Film studio mistakes single mother for billion dollar competitor

In another case of mistaken identity, a studio has confused a single mother throwing a Halloween party for a billion dollar competitor infringing on their copyright to make a few more million without having to put in the hard work. Unfortunately for the studio, what has actually happened is that they have lost a golden opportunity to increase sales and customer following and instead dented their reputation. They should have done nothing. For once they would have actually prospered by doing no work and instead sat on their well-endowed backsides and counted Porsche's in the office parking lot below their ivory tower.

So what am I on about? I am talking about the case of the single mother in London who was going to host a Harry Potter themed dinner party before a cease and desist was handed to her.
The initial reaction from reading this article is that Warner Bros are nothing more than party-poopers, but actually they are far more (or less?) than that. They come across as totally ignorant. Firstly we find that they are trying to shut down any form of piracy through ridiculously high-dollar lawsuits. If you have read Chris Anderson's book Free they would have found that it is near impossible to stop piracy and so they should embrace it as a marketing tool to sell other products. But the second error is that when someone wants to actually embrace the brand they may only do so as long as they do not amplify the fact. It is that old nutshell, Command and Conquer.
The diagram below is from someone by the name of Mad Blog...

What it shows is that in this "new world" the most engaged fans of a brand will put their reputation on the line by recommending it to their peers. Those peers will then pass it onto their peers if they feel it is worthy and so on and so forth. If you cut off or silence your fans you are effectively cutting off your head.
So Ms Marmite Lover should have been praised, supported or at least left alone. If Microsoft, the kings of litigation, are trying to get people to throw parties for a piece of software, you would have thought that even the studios would have jumped on board that one. After all, original ideas are not their forte.

The parallels between Social Media and Motorbikes

I have been reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance recently. It is a fascinating read and that is not because I am motorcyclist, but because of the observations that the author, Robert M. Pirsig, makes between the road trip he is on, his companions and peoples psyches. In one particular section he uses motorcycles as an analogy to the thoughts of Phaedrus, the Roman writer. It is a particularly well thought out explanation of how the “Classic” (as oppose to the “Romantic”) minded think. However it got me pondering about the parallels between Social Media and motorcycles.

It is hard to understand what draws the individual to the motorcycle until they have experienced it first hand. I did not take up riding until a few years ago. I wanted to cut back on the costs of owning a four wheel drive but still have the “go anywhere” capabilities. Motorbikes appeared to offer that. Purely a practicality until I started to ride.

What is a motorbike to the person who has not experienced riding?

They conjure up images of being fast, dangerous, annoying perhaps (especially as you sit in traffic and they nip past you) and intimidating (as someone comes up behind you with something that sounds like shotgun, handlebar moustache and leather waistcoat that reveals several tattoos sporting skulls and an unhealthy obsession for one’s own mother). That is probably more the sceptics view. They also conjure up the image of the rider being “misunderstood”, a desire to become part of this brotherhood (or sisterhood), freedom (just look at all the new or reborn riders who are over 50)…

Renegade... the quintessential biker?

But actually a motorcycle itself is none of these. It is simply a machine that is generally stripped back of all un-necessities that are found on cars (this is ignoring some bikes like the Honda Goldwing which has so many extras that it questions why the owner just doesn’t have a convertible instead). There is no air-conditioning, stereo, wipers, seatbelts or airbags. Sometimes there is not even a seat for a passenger. They come in all shapes and sizes but essentially they are an engine, drive train, speedometer, fuel system and wheels. A few electrics and lights and better throw a seat in just in case you are sticking to a bitumen road (as if you are off-road you are mostly standing).
Some of these items are essential (such as wheels), others ensure that you can get through almost all other situations (even an engine could be optional if you were only ever planning on riding down a soft slope, but highly un-recommended).

The Honda Goldwing... a car with two wheels

 Deus Ex-Machina... Reg Mombasa & Co reducing bikes for enhanced experiences








 

So what are the parallels between bikes and social media? They are both things that are here and are not going to go away. In fact they are both growing in adoption. But social media is also perceived as something to be cautious of, a danger of sorts and should be avoided. Why take a risk when you can just take a train, car or plane?

As Ted Simon wrote, the motorcycle is the only motorised form of transport that truly allowed you to understand your environment. You are so attuned to your machine and all it’s quirks that as soon as something feels or sounds different you immediately pick up on it and can fix it. You try doing that in a Boeing 747, or to parallel, a global advertising campaign. And if something goes wrong with either a plane or a campaign, the consequences can be so severe we block them out of our minds.

Social media is the bike of the business world… it offers the most accurate finger on the pulse and is highly responsive when used properly. But to achieve this an organisations use of social media cannot be made up of just a single part. Like the bike, there are a number of fundamental components that it needs to work in synchronisation to allow you to ride through the environment you operate in successfully. What is the point of a Facebook page if you have no dashboard to monitor it?
So like the bike, sure there is a load of fluff that you can add to it, but knowing what the key components are and how to used them in your environment is what matters.

Design Matters; Abolish the Research Inquisition

Does design matter when it comes to using online social media? You bet. It is almost always the first point of engagement with whom you want to interact. In the pre-2.0 days people talked about the first two minutes of an initial interaction between people (or perhaps a brand) in which you had an opportunity to make an impression. With online and 2.0 it is down to just seconds.
There are a number of aspects that affect an individual’s decision to take up membership of a community and a lot can be learnt from Market Research as to how this is best done, unfortunately not always for the right reasons.
Over the next few posts I am going to articulate some of the important aspects that need to be considered when starting a community, beginning with the sign-up process.

Drop the inquisition

Last night I read a great article in ESOMAR’s Research World by Philip Garland of SSI (I would love to give you an online address to find it, but alas I have had no luck finding the article outside of their print journal at this point). Here he described the big picture problem within research of how we are mistreating respondents and that it is resulting in an unsustainable future for the industry. Whilst I do not necessarily agree with his suggested solutions I do think that he articulated the problem well, likening it to the Icelandic fishing industry of all things.

What can social media learn from this issue in traditional research? In market research we have this unhealthy obsession with ensuring that we maintain something called representation. We insist that we only speak to certain people and that asking 15+ questions to ensure that we talking to those people is perfectly acceptable (researchers could learn a lot if they read The Wisdom of Crowds).
So we may start talking to 1000 people, but by the time we have gone through all these questions only 50 people actually end up being eligible to participate in research.

It can look a bit like this:

You can see where this is going…. So not only does this put off respondents from attempting to undertake further research, but it also turns off those who did succeed in participating because they do not want to have to sit through all those qualifying questions again. They just want to get to the interesting part of the survey that actually has nothing to do with dying your design pooches hair and is all about gingivitis.

You need traction, but friction burns

In Social Media we need to eliminate this “friction” as Joshua Porter describes in his excellent presentation Designing for Social Traction. It all starts with getting potential members into the site and signing-up as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Joshua Porter

Here is a thought, would you rather have 1000 anonymous people giving you feedback, thoughts, suggestions etc or 8 people who you know a few things about? The most successful communities from the start that we have run with our clients are the ones where we only ask them for their e-mail address and a password. We can ask them more questions once they are in the site, but we need to get them in their first, build up trust and give them what they want. I have no use for members who do not participate once signed up. Unfortunately, against better advice, a few clients have found this out the hard and expensive way.

So start by getting people in quickly and painlessly.

It is not just about connecting to your customers, but also creating a network with your own staff

Key points from the latest research from Forrester and Deloitte on communities

A couple of interesting papers have emerged around online communities in the last week.

Market Research Specifically

The first one is from Forrester entitled "Market Research Online Communities [MROCs] Gain Visibility And Uptake" by Tamara Barber. To get hold of this one will set you back US$500 and depending on how ingrained in MROC's you are will depend on how much the 12 pages hold value for you, but here is the executive summary:

Market researchers are aware of and interested in using market research online communities (MROCs). However, according to results from Forrester’s Q3 2009 Global MROC Online Survey, many don’t know exactly how to bring online communities into their research mix. The Web is still gaining traction as a viable channel for qualitative research, much like it was only a burgeoning channel for quantitative research 10 years ago. As a result, researchers want to partner with trusted providers that can bring a flexible offering, methodological expertise, and superior service to the table. Given the number of new entrants into the MROC vendor space, expect to see more choices in service model options, better integration of community research with quantitative projects, and focus on insights from client-side market researchers.

So it has not quite had the effect Brad Bortner anticipated last year when he wrote that MROCs "will shock the qualitative market research world", but the interest is growing.
Having participated recently in the AMSRS National Conference, Barber's summary reflects what my feelings were - there was a very high attendance of this particular stream, yet there were very few questions after the presentation.
To be honest I am quite use to this. When I talk to clients, research buyers normally only ask questions relating to the traditional queries, the detail queries... representativeness, sample source etc (and that is if they ask anything at all). Marketers have a lot more big picture questions. There is no right or wrong. Researchers and marketers have mostly different needs for a community despite the same community being able to serve them both.
But back to the paper, amazingly there were still 22% of people who had not heard of MROC's but there is a growing contingent who are adopting them with an expectation of 33% using communities in the next 12 months. So what is it that they want? Here is the short end of it:

• Whilst there is certainly no shortage of software out there, it is full or hybrid service that is wanted, not just a technical platform. How to use communities and operate them is a relatively new and unknown territory and needs guidance.
• Deliverables. It is all very well operating an engaged community, but extracting meaningful insight out of them is another thing.
• Creativity. Not something that is well know at this end of the marketing spectrum. Aside from customer contact and lower costs, how else can a community be utilised?

Communities in the wider marketing industry

The second paper (well actually a presentation) address's what is happening in the wider world. This is the latest installment of Deloitte's paper "Tribalization of Business" and actually shows how the Market Research world compares to the wider world. I am not going to go into as much detail here as the presentation is below, but these are the key extracts I came out with:

• The paper demonstrates that communities is a very lively, growing area and hence additional resources are being added as business's recognise that this is an important aspect of marketing and customer relations
• Communities across the board are being utilised predominantly for word-of-mouth and increase customer loyalty. However less than 15% are utilising them for reducing market research costs despite being well proven that they are effective in making reductions. In fact less than 5% of communities are managed by their Market Research departments.
• Attraction, engagement and retention are the biggest problems business's face with communities
  

What can we learn from Bert and Ernie

I was at a friends house yesterday and her two year old daughter wanted to watch a YouTube video of "If you are happy and you know it...". She likes to watch it over and over again. I don't. I wanted to find something more entertaining.
Sesame St comes to mind not just because it is so popular, but also when I am away from home and in a hotel it seems to be what is on the first thing in the morning and is highly preferable to the regular morning TV shows with annoying presenters. It is also far more educational for anyone. And who can go past Oscar the Grouch, Cookie Monster or the Count?
This time I decided to do a search on Bert and Ernie. After realising that the revamped mash-up version of Bert and Ernie dubbed over with Joe Pesci and Robert De Niro in Casino was a little strong for her tender ears, I found this one.  I am  sure that there is a lesson here for us, but will let you work out what the analogy is.

How Irving Penn changed the world of fashion

Irving Penn's, one of fashion's greatest photographers, death yesterday was announced. Whilst death brings sadness, he was 92 and had lived a rich life. 

One of the wonderful things about obituaries is that you can learn new things about individuals that you had previously not known. For me what hit a chord was how his unorthodox approach to art and photography gained him such a reputation. This extract below is shamelessly ripped from the Sydney Morning Herald:

Penn believed his success depended on keeping the reader - rather than the model - in mind.

 "Many photographers feel their client is the subject," he explained in a 1991 interview in The New York Times.

"My client is a woman in Kansas who reads Vogue.

"I'm trying to intrigue, stimulate, feed her."

"The severe portrait that is not the greatest joy in the world to the subject may be enormously interesting to the reader."

It seems to me that a lot of brands are starting to catch onto that notion, but it takes that well-spoken of shift for them to actively embrace it. And will this shift pay dividends? Well it would seem to have for Penn, selling a single photo last year for US$529,000. Not bad for what some may claim took 1/60 of a second of work.

The tool that will twist your balls

Over the last couple of weeks Google released two products. One was called Wave. It was to much fanfare despite only being made available initially to the 100,000 who received an invite and anyone who was forwarded an invite from another recipient. I am not sure exactly what it does or how it works, something or other to do with making e-mail live. E-mail 2.0? I look forward to sampling it.

But what they also released with much less fuss is perhaps in the high-tech world no where near as cool, but has the ability to punch well above it’s weight. I am talking about a little tool called Sidewiki.

What is Sidewiki? Some sort of vertical tumour?

Well it maybe for brands and I will get to the reason why soon.

For those who have not seen it, Sidewiki is a downloadable, free (as with everything Google) widget. It sits nicely on your toolbar in Internet Explorer or Firefox (curiously it is not yet available on Google’s own web browser, Chrome) and has a little button on the left side of your browser window.

What does it do?

No matter what web page you visit, you can click on this little button and a side bar opens up that is unique to the web page that you are visiting. In this bar anyone can leave notes, thoughts, feedback etc, respond to others and vote up and down others comments. Go to another page and there will be a different set of peoples comments. Neat little trick huh?

There is nothing actually amazing about this, in fact despite not being a techie, I would have thought that this was not the most difficult thing to build either. At least when compared to other tools that Google have developed.

So why is this going to change the world and have such a big impact on brands?

Do a search on your least favourite (or favourite brand) with the word “hate”, “sucks”, “load of crap” etc and you will probably find someone, somewhere on the web has been discussing this brand. Take a big brand with a bad reputation (try a telco) and you will get a lot of hits. One particular telco I tried this on had over a million hits. I then repeated the exercise with positive adjectives i.e. “ love XXX brand” and had a million hits about how much people loved to hate the brand!

So if all this info is already out there, why is Sidewiki going to change the game? OK, I am not sure if it will change the game, but it is going to have a significant impact. Us humans are a lazy bunch (at least the majority of us Westernised humans are) and so when we have a positive or negative experience we have had to go out there (or in there, being the web) and find the most appropriate site to vent our frustrations. Think about a brand that you would like to moan about, do a search and then start to think about all the decisions that you have to make to decide what is the most appropriate platform to make your point. “Does it have a large enough following so my message gains amplification?”… “Are the others on the site going to empathise and rally behind me?”… you get the picture.

The other big issue is that brands may not find your complaint – ultimately you are probably complaining for one of three reasons.

1. You want the Brand to bend down, kiss your feet and repent
2. You want to rant
3. You are after a job with a tabloid or low grade TV station's current affairs program
   

If it is either reason two or three, well brands are probably not going to be overly interested. There are some great tools out there for brands to get a feel for what sentiment is about their brand (Buzzmetrics, Radian 6 etc) but the game changes when people’s perceptions are literally attached to your web pages.

Brands are going to become very much more aware of what people are saying and those that have been ignoring the conversations are going to feel their balls being twisted even tighter (for want of a more appropriate analogy). And other customers, or potential customers, are going to have even easier access to relevant information about that brand simply by going to their web address.

So what should brands do? Simple – start talking with their customers in an open and honest way and put them at the centre of their decision making.

Brand Twittiquette

I was reading Chris Brogan’s tips on tweeting and whilst it covered good points for individuals, it got me thinking about how brands should use Twitter to engage with customers. Actually I have been thinking about it for a while, but felt compelled to write about it this time. The problem seems to be that a lot of brands are using it as new platform for traditional methods of broadcasting messages. Is this acceptable? On a personal level Twitter can be used like the new postcard of correspondence, updating those who are interested in your life in a short succinct way. But what about brands? At the worst they can be perceived as just pushing lame adverts thinly disguised as conversation points (and even then that "thin conversation" is subjective).  image by David Armano Instead we need to offer something to our customers, something useful, something free. And when I talk about brands it is not just blue chips, non-profits and SME’s, but also individuals who are using it for professional reasons (think Brand Me). Who is abusing Twitter? It is a little hard to read this screenshot, but you view the feed at www.twitter.com/hungry_jacks. Essentially they are broadcasting the same message that you would expect to see in print, tv or on radio. There is no call to arms, no interaction or collaboration and so unsurprisingly very few followers for a brand of this size. But it gets more interesting, as obviously whatever strategy they had for social media across other platforms is heading the same way... When you click on the links in their Twitter entries, they take you through to Facebook. I find the bottom entry particularly interesting where they mention that they "have received ALOT of feedback on HK's Burger Club..." I am not sure if 16 entries count as a lot, but what is more interesting is the fact that there is not one person talking up or promoting the new chicken nuggets. OK, that is not the end of the world, the biggest problem here is that there is not one representative from Hungry Jacks actually in there talking this through with the participants. They have effectively been invited to a party where the host has decided not to to turn up. Most of the time the guests would leave, but in this instance they are simply trashing the place. So what lessons are there to learn from here? Don't expect followers if you are just pushing sales messages Frequent engagement is required - Burger King are tweeting sporadically, either within minutes of each tweet or upto over a week apart On the flip side, don't tweet like it is going out of fashion (even if it is). They would be best tweeting 5-6 times a day and if they were really smart, 30 minutes either side of meal times. Ensure that your references to other social media channels are accurate Monitor what others are saying and talk to them about it - don't expect the group to self manage So who is doing it right? It seems that more brands are getting the idea as to how they should be using social media and in particular Twitter. Even Telstra who don't exactly have the best reputation with service are using Twitter well. The first thing as with any social media strategy is to listen. It is easy to see what people are saying on Twitter and with an array of 3rd party tools anyone can setup a monitoring system that means there is little reason for brands to not be able to respond to individuals promptly. Take a look at Telstra's Twitter. What are they doing? Listening out for customers with problems who are following them. A good start, but they could improve it in two ways: Extending the hours that they are online. Presently they only offer the service during week time office hours. There are a also a lot of complaints out there that they do not appear to be getting addressed, or if they are, they not showing up on searches. Telstra should be monitoring for their non-followers and addressing them in the public domain.  What should Brands be doing? Start by listening to all discussions out there and respond to them, in particular ones where there is reference to poor service. Ensure that responses are made visible to the public. This offers two advantages: Everyone can see that the brand's customers are taken seriously and given quality service Operational costs can be dramatically decreased by solutions being put in the public domain - there is a strong chance that the person who raises an issue  is not the only one with the problem If you are a company or organisation with multiple departments, have Twitter accounts for each of them so that customers can go straight to the right people and again keep operational costs down. Don't make them feel like they are on hold online. Start to "give" followers, customers, fans etc something. Useful information (not sales promotions) is a great way, whether it is an executive summary of a report or a link to a voucher for something for free. Tourism Australia promote areas by putting links through to other site, blogs, travels stories - for their followers it is a great way of learning about new destinations. Ensure that you follow your customers if they follow you. At the minimum this allows you to send them direct messages when appropriate. It also shows that you actually care about them. Be sincere, but fun. Informality creates stronger relationships than formality. And finally, it is not about size OK, that is not quite true, but what I am referring to is that you should not be "buying" followers from dubious sources. Your followers should grow organically. These people will become your fans who will  put their reputation on the line to promote you to their peers. When people start re-tweeting you (in a positive light) you know that you are on the right path. Brands with a small number of followers such as  Hungry Jacks should be concerned as they would have grown a lot larger if they had embraced Twitter properly. Brands though with a few thousand grown organically are on the right path. Knowing your customer base is helpful. Are you a niche fashion brand with a small but loyal following or a mainstream automotive manufacturer? Aspects like these will help you understand what sort of numbers you can expect. Once you have an accurate idea as to the size you should be you can gauge whether you are tweeting right, given some time to grow. I would love to hear what other experiences have been and what other recommendations people have.

How to Ensure Market Research Online Communities Succeed

The white paper that accompanies it is also available, just give me a shout and I will flick it through to you.

Thanks to @michaelbatistic for his help curating the preso, Steve Cierpicki and Ray Poynter who collaborated on the white paper (which for anyone in research will know that means a must read document).

Is market research as we know it doomed?

A couple of my peers commented that whilst my last post had some interesting rants, the direct correlation between the aforementioned madman's monologue and the sites mission statement were a little like trying to fit the square through the icosagon hole - it will go, but it ain't going to be pretty.

So I guess that I may have already failed  in an area that I talk about with clients - sticking to objectives. But rather than completely change the subject, I am going to continue with where I should have taken the post. Either that or you can read on as I dig myself into a deeper hole!

The real reason people end up and stay in market research

In 1996 I purchased my first car, a 1984 Renault 11 with a whopping 1 litre engine and a stereo straight from a Jaguar. Despite this piece of upper-middle class technology sitting in the middle of the console, the Renault had no working fan for the heating. In England this means the windscreen misting up and resorting to driving with your head out of the side window like a dog, snot trails and all. I realised that I was going to need some money to keep this baby-beast running.

There is only so much house painting that a father can give his son to do, particularly when you live in the UK and it is guaranteed to rain and my luck with vehicles is on par with world peace,  I knew that I would need something more sustainable.

Living within a few km's of Millward Brown's head office meant that I no longer had to suffer the alternative of consumer rage that came with retail. Instead I was offered a comfy chair in a big call centre with a machine that churned out free hot chocolate. I thought "wow, I get paid to do this? call people up and talk to them about products that they use..." shame that the excitement was so short lived. However the one thing I was told that stuck in my head from that training 13 years ago that gave me a warm-fuzzy feeling was that Market Research was there to help improve products for customers. So a quick recap:

1. I was out of retail.
2. I had free hot chocolate on tap.
3. I was doing my bit of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Why old research sucks

This must have been a winner, if only it was true. So what was wrong?

Everyone knows what it is like to be called up, stopped in the street, have their personal space violated by a pop up advert as they surf the web, all asking to participate in research. We may or may not do it. There are theories as to why people participate in research, such as wanting to help, being opinionated etc... I won't get into that now. But you don't find people excited about participating in research. Why? Because watching sand dunes form and disappear in a windless environment is more exciting. There are a several reasons why respondents are so disengaged when it comes to the research process, but here are a few of them:

1. The research industry acts as a veil between the brands and the brand's customers. We do not let the customer know who they are answering questions for.
2. Rarely will the customer actually see the results of the research they participate in. Sure they may see the occasional TV advert they gave an opinion on or new packaging for Hormel's Spam, but they would have to be lucky.
3. When it comes to writing questions and surveys, researchers have the engagement skills of an androgynous single cell organism.

These may be generalisations and certainly there are exceptions out there, but having watched online research participation rates drop so rapidly over the past five years it does make you wonder.

Market Research as we know it is on a path of self-destruction because we have systematically failed to engage with customers. This leads to "who is answering all these questionnaires and why". So to answer this I recently ran a series of focus group and asked the participants why they did research. Money. Were they honest about the way the answered? Yes. Did they pay attention to the questions? For about 5-10 minutes.

Now we do not exactly pay participants generously, in fact on an hour by hour rate they are better off on the dole, which explains why research participants are becoming few and far between. We seem to be heading into an unsustainable future.

Is it the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse I see coming or is there a White Knight out there?

So, is all this inevitable, or can anything be done to increase respondent interest?  My recent experience with online research communities has told me that there is a future.  Aside from the mentioned focus groups, like researchers who are determined not to have their beliefs discredited (because researchers love nothing more to prove where there are flaws in others research methodology) we have conducted quant studies and online communities around this subject. 

Starting with the focus groups, when asked if they would join online research communities where they could talk to the brand, whilst they did not jump at it (being wary of research by this point) they felt that this was what was needed to engage people in participating in research again. With the quant studies there were a multitude of reasons why people who participate in research (I will post some more on their reasons in the next few days) and the online communities, where people got to sunk their teeth into the methodology had nothing but praise.

I am sure that communities are not the only tool, but respondents are not likely to tell us what other tools will engage them and allow us to conduct effective research at the same time.

So what does this have to do with Business Karma?

As mentioned, market research as we have known it is on a rapid descent into a respondent-less abyss. Like advertising and it's one way messages, we have been guilty of trying to maintain a parent-child relationship with customers, perpetually making assumptions on what we should be talking to customers about rather than listening to them. Using social media and in particular communities, there is an opportunity for us to not only start to increase the numbers of customers who are willing to participate in research, but also if we engage with them, dramatically increase salient information.

There is hope for the industry, but it requires a brave move that not everyone is prepared to make. Luckily there are a few organisations out there who are adopting new methods and will lead the way forward. Unfortunately though neither market research or social media saved my car from the radiator cracking and the head gasket blowing.