The January sales: when collaboration goes out of the window

A few weeks ago I posted a piece about why groups never seem to win the talent show 'The X Factor' and concluded that individualism is very much alive and living when it comes to aspiration and ambition.  Seeing images on the news of shoppers at the post-Christmas sales this week leads me to the conclusion that the same seems to apply when it comes to ownership and control. 

We're constantly being told how wonderful it is that we live in a world where collaboration is king - where we share our thoughts and creativity freely and where we can create more collectively than as individuals. This is not in evidence, however, when it comes to possession.  The need to buy more, for less, than everyone else seems to override all sense of moral decency when it comes to the January sales.  Elbows are sharpened, routes planned and queues jumped with military precision just to get a chance to buy products we might otherwise not have looked at.  

Have you ever noticed when shopping that if you stop and stare intently at a particular product - maybe pick it up and look at it, then put it back down - it becomes irresistible to other shoppers.  They have to take a look - they need to know what you've seen that they may have missed.  Try it one day in a busy shop- find a product that is completely useless and pay it a lot of attention - you'll soon attract other shoppers.  We seem to want what others want.

So what drives this - and does it apply to us all or are there particular personality types that are more likely to treat shopping as a competitive sport?  Well, I expect if you headed to one of the big department stores on boxing day you'd find a particularly determined sort of shopper there  - and they're a fairly ruthless bunch - maybe even 'professionals' who are buying to re-sell on e-bay.   I avoid the sales like the plague (although online shopping has given me another option) - but then, I've always hated competitive sports.

Maybe this is a Darwinian thing - animal behaviour programmed into us that only comes out when in competitive crowd situations (football matches are another good example) - survival of the fittest.  It certainly seems to bring out aspects of human nature that are unpalatable in other situations. And yet maybe there is a correlation between success in shopping (hunting and gathering) and successful survival (there's a research project there) - although I have to say I remain unconvinced that even a cashmere sweater with a 70% discount is going to secure a place in the evolutionary story...

Christmas may be cancelled - but the January sales are definitely on...

The run-up to Christmas 2010 started fairly predictably - M&S launched their all-singing, all-dancing celeb packed Christmas ad (I particularly liked Jamie Redknapp's unconvincing turn as a DJ), closely followed by a moody number from John Lewis (which, in attempting to tug at our heart strings, instead caused a furore amongst animal rights groups).  We all had a moan about Christmas starting earlier and earlier, but I'm guessing that some of us are wishing we had begun our shopping a little earlier, because then the freeze came...

It has been a perfect storm - austerity measures, freezing weather, protesting students, rising fuel costs and rubbish on the streets - we could be back in the winter of discontent...and it's not over yet; on January 4th VAT will rise to 20%  adding to the squeeze.  So, have we all cancelled Christmas and gone back to a simpler time when it was about stuffing a satsuma and a sugar mouse in a stocking and hanging it at the end of the kids' beds?  Nope - we've gone online.

UK shoppers spent 6.4 Billion online in November  when the big chill started (more than 20% up on last year) (Source: IMRG Cap Gemini) - and December figures are expected to be  equally high.  Great for online retailers?  Well yes, but only if the deliveries can get through in time for Christmas. If goods don't make it in time it could mean a lot of returns for companies in the New Year, giving them an unrealistic picture of their Q4 sales.  TV news items showing major out of town shopping centres that are virtually empty on what should be their busiest days of the year suggest that there will either be a massive last minute surge or that people are going elsewhere.  It could also be a great time for small, local independent retailers that people can reach easily on foot. 

Whatever happens, it's likely that major retailers will have a lot of stock to shift in January, so shoppers can expect excellent discounts, despite the VAT rise.  It all hinges on a good January for many retailers - but inevitably there will be casualties...  On that happy note, I'll sign off  - happy shopping - I hope you have a lovely Christmas, with or without the presents...

Individualism still rules - why groups don't win the X-factor

The X-factor Finalists 2010 - who do you relate to?

Some of the big thinkers of the modern tech world, Tapscott, Leadbetter, Shirky, tell us again and again that collaboration is the new black and that our social and cultural norms are shifting towards an online space where the 'mash-up' rules.  This is a place where everyone contributes (and has a right to contribute) - where nothing belongs to individuals, where creativity is about re-hashing, building on, shaping the work of others into something new.  A wiki world where nothing is static, nothing is fixed.

To an extent I agree - we are living in a time where the sands are shifting, but this comes at a cost.  Creating something real and valuable is losing its worth, and value is increasingly elusive, particularly online. I also believe the idea that we are all fully signed up to this happy collaborative, this divestment from ownership and control, this free-for-all, is to ignore some of the fundamental aspects of human nature.  Yes, society depends on the social - on groups of people working together to create stable environments in which we can live - but we are also individuals, and when a situation is created where individuals' ability to succeed (or their perception of it) is compromised by participation in a group, there is likely to be a negative reaction.

We are still attuned to seek personal success - our aspirations may be partially for our families, our friends, etc. but they can always be traced back to our individual goals and objectives for ourselves, the things that make us feel worthwhile - a search for personal meaning in life.

So, what does all this have to do with the X-Factor?  Well, when we are presented with a choice between five people with different stories and experiences who clearly have each other to rely on, who have a close bond (e.g. 3rd placed boy-band One Direction), it is more difficult for us to project our own personal goals and ambitions on them.  However, an individual with a unique personal talent (Rebecca Ferguson or winner Matt Cardle) is much easier for us to relate to.  The success available to them as a single human being is more tangible to us, and feeds our need for personal success.  So, we are attracted to those individuals who symbolise opportunity or personal success for us.  A vote for them is a vote for ourselves.

I am, of course, speculating wildly here - I have no evidence on which to base the above - but my personal opinion is that in a world where we are creating new, and multiple identities for ourselves both on- and off-line, and where the lines between reality and fantasy, ownership and openness, control and freedom are increasingly blurred, we will continue to seek to elevate those who represent a world where opportunities are available to the individual, and where unique talents are rewarded - and until we see collaboration as a route to individual success, the groups won't get a look in.

Trick or treat - an early lesson in business strategy

This week it was reported that spending on Halloween and its related ephemera in the UK has increased 23 times since 2001, and is now worth approximately 280 million pounds to UK retailers (BBC, 2010).  Huge halloween sections in the major supermarkets and special edition products like lemon and lime 'Halloween Jaffa Cakes' (right) have increasingly commercialised the festival in the UK.

However, Halloween traditions such as 'trick or treating' have always been a firm feature on the calendar for kids in the UK.  I remember terrorising the neighbours in my home village by swaping their garden gates if they opted for a trick (sorry), and thoroughly enjoying the sense of achievement in divvying up the sweets, cakes and cash at the end of the evening.

Although I know there are many who do not like trick or treaters pestering them for money, it occurs to me that the practice does have a strong educational value for children.  Reflecting on my own experiences I know that we were unknowingly developing a range of business skills while we were having fun.  As a group of children we would decide which houses to go to based on how likely the inhabitants were to give us a treat.  In a small village it's easy to do a bit of background research - you know who the kind and generous people are - they are the ones who help out at village events, bake good cakes for the village fete and know your parents.  You also plan based on the time you have and the geographical locations of the houses.  Is it worth going all the way out to the big houses on the outskirts?  Depends how likely they are to give you a good treat.  Sometimes we'd split up into smaller groups to cover more ground (having agreed in advance to pool the treats and split them equally afterwards).

When doing the tick or treating itself (and with confidence boosted by our costumes), we would be cheeky, persuasive, cute, charming, or mildly threatening; whatever we thought the 'customer' would respond to best.

Strategy, segmentation, targeting, customer relationship management, sales, teamwork, negotiation, contracts - we were developing skills in all these areas, skills which we honed year on year until by the time we were too old to trick or treat we could have written the book on it.

So, if you're a parent wondering whether or not to let your kids go out trick or treating this Halloween, why not consider it an educational outing? Just make sure you negotiate a share of the spoils!

Has 'i' spied a gap in the market?

The team behind The Independent has today launched the first new national newspaper for almost 25 years.  'i' is tabloid sized and priced (just 20p), but is aiming at the younger, disaffected, belt-tightening broadsheet defectors, describing itself as 'Colourful and accessible, concise and intelligent...your essential daily briefing'. With national newspaper circulation figures continuing to decline across the board (ABCs, 2010), this is a bold move.

So, have the Independent's Russian owner Alexander Lebedev and his team identified a gap in the market - those who no longer have the time or inclination to wade through a 'quality' paper?  This, for me is a process which began when the Independent itself moved over to tabloid format and then introduced its own 'opinion' magazine inside.  The Indy has been trying new things for a while now, but will this gamble pay off?

Well, let's look at it from a business perspective.  The cover price of 20p is one fifth that of The Independent, but that's still 20p more than the free paper 'Metro' and its ilk.  Is this a slightly higher brow version of 'Metro'?  Where is the added value that your 20p buys?  I'm guessing that much of the content will be edits and re-hashes of the content that goes into the Independent, so the cost of the content is likely to be fairly low. However, based on the visuals I have seen this morning, the design and layout will require a very different approach.  So, can it make money?  Most newspapers depend on volume to make money - volume sales reduces cost per item and increases the appeal to advertisers.  Is there a large enough market for this paper?  I can only assume the team behind it have done some careful research.

My second issue is convenience. Is it going to be convenient to buy?  Metro etc are picked up en-route by commuters; an even if they aren't expecting fantastic journalism and in-depth analysis, it's something to read on the train that you don't have to pay for or stop for a minute to buy.  In my view, this matter of convenience will be one of the keys to whether 'i' is a success.  How will it be distributed and sold?  In paper shops alongside all the other newspapers or on the streets and in the tunnels?

In aesthetic terms, however, I like what I see.  The design and layout are closer to web principles than those of a newspaper.  They have clearly noted that the way we take in information has changed.  Fewer people read lengthy editorial pieces; our addiction to bite-sized information on the web has made us browsers.  We like to scan an pick out small nuggets of information.  Whether this is good for us is another question, but that is how the younger generation prefers to take in information; and reading a newspaper should be a pleasure not a chore, right?

However, the nagging doubt at the back of my mind is that this is a dead medium - or a medium with a few years left at the maximum.  The development of electronic devices which make reading on them as comfortable and convenient as a newspaper is rapid.  How long before newsprint is overtaken by iPad, Kindle and the like? 

The tipping point is coming, and I can't help but feel that launching a newspaper like 'i' is simply swimming against the tide...

People don't like change...especially Gap people...

Gap's unveiling of its new logo has caused a media furore and countless complaints from customers protesting this change to an iconic American brand.

The result?  Gap retract the new visual identity and (after flirting with the idea of crowd-sourcing an alternative), revert to the old logo.

What can we learn from this?  Well, the good news for Gap is that they are loved!  Their customers feel so passionately about the brand that they are prepared to take the time and make the effort to protest.  As a company trading on brand values this is exactly what you want, and (as Gap seem to have lost sight of) the thing that you go all out to protect.

The new logo was, undoubtedly, quite different to the classic blue box with serif font. Clean and simple, it was more contemporary, perhaps more like emerging successful brands aimed at a young audience such as Bench and Superdry.  Was this also an attempt at repositioning Gap?  Was this necessary?  Clearly existing customers did not appreciate the change.  Customer loyalty is one of the things Gap has been consistently good at, so what happened?

Well, whatever the thinking behind the move, Gap's response has been swift and (excluding the crowd-sourcing blip) decisive.  The decision to retain the existing brand, despite the wasted expenditure and loss of face is, in my view, the right one.  Some have suggested that this was a PR stunt, and perhaps it was, but the positive message that Gap should take from this is that they have a hugely strong and valuable brand that is tied closely to their existing visual identity.  The cost of re-branding materials, stores etc would have been enormous anyway; far better to take the hit on the development costs for the new ID than to waste a fortune on fixing something that isn't broken...

Betfair's Birdies - Ambush Advertising at its best

As the Ryder Cup tees off here in Wales, the scramble amongst bookmakers to make the most of the media coverage is on.  Paddy Power's attempts to erect a giant Hollywood-style sign on a nearby hillside were scuppered by the local council, but the prize for the most enterprising piece of ambush marketing so far has to go to Betfair.

The company has drafted in a group of trained birds of prey to fly around the site trailing banners with promotional messages. 

Events like the Ryder Cup gain significant amounts of revenue from official sponsors (in this case Mastercard and HP), who expect to receive exclusive rights to promote themselves in connection with the event. So, stunts like this can be seen as damaging to that revenue stream. 

I'll be watching with interest to see what the Ryder Cup organisers do about this one - after all, birds are free to fly wherever they like...aren't they? From Betfair's perspective, even if they are stopped - the national media coverage gained is worth a fortune to them.

Well played.

Is Facebook a human right?

It's big news these days when one of the major social networks is hacked or experiences technical difficulties.  When Facebook had to shut down for a short time on 23rd September there were thousands of complaints on blogs, Twitter and other social media sites - but do we have a right to complain?  Facebook is, after all, a free service for us the consumer.

So, does that mean we are 'customers' or not?  If we consider this in business terms it brings us back to the fundamental idea that business is about exchange.  For the majority of organisations, the exchange process is based on the customer paying money in exchange for goods and services - but in Facebook's case the model is more complex.  Are we, the users, still customers even though we are not paying for the service?  Are Facebook's advertisers their real customers?

For advertisers the exchange process and customer relationship is clear; advertisers pay Facebook to show their advertisements on its network. However, we the users also pay a price in exchange for the service we get from Facebook.

We pay in two ways:


1. The first price is time.  Any time that we spend on Facebook is time when we are potentially viewing and responding to advertisements.  This 'face time' has a value to the advertiser and so it can be sold.  As customers, the time we spend on Facebook has an opportunity cost - what else could we be doing instead of browsing Facebook?  Working? By spending time on Facebook we are missing the opportunity to do other things that might have a value to us.

2. The second, and increasingly more important price we pay is data.  We provide Facebook with huge amounts of information about ourselves.  Our willingness to share detailed information about who we are, where we are, and what we like is one of the cornerstones of the Facebook model.  This data is hugely valuable to marketers who are always striving to know their customers better.  The data we provide enables Facebook to make its advertising network more effective and more attractive to their customers.

So, looking at it in this light, do we have the right to complain when Facebook fails?  Perhaps we do.  However, it concerns me that our society is being conditioned to expect services to be free in money terms.  Although this encourages new and innovative business models, some of these models (as we've seen recently within the banking system) are not built on sound financial principles.  There is an inherent risk that they will collapse and fail - and what then for those who have come to rely on free at the point of use information sources?  Will social media services be propped up by government funds?  Will there be a Facebook tax?

Is Facebook a human right?  Of course it's not; but we need to think carefully about how heavily we rely on such sites, and manage our own expectations of the services they  provide us.

Has the Commonwealth Games controversy really damaged 'Brand India'?

With the start of the Commonwealth Games just days away, the International media have been focusing heavily on the problems faced in Delhi.  The organisers are racing against time to complete the facilities and make them safe and comfortable before the start of the games, and with pictures of dirty athletes' accommodation and building work still going on appearing every day in the press, many both in India and around the world have been saying that this is bringing shame to India.

I have to say I disagree.  Some of the most interesting and exciting characteristics of India are summed up in these events.  The unpredictability, the colour, the danger, the laid back, last-minute approach are all things that I have found most appealing about the country.  The fact that India is so different to the west; the creativity and innovation that come out of necessity, these are things we, and India should embrace.  Yes it's important that the country puts on a good show, but I don't think the games would represent India if they didn't come together at the last minute.    India should embrace the reputation it has and build on its national brand, and we westerners should accept the positive aspects of this difference in culture.
 
I for one have every confidence that India will pull out all the stops and make it happen. Even if it doesn't quite run to schedule and it's a bit 'Heath Robinson', I'm looking forward to truly Indian Commonwealth Games.

Why change is no longer optional...

Fantastic video that brings home the pace and complexity of social, economic and technological change in our world...

Faux Radicalism - a money spinner for marketing authors and academics?

I received a promotional email this morning from an author who will shortly be publishing a book which they describe as 'a huge attack on the way the 4Ps is still being trotted out as a relevant model for modern day practitioners and students alike'.

Now I'm all for a good debate on marketing theory and believe we should continuously review theory and practice in order to achieve a better understanding, but what I don't advocate is 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater', particularly by those who appear to do so without 1) providing a credible alternative to fill the vacuum, or 2) providing any real evidence to back up their criticism.

It's very fashionable within marketing academia to dismiss the 4Ps as old fashioned or irrelevant to today's marketing environment.  Kotler is criticised endlessly for making his fortune from selling text books that codify marketing into a series of simplistic mnemonics and aide memoires. However, an equally lucrative 'Kotler-bashing' industry appears to have been built up by some who preach that we need a new radical aproach.  What that approach is seems unclear - and no doubt it will take many years of writing expensive books, taking on highly paid speaking engagements and general self-promotion (NB.  Promotion - one of the 4 Ps) to reach another set of mnemonics that the next generation can criticise.

What if the very core of marketing, what it's all about, is already clear?  What if it really is all about customers?  What if we accept that customer needs, wants, demands are difficult to understand and predict?  What if we just get on with the business of marketing using the tools and frameworks that work best for us as practitioners?  What if we teach our students to evaluate all the options and choose their own path?  If the 4Ps work for them, fine - if they don't, do it another way.  What we owe our students is to present them with the options as objectively as possible.  Yes, by all means share your opinion, but do not attempt to shape theirs.  What we should really be teaching them is to consider everything, question everything, and then to do what works for them.

Should we be preaching the 4Ps on University marketing degrees?  No.

Should we be teaching them?  Absolutely yes.  

Is the Internet dumbing us down? Time to take personal responsibility for how we use the web.

There was a problem with the network at the University today, which has meant no email, internet, or Tweetdeck for me all day.  Although the University is generally a quiet place during the students’ summer break, it has felt particularly so today, with only the telephone or a face-to-face conversation to connect me to colleagues.  Of course, there was plenty of work to be getting on with - not least the stack of reading I have to catch up on - but without the constant backdrop of regular email checks, browsing my Twitter feeds for industry news, or Googling, I have felt strangely uncomfortable.

Part of me welcomed the opportunity to focus intently on the close-reading of a journal article, thinking carefully about the issues raised and forming a personal response, but I admit I also found myself out of practice in terms of holding my concentration for a long period without any of my usual distractions. Thinking about this feeling of discomfort I asked myself ‘Do I have an Internet addiction?’
 
A new book by Nicholas Carr – ‘The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the Way We Think, Read and Remember’ explores the impact the Internet has had on our brains, raising some important issues for those of us in academia.  Carr posits that the Internet has changed the way we read and comprehend texts; that it has changed our cognitive process, enabling us to take in an enormous breadth of information quickly, but to the detriment of the depth of our understanding and thinking (Carr, 2010).

The close-reading and interpretation of complex texts are key skills students at degree and postgraduate level are expected to master and demonstrate in their assessment.  As Universities we may reward breadth of research (i.e. a long list of credible references is often viewed positively by those marking academic assessments) but only if the student demonstrates a genuine understanding of the texts referred to.  Carr suggests that this ability to concentrate on the reading of a single text is one of the cognitive abilities being eroded by the Internet.  If this is indeed true, it raises a number of questions and concerns both for society as a whole and more specifically for those of us engaged in teaching and learning.

Carr is one of a growing number of writers (notably of physical books) expressing concerns about the impact the Internet is having on our lives  (e.g. Bauerulein, 2008; Jackson, 2009; Lanier, 2010). It is important that these voices speak out, and that we are aware of both the benefits and difficulties the Internet can bring in order to make a balanced judgement.

My view?  The Internet may be a runaway train, but it’s something we have to take individual, personal responsibility for.  It’s a revolution we can, and must, adapt and adapt to.  We are co-creators of the Internet and, as adults, we have to accept that we are responsible for our own relationship with it.    

Has the internet changed the way you read and think? 

References
Bauerlein, M. (2008) The Dumbest Generation, New York, Tarcher/Penguin.
Carr, N. (2010) The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the Way We Think, London, Norton.
Jackson, M. (2008) Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age, New York, Prometheus.
Lanier, J. (2010) You Are Not A Gadget: A Manifesto, London, Allen Lane.

Creative is not a noun...

One of my pet hates of the moment is the propensity for those engaged in professions or pursuits which require creativity to describe themselves as 'creatives'. 

Without doubt, creativity is something we have in spades here in the UK and it's something of which we are, quite rightly, extremely proud. However, the use of 'creative' as a noun in two particular ways give me cause for concern; and, despite the title of this post, my objection is not purely grammatical (although I admit the pedant in me is slightly indignant at the use of what any reputable dictionary will tell you is an adjective in this way). 

The first is a matter of simple self-aggrandisement.  Describing oneself as a 'creative' may sound impressive, set you apart from other, less glamourous, professions; but I have heard it used in a way that insinuates that anyone who is not a 'creative' is either 1) not creative or 2) somehow a lesser being.  In some ways it strikes me as a natural reaction of the arts to many decades of ridicule by the scientific disciplines who have often been viewed with greater respect by the establishment.  However, two wrongs don't make a right.

You may argue that to call oneself a 'scientist' is considered acceptable - and indeed it is (although scientists do not generally describe themselves as 'scientifics').  It is the appropriation and monopolisation of creativity that I object to.  In my view, scientists, artists, designers and every other job or profession can be engaged in creativity.

Perhaps the word 'creative' is being used to describe the multi-disciplinary creative work that many of us are now engaged in, and I do not object to its use in this form, but what I do object to strongly is the use of 'creative' as a way of excluding others.  Richard Florida identified what he describes as the 'creative class' in his 2003 book  'The Rise of the Creative Class', a label which, in my view, perpetuates a divisive approach to creativity in society.  Skip forward to 2008 and there are a slew of management gurus telling us how to manage 'creatives' (e.g. Torr, 2008), handling them with kid gloves as though they are somehow deserving of special treatment.  This is both patronising and pandering.

This leads to the second issue, the use of 'creative' as an excuse for unprofessional or downright bad behaviour.  Just because you are an artist, designer or musician, it does not give you the right to treat other people with disrespect, be lazy, or expect special treatment in the workplace.  Creativity is not an excuse for lateness, rudeness or petulance, and yet I have met people who have used it as such and have trained those around them to accept this behaviour.  Those people who pander to this bad behaviour are just as guilty in my eyes.  

My view is simple - there is no such thing as a creative class - we're all creative people in our own ways, and we are all capable of behaving in an adult, professional and respectful way.

So, if you describe yourself to me as a creative, don't be surprised if I say 'a creative what?'

Another results day, another media frenzy...

So, it's results day again. The same shrill voices decrying falling standards, the pass rates rising, the scramble for places.  It's a familiar picture, and in recent years the agenda for this day has increasingly been set by a media whirlwind, whipped up into a newspaper and bulletin-filling frenzy.  The excruciating sight of groups of young people receiving their results 'live' has become a feature of TV news bulletins, something which is (in my view) as voyeuristic and intrustive as rubber-necking at a car accident on a motorway.

Has it gone too far?  Or is it just symptomatic of our expectation to see every detail of our lives played out on-screen?  After all, these students have presumably agreed to take part in the broadcast of what may be a pivotal moment in their lives.  Have they been seduced by the glamour of the media and the chance of their 15 minutes of fame?  Are they mature enough to make that decision?  If not, where should the responsibility lie?  With the media?  Their parents?  Their School or College?

This raises a series of questions about ethics in the media, personal responsibility, and celebrity. In terms of the media, although there a plenty of positive examples of practical advice and support for University applicants in the national media, the price we pay is the sensationalism of the headlines.  My ethical questions to journalists on this issue are; does the coverage place unnecessary pressure on students (by showing groups of 'straight A' students and highlighting the squeeze on places for example)?  Does this result in unwarranted levels of panic and hysteria? Can this be justified?

Phrases such s 'X has sparked a debate' and 'Y has raised questions about', where the newspaper itself is the source of debate or question, are familiar devices used by journalists to bolster a story, but where are the ethical boundaries in placing enormous pressure on young people at a moment when they are extremely vulnerable?  Should we be concerned about the way the media presents 'results day' - the pantomime of joy and despair, the innumerable 'infographics'?  Like the general election, I fear some of the news media may have taken the interpretation (or manipulation) of statistics around this a little too far - to the detriment of the core story.  But, in a season where 'real' news is difficult to come by, can we blame our national media for seizing an opportunity to sell papers or increase ratings?  Is it demand for this information that is driving the supply?  Who knows.

What I do know is that this year, more than any in the past decade, things really are tough for those students who have applied to university.  The story is genuine, and there may indeed be many students who do not achieve their desired outcome, but there are always choices.  Every applicant has options, and in my view we should be focusing on helping these young people make calm, informed decisions about their future.  The message to the media? Stop the scaremongering and focus on showing all students that, no matter what their results, with determination and hard work they can still achieve amazing things.

How NOT to tweet during a crisis - 5 lessons we can learn from BP

So, BP has appointed a new Chief Executive, and in what was probably the best PR move they've made since the whole Gulf of Mexico oil leak disaster began, he's from Mississippi. Robert (Bob) Dudley certainly has a mess to clean up, and not just in the literal sense.   My view on BP's handling of this crisis in public relations terms is that it has been a disaster of similar proportions to the leak itself.  Although the handling of the issue by BP's communications team has been fatally flawed across the board, I'd like to focus here on their response on Twitter.

Not only were they parodied to the n'th degree by the spoof @BPGlobalPR Twitter account which quickly gained a huge online following , but their reaction to the whole episode was a combination of denial, whinging and ridiculously incomprehensible tweeting in response.  BP seems to have completely misunderstood not just the power of social media, but also the tone of it.

As an educator I love a good mnemonic.  So here are my 5 Hs of crisis management on Twitter (and how BP got them so wrong):


1. Honesty
Pretending that everything is ok when it's not will not win you any friends on Twitter.  Implying that things are moving quickly towards a solution has, in my view, been one of the worst failings of BP's Twitter communications.  Be honest, be open, be upfront and say sorry.  People will respect you all the more.

2. Humanity
Tweet like you're a human being (you are a human being aren't you?). BP's jargon filled 'infotweets' full of incomprehensible 'war on the leak' style language are not in the least engaging.  If you want people to be interested in your tweets it stands to reason that you have to make them interesting, and understandable, and appealing to the humans who will be reading them...

3. Humility
 Don't patronise us please...we're not fooled by the jargon and the 'we know what we're doing' speak; and don't throw your weight around just because you're a large blue-chip with deep pockets.  Trying to get the people at Twitter to disable the spoof @BPGlobalPR account was another nail in BP's coffin, making them appear petulant and too big for their corporate boots.  Respect the intelligence of your readers and try not to keep your corporate ego out of it...


4. Haste
Being quick off the mark is one of the key skills communications professionals need.  If you're not there right at the beginning, establishing your message as the issue emerges, you have little chance of clawing it back.  BP missed the boat on that front and they have been playing catch up ever since.  Be alert, as soon as a potential issue arises, set the agenda.

5. Help
Make sure you respond to replies and messages you get.  Give honest answers and show you care.  You're never too big to care about an individual, and by engaging in a dialogue with those in your online community you build trust and empathy.  Respond to everyone, say thank you, be kind.  It works..

In my view BP have failed, above all, to capture the public mood throughout this crisis, and failed to face the problem head-on.   What do you think? Have they done a good job?  What could they have done differently?  Does it matter?

Facebook's opengraph - should we be afraid of the new digital monopolies?

Watching Mark Zuckerberg deliver the keynote speech at last week's F8 Conference was an uncomfortable experience.  Not least because my innate British sense of embarrassment found the whole 'cool geek' thing cringeworthy in the extreme.  The high-five 'tag-team' handovers were particularly disturbing and self conscious...

Presentation aside, however, this was an extremely important speech.  The man who has 400million Facebook users and their data in the palm of his hand is ambitious.  He has a plan to weave Facebook so tightly into every aspect of our web experience that it becomes impossible to challenge its market position.  We are entering the age of the digital monopoly - Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter are becoming ever more dominant forces in their fields pushing other services aside as they grow ubiquitous - and hence essential.  Is it wrong that such firms should be able to erect ever higher barriers to entry in their industries?  Should access to (and control of) the personal data of so many be trusted to commercial organisations?  Am I being paranoid?

As individuals we give information about the things that make us who we are, freely, in exchange for the ability to participate in the conversation, the privilege of connecting with 'the network' the sense of belonging.  But are we always fully aware of the implications of evealing so much of ourselves to the digital world?

Over the coming weeks and months you will begin to see 'like' buttons appear on all manner of web sites. You will also see your friends faces appearing on these web pages.  What facebook's opengraph means is that whenever a friend of yours clicks a 'like' button on a web site that has included the (very simple, very developer-friendly) piece of code that Facebook provides - you will see their face on the web pages they like.  Equally, if you click 'like' on a page your profile picture will appear.  This data about who and what you like will be public and available.  So should you be worried?

You do, of course, have the option not to participate, but the very simplicity of the the system and the sense that 'everybody's doing it so it must be ok' is likely to encourage many Facebook users to simply see it as an extension of their facebook profile.

I predict a swift and wide-reaching uptake of the opengraph.  Why?  Because Facebook have certainly got one thing right - they've made it easy  for us to participate.  Quick and simple to use, the like button doesn't interfere with our browsing experience and it plays upon our eagerness to define ourselves within an online community by our preferences.  Plus it's oh so simple for even the novice web page creator to apply - for those marketers amongst you,  that's a tick for both pull and push strategies...

Great work Facebook - as a marketer I think you've got a winning strategy.  As a human being and socialweb user, however, I admit I'm concerned.  My fear of having my real identity replaced by an online construct may seem far fetched - and I have to admit that this has been fuelled by reading Jaron Larnier's You are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto, a frightening treatise on the erosion of humanity through increasingly restrictive technology.

The bottom line?  I don't know what the future holds but from here it looks as though the online environment will be dominated by a few California corporations and the group of extraordinarily intelligent (and predominantly white male) executives who run them.  Are these our elected leaders? Are these the right people to shape human society in the 21st Century? Has the world even noticed the sheer weight of power we have gifted them? I fear not.

My advice to you?  Think it through before hitting the  'like' button...

Watch Mark Zuckerberg's Keynote here:   http://apps.facebook.com/feightlive/

Clarity, consistency and congruence - the cornerstones of a strong brand identity

I've just been taking a look at Brand New's Best and Worst Identities of 2009 - a round-up of some of the highs and lows of brand identity updates and developments over the past year.  There really are some shockingly bad examples of logo design in there, and some greats, but what makes a 'good' or 'bad' logo?  And, why on earth would a major company like AOL (Brand New's somewhat controversial choice for number 1) spend a fortune changing all of their materials, signage etc when they had a globally recognised logo already?

Brand identity is one of those tricky aspects of marketing that it's always difficult to pin down.  Just like advertising it's hard to measure the impact or value of a brand or logo. Many have tried, and there are plenty of complex models out there for valuing a brand, but these methods are still based on an element of conjecture.  So what does this mean for the smaller organisation trying to establish itself and gain recognition for its brands?

Well, in my view, there are three key aspects to successful branding:  Clarity, Consistency and Congruence.

Clarity - Ensuring your customers can clearly identify you and your brands.  you should be clear about how your different brands fit together and who they are aimed at.  Your visual identity should be unique and recogniseable.
Consistency - All your communications should use your identity in familiar and consistent ways.  Colours, fonts, layouts, furniture, uniforms, sounds, language and anything else that forms the impression your customers get of your company are included here.  Making sure everyone in your organisation is involved in this is vital.
Congruence - This is the key thing to get into place before tackling either of the above.  You need to look at your organisation and decide what makes it special - think of the words you'd like to hear your customers say when describing you, and use these as the basis of your brand personality.  Does the identity you are currently presenting match up to this?  If not you have work to do. 

Sounds simple doesn't it - well in some ways it is - but the really important thing is making sure you get the groundwork right, and for that you may need a bit of professional help from marketers and designers.  Find yourself some good people to work with and you'll reap the rewards in terms of happier, more loyal customers...