jim.shamlin.com

4 - Consumers as Advertising Producers

When a consumer shares information about a brand with others, they become the producer of an advertisement, who crafts a message and chooses his audience in much the way that a firm does when advertising its own products.

This has always existed in the form of word-of-mouth references to a product in private conversations, but given the internet, these private conversations have gone public. As such, user-generated content is quite voluminous, highly visible, and is given greater credibility that company-sponsored content on the Internet.

It is estimated that individuals who are not sponsored or authorized by the owners of brands make up about 70% of all content about brands on social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube - with the remaining 30% coming from marketing professionals. However, it's also suggested that the content itself is mostly made by professional companies of one kind or another, and users are merely passing on their material rather than producing original works. Neither is this entirely harmful to brands, as the vast majority of user-generated content is either flattering or neutral about brands rather than critical or detrimental.

Success factors for brands

There's a quick mention of the "Diet Coke and Mentos" fad where a couple of men made various fountain-like displays - and while there was some fear that this would suggest the product was dangerous, the results were a great deal of interest that spiked the sale of Mentos in the United States by 15% that year - which was estimated to be worth the equivalent of $100 million in advertising cost.

A few other examples are mentioned in which brands reached out to consumers, whether creating contests to encourage them to create original content or merely asking them to participate in a campaign by "voting" on various product options (such as new flavors of Dorito's chops) as a means to create buzz (EN: That seems a bit oblique, as traditional online polls were not very successful in generating activity but social media is different in that a person's participation in such a campaign becomes visible to others when their "vote" is displayed in their Twitter or Facebook activity stream.)

Little research is available on whether this is effective, though observational studies of UGC have led to the definition of some basic categories that drive awareness and cause consumers to feel engaged with brands:

There is some consideration that there may be a circular argument as to whether a strong brand attracts customers to interact with it, or whether consumer interaction strengthens the brand. The author's take seems to be that both are true, and which is the chicken or egg doesn't matter because the relationship is ultimately symbiotic and that each reinforces the other.

Personality makes the difference

A 2012 study by Forrester Research suggests that people do not use social media as much as some sources indicate: while the various social media channels tout a large number of accounts, only 25% of them are really active (their own "active users" ratings are rather loosely defined, and can be a person who logs in once a month, even if they log in without visiting the site).

Nielsen Research suggests that the activity of social media participants is largely passive: 90% of users are merely passive consumers of content. 10% of users will share or comment on content that is posted by others. Only 1% of users create original content (and are also included in the percentage who comment/share).

This supports the notion of the "two-step flow model" of advertising, in which the buzz generated by the few is effective in reaching the many. However, there is no evidence to show that the vocal few stimulate a larger, passive group of users to become participatory: they tell their friends, but their friends do not tell their friends. This makes it all the more important for advertisers to seek to reach those who will pass along their message to others.

Analyzing the content of online conversations, one researcher (Yeo 2012) identified five distinct personality traits of people who communicate online:

  1. Extraverted - They tend to be social and communicative in general (they are not shy people "hiding behind a keyboard" but the same people who engage others in real life)
  2. Agreeable - They have the tendency to trust others, empathize, and cooperate
  3. Conscientious - They tend to behave in a socially responsible manner
  4. Neurotic - Their language often uses words that indicate symptoms of stress, anxiety, depression, obsessive behavior, and hypochondria
  5. Curious - They show a tendency to be intellectually curious and artistically inclined, and willing to consider alternatives and take risk

According to the study, the more of these traits a person has, the more likely they are to be prolific in their social media content production.

A separate examination of "digital natives" suggests these individuals tend to regard social media as an extension of real life, have a strong narcissistic and self-promoting traits, their online profile projects an ideal self-image, they share virtually every event in their life, and their popularity is measured in terms of friends, likes, and comments. (EN: In brief, these are people who want to be perceived as "cool" within their social circles, and are likely to post anything that contributes to their desired image.)

It's also been suggested that online association to brands is akin to conspicuous consumerism: people "like" or pass on information about brands that will cause others to have a positive impression of them - whether or not they actually use the brand. (EN: The behavior of teenagers show this. Boys will associate themselves to expensive cars and girls to designer fashion labels, even if they do not use the products in real life they simply "like" them and wish to use the brand to express their tastes and desires to others.)

Another stray note is that people tend to be forgiving of the brands they "like" and will be less inclined to dissociate from the brand if the parent company gets bad press, and may even come to the defense of the brand when it is criticized by others. It is reckoned that because the brand represents some aspect of their personality, denigrating the brand activates their ego defenses.

In practical terms, this suggests that advertising campaigns should be targeted to the users who are most likely to share content with others. The primary target should bean emotional appeal the "relational" user who communicates aggressively about the brand, and a secondary target would be a rational utilitarian/hedonic appeal to the "individualist" user who associates to the brand but does not actively promote it. These two groups will be instrumental in promoting the brand and calling attention to it in social media, reaching the 90% of passive users.

Co-creation with stakeholders

"Co-creation" is the practice of bringing consumers into the fold, working collaboratively with them to encourage and support their content creation efforts.

The concept of co-creation has had some resonance with marketers, who believe that the identity of a brand is best determined by engaged stakeholders - and who are generally grateful for the "free" (or very inexpensive) marketing services they get from enthusiastic customers. Additionally, bringing customers into the fold gives the company first-hand experience with customers and knowledge about what they really want.

The risk attached to this process is that the company loses control over its marketing activities, or endorses advertisements that do not support the brand image the company is attempting to create.

(EN: Having been on the inside of a few of these campaigns, I've never seen it practiced as intended. The company may engage customers to produce content, but will very often ignore what they have to contribute. For example, there will be a contest to develop an advertisement, but the company will wither throw away the winning entry or modify it heavily before using it in their own campaigns. I have heard claims, but never seen research or detailed case-study, suggesting that this is highly offensive and makes loyalists feel ignored and betrayed - though it does seem entirely plausible.)

Case Study: Lay's "Do Us a Flavor"

The author mentions Lay's campaign in which it asked social media users to suggest new product flavors or to vote on flavors that other consumers have suggested, offering a million-dollar prize for the winner. The results of the 12-week campaign were:

(EN: One thing the author doesn't mention is that the "comedy" value caught on, as people submitted flavor suggestions like "rancid vomit," "blood of my enemies," "bitter regret," and "75% air and the rest is crushed." On the bright side the company took this in stride rather than panicking, and in that way likely created a positive impression even among those who didn't participate in quite the way they intended.)

(EN: A second important fact related to the campaign is that some of the submitted flavors were actually produced, albeit in small batches and for a limited time. While this does indicate that the contest failed to produce a product idea that had appeal and longevity, it is nonetheless likely important to note because it demonstrated earnestness on the company's part and has enabled them to repeat the contest several times.)

JIM.SHAMLIN.COM
DISCLAIMERS · CONTACT