There was one other thing on that IPA Modern Briefing that, talking about it with someone, made me go 'Are you sure?'. It was something Patricia Macdonald (from Glue )raised.
Before I start, let me state that she's obviously a lot cleverer, successful and talented than I could hope to be.
Let me also say that I enjoyed her advice to turn business problems into behavioural problems, something too many strategy types have forgotten, leading to 'making great work' as their only goal, rather than 'great work that solves business issues'.
BUT, I didn't agree with her use of data to support the assertion that 'participation is the currency of the modern campaign'. Specifically this data:
Yes, the 1:9:90 may not be correct for today's post-digital folk, yes, it may be well be a 'way of life' for more and more people, but that doesn't make it the natural heartland of brand communication.
Oh, and then there is this:
This really isn't evidence for participation, it's evidence that the large MAJORITY of people DON'T rely on friends for content. Isn't it?
Then there's this quote (backed up by proper quant analysis by the way) from the Future Foundation:
"It must be significant that 1 in 3 of us say that we now feel more influenced by experts than we once did. Meanwhile, an identical proportion will report that they feel less influenced by contacts on our social networks"
Again, only a third of people, but if she can quote that content chart, I can quote this!
Topline, the data isn't about participting with brands, it's more about people participating with each other. Just because that's what people are doing, it simply doesn't follow that brands can muscle in.
Getting traction in this kind of way is completely different to paid media, where most people implicitly accept the deal they make, accepting interruptive advertising in exchange for cheap or even free media.
Even then, it's wrong headed to assume that because TV watching is a way of life, TV advertising is the currency of the modern campaign either.
People ignore crap ads and do their best to avoid them.
Just like they flick past crap print ads, or ignore crap outdoor.
Just like no one will give up their valuable time to participate with anything a brand makes that isn't either widly entertaining, or wildly useful.
In fact, where there's so much stuff to play around with, to assume most people will play with brands without a very good reason is even more wrongheaded.
In a more crowded world with more to do, people want to think about brands LESS not more.
And, as has been said elsewhere, you have to assume that those who 'participate with brands' are likely to heavy buyers, who shouldn't really be the focus of budget in most cases.
So yes, most people might (MIGHT!) participate as a way of life, but they don't participate with BRANDS as a way of life and they never will.
I liked a lot of what Patricia had to say.
A LOT more sensible and useful than some of the sillier stuff we hear.
Characterizing participating consumers as "collaborators, salesforces, promoters and co-creators" puts their role in proper context.
As actors, not ultimate audience.
But you've put your finger here on something that was niggling me.
Participation may well be on the rise.
But it's stretching logic a bit to assume that ergo, people's willingness to participate in marketing content is on the rise.
The question is what KIND of participation is on the rise?
And as you ask, do our brands have any right to be a part of it?
Not all of it lends itself to us inserting ourselves in it, as you say.
There is after all, a weird logic in marketingland:
"People are are having conversations with each other. Let's get them to talk about us!"
"People are sharing videos. Let's get them to share ours!"
Which is a bit like noting telephone calls are on the rise and wanting to be part of those...
Anyway, thanks for this.
Posted by: mweigel | July 09, 2012 at 01:23 PM
I've never understood that logic, brand hubris permeates all corners of adland I guess, which is perverse when the need for ideas that know and respect the context they're in matters more than ever
Posted by: northern | July 09, 2012 at 02:52 PM
One last thought.
I had to go to the 'BBC Internet blog' to find the so-called 'methodological note' on the BBC study. Since the briefing document (and live presentation) made no mention of it.
It reads:
"The Participation Choice is a synthesis of primary and secondary research conducted over the past 18 months. The data published today are all taken from the most recent, large scale survey of 7,500 UK adults - representative of the UK online population."
So we have NO idea what the data cited represents. Is it claimed behaviour? Is it actual observed behaviour? How was the data collected?
We have absolutely NO idea.
And thus, we cannot and should not treat the study with anything other than a degree of skepticism. Or at least caution.
A timely reminder that when presented with research 'findings' our first response should not be to debate them, but examine the source and the methodology thoroughly.
Posted by: Martin Weigel | July 12, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Give a man a hammer etc
Posted by: northern | July 12, 2012 at 02:35 PM