Taking the long view on brand entertainment

Recently, there’s been a lot of interesting discussion around the dichotomy between the short and long; between one off campaigns and an ongoing conversation.

I don’t agree that there isn’t room for social media marketing initiatives like the Whopper Sacrifice (233,000 odd people defriended at last count), but I’m definitely an advocate of longer term thinking espoused by people like Peter Kim, Mack Collier and Gavin Heaton. The kind that puts people, communication and social enterprise at the heart of business and builds value over time. Rather than the sort that relies on making a bit of noise every time a new flavour is released.

When it comes to brands creating entertainment, there are similar advantages in taking the longer term view.

The highlight of any marketer’s calendar is without a doubt, shooting the new TVC. There’s only one thing that’s sexier these days - making your own content.

This (along with staff turnover) is why marketing managers often want to launch a new campaign platform every year. It’s not because of ‘wear out’, or negative feedback from the trade, but because it’s the best damn part of the job. Compared to doing a sales roadshow, it’s a heap of fun and if it’s good, you can look smug at barbeques for weeks.

Obviously that’s not reason enough.

Marketers need to take the long view and build content platforms and entertainment assets that can evolve and grow over time.

This allows for innovation, experimentation and evolution; for fusion of content and product. It speaks to the reality that few get it right first time; that problems are rarely solved overnight; that learning is a constant and that big, bold ideas need time to sprout wings. For the beancounters, it can mean serious cost efficiencies.

Critically, it helps locate the asset at the core of business rather than quarantining it as a marketing plan output. And if done well, it can excite, engage and unite people across a business in a common goal.

Importantly, it enables the involvement of other people in story creation. This might be the contribution of the customer service team to the sales story, or the audience's involvement in the journey of a character.

Everyone wants to be known for something. So what do you want your brand to be known for? What asset might support that vision, lend it interest, connect people or maybe even do something nice for the world?

Twitter is encouraging an unhealthy obsession with 'the numbers'

I can't help but be slightly irritated by people on Twitter obsessing and boasting about their followers. The old 'Gee, I can't believe I've got 4,000 followers already' or the more annoying 'help @person get to 1,000 followers'. It's like turning up to a party saying 'Gosh, what a surprise I can't believe how tantalisingly fabulous I look in my Diane Furstenburg high waisted pant suit' or 'Please help @Corey Delaney attract more than 100 people to his party'.

(For a great post on the emphasis on raw numbers see this one from Mack Collier on authority).

So why are we actively promoting a meaningless view of metrics - the kind we're often trying to steer our clients away from? 

It's not that numbers aren't important in the right context. 

But an obsession with reach (vs impact) has been one of the barriers to marketers genuinely engaging with disciplines like social media, brand entertainment, experiential marketing and other 'softer' disciplines which are seen as not capable of delivering 'hard numbers' (either in terms of sales or people).

Too much emphasis on the body count diverts attention from the effect communication has on behaviour. It's much more about the what and when and less about the why. 

And in the case of Twitter, it's not even always about who.

If we're asking our clients to recalibrate their concept of metrics, we should do the same. 

p.s happy new year to my many followers.