x

My first reservation stems from the fact that there have been a wealth of other surveys which have given figures weighted slightly more heavily toward the web users (Which is probably due to the publisher of said statistics…). Although the market is still incredibly far from saturation one of the assumptions we can make is that those 10% are likely to be engaged with their content daily and in more conversational ways (this being mobile technology). Those using their mobile tech to stay on top of their interests will also be more likely to become the “evangelists” that all the word of mouth agencies are going for (especially for consumer electronics) as they are constantly connected to their subject.

There’s also the side of the argument that 1 million iPhones were sold in the UK by February 2009 (I don’t currently have the stats for 2009 – 2010) – but that’s a lot of phones and that’s just iPhones, there’s also the wealth of other smartphones (Blackberry, Nokia, HTC and increasingly, Google are strong in the market) – while it’s not the majority of the population, that’s still quite a few people. It’s definitely worth taking into account that while they may not be web users, they may have an app for Facebook on their phone (or buy app games etc.). Even non-”smart” phones have the functionality to run apps now so we can assume that the figures for web access might be skewed dependent on means of access.

The most crucial fact to remember is that while Marketing may suggest a rethink, the rethink should focus on the huge increase in the sales of internet ready phones and data packages from phone providers, a growth that isn’t looking likely to slow down. If it’s time for a rethink, it’s because people aren’t utilising what is (and is set to become even more of) an incredibly powerful market.

I’m moving on to take on the role of Digital Marketing Manager over at Holler London. It’s a hugely exciting move for me as Holler do some incredible work. They’re a digital agency that have put together awesome projects for a somewhat monumental client base; With some recent favourites including the creation of the Red Bull Reporter project, community building for Channel 4′s Fonejacker and the experimental (and exciting) Year Dot. it’s going to be great to get involved across their clients to continue their already awesome work in the digital “space”.

As anyone that knows me, has read my blog, or seen my twitter stream it’s always been clear cut that my passions lie within the digital sphere and always have so this move feels incredibly right.

I’m going to miss all the fantastic people at Cow and the great work they do but we’ll have a damn good send off on Thursday (12/02) – join us, we’ll be the rowdy bunch that have taken over Village East, Bermondsey Street.

Exciting days.

On that note, I’ll leave you with this note from XKCD*:

*It has nothing to do with me moving job, I just like the cartoon

Just as a follow on from my post below – I really appreciated the presentation above – it looks at how people are the real driver behind digital campaigns for brands.

I think it echoes a lot of sentiments I try to get across when discussing the digital medium – using “Social Media” as the cover-all term for work in the digital sphere is somewhat naive – A quote in the presentation fits wth the post below “Social media is simply a tool for doing business. As long as you are choosing the right platform and that platform is everyday life”. Engagement is all about helping people do what they want to do in their day to day life better – not forcing them to change their ways.

The key factor in all these situations is the people you’re reaching out to, not the message you’re trying to give off. I suppose this is why so many “virals” fail – for a start, a viral is a piece of content that a large group of people enjoy, not a pre-designated item that people adopt – there is no formula. It is frustrating when people ask to “create a viral” – content is content, if it’s well made and interesting then it’s chances of going viral are higher but there will never be a guarantee. Apologies, a little distracted there – just a pet hate.

Many brands are typically unfunny and uninteresting to people that have no inherent interest in the subject. The best approach (in my opinion) is to find what makes people interested (even marginally interested) in your product/their passion and maximise on that rather than creating something that has no direct connection. Obviously this doesn’t turn those people that don’t already have a vested interest in your brand onto your product; Content and relationships are two methods to reach out to these consumers (via social media tools). If you make sure you’re understanding where their interest lies and how you can better serve them with your products/brand then you’re far more likely to get them to embrace your key messages.

Watch the presentation, it says it better than I can. enjoy.

The second misconception is that it’s just a case of talking to people. I won’t lie, there is a huge amount of communication involved in the digital sphere and it can really drive brands forward but with this two way approach there are also lessons to be taken from advertising (something which often gets written off for no other reason than perceived rivalry). One of the best ways of driving conversation is through the creation of awesome, well targeted content – something that advertisers have always done well. The difference is that my role in this digital sphere is to try and keep people talking about this cool, awesome content to their friends (and making sure that the content is targeted correctly in the first place) and also being there to answer any questions they may have as to why this content or product exists in the first place.

I suppose that the main achievement of the new digital tools is the way they have become integrated into people’s day to day lives – this same integration is what leads to the largest amount of misconceptions – people don’t understand how it can be utilised to achieve goals that were once solidly based in a form of media that they had no control over whatsoever.

I think the main cause is because I’ve set a few criteria: It has to be running on 3G or better, it has to have a full Qwerty keyboard (buttons, not touch – I really like buttons), it has to support multiple e-mail clients, it has to have dedicated Twitter and Facebook programs (that match up to those available on the Blackberry – I’m an Ubertwitter fan) and, it has to have a good browser. Compatability with windows would be a bonus too but, to be honest, I dont sync that often.

Not a lot to ask I think you’ll agree?

So I’ve been looking through the options – obviously we have Blackberry as an initial frontrunner as I’m currently a user- the Bold 9700 looks great but I’m being swayed toward a phone that has a hidden keyboard – just for pocketspace but it’s not a massive issue for me – I just haven’t experienced much in the way of broadband content on a BB (as my 8900 is somewhat lacking) so it’s kind of untested ground.

Then there’s the HTC series with the Touchpro and Touchpro 2 looking somewhat phenomenal – I’ve seen them in action, have a lot of faith in their ability to display content and think they’re a strong contender. They are however quite well priced and cost is always a factor.

Nokia have really upped their game with the N900 – it’s the first Nokia in a long time that’s got me looking and thinking it’s attractive and functional for what I want to use it for – that is both it’s plus and it’s minus point – due to my long time away, I’ve had very little experience with their operating system (outside of a girl at work saying “ee by gum, it’s a pile of crap” of her E71) so I’m once again a bit unsure of giving it a go. This is for the good reason that it’s so untried by me or anyone I know (aside from said girl at work) that I’m tending to keep it at the bottom of the pile – is that a mistake? I’m not sure.

Finally in my list of choices is the wildcard (no buttons…). The Nexus One from Google – it looks pretty, it’s built by HTC and to get in on the bandwagon – it’s Google. I like Google and I’m sure I’ll like their phone but, as with with Nokia, it’s completely untested and I’m fearful of using it plus, while I’m sure the touch screen option is great – I’m very irked by it having no buttons.

I am rubbish at decisions – expect more posts on this as I weave about the minefield of getting a phone at works form me.

A lot of the arguments have centred around the practical implications of these tools for “revolutionary” purposes. I don’t think it’s a case of looking at it as a means of regime change – anyone that even argues the counterpoint to this is incredibly mis-led – no one is ever claiming that Twitter or a blog are going to place a government into disarray. What they provide for the people of Iran is a means of reaching out to the rest of the world. Whether that’s for moral reasons or to make sure their voice is heard in one way or another is what’s important – they are not, nor have they ever been a front line tool.

The same can be said of China – Google have in many ways insinuated that the Chinese government have been behind the attacks they faced on their e-mail systems. Now, while their reasoning for withdrawal is because their systems have been attacked, it is the response from people like Hilary Clinton to Google’s allegations and the fact that it “raise[s] very serious concerns and questions”. America is now looking for answers as it’s not just Chinese citizens being targeted but e-mail users worldwide including human rights activists alongside businesses.

What does this mean for those suffering from human rights issues in China?

Very little.

What does it mean for those human rights activists that have had their accounts accessed?

Quite a lot.

It shows that the tools they choose to use (in this case, Gmail) are defended against those that they speak out about. The removal of censorship is another massive deal – it goes against the Chinese government (and pushes Google back to their original statement of “Don’t Be Evil”) so before the obvious statements come out saying “Google withdrawing is not going to change the Chinese government”, it’s not about changing the government, it’s about those people that choose to use Google as their means of getting information.

All of these tools are a means of reaching out to the rest of the world.

“The big change for us in 2010 is evolving how social media plays a role in our journalism. We no longer ghettoise it to one person, but are in the process of embedding throughout the whole team,” said Julian March, executive producer of Sky News Online, to Journalism.co.uk.

(LINK)

I can’t help but think this has been in the process for quite some time but it also falls at a time when reporting from the Twitterverse has once again massively outpaced the traditional news sources with #UKSnow being cited for up to the minute reporting across both the web and in television reports.

It’s once again a case of journalists being made aware that once, twice or three times a day is not frequent enough for a news update – not only with real time conversations taking place but with real-time searches giving non-Twitter users the ability to find up-to-the-minute reporting then even the most tech-unfriendly person is going to expect to receive what they need as soon as they need it.

Now, following the “backs against the wall” attitude that many journalists take when it comes to “social” journalism, it will be interesting to see how the journalists take on this new company-wide policy and how many continue to hang on to the last vestiges of a world where news, advertising and branding were one way subjects – It’s not destroying them – it’s opening them up and improving them.

It will be interesting to see where peoples’ opinions lie. A strong move on Newscorps behalf?

I’m on the side that it can only be a good move to improve social media amongst journalists – perhaps not by forcing them – education may work better…

It’s all very well seeing a successful digital or traditional campaign and mimicking it in some way shape or form, the same as those people that see other people being successful and endeavour to make themselves as close that person in personality and presence – it may carry you some distance but, until you actually show what you can do that makes you special then you’re just another copy.

This micro-rant stems from a bit of an unlikely source, National Geographic Magazine ran a story about mimicry in animals and pointed out that while those that copy others (for example, the hoverfly) those with the original “idea” will begin to distance themselves in some way, shape or form, once again distinguishing themselves while the copycat will be left at a severe disadvantage.

I suppose what I’m trying to say is (something that John Motson tells me on Fifa): while form is temporary, class is permanent and as such, it is the ideas that drive you through – not your ability to play catch up.

With that said, some brands have learnt, through mimicry, what is a successful route for them to reach out to their consumers. An example will probably be seen over the coming months with the way in which many brands echo We Are Socials/Eurostars (somewhat delayed) reactive efforts during the crisis they faced just before Christmas. This will in turn lead to the progression and refinement of these reputation management tactics (by no means are WAS the first, but they are very well publicised and on a large scale) and we will see advancement in the way people react in future.

I guess what I am saying is that, while copying your peers may be a good idea when setting out on a new venture: The sooner you find your own route then the sooner you can advance along that route and make fresh new headway (and develop fresh new ideas!).