>
Over the past 8 weeks I’ve blogged about various subjects concerning digital communications, but I feel I was only just scratching the surface.
>
The concept that I’ve learned is the most fundamental to the digital communications sector is Gartner’s ‘hype cycle’; bloggers and digital experts talk a lot about the importance of various technologies and mediums, but the hype cycle allows us to objectively analyse the true worth of these emerging technologies.
>
In my first DCS blog post, I talked about hyper targeting, and although I made out like it was the best thing since sliced bread, I really think the technologies ‘has legs’. In 10 years’ time, there will be 2 types of advertising; permission based and hyper targeting, most everything else will be ‘dead’.
>
While I still agree that transmedia storytelling is an effective tool for building brand loyalty and consumer engagement, I realised while researching audience perspectives on digital communication, that audiences are fickle (Heath 2010), and that total engagement cannot be expected for every single media product. People’s time is limited. Therefore it is important for brands to consider where to invest their time and money in using this tool effectively.
>
When I talked about my vision of a 3 tier UK digital divide (as in access to digital networks), I originally made out that those with access to smartphones where ‘more privileged’ when it came to digital communication, in both a social networking and marketing communications sense. After hands on experience with multiple smartphones and online research, I have found this accusation to be much more limited than I had envisaged.
>
At this point in time, mobile data communication is climbing the ‘peak of expectation’ of Gartner’s hype cycle, not the ‘slope of enlightenment’ I had originally believed the technology to be at. Marketing communications on smartphones (outside of social), is more readily ignored by users, who often feel violated whean they see ‘adverts’ on something as personal to them as their phone. The only benefit to social communication on smartphones vs. dumbphone/Desktop PC based communications is the increased ease, convenience and ‘up to date-ness’ of the messaging. This is not enough to put non smartphone users at a significant disadvantage, and therefore I recognize my vision of the 3 tier digital divide a false one, at this stage, at least until the technology reaches maturity.
>
I also claimed that having your brand/user experience to be seamless was a perquisite to true ownership of the relevant brand associations. Apple, a brand I would call seamless, embodies its brand values at every point in the brand experience. Apple owns cool, it owns smooth and it owns creativity.
>
Not every ‘brand’ is a brand in the Apple sense of the word. Acer computing do not own cool, they don’t own budget, and they are not the best value computers on the market, yet they enjoy huge amounts of popularity. If your brand has not true unique proposition, and has weak brand connotations, then what is the point in wasting money in creating seamless brand experiences? Better to sweat the –generic- small stuff; customer service, reliability, service etc.
>
In my blog I claimed that online privacy is a myth, and that a lack of privacy has led to large amounts of audience/content separation. Audiences are not trusting content providers, fearing their data is being coerced from them.
>
Although this is something I feel very strongly about, I have to take my ‘tinfoil hat’ off for a moment. Just because we have no privacy, doesn’t mean that everyone knows everything about me. Take cookies for example; while they can be potentially used to track your online habits, they rarely contain any personal information about you. Cookies don’t track YOU, they track your browser.
>
Most people do not know or care enough about their privacy to make informed decisions regarding how they distribute and make accessible their information on the internet. Audiences still trust content providers, because most of the time they don’t know any better.
>
I’d like to refer back to a point I made back in the digital activism post; digital activism is popular because it is easy and convenient. But this does not just apple to digital activism, this applies to ALL aspects of digital communications; again, audiences are fickle and lose attention quickly. Audiences will not give content the time of day, if it is not easy to use or engage with, users will leave and participate with your brand.
>
A important point that I have over looked concerning UGC/Web 2.0, is user created brand/product feedback, as a form of word of mouth(Nielsen 2009), whereas Samson (2010) Suggests that WOM is more effective in low risk categories when it comes from people who are ‘highly involved in the product category’, but not loyal to a specific brand. This highlights the need for brand managers to direct web traffic not only to the content that you made for your audiences, but also to forums based around your brand. Give Samson’s comment, it is also beneficial for brands to use competitors keywords to attract non loyal, impartial users to your site, especially if you have a superior product.
>
I also made the claim that sites using Facebook to host CSR and brand/user communications could hurt the brand image, citing Facebook privacy. Junjun (2010) states that customer loyalty grows best through ‘improving brand image’, brands cannot say one thing and do another without repercussions.
>
It is also interesting to note how Facebook no longer only appeals to younger, more tech savvy audiences, over 4 million unique visits to Facebook by over 55’s (Mintel 2010); which also discredits my 3 tier digital divide system.
>
>
Bibliography
>
Body text: 947 Words
>
Gartner, M.B., 2011. Gartner hype cycle. US, CT: Gartner Inc. Available from: http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle.jsp [Accessed April 2011]
>
Heath, C., 2010. Putting a ring on it: Using digital influence to win the hearts of teens. PRChina, Beijing: Ogilvy & Mather Asia Pacfic. Available from: http://www.warc.com/Content/ContentViewer.aspx?MasterContentRef=424a7675-e730-4aa6-b59d-a748da2f4b05&q=digital [Accessed April 2011]
>
Junjun, M., 2010, Customer Brand Loyalty. International Journal of Business & Management, 5 (7), Pg 3.
>
Mintel., 2010. Social Networking – UK – April 2010. UK, London: Mintel. Available from: academic.mintel.com/sinatra/oxygen_academic/search_results/show&/display/id=480773/brochure/id=480773 [Accessed April 2011]
>
Morant, L., Norris, C., 2010. Facebook Groups: New CRM? UK, London: Mindshare worldwide. Available from: http://www.warc.com/Content/ContentViewer.aspx?MasterContentRef=f0fd15fc-ac7f-4e7b-bf9b-9af74670e6fb&q=facebook [Accessed April 2011]
>
Nielsen, 2009. Global Advertising: Consumers Trust Real Friends and Virtual Strangers the Most. US, NY: Nielsen. Available from: blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/global-advertising-consumers-trust-real-friends-and-virtual-strangers-the-most [Accessed April 2011]
>
North, S., Giesen, B., 2010. Digital Influence. PRChina, Beijing: Ogilvy & Mather Asia Pacific. Available from: http://www.warc.com/Content/ContentViewer.aspx?MasterContentRef=e6e91eab-7f72-4612-8bc6-3d7c16fa536d&q=digital [Accessed April 2011]
>
Samson, A., 2010. Product usage and firm-generated word of mouth. International Journal of Market Research, 52 (4), Pg 21.
>
Copyright greeneggsandfish.wordpress.com (2011).
[...] What does digital communication really mean? [...]