Comments on: Social media and brand consistency

By: Forrester on the future of agency client relationships | Creativity_Unbound

Forrester on the future of agency client relationships | Creativity_Unbound — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:03:07 +0000

[...] observed Zappos’ success, or filled their RSS reader with posts from BBHLabs, Faris Yakob or even this blog, none of this is earth-shattering news. In fact much of what’s published in Forrester’s findings [...]

By: Matt Charleton

Matt Charleton — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:54:48 +0000

I tend to agree, Edward. A little ingenuity and lateral thinking can go a long way; simply because there isn’t a straight forward approach to leveraging social media due to industry perceptions, doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

However, blanket solutions don’t work either. A social media goldrush is likely to result in many more losers than winners, with foolhearty approaches to these web 2.0 technologies. Clever campaigns such as that of Tastidelite with Twitter and Marc Jacobs on Foursquare are a sure sign of new and innovative ways of joining in the conversation WITH your customers.

I still maintain, that if issues such as the Nestle fiasco are to be avoided in the future corporations need to set out firm, yet SUPPORTIVE, communications policies for social media. Humanizing the voice is key and sometimes can lead to emotional outbursts, such as that of Nestle’s; setting out the groundrules from the onset can help create that kind of consistency that we desire and still drive meaningful dialogue. Once we learn to shape the structure of how we communicate to the needs of our our community, first and foremost, we can really drive home the value of social media.
.-= Matt Charleton´s last blog ..Enhanced Mobility 2: ‘Foursquare: The Darling of SXSW’ =-.

By: Michael Yoder

Michael Yoder — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 20:14:49 +0000

Loved your post! It’s really nothing new, just the old in a new light…actions speak louder than word; it’s better to give than receive; the customer’s always right, and so on. It seems that at times we become enamored with new technology and forget that underneath the technology it’s about people. Thanks for helping us remember how to keep the social in social media and the customer in customer service.

By: Mike Scheiner

Mike Scheiner — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 11:59:48 +0000

Thank you Edward. Couldn’t the “user generated” aspects fall under “action” ? Isn’t that what its encouraging?

By: Arafat Kazi

Arafat Kazi — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:26:07 +0000

Err what I meant to say and forgot (it’s been a long weekend) is that taking part in the conversation is part of good service. In fact, the most essential part. Ogilvy would approve!

By: Arafat Kazi

Arafat Kazi — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 04:25:19 +0000

So right! It’s the oldest rule in the book and it’s the most relevant. I’ve been thinking of Ogilvy a lot the past few weeks (well, I always do cause I love the man) and I remember how he mentioned that every point of interaction between your company and the customer is an opportunity to build your brand. I wholeheartedly believe in several of the brands you mentioned (Whole Foods, Apple, Panera, Zappos, Jet Blue) as well as several others (John Fluevog, Toscanini’s, Amazon) and I always vote with my wallet. I am not rich by any measure but I’ve spent thousands of dollars on these brands and will do so again.

By: edward boches

edward boches — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:40:14 +0000

I like the formula. May use it. The only small thing missing for me is the user generated content/comments/criticisms/video responses that a smart brand wants to encourage but attempt to influence somehow. It’s likely that in years to come more content about a brand will be created by the community than by the brand itself.

By: edward boches

edward boches — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:37:38 +0000

Thanks for such an enthusiastic endorsement. Will try and live up to it.

By: Michael Scheiner

Michael Scheiner — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:49:01 +0000

Edward, I think you touch on several critical components that do define brand consistency within the social media landscape. However, I do believe that a brands overall look still does play a role in how its first perceived visually and aesthetically across all of its touch points. After that, I agree with you that its up to the brand to be relevant in all of the various areas you mention. The best designed website, logo or packaging won’t help a brand whose audience was misled or misinformed and is now broadcasting their dissatisfaction across twitter and discussion boards.

I’m wondering, when you break down the various areas that define and influence expectations (present, visible, searchable and useful), doesn’t it all come down to “value”? Value comes by action, not just saying but by doing and demonstrating. Seeing the value in a community as opposed to the masses.
Inspiring your audience by helping, sharing and partnering. This than inspires others to share in the value of that brands beliefs or actions.

Simply put: Visual look+ content+ action+share+community = brand consistency, which = value.

By: Martijn Linssen

Martijn Linssen — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:56:24 +0000

Fine article Edward!

Instant word-to-mouth, I like that. In http://www.martijnlinssen.com/2009/12/in-2010-twitter-will-be-pulse-of-planet.html I predicted that there will be public and private Tweet boards in public places for quality monitoring: Foursquare, Brighkite, Gowalla, Twitter and Facebook should be contiuously monitored to see the public opinion on a place. That complaining customer might be right there sitting at your bar jotting down his opinion to his 20K followers… – and a smile and a kind word usually solves everything!

Just re-reading, I see 5 very strong points and the end of marketing as we know it…

Demolish, relegate to irrelevance, or displace: what will Social Media do to marketing?
.-= Martijn Linssen´s last blog ..Social Business Summit 2010 tweet collection =-.