Kumar's Blog

Oreo pulled a wonderful stunt at the superbowl when, unexpectedly, the power went out. There was a tweet from its official account "You can still dunk in the dark". This has been the star example used by everyone who has had anything to say about real-time marketing. This has received so much good press that nearly every brand has tried to pull something similar. Hardly anyone has been successful in doing so.

Oreo was successful in what it did because it was something new. The tweet was as unplanned as the power outage at the superbowl was. Since then, a host of brands have tried replicating the action at various other popular events. Its as though each brand has commissioned its own news coverage team in the garb of real-time marketing. Hardly any of their efforts remotely reflect what the brand stands for. Its as though every brand is trying to be Ramesh Srivats. In fact, the efforts have been so pathetic that they have resulted in a new website. Check out Real Time Marketing Sucks.

Real-time Marketing is not about having something funny to say (most of the times what is said is not even funny) at every popular event. Real-time Marketing is the art of delivering an engaging piece of communication that comes as a surprise. The key element here is the surprise. This is where Oreo succeeded and this is where all those others failed. Once the audience expects some brand or the other to put out a tweet about an event that's happening, the brands will have to be able to surprise and delight in other ways.

That is why you never do real-time marketing. It only happens inadvertently. You just give your marketing a little more autonomy and make it clear that they're not expected to deliver an expected number of real-time marketing messages in a given week or a month.

When Morpheus says in The Matrix "If you ask, you're not ready to know", he might as well have been talking about real-time marketing. If you're asking your marketing team to deliver on the real-time marketing front, you're simply not ready for real-time marketing. That is not how it works.

It is better to stop fussing about real-time marketing and to focus those energies on the traditional marketing efforts instead. Real-time marketing is meant to happen inadvertently and it will happen if you have creative people in your marketing team who have enough autonomy to take calls on what communication goes out when.

When I look at my twitterfeed or my newsfeed on Facebook, I see quite a few conversations about advertising, how certain brands are doing a good job of getting their marketing messages across, or how they are responding to competitors and so on. All this is contributed primarily by my B-school friends. When I look at the conversations (about brands) that my non B-school friends are initiating, not one of them is about the message or even about an advertisement. But they do talk about brands that are engaging them in ways that exceeds their expectations. In short, they're talking about reality.

Exceeding consumer expectations is the new advertising.

With digital marketing spend steadily rising for most brands, it is important to understand what really happens in digital (of which social is a big part). The conversion rate (percentage of people that look at an ad and then go on to buy the product/service) for digital advertising is quite low. Read this to get a broad idea of the numbers. This will continue to be the case (irrespective of the number of 'likes' a brand gets) if brands continue to advertise the way they do now.

Here is where exceeding expectations comes in. If you delight your customers, they will spread the word. Undoubtedly. Because the default expectation of a customer from any brand is to be ripped off (pay more than the value derived). The brands that change this and begin to delight the customers will be the ones that will get attention on social media. The more customers they delight, the more good press they generate.

Delighting customers can happen in the smallest of ways. The bar is so low at the moment that even the slightest positive action where the brand puts the customer first will delight the customer. For example, Amazon and iTunes pop up a confirmation message asking you if you're sure to go ahead, when you try to buy a book/song that you've already bought. They might be foregoing some extra revenue in the short term by preventing a sale that is unnecessary for the customer. But, they will attract that customer whenever she wishes to buy a new book/song. Similarly, wouldn't it be wonderful if your telecom service provider (who has data about your usage in minutes, data, SMS) offers you the option to switch to a plan that is better suited (less expensive) to your usage pattern as compared to your currrent plan?

Big data makes it that much easier for nearly every brand to delight its customers. The future of digital marketing lies more in delighting customers (which raises engagement levels) and less in advertisements and gathering 'likes'.

What do you think?

I have often heard people talk about certain other people and say that they appear to be different personalities online and in person, and they always and without exception say this in a tone that is decidedly negative. But, I feel this may not be such a bad thing after all. In fact, it is perfectly natural for this to happen. Especially, if that person in question interacts with a different set of people online and in person.

Every person wants, strives even, to ensure that they are perceived to be the most amazing personality one can come across. Nearly everyone puts their whole life into building such an image, a profile if I may call it that, for themselves. Whatever their thoughts and intentions are, they engage in building an amicable profile for themselves. Now, how is it any surprise if a person starts all over in this process when he has the opportunity to do so in the virtual world?

With a variety of Social Media at one's disposal, it is very easy to build very different profiles, sometimes even ones that are contrasting, simultaneously. It is perfectly possible to be perceived as one kind of a person on Facebook, while at the same time, to be perceived as a different person on his/her blog, and a whole other person, in person. All that person is doing is seeking to establish a personality, a profile of himself/herself, that matches the profile in his/her head.

This advancement in technology is a splendid thing. A good number of people claim that over-indulgence in social media is a bad thing. But I feel that it can be a valuable experience if taken that way. Every social medium, from a Facebook account to a personal blog, is a potential testing ground where one can have a trial run of different personalities.

It is much harder to try out different personalities all in the same avatar, be it in person or on any of the social media. It is an excruciatingly long process to bring about a noticeable change in personality in the same avatar. The human brain is not (yet?) capable of acheiving that feat. But, the variety of social media available have made our minds parallel processors when it comes to handling our different personalities. And if this is used to try out different personalities, it can be a highly enriching experience and there will be cross-learning from all the avatars and they will converge to a more wholesome and amicable personality in time.

This is the very experience that traveling around the world in the olden days used to provide. Different cultures would force people to exhibit different personalities and after a few years of such nomadic existence, an experienced and respected personality would emerge. Now, we have the option to achieve that while we continue to lead the life that we would otherwise have to forgo. Why frown upon such a thing, then?

How many of you have friends whom you first interacted with in a social medium? Not someone who went to the same school as you, or worked at the same company, or lived in your neighbourhood at some point in time, but someone who was in no way related to you or your world.

A lot of people react negatively to the thought of befriending strangers on the internet. But had the same person been in their social circle due to some coincidence, they would have had no hesitation in befriending them. It has got me wondering as to why this discrimination exists.

Today, social media is taking centre stage in several aspects of our daily lives. It is defining the way we interact with our favourite brands and celebrities, the way we interact with our friends, they way we share what we like. It is especially true for those who travel often, and for those who move from city to city as a result of a transferable job or education or any other reason. When a huge part of our lives have shifted online, why are people so hesitant to meet new people online?

One reason that comes to my mind is that they can be hostile. 'How can you become friends with someone who you don't even know and haven't even met?'. Well, I used to buy that argument until a few months ago. Not anymore! Ever since Facebook addressed the privacy concerns of its users, it is easy enough to do a background check on the person you're about to interact with.

If Facebook still sounds a creepy place to meet new people, a much better place to do so would be to start and maintain a public blog. This has a higher probability of meeting people who match your interests as they are the ones who contact you after reading what you had to say and finding it interesting.

Friends you make over social media are more like pen pals from the olden days. You might seldom meet them but they're a part of your life nevertheless.

I simply do not see how the same people who try to deck up their blogs and social profiles in an effort to get noticed and possibly hired for a job, look down upon people who do the same thing to meet new people who might not turn out to be their future employers.

With our schedules getting busier by the day, having a life on the web is does not seem like a bad idea at all to me.

What's your take on making e-friends?