsi's recent move into social media.
Pepsi is a $43 billion company that spends about $1 billion annually on advertising. So now it is dropping $20 million on social media ... but that's only 2% -- the equivalent of telling your financial advisor you'd like to put a tiny fraction of your own investments into something a little risky. The other 98% is in more traditional fare; Pepsi just rebranded recently and has a massive outdoor campaign almost everywhere in the U.S. promoting its new logo.
Yes, Pepsi is smart to test social media, but its current investment does not indicate a wholesale change in strategy, simply a small investment to test the waters. I expect we'll see Pepsi on TV and billboards for decades to come, since those investments generate more certain returns.
The larger issue for social-media commentators is we often get distracted by the "noise" of something happening, without keeping it in perspective. "Big Brand X is doing Y in social media Z! Validation!" Um, no. In terms of dollars spent, Facebook generates pennies per user. In terms of hours used, television still gets far more share of eyeballs that Twitter. We have a duty to advise clients of what is coming, but we also need to communicate the overall balance of each tool vs. what the market is willing to spend, and what respondents are willing to accept.
.-= Ben Kunzu00c2u00b4s last blog ..Why Foursquare clowns around =-.
Ben,
No disagreements with your realistic assessment of the size/scope and percent of Pepsi's budget or the amount of visibility this project might generate. No doubt hard to rival the reach of TV for a packaged good brand. But on the other hand: Over 1000 submissions in a the first week. An acknowledgment by a major brand that you have to inspire community participation and earn respect, not simply broadcast messages or sell a product. A public statement that the traditional and expected SB spot, while still culturally important and relevant, isn't the only way to go. And one more rung on the social web ladder that is moving the consumer and individual from a spectator, to a distribution channel, to a content creator to a equal partner in the new value exchange between a brand and its community. I was not implying this is the end of the old, just that it might be the beginning of yet another acceleration into the new.
Great post and very thought provoking. I wrote a response on my own blog, "If this project works, things could change. They should change. Thatu00e2u0080u0099s what proves it worked. This project shouldnu00e2u0080u0099t be measured in the amount of clicks, views, submissions or votes. It should be measured in the overall difference it makes."
Read the rest here: http://bit.ly/62RQWA
James,
I think we might see a lot of ramifications. One, it takes social legitimacy to a new level (not that it shouldn't be there already, but Pepsi is one of the biggest brands yet to visibly and vocally make this commitment.) It will give other brands reason and incentive to participate. It may alter the perception of who are the authorities on community marketing, dethroning the sm bloggers and those who've advocated this change for years to and replacing them with more mainstream brands and agencies who boast significant budgets and possess a knack for big, bold ideas. And finally, it may give consumers even more reason to expect, if not demand, this level of engagement from other brands. Of course, it could also bomb or disappear from the headlines if Pepsi doesn't really learn to master community and show long term commitment. In which case it will just be another Whopper Sacrifice, a big, buzzworthy campaign that comes and goes and gets talked about forever by advertising people but not by the consumer who has moved on to other things.
For everyone's sake, I hope it's the former. Projects like this should reflect what a company stands for more than act solely as a campaign. I think that could be the biggest shift.
Edward, don't you feel that 2009 was the beginning of this change, and 2010 is where it continues to allow brands to become more acclimated with social media technology?
Marketers (and agencies) are finally understanding that the communications culture is now about "listening" and "sharing" things that are relevant, fun, new and fresh. They're beginning to see the value of having their audience endorse, talk, and share information about their product or service. As opposed to the traditional way of "interrupting," which carries no value or honesty. As far as Pepsi, it does boarder on being contrived, due to the heaviness of the Pepsi branding. But the idea, of helping others and the planet, combined with the grant reward does go a long way.
Mike:
Yes. Seems that '09 was the beginning of the shift in a big way. Interestingly, this stuff has been written about for years from Cluetrain to Clay Shirky. And consumers and individuals themselves have embraced the behavior that was predicted. But all of a sudden it appears that brands and marketers are really starting to get it. If you look at the new emerging models - a future post - crowdsourcing, digital platforms, apps and utilities, CP&B's emphasis on talk value, they all have one thing in common. The consumer plays an active role.
Gotta disagree on the Pepsi example, Mike. It's still early, but this is looking like one of the best examples of consumer-centric marketing I've seen. Referring back to Edward's original post, Pepsi has identified something their target ALREADY cares about and is offering to be the platform and supporter of that effort. The branding is certainly there, but I'm not sure people will care. They know that someone is backing it and it's certainly in Pepsi's best interest for them to know who it is.
.-= David Saxeu00c2u00b4s last blog ..Why At-home 3D is a Long Way Off u00e2u0080u0093 If It Hits At All =-.
As a PR and Comms professional of many years, do you feel as though pr pros will experience more opportunities and be more free to express themselves as individual creators in the new paradigm shift you've outlined above?
Regards,
MG at C21
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like