I’d Like to Buy the Virtual World a Coke

Leave a comment

coke

One of the most interesting speakers for me at THE Conference on Marketing held earlier this month in Naples, FL was Michael Donnelly, Global Digital Marketing Director for Coca-cola. He presented the case study of a contest held by Coke to design a virtual vending machine in Second Life. The machine was not to dispense soda cans, but experiences for Second Life avatars.

Examples abound of marketers trying to force fit old media formats into new media. The first web sites were basically print brochures. Most of the branding activity in Second Life still revolves around “impressions” as measured by the number of avatars who wear, drink or otherwise carry around your branded content.

Sure, the Coke design contest winners end up carrying around branded content as well, but the nature of the design contest, to my mind, really leveraged the unique character of the medium. One of the winning designs dispensed snowballs and allowed avatars to engage each other in snowball fights. Certainly a more resonant experience than spending In World currency to buy a virtual can of soda.

Michael’s approach struck me as an example customer-centric marketing at it’s best. Really getting inside the heads of the target audience “Second Lifers” and engaging them in ways they really want to be engaged.

There were a number of other general points Michael made also worthy of repeating:

  • “Criticism leads to conversation marketing. I’d rather somebody tell me something bad than to not tell me anything at all.”
  • “There is a fine line between taking advantage of the community and being a part of the community.”
  • “Always get the advice, council and permission of a community before entering it.”

Evolution: Differentiation by Design

Leave a comment

evolutionI caught Malcolm Gladwell talking about conceptual vs. experimental innovation and it brought to mind my favorite business read of 2006, The Origin of Wealth by Eric D. Beinhocker. In it, Beinhocker explores an interesting shift in thinking within the field of economics about the nature, structure and governing forces of economies. Rather than the traditional view that holds an economy as a closed system trending toward equilibrium over time, new thinking explores economies as complex adaptive systems, much like the system of evolution.

Complex adaptive systems are open rather than closed, accept inputs, adapt to those inputs and create outputs. Complex adaptive systems evolve through learning. Examples include financial markets, certain insect colonies, the human brain, manufacturing and the Internet.

A multitude of interactive algorithms govern the growth and morphic nature of complex adaptive systems, but one of the most fundamental is: Differentiate, select, amplify. So the algorithm for evolution – and economic growth – has a differentiation mechanism baked in. Evolutionary change is not spurred by random, accidental mutation, it’s differentiated by design in order to spur rapid learning and adaptive growth.

So what’s the magic formula for differentiation? How many different ideas, products, organic life forms should you put out there in order reach your full creative potential, get the best return or evolve into the most successful species, product or brand?

I just picked up The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable by Niassim Nicholas Taleb. I haven’t cracked it yet, but I expect a lot of argument for the value of the bold and the radical. We’ll see.

For now, I’m with Malcolm. Evolution is most successful through a combination of conceptual innovation – the bold and radical, and experimental innovation – the small and iterative. An examination of rich artistic traditions, wealthy economies and successful species reveals a common theme: Those with a history of both small, iterative exploratory change and bold, breakthrough radical change tend to come out in front.

Fuel for the Social Media Bandwagon

Leave a comment

fuel

Last week, I heard Forrester’s Charlene Li speak at a business marketer’s luncheon where she gave a comprehensive overview of how social technologies are transforming business. Charlene laid out a framework for how businesses should be approaching the emerging (and at times daunting) consumer-controlled marketplace that nicely dovetailed with Jennifer’s recent post about the Scout Labs Hierarchy of Needs. The basic premise: There are low-level, but critical business needs (like crisis management) that social technologies can and do address readily, and that higher level business needs (like becoming a customer-centric organization) are also very well served by getting across CGM.

When asked about the biggest hurdle companies face when seeking to become more tuned in to CGM, Charlene responded that executive buy in was still a big hurdle for some marketers and by far the single largest factor that contributes to success when adopting a social media strategy.

I caught this piece in the New York Times yesterday that gave a nice list of healthy examples of top executives that have actively embraced the new world of social media. I thought it excellent ammunition for marketers who are looking for convincing arguments to the powers that be that it’s not only time to start listening, but to invest in tools and best-practices for keeping up with consumer-controlled conversations.

If that doesn’t do the trick, keep your eye out for Charlene’s soon to be released book, Groundswell: Winning in a World of Social Technologies, in which I’m sure the case for a well-supported social media strategy at will be aptly made.

Telephone Tell-a-blogger

Leave a comment

whisper

Remember the game “Telephone”? You sit in a circle and one person whispers a phrase or sentence into the ear of the person next to her. That person repeats the message to the person next to him and so on. When the circle is complete, the originator speaks aloud his original message and the last receiver repeats what he heard. Uproarious laughter usually abounds (depending on how much beer is involved). What began as “faster than a heard of turtles” becomes “master of the nerdy girdles”.

The rumor mill is alive and well and operating at lightening speed online as Ford Motor Company found out today. It’s still a bit murky, but it looks as if Ford had an issue with the use of the Ford logo on the Black Mustang Club’s annual calendar and in no time rumors were flying across the BMC community that they were liable to be sued by Ford for taking pictures of the cars that they own.It looks like Ford, in fact, did “wake up and smell the CGM” and dialed right into the conversation with a spring in their step. With impressive responsiveness, Ford dispelled the unfounded rumors and made clear their policies of trademark protection. Whether founded or unfounded, Bravo to the BMC members for ranting online about their perception of Ford and double Bravo to Ford for listening.