Dazzle Ships

Lord of the Dance - How to create a 'tribe'

You may recall the post 2 weeks back covering Seth Godin's latest TED talk where he discussed some the thoughts behind his latest clarion call about the need for Tribes.  Essentially, Seth is saying that it's the formation of movements (or Tribes if you prefer) that businesses need to shoot for if they want to survive and grow rather than continuing to try to influence the average masses.

Seth set out 6 C's that a leader needed to have to create movements which are:

1) Challenge the status quo

2) Build a Culture

3) Have Curiousity about the group

4) Connect people to one another

5) Have Charisma

6) Commit to the cause

I think this video is a great example of a tribe being created by an individual who exhibits many of Seth's stated leadership requirements

The immediate reaction may be to say, well, this guy had it made because everyone around him was already into the music but this is at the heart, I believe, of how 'Tribes' are really created.  The time of significant profits by delivering average ideas to the mass (and average) audience is fast coming to end.  Increasingly we talk in the communications world about the need for deeper targeting and greater consumer insight; this is all driven by the fact that trying to influence everyone is simply too big a task for even infinite budget clients.  By focussing attention on audiences that already have a yearning for what you stand for, you'll ensure greater relevancy of your communications/offer and, ultimately, gain better performance from your investments.

The challenge is taking that risky step away from a volume mentality and starting to develop your product and communications with smaller, more relevant groups in mind.  The payoff though, I believe, is significant, after all, wouldn't you love to illicit the reaction from consumers that our 'Dance Leader' managed from the like minded 'sheepwalkers' that were around him?

Bryan aka ThePersuader

Tweet Branding

Everyone is all a Twitter of late, so thank you to Sam Phillips for forwarding me a blog post that touched on the question of how brands can best use Twitter. 

Twitter is interesting from a targeting and Influence perspective.  There are your friends you follow, people like Stephen Fry who 205k follow, those that like to shout out their views and those that just like to sit back and listen.  Understanding who is doing what and how they influence others is going to be more and more valuable to us.

There are some purists out there that will argue that brands have no place on Twitter because it is all about people to people communication, but as Cohen (@obilon on Twitter), a writer and social media strategist points out on mashable, Twitter is opt in, so there is no reason why brands and people can't live side by side.  If you chose to opt in, it simply demonstrates the level of Permission you have given a company to speak to you.

As Seth Godin would no doubt tell you though, the important thing about Permission Marketing is that when someone has given you permission to talk to them, it needs to be very carefully managed, valued, and not wasted.  Smart brands use it in ways that are meaningful, adding value to peoples lives. With this in mind, the blog sent has kindly summarised 40 of the best Branded Twitter campaigns for us to learn from. 

The examples highlight that like people, brands have personalities too.  In short, the Twitter community will decide whether you are worth following or not, so here's a few tips:

1) Learn from those doing it well

2) Be relevant, interesting, entertaining and informative

3) Don't just talk about your brand, think about related topics that will interest people

4) Be human, not corporate

- Sam

Social Media inspiration

 

We have given plenty of examples of brands using social media well before in Dazzleships and in our trends programme, but here's a nice list by Mashable of 10 of the smartest Big Brands using Social Media. Good inspiration or presentation fodder.

Stephen 

Demixing the remixes

    

The remix, or 'mash-up' to use more fashionable parlance, has become one of the dominant cultural forms of the web.  Books have been written about it, notably Matt Mason's Pirate's Dilemma, the success of the Gorilla ads has been ascribed to it, and Faris has even invented a new name for it - 'recombinant culture'.  Nice one.

But it appears not everyone's on board with this brave new world.  Earler this week, mashable broke a story about Youtube muting videos due to copyright violation.  You can see examples here and here.

Now, mashable have followed up the story with some excellent comments.  And they're right.  Where does this end?  Technically, I guess, this would be muted. (The best Youtube video ever,  bar none.  20 million views and counting)

Not to mention all those Guitar Hero videos.  Yes, that's the same Guitar Hero phenomenon that has revitalised the sales of a load of bands languishing in the 'Where are they now?' file.

Presumably rickrolling would not have been possible either. Though this is probably no bad thing. Unless you're Rick Astley, of course, in which case you probably wouldn't have won 'Best Act Ever' at the MTV Awards last year, following a huge online campaign.  (And well done for deliberately NOT cashing in on it, by the way).

Instead of just muting the videos, you could go one better if you wanted.  You could scream obscenities at them, Madonna-style. Or just sue them, like Metallica did.

Or you could recognise that these people are your fans.  They are publicising your music for you.  Music is everywhere now, and the paths to purchase are changing (mine is, generally, lastfm to Youtube to itunes, and I'm getting on a bit as well). 

I find it very hard to believe that this is damaging sales in any significant way.  It may even be driving them.  What it is damaging is your relationship with potentially your most influential advocates (as some of the, er, colourful comments left on Youtube indicate). 

And that is definitely a bad thing.

-- Toby

The 'Wisdom of Crowds'

(Read the answer).

Who says Americans are provincial?

From the hilarious Fail blog.

-- Toby

Whatever you do, don't employ talented people

This morning I finally got round to reading The New York Times supplement of The Observer, dated 20th July, which had the front page title; 'Persuasion Tactics'.  The section that I thought I would pass on was a little random bit about talent that appealed to the Paul Arden in me. The article was written by Janet Rae-Dupree.

Carol Dweck, a psychologist at Stanford University, has been doing research in to why some people reach their creative potential, while others do not.  Her conclusion is that it comes down to the way individuals think about their own intelligence and talent. People that believe that they have a natural or innate ability that they are born with, are less likely to maximise their potential.  These people are more likely to want to look smart, avoid mistakes and defend their status - they have a 'fixed mindset'. 

On the flip side, people that believe talent can be acquired, learnt and built, are likely to have a 'growth mind set'.  These people tend to be the ones that challenge conventions, confront and embrace their mistakes, and thus build on them. 

 

To steal words from Kate Monster from Avenue Q, no doubt 'everyone's a little bit racist sometimes', but it did make me think about companies that focus on attracting the 'brightest people' from the 'best schools and universities'.  True these people may fulfil their potential, but likewise they may also be the ones most fearful of falling from grace. 

The question is then; how do employers predict the future success of people?  Obviously we have interviews, psychometric tests, workshop days and more to try and get round it, but it is interesting that the one thing that doesn't help is the CV - the very first judgement hurdle. I am sure we all know stories of creative individuals that have got round the CV issue and applied the thinking above creatively. Hopefully they didn't take it quite as far as good old Aleksey Vayner mind you.   

Apparently Scott Forstall of Apple spoke to Dweck about her research after he chose his iPhone development team.  Rather than look for the brightest people, he chose those internally that were most hungry to be involved.  As our wonderful Ignition team often say, If you send an email out to loads of people asking for help, you don't wait for the cleverest people to respond, you should go with those that are most enthusiastic and keen to work with you.  Similarly, I once heard Richard Hytner of Saatchi & Saatchi state that in order to enjoy work life you need to surround yourself with Zappers, not Sappers.

Given that creativity can come from anything, anyone and anywhere, maybe we need a new approach to recruitment.  Ideas, solutions, suggestions and answers on a postcard please!

- Sam

Madonna's Kryptonite

I'm currently reading The Pirate's Dilemma by Matt Mason.  It's early days yet and I'm getting a little dismayed by the high-tech utopianism.  But I'll give you an update when I'm done.  In the meantime, though, there's some great stories in there, from which we could learn alot.

The first I wanted to share is about Madonna.  In the run up to the release of American Life in 2003, the music majors were getting tough on piracy.  They'd seen off Napster (officially declared bankrupt in 2002), and were feeling pretty confident.

Now, we know from Kryptonite the dangers of ignoring what's going on online.  After ignoring the online videos showing their very expensive bike locks being opened with a biro, they ended up looking pretty foolish (and pretty broke), when the mainstream media picked up on the story.  10 days later they'd promised a full product exchange.  Estimated cost $10m.  Estimated cost to their reputation?  Who knows.

So, Madonna wasn't going to ignore these people.  No, she was going to go one better.  She was going to wind them up.

In what probably sounded like a great idea in a brainstorm, Madonna and Warners decided to post some of the tracks from the forthcoming album on KaZaA.com, a peer-to-peer network.  But when all those Madonna fans downloaded these free files, instead of the songs they got something very different.  They got Madonna screaming 'What the fuck do you think you're doing?' at them over and over again.  Way to go, Madge.  That'll tell them. 

What do you think happened next?

Somewhat predictably, the message was sampled and remixed, becoming its own 'single' (called WTF).  Some of these remixes can still be found here, along with the original source files.

Though slightly embrarassing for her, not the end of the world.  But this was just the start.  The coup de grace was delivered on 19th April, a couple of days before the album's official launch.  Madonna's website (www.madonna.com) was hacked, and the entire album was placed free for download on her homepage, accompanied by this message:

 

Nice work.

So, stop and think.  You might not like what your customers (or in this case, fans) are doing.  But you certainly shouldn't ignore them.  And you certainly, certainly shouldn't go out of your way to piss them off.  Because now they can fight back.  Be constructive, talk to them, find common ground.

-- Toby

The creaky board gets the oil

Everyone loves a conspiracy theory. I know I do. It may not be cool to like Costner, but I always liked the film JFK. Until I spotted some killjoy documentary that totally blew apart the 'magic bullet' theory. Damn the facts!

Nowhere will a conspiracy theory find a more conducive environment for growth than the internet. Them bloggers love 'em. We love to uncover the shady dealings of institutions and tell the world. Take the Unilever 'Onslaught' controversy. We've mentioned this plenty of times before, so no need to go over it again. A refresher is here.

Latest in the line of institutions to be in the line of fire - Coldplay.

Just as their shiny new album 'Viva La Vida' hits the stores and the iTunes ad featuring them hits the airwaves ... shock, horror! They only went and plagiarised it!

A seemingly very put out band called 'Creaky Boards' have put out this video, accusing Chris Martin of turning up at their gig, liking what he heard and making a mint off the back of it. Perhaps he spent the gig writing the melody down on the back of his hand? They've gone to a reasonable amount of effort in proving their point too. See what you think.

What can we make of all this? Well, perhaps Chris Martin is just plain evil (I blame Gwyneth). Then again, given that all publicity is good publicity, perhaps this is a bit of courted controversy to get people talking about the album.

Hang on a minute, haven't I just spent several minutes listening to a song by a band I've never heard of, likening their art to one of the biggest bands in the world, and feeling empathy with them? I saw some of their live performance and it looked good. I love Creaky Boards, and I'd never heard of them ten minutes ago!

A very cute bit of self-promotion perhaps?

Thanks to Christian and Anna for fuelling the conspiracy.

-- Alex

Wellies are for life, not just for festivals

 

I was in New York recently and what did I see?  Wellies, that's what.  Well to be clear, I noticed lots of incredibly stylish individuals in and around Soho, Greenwich and the Meat Packing District wearing them.  At the time I chuckled to myself. The fools I thought. It was only later when I found myself holding a pair in my hands, that I realised I was actually jealous that in no way I could pull it off.  Miserable about this, you'll be pleased to know that I balanced things up, by buying myself some bright blue sunglasses that made me look 12.

I thought I'd put this behind me, until it was bought back to my attention in a meeting I had the other day, when Michael Tulley, a trend guru at OMD UK, was talking about subculture making it's way in to the mainstream.  Intrigued by this I went to the site of The Sartorialist himself, and he too has noticed the high Street Wellie. 

Clearly they are a must for festivals, and it is no surprise that designers now produce them for those that want to stand out from the crowd.  What is interesting is that it is now bridging over in to every day life. It reminds me of the Hush Puppies case Gladwell spoke about in the Tipping Point.  People wearing wellies down the high street and in bars is a sign of what is to come. As Nassim Nichola Taleb would say, it is an example of a black swan.

I am heading to my mum's in the country this weekend.  She will be delighted to hear that she is so cutting edge. Go Mum.

She'll be less delighted when she finds her Wellies have been stolen by her son.

Sam

Free love

Why are we so irrational when it comes to our love of Free?

I'm currently reading Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely the behavioural economist. It's very good by the way. It's basically a summary of lots of social experiments that he and some of his colleagues have undertaken to demonstrate how expectations, emotions, social norms and other invisible, seemingly illogical forces skew our reasoning abilities and show how irrational rather than rational consumer behaviour can be. One chapter focuses on our love of Free. His view is that "free us gives us such an emotional charge that we perceive what is being offered as immensely more valuable than it really is". Here are two examples he gives.

The first was an experiment that was conducted in a large public building offering Lindt chocolate truffles for sale at 15 cents or Hershey's Kisses for sale at 1 cent (both being at a much lower price than their normal retail price, the Lindt truffle being a better quality than the more everyday Hersey's Kiss) - with a limit of one chocolate per person. The result: 73% chose the Lindt truffle and 27% chose the Kiss. Next they moved the experiment on by dropping the price of each by 1 cent, the Lindt becoming 14 cents and the Hershey's Kiss became free. What happened? 69% of customers chose the free Kiss, opting to pass on buying a Lindt truffle at a very good price.  Basically when Free was on the agenda the customers behaved in a much more irrational way. To ensure that the results weren't influenced by not having to get out your wallet, the experiment was repeated next to a till where people were buying something in any case producing similar results.

The second example was analysing Amazon's free postage offer. Now I'm hooked on this to the extent that I nearly always buy extra books to make sure I qualify for their free postage and it seems like I'm far from the only one. It turns out that Amazon were running this offer in every country they operate in with the exception of France where they were running a similar incentive scheme but in this instance the shipping cost was the equivalent of about 10p rather than Free. Now 10p is a pretty good offer, but one that was virtually ignored by the French. However this all changed when the offer was aligned with the rest of the world and turned to Free - a drop in 10pence, but a significant uptake in the offer.

What does this mean for brands? Well the model works for mobile phone operators and retailers and appears to still work with laptops for The Carphone Warehouse. Some people may also have heard about this free gun offer when you buy a car which has gone down a storm for one car dealership in the US. More on it in the video below:

It looks like brands should at least consider reframing their retail offers to incorporate Free, could start to incorporate more imaginative Free incentives or at least could test where free fits in in their market. The alternative might be to be drawn into discounting mainly on price which of course could create an ugly race to the bottom which no one is likely to win in the long-term.

Stephen

PS: To get a feel for the rest of the book you can that this How irrational or rational are you? test.