Posts Tagged ‘Branding’
transmedia branding
21 Dec, 2009 • posts i've written • 3 comments
click the image to see the full size slide
I’ve been thinking a good deal about Henry Jenkins’ Seven Core Principles of Transmedia Storytelling and I’ve been wondering… can I build a new brand using these seven principles?
Can I use these core principles, some more figuratively than others, to construct an entirely consumable, sharable, remixable, and remarkable brand?
Mike is oft to say, the best conversations are the ones where each person comes to the table with a different piece of information to share about a given topic. Transmedia storytelling is how you engineer the possibility for these kinds of conversations. And when you apply this to branding, you get a brand that is ripe for conversation. And you aren’t anybody until somebody is talking about you.
Funny, we’ve gone from, “I think, therefore I am.” to “I’m spoken of, therefore, I am.”
an authentic brand, continuity and multiplicity
16 Dec, 2009 • posts i've written • 4 comments
A brand’s perceived authenticity is the product of making one crucial decision – which extreme to strive for.
Authenticity is a hot topic these days for three reasons: 1) we have and are a culture that evolves and cascades more rapidly, 2) the inability, so far, for brands to identify a clear strategy for this culture, and 3) millennial studies – the realization of a generation more versed in our modern culture that brands can’t navigate these waters as successfully as they can.
In response to the attention, we’ve written books, we’ve made complex lists and rankings of the most authentic brands, and we’ve generally beaten our heads against the wall.
Authenticity doesn’t exist – at least not in the measurable way a sale or transaction exists.
Authenticity is a negotiation of perception – of the future. Brands were built on this model of time perception – after major corporations killed off your friendly milk-man (h/t to Alex Erster Chung), we needed assurance that our shelves would be stocked with our favorite products on our next visit to the store, and that those products would maintain a standard level of quality.
In other words, brands are the result of our need for continuity. If it were a Radiohead song, authenticity would be No Alarms and No Surprises.
Brands perfected continuity. Pick a message, pick an audience, repeat. And repeat again.
But then came this darn new culture of ours. With the change came our new expectation for corporations to be more responsive – to our changing needs and to our changing times.
But the Titanic wasn’t renowned for its maneuverability.
In the face of change, brands fumbled, sure, but they also experimented. In exploring culture, Unilever discovered uncharted territory in Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty but because of their Axe ads, the authenticity of each were called into question. This giant portfolio brand was telling two contradicting stories.
We can’t refuse Unilever the right to make an Axe campaign without giving someone the right to refuse Unilever the right to make the Dove campaign. If we can say “no” to a sexist campaign, someone can say “no” to a feminist one.
Nothing should be foreign to brand. [...] This is precisely what is wrong with the authenticity argument now being promoted by Gilmore and Pine. In fact, brands have no native voice. They may have a brand heritage. Some brand meanings may come more easily than others. But there is nothing a brand must say, and nothing, within limits, it mustn’t say. Brands are designed to be exemplars of responsiveness.
In my opinion, the underlying issue was less the result of what both brands had to say in response to culture, and more of how infrequently they did respond to culture. Dove uncovered a real bit of truth but that truth had been lying around for decades waiting for someone to find it. Axe hasn’t responded to culture since their initial insight into their male consumer; they’ve followed the continuity route and have kept their heads down simply repeating the same Axe ad over and over again. Being highly responsive to culture is a pre-requisite for modern brand building.
Ultimately, the answer to the authenticity question is increased responsiveness + (continuity OR multiplicity).
Multiplicity is a term both Grant and Henry Jenkins use in contrast to continuity – from Henry’s transmedia work posted yesterday, multiplicity can be described as many differentiated versions of messages/meanings/characters being produced by the creator.
I would argue that cries of inauthenticity erupt when 1) a brand fails to be responsive and 2) falls too near the middle of the spectrum between continuity and multiplicity.
In response to culture, there should either be one ideal upheld and oft-repeated, or a shotgun approach of variations and innovations.
If you’re interested in this post, I highly recommend Grant’s new book, Chief Culture Officer.
a week dedicated to fans and the future
19 Apr, 2009 • posts i've written • 2 comments
I don’t write TV spots. I don’t design packaging. I don’t re-organize supply chains or help your sales team close more deals. I help giant global companies speak digital. In the past, I’ve written about what I do, but this week I’m focusing on the how and why.
Speaking digital means realizing digital media isn’t mass media. It’s about courting numerous existing communities in relevant, useful, and respectful ways.
This is digital marketing vs the marketing of yore…
Today, brands must learn how to earn fans. This begins with courting existing communities to earn (not fabricate) credibility. After that, brands must provide the means to connect fans and give them something to do. After all, a dollar spent on fans is a dollar spent on R&D, retention, recruitment, loyalty and longevity.
I’ll be spending all week posting my thoughts on the future of fans and digital marketing here. I hope you stop by and join in on the conversation. Let me know if there’s something specific I can dive into.
digital media isn’t mass media for cheap
09 Mar, 2009 • posts i've written • 2 comments
The truth is, most brands use the web in superficial ways. And our favorite place is becoming littered with pointless Facebook apps, ‘viral’ videos and widgets (whatever those are). Brands chase hits because they fundamentally ‘misunderestimate’ the power of this medium. They look for whatever sounds popular, hoping for rapid and mass adoption; the kind of curve they’re used to seeing through TV advertising.
Please drop me a comment below so I can discuss it in more detail.
And really, this deck is just an appetizer for Mike’s latest thoughts on desire paths. Give em both a read.
my only two cents about skittles.com
04 Mar, 2009 • posts i've written • No comments
Let’s keep this short. Here are my only two cents.
- omg. omg. omg. How could they do this? Why? Why didn’t anyone do it before? (oh right, well, before modernista?) Bloggers and the rest of the ‘social media experts’ on Twitter are all a’flutter over the redesign. Here’s the only salient question: what was there before? Do you even know? It must have not been too interesting, or more than 2 people would have visited it. Suddenly everyone cares about some sugar candy’s website. Job done, day won, kudos.
(let’s hope it was cheap, too, then definitely kudos) - Don’t be all ‘we’re leaving our brand up to whatever people are saying about’ and then just stick me on your branded YouTube page. C’mon, if you’re gonna act like you’ve got a pair, let em drop. Show me the search page for skittles on YouTube, let me see all the remixed and stolen content. I’d give you an exploding high five.
Done. Brevity is the soul of wit.
branding in the era of the remix
23 Jan, 2009 • posts i've written • No comments
Mike, Faris and I were all contacted by Ben Alter, a grad student at the VCU Brandcenter to help answer one huge question:
Do you think there are any major ramifications for companies/brands knowing that the next generations connective tissue is this sharing, participating, and remixing of ideas?
Ben, my answer is yes. Thanks for the question. Now here’s a funny video.
I kid. I kid. Mike and Faris both took an eloquent stab at an answer, so I’ll do my best not to simply repeat them.
Recombinance is not a marketing strategy. Recombinance is a behavior. And it’s how culture advances. Technology has only further enabled remixing of content; but it’s less important how and more important why.
If you stand for nothing, no one will stand with you. Remixing is a form of personal expression in relation to something else. If you provide no stimuli, you can’t expect the behavior. From time to time, novelty can stand in for a lack of belief or values. But novelty is a diminishing resource by definition.
Brands have a myopic fascination with the effect, while they ignore the cause. Faris made the excellent point that remixes are sexy to brands because they’re a form of media that gets shared (and we like for the word to be spread). And brands are practiced at creating content that would never be spread by actual non-zombies: the dreaded press release, or a shallow micro-site, or banner ad, or interstitial video ad. Brands have perfected a model that is unremarkable. Instead of building a strategy around being remixed, brands should dedicate themselves to being remarkable.
Trying to control digital manipulation is the new tilting at windmills. You can’t influence culture without influencing culture. Certainly not all remixes are positive, so again, focus on your brand and what you stand for.
The rate of change will only increase. Having the ability to drag and drop pre-made elements to create something unique means that creation is more accessible and rapid. The pace also applies to building things like interactions: kids are out there building the next Facebook while brand managers review their :30 spots.
It’s time to create or capture more content, and distribute it more quickly. By spreading a wide net of content, your audience will stumble across it as they like and craft their own personal story of your brand.
Whew, that’s enough for now. Mike, Faris, your serve.
