Digital Teenies on the Web
Posted by Steffen Stäuber
Recently Musiol Munzinger Sasserath published a study on Digital Teenies on the Web and the implications of this on brand marketing. A very important topic for many brands in Germany so I´m glad to present you this guest post today:
“We’re not trying to start brand democracy all of a sudden”
An interview with Christiane Wenhart, a partner at the Musiol Munzinger Sasserath management consultancy in Berlin, conducted by Ingeborg Trampe.
Mrs Wenhart: You have just completed a study on how young people make use of Web 2.0. Many marketing professionals are unsure as to how they should deal with Web 2.0. What have you learned from your study?
Our study was primarily focused on social networking sites, taking as a starting point those myths and half-truths which we are keen to dispel. For example, let’s take the notion that if you adapt a classic message and plant it as an idea, it will spread of its own accord like a wild-fire of recommendation on social networking sites.
In contrast, the facts show that brands are not yet an integral part of social networking sites and that their presence per se is irrelevant. Quite the opposite in fact: the obstacles that need to be overcome in order to “infiltrate” essentially private networks such as Facebook or SchülerVZ as an impersonal brand are considerably higher.
What is more, the real state of affairs is often considerably more complicated than is frequently assumed. There is no single definitive social networking site, there is in fact a whole plethora. They all serve a different set of needs and user motives, have different technical nuances and are continually developing, so that each social networking site needs to adapt in its own particular way going forward.
So what are the consequences?
This means it is of significant importance to grasp specific requirements as well as having insight. Brands must behave accordingly as an integral part of a social networking site, that is, they must foster and nuture a relationship. It is essentially an exchange, that is, brands must assimilate the relevant currency in order to make an interesting, useful and unique offer. In order to operate and communicate successfully, it is essential to be familiar with the specific context. And to maintain credibility, none of this should in any way contradict the offline-brand. The Burger King Sacrifice Action is a prime example of this: a scheme in which you would get 1 free Whopper in exchange for sacrificing 10 Facebook Friends. This was stopped after only 2 weeks on Facebook on account of its “success”.
It is also pivotal – and this is more of a corporate culture issue, as well as a problem which we feel is frequently underestimated – that brands are prepared to relinquish control. That means it is necessary to think in terms of specific scenarios, to be prepared for every eventuality (ranging from no reaction at all to extreme aversion) and then to react quickly and accordingly, whilst still maintaining control. Web 2.0 works within its own set of rules, which have to be respected.
But the good thing is that it is all Beta (this being in itself a brand new marketing concept, the aim so far always being a perfectly orchestrated end result.) Brands are able to try, test, and develop themselves further. Web 2.0 is dynamic, it thrives on new events and continuous dialogue with new brands.
Social networking sites have grown substantially over the last few years. Some customers describe them as “pure chat forums” where advertising makes no sense whatsoever, other companies seem hell-bent on being omnipresent. What is the right, or rather the recommended way forward?
The truth is that social networking sites are an integral part of life and they are here to stay. For young people especially they are an essential vehicle for socializing, as interaction on-line is now the norm. Keeping in touch via websites is now standard, and more and more communication is being channeled this way (especially in lieu of telephoning and emailing). The sites function as address books, quasi-public diary, photo-album, your own profile forges your identity, social arrangements are made, news and gossip are shared and some serious flirting goes on. That’s why you should neither ignore nor underestimate them. On the other hand you shouldn’t just jump on the band-wagon in a fit of zeal purely for the sake of it
But what does this actually mean for the company?
The most important thing is to take a good look at the social networking sites and to analyse your own company role internally, to engage in discussions with all relevant departments and, finally, to develop your own individual strategy as to how you will approach the issue in the short and medium term. And, above all, what to aim for, as the classic genre of “advertising” makes no real sense in this context. Corporate communications really have to take stock of this, but it could be that, besides marketing opportunites, it throws up excellent starting points for HR purposes, for distribution, research and development etc etc
In each case it is prudent to start off “passively”, i.e., to look at what is going within social networking sites, and, if appropriate, to see what happening with your own brand, assess what the competition is up to, and to gage what is successful and what isn’t, in order to develop a fundamental understanding. What is truly decisive here is that all participants do the trying and testing themselves as individuals.
This year there were “user-generated-spots” running for the first time for the likes of Dorito, which were unbelievably successful. The “Bild” newspaper also challenged its readers to dream up advertising campaigns. Do consumers really have better ideas than agencies? Or, in other words: Does the integration of consumer ideas mean greater success for the companies concerned?
I think the concept of “co-creation” is really amusing, because it often sounds like the companies get a real shock when they suddenly find out there’s life out there. The same applies to the agencies. What’s good about it is that this terribly mechanised image of the mindless “user” – in German we have this horrible expression ‘Verbraucher’ – (who, with his ”use” of goods and services generates revenues and subsequent profit) or the passive “message receiver” (who reacts to the incitement to buy by actively purchasing) is finally done away with.
Brands are part of our everyday life and it speaks volumes for the brand if there are people who will voluntarily take a closer look at a company and its products. And brands should definitely make use of this potential! Because integrating consumer ideas naturally leads to greater success – it always has done! Or is it not the case that the brands which are particularly successful take their customers into account, listen to them, understand them, in order to be able make them an offer of great relevance and ideally to play an important role in their in their lives, i.e. take long-term preference?
So the magic word is “dialogue”?
Exactly, it´s all about dialogue with the customers, the buyers, the users, the fans – and all that well away from the barren ground of conventional market research User-generated advertising is a facet here – “Bild” newspaper, in my opinion, sets a good example in how seriously it takes its customers – readers – and in how pro-actively it deals with user-generated content, thereby strengthening relations and establishing greater proximity to its readers, without ever becoming superfluous in itself: “Us for you” and “you for us” in perfect harmony, which strengthens the brand even more.
It is practically impossible nowadays for companies to maintain their brand sovereignty. How can marketers still manage to steer at the helm of their brands?
The subjects of “social web-fascism” and “Dictatorship of Mediocracy” are hot topics for discussion, if you interpret the “power of the masses” negatively, that is. But in my opinion the real challenge for companies lies in striking the correct balance between employee participation and control.
I think Apple is a great example of this. The company manages to be totally dictatorial (who for instance is allowed to make suggestions regarding product design or hanker after particular colors) – whilst at the same time mobilizing its followers to such a degree of participation that they voluntarily take on functions which would normally be company’s domain, for example in the realm of support. Even sundry Mashups and the flood of I-Games don’t pose any threat in terms of diluting the brand, but are actually a warm compliment which only serves to strengthen the brand and its mythology.
So it’s not a case of suddenly introducing brand democracy (which might work for amusing Australian beers or other such niches), nor of enforcing manic control. A strong brand is always authoritative and the art lies in being able to recognize and define the fine line between where absolute control is a must-have and recognizing where it is more prudent to allow freedom.
Many thanks for the interview
Thanks to Ingeborg Trampe for this guest post and if you like some more ideas and insights about brands in the digital age visit the Musiol Munzinger Sasserath Blog.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d3300caf-4630-4ba4-9a01-f55b1485e227)
Tags: Add new tag, Brand, Christiane Wenhart, Digital Teenies, facebook, Germany, Musiol Munzinger Sasserath, Social network, Study