It seems like every day there is a new example of a marketing campaign that “went wrong”.
At the time of writing this chapter in 2013, the examples included the twitter campaign from McDonald’s restaurant that was ‘hijacked’ by the public who decided that the #MCDStories hashtag could be used for negative opinion rather than positive – thus turning the hashtag into a bashtag.
Elsewhere the Covent Garden Soup Company ran a competition that promised a prize of a £500,000 farm, but from the 200,000 entrants, none had the winning code so the prize wasn’t given away.
You may be surprised to know this didn’t go down terribly well with the entrants – however the lawyers state the competition mechanic complied with regulation. That’s ok then.
These are just two examples of daily stories that we all see in front of us, and are the result of the paradigm shift we are experiencing in the commercial, sociological, technological and communications landscape.
One question I’m often asked is, “If these examples are claimed as having a negative impact, how come people are still (e.g.) queuing at McDonald’s and/or buying Covent Garden soup?”
It’s a fair question. After all, it is commonly thought the ultimate success a company can report is revenue, profit and/or share price. If the revenue, profit and/or share price remains in good shape, what exactly is the problem if these little campaign maladies are apparent?
To answer this I’d like you to imagine the competitive business landscape as a war zone.
In the old world, your army would consist of your staff. Your artillery would consist of your products and services.
In today’s world, your army also consists of your customers and consumers. This is because of their empowerment enabled by the capability and affordability of technology, meaning they too can create and edit brands. They too can change the perceptions and opinions of others. Thus, your artillery now consists of their output also.
So, you have your combined army and often you have to go to war.
In the old world, your army of staff and artillery of products and services would be up against other armies of a similar structure. In today’s world, your asset is your army of staff, customers, and consumers, in addition to your combined artillery. In the old world, at peacetime, you would just be fuelling your staff and polishing your artillery. In today’s world, at peacetime, you must also be fuelling the whole of your army, and polishing the extended artillery.
This is so you are prepared for when you go into battle. Practically speaking this requires you to consider things like:
– identifying the levels of trust you have amongst your consumer/customer/user base
– creating resonant missions that people will believe in
– facilitating and promoting the work of fans
These activities, amongst others, will better prepare you for the battles I speak of in the metaphor, which in real life look like:
– a new market entrant who is disrupting your organisation or market place
– a change in fashion that renders what you do less relevant
– a trend that alters the perceived value of what you create or deliver
Sound familiar? These have always been common occurrences in every market place, yet now the risk is extended to competitive challenges that are non-organisational. Yes, the empowered public may be the cause of battle for a company today – and that, if nothing else, justifies the need to extend your army before those troops are aligned against you.
“All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved”
Sun Tzu – The Art of War
Taken from 28 Thoughts - see 'books' on the menu.