Well, it's been two months and its time for an update on an issue I've been following all along. It turns out that I was half-wrong about Google. Or half-right depending on how you look at it. It seems that Google will shut down its China-based site, yet will retain the rest of its operations in the area. The New York Times reports on it pretty thoroughly.
Long story short, Google must have decided that the cost of government censorship far outweighed the benefits of providing services to the Chinese market. My guess is that another reason why Google isn't outright pulling out is that it is hoping to wait it out until existing policies on censorship change. Another good reason is that by retaining operations in China they can tap into the local market as a long term source of brain power. Like I mentioned in a much earlier post, they can retain a toe in the market. Retaining their Chinese-based operations will keep them current with on-going trends in the Chinese market, helping them to spot a future opportunity to reenter the market.
For Baidu? To the victor goes the spoils. With dominance over the Chinese market, I wonder if over time they will grow to the point where they begin challenging Google internationally.
No, I'm not here to bash Prime Minister Harper or Toyota by associating them. We can save those debates for another day. What I'm really here to do is highlight an growing trend in PR and that is use of social media and video streaming to conduct interviews online. In both cases, these interviews followed critical events; a YouTube interview was given following the PM's throne speech and a Digg interview was given following the announcement of the Toyota recall. This multi-use of different tools is a mash-up of sorts--something I've talked about in the previous post).
In both interviews, the questions are not generated by the interviewer but by viewers. For the YouTube interview with the Prime Minister a Google page was opened before the opening of the interview to allow for users to submit questions of which the most popular ones are posed by the interviewer. Likewise, in the Digg interview the questions with the most diggs were used. In both cases, crowdsourcing was used to generate questions-crowdsourcing being the outsourcing of ideas or work to a community. An novel approach, it has strong appeal in allowing the public to ask the questions they most want answered. On the downside, some of the more critical, insightful questions from experienced interviewers are not asked and the some of the crowdsources questions can be downright banal. For example, the first question posed to Jim Lentz of Toyota was "What do you drive?" Honestly, that's the question everyone wants to hear yet reveals absolutely nothing about the current and future situation with Toyota massive recalls. This possibly highlights a potential weakness of crowdsourcing; sometimes people don't know what questions to ask or what suggestions to give because the majority aren't experts in the industry.
Overall, as a PR tactic tapping into both social media and live video feeds are a potent tool to use in addressing the issues your audiences find relevant. I don't think we'll be seeing Tiger Woods giving any YouTube interviews anytime soon, but for other public figures like President Obama they could find these tools useful for addressing the public's concerns.
In recent news, Vincent Cheung, a PhD student/entrepreneur has received some attention on the Globe and Mail. Why, you ask? Well for producing and selling a nifty program called Shape Collage that can arrange photos into any shape of your choosing. What I find interesting about this article is how Vincent has tapped into the concept of mashups as a way of creating new value out of old ideas. By mashups I mean the combination of two or more existing products or concepts into something new. He's taken the old school idea of creating collages out of photographs and digitized it to work with pictures on your computer. Sometimes innovation doesn't just come from finding new ways to do things, but from finding the synergies between two existing ideas. The value of Vincent's new program lies in the fact that over time consumer behavior has shifted from old film fed cameras to all digital cameras. The result of this are massive photo albums onto a person's computer waiting for a creative way to be presented.
Continuing on the theme of mashups, another nifty product is SMARTPics. It takes the old concept of a photobooth and gives it a new spin. Added on to the photo taking feature is the ability to automatically upload the photo on to social networks like Facebook and Twitter. The value? It's making consumer's lives easier, skipping the step between the consumer manually uploading these files. I can see potential for this technology being extended to camera format. Already this type technology is taking hold with name companies. I have a Kodak camera that allows you to upload videos taken to YouTube. What could these types of mashups mean in the long run? It could mean that more and more people will be able to stay connected to social networks without need to sit in front of a computer.
Here's a little personal experience I've had on the receiving side of a cross online-offline promotion. When I completed an online registration for the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test) several months ago, I was asked my ethnicity and among several options I consented to being sent recruitment information from any law school registered with LSAC (Law School Admission Council). One thing that stood out was a tiny little box that asking for consent to disclose my ethnicity to these schools. Now I am of Asian descent and I was curious to see what would happen, so I clicked it. The thought briefly passed through my mind, wondering if it would result in racial discrimination. Several months passed by and I'd totally forgotten about it, but lo and behold a little card came in the mail as shown on the right.
I only scanned the front side of it, but it is a recruitment postcard from Cooley Law School. Support of student diversity is the obvious positioning they are taking in this instance. From a glance I see Spanish, French, and Korean words in the background in addition to the professional looking Asian male in the foreground. The background of the card is a solid red, a lucky color with deep cultural implications for the Chinese (I can't really speak for the other Asian countries).
So what is it that Cooley and LSAC have done here? They have in effect partnered up, helping each other with a targeted approach to marketing law schools to prospective students. On top of that, they have integrated both online and offline promotions to do this. LSAC through its registration process has in essence developed databases of information on prospective law students, the kind of information law schools would dearly love to get their hands on. Keep in mind these postcards would only be sent to students who consented to being sent recruitment information. In addition, this particular postcard directs you to the Cooley website, so the offline advertisement loops back to the online campaign. But now I understand why they asked for my ethnicity, they wanted to send me a targeted ad that would most appeal to my demographic. Personalized offerings can go a long way in attracting and retaining a potential customer. Now I'm curious to find out how many variations they have of these postcards.
So what does this example highlight? I think it really homes in on the fact that there still is a place for offline advertising in conjunction with online advertising, but you need to personalize your communications no matter the medium to get through to consumers. In fact, even as marketing budgets slowly migrate online, I think we will still be receiving flyers years from now. With all the emails we receive now, a handwritten letter seems like quite a novelty. If you have a special occasion coming up, try writing that special person a letter. I bet they'll find it a refreshing change from all those e-cards.
But regarding Cooley, will I apply there? I didn't even know of them before, but they're in my consideration set now.
In more recent news, Greenpeace released a rather controversial video on YouTube attacking Nestlé. It involved KitKat bars and an orangutan finger. Messy stuff. YouTube eventually pulled the video in response to Nestlé's complaints. However, this attempt at damage control had a rather adverse reaction. Banning the video served to only result in the users posting of more copies onto YouTube.
Managing the digital presence of a brand online is a tricky prospect. In this case, Nestlé is forced to deal with what I'll refer to as negative evangelists--people who dislike your brand so much that they actively try to damage its reputation. In this instance, getting Greenpeace's video banned was a knee-jerk response and to a portion of the online audience it revealed that Nestlé did have something it wanted to hide. For Greenpeace, they got more publicity out of getting their video taken down, mission accomplished.
How does a company deal with a situation like this? They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. I think in this instance it's important that Nestlé remember they need to maintain a sense of accountability and transparency with their online audience, and they broke both those rules when they got the video banned.
Given the gruesome PETA-like content of the video, Nestlé would have been well justified directly responding to the attack. Don't ban the technology, use it for damage control. If Nestlé had kept a clear head, they could have posted their own video response to the ad acknowledging some of their shortcomings but reframing Nestlé as taking an overexaggerated stance on the issue. Nestlé could then show audiences what is being done to preserve the forest habitats and redirect them to the relevant page or microsite with further details on conservation efforts. Doing this would have helped them to establish accountability and transparency with viewers. Greenpeace might response in turn with further attacks on Nestlé, in turn Nestlé could defend itself and fire back some criticisms of it's own.
What would be the result? It would turn into a online conversation showing people that Nestlé is engaged with its consumers and that it's not just some faceless corporate giant. Companies can't stand around with their head in the sand blocking things out. It's Web 2.0, it's all about engagement.
Carrying your brand message through several different media is a valuable way of reinforcing the effectiveness of your communications, not to mention ensuring that you hit all your target consumers. The Old Spice commercial I discussed in my last post ran during the Superbowl and on TV. As part of the generation that tend to be more hooked onto the internet I know I would have missed out on the Old Spice ads if they stuck to television only. As someone who would be swayed more by advertising on the internet, I thought it would be useful to give a brief evaluation of the Old Spice website.
Context: The layout is clean and fresh like a hot shower and navigation is simple and intuitive like a bar of soap. A simple benchmark of any website, they pass this test handily. Content: Well, when I first saw the site Isaiah (now relegated to the right-hand panel) and his deep voice were the first thing to greet a visitor, but now the visitor is greeted by the closeup of an armpit. Funky. Otherwise, it is fairly rich in content with some of their humorous videos, photos, and ring tones and an otherwise hardy, manly theme in going in the background. Community and Communication: On its own page their blog Man Thoughts posts mostly on sports related items. C'mon Old Spice, there are many other manly things than sports that you can talk about. Conversations in this area run pretty light and there are not really any tools for Old Spice fans to talk to each other. Commerce: This is where the money is at--selling product. Ironically, the site seems more supportive of selling Old Spice swag rather than its flagship products. Directing potential buyers to their online retail partners doesn't strike me as fully leveraging their already existing online store. Connections: The only linkage here that are not sales related is to the NASCAR site. I feel a missed opportunity here. I wasn't expecting links to GQ, but I was expecting the site to be more connected to the rest of the online world. Effective websites shouldn't operate in a vaccum. Customization: This is a one-size-fits-all type of site. Not much personalization to speak of here.
Overall impression: The brand has style, but it needs to work on its substance.
Final score: Three and a half sailboats out of seven.
Look at this ad, back to me, now back to this blog. This is one of a series of the more recent Old Spice advertisements that have been airing since February that have been receiving a lot of attention recently--over 5.3 million views on YouTube alone.
Old Spice has been working hard on rebranding itself with the new message of "Smell like a man, man". Targeting a young adult to middle age demographic, they have taken an appealing but mature approach to marketing their product. When your product is named Old Spice, it's difficult to position your product in a way that doesn't seem...well...grandfatherly to your target audiences. If your product position is not appealing enough, throwing star power into the advertising is not a solution to the problem. Some past lukewarm attempts have used stars such as Neil Patrick Harris or Bruce Campbell. For both ads the problem was that the key benefit claim was a weak one. With Harris' ad spot the proposition it boiled down to a purely rational benefit and with Bruce...I didn't get it nor did I want to get it--the key benefit, I mean. But manliness...that is something every man wants. Except the men who want to be women, but they're not the target demographic and I digress. Manliness is a ageless benefit. Even your grandfather or great-grandfather was manly. They were sailors, coal miners, or farmers; they had to walk 20 miles to school through chest high mounds of snow. Uphill going both ways. With 50lbs of books. Take note of the fact that the advertisement addresses both men and women; buyer behavior shows that in households women tend to be major purchasers of bath and grooming products.
Why else did they take this new approach to marketing Old Spice? Well let's do a quick analysis of the product. Old Spice sells "deodorant, antiperspirant, and other man fresheners". It's a low involvement product--meaning that there isn't much of a cost in trying it out. And it is transformational--meaning that the motivation for using is it positively ended; you use it to make yourself feel good. Their line of products are the kind that are used and bought on a routine basis. As humans, especially males, are creatures of habit, it lends to the fact that purchasers of this product are brand loyals (they always buy it) or routinized favorable brand switchers (they almost always buy it). The key benefit of a manly scent in the ad works to inducing social approval. In addition, the benefit is uniquely positioned, Old Spice is manly while a competitor like Axe is...hormonal and pheromonal (lust and attraction). Lastly, the ad is engaging, the presenter is charismatic and he somehow goes from the shower to a boat to a horse. The ad is a smiling over-the-top parody of all the stereotypical settings for a men's care product commercial.
Just for fun, here is a link to the interview explaining how the ad with Isaiah Mustafa (the new icon of the...er...new Old Spice campaign) was filmed in just one continuous shot.
Apple's iPod Touch and iPhone have been hugely successful, however their original product the iPod has been dropping in sales. As discussed in the article by the Globe and Mail, Apple can be seen as intentionally cannibalizing iPod sales by focusing on promotions of the iTouch and iPhone over that of the original iPod, so that customers will buy the newer, more expensive, and higher margin products over the cheaper, lower margins ones. Intuitively to me, it would seem like the older models of iPods would generate higher margins due to more developed economies of scale while the newer models would be the opposite. However, when you consider product lifecycles then intuition can be wrong. If you look at the market for mp3 players these days, the number of competing brands is endless. When the iPod was first introduced it was a novel product and could command high prices. Now that that the market has matured over the past ten years, the price of iPods has dropped due to the high volume of competing products in the market.
By introducing new innovations through the various iterations of the iPod over the years, Apple have effectively been stretching out the life cycle curve by keeping the iPods in the growth and maturity phases. For a market this tech-reliant, the decline of sales is a quick inevitability. The original iPod has become the vanilla flavor of the mp3 player market and consumers want to try new things. So you can see Apple's promotional strategy as cannibalizing the original iPod's sales, but I see them as making good use of product life cycles. By regularly releasing new products, they always have a new product that is growing in sales to make up for old ones that are in decline. So the original iPod isn't being cannibalized, because it was already slowly starting to sink.
It was reported back in December that McDonald's had reached a deal with AT&T to provide free wireless, and now it has finally come to pass. What does this mean for consumers? A new reason to drop by McDonald's on a regular basis. Having free WiFi could make for an important point of differentiation from other restaurants. With a consumer base that is becoming more and more "plugged in" to the internet knowing that you can go to McD's for a reliable hotspot could mean the difference between going to McD's or that other restaurant down the block. This move into WiFi puts McDonald's into closer competition with a different type of establishment, coffee shops.
You can see that McDonald's has made moves to develop themselves in that area with the introduction of McCafes in past years. Having marketed heavily to meal-time customers in the past, they have shifted tactics to focus on casual coffee drinkers. The introduction of WiFi is one more step in repositioning McDonald's away from their original image of a fatty hamburger chain.
In recent news, Gmail will be making HTTPS the default option when sending out emails. HTTPS is essentially a type of encrypted connection that allows you to safely send out information or data without being hijacked. If you've done your banking online you have in all probability done so over a encrypted connection to the banking website. When dealing with sensitive information encrypted connections are pretty much the norm these days.
Making the push to HTTPS as a default highlights how online companies have to constantly address the security of their clients. If people can't trust a business to keep their information secure or private they will find one who they can trust. It can be a strong point of differentiation to be able to keep your clients information secure, something banks invest heavily on with regards to their online banking sites. Is this a change in Gmail one that you will really notice? Not really, but maybe we are taking our online security for granted.
China is already fairly infamous for their attempts to control the flow of information online and keeping a Big Brotherly eye on people's actions online. In recent news, Google and China have been butting heads over Google's censorship of searches for China's and recent hacking attempts on the emails of dissidents. Google has ultimately threatened to pull out of China. There is of course more to the story than we're being told, but this strikes me as a very odd move on Google's part.
There are a total of approximately 300 million internet users in China, pretty much equal to the population of the US. In China, the biggest search engine is Baidu with control of roughly 60% of internet searches and Google with around 30%. I'm just giving a rough estimate because even on the Financial Post these estimates vary (1). You have a multi-billion dollar company like Google in a market that is very difficult to enter and has extremely high future growth and you think they really intend to pull out of the market? Strategically it does not sound like Google is making a very credible threat. By standing against China, Google is positioning themselves as a politically charged entity when they should be remaining a neutral party. A search engine that caters to everyone should have no biases.
Jan 18th Update: It's been four days and it seems Google is still censoring search terms for the Chinese side of the internet. Will they follow through and exit the Chinese market? We will keep on watching for further developments.
Jan 20th Update: China has struck back at Google, accusing them of being a mouthpiece for the US. I wonder if the Google usage rates in China have been shifting for the past few days in favor of Baidu and other search engines. Google repositioned themselves on a political level and as a result have alienated a highly politically sensitive segment of their users.
I thought it would be good to point out some worthy causes that have recently seen very large spikes in donations thanks to social media campaigns.
Before the end of 2009, Drew Carey pledged $1 million dollars to LIVESTRONG in return for 1 million follows on Twitter. In essence, we have a celebrity offering to give money in support of charity and all people have to do is add their name to the list. People love to associate themselves with good causes and giving them an appealing reason to recruit new followers has resulted in explosive word of mouth advertising for this campaign.
Another fund raising initiative that has gone viral is Red Cross's push for donations in order to provide aid for the survivors of the devastating. Within 24 hours, they have raised $1 million dollars in support of Haitian survivors. All people have to do is text to pledge their $10 donation and the money is charged to their cellphone bill. The key thing to note is Red Cross has made it extremely easy for people to donate. Texting to donate is extremely quick with no need to phone in or mail anything. Bypassing the barriers that delay or hinder people from taking the step from deciding to donate to the act of donating is extremely important.
These fund raising campaigns have been amazing for generating attention, but I wonder how they will fare in the long run? I hope they are not a novelty that will wear off over time.
