Posts Tagged: brands


24
Oct 09

Brands and Online Communities: Co-Content Creation = Getting to Trust

The hard question is whether or not Brands are trusted members within a community. The harder answer is generally — No! What to do to get back to Trust?

T-Rex London |Zoo

Trust Me, Only the First Bite Hurts. Many Brands have lost trust with consumers, so entering a Community is not a positive move as perceived by the members. In fact some Brands almost seem to hate or be at war with their customers. So what can a Brand do to get back to Trust? Drive CIC.

Probably every Brand manager is looking at some online social media project right now–thinkin’ omg I gotta do something.  For the ones that haven’t already made a mistake plan for social media — they should get into bed with Cali Lewis, well at least watch this interesting video interview (in a bed)  with Chris Brogan.

Brogan makes the xlent point that many Brands are not trusted these days — some for obvious reasons, like banks, car companies, fast food etc. Others have a more subtle, but perhaps more strained relationship with their customers/prospects like Ryanair or mortgage lenders like Halifax where the consumer is actually an adversary.

There seem to be a lot of issues around all of this, but the fundamental point is that if you don’t trust a brand — it won’t be a positive part of an online Community. It just annoys everyone or is a blocker to getting Community Inspired Content (CIC) rolling. Brogan seems to make a living working with corporates to use social media tools in a positive way to make the personal connection between company and individual–seems like he should have an un-ended need for his services (pls get over to EasyJet Chris!).

So, back to the challenge of the Brand manager trying to figure out how best to play in the social web.  The two obvious moves have significant issues:

  • Traditional online advertising noise/interference : Buying ad programs may not get the brand above the noise–or the brand could find ads actually sitting in areas where it being attacked. Online programs also have big costs and are they really delivering the bang for the buck?
  • Building A New Community is Hard: This is a bold, most likely pointless activity for a Brand with a battered reputation.  First of all it is an expensive enough risk, and most likely the Brand does not have any skill/experience in doing this type of thing. Worst though, the Brand is exposed directly to the Community members which is in fact an off-balance situation between individuals and an impersonal corporate entity. We saw a lot all the Brands that stepped into Second Life beat a retreat when they understood that their risk/costs for engaging with individuals in a fast-moving, unpredictable community was high and in fact their reach/value was trivial.

So in the face of a bad choice and a worse choice, what should Brand managers be considering? Basically they need to navigate a course back to Trust by finding their role in driving CIC.  Short answer = Co-Content Creation programs.

Why is Co-Content Creation the Way to Go?

Co-Content Creation is new content that is produced by an online Community in concert with the community members on some level. It is of course funded by a Brand or the Community itself. I think largely it should be a mix of commissioned, curated and UGC. Importantly, co-creation should frame a useful activity where  Community members see value. Most of the new online communities (like of course our Heritage Key or Demand Media’s Livestrong.com) are further multi-channel — allowing a concept to be packaged and delivered across site as well as media/social platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and of course iPhone.

The Brand can Benefit  a lot in a Co-Creation Program:

  • Unique, relevant content that the Community will appreciate and engage with. Content should also be media rich, diverse and web-dynamic.
  • Perhaps not banner level reach, but deep community penetration across web, mobile and even real-world (as most Communities have physical reach).
  • Speed to live — usually new content is already in a the community content pipeline, so it can be tuned to fit quickly. Certainly setting-up a micro-site is a few days work, no more.
  • Association with innovation if there is a relevant app to combine with.
  • Co-creation should run over a 3-6 month timeline minimum, year is better. So there is also the momentum as the content becomes richer, it will gain exposure.
  • Brand can fully leverage their own promotion, email muscle to drive their customers/prospects/stakeholders directly at an online area that will be on message, without other brand interference.  There should be some PR lift as well.
  • Zero risk — (ok a little risk) the Brand does not need to do much to make this happen — ok, pay is a good thing. But there is no management of the Community or issues with production. The Brand just needs to do what Brands should already be good at — promotion and promotion.
  • Brand can choose how to engage with Community members and use the Community as an appropriate focus, rather than have the direct exposure.

Basic Framework for Co-Creation Programs

The Program should run for minimum 3 months but 6 months or longer is best. The main idea is to get a consistent flow moving onto the site and that there are some time-definite events to catch live. Content should also be sourced from the Community as much as possible.

Basic formula (but expect many variants):

  • Frame a video series, with mix of community members and respected figures. Video is key as it will drive traffic and generate links to a lot of site content. Video should hit site 4/week or so.
  • A bulk of new, inter-linked content — so feature articles, blogs, image galleries, maps, listings. Something new on site everyday to pump the flow across web — use RSS as well
  • Interactive features — good be something simple like a quiz/game or more complex applications that engage/add value to Community. We have a virtual experience on Heritage Key as an example.
  • Contests — but these should involve content that will hit site, ie photos, blogs, group activities
  • Real-world events — again a good chance for the Brand to actually meet people and make personal connections (which also can be in virtual experiences).

Probably in the first wave of serious Co-Creation it will be fairly expensive proposition, but not expensive for a major Brand.  I can already see how this could be rolled-out on a micro-level (probably so does Google somehow ;0 ).

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Ping.fm
  • Posterous
  • RSS

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post


20
Oct 09

Community Inspired Content (CIC) : Better than UGC?

The problem with UGC (User Generated Content) is, as anyone dealing with UGC already knows, err..well, all those Users really. They make a lot of noise—some is interesting, but most is noise. UGC can fill your site with a lot of content, but how much of it is 1) relevant 2) monetizable?

Example: UGC problems at YouTube. While they are serving 1.2 billion streams per day how much of it is worth watching or not infringing?  YouTube has a commercial partner program to try to sift out the good from the bad and reward stuff that adds value. It is hard to imagine just how many take-down notices they process each day? Millions? When YouTube kills an account for breaking the community standards,  there is a flare of angst against them.

crazy bubble thing at royal academy London

CIC = Community Inspired Content . How to get some of that?

UGC is random (which is most interesting) and repetitive, dumb and/or unrelated (which is not at all interesting).  UGC is also full of problems like spam, hate, porno  and copyright infringement. In fact, I think the days of UGC as an objective are over as Media Convergence heats up.

We did a lot of work in the Second Life virtual world environment where we created and ran in-world brands, sold digital goods and hosted more than 2.5million avatar visits (our Greenies Home is still there).  SL claimed to be a online environment created by its users. This was a powerful concept. Some people came and made their own stuff, their house, art, avatar clothes but also made a lot of useless crap (UGG = user generated garbage). Not fun junk, but broken, incomplete, uninspired and boring digital leftovers.

Yet, as SL was also a microcosm for the larger online dynamic—we noticed something else more interesting than the obvious UGC headache. We began to understand that some people really cared quite a lot about their status in an online Community.

Identity, role, assets and recognition have significant value in the online realm. I think the virtual world crucible accelerates this as you come into real-time contact with people, make friends and perhaps engage in some activities that enhance (or destroy) your online identity. (If you are a noob—get an alt if you are going to do something out-of-character.). Your online trail is easy to catch and easy to follow in most cases. So actually rather than seeing people hide behind their online identity, we began to understand how important that identity is as a part of your real self. Hence, how other people respect you and understand you within a Community is very important.

People who care about being in a Community then will make a special effort to contribute to it and even regulate it.  This is both content creation on one side and moderation on the other. This is the virtous circle—but it isn’t without effort and attention.

I seem to think of it as Community Inspired Content (CIC). CIC is not random, it is complimentary to the Community. People add comments to express something that displays their online persona so they are in fact sharing something of at least marginally value—and on occasion some serious insight. CIC also implies some respect for other members where UGC is more often about screaming really loud. Is CIC the mature version of UGC then?

Net net = CIC is more valuable on-site and should be scalable. If it is relevant, it should also be better to monetize.

My point is this really, if you want to get CIC you need to run your site very differently than if you only want UGC (with a little moderation on the side). UGC works well enough in the traditional make–>push content creation model. Either your commissioned staff “make–>push” content or you get the users to “make–>push” content from their side.  It is one-way with a little feedback in the comments.

CIC I want some on my site!

So how to get CIC rolling then? Well, we are trying to figure that out right now as you can see over at Heritage Key with some of the lessons we picked-up at Rezzable.com. There seem to be some basic drivers worth noting now though.

5 Top CIC Drivers

  • Content-oriented site. CIC is around specific content—ie cool motorcycles, exotic travel. Some domain where people want to learn, interact and share their experiences. Something to do is essential. Check Livestrong.com
  • Quality core. Quality inspires more quality. So you need some commissioned core content that raises the bar. You can pay the Community members btw, which might be a good game plan—if you can get the monetization flowing to keep the cash flowing. But be careful, most people don’t really do it for the money, so the ones that do will also leave when the money is better elsewhere.
  • Star Power. Find some well-known, outspoken people from the domain and get their presence into the mix. Also though, video killed the radio star—so beware false idols and find ways to popularize your native Community members. The biggest stars of Media Convergence have not been discovered yet.
  • Fun Events. You can focus people on something time-based where they can make an impact or just share the experience. Events also deliver the most important online element – meeting new people. A good event will mix a lot of people together if done properly.
  • Reward the right UGC. It could be as simple as sending a note or giving some site points. You could do a lot more—like send members on exotic trips or send them real gifts. Online in the age of google has become impersonal—change that and drive CIC.

The other big issue for CIC is can big brands even begin to be a home for it? Do the people that run a CIC site actually need to be very visible/active on it? Ultimately the web while making somethings scalable, still might be bound by the limits of what people can do—actually that doesn’t seem like too bad a thing!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Ping.fm
  • Posterous
  • RSS

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post


14
Oct 09

From Old to Newest Media in the Time of Convergence

One of the biggest distinctions between the future of what users will want to do on the internet from what they did or in fact are doing now, is the difference between being passive viewers and active participants. Old Media doesn’t get this important orientation on how it needs to treat its audience. Imagine a bar where you could only talk to the bartender? It is like the mentality of the Economist to set a paywall for their content and beg for their “loyal” customers to pay. The “make–>push” content model is not going to thrive in the Time of Convergence (which is almost really here this now btw).

In my little sketch above I am trying to tease out some of the key issues facing online media organizations. Our approach of course, as you can see in Heritage Key ( I hope), is from the almost-off-the-chart right position of newest media. We are trying to figure out how to mix the content-focus with social tools with the interactive tools in the most unique way.

I can break-down some of our ideas as follows in terms of the content that we make and people consume:

  • News — breaking items, needs to be fast on the site and some value add to reacting to web flares, creating news content is a big plus
  • Articles — this is the focus of the commission effort to effectively surround useful topics with a series of articles, interviews, video pieces. You would expect to gain some lift on google/SEO as you create content against sets of keyword objectives.
  • Media — images, video, galleries, maps that are either unique or curated. Presentation and navigation are critical. We use Solr now to add discovery aspects to site search.
  • Interactive — answer the challenge of what to do on the site. So we have some quizzes, but really the big attraction for Heritage Key is the Virual Experience (GoVirtual).  While enabling comments on a site is not always so easy, it is hard to consider that basic feature as very interactive these days.
  • Directory — collects, curate, manage relevant data that is needed by the community. Add community/social filtering to expose data back to site visitors (i.e. popular, rated recently, new)
  • UGC — shift now is to manage the flow of user generated content and raise relevance and quality. YouTube is struggling as an example to separate out the noise/infringing content from the serious/regular content creators. My sense is that the site owners need to direct/drive UGC a lot more. It will be the role in fact of the site to help people do more than they can otherwise do themselves = a better package, more traffic, more distribution, more promotion as much as a better concept.

These are the components, the challenge is to get the mix right and scale the production costs against the overall revenue potential of the site/brand.

As we continue to rollout our vision on this in Heritage Key, it is clear why Old Media doesn’t get Convergence and why even New Media players will have challenges making the next transition. Organizations work better on push. You can plan, manage push in a much more predictable manner. Where the site needs to marshall the community, well, it is a lot more difficult and outcomes less certain. Video killed the radio star. The requirements for success in the future will be no less dramatic. The “push” stars won’t “pull” communities.

One way to mitigate some of the risk is to get the hardcore users into the alpha/beta testing areas. It is important to engage people that will be the evangelists or even find solutions with you. But you will need to expose the ongoing work–which is a minimum is uncomfortable. With large deployed online brands it may require new branding and even new sites as testbeds/community crucibles.

Another point in comparing the players that is worth making is about the cost of content creation. The Old Media players have very high costs, often with long cycle times from idea to publish. Production costs must go down. Newest media content production is low and will get lower. The quality is perhaps not the same, but as we already see with blogs and tweets the immediacy is must greater.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • FriendFeed
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Ping.fm
  • Posterous
  • RSS

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post