Brand Trust, 6 Drivers & The Social Web

There is a very good presentation from Nick Black at HuTrust which talks about the 6 Drivers of Trust. (We've embedded their slideshow here.) The slides provide some really insightful stats and facts, which lead to their research around the 6 Drivers of brand trust. The list is Stability, Innovation, Relationship, Practical Value, Vision, Competence (Or Sir PVC as acronym. Is that intentional or some "interesting" Twitter id?!)

This approach does align very closely to our very own trust model and strongly integrates with the "Quality of Offering" axis. From a social web point of view a brand could do much worse than follow these 6 Drivers when thinking about their engagement strategy. We would add one further and extremely important element at that; this being Transparency. Ensuring you are receptive to feedback; ideally you proactively invite and solicit it, respond in an effective and honest manner and take the right course of action all contribute to enhancing brand consumer relationships (So maybe this forms part of the 2nd driver, but we feel it warrants its own special place.)

Anyway, enjoy the presentation, it is well worth viewing.

What unites a "Brand Community"?

Media_http1bpblogspot_vjmzg
Firstly, what is a Brand Community? Well it is fairly self explanatory and basically it is a bunch of people who are fans of a brand, very similar dynamics to those of a band. The web and specifically social media has allowed these communities to be global and communicate with each other around any brand related subject, ranging from new products, customer service, personnel etc. There are many such brand communities and the web is a key central component to help these communities, in the true sense of the word, exist and thrive. Maybe you're a member of one or two?

But...how do these communities manifest themselves? What brings them together to become a united group? Specifically in the online environment. There has been a lot of research about crowds and tribes in a more generic manner and some really interesting research on "Consumer Tribes" by Cova, Kozinets and Shankar. However, there is limited research specifically about online communities.

Interestingly, many, many organisations are looking at the social web and scratching their heads about how they can create such online communities around their own brand. Surely, with all the available platforms attracting millions of people who are already actively interacting with each other, there must be a way to create something which will attract interest?

Well, we at Somatica Digital think that it is very difficult for a brand to achieve any success in the social web if it is treated as a separate channel. In fact, the key elements of building up a brand community outside of the Internet, still apply...the web then becomes the main way for the brand community to communicate..not the other way round.

So what are the key ingredients for building a brand community?

- Common Interest. A common element that everyone in the community is passionate about. Passionate enough to spend time talking about it and listening to others talk about it. Your brand may not have reached such dizzy heights and have the required attraction. Does this mean your brand cannot be the common element of a community? No brand community for you?! Well, not strictly true. Your brand will be/can become part of a wider community. You will be operating in a market or area where there is passion around something; maybe a specific technology; eco friendly product; specific fashion type or genre etc. There will be something your brand can be associated.

- Common Enemy. Something that directly opposes the beliefs and values of the community (for whatever reason) can build a stronger cohesive community. A common interest is one thing, but when it is "fighting" against something passion increases. Local opposing football teams is a strong example of tribalism, with a softer one being Apple and Microsoft..extreme passion is demonstrated in both examples.

- Status & Recognition. As well as being part of a community, there is always a pecking order in such groups. The communities need organising and leading so that they can stay focused on a common cause and be updated with the latest news and developments. Community members are motivated by being recognised for contribution (Maslow stuff) made and are energised by seeing their contribution recognised by others. If their contribution isn't recognised it won't be long until individuals become disenchanted. It is important to ensure community leaders are continually aware of this. Back to the first point; if your brand is part of a community, then good contribution will help you improve your pecking order and become noticed.

Without these three things it is very difficult to see how a community can be created or exist. Geography plays a big part in "real-life" communities of course, but this pull diminishes online. (Although we (Somatica Digital) do see this changing in the future.)

So when you, as a brand, create a Facebook Group, a twitter Channel, a blog etc. and they aren't as popular as you'd like, please consider the three points listed above. Maybe a re-think is required...remembering the basics could help you onto the right track.

"Double Dynamic" forcing UK Retailers to reconsider their business model

Media_http2bpblogspot_qhbha
The UK Retail industry is in the middle of a situation never experienced before. Firstly, we are in the midst of the worst economic crisis or over seventy years. This is bad (Although I did overhear someone in a chip shop saying the "green shoots" are here!), but recessions have happened before and managing costs; sticking to the knitting has seen most retail businesses ride the previous recessions ok. However, when mixed up with the second factor, this tried and tested approach will no longer work. The second major dynamic is how the Internet has evolved (specifically the social web, social media and online conversation) allowing consumers to hold a much higher level of influence and power than ever before. Consumers online, especially in groups are beginning to call the shots and are no longer receptive to "push" marketing approaches, such as advertising.

So retailers, from the very largest to the smallest, need to reconsider their business models in order to sustain and accelerate growth for when the recession starts to ease. Should they automatically re-open another store? Should they continue with the same distribution channels? or should they look at more innovative and forward thinking measures online? I'd promote exploring the latter.

Formulating and implementing a brand engagement strategy online, targeted at helping your specific group of consumers needs to be considered. Rather than just focussing on the sale; place a much higher emphasis on providing good and helpful information and truly reflecting your own and employee's personalities, as well as that of your brand. This will become viral, much more personable and you will be in a much better position to create advocates...even if they have never purchased from you.

This combined dynamic of economic downturn and Internet evolution also means the smaller and medium sized retailers can challenge the bigger players for market share. Smaller retailers can be more agile; reflect their personality easily; and achieve the same level of visibility online as held by the major retailers, or an even higher profile if done well. Change can be executed at a much faster pace as long as the desire is there to do so. This has to come from the very top of the business accompanied by the willingness to take a few calculated risks and "get involved."

An example of such an organisation is Wallace Sacks and their CEO Stephen Sacks. Stephen presented and took part in the Institute of Leadership & Management's "Delivering in the Downturn" event on 21st April 2009, exclusively for ILM members. Stephen outlined the "nagging feeling" he had had for sometime and came to the realisation that he needed to change the engagement and business model for the benefit of his customers, and for his business. In fact, to put in place a strategy that would allow Wallace Sacks to deal direct and extend their consumer reach. The social web plays a major role in this approach.

To draw an analogy, the UK retail sector could be seen as a massive, never ending, boat race where everything from cruise ships to inflatable dinghies are taking part. All having the aim of not only staying afloat, but to stay ahead of the competition and take on board more paying passengers as they progress. The combination of the afore mentioned dynamics means the race has reached a tricky part of the course where there are a number of sharp turns to navigate through; in stormy seas, all with ports where paying passengers need to be picked up. The smaller boats, captained well, will find these passengers faster and learn to cater for their needs; the larger ships will find it challenging as it will take longer to "turn" the ship. The vast majority will take it very slowly coming out of it ok, but losing out on the extra passengers. Some will sink.

Which ship/boat are you on?

Do static online ad's work better than interactive ones?

With a defacto industry standard click through rate of 0.01%, are online static ad's a waste of time? Or is the industry looking at the wrong measure?

In the main, online sales are currently attributed to a "last click wins" basis. Therefore, Internet search looks fantastic! However, what influenced the searcher to enter the "winning" keyword or phrase? It was most probably a number of things...including the various ad's served to the user.

But because we can't effectively measure the impact of these ad's it leads marketing professionals to believe there must be better ways to attract attention. Enter the rich media/interactive ad's. These provide "TV" quality moving images, designed to attract the eye, and when mousing over can expand and take up more real estate of the page they are being displayed on. The aim is to ensure click through happens at this point...as this is the best measure. Right? Actually, it is wrong, and here's why:-
  • Ad's are presented in a "push" fashion (behavioural targeting may bring some context)
  • The consumer is focused on other areas of the web page
  • They are looking for something else other than the content of the ad
  • The rich media ad will most likely be a distraction (positive and negative)
  • Interactive ad's, which expand out, will most likely be an annoyance especially if the mouse drifts over the ad unintentionally
  • The advertiser's brand can be tarnished because of this
  • The site where the ad resides will have the main user focus distracted and potentially provide the user with a lower quality experience. Tarnishing the brand that owns the website.
The advancement of technology has provided marketers with the ability to offer "fancy" ad's but most probably to the detriment of the user experience. It can be likened to the old "pop-up" ad's ...how intrusive were they?!

So, is a static ad more effective, even though it may not consciously attract the eye? New research, focusing on the subconscious would say they are. Our brains subconsciously "sees" things and these images are filed away waiting to be stimulated or to stimulate brain activity when other associated images/sounds occur. Even though we don't consciously realise, such ad's can genuinely influence consumer actions. 

As an example, take a look at the embedded video. Your task (similar to the web user's focus) is to count how many passes the team in white make to each other.  Did you get it right?! If not, watch it again, and again if needs be.