It seems while marketing is moving towards engagement, a lot of politics is still mired in selling difference.
Today I passed by yet another rally here in Bangkok, the red shirts this time, holding up the image of their opponents and attacking the PM. Unelected though he is, it’s exhausting - on and on it goes - and it got me thinking about how digital marketing, mostly, has moved on from attack ads.
In Ad Age Digital the Obama campaign was cited as being the best campaign of the year. Multi-media, simple message, strong salesman, blah blah. What I think is more interesting is the way he pitched his ideas and involvement he got from people.
The new marketing way is driving, in many ways via the web, the idea that we can co-create what you want through listening to others. In this way you get ahead through the help of others, you can get what you want by seeking out those with similar interests and getting their opinions.
The old way is driven by the assumption that we are all really just in competition with each other, man vs man, us vs them, company vs company, me vs we.
It is very focused on us as individuals, companies (or nations) and on how we can get ahead of the rest, succeed and win. In this way your unique selling point is driven home and contrasted with the competition's weaknesses. You are better than the rest because of x. They are weaker because of y. It's predicated on a one-way communication model to sell yourself, as loudly and in as singular a way, as possible. The key is to look for difference, and exploit this for all its worth. The streets are full of it today and Thailand is not going anywhere as a result.
But what about embracing what’s good about yourself and your believers, and let that be your point of difference? Don't tell me your better or different, involve me what our common needs are and how they can be fulfilled. It is about collective hopes and dreams, but one that still feeds the needs of the individual.
That’s why Obama created a site for community content, tapped into people’s blogs for ideas, and people embraced the concept of diversity so much companies took up the challenge through its Pepsi optimism campaign, Refresh Everything. This approach can not only be seen politically in Obama, but more often in the user-centered campaigns of today that start from real people and their needs.
Many digital ideas – in Asia in particular – are based on collaborative filtering, crowd sourcing, co-creation. They are based on the fact that we can get what we want by looking at what other people of similar interests and needs want to. And listening to that.
Sounds idealistic but actually is very pragmatic. It is still based on the individual because a group of people with similar needs are always going to be able to help me get more of what I need that one company telling me – ‘this is what you need’.
It is based on the fact that I trust people more than I trust the company. In many ways it is anti-corporate, anarchic, yet liberating, and connecting. It is positive and engaging, not negative and attacking.
And the result? Look at the attack ads in this context – they look, well, sad and self-centered. Like the companies themselves - and very, very insecure. Then you look at the campaigns and products and messages that have been created with collaboration - and you think confidence, a sense of reality, a sense of freedom even.
They have unshackled themselves from the fear they are not good enough. And embraced the idea that, collectively, we are all good enough.
Today I passed by yet another rally here in Bangkok, the red shirts this time, holding up the image of their opponents and attacking the PM. Unelected though he is, it’s exhausting - on and on it goes - and it got me thinking about how digital marketing, mostly, has moved on from attack ads.
In Ad Age Digital the Obama campaign was cited as being the best campaign of the year. Multi-media, simple message, strong salesman, blah blah. What I think is more interesting is the way he pitched his ideas and involvement he got from people.
The new marketing way is driving, in many ways via the web, the idea that we can co-create what you want through listening to others. In this way you get ahead through the help of others, you can get what you want by seeking out those with similar interests and getting their opinions.
The old way is driven by the assumption that we are all really just in competition with each other, man vs man, us vs them, company vs company, me vs we.
It is very focused on us as individuals, companies (or nations) and on how we can get ahead of the rest, succeed and win. In this way your unique selling point is driven home and contrasted with the competition's weaknesses. You are better than the rest because of x. They are weaker because of y. It's predicated on a one-way communication model to sell yourself, as loudly and in as singular a way, as possible. The key is to look for difference, and exploit this for all its worth. The streets are full of it today and Thailand is not going anywhere as a result.
But what about embracing what’s good about yourself and your believers, and let that be your point of difference? Don't tell me your better or different, involve me what our common needs are and how they can be fulfilled. It is about collective hopes and dreams, but one that still feeds the needs of the individual.
That’s why Obama created a site for community content, tapped into people’s blogs for ideas, and people embraced the concept of diversity so much companies took up the challenge through its Pepsi optimism campaign, Refresh Everything. This approach can not only be seen politically in Obama, but more often in the user-centered campaigns of today that start from real people and their needs.
Many digital ideas – in Asia in particular – are based on collaborative filtering, crowd sourcing, co-creation. They are based on the fact that we can get what we want by looking at what other people of similar interests and needs want to. And listening to that.
Sounds idealistic but actually is very pragmatic. It is still based on the individual because a group of people with similar needs are always going to be able to help me get more of what I need that one company telling me – ‘this is what you need’.
It is based on the fact that I trust people more than I trust the company. In many ways it is anti-corporate, anarchic, yet liberating, and connecting. It is positive and engaging, not negative and attacking.
And the result? Look at the attack ads in this context – they look, well, sad and self-centered. Like the companies themselves - and very, very insecure. Then you look at the campaigns and products and messages that have been created with collaboration - and you think confidence, a sense of reality, a sense of freedom even.
They have unshackled themselves from the fear they are not good enough. And embraced the idea that, collectively, we are all good enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment