When companies say that they are scared to get involved in social media because they don’t want to lose control of their brand what’s the most common response that we usually end up hearing? “You’ve never had control of your brand.” That statement is for lack of a better word bullshit. If companies never had control of their brands than someone better tell all the schmucks in the marketing and branding world that they should find a new job because clearly brand managers and marketers are useless. Of course companies have control of their brands!
Twenty years ago before the internet was around business still carried on. Instead of consumers talking about brands online, they did so in person; does that mean that companies never had control of their brands because consumers were talking about them? No. The difference with the internet and social media is that we can actually participate in and listen to these conversations, but we don’t have to. Social media doesn’t make sense for every single brand in the world and not every single brand in the world needs to feel obligated to use it. The same goes with Enterprise 2.0, Social CRM, and anything else.
By telling companies that they are not in control of their brands we’re just putting them in a state of panic and as Esteban Kolsky responded to me on twitter:
“Panic never led to solutions, only bigger crisis — brands are not lost to customers”
Let’s stop making brands look like lost puppies who just need to find their way home. These brands have some of the smartest and most creative people working for them and the last thing we need to be telling them is that they have no control. Social media is not a way for companies to regain control of their brands but a way to help make that control more efficient and effective. Social media can help show companies just how much control they DO have over their brands by confirming the work they do with what people say about the brand. Are we going to tell a company like Apple that they have no control over their brand? They would laugh you out of the room. When Apple designs their products they always make them with the hip/cool factor in mind and guess what? That’s exactly how consumers think of Apple. When Virgin America launched they designed their entire airline with the same basic premise in mind, they want to be the hip and cool airline, and they are. Both Apple and Virgin America have control over their brands.
The point of all of this? Just to make one simple point. Companies have control over their brands!
I just commented on Melissa Galt's Blog (NO, I dont work for her either:) http://melissagalt.com/social-media-policies-kn…
My comment ~
I wonder if you follow NORDSTROM ~ one of my favorite brands and my design partner has been shopping there since the mid 80's and that's 25 years of brand loyalty! Nordstrom is using SM to do everything right ~ IMHO ~
Our local Bellevue Washington store has it's own Doug McCoy who tweets as @NordstromBVUE No I dont work for them 🙂 I just find their SM evolution interesting to watch as part of my personal SM research. A great example of what you are talking about.
CASUDI
While I agree that companies have control over their brands, it is in their best interest to pay close attention (which SM encourages and enhances) to what consumers think their brand is. Apple and Virgin have done a great job of tuning in and delivering what their client's want. Many others have not paid close attention and there is a split in what they think their brand is and what their consumers say it is. I think that may be what the conversation is, but again, only my opinion!
Hi Jacob – I take the point that all too often we hear quotes from the cluetrain manifesto or Groundswell about how brands aren't in control and the power is with the customer etc. I think the truth falls somewhere in between. If brands are proactive enough to listen and engage with their customers and then echo their needs and wants into product development and customer service, then yeah, they are in control and long may that continue.
The flip side is some brands don't do that. They try to tell the customers what their brand is about when their product or service is saying the opposite. In those cases, they will find they lose control of their brand pretty quickly.
Nice post!
Agree with edh, it is somewhere in between. There are many examples of where brands have lost it so companies do need to be aware of what the latest technology is capable of and how they need to adapt to groundswell reactions – which usually only happen where someone has cocked up big time. So service and product levels need to be maintained otherwise people are in a much better position to trash your brand if you don't get it right. As my parents would say, it's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
I have to disagree. There is a big difference between control and management. Whilst many companies manage their brand really intelligently and have the perception and reputation that they want, they are not in total control.
No company controls every engagement that is made between customer and employee. No company controls everything that is said about them, whether broadcasted, printed or spoken online. No company controls every single experience a customer has with their product or service. All of these things can be managed to ensure expectations are met and exceeded, but they can not be totally controlled.
The reason large companies have incredibly well paid marketing and branding professionals is because they are intelligent enough to manage their brand with the appropriate systems and decisions. Even they would not kid themselves into thinking they had total control.
Forgot to add contact details. If you want to chat more > http://www.twitter.com/robertpickstone
Forgot to add contact details. If you want to chat more > http://www.twitter.com/robertpickstone
I have always defined a “brand” as a “relationship,” i.e., the relationship an organization (or its products or services) has with others (customers, employees, shareholders, community leaders, et al.). Just as no one can control a relationship in real life, marketers cannot control brands. As has been pointed ou tin other comments, you can (and should) do everything you can to manage your brand (just as you manage your interpersonal relationships). Example: suppose your significant other loves Peruvian cuisine. You hear about a new restaurant featuring it and book a table for dinner. You do it to delight your s.o. and enhance your relationship. A romantic would say you care for your s.o., a cynic would say you are manipulating him/her. Both are right to varying degrees, but the fact is you are actively managing your relationship. You need to do the same for your brand's stakeholders, i.e., delight them whenever you can. And, if problems arise in the relationship, address them quickly and forthrightly in order to minimize the damage and repair the relationship.
Hi Jacob – It's an interesting post, but I'd have to say I disagree. A company can't control their brand. A brand exists in the mind of the audience – a brand is the views, attitudes and opinions that an individual has about a company or product. You can't control that. The relationship example that waqueau gave is great.
This quote, from Jeff Bezos of Amazon, sums it up:
“Your brand is what people say about you when you're not in the room”.
You can't 'control' what they think – only 'influence'.
Apple and Virgin America are examples of successful brands. Their success is down to their skill at 'influencing' their audience. In the UK Virgin also run a rail service. It doesn't have a great reputation. I'm pretty sure that the current audience perception of that brand isn't what they planned. They can't control that perception. They can only influence it, in the hope that they can eventually align it with their desired position.
A recent example of a flawed brand in the US could be the Whole Foods Market saga. If you're not familiar with the story you can find a summary here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8216685.stm. But the key to the story is that a few misplaced words by the owner of Whole Foods Market, John Mackey, completely undermined the Whole Foods Market brand, and the customer perception of their brand. Were Whole Foods Market in control of their brand? No.
The great advantage that social media brings to companies is the opportunity to monitor their brands – to listen to what their audience are saying (good and bad), and engage with them. It's an opportunity to build a stronger relationship. But that's 'influence', not 'control'.
It's interesting to see how individual stores are starting to take social media into their own hands. Thanks for the comment.
Definitely agree with you there. Paying attention is important but it only gets you so far. Paying attention only matters if you take some sort of action which is where many brands may be struggling. While large brands like Virgin and Apple may be paying attention to social media channels I doubt that most of their consumers are also on those channels. So the question then becomes what decisions can a large brand make based off of what they learn from social media? We hear some people talk about social media as being the “wisdom of the crowds” but we need to make sure that we're actually talking with crowds and not small groups. Thanks for stopping by!
Good point. Some brands are indeed ignorant. I don't have any examples off the top of my head though, do you? There are also many ways to listen to customers outside the realm of social media. Take Boeing, Raytheon, or many financial companies for example. Many of them do plenty of customer research and listening, but not in the way we think of it. I suppose the point is that brands need to pay attention to their customers regardless of where they are.
While I agree that there is never total control (with anything) that's not the same thing as not having a good handle on things. I can't control if someone steals my content or writes negative things about me, but I certainly have control of my own brand. Telling companies that they don't have control of their brands is in my opinion a very short sighted and silly thing to do. Nobody has an air tight lock on anything in this world. There is always some element that is out of our control.
I'm not talking about a total lockdown when I say that companies control their brands; however there is quite a lot that companies do control.
You can control the outgoing “message” (words, images, appearance, etc.). How that message is received varies depending on the recipient (existing customer, competitor's customer, new to the category), the environment (e.g., a joke about airplane bombers might be funny until Christmas Day 2009), other messages from competitors (the iPhone has pretty much had the “cool smartphone” market to itself; now people speculate about the impact of Android and Nexus One), and other factors you cannot control. So the best you can do is manage your end of the relationship and anticipate your market's needs and desires so as to delight and surprise them. React swiftly and honestly when problems arise.
Yes a brand exists in the mind of the audience but it's up to that brand to help shape that view and that opinion. This is a lot of what marketing and branding is all about. Finding the right message, the right audience, packaging, slogan, tagline, color, etc. All of this is done so that the brand will get across it's message. In the example you made above I would still argue that whole foods was in control of their brand. They made a bad decision but that decision was ultimately made by them and they paid for it. Brands aren't just going on fate, they do have control and yes they do have influence. There are examples of many brands that have had social media campaigns backfire and many of those brands responded to criticism directly and addressed the issue, that's controlling your brand. In fact, I find it hard to believe that many brands out there even exist without control.
Yes you can manage your end of the relationship and how you respond to consumers. If there is a backlash against you then you can control how you respond and deal with the problem. How consumers react to something you do and the control that you wield over your brand are two different things.
Good point. Some brands are indeed ignorant. I don’t have any examples off the top of my head though, do you? There are also many ways to listen to customers outside the realm of social media. Take Boeing, Raytheon, or many financial companies for example. Many of them do plenty of customer research and listening, but not in the way we think of it. I suppose the point is that brands need to pay attention to their customers regardless of where they are.
I think the Auto industry in the US is a good example. Where Ford where very active in social media and therefore were in tune with what the consumer wanted vs GM who continued to produce the 'gas guzzlers' and SUV's as a priority…and we all know how that worked out.
I like this blog and i well viset agen thank you
http://www.forexqs.blogspot.com
I like this blog and i well viset agen thank you
http://www.forexqs.blogspot.com