Screw Relationships, Let’s Have a Fling; On Brands & the Privacy Debate
18th May 10
Posted in culture, data, social media
Author: Saneel Radia (@saneel), Director of Media Innovation, BBH New York
I’ve written about social media flings before, but all the recent buzz about privacy issues got me thinking about this subject again. Brands are obsessed with friends and fans in social media environments when a much more relevant (and achievable) goal would be a less committed relationship: a fling. Why ask so much from a consumer when most brands fail to deliver on expectations anyway? The number of brands I’ve met with an editorial calendar and iterative community management strategy is so few, I can count them on one hand. Yet, the gathering of fans / followers / cults prods aimlessly on, justified via the value of earned media. The idea of talking to a million people whenever you want — that’s just too good to not pursue, right?
I just don’t get it. Maybe I’m too demanding as a consumer, but I have a tough time with the “in or out” invitation posed by most brands. I was talking to @hashembajwa about this recently and he cited the following example: “I love and am loyal to Virgin Atlantic, but that doesn’t mean I want to hear from them at any point other then when I have London on my mind.”
That comment really struck me. For him, it was about context. And that’s really what a fling is. It’s like a camp friend— that kid you were super close with at camp. You couldn’t imagine a scenario at camp he or she wasn’t a part of. But, once you got back home, regardless of promises to call and write, it didn’t happen. It just wasn’t relevant to stay in touch back in your normal life. But hey, next time you were at camp, you two picked up right where you left off, no? That’s the perfect camp friend.
So why aren’t brands OK with relationships like that? Context isn’t such a bad thing. It’s what good media planning is all about. And if the main arguments for these ludicrous fan numbers I hear brands chasing is rooted in earned media, it seems only rational they would evaluate said media based on quality, as they do with all media.
And that’s the rub.
You see, context of any kind is where brands face the privacy issue square in the face. They need to know as much about a person as possible to have these flings. Most brands on Twitter, for example, wait until you’ve called them out by name before @-replying because they fear otherwise their tweets will be viewed as spam. It’s the same expectation you’d have as a consumer in Facebook. What if a brand waited until your status was relevant to them to reach out to you? “@hashembajwa, I see you you’re excited about dinner in London, would you like some help planning your trip? – Love, Virgin.” Scary for many people. But enticing as a brand. And that’s why most brands are going to sit quietly while Facebook takes its lumps and sorts out privacy on their behalf. I guess they’ll depend on creating their own context via campaigns, but that’s pretty darn hard.
So, if you’re a brand with something at stake here, would you step in? I can’t imagine brand managers want any part of that conversation, but I think it’s important they have one. Without some understanding of what the pros and cons of the privacy issue are, Facebook is left alone as big, bad brother. In reality, lots of brands would help consumers tremendously if given the opportunity via this type of context. Yet no brands are stepping up, even as a collective, to help consumers understand if there is another side to the privacy issue. How can we expect consumers to make an objective decision about something when they aren’t hearing any upside?
Because, talking to a million fans about camp while they’re in school might feel like a relationship, but I’d argue making out with them while they’re at camp is a lot more social.
Or at the very least, it’s more fun.
Very nice. And spot on with the ‘fling’ v ‘relationship’ thing.
I wrote something earlier about brands understanding you a bit more when you talk to them:
http://markhadfield.typepad.com/that_gormandizer_man/2010/05/global-local-relevant-campaigns.html
This sounds great from my point of view as a consumer. But, I think it encourages bad habits for brands.
You’re right that very few brands are committed to some kind of ongoing sustained engagement, “editorial calendar and iterative community management strategy”.
But, they should be.
Consumers will always come and go as they please. Brands, meanwhile, have to get into the habit of always offering a compelling reason to engage with people who might be interested in their products and services, because unlike traditional media, digital doesn’t turn off and on. Brands need to break out of their campaign mindsets and move ongoing iterative methods of connecting with consumers.
Consumers should always be free play the field, but brands should be committed.
indeed mate indeed
http://farisyakob.typepad.com/blog/2008/10/regressive-expressions-or-please-dont-use-twitter-like-a-billboard.html
The questions have ever been
What does the customer get out of the relationship?
And
What KIND of relationship are we talking about?
Rock ON FX
I propose that the brand pays for my Internet access and I will gladly watch their ads.
Raul, you said you’d watch a brand’s ads if they pay for your internet connection. But what about if they rewarded you for your personal information?
http://nyti.ms/cRc02x
Giving consumers what they want without sacrificing brand integrity/messaging is quite a teetering position to be in…
Creating value around the consumer/brand relationship is where it’s at…and most of the time consumers shamelessly want deals and exclusives.
When a brand becomes an arbiter of their industry, consumers will seek out their messaging.
hmm, but there’s a role for loose permanent relationship building on social networks – just like with the friends you haven’t seen for years but are able to maintain a level of ambient intimacy with – when you see them in the flesh (temporary high interest relationship) you have far greater level of context about their life,.
So to suggest brands can do that does kind of depend on the content calendar and community management program that so few are currently getting. But taking the old context model of media (brands place ads in culturally relevant contexts/ad dollars subsidize content for viewers) in a frictionless media economy means that brands should be thinking like editors – the friends and fans are subscribing to a medium compiled by the brand
So i’ve been playing around with the loose permanent/high temporary interest thing here http://graewood.blogspot.com/2010/04/end-of-web-destinations-facebook-open.html as a basis for branding as cultural production…..
I think one answer lies in the editorial calendar you mention. Or perhaps putting it better, a content strategy.
If a brand wants to enjoy a deeper, on-going ‘relationship’ with a customer outside of the context of a purchase, it better have something of value to offer. That could be content in a multitude of forms. The question is: what content? Ah, well maybe there’s some money to be made answering that question!
Sometimes ‘the latest’ would be enough content to me. For example, I own a 5-year-old Volvo, I am considering a new car, why doesn’t Volvo tell me that they have some new cars coming just around the corner? I would not mind watching Volvo ads as I already like and trust the brand.
I think we’re all dancing around the same thing here. It’s what Mike called “a compelling reason to engage” and what graeme refers to as “ambient intimacy” between steamy engagement sessions.
It’s relevance.
That’s nothing new, and is a notion that continues to be at the core of the most popular engagement platforms.
When you want to use your Nike running shoes for what you bought them for, you may go to Nike+ and interact to any level you like. Does Nike+ need to bother you? No. Unless you want them to. But should they continue to provide relevant and constantly updated services to go along with the brand? Yes. You’re always going to use the running shoes to run.
There’s a relevance like that with every brand. Trouble is most of the time you can’t see it until it’s there.
Camp works as a metaphor, except it’s a destination where both you and the symbolic brand both came to. I think brothel might be a little better suited for what we’re talking about. It’s the brand’s job to stay sexy until you come knocking again.
None of this is that hard. The way I see it it affords us all kinds of opportunities to lead the way, teach brands how to engage, and get paid for our services. Then again, if no one else figures that out a small few of us can get all the clients.
guys, thanks for all the comments. enjoyed reading everything posted and seeing the different (smarter) ways into the same premise.
one point of clarification in case it wasn’t clear in the point: obviously a long-term engagement is ideal for the brand. i’m just saying a missed opportunity is not even thinking about those fling relationships that can be built around context (a single music festival, a season finale, etc). if strung together correctly, that’s ongoing engagement, just not the way most brands think about it.
And Edward, love the “none of this is that hard” line for too many reasons to list here. We really must drink beer together at some point.
[...] Screw Relationships, Let’s Have a Fling; On Brands & the Privacy Debate « BBH Labs [...]
1. Brands have flings right now – so few people are 100% loyal to a brand that is pointless to even count. I know it’s an analogy, but we should recognize that this si why context is so important.
2. Brands might be OK with having bombardng consumers less in between flings, but consumers will have to give up some info in the bargain. What airline brand is going to want to wait until you tell them about dinner plans (after they have presumably booked their flight) to send you a message. On the other hand, it might benefit both if there were a signaling mechanism for when consumers want to hear about brands/products (be it from the brand, their friends etc.)
Companies are already spending money advertising their brands. I want them to advertise to me all the time so they are on my mind: TV, gmail, Facebook, LinkedIn. I am there often but companies need to know what brands I like. I already tell them on MyBrandz.com.
A great read but a brand is built not acquisition but on retention.
And retention requires a relationship. An d a relationship is based primarily on ‘Trust and an ongoing, sustained engagement, on customer terms that provides economic, experiential and emotional value to the customer’.
That’s what branding is all about. It’s not a communications exercise. And it won’t be carried out on the pages of Facebook.
Social networks give us the tools to do this but like any tool we need to use it properly to get the most out of it. We still need marketing with links to articles, while papers, blogs and so on that appeal to target markets.
Unfortunately the majority of brands are continuing to use new tools such as social media, that allow them to lay the foundations for a relationship with consumers, in the same way as they use mass market tools that trumpet a one-size-fits-all approach to marketing.
I recently tweeted about a cool bit of kit from sonos, makers of wireless digital audio systems. I asked if there was a Sonos dealer in Malaysia. Sonos tweeted me and told me to contact someone in Singapore and obviously allerted him as he tweeted me with an email of the distributor in Malaysia. I emailed the distributor and didn’t get a reply. Sonos hasn’t contacted me to see if I purchased and nor has the Singapore distributor.
There is no silver bullet with social media. It won’t solve all our branding problems but, used correctly, it will help us build relationships with customers.
[...] And sometimes, the other person isn’t ready for the kind of relationship you want. [...]
[...] Brands fall into the trap of thinking they need to create long-term, meaningful relationships when flings are every bit as useful when approached [...]
Saneel’s point of clarification on the long term brand relationship is helpful. It is in a Brand Manager’s DNA to want marriage over a string of one night stands. However, in the heat of battle, they often seize the tactical opportunity to drive sales. No problem with that as long as these flings do not compromise the brand integrity.
In a similar vein:
Which results in a higher return on investment: flings or “relationships”?
It seems like “relationships” — in advertising and otherwise — would be more expensive.
And it would seem like “flings” are more focused on driving sales, while “relationships” are more concentrated on customers having “conversations” about a brand.
[...] with brands. You just need to work out what sort of collaboration that is. Whether it’s a ‘digital fling’ as Saneel Radia calls it or more of an ongoing ‘Digital Marriage’ eg: Nike + platform. I [...]
A bit of a belated a response but I hope noticed all the same!
A very interesting read with an analogy or two I will pocket for some coming client meetings!
Community management is a tricky thing, but content calendars and moderation guidelines are a necessity for most clients who need a lot of hand-holding and want to feel in control of a very volatile channel.
How I see it is Flings are Relationships need each other. You are not going to be able to jump into relevant conversations if you don’t have these relationships in place (unless you’re on Twitter) and relationships won’t prosper if you’re unwilling to enjoy the occasional fling.
What is a really great piece to take from this is making the first move. There is definitely a shift from not just having a personality to facilitating you audience’s needs and wants and to be able to get in there to strike up that emotional connection is brilliant.
Great post Saneel.
Thanks Shea! Your point about the two needing each other is interesting. To be honest, I thought that too, but have a seen a number of examples without that being the case that have worked pretty well. In fact Pretzel Crisps did this with us (and other agencies a while back): http://j.mp/gHkv2N.
Regardless, thanks a lot for the input. Your note about community management is critical. You should hear what Toby Daniels, founder of Social Media Week, said about it in this Re:working Panel last week: http://j.mp/wTPyzl
I’m also a big fan of Pretzel Crisps now
You’re right, in some instances the two don’t need each other. We’ve done this sort of thing to ignite conversations on Twitter, but never as a promo activation. That will soon change.
This really highlights you can’t standardise best practices (I had my FB hat on) on a holistic level as all platforms facilitate and navigate in different ways.
Thanks for the links, really interesting and will watch the conference a little later today.