4. Sharing - The Trust Iteration (Theory)

Campaigns are dead. How many people are saying this as a headline to grab attention? OK, maybe I may have said it myself in some presentations over previous months. On reflection however I think using the word "campaign" is missing the point. Irrespective of what we call our communication I firmly believe it is the frequency that is the primary issue to discuss and not necessarily the form it takes. I think debating the need for “traditional” or “online” communication misses the point. In life I want to be entertained and engaged, amazed and appeased, sold and served. None of these things are mutually exclusive, what is important to realise is when I want one and not the other. Don’t keep telling me how great something is when I can’t figure out how to turn it on, don’t sell me on something new when what I have got doesn’t work.

Knowing where someone is on his or her journey with your brand is essential. As is being able to be there when people need you, and not make them wait until you are ready to communicate with them. This is where the use of online and other digital media can be of massive benefit to brands.

Brands typically choose to communicate with their consumers once every 3-6 months. This is because it takes that long to internally meet and discuss a strategy, then turn that into a brief, then illicit responses on "the big idea" from agencies, then decide, then produce, then agree media, then distribute. All of this and often still no real accurate source of measuring success other than tracking bottom line sales and industry awards.

The obvious driver (excuse?) here is the time required to go from inception to distribution of content in traditional media as well as the internal decision lag in big business.

As I mentioned before nothing is mutually exclusive so if there are valid drivers for large scale mass reach communication for your brand then great continue with the 3-6 month cycles BUT; they should be in the context of the broader dialogue with your consumer, and should be inter-dispersed with regular micro-interactions maintaining the brand-consumer conversation, listening, learning and giving input and context to the next large scale explosion.

My position is that if you were wanting to choose (and on the assumption that choice is normally driven by budgetary limitations), the constant communication of micro-interactions is far more powerful, cost effective and relevant to your brand than the high cost explosions, I really believe these are now the “nice to haves” in your communications mix.

So why the need to have these micro-interactions? I believe it comes down to relevance. As mentioned earlier, as a brand you need to be there when I need you, but also when you need to be there as a brand.

As an example, if I am reaching a purchase point for a product (e.g. my laptop is old/broke), you need to know that and be there for me helping me understand why it makes sense for me to purchase your product (especially if its one of your products I am replacing!), you only know that if you have maintained a dialogue with me and understood where I am on my journey. If it is one of your products I am replacing you know that and you turn that into a benefit with a loyalty discount on my next purchase etc.

Likewise you should be there when a moment or event makes your brand/product instantly relevant to someone or if your brand/product has had a significant positive effect on the moment in question. In the last 24 hours as I type this Usain Bolt has just won the Olympic 200m with a 19.30s world record (on top of his 100m world record), he has also proudly paraded his gold Puma running shoes in front of the cameras and into 3 billion homes…in itself not a bad result for Puma, but now is their time to jump all over that moment, knowing it could have been a reality they could have already planned to leverage it. They still might, but the reality is whilst the event will be have awareness for some time the mass impact is within the first 24 hours of it happening. Politicians announce relief for disasters in the first 24 hours because it will have the greatest positive impact on their ratings, they could wait a week, the event is still resonating, but people respond to instantaneous response as it resonates with what they are feeling at that moment.

Linked to the above is the impact of word of mouth. In the next 24 hours of a significant event it is all people discuss. Today the papers and discussions are of Bolt and his amazing efforts, but tomorrow or the day after there will be others (remember Michael Phelps and his 8 gold medals? Yesterdays news, sorry Speedo). Add to this point the role of social media online and the ability to spread news from 1 to millions and you understand the opportunity that is currently being missed by brands (oh and do recognise that online people spread news to offline people as well so it is not just about leveraging a relative minority market online!)

The advent of online and in particular the increase of social media means that now I don't need to wait to have to hear about and contribute to events, news, moments.

So in summary, going back to the imperative of trust (see previous posts), brands have to be able to contribute to dialogues and discussions as they happen or as they need to happen in a contextual and relevant manner otherwise at best you are missing an opportunity and at worst seen to be irrelevant and “bandwagoning”.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.