Brands as Media

Originally this would be about UGC, CGM or indigenous content (as I saw someone call it the other day, like that word a lot). But it moved somewhere slightly different...

Before I go further huddle up and listen, here’s what’s up; let’s all make a pact right here and now and drop the name CGM, okay? Why? I don’t think that the word consumer should be used in this context due to the fact that the users are actually creating which, in my opinion, is the absolute opposite of consuming. But let’s not elaborate too much on that right now.

It’s clear that indigenous content is blurring the previous clear(er) lines between companies and consumers. But it seems that there is much more happening. Noah Brier wrote some very interesting views on this, which you can read here.
Noah says that indigenous content will be integrated in more and more sites, that it will turn companies’ media spending more and more into a trial&error model and that it will become more and more a part of long term relationships. Now let me try and make some bold move about indigenous content (watch out!), which was evoked by this article on Adverblog (ou, si vous parlez francais, l’article ici), by taking this one step further with the aid of eBay.

Basically what eBay is doing, by selling their advertising space on to the users of eBay, is providing their users with a platform to communicate…and by this they actually more or less become a medium.
Hmmm, could this mean that brands (companies) could turn into platforms where they ‘co-sume’ (hey, I just made up a word…) with their users. With co-suming I would mean the company using content by individuals and individuals using all things offered by the company. A more open and long-term relationship would come into existence where both parties could aid eachother in many ways (or is that too much of a naive utopian thought?).

Eventually this could mean that a brand becomes its own medium, I think.

Okay ‘till here, for now (sorry, got a job to do…). Obviously it needs some more thoughts and ideas, but I like where this could be going.

So watch for an update on co-suming and brands as media.

Focus Groups and Contexts

Lately I’ve been thinking about focus groups and context. These thoughts have mainly been fed by some stuff in my blog-bubble.
This this article by Vicky of Naked communications in NY and this film made by Roger Baldacci and Lawson Clarke of Arnold.



Now if you don’t mind I’ll add my tardy piece to this context scented jigsaw puzzle.

I really have to agree both with Vicky and her excellent view on context and with Roger and Lawson and their view on focus groups (although the choice for 1984 seems a bit, well, outdated). I think that the views of Malcolm Gladwell and his spaghetti sauce talk at TED and the view of Kevin Roberts in his book Lovemarks strengthen this view as well.




They say that focus groups, old school style, or the 'answers' theses groups give are not representative. Either by providing the wrong context in which the questions are asked or by asking the wrong questions all together

In my opinion context and focus groups are two inseparable things where context often has too much influence on a focus group. Often due to the context factor, focus groups provide a pale representation of how a situation actually is.
Now how could the factor context be used to make focus groups (or whatever you want to call them) more realistic/efficient/meaningful/representative.

I think the answer lies in the fact that you shouldn’t go to a consumer but let him/her/them come to you. Answers and opinions should not be ‘forced’ from a focus group they must have the option to be given at any time and any place.
I think that social networks provide a major opportunity here. Create a media where questions, opinions and answers from consumers and companies can flow freely in all directions without f-ing with their context too much.
Do think outside of the facebook / myspace context as well. They are off course decent starting points and some brands already have their facebook profile (most of the time sadly to communicate in just one direction) but the words social and network provide much more possibilities for companies to start from.

Social networks provide a big opportunity to minimize the influencing factor of context to a bare minimum and they can be a worthy replacement of focus groups.
So to get valuable information let’s focus less on groups and try to be more social in networks (get it...)

All is Brand

Quite some while ago a my oh so sweet and lovely friend ‘Mar’ invited me to go to a book launch of this book called ‘Bonfire of the brands’ by Neil Boorman.
The event took place at Mother, where a discussion panel talked about the book and the addition of some glasses of wine stimulated the audience to react as well (coincidentally, they also served the world’s largest bread sticks).

The book is a sort of reflective diary by Neil who, a bit over a year ago, decided to burn every single branded item he had (I know…very brave man) to find out if it’s possible to live without brands

Although I really like the idea of Neil, my very humble opinion thinks it is impossible to live without brands or be unbranded. Why?
First let’s start with a quick but quite essential question: Why are ‘things’ branded? It’s to stand out, to get noticed, to differentiate from similar products etc.
Now let’s take a look at people in general (and Mr. Boorman in special). They try to stand out by branding themselves through their character and physical features (core values) and friends, parents, family, living area and clothes (added values). So basically everyone is a brand in their own, to be more exact you are brand ‘fill in your name here’.

What Neil does by burning all his branded possessions is differentiating himself from his social surroundings. He obviously does it for all the right ethical and moral reasons and stuff, but he is actually re-branding himself and (as I like to believe) in a much stronger one than he previously was.
So now, the moment ‘monsieur sans marques’ puts on a black unbranded shirt, or makes his own toothpaste (he actually did!) these products in essence become brands as well (also you really have to make an effort in finding these so they actually are more differentiated then the well known average high street brands).

So are unbranded items brands as well? I believe they are (besides the fruit & vegetables category though). Not in the way of a name, design, color or logo but in the way that they too communicate a distinct message of differentiation and tell something about the consumer.

Got opinion?