How Did the Internet Create New Travelers And Implications for the Industry

December 8, 2014

Written By Aleksandra Rakonjac 

Industry Overview

Over the past 50 years travel industry has experienced substantial growth and as such has become one of the most profitable industries (World Tourism Organization 2012). Recent developments in ITC technologies have contributed to even more significant growth of this industry and its changes.

Once in Rome I met a 50-55 years old Swedish couple and helped them get around narrow streets of the city. Meanwhile, they told me they have already visited Rome for their honeymoon 20 years ago and that it was less touristy and more charming. What happened? The Internet, that eventually became a major tool in tourism industry (Wua et al. 2008). Developments in ITC technologies have influenced a number of travelers around the world to use technologies for planning and experiencing their travels (Buhalis & Law 2008). This means that customers search for travel information online, make online air-ticket bookings, as well as room reservations, and other online purchases themselves instead of relying on travel agencies to do this for them (Buhalis & Law 2008). Not only did purchasing holidays become easier and more efficient in the sense that customers no longer need travel agencies, but also more affordable. Due to the popularity of the Internet, many tourist organizations such as hotels, airlines, and travel agencies have incorporated Internet technologies as part of their marketing and communication strategies (Buhalis & Law 2008). However, many of them are still uncertain how to incorporate and use these technologies best since all online consumers are perceived as equal.

New Travelers

The Internet has shaped and created new consumers. Among the active Internet users between the ages of 16 and 54, 72.8 percent read blogs or web logs (Akar & Topcu 2011). After buying and consuming a product or service, users like to share their review and evaluation through a social network site. It has been reported that people spend more than 20% of their time online visiting social networking websites (Seraj 2012). Accordingly, travelers use social media to report their latest travel adventures. Moreover, electronic word of mouth has become dominating channel and can take place in different ways such as discussion forums, posted reviews or opinion platforms (Akar & Topcu 2011). Similarly to pre-modern times even today every purchasing decision is affected by social influence (Akar & Topcu 2011) and wants to be shared and displayed as such.

New travelers, however, are described as sophisticated, technologically and linguistically skilled. Organized tours are dull whereas self-organized trips are adventurous (Buhalis & Law 2008). New travelers seek experience, but look for value (money and time). New travelers can be described as both, hedonistic and utilitarian. Hedonism relates to festive, ludic, fun and playful side of shopping where consumers seek for pleasure, curiosity, fantasy and escapism (Scarpi 2012). Such travelers daydream about escaping to far lands. Hedonistic travelers (or non-travelers) spend hours and hours online searching for beautiful, tropical, hidden places where they want to escape once. By contrast, utilitarianism represents task-related, rational, necessary shopping (Scarpi 2012). Holidays are one of the most expensive services purchased and take out most of the house budget (Burn 2013). As such they are more closely related to utilitarianism since the travelers take time to explore options, think and finally purchase a holiday. It is essential for travel and tourist organizations to keep this in mind when designing and deciding for their online channels. Websites, social media webpages and blogs should be easy to navigate, pleasurable, stimulate curiosity and leave good overall impression so that audience would use it repeatedly (Scarpi 2012).

Just like in offline marketing, organizations need to know how their online target market thinks, acts and performs. Even though typical travelers of the 21st century are somewhat generalized, due to the high increase in Internet usage when purchasing travel it is essential to understand how are these online users segmented. Age, gender, income, and education were found to have a significant influence on online shopping intent (Aljukhadar & Senecal 2011). According to Aljukhadar and Senegal online consumers are segmented in the following way:

1. The basic communicators (use the internet mainly to communicate via e-mail),

2. The lurking shoppers (consumers who employ the internet to navigate and to heavily shop)

3. The social thrivers (exploit more the internet interactive features to socially interact by mean of chatting, blogging, video streaming, and downloading) (2011).

Travel and Tourist Organizations

What does all this mean for tourist organizations? In order to better understand which communication strategies to use for online activities it is important to acknowledge previous information and identify online target market. The world fell for the Internet and social media but not all the tourist and travel organizations will benefit from such communication strategies in the same way.

Compared to basic communicators and lurking shoppers, social thrivers are the least important segment due to the fact that they are the youngest users with lowest income (Aljukhadar & Senecal 2011). They are often disregarded and therefore not targeted for e-commerce websites. However, statistics show that they spend most time on the Internet. If travel and tourist organizations do not know how their target market utilizes time on the Internet, data can be misinterpreted and lead to wrong communication strategies. Offering exclusive holidays and targeting social thrivers will not generate high ROI. Instead, targeting lurking shoppers, who are highly educated and of highest income, will generate some ROI. Affluent consumers, who correspond to lurking shoppers, do not have the time to search for travel services and destinations to satisfy their travel needs (Bhati et al. 2013). Still the Internet can be used in two different but not exclusive ways: first, as a source of information, and second, as a marketing tool to facilitate online transactions (Garces et al. 2004). 14 years ago it was mainly used as a source of information due to insecurity in payment systems, technology and lack of human interface (Lang 2000). Today, however, the majority of Internet users overcame this barrier. As previously mentioned, particular segment that still does not use the Internet to purchase holidays are affluent travelers. Travel agents are still important and far from distinct when it comes to affluent travelers (Burn 2013). High end travelers appreciate customization, authenticity and exclusivity when planning their travel (Bhati et al, 2013) and this is to be achieved through networking, personal selling, and world wide recognized prizes (Burn 2013). They do not have the time to waste because for them, time is money. Social media websites such as Facebook, Twitter, or different blogs attract no attention (see the pic) since this segment only cares about the relationship with the hotel (Burn 2013).

Social thrivers, even though perceived as not important, are not to be completely dismissed. Knowing that they spend most of their time on the Internet engaging in social media websites to chat, blog, stream and download; travel and tourist organizations should use that information to better know where to advertise when targeting young travelers of lower income. Having identified where to target them, travel and tourist organizations need to know how to best reach new and existing travelers. Out of different options of Internet advertising such as banner ads, coupon/loyalty advertising, SEM (search engine marketing), and price comparison websites; it is vital to acknowledge that coupon/loyalty advertising and search engine marketing are used to reach existing consumers whereas price comparison websites attract new consumers best (Breuer & Brettel 2012).

Summary

The beauty of the Internet is that it offers broad range of information, products and services easily available. Couple of clicks share travelers from adventurous journeys and relaxed family holidays. Tourist and travel organizations have experienced major changes within their business models due to the rise of the Internet and customers’ fidelity to it. What has not changed is the way these organizations should think of their consumers. Just like offline, travelers can be differentiated and segmented even online. In order to better utilize all the benefits the Internet offers, organizations should identify and understand their online target segment and plan communication strategies accordingly.

Reference List

Akar, E. Topcu, B. 2011, An Examination of the Factors Influencing Consumers' Attitudes Toward Social Media Marketing. Journal of Internet Commerce . no. 1, pp. 35-67.

Aljukhadar, M. Senecal, S. 2011, Segmenting the online consumer market. Marketing Intelligence and Planning. no. pp. 4, 422 - 433.

Bhati, A. Chang, J. Kaur, K. Hoogn Cheong, T. 2013, Personalised Travel Services: An Exploratory Study in Singapore Context." Tourism and Hospitality. no. 2, http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/Personalised-Travel-Services-an-Exploratory-Study-in-Singapore-Context-2167-0269.1000113.pdf (accessed February 11, 2014).

Breuer, R. Brettel, M. 2012, Short- and Long-term Effects of Online Advertising: Differences between New and Existing Customers. Journal of Interactive Marketing. no. 1, pp. 155-166.

Buhalis, D. Law, R. 2008, Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10 years after the Internet—The state of eTourism research. Tourism Management. no. 4, pp. 609–623. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517708000162 (accessed February 11, 2014).

Burn, D. Contently. 2013, The Brochure is Dead: Luxury Travelers Want More . Last modified July 16, 2013. Accessed February 11, 2014. http://contently.com/strategist/2013/07/16/content-experiences-for-the-luxury-traveler/

Garces, S. Gorgemans, S. Sanchez, A.M. Perez, M. 2004. Implications of the Internet - an analysis of the Aragonese hospitality industry. Tourism Management , 4(5) , 603-613. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517703001523 (accessed February 11, 2014).

Lang, T. C. 2000, The effect of the Internet on travel consumer purchasing behaviour and implications for travel agencies . Journal of Vacation Marketing. no. 4, pp. 368-385 . http://jvm.sagepub.com/content/6/4/368.short (accessed February 11, 2014).

Scarpi, D. 2012, Work and Fun on the Internet: The Effects of Utilitarianism and Hedonism Online. Journal of Interactive Marketing. no. 1, pp. 53-67.

Seraj, M. 2012, We create, We Connect, We Respect, Therefore We Are: Intellectual, Social, and Cultural Value in Online Communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing. no. 1, pp. 209-222.

World Tourism Organization, "Historical perspective of world tourism." Accessed February 11, 2014. http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/historical.htm.

Wua, A. Shwu-Ing, S. Weib, Pao-Lien. Chenc, Jui-Ho. 2008, Influential factors and relational structure of Internet banner advertising in the tourism industry. Tourism Management. no. 2, pp. 221-236. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517707000787 (accessed February 11, 2014). 

SOCIAL MEDIA – WHERE THE CONSUMER BECOMES THE BRAND MANAGER

December 4, 2014

Written By Karl Pollinger

Aim

The paper’s aim is to explain how the Internet and specifically social media platforms have changed the brand-consumer relationship in regards to branding control and influence. Do brand managers have lost parts of the control over the brand and is it a positive development?

Introduction

Once upon a time, in a realm far away, consumers were simply consumers - nothing more nothing less. They were bound to believe and accept the status quo set by companies and their respective marketers and brand managers regarding the latter’s products and services. That was the given relationship; the brand manager created an identity message (preferably around the company’s core values) and the consumer then interpreted the message and created his/her brand image – done (Kapferer, 2008, p. 174; Christodoulides, 2009). The only mechanism, which every now and then brought light into the matter of this relationship, was newspapers and other third party media, which uncovered scandals or gave ‘unbiased’ product information. However, the term ‘unbiased’ should be used carefully since it is an ideal and presupposes that third parties do not have their own agenda to distort information.

But then, in 2004 the corner stone of a new era was set by the foundation of a, at that time unexpected and unprecedented, mass social media platform commonly known as Facebook (Business Insider 2010). By now Facebook has accumulated a massive 1.23 billion monthly users, according to British newspaper The Guardian (The Guardian 2014) and has since been joined by other influential social media platforms such as Twitter, Instagram, and Google+, among others.

Together, they build a powerful tool for the common man and woman to share and listen with/to their fellow consumers (Papasolomou & Melanthiou, 2012). As a consequence, news are created and disseminated worldwide within split seconds. Tuten (2008) defines social media as online sites (or applications) through which users can produce, publish, control, rank, and interact with online content.

The Story

Afore-mentioned was not possible prior to the age of social media. Before, people could merely write letters or emails of concern to companies. This gave brands and their managers the hiding space of anonymity. A consumer wrote a letter, the brand manager did not answer, no one seemed to care, and due to the lack of social media platforms that was the end of the story.

Due to the emergence of mass social media like Facebook, brand manager have now the opportunity to animate consumers to participate actively and engage them emotionally into the branding process and, in connection with social media, can provide a platform for open discussion.

Yet, what is actually meant here by ‘opportunity’ is the fact that brand managers are rather forced to listen to the consumers who became active due to the simple fact of being able to write reviews, provide information about the brand at topic, and most of all share it via social media platforms (Singh & Sonnenburg 2012). Cova and Pace (2006) call this consumer control-takeover adequately a serendipitous hijack, in which the consumer captures control of the brand, unexpected by the actual brand manager.

Social media can therefore be seen as a catalyst that enables an ever-changing role-play between all participants/stakeholder. The consumer might be the brand manager at some point, sharing his/her views on Twitter, Facebook, and/or other available media and within minutes the social network can take over and manage the brand’s image without the influence of the actual manager. Singh and Sonnenburg (2012) describe this phenomenon as a metaphorical, improvised role-play in which the consumer and brand manager switch roles from the passive listener to the active participant from time to time. As a consequence managers loose partially control of their brand during the play - all thanks to mass social media platforms.

A fairly recent example where a company loses said control is the following: The Serco Group video (Serco Group Video), which was published in 2009 on the online platform YouTube. The rather critically toned video, made by a journalist, was aimed to unveil the intensity and scale the British based Serco Group is operating on. In a sense, it is warning the consumer of Big Brother (who is watching you), just as the fictional character in George Orwell’s world-renowned novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Within days the video was watch hundreds of thousands of times, mainly due to vast sharing on social media platforms such as Facebook. During the following months and years, more and more major (mainly British) newspapers such as The Guardian (The Guardian 2013) picked up on the story behind the Serco Group and the company’s brand reputation was hurt considerably as a result.

Problems for the Serco Group peaked in late 2013 as the British Serious Fraud Office, a sub-branch of the Ministry of Justice, put the group under investigation (Financial Times 2014). Inter alia, Serco’s mistake was and still is the fact that they did not build relationships with their stakeholders on a web-based social media platform, which is one key to successful brand strategies in the internet era (de Chernatony & Christodoulides, 2004). Quite simply put, they missed the chance to facilitate social media platforms as means to create an open relationship with consumers and other stakeholder. Serco rather hid behind the ambiguity and the enigmatic anonymity of silence. Granted, Serco is a B2B company with whom the average consumer entertains no direct business interaction; however, due to Serco’s operations (see Video above) they affect people in their everyday life. Thus, in order to strengthen and deepen the brand-consumer relationship for the Serco group in a more effective way, they might have to facilitate social media generated content (Van den Bulte & Wuyts, 2007) such as YouTube videos in a positive instead of an uncontrollable negative way.

On the other hand, a company who mastered the idea of partially losing control in order to connect with their consumers is the Danish-based Lego Group. In fact they are so good at it that consumers not only actively participate and provide innovational ideas during the development and production process but actually help Lego to progress products (Antorini et al., 2012). Lego realized as early as the 1990’s that consumer consumers have valuable knowledge which a company should utilize in order to generate a much larger (and much cheaper) pool of innovators. Now, Lego enthusiast can co-create entire Lego lines and earn recognition for their work. As did Chicago-based Architect Adam Reed Tucker with his creation of Lego Architecture (Antorini et al., 2012). This entire process was vastly enhanced by social media platforms on which third party developers are able to share ideas and creations with fellow enthusiasts (Antorini et al., 2012). In the end, by letting go of some of the control over the brand, the Lego Group was able to not only connect with their fans but also increase the innovative output of the company.

Other notable positive examples in the likes of Lucasfilm (providing material for amateur Star Wars DIY film makers) or Doritos (actual amateur films used as commercials) exist in abundance. The latter are just some of the many companies that managed to utilize social media platforms, and the therefore resulting loss of control over the brand, positively - even ingeniously. They managed to avoid what many brands, like McDonalds or Fox News, are currently facing – anti-brand web campaigns run by frustrated consumers, aimed to force negative attention on brands they deem harmful (Krishnamurthy & Kucuk 2008).

Conclusion

To answer the question whether brand managers have partially lost control over the brand due to social media. They clearly have. Above stated examples of the Serco- and Lego Group are just a few cases. Many more cases are widely known such as the ongoing Dove Real Beauty Campaign launched in 2004 and their latest video Dove Real Beauty Sketches, which went viral and sparked user generated mock-videos such as this one. The latter displays how a marketing campaign and its meaning can be distorted by the consumers’ ability to share their view via social media platforms. The Dove campaign earned further criticism, which rapidly spread on Facebook (i.a.) resulting in a Business Insider (2013) article with the title: “Why People Hate Dove's 'Real Beauty Sketches' Video”.

As to the second part of the question above – Is it a positive development? Yes, I believe so. Social media platforms cast off the veil of ambiguity and mystery that can lead consumers astray. Companies; however, need to actively engage and encourage the consumer to participate on social media platform in order regain control and also send a clear message of openness and trust. Also, brand managers have to realize that social media platforms caused a shift in power. Papasolomou and Melanthiou (2012, p. 320) speak here of ‘spreading the word about brands from a one-to-one basis to a one-to-hundreds, or even one-to-thousands.’ It all displays how brand managers lost control through social media – now it is time to adjust and regain.

In the end the questions is whether or not brand managers can fully trust what the consumer believes is right for the company and also from an ethical point of view right for fellow consumers. Is the consumer informed enough about intensions of a brand manager, is the consumer capable of accurately knowing what he/she actuals wants/needs? And is social media maybe also threatening to become a tool to easily dispense false news such as in the case of Konny 2012? 

References

Antorini, Y.M., Muñiz, A. & Askildsen, T. (2012), Collaboration with Customer Communities - Lessons From the Lego Group, MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(3), pp. 71-79

Carlson, N. (2010), At Last -- The Full Story Of How Facebook Was Founded, Business Insider [Internet], available from: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-was-founded-2010-3/they-made-a-mistake-haha-they-asked-me-to-make-it-for-them-2 [accessed 11 February 2014]

Christodoulides, G. (2009), Branding in the post-internet era, Marketing Theory, 9(1), pp. 141-144

Cova, B. & Pace, S. (2006), Brand community of convenience products: new forms of customer empowerment – the case “my Nutella The Community”, European Journal of Marketing, 40(9/10), pp. 1087-1105

De Chernatony, L. & Christodoulides, G. (2004), Taking the Brand Promise Online: Challenges and Opportunities, Interactive Marketing 5(3), pp. 238–51.

Harris, J. (2013), Serco: the company that is running Britain, The Guardian [Internet], available from: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/29/serco-biggest-company-never-heard-of [accessed 12 February 2014]

Kapferer, J.N. (2008), The New Strategic Brand Management - Advanced insights and strategic thinking, 4th Edition, pp. 174, Kogan Page

Krishnamurthy, S. & Kucuk, S.U. (2008), Anti-branding on the Internet, Journal of Business Research, 62(9), pp. 1119-1126

Papasolomou, I. & Melanthiou, Y. (2012), Social Media: Marketing Public Relations’ New Best Friend, Journal of Promotion Management, 18(3), pp. 319-328

Plimmer, G. (2014), Serco wins first UK government contract since ban lifted, Financial Times [Internet], available from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9cfe3482-9259-11e3-9e43-00144feab7de.html#axzz2t7vFqnGz [accessed 13 February 2014]

Rushe, D. (2014), Facebook posts record quarterly results and reports $1.5bn profit for 2013, The Guardian [Internet], available from: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/29/facebook-record-quarterly-results?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2 [accessed 11 February 2014]

Stampler, L. (2013), Why People Hate Dove's 'Real Beauty Sketches' Video, Business Insider [Internet], available from: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-people-hate-doves-real-beauty-ad-2013-4 [accessed 13 February 2014]

Singh, S. & Sonnenburg, S. (2012), Brand Performance in Social Media, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(2), pp. 189-197

Tuten, T. L. (2008), Advertising 2.0. Wesport, CT: Praeger.

Van den Bulte, C. & Wuyts, S. (2007), Social Networks and Marketing, Relevant Knowledge Series, Boston, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Social Media

The Rise of Social Media: Effects on Consumers and Brands

November 29, 2013

Written by Ioannis Petalidis

Purpose – introduction

It is an undisputable fact that the Internet was a revolution that changed not only the consumption field, but in general the way people live and exist; according to Aleks Krotoski and his BBC documentary “Virtual Revolution” it actually created a brand new kind of human being: the “Homo Interneticus”. Nevertheless, the last 10 years this revolution, took a totally different shape that occurred with the rise of social media. When Mark Zuckerberg in 2004 invented the Facebook platform for his classmates in Harvard, no one could imagine that 10 years later he would be one of the world’s richest people. But what was the reason, behind the shaping of “Homo Interneticus”?   

social media connect the world

How the rise of social media and the evolution of the Internet changed the consumption landscape

Susan Fournier and Jill Avery (2011) claim that this dramatic rise and success has its roots to one of the most basic human motivations: “the desire to feel accepted, to fit in and to belong; they name this new era “the age of the social collective” and describe it like a community through virtual connections among like-minded people, that creates “micro-targeted niche groups” to which people can easily belong.

Hanna, Rohm and Crittenden (2011) argue that the main shift in the consumption landscape through the social media revolution is that consumers are no longer passive recipients in the marketing exchange process; rather than that, consumers have a progressively active role in co-creating the marketing content. In their effort to highlight this immense change in the rules of marketing game, they are attempting to bust some prevalent myths that existed in the pre-Internet era:

1. Brand managers own and orchestrate their brands

2. Phones are for making phone calls

3. The Web is for finding information

4. Companies use marketing communications to control their message

5. Consumers purchase products promoted by marketers

6. Providing a forum for customers to talk is dangerous and risky.

Those 6 myths that marketers believed in and were building their strategies upon them are today something more than obsolete; they can prove disastrous.

For instance, if one focuses on myth number 2, it will become clear that during the last years mobile phones transformed completely from a calling and texting device to a portable mini-computer. This shift resulted to the rise of a brand new marketing field, the so-called mobile marketing. Andreas M. Kaplan (2011) defines this field as “any marketing activity conducted through a ubiquitous network to which consumers are constantly connected using a personal mobile device”. Social media went mobile and this was a revolution inside the revolution; from a broader perspective, mobile social media allowed for a tighter integration of virtual and real life, proving wrong some researchers that believed the Internet would result in less communication. (Andreas M. Kaplan, 2011). The Facebook check-in for example is a tool that has proven powerful, as a mean of exhibitionism, but also for helping people meet each other. Nonetheless, as far as the consumption field is concerned, the increasing use of check-in, pushed companies (especially restaurants and cafeterias) to engage in the social media world.

Papasolomou and Melanthiou (2012) highlighted another great change in the consumption landscape that came with the rise of “Homo Interneticus”; the existence of intermediaries or Non Media Connectors (NMC) in the marketing procedure and their crucial role in the building of the brand in the virtual world. This evolution has made marketing being a field of Public Relations, rather than the traditional detailed strategic arena. 

Furthermore, the rise of social media democratized corporate communication, while messages and information about brands circulate with or without permission of the firms in question (Kietzman, Hermkens, McCarthy and Silvestre, 2011). From this point of view, the statement of BBC Business Editor, Tim Weber, summarizes in an emblematic way the position of the brands in the era of Homo Interneticus: “These days, one witty tweet, one clever blog post, one devastating video – forwarded to hundreds of friends at the click of a mouse – can snowball and kill a product or damage a company’s share price”. It is worth mentioning that his kind of anti-branding activism on the Internet is a very common phenomenon, which indicates the online consumer power and the growing consumer sovereignty in the virtual world; what is more, the majority of online anti-brand attacks target well-established and powerful brands (Krishnamurthy, Kucuk, 2008).

Moreover, another important aspect of the latest evolution in the virtual world is the high degree of credibility with which Internet users treat the online word of mouth (Akar, Topcu, 2011). There is no doubt that customers perceive the user generated content as more reliable than straightforward business communication; as a result, electronic word of mouth has turned into a dominating channel that influences consumer behavior; social media marketing has become multidirectional, participatory and consumer driven.

Movies industry – example

After having examined some prevailing theories about the major shifts that the Internet revolution and the rise of the Homo Interneticus brought to the consumption landscape, it is time to focus on a field that the virtual revolution not only had a strong impact, but changed it radically: the movies industry.

 IMDb (Internet Movie Database)

IMDb logo

“Those Eyes”, the predecessor of IMDb, was launched in 1990 by professional computer programmer and British film Fan, Col Needham and it was about listing actresses with beautiful eyes. Others with similar interests soon responded with additions of different lists of their own: “Actors List”, “Dead Actors/ Actresses List”, “Directors List”. The goal of the participants changed over time towards making the lists as inclusive as possible. By the end of 1990, the lists included almost 10,000 movies and television series. When Needham developed and inserted a program that could search among the lists, Internet Movie Database was born. In 1993 IMDb became an independent website run by its followers and the amount of stored data increased hugely. In 1998, due to restricted funding, Needham sold IMDb to Amazon.com, with the condition that he would remain in operational charge.

There is no denying the fact that nowadays, IMDb is the most powerful and useful tool for everyone, before watching a movie. The democratized way of its rating system and the message boards in which the users exchange opinions about movies and TV series, are its two strongest components that allowed it to prevail in the movie’s critic field. A series of negative e- words of mouth in the IMDb message board or a low rating can prove devastating for the reputation of a movie and lead to a catastrophically small attendance in the theaters.

Besides, the site gives the opportunity for users to make their own lists of top movies, in general, by movie category or by actor. The evolution of IMDb demonstrates the shift from the passive movie consumer to the active co-creator of movies industry’s reputation. Award ceremonies like the Oscars and film festivals like Cannes review movies every year, however, those judgments might be biased due to financial interests of the industry or lobbying and are likely not to be proportional to the public’s opinion. On the other hand, professional film critics lost their authority over the quality of a movie.

How can marketers best adapt

While in a world that is ruled by Homo Interneticus and social media, the challenges have become clearer, the answers that marketers should imply are still surrounded by fog. According to Fournier and Avery (2011) the traditional branding strategies seem obsolete, disconnected and irrelevant in a space owned by the social collective, where transparency, criticism and parody of the well established firms reign. Instead, they suggest a different approach where brand building gives its place to brand protection, as an ever present need to protect reputation from attack and demise. As it can be clearly seen, the old attack-oriented brand strategies do not apply to the world of social media; whereas, a defensive attitude is more applicable and a strategy focused on risk management and risk control is much more effective. In addition to this, Fournier and Avery (2011) highlight the need for a shift from strategic planning and proactive, pre-constructed strategies, towards a branding ruled by faith in intuition and excellence in execution; for this purpose they encourage firms to employ the so-called “digital natives” or “Generation Y” who was raised amid the social media revolution. Last but not least, for the best adaptation of marketers in this brand new world, it is proposed to stop giving priority to differentiation and turn towards the creation of resonant cultural conversations; following this road, marketers will start to focus on building short - term brands, opposing to the dominant branding philosophy that emphasizes in creating long- term brand assets.

Moreover, Kietzman, Hermkens, McCarthy and Silvestre (2011), suggest a framework with a form of a honeycomb that consists of seven functional blocks of social media activity: presence (the extent to which users know if other users are accessible), sharing (are users exchanging, distributing and receiving content?), relationships (at what point are users are related to each other?), identity (the extent to which users reveal their true identities), conversations (how often users communicate with each other?), groups (are users forming communities?) and reputation (the extent to which users can identify the standing of themselves or others in a social media setting). Having those seven blocks in mind, marketers should try to recognize and understand in depth the social media landscape, finding out if and where conversations about a firm are being held, who are the main influencers and gathering competitive intelligence. Also, they should adapt their strategies to the different social media functionalities and develop a clear understanding of how often and when a firm should interfere in conversations as well as who will represent it online; the key success factor here is to identify who has the ability to listen and care about online chatter and especially who is capable of creating emotionally appropriate content for the community. This has to be done by creating relationships that solve customer issues, not just sympathizing. It is significant for marketers to scan the environment in order to understand the velocity of information; even when it seems too late an appropriate response may turn the tide.

Likewise, the case of negative e- word of mouth and its managing by the companies has gained attention by a lot of researchers. It is claimed that bad evaluations have a stronger impact on the brand reputation than positive ones and this is based on Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) principle of prospect theory: people perceive losses more severely than gains (Shimabukuro Sandes, Torres Urdan, 2013); consequently, companies should remain vigilant and treat the criticisms properly.

At the other end of the scale, the example of Lego Group gave another perspective; not only monitored or interacted with customer communities, but took a step further and collaborated with them; the Lego paradigm is an exceptional case of how a traditional, tightly controlled company that for decades was run by the slogan “we don’t accept unsolicited ideas”, was transformed into an open-minded, collaborative and customer-oriented business. When LEGO management was found at the crossroad of either taking legal measures against the violation of their copyright or invite users to collaborate on new innovative products, the decision was brilliant and characterized by strong peripheral vision. Antorini, Muniz Jr, Askildsen (2012) highlight the main principles that marketers should keep in mind when collaborating with customer communities; at first it is important to clarify the rules and expectations; secondly there is a need of forming a win-win mindset, by creating the feeling to the collaborating customers that the firm does not only care about “getting the job done”; thirdly, it is significant to recognize that outsiders are not insiders, which means that user communities should always be treated as independent entities and not a part of the firm; additionally, companies should not expect one size to fit all and create different environments for each type of innovation; last but not least, they should be as open as possible in order to allow collaborators to interact with each other to the maximum extent and not sacrifice this openness for confidentiality reasons.

In the same wavelength, Muniz Jr. and Jensen Schau recommend to companies to take the initiative and create on their own the virtual community of their consumers in a well structured environment that embraces the differences of the members; it is very important for marketers to give motives at the members of brand communities in order to keep their attention and interest at high levels.

Conclusion

To recapitulate, it can clearly be noticed that the dawn of the 21st century was the transition point from a world that the big brands set the agenda, to a virtual reality that consumers break their chains and take things at their hands. Nevertheless, this era of the social collective and growing criticism about the power of firms, is also characterized by an unprecedented overload of information, where the consumer is bombarded in a daily basis by a huge amount of new data. Especially in the Internet field, the new experiences that an individual gets have become countless; consequently, the challenge for marketing experts is not only to create a friendly environment that serves their customers but also to keep the attention of the consumer in an everyday tough battle, among the never ending stimuli of the virtual world. Marketing strategies should be innovative, entertaining and avoid the web’s worst enemy; boredom.    

Reference list

Akar E., Topcu B. (2011). An Examination of the Factors Influencing Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Social Media Marketing. Journal of Internet Commerce. 10, 35-67.

Antorini Y.M., Muniz A. Jr. and Askildsen T. (2012). Collaborating with Customer Communities: Lessons From the Lego Group. MIT Sloan Management Review. 53 (3), 73-79.

Fournier S., Avery J. (2011). The uninvited brand. Business Horizons, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. 54, 193-207.

Hanna R., Rohm A., Crittenden V.  (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. 54, 241-251.

Kaplan A. (2012). If you love something, let it go mobile: Mobile marketing and mobile social media 4x4. Business Horizons, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. 55, 129-139.

Kietzman J., Hermkens K., McCarthy I., and Silvestre B. (2011). Social Media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. 54, 241-251.

Krishnamurthy S., Kucuk U. (2009). Anti-branding on the Internet. Journal of Business Research. 62, 1119–1126.

Muniz Jr. A., Jensen Schau H. (2011). How to inspire value-laden collaborative consumer-generated content. Business Horizons, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. 54, 209—217.

Papasolomou I., Melanthiou, Y. (2012). Social Media: Marketing Public Relations’ New Best Friend. Journal of Promotion Management. 18, 319-328.

Shimabukuro Sandes F., Torres Urdan A. (2013). Electronic Word-of-Mouth Impacts on Consumer Behavior: Exploratory and Experimental Studies. Journal of International Consumer Marketing. 25, 181-197.

Wikipedia. (2014). Internet Movie Database. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Movie_Database. Last accessed 15th Feb 2014.

Wikipedia. (2013). The Virtual Revolution. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtual_Revolution. Last accessed 15th Feb 2014.

VALUE FROM ONLINE CONSUMERS: AN ACADEMIC APPROACH TO MARKETING AND BRANDS Part 2

November 27, 2014

Written by Kristina Persson

Analysis: The Why and How: Generating value from online consumers

Why?

Armelini & Villaneva (2011:29) suggest that brands don't have any presence in consumer's thoughts unless the brands are blogging, tweeting and conversing with the customers on social platforms. Fourneir and Avery point out that the internet, the web, is a social space, for people first, and brands have 'crashed the party' (2011:193). Invited or not, brands are part of the web. As in Virtual Worlds, or "lifeworlds" (Zwick, Bonsu and Darmody 2010:168) real people and real brands are present, and brands can use these webs to communicate, and also sell, including real and virtual products (Eisenbeiss et al 2012:17).

In these complex webs of information, people and messages, it is important not only to realise why, but for marketers to figure out how, to engage in marketing online. While people are present on various platforms and in different communities, messages are not necessarily directed at any specific audience. In this new media age, brands do not have control over messages, or who they are influencing, '..everyone and no one [is] the audience' (Fourneir and Avery 2011:194). At the same time, online media messages compete for customer's attention (Armelini & Villaneva 2011:30). Consumers themselves generate content (Muñiz Jr & Schau 2011:210-212), and the web allows for many forms of alternative media, in non-geographically bound and fragmented markets (Winer 2009:109). Careful targeting to the desired audience, through profiles of participants may help marketers focus their resources.

Who?

Aljukhadar & Senecal 2010 classify people online into  three broad segments (2010:428) of 'basic communicators' such as people who use the internet for email, 'lurking shoppers' who would remain fairly passive, but engaging in online shopping, and 'social thrivers' who are interactive - blogging, chatting, video streaming, downloading. The 'Social Thrivers' are the largest group, would be most engaging and engaged with brands, but at the same time, for some businesses, would be seen as less important than lurker shoppers in e-commerce (Aljukhada & Senecal 2010:429).

In social media, where 'social thrivers' are active (Aljukhada & Senecal 2010:429), Web 2.0 platforms provide 'lifeworlds' for consumers and brands to interact together (Zwick, Bonsu and Darmody 2010:168). Keitzmann et al describe social media based on various 'engagement needs' that are fulfilled for users (2011:242). These are presented as seven 'building blocks' that stacked together, and labelled as  'Presence' 'Sharing' 'Relationships' 'Identity' 'Conversations' 'Reputation' and 'Groups' (Keitzmann et al 2011:242). Different social media platforms with combinations of these building block provide a social space for users to fulfil needs relating to these themes.

The way people act in these spaces have been classified into 5 roles, 'Creators' 'Critics' 'Collectors' 'Joiners' and 'Spectators' (Li and Berhoff (2005, cited in Hanna, Rohm and Crittenden 2011:269-269). These indicate various levels of engagement, and upon various platforms would attract different segments of people. Social media provides the possibilities for developing deeper relationships, and space to interact 'communally' both with individual and personal responses, and forum to share with group as a whole (Christodoulides 2009:142-143).

How?

A range of strategies are given for brands and marketers to adapt their approaches from 'traditional marketing' to social media marketing, how to engage online. Suggestions range from surrendering control, developing co-created brands, giving control to customers (Zwick. Bonsu & Darmody 2008:167) to developing cooperation, leveraging relationships (Hanna, Rohm & Crittenden 2011:266).

There are a 'multiplicity of factors' embedded in a corporation, or brand's business strategy, such as the company itself, the industry, products and buyers, that can influence marketing strategies, including in online environments (Varadarajan and Yadav 2009:12). Each of these suggestions require brands to understand their business strategies, resources and aims.

Brands have objectives such as brand promotion, reaching audiences, and achieving sales (Winer 2009:109). Brands and corporations can experiment on different social media platforms, with various functions such as social networking, content sharing of photos, podcast and video, or multiple sites, to engage and influence audiences  (Hanna, Rohm & Crittenden 2011:266). The brand story can be fed into this ecosystem, where conversations are 'products' (Hanna, Rohm & Crittenden 2011:267). Compared to being recipients of traditional media and brand messaging, consumers want to become participants, gaining intimate experiences (Hanna, Rohm & Crittenden 2011:267-268). Marketers can use technology to monitor behaviour, to understand the process of thought consumers take to reach ideas, and monitor their physical location, to send personalised advertising and messages (Winer 2009:109).

Credibility is given as an important factor by Armelini & Villaneva which relate to brand promises, trust and emphasise the power of personal recommendations, easily shared online, over advertising (2011:32). Barwise and Meehan provide similar suggestions including to continually strive to improve, and demonstrate an understanding of what consumers want, and play by their rules (2010:83-84). Playfulness is said to make value-creation interactions enjoyable, and activities are attractive for people engaging in them (Seraj 2012:212). Playful, self-governed and quality content driven activities were found to create value, and encourage loyalty for members in online communities (Seraj 2012:209,212). Zwick Bonsu & Darmody, warn brands against aiming to 'co-create' value as it can be seen as exploitative of consumer freedom and labour (2008:163).

Discussion

From the occasional internet browser to activist blogger; people contributing to conversations, every web page visit, action, comment, click, check in at a certain location, when and with whom, stands as an endorsement, reminder, signal of interaction with brands and consumers.  In the online world, these are recorded, visible and public. Consumers participate online enjoyable, playful, creative experiences and engagement to fulfil individual needs. Brands have the same freedom to enter these 'lifeworlds' and can engage with consumers, in order to fulfil their business objectives. While called 'mutually beneficial' relationships for consumers, brands are still in a position to direct how consumers interact, and shape messages to them accordingly.

Marketers can generate value by communicating in this social space alongside consumers, in order to engage and 'co-create' and develop social meaning, which can be translated into financial value. Readers may understand that their interactions in activities in social media are sources of consumption and production, and consider what these acts mean for themselves in their worlds, and to the brands they are interacting with.

References

Aljukhadar, M., & Senecal, S. (2011). Segmenting the online consumer market.Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 29(4), 421-435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634501111138572

Akar, E., & Topçu, B. (2011). An examination of the factors influencing consumers' attitudes toward social media marketing. Journal of Internet Commerce, 10(1), 35-67. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15332861.2011.558456#.Uv5zdkqwW9k

Armelini, G, & Villanueva, J. (2011). Adding social media to the marketing mix. IESE-Insight Magazine, 3(4), 29-36.

http://ludwig.lub.lu.se/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ludwig.lub.lu.se/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=88417864&site=eds-live&scope=site

Christodoulides, G. (2009). Branding in the post-internet era. Marketing Theory,9(1), 141-144.

www.uk.sagepub.com/clow/study/articles/PDFs/05_Christodoulides.pdf

Eisenbeiss, M., Blechschmidt, B., Backhaus, K., & Freund, P. A. (2012). “The (real) world is not enough:” motivational drivers and user behavior in virtual worlds. Journ Winer, R. S. (2009). New communications approaches in marketing: Issues and research directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(2), 108-117. al of Interactive Marketing, 26(1), 4-20.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094996811000508

Firat, A. F., & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Reenchantment of Consumption. The journal of consumer research, 22(3), 239-267.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489612

Fournier, S., & Avery, J. (2011). The uninvited brand. Business Horizons, 54(3), 193-207.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681311000024

Hanna, R., Rohm, A., & Crittenden, V. L. (2011). We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons, 54(3), 265-273.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681311000243

Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business horizons, 54(3), 241-251.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681311000061

Muñiz Jr, A. M., & Schau, H. J. (2011). How to inspire value-laden collaborative consumer-generated content. Business Horizons, 54(3), 209-217. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007681311000036

Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & Maclnnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management. Journal of marketing, 50(4).

http://www.jstor.org.ludwig.lub.lu.se/stable/1251291?origin=crossref

Seraj, M. (2012). We create, we connect, we respect, therefore we are: intellectual, social, and cultural value in online communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(4), 209-222.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094996812000187

Varadarajan, R., & Yadav, M. S. (2009). Marketing strategy in an internet-enabled environment: a retrospective on the first ten years of JIM and a prospective on the next ten years. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(1), 11-22.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094996808000030

Winer, R. S. (2009). New communications approaches in marketing: Issues and research directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(2), 108-117.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1094996809000383

Zwick, D., Bonsu, S. K., & Darmody, A. (2008). Putting Consumers to WorkCo-creationand new marketing govern-mentality. Journal of consumer culture, 8(2), 163-196.

http://joc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/2/163

VALUE FROM ONLINE CONSUMERS: AN ACADEMIC APPROACH TO MARKETING AND BRANDS Part 1

November 24, 2014

Written by Kristina Persson

Introduction

Changes in technology over the past decade have influenced the way consumers engage and participating in activities online. The web is an environment for creation, consumption, and socialising (Seraj 2012). Marketers realise the potential to capitalise on consumers as creators, advertisers and advocates for their brands through co-creation of products and experiences, in turn generating value. By understanding roles consumers take when engaging online, marketers can better target, reach, engage and interact with the right audience for their brand. 

Purpose

This paper provides an overview of online marketing, branding and consumption, to explain why and how marketers can adapt their strategies online to create value. Consumers participate on social media platforms to fulfil personal needs, which can also generate value for brands. This paper seeks to explain the concept of value, the roles consumers take, and provide considerations to 'why and how should marketers generate value from consumers?'

Ideas presented in academic literature will provide the basis for defining these concepts. The analysis will outline why and how marketers can adapt their activities in the context of the internet. Finally, some conclusions will provide a summary of the findings and encourage readers to ask themselves where they find value when engaging online. For brand managers, taking a marketer's perspective, they may consider where are potentials source to exploit to capture and create value and meaning for their brands. Readers may consider their own consumer roles, and how their social media activity might appear outwardly to their friends, communities, followers, and the millions of internet users with access their information, blog posts, comments and conversations online, and marketers who may be monitoring them (Varadarajan & Yadav 2009:19). The paper is presented in two parts, the first part outlining the theoretical framework and definitions, and the second addressing the 'why' and 'how' aspects of analysis and discussion about marketers generating value from consumers.

Theoretical Framework

This paper is written from a social viewpoint, considering roles of marketers and consumers and social interaction online, with a theoretical perspective of postmodern consumerism (Firat and Venkatatesh 1995:259). Postmodernism expresses the possibility to create spaces outside the market system, in a 'lifeworld', for example in social spaces, community and civic life (Firat and Venkatesh 1995:259) to explain consumption occurring in these spaces, beyond pure markets. Zwick, Bonsu and Darmody (2010:168) explain that brands are becoming embedded in these 'consumer lifeworlds', which means marketing itself is entwined with consumers, who are producing and consuming, and partners in brands creative and production processes (Zwick, Bonsu and Darmody 2010:168).

Value creation is considered from a perspective of neo-liberal Marxism, where marketers manage and seize creativity, knowledge and communication to generate economic value (Zwick. Bonsu & Darmody 2008:177). Seraj uses a definition that explains value as consumers perception and assessment of 'what is received and what is given' (2012:209). Co-creation and constructing 'productive social relations' for capitalist growth (Zwick. Bonsu & Darmody 2008:177) is used to describes how marketers can generate value from consumers interacting with corporations, or brands, and with each other (Zwick. Bonsu & Darmody 2008:177; Winer 2009:109). Brands manufacturing involvement and emotional and social attachments around products, which gives them value (Zwick Bonsu & Darmody 2008:186).

Definitions and concepts

Marketing

'Traditional marketing' (Armelini & Villaneva 2011:29) 'old' marketing (Zwick, Bonsu & Darmody 2008:164) or 'offline marketing' (Christodoulides 2009:141) is characterised by its one-way nature and corporate brand-directed messages broadcast to audiences. This style of marketing has also been called 'one-sided', where marketers and brand hold the power and information and opportunity to have their say (Christodoulides 2009:142) and consumers reactions to marketing are limited by their expression of choice to participate in the market, and purchase, or not (Muñiz Jr & Schau 2011:209).

New marketing is characterised by its interactivity, and digital nature (Winer 2009:110). Electronic versions of traditional 'one-way' advertising in banners, billboards and static messages and content online are found in addition to podcasts, video streams, as well as platforms of social communities where two-way and multi-way dialogue is possible (Winer 2009:110; Muñiz Jr & Schau, 2011:209; Seraj 2012:209). Akar and Topcu  highlight that marketers, involvement in social media, and communications affect the internet, and the lives of people using the internet (2011:58).

Consumers

Consumers engage in social acts of consumption and production, symbolic acts, in moments where meanings, relationships and social definitions are interpreted and reinforced (Firat and Venkatatesh 1995:242). That is, activities and social exchanges that people take part in generating meaning.  In social online communities, people fulfil individual and social needs such as desires to seek information, experiences, express creativity, develop identity, and escape (Seraj 2012:209, Eisenbeiss et al 2012:12).

Lifeworlds

Varadarajan & Yadav explain the market place extending beyond the physical market, into electronic, and a technology and internet-enabled one (2009:11). Eisenbeiss et al. (2011) describe Virtual Worlds, where people assume identities, have experiences, cooperate and interact, and take part in virtual activities, such as travel, business and relationships, in virtual worlds with virtual markets (2011:5,17). This may be one clear 'lifeworld' that can be understood as a social community, however market and social transactions or 'exchange processes' do occur (Eisenbeiss et al. 2011:5; Firat and Venkatesh 1995:240). 

Online marketing, can therefore be understood as social marketing, groups of people, including consumers and brands communicating in all directions - that is, creating, receiving, and responding to messages. This is enabled by the internet and communications technologies, particularly with Web 2.0 tools (Christodoulides 2009:143; Varadarajan & Yadav 2009:21) and virtual worlds (Eisenbeiss et al 2011).   

The types of social environments online include webs of content, which have value (Akar &Topcu 2011:35). Social media channels allow observers to become participants are platforms for influencing users (Hanna Rohm & Crittenden 2011:267) and  include, social Media channels such as Twitter, Facebook and other Web 2.0 platforms, including Youtube, MySpace and Flicker (Akar & Topcu 2011: 36; Hanna Rohm & Crittenden 2011:266)

Branding

Park, Jaworski & MacInnis (1986:135) define branding as activities that firms, or corporations,  engage in to convey an image effectively to a target market, to maintain a market position and improve performance. Brand Concept-Image Management is a complete system for firms to develop, maintain and control brand image (Park, Jaworski & MacInnis 1986:135) and manage it long term (Park, Jaworski & MacInnis 1986:144). Managing a brand's image is considered important as a brand itself, alongside firms resources and products, can be seen as something worthy of long term investment, and source of long-term competitive advantage (Park, Jaworski & MacInnis 1986:144). With or without physical presence, brands are sources of economic value, which makes them something worth valuing and protecting (Christodoulides 2009:141)

Christodoulides view of branding incorporates activities that take place in social networks, as dynamic environments enabled by computer and technology (2009:141-142). Rather than managing, brand 'hosts' conversations and manage customer perspectives about their experiences with brands based on their products and services (Christodoulides 2009:143). This branding activity occurs  in social media spaces, in groups, blogs, networking sites, where consumers create, define and dictate messages and advertising about the brand  (Christodoulides 2009:143). Marketers can listen and follow the conversations and messages being communicated in the social media ecosystem (Hanna, Rohm and Crittenden 2011:266).

Continue reading Analysis and Discussion

Brand coherence: how is it affected by the increasing connectivity?

November 20, 2014

Written by Mikael Omberg

INTRODUCTION

Brand coherence is strongly connected to a brand’s essence, the very core of what identity the brand is communicating to the marketplace. As all relationships, the bond between a consumer and a brand is built as well as maintained over time. Therefore, to systematically and successfully communicate brand values to a consumer or customer, maintaining brand coherence becomes an inherently vital tool for brand managers. However, the growth of a company and their respective market presence, arrival into new markets, new product lines or service offerings, creates challenges to maintain an approach to consumers which does not lack brand coherence (Kapferer 2012). These challenges also arise when companies are forced to adapt, often promptly, to new and constantly evolving communication channels (Kapferer 2012; Kietzmann et al. 2011; Hoffman & Novak 2012).

AIM OF RESEARCH 

The aim of this paper is to study what impact the Internet and social media have on a brand’s ability to stay connected to their identity and stakeholders as well as what risks or opportunities these communication channels may present concerning brand coherence.

BRAND COHERENCE AND CUSTOMER EMPOWERMENT

Today, not only is the amount of people who look to the internet and social media to evaluate brands increasing, but they are also shaping the corporate communication in form of comments, videos, pictures, reviews – the list goes on (Kietzmann et al. 2011; Kucuk 2008). Grönroos (2008) argues that service marketing is taking place in a servicescape, a place where consumers and companies meet to interact with each other and interaction is now also located virtually. While the extension of the servicescape to an online platform creates possibilities for companies to find new ways of communicating with customers (Koernig 2003; Wilson et al. 2008), the loss of control of content and interaction (Kietzmann et al. 2011), might prove to make brand coherence more challenging (Kapferer 2012).

Essentially, brand coherence is damaged when the values of the brand becomes convoluted to the individuals with a connection to the brand (Kapferer 2012). An illustration of when brand coherence can become convoluted, and thus the subject of brand dilution, is anti-brand sites (Kucuk 2008). Kucuk (2008) argues that the increase in consumer’s ability to voice their opinion has become powerful tool for them to react to companies’ business. While enabling companies to find new and efficient ways to market their products and brands, the internet has become a double-edged sword which people can use to voice their displease with company efforts and policies (Kucuk 2008). According to Kucuk, individuals now have an instrument to purposefully harm companies brand identity – and in the long run, the brand coherence. As established previously, this then might prove harmful to the brand coherence. Through the most vocal of the anti-brand standard-bearers, the message has then spread through word-of-mouth, and is able to reach every corner of the world.

However, not all damage sustained to brand coherence online is made by malignant or disgruntled individuals who have found a way to communicate their disapproval. Brand ambassadors sometimes themselves prove to be just as efficient in decimating brands, when responding poorly to customer reviews or critique (socialmediatoday 2014). Socialmediatoday suggests that ignoring, deleting or responding aggressively or hollowly to consumer comments can have a strong negative effect on how the brand is perceived. This correlates well to the arguments presented by Kapferer (2012) in the sense that what is promised, or expected, of a brand has to be delivered – otherwise the identity will become unclear and thus hurt the brand coherence: the values expected by the customer will not be delivered.

Other ways in which brand coherence can become subject to change is when a brand has not a clear strategy of engaging stakeholders. Inability to foresee outcomes of online interaction can, as discussed above, somewhat be perceived as inherent to online communication but a complete misunderstanding or misjudgment of the brands’ situation can increasingly lead to events hurting the brand.

JP Morgan Chase, global financial services provider and one of the largest banking institutions in the USA, decided last year to have a Q&A(Questions and Answers) on twitter. They invited people to ask ‘What career advice would you ask a leading exec at a global firm?’ The twitter feed was overrun with individuals diverting from the topic and asking JP Morgan Chase questions such as ‘Can I have my house back?’ and ‘I have mortgage fraud, Market Manipulation, Credit Card Abuse, Libor Rigging and Predatory Lending AM I DIVERSIFIED?’. Short thereafter the Q&A was cancelled with JP Morgan Chase announcing ‘Tomorrow’s Q&A is cancelled. Bad Idea. Back to the drawing board.’ (Rolling Stones 2013).

On the other hand, there are examples of when interaction with brand stakeholder and a serious and thought-through review of the opinions can be used to adjust and strengthen brand coherence. Deighton and Kornfeld (2009) explain, through exemplification, the metamorphosis of Unilever’s Dove brand trough the Real Beauty-campaign which garnered a lot of positive attention by shifting from a functional brand into a brand with a point-of-view, created through the scanning of opinions and trends of the marketplace.

Furthermore, scholars, actors and media powerhouses – among others – have taken to Reddit.com to engage the public in AMA’’ (Ask Me Anything). By doing so they are engaging the people interested in their craft or personality and strengthen connection with their followers and admirers, with a low dependency on intermediaries. Brand identity and brand coherence is here easily communicated, and formed, together with brand stakeholders.

Arguably, brand coherence is becoming crucial for brands because whether brand managers are making a conscious effort to advocate and support their products and services online there will be a constant community and stakeholder feedback and discussion being present. Chrisodoulides (2009) state that consumers will always know more about a company’s product or services than they do themselves and, more importantly, they will be talking about it. The author emphasizes the need for brands to facilitate these conversations that are taking place. The sheer amount of information that is being said about brands through reviews, comments, videos etcetera is according to Chrisodoulides (2009) impossible to control, but it is rather something that brand managers need to be aware of and act accordingly to. Furthermore, Hoffman & Novak (2012) state that it is important to understand that different brands generate the most and desirable consumer attention from different internet marketing platforms and strategies. Maintaining brand coherence therefore also becomes a question of strategic choices. 

Vargo and Lusch (2008) strengthens the arguments presented by Chrisodoulides and argues that online, a service-dominant logic is prevailing and that consumers must be viewed as co-creators of the experience. The amount of companies that provide us with intangibles have skyrocketed and some of them (consider LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram – the list goes on). In these cases Vargo and Lusch would argue that there is not service without the consumer. However, a service-dominant logic can also be applied to tangible products as described above in the Dove Real Beauty-campaign case. According to Kapferer (2012), this is   offering value to consumers.  This epitomizes the possibilities and challenges with maintaining brand coherence online.

HOW IT CONNECTS

It is to be understood that there is not a choice for a brand to have online presence or not. Whether a brand wants it or not it is subject to becoming the talk of town online. Internet has opened up communication channels and made it possible for everybody who wants to participate and voice their opinion. This raises on the other hand an important decision for companies – how, and to what extent do we want to participate in the discussions to ensure brand coherence? The first step in answering this question before taking action is to look at the brands identity and positioning. Providing stakeholders with the expected experience and make good on promises is essential to prevent the brand from lacking brand coherence through the multifaceted communication channels it will find itself in.

Likely, there will be negative reviews or comments regarding your brand but these comments can provide useful feedback, highlighting areas where consumers are not experiencing what you set out to do. It is improbable that consumers are commenting negatively on Amazons’ ability to provide them with an answer to where the closes coffee shop is. However, if they fail to provide good alternatives on which book to order for the weekend, they might be in trouble. Brand coherence is after all about delivering what is expected of you.

CONCLUSIONS

It becomes clear that there is, presently, no one true answer on how to maintain brand coherence through internet and social media marketing, but it is rather something that must align with the brand identity, as proposed by Kapeferer (2010), as well as the behavior of the brands target group  and the company’s brand strategy. Straying far from the identity of the brand, utilizing different voices and approached when communicating or even worse, neglecting customer feedback can however be highlighted as potential factors affecting brand coherence negatively. However, the rise of internet usage and social media presence of brand stakeholders are not to be issues out as a warning to brand managers. It increases the opportunities for companies to retrieve valuable feedback from consumers and customers and enables brand ambassadors to express their opinions. Moreover, it allows companies to reach people in the click of a button and promptly address issues as well as promoting products and services. All in all, it widens the scope and complexity in the work of managing brand coherence, but ultimately it provides companies with a powerful tool of brand management.

REFERENCES

Chrisodoulides, G. (2009), “Branding in the post-internet era”, Marketing Theory, 9, 141.

Deighton, J. and Kornfeld, L. (2009), “Interactivity's Unanticipated Consequences for Marketers and Marketing”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, p. 4-10.

Grönroos, C. (2008). Service management och marknadsföring. Malmö. Liber AB

Hoffman, D.L.  & T. P. Novak, (2012), ”Toward a Deeper Understanding of Social Media”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 69–70

Kapferer, Jean Noël (2012). The new strategic brand management: advanced insights and strategic thinking. 5. ed. London: Kogan Page

Kietzmann, J.H., K. Hermkens, I.P., McCarthy & B.S. Silvestreet (2011), “Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media”, Business Horizons, 54, 241—251. *

Koernig, S K (2003). E-Scapes: The Electronic Physical Environment and Service

Tangibility. Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20, Nr. 2, ss. 151-167.

 Kucuk, S 2008, 'Negative Double Jeopardy: The role of anti-brand sites on the internet', Journal Of Brand Management, 15, 3, pp. 209-222, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 12 February 2014.

Rolling Stone Magazine, (2013) http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/chases-twitter-gambit-devolves-into-all-time-pr-fiasco-20131115 [Avaliable 2014-02-10]

Socialmediatoday (2013) http://socialmediatoday.com/carole/568001/5-ways-brands-respond-negative-comments-social-networks-hint-only-one-effective [Avaliable 2014-02-11]

Vargo, S., Lusch, R. (2008). Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. Journal Of The Academy Of Marketing Science. Vol. 36. Nr. 1. ss. 1-10.

Wilson, A., Zeithaml, A., Bitner, M. J., Gremler, D. (2008). Services Marketing: Integrating

Focus across the Firm. New York, NY: McGrawHill Publishing Co.

How has the internet changed consumers over the past 10 years and how can brands make the most of it for their image? Part 2

November 17, 2014

Written by Yasmine Najjar

     The internet implementation in marketing process is a great opportunity for brands as it’s inexpensive, delivers instant international real time feedback and allows them to reach broader audiences (Papasolomou and Melanthiou, 2013). It’s the chance for brands to communicate with the consumers in a more honest and genuine way than advertising, to know them better and build a strong relationship. But to “harness the power of the web to reach consumers directly you must ignore the old rules” (Scott, 2011). The “rules” of communications are different in the virtual world: brands don’t talk at someone anymore but with someone. If they try to take the same approach than in traditional media, especially in social medias, and just speak their message out, it’s not going to work, they need to create conversation (Armelli and Villanueva, 2011).

    Research has highlighted the impact that can have online communities on perceptions of brands. Firms are vulnerable in this context especially brands who have a poor pre-existing brand image and face unfavorable consumer-generated content in online communities (Varadarajan and Yadav, 2009). Yet, it’s a powerful tool to interact in a more personal way and reinforce your brand image. The messages brands send to consumers via traditional advertising can sometimes be interpreted in different ways, blur their positioning and brand identity. Facebook and Twitter can be great for brand image as it allows sending direct messages and more importantly, humanizing the brand which is more effective than anything for brand image. Like when having a talk in daily life with someone, consumers will get a better understanding of whom the company is as a brand. Online, you are what you publish but control branding is yet impossible because of the e-WOM (Christodoulides et al. 2006, in Christoloudides 2009). People are selective about where to spend their time on social media platforms; they look for entertainment, knowledge, socialization… as a brand you need to fulfill these criteria otherwise you end up creating a ghost community abandoned once participants discover you don’t (Seraj, 2012). As Vries, Gensler and Leeflang reminded us in 2012 “Entertainment leads people to consume, create or contribute to brand-related content online. For Einsenbess, Bechscmidt, Backhaus and Freund (2012), consumers have three motivations to engage in this virtual world: socializing, creativity and escape. They agree that without responding to these motivations a brand can’t make the most of social media platforms.

     It is essential that brands take the cultural aspect in matter: we don’t address people from California and Paris the same way, their motivations for being on internet, their sensitivity are different. It also involves a consequent time commitment to manage online brand image properly. Brands need to make daily efforts to produce interesting content and foster a community around their identity and values. The main risk in going online is exposing the brand to bad and very straightforward feedbacks, visible to everyone. Negative comments on the Internet negatively affecting the brand image as perceived by other consumers (Sandes and Urdan, 2013). Brands need to address these complaints very fast and try to find a response that satisfy the consumer or at least clarify the situation. Managing these situations improve your brand image.

     Blogs are also a great tool to manage your brand image. Why are they so interesting? Famous and established blogs have often more credibility than brand websites, as the content is supposed not to be controlled by a firm. The reality is that more and more brands use these blogs as a PR tool or what we could call disguised advertising as the consumer is not even aware sometimes the blog received money to produce fallout.

     Blogs are also participative which allows brands to get closer to consumers, have lots of feedbacks and a good view on how consumers perceive your brand as they speak very freely when the blogger produces an article about one of your product. There are many ways to participate in this blog phenomenon. Most of the brands send products to bloggers so that they can test them. However, the brand doesn’t control anything after: they lose control of the message because bloggers have their own voice. So, every time a blogger has a good product experience and decides to talk about it,  brand image improves as the audience trust their judgment. On the other hand, every time his feedback isn’t good and he decides to expose it, it can damage brand image. Organizing a contest with a blogger is a good way to arouse interest and trigger liking. The most interesting opportunity is certainly to make partnerships with these bloggers by proposing to them to participate in a product creation for example. Their audience, very loyal, sees these partnerships as a caution from the blogger, like a go to love the brand themselves as consumers.

     However, relationships with bloggers can be complicated. There are lots of codes in the blogosphere that brands need to be familiar with in order for it to be a great tool for their image. When a brand sends products to a blogger, they need to avoid chasing him up so that he writes an article. Not only is he going to find it irritating but he also wants his feedback to be as authentic as possible, it’s his dedicated space, he’s the one who has the “power”. Also, as bloggers are a lot solicited, the brand has to show them its interest in their blog (why do they want to work with them) and to personalize their messages when they get in touch with them. Bloggers need to see the humans working behind the brand; they need to create relationships between people so that it can work.

     Partnerships with online versions of traditional media can also be very interesting to develop or change brand image. By teaming up with one of them, these media share their audience with the brand but not only: they have their own identity which is going to reflect on the brand. It can be really effective when a brand wants to change its image for example give a fashion touch to its identity by teaming up with the online version of fashion and renowned magazine. By having a presence on their website, the media gives you a “guarantee”. This partnership can be a dedicated space on their website, a contest to win prizes from the brand, and other very innovative presences on the media. The aim of this kind of partnerships is to advertise without doing it obviously, it needs to be very well integrated to the content of the website. For example, Tex by Carrefour, a clothing brand from the famous French supermarket, suffered a cheap old fashioned image. The brand wanted to have a more glamorous and “hype” image and teamed up with French ELLE to do so. This partnership impacted the perception the audience had on the brand as ELLE is known for appreciating fashion and cool clothes.

      What about buzz marketing? How can it impact brand image? According to Deighton and Kornfeld (2009), buzz marketing is an umbrella term for the mobilized power of the culture to pass on a marketer's message. People don’t have the impression to share advertising message but something novel, entertaining and of the moment. The video ‘Evolution’ by Dove, in which a simple woman is transformed in a model thanks to make-up and Photoshop, was a huge success for Dove brand image. Dove wasn’t anymore any cosmetics brand; it was the one close to women, fighting against beauty stereotypes so that women can accept their beauty. It was effective because it created engagement. The downside of buzz marketing is that you can be easily parody on sharing platforms like Youtube which can affect the message brands were trying to pass on.

      Internet has been a revolution as it tremendously changed consumers, empowering them. Most brands need to go there if they want to survive but as we have seen in this paper it’s a tricky place for brand image. It offers lots of opportunities to build a strong bond with consumers and manage your brand image when you know how to use the different tools it offers. We can wonder as soon as brand will have figure out how to make the most of internet, will we go back to brands having the power over consumers? Do they want that to happen? Maybe internet, even with its risks, can actually be seen as a benediction for brand image as brands have now a great insight of consumers’ perception and can adjust their brand image in function.

References

Armelli, G. and Villanueva, J. (2011), “Adding social media to the marketing mix”, IESE insight, No. 9.

Christodoulides, G. (2009), “Branding in the post-internet era”, Marketing Theory, 9, 141.

Deighton, J. and Kornfeld, L. (2009), “Interactivity's Unanticipated Consequences for Marketers and Marketing”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, p. 4-10.

Eisenbeiss, M., B. Blechschmidt, K. Backhaus & P.A. Freund (2012), “The (Real) World Is Not Enough:” Motivational Drivers and User Behavior in Virtual Worlds”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 4–20.

Papasolomou, I.  & Melanthiou, Y. (2013), “Social Media: Marketing Public Relations ‘New Best Friend”, Journal of Promotion Management, 18(3), 319-328.

Sandes, F.S. & A. T. Urdan (2013), “Electronic Word-of-Mouth Impacts on Consumer Behavior: Exploratory and Experimental Studies”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 25(3), 181-197.

Scott, D.M. (2011), The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How to Use Social Media, Blogs, News Releases, Online Video, and Viral Marketing to Reach Buyers Directly, 3d or latest edition.

Seraj, M. (2012), We Create, We Connect, We Respect, Therefore We Are: Intellectual, Social, and Cultural Value in Online Communities, Journal of Interactive Marketing 26, 209–222. *

Varadarajan, R. & M. S. Yadav (2009),” Marketing Strategy in an Internet-Enabled Environment: A Retrospective on the First Ten Years of JIM and a Prospective on the Next Ten Years”, Journal of Interactive Marketing 23, 11–22.

Vries, L. & S. Gensler & P. S.H. Leeflang, (2012),” Popularity of Brand Posts on Brand Fan Pages: An Investigation of the Effects of Social Media Marketing”, Journal of Interactive Marketing 26, 83–91.*

How has the internet changed consumers over the past 10 years and how can brands make the most of it for their image? Part 1

November 13, 2014

Written by Yasmine Najjar

    The last decade has definitely changed the world we live in. Internet tremendously impacted our daily life and changed our behavior as consumers, the brand-sphere, its marketing strategies and operations consequently had to adapt dramatically. We were able to notice every year the shifting in power from companies towards consumers especially thanks to the emergence of web 2.0. Now, people don’t just read information but interact and share experiences about products and brands notably. In the virtual world, perception of brands personality is influenced by many factors, brands are not anymore in control. Companies have understood this reality for a while now and, like consumers and customers, use the broad range of tools that internet offers in order to face it. But there is quite a difference between doing something and be good at what you do. As consumers, we have all experienced the difficulties brands sometimes face to manage their image. Everyone said to himself one day “Ouch, this is an unacceptable response” while reading the brand’s response to a complaint on their Facebook page. Being on the internet is very demanding for brands, it does not take much (a negative story one day) for a company or brand to see its image damaged. On the other hand, internet offers lots of opportunities for a company to grow its brand, to build a unique personality, to create a “real” bond with its customers. But first of all, they need to understand the major change in consumer behaviors and to leverage new technologies. What is internet about today? What portrait can we produce for 2014 consumers? What are the opportunities and risks brands have to deal with to manage their image? How to make the most of the internet to protect and build brand image? Many questions we’ll try to answer in this paper.

      We are now 2.4 billion internet users around the world, and this figure doesn’t stop growing. The first version of internet, Web 1.0, was mostly about websites where people were limited to passive viewing content. The current version of internet has nothing to do with this anymore: it’s about learning in a very active way, interact and collaborate with each other.

     Every moment of our lives ends up on the internet: we picture, video, click, share thanks to social medias. In 2010, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations defined social media as the term commonly given to websites, online tools, and other interactive communication technologies which allow users to interact with each other in some way, either by sharing information, opinions, knowledge, or interests (Papasolomou & Melanthiou, 2013). In daily life, we usually use the term “social media” to speak about social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. These are also called consumer-generated media (CSM) e.g new sources of online information that are created, initiated, circulated and used by consumers (Blackshaw & Nazzaro, 2004 in Papasolomou & Melanthiou, 2013 ).

     Blogs are also considered as CSM: more and more consumers write about their opinion about brands and theirs products on their own dedicated space. They share experiences; give feedbacks to other consumers, usually in a “specialized” field that they have a strong interest in. These blogs have become a phenomenon especially in the fashion or cosmetic field which even got a name: the beauty-sphere. It is quite hard to know the audience of each blog, but it can be thousands and more people following the same blog every month. Blogs audience keeps growing but more importantly their influence has become substantial. According to Technorati’s 2013 Digital Influence Report, blogs would even outrank social networks for consumer influence (31,1% for blogs vs 30,8% for networks are most likely to influence a purchase).

    What is the place of brands in this virtual world? In the old days, brands would build their image through advertising campaigns and consumers experience of their products and shops. Internet has been an “important communications revolution” for brands (Scott 2011), that offers a wide range of tools to communicate on their image and identity. Moreover, with the emergence of social media, companies are now going beyond simply maintaining a website for basic transactional purposes and traditional promotion. They are rather finding new ways to interact with customers, in search of a more long term relationship rather than a one-way communication which most websites are confined to (Papasolomou & Melanthiou, 2013). One specific way to foster relationships with customers is to create brand fan pages on social networking sites. Companies place brand posts (containing videos, messages, and other material) on these pages. Customers become fans of these brand fan pages, and subsequently indicate that they like the brand post or comment on it. This liking and commenting on brand posts reflects brand post popularity (Vries, Gensler and Leeflang, 2012). and are a good way to see if people adhere to a brand identity and what it reflects. Building relationships with bloggers, who are customers but with influence, also starts to be important for brands image. Combined with good products, these relationships usually built on trust, human and partnerships are always a great booster for brand image.

        As Christoloudides pointed out in 2009, the internet and its related e-technologies have to a large extent upset the asymmetry of information that for so many years worked in favor of brand managers. In effect, with the diminishing information cost and the large number of information you can find on internet nowadays, consumers are better informed. Internet allows them to get the information from multiple sources, particularly in the web 2.0, whereas in pre-internet era brands were the principle source. Today, people actually exhibit a preference for consumer-generated content in online communities relative to other online sources that are viewed as being directly controlled by a firm (e.g., a firm's website providing product-related information) (Varadarajan & Yadav,2009). Brands must realize that consumers are turning away from traditional elements of the promotion mix, by reducing the reliance on advertising as a source of information (Papasolomou & Melanthiou, 2013). It not only enables them to express their identity and reinforce their individuality, it also allows them to satisfy their social needs through sharing of consumption related experiences (Christoloudides, 2009). Suspicious of brands honesty, consumers seek for one another opinion when they want to make up their mind on a brand’s identity or product. This behavior is further shifting the balance of power from firm to consumer (Bernoff & Li 2008, in Christoloudides 2009). An illustration of this customer empowerment is that more and more brands involve the consumer in fundamental stages of the brand building process which shows that companies are aware of the change.

      The monologue that many firms were used to practice towards consumers has been replaced by a many-to-many communication where consumers not only interact with the firm but also with other consumers (Hoffman and Novak 1996 in Christolidoudes 2009). The consumer empowerment doesn’t come that much from the multiple sources of information but much more from the e-WOM, word-of-mouth on internet. Word of mouth, or WOM, is the influence of someone’s informal opinion about products and brands derived from consumption experiences (Sen and Lerman 2007 in Sandes and Urdan (2013)). Internet is great to share your insight as it offers many tools to do it: social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter…), forums and blogs. As Levine et al (2001) said ‘There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone”. The web gives the floor to consumers, the liberty to give their opinion without any fear of judgment as they are behind a computer, so in a very honest and easy way. This e-WOM can be a great opportunity for brand image but also a high risk that they need to address.

    In the context of Internet, consumers are very busy and solicited therefore more demanding towards brands. They expect brands and their companies to engage with customers and their fans (Papasolomou and Melanthiou, 2013). They expect “more and different”. As a brand,  it is necessary to stand out to attract them and then make a great amount of efforts to build this strong bond that will create engagement and loyalty on their part. They need a good reason to go on your Facebook page and a much better reason to stay on it. They need innovation, unusual, entertainment to be attracted. They also embrace a visual culture, where pictures and videos have sometimes much more influence than words. But the most important thing to know about those customers: they want human. Internet is definitely the place where brand needs to be personified. People need to know the people working behind these brands; brand identity, positioning, brand messages need to be strong and honest so that people can bond with the brand. Furthermore, they expect true exchange and not a one-way communication (brand towards customer).

    Internet is full of great tools to communicate on brand identity and build relationship with customer. Brands don’t always realize the opportunities it offers but also the damage it can be for their image. When they do realize it, lots of them don’t know how to make the most of it. We will address this matter in the second part of this paper: between risk and opportunity, how to make the most of internet for your brand image?

Interactive Consumer Engagement: how the internet has changed consumer engagement over the past 10 years, and how marketers can best adapt

November 10, 2014

Written by Amy Mulcahy 

Purpose of the article

The purpose of this paper is to identify how the changing online environment has affected interactive consumer engagement with the medium over the past ten years. The paper will examine the evolution of consumer behaviour from the beginnings of Web 2.0 to present day, providing a case studies and a discussion of the implications for marketers and the means by which they can accommodate, utilise and ultimately benefit from such emerging behaviours. The paper will conclude with a summary of findings and recommendations for marketing practitioners.

Theoretical Framework

The transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 is epitomised by developed Internet technologies, user-generated content, and greater cooperation amongst internet users; it has changed both what the Web contains, and the way it works (Akar and Topcu, 2011). Whereas the audience once used the internet to expend content, today, these factors are considered “hygiene,” i.e. they have to be there. Instead, Web 2.0 is concerned with a whole host of factors outside a brand’s control, and it is these facets of Web 2.0 that interactive consumers are increasingly engaging with (Christodoulides, 2009.)

Over the past ten years, we have witnessed a divergence from the Web 1.0 user, to a user of more purposeful intent when using the internet; indeed, interactive consumer engagement has emerged. Deighton and Kornfeld (2009) distinguish five emerging marketing paradigms in response to the growing power of the consumer in the new media environment. They use the term “person” to describe the roles the individual assumes when partaking in: thought-tracing, activity-tracing, property exchanges, social exchanges and cultural exchanges. These cornerstones of interaction set the foundations for the more specific category with which we are concerned: the social consumer.  

With the development of the Internet, peer-to-peer tools have enabled interactive consumers to talk back and talk to one another. As an extension of Schultz’s Social Media Ecosystem (2007), Li and Bernoff (2008) segment participants according to five different types of social behaviour: creators, critics, collectors, joiners and spectators (Hanna et al., 2011). With the rise of social media, these participants are driven to structure their daily lives around interactive technology in the pursuit of constant connectivity, motivated by connections, creating, consuming and controlling (www.forbes.com; Hoffman and Fodor, 2010). As a response to the diminution of traditional communication channels relative to the utility of applications, interactive consumers are seeking engagement with one another through new media platforms such as blogs, content sharing sites, wikis and social networking. It is abundantly clear we have witnessed a shift from the passive consumer, to a consumer empowered through greater information access, instant publishing power and a participatory audience; an environment in which it is paramount firms adapt (Krishnamurthy and Kucuk, 2009). 

Analysis

In recent years, companies have started going beyond simply maintaining a website for transactional purposes; instead, they are accommodating the socialising aspect consumer’s desire from their online experience and are finding new ways to instigate interactive customer engagement  (Papasolomou and Melanthiou, 2013). This has proven both beneficial to firms that have engaged successfully with their markets. 

CouchSurfing, the hospitality exchange and social networking site for example, has positioned itself as a tool for consumers interested in travelling and connecting with other users to foster a “cultural exchange” (www.couchsurfing.org). The service relies upon users creating detailed and accurate profiles of themselves online. The website encourages interactive consumer engagement by requesting users to leave feedback so other users can decide whether they think the member would be a suitable host or surfer; doing so provides the starting point for opening a discussion with a fellow surfer, helping members determine whether they want to instigate contact offline and arrange a CouchSurfing experience; introductory videos interactively educate the consumer and can be watched here. Forums and discussion boards further aid members to arrange events and cultural exchanges creating both an online and offline community of CouchSurfers. 

Harnessing an online community means Couchsurfing facilitates interactive consumer engagement people feel within their real groups; these users are sharing information because they trust one another (Papasolomou and Melanthiou, 2013). Through offering a platform to interact and share information, the service has effectively disrupted the boundaries of the hospitality industry and provided the consumer with the power and control to collaborate with fellow users to satisfy their travelling needs. 

Though CouchSurfing is exclusively concerned with the sharing of experiences amongst their users, other companies have followed suit by facilitating the users desire to construct interactive consumer engagement with other consumers. Amazon for example, the largest online retailer has successfully engaged their market by offering tools that enable consumers to create their own content in the form of wish lists and reviews (amazon.co.uk). Fellow users are not only more likely to read the consumer generated content rather than relying on summary statistics, but they also perceive recommendations and interactive consumer’s opinions as trustworthy; they are more likely to believe the opinions of engaging interactive consumers than a company representative (Chevalier and Mayzlin, 2006; Sandes and Urdan, 2013; Papasolomou and Melanthiou, 2013). Ultimately, these tools enable users to supplement information provided by electronic storefronts such as product descriptions and reviews by experts, aiding the decision making process of purchasing a good (Mudambi and Schuff, 2010). 

Finally, engagement can be elevated through social media platforms in various ways, and doing so can bring about positive results for a brand when executed successfully. In an effort to achieve interactive consumer engagement, football team Tottenham Hotspur collaborated with their supplier Under Armour to create an interactive social media campaign that invited fans to submit images of themselves in the new Under Armour football kit (tottenhamhotspur.com). 

Understanding how to reach their consumers and the best channels to do so enabled the brand to customize their interactive user engagement. Promoting the campaign through a microsite, video and social networking platforms, the campaign promised 2,500 recipients images would be displayed in White Hart Lane tunnel and seen by the players at every home game for the rest of the season. Understanding the importance of the teams’ history to fans ensured the tagline “earn your place in history” pulled at the heartstrings of customers resulting in a hugely successful interactive campaign. Once the spaces had been taken, a digital version of the mural was made available through the microsite, viewable here. As a result of the campaign, the football team created interactive consumer engagement with its fans, successfully targeted its customer base and raised awareness more broadly.

How can marketers’ best adapt? 
In respect of the increasingly interactive marketplace, marketers must learn the power of harnessing their resources to substantiate a relationship of interactive consumer engagement that encourages two-way conversation. It is no longer appropriate for marketers to interrupt consumers with promotional material; instead customers want firms to listen (Kietzmann et al., 2011). Netnography in terms of monitoring forums, feedback and customer reviews is a good starting point for firms to understand the current needs and expectations of consumers (Elliott and Elliott, 2003). It is through these observations that marketers will learn that value creating activities develop even in the absence of marketer efforts. 

Interactive consumer engagement has become the main drivers of conversations; the task for the marketer is to establish credible and durable ways to foster this value creation through interaction and engagement with their audience (Papasolomou and Melanthiou, 2013).  It is therefore crucial that marketers understand the whole Social Media Ecosystem and learn to navigate and integrate these multiple platforms; they have to understand the different types of social behaviour exhibited by users and learn how to influence and  create interactive consumer engagement (Hanna et al., 2011). Identifying the company’s targeted segment of the online market and understanding their underlying motivations for interactivity will enable marketers to tailor their promotional campaigns to achieve maximum exposure (Aljukhadar and Senecal, 2011). 

With greater understanding of consumer requirements, marketers can instigate collaboration through their communities. Doing so can bring about new product ideas, improvements in functionality of their service offering and greater customer loyalty. Equally, as in the case of CouchSurfing, online communities can facilitate offline interaction and brand exposure. However, whilst facilitating interactive consumer engagement online can promote brand awareness, it is important to consider that although satisfied consumers are likely to spread their satisfaction to other consumers, they are equally likely to use this channel as a means of expressing their dissatisfaction (Sandes and Urdan, 2013). This has important implications for companies facilitating interactive consumer engagement online; if the product or service is deemed inadequate, electronic word-of-mouth facilitates the user to make it publicly known. 

Conclusions and Recommendations
In conclusion, it has been observed that through the development of the Internet, the consumer has evolved from the role of passive listener, to interactive consumer engager, collaborator and creator of user generated content. The theoretical underpinnings demonstrate the multiple roles of user interactivity, from property exchanges to social and cultural exchanges. In response to the diminution of traditional communication channels relative to the utility of applications, users are seeking engagement with one another through new media platforms such as blogs, content sharing sites, wikis and social networking. In effect, new communication channels have ended the interruption techniques of old marketing; it is the task of the marketer to identify who and what their interactive consumer segment is online, and how best to address their needs through observing, interacting and listening to interactive consumer engagement through the multiple social media platforms that have evolved through the digital era; the recommendations are as follows:

•    Marketers should understand their media landscape, their objectives and determine how best to engage their segmented market
•    Firms should be aware of the Social Media Ecosystem and accommodate their strategy accordingly to the five different types of social behaviours: creators, critics, collectors, joiners and spectators
•    Marketers should provide interactive opportunities for consumers, as in the case of Tottenham Hotspur, to build brand awareness
•    Providing a platform for consumers to interact with one another will facilitate online communities and build trust amongst consumers
•    Marketers should be aware of the implications of facilitating customer feedback and reviews; this will not always be positive and firms should be prepared to listen and respond timely and effectively
•    Firms need to be patient when building online relationships; ROI is not always immediate but will be demonstrated through brand loyalty 

References

Akar, A and Topcu, B. (2011). An Examination of the Factors Influencing Consumers' Attitudes Toward Social Media Marketing. Journal of Internet Commerce. 1 (10), p35-67.
Aljukhadar, M and Senecal, S. (2011). Segmenting the online consumer market. Marketing Intelligence and Planning. 29 (4), p421-435.
Amazon. (2014). Wishlist - get what you want. Available: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/wishlist. Last accessed 12th February 2014.
Chevalier, J.A and Mayzlin, D. (2006) The Effect of Word of Mouth on Sales: Online Book Reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (3), p345-354.
Christodoulides, G. (2009). Branding in the pot-internet era. Marketing Theory. 9 (1), p141-144.
CouchSurfing. (2014). Getting Started - How it works. Available: https://www.couchsurfing.org/n/how-it-works. Last accessed 12th February 2014.
Deighton, J and Kornfeld, L. (2009). Interactivity's Unanticipated Consequences for Marketers and Marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing. 23 (1), p4-10.
Elliott, R. and Elliott, N.J. (2003). Using ethnography in strategic consumer research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal. 6 (4), p215-223.
Forbes. (2013). 2014 Digital Trends And Predictions From Marketing Thought Leaders. Available: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ekaterinawalter/2013/12/17/2014-digital-trends-and-predictions-from-marketing-thought-leaders/. Last accessed 12th February 2014.
Hanna, R., Rohm, A. and Crittenden, V,L. (2011). We're all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons. 1 (54), 265-273.
Hoffman, D, L and Fodor, M. (2010). Can You Measure the ROI of Your Social Media Marketing?. MIT Sloan Management Review. 52 (1), p40-49.
Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P. and Silvestre, B.S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons. 54 (1), p241-251.
Krishnamurthy, S and Kucuk, S.U. (2009). Anti-branding on the internet.Journal of Business Research. 62 (1), p1119-1126.
Mudambi, S.M and Schuff, D. (2010). What makes a helpful online review? a study of customer reviews on amazon.com. MIS Quarterly. 4 (1), p185-200.
Papasolomou, I and Melanthiou, Y. (2013). Social Media: Marketing Public Relations' New Best Friend. Journal of Promotion Management. 18 (3), p319-328.
Sandes, F.S and Urdan, A.T. (2013). Electronic Word-of-Mouth Impacts on Consumer Behaviour: Exploratory and Experimental Studies. Journal of International Consumer Marketing. 25 (3), p181-197.
Tottenham Hotspur. (2013). Earn a spot in the tunnel at White Hart Lane!. Available: http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/earn-a-spot-in-the-tunnel-at-white-hart-lane-130913/. Last accessed 12th February 2014.

The Rise of the Weeknd – Mystery and Online Marketing

November 6, 2014

Written by Paul Monno

The progression from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 has opened a whole new playing field for brands and marketers, the new rules of the game dictate that brands need to be open and interact with their community much more than traditionally (Wind, 2008; Winter, 2009). However, what happens when brands ignore these rules? Is it possible to generate buzz and community engagement online with the minimum of communication and information? What are the roles of mystery and anonymity in marketing in the Web 2.0 environment?

On December 12th 2010, a blog run by R&B singer Drake released a mysterious song by an unknown and unsigned singer. The only information given was the name of the artist and song, ‘The Weeknd - Loft Music’. The post created a lot of buzz and confusion with members of the blog who liked the song, but had no idea who they were listening to. Two months later, on 24th of February 2011, a YouTube channel called xoxxxoooxo released a video of a new song by the the Weeknd called ‘What You Need’. The video contained just a black and white image of a woman’s legs with the song playing in the background. This video was followed up by another video 2 weeks later called ‘Wicked Games’. This new video was just as mysterious as the last, containing only the blacked out face of a man (fig. 1). By now the buzz surrounding the Weeknd had exploded online.

Wicked Games video

Figure 1: The accompanying image for the ‘Wicked Games’ video (xoxxxoooxo, 2011)

Moving forward to 2013 and the identity of the Weeknd has been revealed as 20-year-old Canadian rapper Abel Tesfaye. His rise to success in the music industry since 2010 has been astonishing, but even more so is how this success was achieved. Abel was able to create his own image and grab the attention of major record labels through the use of social network sites and word of mouth; however, the story of the Weeknd’s rise to success is not one of someone playing by the rules of online marketing and winning, but rather someone who bent the rules of the game to still come out on top.

Online Presence – Don’t Tell Anyone Anything

Finding the Weeknd online in the early days was difficult, since the misspelling of their name didn’t lend itself to productive SEO, with search engines autocorrecting the search term and directing users to results for Canadian 90s pop-rock band The Weekend. Yet, setting aside their disregard for SEO, the Weeknd understood the importance that existing on social media sites had when trying to engage consumers and create awareness for their group (Armelini & Villanueva, 2009; Hoffman & Fodor, 2010). YouTube, Twitter and Tumblr were all utilized to promote the Weeknd; YouTube allowed them to upload their music, Twitter to release ambiguous lyrics from their upcoming mixtape and their Tumblr blog helped develop their visual aesthetic. During the peak of their early hype, one music journalist labeled the Weeknd’s marketing campaign as being “to be on every social networking site, but not to reveal basic facts about himself” (Ahmed, 2011). Mystery marketing was used to a great extent by the Weeknd, to give consumers constant access to the group, whilst also giving them no opportunity to learn or get close to them.

The Weeknd’s choice to remain anonymous online and follow the route of mystery marketing played two key roles in generating online buzz; it allowed for differentiation whilst also helping to develop their authentic image. At a time when many artists and brands are embracing the transparent capabilities of the internet and implementing a campaign of “the-more-they-know-us-the-more-they’ll-like us” (Fournier & Avery, 2011), the Weeknd stood out, by using the internet to release cryptic messages to confuse and shock their consumers. When their debut mixtape was released, the only online promotion used by the Weeknd was a single photo on twitter (Fig. 2).

House of Balloons tweet

Figure 2: Tweet to promote the release of debut mixtape (@theweeknd, 2011)

Furthermore, their anonymity online also played another major part with creating an authentic image of the group. In an industry where having an authentic image is paramount to an artist’s success, hip-hop artists constantly try to secure their authenticity with their listeners. For a new 20 year old rapper who wanted to create a persona of partying, excess drinking, drug-taking and womanizing, efforts had to be a made to ensure that his private life and professional life remained separate to make certain no contradictory information could be leaked. No awkward high school photos on tumblr, and no tweets about staying home and eating pizza on a Friday night could be released as to break this authentic image. However, the separation of personal and professional personas on the blogosphere can be difficult, and members often resort to blurring the line between each (Pihl, 2013). Yet, by ensuring that their identity was kept a mystery online, and that their tweets and tumblr posts remained focused on the music, users were not able to doubt the authenticity of their art. The band’s Twitter, Tumblr and YouTube posts didn’t reveal anything that would take attention away from their music, or contradict anything they rapped about in their songs.

Community Building – Don’t Listen To Anyone While They Talk

Mentioned by Hanna, Rohm & Crittenden (2011) the aim of online marketing is not just to reach your audience through social media, but to also engage them. And through the use of mystery marketing the Weeknd were able to engage their audience by creating constant speculation and conversations about the group amongst the online music community (Christodoulides, 2009; Singh & Sonnenburg, 2012). Members were able to create their own stories based on the group and their music, the mystery around the group allowed members to debate without ever being able to reach a consensus. In addition to debating this group’s background, community members also used their “expert” knowledge to analyze the production of their music and speculate which famous producers the Weeknd were working with. All this time when conversations and debates were happening in online forums, the Weeknd never took to twitter to clear up any questions their users had.

Following the rules of online marketing once more, the Weeknd utilized the power online community members have in creating cultural value and attracting new members to their music (Cova & Dalli, 2009; Muniz & Schau, 2011). Although the group would go on to receive praise and awards for their music; it was the initial enthusiasm and effort of the music community that got the group attention. By releasing their music for free and relying on word of mouth to spread their name, the Weeknd took a major risk. They could not be in control of what the community would be saying about the mixtape, and the community might have quite easily killed their young career by spreading negative reviews about their debut project online and refusing to share download links with other members (Armelini & Villanueva, 2009; Hoffman & Fodor, 2010; Akar & Topcu, 2013).

Although in some aspects the Weeknd’s use of social marketing was conventional, in other areas they appeared to be following a very traditional perspective on marketing their brand. Aside from their emphasis on keeping a mysterious online presence, there was also a lack of co-creation and dialogue between the group and the consumers. The group refused to take the recommended route of engaging with their audience; listening to what was being said by the community, gaining insight to what they wanted and possibly co-creating with other unsigned talent (Barwise & Meehan, 2010; Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy & Silvestre, 2011; Fournier & Avery, 2011; Singh & Sonnenburg, 2012). Rather their approach was much more pushed based, almost leveraging their brand (Fournier & Avery, 2011), the group had their theme of mystery, drugs, sex and partying and were pushing it onto the community. Through their tweets, their music and the images they posted on Tumblr, it was clear from the offset that the Weeknd had designed their group around a certain lifestyle and were going forward with that image. The risk here was that the community was not going to buy into this life style, and forcing an unwanted message onto an online community can be a failure for many brands. However due to the mystery surrounding the Weeknd and their relationship with the music industry, pushing their image onto to the community only helped to further increase the buzz and perception of authenticity surrounding the group.

Relationship with the Industry – Just Say No

For almost two years the Weeknd remained unsigned and were seen as being independent and outside of the corporate machine, this is turn greatly helped to generate buzz and gained them credibility within the community. Consumers are attracted to brands which give them a sense of discovery, and allow them to feel as though they have made the brand; by remaining unsigned and giving away their music for free to their fans to share, the Weeknd was able to position themselves as being part of the tribal culture (Cova & Dalli, 2009).

As noted by several authors on social media marketing, corporations find it extremely difficult to enter into conversations online without seeming intrusive, their participation can often be seen as inauthentic and pushing a product (Fournier & Avery, 2011; Papasolomou & Melanthiou, 2012). However, by remaining an independent artist who was releasing their music to the community for free, consumers got to discuss the Weeknd in an organic manner and had the feeling that the music they were listening to and talking about was cultural property that belonged to everyone, instead of to a private individual (Cova & Dalli, 2009). In fact, being without a label was so beneficial to the Weeknd, that they released three free mixtapes online in one year. When asked about this campaign in 2014, the Weeknd’s managers announced that “The music industry seems to run a lot on hype. Abel [The Weeknd] wanted to see where things would go with his songs living on their own merits” (Ugwu, 2013).

In 2012, after having signed a record contract with Republic Records, the Weeknd released an apology letter to their fans via their website, explaining why they chose to sign to a major label and how he is struggling with moving into the mainstream (Tesfaye, 2012). The risk of signing to a major label and becoming corporate was clear to the group, their brand was built by being independent, being unknown and belonging to the online community. By signing to a major label, the Weeknd had already begun to lose many characteristic that had helped in their rise. Their music was no longer released for free, and the mystery and discussion surrounding their identity had ended. The worry was, by creating this mysterious, unreachable online identity and refusing to play by the rules of social marketing had the Weeknd created a short-term brand (Fournier & Avery, 2011). Did they have the staying power to exist in an offline setting? Although still in the early stages, signs look good, when Abel released his debut album ‘Kissland’ in September of 2013, the album sold more than 96,000 copies in its first week and reached number 2 on the Billboard Charts, just behind established country singer Keith Urban with 98,000 copies (Morris, 2013).

Conclusion

What the rise of the Weeknd shows us is how young brands, whether they are corporations or artists don’t necessarily have to play by online marketing rules to succeed. By being independent and offering his music for free, Abel did not need to be transparent, since users had no reason to distrust him and were risking nothing by consuming his music. Furthermore, by using mystery as a marketing strategy Abel was able to engage his audience and push his own image. The community had enough to talk about and the harder it was to create a dialogue with Abel the more the discussions increased. Moreover, by remaining anonymous he was able to remain undeniably authentic, nobody knew any information that could detract from his core offering, all the community had was his music to discuss and create stories around.

The future discussion is how sustainable is mystery marketing in the long term once the brand becomes successful and moves into an offline setting. Pihl (2013) stated that the characteristics that are attached to a personality when they first emerge online usually remain with them throughout their career. It would be interesting to see how the Weeknd are able to continue to market themselves as being mysterious and unreachable now that they are no longer unknown and independent to the market.

REFERENCES

Ahmed, I. 2011. Who Is The Weeknd? [Online]. Complex Music. Available at: http://www.complex.com/music/2011/04/who-is-weeknd/public-persona [Accessed: 10th February 2014]

Akar, E. and Topcu, B. 2011. An Examination of the Factors Influencing Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Social Media Marketing. Journal of Internet Commerce Vol.10(1), pp. 35-67

Armelini, M. and Villanueva, J. 2009. The Power of Word of Mouth: Adding Social Media to the Marketing Mix. IESEinsight  Issue 9 Second Quarter 2011, pp. 29-36

Barwise, P. and Meehan, S. 2010. The One Thing You Must Get Right When Building a Brand. Harvard Business Review, pp. 1-5

Christodoulides, G. 2009. Branding in the post-internet era. Marketing Theory 2009(9), pp. 141-144

Cova, B. and Dalli, D. 2009. Working consumers: the next step in marketing theory? Marketing Theory Articles Vol. 9(3), pp. 315-339

Fournier, S and Avery, J. 2011. The Uninvited Brand. Business Horizons 2011 (54), pp. 193-207

Hanna, R., Rohm, A. and Crittenden, V.L. 2011. We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Business Horizons 2011(54), pp.265-273

Hoffman, D.L. and Fodor, M. 2010. Can You Measure the ROI of Your Social Media Marketing? MITSloan Management Review Vol. 52(1), pp. 41-49

Kietzmann, J.H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I.P. and Silvestre, B.S. 2011. Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business Horizons 2011(54), pp. 241-251

Morris, C. 2013. Keith Urban Narrowly Beats the Weeknd in Album Sales [Online]. Variety. Available at: http://variety.com/2013/music/news/keith-urban-narrowly-beats-the-weeknd-in-album-sales-1200616601/ [Accessed: 10th February 2014]

Muniz, A.M. and Schau, H.J. 2011. How to inspire value-laden collaborative consumer generated content. Business Horizons 2011(54), pp. 209-217

Papasolomou, I. and Melanthiou, Y. 2012. Social Media: Marketing Public Relations’ New Best Friend. Journal of Promotion Management Vol.18(3), pp. 319-328

Pihl, C. 2013. In the borderland between personal and corporate brands – the case of professional bloggers. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing Vol. 4(2), pp. 112-127

Singh, S. and Sonnenburg, S. 2012. Brand Performances in Social Media. Journal of Interactive Marketing 26(2012), pp. 189-197

Tesfaye, A. 2012. Untitled [Online]. The Weeknd. Available at: http://www.theweeknd.com/blog/2012/10/04/840/ [Accessed: 10th February 2014]

Ugwu, R. 2013. How The Weeknd Went From Internet Mystery to Billboard 200 No. 2 [Online]. New York: Billboard. Available at: http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/the-juice/5740655/how-the-weeknd-went-from-internet-mystery-to-billboard-200-no-2 [Accessed: 10th February 2014]

Wind, Y. 2008. A Plan to Invent the Marketing We Need Today. MITSloan Management Review Vol. 49(4), pp. 21-28

Winter, R.S. 2009. New Communications Approaches in Marketing: Issues and Research Directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing 23(2009), pp. 108-117

Xoxxxoooxo. 2011. The Weeknd – Wicked Games [Online]. Avalible at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9PuAm7d0PA [Accessed: 10th Febrauary 2014]

@TheWeeknd. 2011. House of Balloons Release [Online Image]. Available at http://www.weekndhq.com/2/post/2011/03/03212011-house-of-balloons-is-released-theweeknd-xo.html [Accessed: 10th February 2014]