Innovative and Seamless branding

If you want to have a successful brand in today’s world then you will always have to be one step ahead of your competition in every type of aspect imaginable. Verganti, R (2009) states two attributes that your brand will have to contain in order to be successful and popular in the eyes of the consumer. Firstly, the brand will have to have radical innovation which to me is a pretty obvious attribute, yet the second aspect is slightly less apparent.  He claims that ‘People don’t buy products but meanings. Firms should therefore look beyond features, functions and performance and understand the real meaning s users give to things’.

For this claim Verganti uses the Nintendo Wii as an example of how a brand can override its competition through break through innovation along with a collaboration of meanings in which the user can give to the product.  Now I can remember when the Nintendo Wii first came out, it was something so new and unheard of that everyone simply had to have ago. It was Christmas a few years back and both my brother and I where given the Nintendo Wii as a combined present. Christmas of course if that time of the year where all the family come together, which in reality for myself and my brother means spending endless hours in front of the TV playing playstation in which the older family members would have simply no part in. I guess this was mainly due to lack of knowledge of how to play the game in the first place. Yet this particular year was a little different, everyone was truly intrigued into what could actually be achieved on this new gaming device. Everyone wanted to have a go and ended up bringing the family closer together that year as a result. The Wii outshined its competitors of the new Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 that year even when being priced considerably lower and changed the way gaming was perceived giving a more meaningful atmosphere. It ‘stimulated active physical entertainment, in the real world, through socialization. The intuitiveness of its controllers made it easy for everyone to play. Wii transformed consoles from an immersion in a virtual world approachable only by niche experts into an active workout for everyone’ (Verganti, R 2009). The argument here is that no one would have thought that gaming could have evolved from the button bashing on controllers, yet through the innovation of meanings it evolved into a virtual world. An idea that is so loved by the consumer that there will be no looking back in the near future.

Brands need to be remembered through a positive word-of-mouth from the consumer, which in this ‘Digital World’ that we are currently living in largely contributes to. Brands need to tackle all areas in order to be successful, whether is through its website, apps, Facebook or Twitter updates etc. The example of the Wii suggests that price and value is no longer becoming an issue compared to building a strong relationship between brand and consumer. This is where the term ‘Seamless Brands’ comes into play. When a brand has build up huge territory they want to protect it and tailor it towards the consumers needs and wants, making them feel special and looked after. It is all to do with creating a positive experience that will reflect your brand. Let me put this into reality with the example of something as little as the error 404 web message when a webpage that you are trying to access cannot be displayed. To many this should equal little significance to a brand but in fact is the complete opposite. Brands are currently being so loyal to customers that the branded consistency is a huge factor with attention to detail. Take this Coca-Cola 404 error message for example

Something as little as a ‘sorry’ from the brand itself and links back to the homepage and other content suggests that they are looking after the consumer  a lot more than the competing brand which may give the typical ‘page cannot be displayed’ dead-end as well as further advertising the brand. When branding in this digital world, attention to detail is crucial for keeping consumer interest and keeping a positive brand value ahead of its competitors.

Times Are Changing!

To me having a mobile phone is essential part of everyday life. As a student there have been various nights out where I have come to wake up hangover and phoneless, spending the remainder of the week feeling isolated from the outside world. This is because with a mobile phone you are able to utilise its various functions and take them for granted. For me having a mobile phone enables me to keep in contact with friends , gather various information that I need off hand, entertain myself on tedious car trips back and forth, as well as possessing a certain identity shown by the type of phone in which I choose to be associated with.

“Today, there are more than 3 billion mobile phone subscribers throughout the world with the figure expecting to double by the end of 2011” (Stump et al, 2008)This really brings into context the rate of mobile phone adoption is growing  and it is only inevitable that technology aims to increase at the same skyrocketing rate. today in the United Kingdon their are more mobile phones than people” (McStay 2010). Mobile phones and other information technologies have been characterised as part of the ‘digital divide’ (Stump et all, 2008). This refers to the gap between both the rich and poor with effective access to information and digital technology and those who have limited or no access at all. My argument here is that with this extreme growth in mobile phone consumption levels, even people in the poorest parts of the world will have access to their own mobile phone. This to me is crazy to think that people, who have never had a landline phone, driven a car or even ridden a bike, can now have access to mobile phone communication.

Now, I can remember my first mobile phone being the classic Nokia 3310. These embraced the analogue technology and were very limited in terms of what you could do with them, compared to now. These phones were labelled as 1G technology which describes them as fitting into the first generation technology category. These days innovation in technology has enabled us to go as far as fifth generation technology (5G) and I the eyes of advertisers, there has not been a better time for brand advertising campaigns to launch through mobile media. I will now go on to show you how mobile phones are one of the hottest tools for brand promotion at present.

 In terms of advertising, mobile media provides a more personalised service to the consumer when delivering brand information and enables them see the intended message on-the-go. This started off with the typical SMS campaigns which are a cost effective method of reaching out to the consumer through a single text.theses days, iPhones and Apples app store have driven the expansion of this market with 1 billion applications served, 35,000 applications avaliable and more than 30 million devices in the market. (McStay 2010) This is an example of the everexpanding world in terms of technology with new and innovative ways to get into the mind of the consumer. there next examples will really make you feel as though you are living in the future…

 Take the recent example of QR codes. These are a two-dimensional bar code in which any consumer with a phone equipped with a camera and the right application reader can scan the code and decode the relevant information at high speed. In terms of media marketing these can be placed anywhere. From favourite magazine to the billboard that you notice while you wait at a bus stop. Advertisers now have more control over measuring response than ever before. In the past it was almost impossible to find out if anyone is actually acknowledging your advert, but with these codes monitor how many people scan that certain URL. This puts advertising effectiveness under a whole new light.

So what is the future of mobile advertising? Mobile codes are already taking off dramatically and it seems these days you can do virtually anything though your mobile phone. Mc Stay (2010) argues that Japan represents the future for mobile phone technology and peoples relations with their phones. Let’s consider mobile phone payments for example. This is already taking place in McDonalds in Japan where you can choose to pay through you mobile phone by scanning it at the counter. Could the mobile phone be the only thing that you need to have on you in the future? If the consumer can already make a payment, why could it not carry you identification? Or even be your car keys at just a scan away? I argue that the mobile phone is slowly replacing everything that you have ever carried on you. Mobile phones are currently considered the extension of an individual and with that type of obsession from the consumer it is inevitable that mobile media will carry on providing a huge impact on consumers. It is only a matter of time before we will feel as though we are living in a futuristic world at just a press of a button from your mobile phone.

Interactivity takes control…But who is in control!?

Interactivity is a term that covers so many areas of communication that it is tricky to define. Because of this I have turned to the Oxford English Dictionary for a clear definition. It states that interactivity when considering in terms of new media is “allowing a two way flow of information between it (a computer of other electronic device) and the user, responding to the users imprint”. From this we can understand that any type of computer/computer program or website is a form of interactivity. As long as the user has total control towards the flow of information.

Dance’s Helical Model of Communication was one of the first models that attempted to express the interactive nature of communication. (Rafaeli, S) The model is drawn as a downward spiral to represent that communication is continues, unrepeatable, additive and accumulative. Rafaeli disagrees that interactivity as communication can be summed up a simply as spiral shape suggesting that interactivity is “something beyond an illustrated metaphor”. The term interactivity is greatly unclear in terms of new media, but what is very clear is that interactivity plays a vital role in the everyday life of the consumer in which I argue and been seen as both positive as well as negative.

 Take the recent Obama campaign for an example of political interactive success. $8million was spent on digital advertising through various search engines and news sites, which ultimately changed politics and mirrored the campaign by J.F Kennedy’s medium of television in 1961. Arianna Huffington, editor The Huffington Post explains that “if it weren’t for the internet, Barrack Obama would not be president, if it weren’t for the internet Barrack Obama would not be a nominee”. By using web 2.0 interactive tools such as iphone apps, YouTube and even text message campaigns Obama would be able to organise his supporters and make them engage with Obama as a real person and not just the first black person to be president for American publicity. This is an example by which the consumers themselves can take control through their own social media as a type of interactive army all set on a goal. We now live in the age of digital communications and anyone who is benefited with this technology has the power to change reality itself, even as high as political. But who is in fact controlling who? Obama? Or is it power to the people?

A recent example of a current campaign that plays on the interactivity of consumers is the Smirnoff ‘Nightlife Exchange’ competition which is an example of interactivity through a brand. This is a campaign which aims to Exchange nightlife experience of 14 different countries cultures. The UK is part of this process and is linked to a two way communication with Facebook in which Facebook users get to vote for the night to take place in their local city. This enables a powerful advertising tool of word-of-mouth which will take place over 14 different countries for this fantastic nightlife experience which will inevitably create a positive brand image towards Smirnoff. Below is the televised advertisement:

Lastly I would like to take the BBC’s Doctor Who, which became a failing television show with ever lowering ratings and explain that through pioneering interactivity of media channels, the BBC created a trans-media world in which participatory audiences had the “opportunity to engage in a rich and extended multimedia experience”. (Perryman N, 2008) the BBC’s aim was to create a buzz in the eyes of the public by having the program across different media channels which will in turn invite interactive communication. The BBC set up websites which list certain media such as mini episodes and blogging experiences of the show. Brooker (2003) states that this is an example of ‘television over-flow’. He defines this as; “The tendency for media producers to construct a lifestyle experience around a core text, using the internet to extend audience engagement and encourage a two-way communication”.

My argument is what is digital interactivity’s current impact on society? Do the public feel as though they are in total control in terms of how they what to control their media outcomes? Or in fact has producers simply tweaked the position in which they what the audience to follow, enabling the audience to become warped and controlled? It is clear that interactivity is becoming very popular amongst everyday life of the consumer. But what is not clear is whether the idea has been simply created to increase consumer enjoyment and positive values, or is it something a lot more complicated that that…

Digital Advertising. . . Boom or Bust!?

I would like to start my first blogging experience with an interesting quote to set the scene of my talked about topic of the week:

“The first book printed for the mass market was the bible” (McStay A, 2009).

Taken from a sample in 2007 the total amount of UK users having access to the internet will reach way over 30million which accounts for over 60% of the UK population. This to me is crazy! When considering that the web was only created in the early 1990’s! Another shocking fact I learned from my lecture is that television took 13 years to gain 50million viewers… The social networking site Facebook double this in under a year, with over 500million active users today! This is the modern mass market and where digital advertising in the eyes of successful companies such as Amazon, EBay and obviously Facebook has comfortably found their place.

“Online industry has grown exponentially and is now the fastest growing advertising medium, growing faster than any other marketing/advertising channel. It has proved both a cost effective medium and attractive due to potential returns on investments” (McStay, 2009)

Digital advertising is all about communicating towards the modern mass market. According to McStay it has been a media option for advertisers since 1994 and earned its place in the media mix as a practical media option. “When budgets are tight measurable and accountable digital advertising proves and attractive option” (McStay 2009). Does this quote suggest that the online advertising is to be considered being placed into the “New Media” category? And is “Old Media” such as books, newspaper and even television to be ignored as an effective advertising medium? Surly the early dot-bomb days in the 90’s economic downturn suggests that the internet is not perfect and not all companies will make huge returns on their media investments? What about spam emails, identity fraud, viruses and acts of terrorism? (Cheung, 2009) surly these are enough of a reason to rethink the overall effectiveness of digital advertising and raises the question whether this ever growing online community can in fact begin to be uncontrollable? This is due to what is commonly known a web 2.0 which introduced social media channels such as YouTube, Twitter, Wikipedia and the most popular, Facebook. These are the voices of consumers who through people-to-people communication build online spaces which shapes themselves to who they are. This can be abused by advertisers who what to find their target audience and have worked in the past for successful brad such as Pepsi, jeep and Dove. Yet it can also backfire for brands when users talk negatively about a certain product, damaging the brand.

My argument is that in this contemporary world, media created before the digital era is still to be effective advertising tools amongst consumers. 60% of the UK population are able to sit comfortably at a deck mindlessly clicking though internet pages of their chosen interest could be effectively targeted, but what are rest of the 40% doing? And how in the minds of advertisers are they being targeted? From my experience of surfing the net, when bombarded with pop ups begging you to click on the link, I am usually focussed more on getting rid of the intruding window without even realising what is being advertised. McStay argues that this distinction does not exist and that the so called “new media” is in fact a range of different media methods interacting with each other in different ways. Digital advertising “encompasses all of the media before it and stirs the pot to the boiling point with a large does of interactivity” (Sherman, 2008) claiming that types of media join on to each other to effectively target the consumer.

To conclude through the eyes of an advertiser, I state that digital communications has in fact successfully boomed, and established itself as a requirement for companies who want successful advertising and should be used alongside other advertising mediums. Due to social media devices such as web 2.0 advertisers can never get too comfortable and underestimate the mind of the consumer. Issues have been raised evaluating sustainability of the broadband infrastructure which can put digital communications in a negative light. Never forget that consumers have the most powerful adverting tool of them all… Word of mouth!

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!