Squared Online Module 3 ‘Think Like A Brand’ Best Bits
Another module of Squared Online done. Another blog detailing the best bits.
If I’m honest with both you, the reader, and myself, the word ‘module’ really ought to be plural. We’ve actually just finished Module 4, ‘Think Optimised’. The reason why I’m only doing this blog post now is a) inevitable, yes, but I’ve been rather busy b) we’re about to start Module 5. Turns out ‘The Fear’ sticks around for a little while after your university days.
Anyway, to business: the ‘best bits’ of Module 3 ‘Think Like A Brand’.
Power to the People
Squared Online is a digital marketing course. We were always going to touch on how digital has changed things. Yes, it’s changed the customer journey. Yes, it’s changed how you buy things. These matters I am not interested in for, in my opinion, they are not nearly half as powerful as the point that succeeded these two: digital has changed how we express our opinion. Or, rather, not only has it given us the ability to express our opinion, it’s also given others the ability to see the opinion we express. I personally think this things are going, if they haven’t gone there already. Not to go all John Lennon on you, but I genuinely think there has been, and will be, a huge shift of power from the sellers to the buyers, at least in a business-to-consumer environment. The fictional example that springs to mind is how it is so easily for a restaurant to be made - and broken - by their TripAdvisor rating. No longer are we convinced by the seller; we are convinced - or dissuaded - by each other.
Pressure to research
I’m not so sure how convinced I am by the notion - I believe it to be determined by personal traits, in which case there is virtually no point in theorizing - but the idea that we are pressured to do some research before we make a sizeable purchase was thrown around. Pressure to the extent that we, the customer, feel like we haven’t ‘done our job’ (a lecturer’s phrasing, not mine) if we don’t do so. As mentioned, I believe this to be down to the individual. I do still believe, though, that there is a point to be had. Indeed digital has made it easier for us to research, and I think we are massively benefiting this. We are benefiting not because we can research competitor products and prices, but because the sellers know we have the ability to do so. Admittedly it was before the time I had control - and was thus conscious - of my own money, but before digital it was far easier for a company to slip by noticed if they weren’t selling a product at as good a rate as their competitors. Thanks to digital this is no longer the case which, in most instances (unless the sellers collaboratively put their feet down, for example), means lower prices for us, the buyers.
‘Individualism rules’
The idea that ‘individualism rules’ was one I found to be quite intriguing, mostly because I think there are several contradictions which many believe in. Whilst people appreciate companies making an effort to show how they consider the prospective customer to be more than just a number or addition to a sales figure, for example, the very same people often take issue with the very same companies taking an interest. In this instance, I’ve got to side with the companies - it rather feels like they cannot win, that they’re in a lose-lose situation; don’t take an interest in the customer and they’re asked where the love is, do take an interest in the customer and they’re asked where their respect for privacy is. I, for one, am perfectly comfortable with big companies taking as much detail of mine as they need. The only details I’d like to keep to myself are my bank account details. I’m even happy to give away my mobile number. I can rest fairly well assured that, nine times out of ten, that such details won’t be taken advantage of: a) there’s nothing particularly personal about me on the world wide web b) a lot of the time law dictates that the multinational corporations that people seem to fear so much cannot abuse collating such details. It frustrates me when people complain about spam (serial offenders being the likes of Groupon and Pizza Express etc.) - these companies wouldn’t have gotten your contact details from anywhere: a lot of the time it will be a simple case of the complainer not reading the often very short T&Cs correctly. And who’s fault is that?
The internet as a business
Another common complaint I consider to have absolutely no backbone (apologies for the rant) is the idea that we are being stalked by advertising. I believe the theory that there is too much advertising on the web to be a complete non-argument. After all, in some instances advertising literally pays for the web. Whilst the likes of BuzzFeed might seem like a harmless bit of fun, at the end of the day it’s a business, and it’s easy enough to believe that the money that comes in through advertising comprises a large percentage of the revenue that makes it a sustainable enough of a business to continue supplying us with LOLs and ROFLs during our lunch hour. You could go extreme enough to say: no advertising, no BuzzFeed. Of course I don’t know their business model but the point at least has the potential to stand for not only BuzzFeed but potentially a good majority of the world wide web (especially those whose purpose is to only produce ‘content’ like BuzzFeed).
Furthermore, people have a similar kind of resentment - even paranoia in some cases - towards cookies and what they do to advertising on the web. Yes, at first they were a little difficult to understand - “but how?! - but, as a whole, I’d suggest they’ve made - and make - the whole experience of surfing the web that much more enjoyable. Once we’d ticked all the boxes to say they were allowed to know our deepest, darkest secrets and inner most thoughts (I exaggerate for illustrative purposes). Not only do cookies give heaps and heap of useful information to the people who can make your favourite websites even better, they also help with advertising both for the seller (business) and the buyer (customer). Although my bank balance might not agree, I much prefer being advertised products and services I am genuinely interested in (cars, swords, fire), rather than simply what the big brands are pushing out to absolutely everyone (Coca Cola, perfume, fashion). I know it’s the cookies doing the work but at least my advertising is individual to me - ‘individualism rules’. And as long as Google doesn’t cross any boundaries (we’ve all done a bit Edward Snowden lately), blurring the lines in between what’s public and private (there’s still the feeling amongst some that emails are being read), I’m happy for this to continue. As previously mentioned, I imagine there’s several laws that dictate that the likes of Google simply cannot think of going in that direction. But who knows? A little #awks given that Squared Online is a course ‘powered’ by the search engine-come-tech behemoth, but who’s checked that Google isn’t the first name on the list of those requesting to be ‘forgotten’?
Are ‘special’ offers really that special?
Although it is not exclusive to the digital side of life, given a) my almost-daily voyeurism of Hot UK Deals b) its source, I thought the theory (from Aiden Carroll, who claims to be the man who brought vouchers to Pizza Express) that, if a company is offering their product at a ‘special’ cut-down price, then that’s what it’s worth was an interesting one. It was clear for all to see that Aiden was as frustrated as he was passionate about this point, reaching borderline hysteria when first approaching the subject. And, even though I’m quite the sucker for a good deal/offer (and thus helping comprise the root of the problem), upon reflection I can see his point. Put simply, we are all being taken for mugs, and I’m not sure it’s doing as much good as the companies are hoping. Take Domino’s Pizza and Sports Direct, the two obvious suspects. The first words I am given on the former’s website is ‘buy one, get one free’, the latter ‘Daily deal - today only, 90% off’. It’s a mutual agreement across the lands that only a fool would buy full price at either; if anything, paying full price is rarely even an option given, if ever. So, Aiden and I ask, what’s the point? Not only are such schemes cheapening the brands by half-heartedly trying to convince us that they’re doing a favour (where in actual fact nine times out of ten they’re perfectly willing to offer such prices), they’re also losing potential customers; if some kind of reduction is considered a given with both brands, what are people going to think when they’re isn’t one on offer? Why doesn’t Dominos simply lower their prices to what a customer typically pays for a pizza and almost guarantee their custom? With deals almost constantly on offer, it’s not as if they’re trying to sustain an image that is associated with high quality?
Content marketing: advertising of the future or a boat that has sailed (and sunk due to overcrowding)?
Given how highly it’s regarded by both sellers and buyers alike, it is unsurprising that the subject of content marketing was touched upon, as well as establishing why it’s so effective: the theory is that it has such pull on people because it allows the consumer to discover the company - and their product - for themselves, as opposed to the company simply thrusting their product upon a pair of eyes and ears and hoping for the best. The former is a more modern, subtle approach, whilst the latter is a little old fashioned, quite literally ‘in your face’, and I’m a massive believer in the first. It’s probably been the case for a while but people have wisened up to advertising. Back in the day we were looking to be convinced, nowadays we’re looking to be sceptical. As briefly alluded to earlier, the likes of Edward Snowden has made us all very aware - of course I’ve only lived so long but I’d suggest it’s come to a time where people pay more attention to T&Cs more than ever. Content marketing is very effective as it bears these points in mind - if consumers are not initially looking to be convinced by a product then why not try and convince them with content - that’s often funny - that comes as a byproduct of the item or service the company is trying to sell?
Real Beauty Sketches from Dove is an example that’s been worn to shreds but it’s a classic for a reason. Dove weren’t advertising their product, they were advertising the belief that #WeAreBeautiful, as well as their belief that #WeAreBeautiful. This fills the watchers with all sorts of self-confidence and -belief, and what’s more of an impetus to buy the product that stirred such feelings than that?
On the other hand, though, there is a part of me that is starting to believe that consumers have ‘wisened’ up to advertising to such an extent that they’re starting to see right through content marketing, if they aren’t already. There’s potential for a ‘too much of a good thing’ situation - just as consumers wisened up to advertising, so too did the advertisers (thus the creation of content marketing); the potential issue at hand is that too many of the latter did so and are ruining the party for the rest.
“Instagram videos are more engaged with than Instagram photos”
It was claimed that Instagram videos are being more engaged with than Instagram photos. Although I’m aware that images are more appealing to browsers than copy, and videos than images, but I’m still shocked (unconvinced?) about this claim. My main reasons? The facts that photos came first to Instagram, not videos, and that the Facebook-owned social network was wildly successful before video was integrated. I can understand that a service might be rejuvenated by an addition or update it was in desperate need of (the example that springs to mind is on-demand TV services opening up the ability to download for offline viewing) but, when it’s going along perfectly capably, quite often it’s the initial service (photograph sharing, in Instagram’s case) that shines through.
‘Viral is a thing that happens, not a thing that is’ - a piece of advice that a few culpable agencies out there probably should’ve paid a little more attention to
And, to finish, the frankly mind boggling idea that paid search can be triggered by all sorts of aspects, even a change in the weather. Moved on a bit since ‘Think Small’, haven’t we?