Skip to main content

The Four Characters of Social Brands

The new web is all about relationships and social capital. Virtual communities have become an extension on our daily lives. We meet, contribute, collaborate, create and host events that help expand our social network. So where do brands fit in this context? What makes a brand social? And how social can a brand be?

I think brands follows the same principles as people do in their project interactions. We can define social brands in the same way we define individuals on a project. Every time we are planning events, we need to figure out who does what. For instance, let’s say that you are planning the next board meeting for your condo.  You will need to establish who is hosting the event. Who is bringing food and beverages? Do you want people to submit questions for the agenda?...

There is always going to be a tradeoff involved. The more control you are willing to give away, the more likely others will feel like part of the meeting. By the same token, ceding control elevates the risk of going off topic and not hitting your goals. It is a balancing act. Depending on your project goals, you will define how social the event is going to be.

Brands follow the same logic of our board-meeting example. A research done by the Center Advancement of Information Science Education (CAISE) in July 2009 on public participation on research projects establishes three types of groups: contribution, collaborative, co-created. Furthermore, Nina Simon in her book the Participatory Museum, which I highly recommend, applies the concept outside the science environment for customer engagement. She added a hosted category.  I will take this framework and apply it to characterize the social nature of a brand.

Do you have a contributor brand?  These brands tend to plan the end-to-end marketing program. They engage consumers by asking them to submit initiatives, so consumers can feel part of the brand. Consumers are not allowed to comment on others’ contributions. JetBlue is an example of a contributor brand, as it publishes consumer stories on its website.

Do you have a collaborative brand?  These brands also tend to plan marketing programs. However, consumers can not only submit content, they are also able to help define and shape the content through reviews, rankings, etc.  Amazon is a good example of a collaborative brand.



Do you have a co-created brand?  These brands engage consumers across most steps of the process. In other words, consumers are involved in the ideation, design and production of their marketing programs. A good example is Lego, which uses consumers’ ideas to develop new products. Plus, consumers can design their own lego.


 
Do you have a hosted brand? These brands basically create a platform to allow consumers to create their content. In this case, the brand function as a facilitator. Hosted brands still have rules to ensure quality of the content. Aggregators such as Linkedin and Wikipedia tend to be good examples of hosted brands.



What is the right social brand character? It depends on the brand’s goals. There aren’t right or wrong answers. However, the trend seems to be moving toward brands taking on more of a facilitator role rather than being the sole producers of content.

Comments

  1. Alberto - great insights on brands using social as a construction platform. i twittered this one.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Cool Brands Stay Hot: Aim for Love, Not Likes

Love is an unconditional emotion while like is a more watered-down version of love. Loving someone means that he or she means everything to you while liking someone implies that you are only happy being with that person. Love involves deeper, stronger emotions, while like is more of a tender feeling towards that special someone. In a world of infinite choices, love is everything. Like is a nice to have.  Today, we live in a world of abundance, where people intent to create content surpass their time to consume it. Video content is much easier and cheaper to produce than at any other time in history. YouTube sees 400 hours of video uploaded every minute. Facebook has more than 250,000 status updates in the same span. We could never read and see everything online.  With unlimited possibilities and limited time, we pay sustainable attention to what we love and divided attention to what we like. We spend hours watching Homeland and give our divided attention to our news feed on Facebook. …

Adidas kills TV. Now, let’s debate

The News: Adidas is ditching TV for digital. The company is looking to boost its e-commerce revenues from $1.06 billion in 2016 to $4.25 billion by 2020 — and Adidas wants to use digital channels to get there. The Rationale: Fish where the fish are. Younger consumers don't watch TV anymore. They spend most of their time on their mobile devices. The Controversy: Why do they want to ditch a medium that is allegedly more "critical" to the brand and that generates more sales than digital? Here we have the Debate between TV and digital: Media Consumption TV: People are watching TV now more than ever.  Digital: People are consuming media more than ever, but mostly through digital devices. The Fact: In 2017, people are projected to spend 6 hours on digital – with the majority being mobile devices - while only spending 4 hours consuming television according to the eMarketer forecast. Younger viewers watch 2.5 times more internet video than TV. Consumers aged 13-24 watch 12.1 hours …

Winter and Summer in Adland

It is winter in Adland.  We have moved from a world of scarcity to a world of abundance and algorithms.  We have lost the power of influence. Trust has been severely damaged.  Consumer attention is the new bottleneck. We no longer decide who sees us. Instead, we get picked.  30 second is not enough anymore. We need to take consumers through a scenic journey to create a long lasting relationship.  Everyone is a publisher. It is easier than ever to create, but harder than ever to make a hit.  The impulse to make has far outrun the desire to consume.  New forces have emerged in the form of sophisticated algorithms.  A new model has surfaced called "pay per play,” which scored everything we do on relevance to feeding the machine. It decides what gets picked, when, and where, based on extreme relevancy.  Mass media has vanished. Precision and personalization have emerged.  It is winter in Adland. The good days are all long gone.  It is Summer in Adland We now have the power to make bra…