making sense of social

Blog

1 comments

We don’t consume media in isolation, so why plan it that way?

When it comes to marketing and communications planning, there’s a lot of talk about how brands can’t just broadcast messages out anymore. We are living in a brave new world where the consumer has the power over the brand conversation, and the broadcast model doesn’t work anymore. That’s all good, and you won’t find many people arguing the opposite.

But it’s not just stopping the broadcasting; it’s about recognising that your target audiences are actually people. We need to talk to people, not just key demographics. The reason the broadcast model doesn’t work anymore is because the way people consume media is fundamentally changing. We need to look at the shifting consumption habits when we think about how best to engage with these audiences.

The second you start seeing audiences as actual people and not just an age range then you realise that isolated channel thinking is ridiculous. How many people consume content from one channel in isolation these days? I watch live TV, read the newspaper and talk to friends on IM. And more often than not I do it all at once.

This is the reason that few social media campaigns work really well when they have been considered in isolation. People don’t consume media in isolation. The most effective campaigns are the ones that are delivered as part of an integrated effort. It’s effective because it allows people to seamlessly move through channels, engaging with content when and where they want to. It’s effective because it’s a much more efficient approach to marketing, maximising the reach of your content through multiple channels. Social media needs to be considered in the broader communications planning, not in isolation.

Because others are always more adept at being concise than I am, I’ll end with a quotation, from the ever succinct Nick Gill, that essentially sums up my somewhat rambling post into a lovely sound bite (it’s less than 140 characters too):

Consumers don’t separate their consumption; why do we continue to separate our marketing responses?

2 comments

Channels are important, but they should never be the starting point

We live in the age of the buzz word. One week it’s engagement this, the next it’s social currency that. And as much as I love a good buzzword, with a constant stream of new mots du jour it’s easy to forget what is really important when it comes to creativity. The idea, the piece of content, it’s all just STUFF. When all is said and done we are all content producers. We are all just making stuff.

Whether it is a social media campaign, a digital banner campaign, a series of TV adverts or print billboards, at the end of the day it is content. Content that conveys a particular idea. And when delivering these campaigns the idea should always come first.

An idea is channel agnostic. It’s a thought, a feeling, something that makes you stop, think, laugh, or cry. At the very beginning, before we think of channels or executions we need to think of the idea. What do we want people to think, feel and do when they see (or hear or experience) our idea? Why are we doing it? We need to base our creativity in strategic thinking, in finding ideas that a relevant and right, that are meaningful.

It’s only once we have these answers that we should think about what is the best medium to tell people our idea. Will the idea be best conveyed through an engagement piece encouraging user participation and content generation, or perhaps a highly targeted digital banner campaign?

There are obviously channels that are more appropriate for certain ideas: certain elements are going to be best conveyed through video, other will get more impact with a print campaign. A lot of thinking needs to go into getting the channels right, but this comes after we’ve got the idea.

Channels are important, but they should never be the starting point.