Rare Bird Blog
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Dan forwarded me an article today that ranks right up near the top of my "Things to read that are relevant" list. Titled
"What If Giving Up Your Brand Really Means Giving Up?" this
Advertising Age article from Jonathan Salem Baskin asks some very pointed questions and draws some mildly controversial conclusions. (At least, I'm assuming they might be considered controversial among those people advocating a complete rush to social media in lieu of traditional branding, but it hasn't seemed to bubble up to the top of Digg or gain a notable trend on Twitter, so we may never know.)
Baskin argues, basing his conclusions on the recent Edelman 2010 Trust Barometer, that consumers are growing weary (and wary) of their peers as credible sources of branding information. Where we once happily turned to people we trust to learn their opinions about a company or brand, we're now skeptical of the same people and what they have to say. Maybe it's because so many have turned out to be shills working on behalf of the companies they were promoting. Or maybe it's because some of them turned out to be the actual companies themselves, pretending to be average Joes.
Or maybe it's because
Twitter recently announced that they've surpassed the 50 million tweets per day mark, and we're all buried under the noise.
Regardless, this paragraph from the article seems a perfect summation:
"If we renewed our commitment to selling based on credibility, authenticity and utility, maybe people would trust what we tell them, respect our corporate reputations, and give us their purchasing loyalty. Maybe if we stopped thinking we can give up responsibility for why they should buy, and start acting like David Ogilvy and sell to them once again, they'd find comfort relying on our communications as well as the subsequent iterations through the social echo chamber. This might unleash the ultimate promise of social and empower people to know, discuss and change the way businesses function, not just blather on about marketing blather."
Absolutely, positively right on the mark. I recommend that you
read the rest of his excellent article. You can also
read the results of the Edelman study. Enlightening stuff.
Labels: authenticity, marketing, social media, twitter
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
I read this quote today from Jeffrey Zeldman, a well-known web designer and blogger, talking about the difference between being a loud-mouthed self-promoter and sharing valued information about work; either yours or others: "There is a difference between being arrogant about yourself as a person and being confident that your work has some value. The first is unattractive, the second is healthy and natural. Some people respond to the one as if it were the other. Don’t confuse them. Marketing is not bragging, and touting one’s wares is not evil. The baker in the medieval town square must holler 'fresh rolls' if he hopes to feed the townfolk."
"But direct self-promotion is ineffective and will go unnoticed unless it is backed by a more indirect (and more valuable) form of marketing: namely, sharing information and promoting others."
I couldn't help but think that this nuanced difference was one of the most recognizable trends (and, dare I say, problems) with the way that many people are using social media. Many people perceive tools like Twitter not so much as communication devices to have a meaningful dialog with people whom they find interesting, but rather as a sort of super-charged megaphone through which they are engaged in a virtual game of "look at me!"
If people (read: marketers) don't tone down the rhetoric a bit, they're going to find that no one is paying any attention to the increasing amount of noise and channels like Twitter will become increasingly less relevant. The trend is already in full swing, evidenced by the number of people who are 'following' thousands of people, but not engaging with any of them.
Labels: marketing, self-promotion, twitter
subscribe