GUEST POST: Digital/Physical by Marek Wolski

This week I have a fantastic Guest Post by Marek Wolski.

Marek currently works as a Project Manager for experiential agency The Taboo Group in Melbourne.

He describes himself as very curious marketeer and has been digging around in the digital arena for a while now...

With a Commerce marketing degree under his belt and a Law degree hanging (incomplete) overhead, he has unleashed a passsion for problem solving and idea generation on all projects he can get his hands on.

He has recently started his blog aptly named 'The Forest Through The Trees' which you can find here: http://throughthetrees.tumblr.com/

His post talks us through the combination of digital with the physical/real world (aka experiential)...Take it away Marek:

Zoe kindly let me enter the fray of blogging with a post here.

As an amateur blogger (oxymoron perhaps?) I thought I should try to keep it short.

I want to share my thoughts on integrating experiential campaigns with seamless offline real world experiences and digital interactions, which enhance each other. I was inspired by some consumer psychology and Playground (a recent Swedish campaign).

Working at an experiential agency and writing on a digital blog may seem counter intuitive. Therein lies a problem. Experiential campaigns like all others need to integrate digital elements, as digital needs to integrate offline take-away components.

“Integration – wow, what a innovative concept you speak of”. Yes I know, I learnt about it once at uni. Today, integration seems to be about creating consequential campaigns. Go to the launch party, see the TVC, get the sample at the train station, go home and online, see the banner, remember all that other stuff, click the website and voila, you’ve arrived….What? Did you miss a step? Do you suddenly not understand the online interaction because you skipped the launch experience to go to the pub to watch Le Tour?

As someone in our office says daily (which is way too often) “marketing fail”.

Consumer psychology and behaviour show how simultaneous messages reinforce learning. Experiential learning theory has 4 states, which, when translated into basic language boil down to: feeling, watching, thinking, doing. These can happen simultaneously in an instant or consequentially (usually but not always in the above order).

The problem with many current campaigns is that they cannot teach the consumer about the brand if, as in the above example, they miss a step in the learning process. They will have missed a critical piece of information diluting the information into meaninglessness. Campaigns that are able to address all four states simultaneously with offline/online experiences enhance the message cognition and thus the brand preference.

Technology is a factor in creating deliverable solutions to clients. Today we have mobile, AR, social media etc to help deliver simultaneous digital real world experience. The caveat to all this was explained by Wunderman’s (@wunderman) tweet last week “Misconception: That the fundamentals are no longer required because everything is digital. So wrong”. The way in which the interaction flows between off- and online needs to be a focus on the consumer psychology rather than the technology. A consumer behaviour orientation (rather than technology orientation) means each medium can reach the full potential of itself and of the partnership with the other.

An additional challenge is enticing people from the online back to the real world, which would neatly tie-off the learning process (if it started offline). This is not just the case in experiential but in many direct-response digital campaigns.

An example of how to do all this comes from Sweden. The home of conceptual learning and experiential marketing – just think of Ikea or H&M. Agency Åkestam Holst in Stockholm created an experiential campaign which ran live for 3 days and included simultaneous offline/online experiences and participation and despite its heavy use of technology, created an effective sales driver and rather simple (from a consumer perspective) experience.

The campaign’s results include lasting positive brand preference, new customer acquisition and sales…

Hmm. It seems this post has turned into a rehashed version of digital shops’ mantra: digital is not an add-on. But nothing should be an add-on, it should all happen and work simultaneously.

Video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AjGpMwc1YQ

Agency Website: (some English bits)

http://fabriken.akestamholst.se/

Defining Influence

Recently i've been trying to get my head around 'influence', what it means, how it works, how to identify it and how to harness it.


Influence is defined as the power to affect, control or manipulate something or someone; the ability to change things such as conduct, thoughts or decisions; An action exerted by a person or thing with such power on another to cause change.

To have influence or to be influential is envied by many and possessed by few.

To harness influence and to utilise it for the benefit of marketing and selling brands is the latest craze within the advertising world. Promises of brand advocates, highly connected networks of people, viral effects and 'sell to a few to reach a mass' are being bounced around meeting rooms and agency offices worldwide.

It's a great concept. A fantastic new, exciting approach and, if done correctly, it's an even better achievement.

It's something that i desperately want to understand more about so that i too can utilise is for my clients.

So i've been doing some research and have uncovered a confusing disconnect between agencies, clients, softwares and systems as to what they understand influence to be.

There are several schools of thought all of which are wildly different.

Definition 1: Influence can be identified via the volume and credibility of links. Endorsers: Google, VML SEER

This approach is most famously used by Google. Their spider technology uses links to help them ascertain the order of their search results in response to a query. The top results are usually determined using a mixture of content (keywords, meta tags etc) and the number of 'credible' websites that link to that content.

For social media monitoring tool, VML SEER, they define an influential piece of content, blogpost or comment based on how many websites (credible or not) link to that content.

From my perspective this is a very limited approach.
Links don't equal readers, links don't equal credibility and links don't equal consequence.

Definition 2: Influence can be identified via the volume and velocity of content

Endorsers: Nielsen Buzzmetrics

Buzzmetrics is one in particular that i found difficult to get my head around.

They measure influence based on the volume and velocity of content.

Therefore if a blogger writes a new post everyday they would judge them as being more influential than a blogger who writes once a week.

This method doesn't take into account whether or not there is actually anyone reading the blogposts, how much traffic, site dwell time etc.

You could have a blogger (lets call him Ted) who writes a new post every half hour. He's been blogging for 2 years but as yet, no one has visited his blog or read his content, poor Ted. But does that really make Ted influential? I think not.

Of course Nielsen do offer a site measurement service so you can cross reference traffick, dwell time and links with volume and velocity of content - the only problem is that it's not part of the buzzmetrics package and you'll be paying a hefty retainer on top to get access to it!

Definition 3: Influence can be identified via number of friends or followers

Endorsers: Most Agencies i know of....

Influence, in many cases, is mistaken for quantity rather than quality.

An influential person may be incorrectly defined by the number of followers they have on Twitter or the number of friends they have on Facebook.

But to sense-check this let's get realistic.

I am following circa 400-500 people on Twitter. I don't read every single tweet. In fact, i have a group set up on Tweetdeck called 'favourites', in this group i have placed the people whom i am most interested in and whose tweets, links and questions i will check out or respond to.

Not everyone has a specific group set up but they do have those who they are following for the sake of following and those who they actually pay attention to.

You will most likely respond to or read the tweets of a core group of people. Therefore this de-bunks the quantity versus quality myth.

Now for Facebook, we've all got friends who we keep in touch with on a regular basis and those who we last saw at nursery school when we were 3 and they were busy blowing milk out of their noses. Again quantity doesn't equal quality of relationships which impacts the attention people pay to us and the attention we give to others.

Definition 4: Influence can be identified via a mixture of links, volume & quantity

Endorsers: Radian 6, Systems plus human analysis

Some switched on clever people have woken up to the fact that systems and automated processes don't work quite as well as human intervention They define influence based on a number of different elements such as links, readership, page traffick, followers, friends, blog comments, re-tweets etc combined with human analysis.

This system is not 100% automated but it does utilise tools to get the base data which is then evaluated by a real person who uses a bit of common sense to translate the information into something slightly more intelligent and useful.

Again it's not perfect because it's subject to individual perception and what they see as being influential which could be different from one agency to another...

Definition 5: Influence can be identified via self classification

Endorsers: Contagious Communications

This bizarre methodology relies on influencers to identify themselves!

Essentially Contagious ask participants to identify themselves as 'influential' in the online world and then offers them incentives such as points, coupons or mini-prizes to take part in a campaign to promote one brand or another to their online friends (think Pure Profile but for the social media landscape).

There are so many things wrong with this approach i don't know where to start..

I actually signed up and identified myself as influential and gave them my age, interests and location..

Now i get a few emails a week asking me if i'd like to help promote this product or film which are completely outside of my areas of interest and just annoying.

Plus i don't see how the same person can be influential in so many different areas such as film, FMCG, service sector....it's just odd.

If you don't believe me check it out here: http://www.contagiousnetwork.com.au/

So that concludes my research for now and i'm still no clearer as to what the best course of action is.

My next project is going to be uncovering the possibility and take-up of psychometric testing online to identify influencers. After all, what makes you influential in the real world makes you influential in the virtual world no?

Diary of a transition: New Beginnings

Today is my last day at Mediacom.

It's my last day of running an account team, my last day media planning & buying and my last day within a big organisation.

Today is also new beginning.

As of Monday 29th June i will be joining the team over at The Population for what promises to be a bit of a radical change!

I started working in digital media in early 2003 when i joined a small start up search marketing agency based in a shoebox office situated above a carpark entrance, opposite a busy railway station in Surrey (UK).

Each time the carpark lever was raised to admit or discharge a car the loud, creaking, crashing noise would bring the office to a halt.

All conversations, both face to face and phone, were forcibly overpowered by the painfully slow rise and fall of the mechanical monster that ruled our working days....

Then there were the 'fast trains' which would come powering through the station at supersonic speeds shaking our desks and collapsing our flimsy filing systems within seconds, not to mention the foghorns that were sounded to announce their arrival (as if the minature earthquakes were not enough).

But apart from the noise, i do have fond memories of the shoebox.

Such as the hilarity that would ensue should someone want a toilet break (think Tetris but with human bodies and swivel chairs) and the team effort put into redecorating our 'environment' with a group shopping trip to Ikea to pick out a painting for our one bare wall.

After 6 months of success we upgraded from shoebox to stable-sized offices where we expanded from a team of 4 to 7. Now everyone had sufficient elbow room and we could go to the toilet without the need for others to abandon their tasks to aid us in our need for a synchronised exit (although anyone eating curry during the weekdays was not easily forgiven for it...)

For 2.5 years i watched the company grow from strength to strength and felt i had played a significant part in the achievements and advances we had made.

But alas, it was inevitable....London was calling.

So, with a feeling akin to chopping off a limb, i left for the bright lights of the City and i never looked back.

I joined a big full service agency within the digital department and called Carnaby Street my place of work and play.

I moved to Sydney late 2007 and continued working within a big media agency (Mediacom) as an account director across key finance and automotive clients. I worked with a wonderful team and learned a huge amount in a short space of time. I was also bitten by the social web bug and started to become interested in new communications strategies above and beyond what has always been done. Mediacom fully supported me in all avenues of interest and i was able to spearhead the social web movement internally with great success. My new interest drove me into research and i became a voracious reader of all new-media blogs, news and innovations. These new blogs led me to The Population and the rest, as they say, is history.

So now i'm back to a start-up agency from whence i came which is both comfortingly familiar and bizarrely nerve racking at the same time.

The Population, in my view, are at the leading edge of the digital space and openly embrace new solutions to traditional problems and non-linear thinking. To top it off they've got a great team of super-intelligent people.

So i'm switching from a big organisation in a high-rise in North Sydney to a team of 7 in a studio in Surry Hills.

I'm also leaving behind the comfort and process of a big company and downsizing to a non-heirarchal structure in a non-siloed environment.

It should prove to be a BIG change for me.
I'll miss Mediacom but the excitement of a new challenge is spurring me on....

So, naturally, i'm going to document it.
I am going to write a bit of an on-going journal about the differences between a big media agency and a small start-up strategy agency.

It will cover my personal experiences learning new approaches, being with a new team and it will hopefully de-bunk some of the smoke and mirrors which many people assume is part of a strategy agencies repetoire...(contrary to popular belief they don't all run on bravado...)

So Monday is my first day and i'll let you know how i get on!

Over and out.

I love this.

HSBC need to concentrate on customer segmentation....

This morning whilst checking my Gmail i came across a 'personalised' email from HSBC asking me to upload my photo for the chance to win the ultimate Hawks-related prize.

WOW - thanks HSBC, i just have a one question...

Who or what are the Hawks and how or why should they be relevant to me?

On further investigation i have discovered that they are some sort of sports team (football, rugby?...i don't care).

This cements the fact that this is not relevant to me, in fact it's utterly irrelevant....I am not a sports fan whatsoever.

I would suggest that they start to do some customer segmentation to ensure that they hit an audience who actually gives a shit about the Hawks and start to become slightly more efficient with their EDM (and DM for that matter).

The sheer fact that they have mentioned my name in the email doesn't make it personalised or customised to me, in fact i would call it spam.

Just a thought.

Advertising doesn't create advocates

Buzzword #17,327: 'Advocacy'



Everybody talks about it, every brand wants it and every marketer claims to be able to deliver it.

But what is advocacy?


There thousands of differing definitions but specific to brands and consumers we can describe an advocate as:

A customer who has favourable perceptions of a brand who will talk favourably about a brand to their acquaintances to help generate awareness of the brand or influence purchase intent.

Sounds good right? What brand wouldn't want that?! Having a brand advocate is invaluable. Someone who will promote your products, personally recommend them to friends and colleaugues and who, in all likelihood, will be a repeat purchaser...

Therefore creating advocacy within your customer base is nirvana for all brands, and the best part is that nirvana is achievable, just not via one avenue.

Ad agencies, media agencies, social media consultants, PR executives and mediaowners are all spouting 'miracle grow' strategies for creating advocates for their respective clients.

To be honest, a few months back, i was spouting the same rubbish which went something like this: "social web", "jump in", "dialogue", "be part of the conversation", "creates advocacy" blah blah blah.....

Having actually stopped talking and started listening, learning and understanding i've realised that there is no 'miracle-grow' strategy for advocacy.

Advocates must be earned, and cannot be bought via advertising or by one or two online conversations on Twitter.

If we go back to the definition of advocacy we can break it down into what it truly means to be an advocate.

There are 3 key defined areas which are outlined below:

1). A customer who has favourable perceptions of a brand
2). who will talk favourably about a brand to their acquaintances to help generate awareness of the brand
3). or influence purchase intent.

Translated, the above points mean:

1). I like what the brand stands for, i understand their positioning and messaging and it is relevant to me and resonates with me
2). I like their products and the experiences i have had with the brand, so much so, that i am comfortable recommending them to friends
3). I would buy from them again as they are reliable and deliver on the brand promise they defined in point 1

So where does advertising fit in?
In my view, only really point 1.

We have the ability to convey what the brand/product is, what it stands for, what message we want to get across and where people see the brand and how often...
We do this via creative messaging, media placement, social web interactions and PR....

But to be clear here, we are not creating advocates, we are merely facilitating an initial connection, a lead or a sale.

We're only one third of the advocacy journey (i.e. we can't take them the whole way).

Points 2 and 3 are outside of the control and influence of advertising and/or marketing.
They are about the product or service itself.

Advocacy is built on the basis of a good experience and an experience can be had with multiple touchpoints, all of which can have a bearing on brand favourability.

Some examples are below:

Touchpoint 1: The website - is it easy to navigate and clutter-free with short forms and little demand for personal details?

Touchpoint 2: The shopfront - is it easily accessible with friendly staff, clear pricing and a simple purchase process?

Touchpoint 3: The call centre - are there short waiting times, easily navigated choices and helpful people to speak to?

Touchpoint 4: The product - does it meet expectations, is it good value for money and does it deliver on the original promise made by the advertising?

To create advocates, brands must deliver a good experience (preferably a GREAT experience) in all of the above areas plus advertising and marketing messages.

So who does this well?

Brands deliver on the above promises in varying degrees of success but perhaps one of the most accomplished in this area is Apple.
Apple deliver on all of the above at either a good or great level.

* They create innovative and exciting advertising and messaging which resonates with their core audience
* They have shopfronts which are seductive with big white spaces, funky music, fancy gadgets and super-helpful staff
* They have an easily navigated website which remembers you and your preferences adding a personalised, customised edge to your experience
* Their version of customer service is cheery, fast and individual
* Their products are leading edge, aesthetically pleasing and dependable

So they have brand advocates and a gold star from me.
Apple have achieved nirvana....but not via advertising and marketing alone.
They delivered a 360 degree brand experience.

Now lets take a look at CBA (Commonwealth Bank Australia)....

In early 2008 they released a daring new ad campaign, something which had never before been attempted by a bank in Australia. It recieved mixed reviews, but the point of the advertising was to push their new tagline: 'Determined to be different'

So the advertising said one thing but what about the other touchpoints?

Now CBA didn't go out will the sole purpose of selling more products (at least not overtly), they went out with a brand message which was to dictate who they were and what they stood for.
They didn't have a great track record when it came to customer service but then not many banks do....
With the new 'determined to be different' tagline there was a pressure to deliver on the new brand promise across all areas, otherwise the threat of empty words could result in more harm than good for CBA.

They didn't turn around their customer service overnight but they looked to 'determined to be different' as an aspiration which became an internal mantra for staff and, bit by bit, CBA delivered.
They altered their customer service, they changed perception and they achieved their goal of slowly creating advocates (or as many happy customers as they could considering they're a bank).

Once again, they didn't create these advocates solely through advertising.
They used advertising to position themselves but then carried through on the promise across multiple customer interfacing touchpoints.

Ultimately our job is as the initiator of interactions, we can also have a role in CRM but mostly we create and place messaging, however, the age old saying that "we can lead a horse to water but we cannot make it drink" is especially relevant here.

We can lead a potential customer to a brand but we can't force them to like the product, or buy it. We can't ask them to turn a blind eye to crappy customer service or to recommend a shitty, unreliable product to their friends.

I think we should reframe our promises of advocacy creation to our clients and start to put some of the responsibility back onto them.


We're marketers, not miracle makers.

Do you wanna be in my gang?

Today, a colleague of mine asked me for a recommendation on which blogs she should be reading to learn about social media and the social web.

As she's just getting into this space i wanted to make sure that i'm giving her good suggestions with easily digestable content which helps her to understand the space and the latest innovations as well as help answer any questions she may have.

So, i started looking through my blog roll to see what i could find....

......and i made a quite shocking realisation...

...the majority of blogs i read on a daily basis will be completely pointless and utterly baffling to my colleague.

Why is this? For the simple reason that the blogs, the content and the authors are really quite cliquey in many cases.

The same kind of people (me included) read the same blogs, we comment on the same blogs and we write about the same content, but recently i've noticed that the content is becoming more and more niche and the circles tighter and tighter.

We've been preaching about the decline of critical mass and the rise of niche, in-depth relationships between brands and consumers but i fear this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Many of us now move in small 'social media' circles, spouting the same 'social media' arguments and lingo and we're losing touch with the outside world and what it means to be a strategist or a planner or a marketeer.

It's taken me trying to recommend local blogs to a colleague which has woken me up to this and i'm very bothered by it

I, for one, am going to try and broaden out my content and make it more reader-friendly...
I may fail miserably but it matters to me that i keep an open mind and don't fall into the social web trap of running around in opinionated, ego-driven circles....