Great article in the June issue of Media Magazine called “Unglued from the Tube” by Liz Tascio and not just because she had the fortitude to quote yours truly. The article explores all the changes in media availability from taxis to interactive billboards to elevators and how this “nomadic media” avalanche has transformed the way marketers can and need to engage with their audiences. Since I had a rather lengthy conversation with Liz on this subject, I thought I’d share my notes, the sentences in bold made into the publication…
Liz: What do you think of the idea that media is becoming less defined as simply “online” and “offline” and now exists in consumers’ lives in a myriad of flexible formats?
There are a couple of things at play – media is becoming less defined as simply online and offline because of the changing way in which consumers/users are choosing to interact with brands/media. The “myriad of flexible formats” are in essence a result of this paradigm shift from passive to active interaction and consumption. Recognizing that these flexible channels exist, marketers need to listen and be smart about how and where they insert their messages.
Leveraging flexible formats has become a necessity in order to engage consumers in a relevant manner. As consumers have embraced the era of web 2.0 as a platform for interaction, expression, sharing, and connection, brands have to work harder to penetrate the surface and affect users in a meaningful way. To get past the “tune-out” effect, embracing flexible forms of media will facilitate the dissemination of branded content, and ultimately push the limits of the once traditional approach to marketing.
Media is increasingly becoming less defined by location as consumers demand content where and when they need it. Technology and human creativity are enabling “media” in almost everything from coffee tables to cell phones, themed restaurants (Spotlight, Times Square’s answer to American Idol, complete with major label record contracts for 3 lucky winners) and digital interactive billboards indoors and outdoors. What is exciting about this evolution is that, in order to succeed and cut through in these “flexible formats”, the onus is on marketers to really provide “marketing as service,” rather than just pushing a message at consumers in the latest vehicle du jour.
This means understanding the medium and mindset of consumers when you are reaching out to them. I have rarely been in a cab with a video screen where I or my fellow passenger didn’t switch it off as soon as we got in — moving video in a moving taxi makes just about everyone carsick. Locamoda’s digital billboard for CNN in Times Square, on the other hand, actually provides people with entertainment that engages them — a scramble of letters (each with a point value) is posted on the billboard, along with a countdown clock. People (in Times Square or on the website) are invited to SMS words made up of the letters. The highest scorer in the timeframe wins and their name is announced on the billboard. The service? Entertainment, engagement, and two seconds of fame — if you win.
All media could become social media. If a consumer can’t tie a brand back to an interactive experience then the message can die where it was delivered. A consumer can graze the Internet and pick and chose the media he or she wants to embed, view, email, link to, IM, text, etc. A static image or page will simply not suffice for a consumer who needs dynamic mediums to nibble on throughout their day.
While reaching ever-higher levels of creativity (and intrusiveness) omnipresence of media vehicles occasionally begs the question: is nothing sacred? It started when we lowered our in-flight tray tables on planes to discover (sometimes outdated) marketing messages, and continues with the latest foray into school buses (advertisers hope to sponsor the inside of buses above the windows) — and even experiments in sponsoring cell phone time, in return for listening to a 15 second ad. As an industry we better choose our intrusions wisely, otherwise the backlash could be significant (witness the banning of outdoor in São Paulo last year).
Liz: What are some examples of campaigns you’ve observed or worked on that have used what this story calls nomadic media or distributed media, media that proliferates in many channels?
One great example of the power of user proliferation is the Obama brand and the campaign’s ability to harness many forms of media both online and offline. Obama’s “social strategy” has allowed him to tap into youth markets, spreading his message across a variety touch points, specifically print, TV, radio, youtube, Obama on Facebook, Obama on MySpace, Obama on Twitter, Obama’s social networking site, and the Obama Primary blog (e.g. downloadable Obama content, wallpaper, icons, and speeches). These efforts have corralled voters, enthusiasts, and prospective supporters into an Obama branded community. The call to action has been so strong, that the experiences online have translated into the offline realm, encouraging people to register to vote and to “believe” in change with him.
The campaign for the movie “Be Kind Rewind” is another great example. Especially their “pop up” experience in the Dietch Project space. It presents a branded concept yet allows the consumer to create, modify and explore their own representation of that concept. It is collaborative, creative, fun and provocative.
The campaign for the movie “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is another fun example. Combining out of home, faux blogs, unbranded advertising, online advertising, and broadcast, the messages across all these mediums were consistent and all drove to a singular destination.
Liz: How does this affect how brands are shaped? Consumers are exercising more and more freedom in influencing brands’ identities and making them their own. By creating a wider variety of ways to reach consumers — ways that feel more individualized — are brands giving consumers more real ownership over identity? What are the risks and benefits to be aware of here?
Like it or not, the consumer is already in control and will let their feelings be known about your brand to all who will listen. Brands that engage in the dialog have a fighting chance of influencing perception. Those that dictate their message will be avoided or worse, simply ignored. And that is the ultimate risk here—being ignored. Better to have the consumer say bad things about you than have them say nothing at all. Dell learned the hard way that they needed to offer consumers a forum for interacting, to vent their frustration. Ultimately they were able to turn things around by inviting the consumer into their product development process. Enlightened etailers have learned that sales go up when they allow critical comments about their products on their sites. Honesty builds credibility. Engagement builds loyalty.
The cat is out of the bag. Consumers are exercising more and more freedom in influencing brands’ identities and making them their own. Marketers need to engage their audiences wherever that audience happens to be. The consumer doesn’t distinguish between the contact points, why should marketers? Personalized touch points empower the consumer and promotes participation, community and conversation around your brand.
The benefits to the brands that “listen” before they leap and engage with their consumers (particularly the influencers) are tremendous on almost every front — user input has been shown to build brands’ positive perception (Panasonic “Share the Air” program), products (Dell IdeaStorm, Threadless) buzz (Coke / Mentos) and sales — through user reviews (Petco, Wal-mart). Another risk is in leaping without listening, or just not listening at all (AOL- Vincent Ferrari, Comcast – the sleeping installation guy) consumers are more vocal and less forgiving than ever about programs that miss the mark.
One post script–since I had this interview, I have found myself watching the TV in those taxis a bit more. That peripatetic Rachel Ray really hooked me with her insti-meals! Have yet to cook one up but love the service these snippets provide.