Strategizing for interactivity

The idea of communication as an interactive process is not new, but can change a lot the way things are done in the marketing industry. This simple notion changes the perspective from targeting messages to designing experiences in order to create engaging communication between the parts.

While some product and service brands are learning how to think with the interactive perspective, other “brands” are offering great lessons, like the ones from the entertainment industry (by the way, remember where transmedia storytelling started?).

Just experiment Radiohead’s 12 Cams, for example. This is an interactive piece that Radiohead did to communicate their In Rainbows World Tour in Japan. A simple and great idea that puts you in the position of a TV Director, or something like this, where you can edit the images of a stage performance using all the different 12 cams to create your own rainbow (see the concept?).

It’s crazy – simple, very attractive and something you would like to share with your friends.

What I like most about this idea is that it gives me the rich content of the band in its pure form and let me play with it. Fantastic, and a real good example of an idea that aims for a two-way (or more, if we consider it’s spreadable) communication.

Better than having one idea that aims this dynamic, is to have an strategy based on that. Which is what I get from all this Radiohead project. The premise of interactivity seems to be the seed for the whole strategy of In Rainbow launching, not just the 12 Cams idea. And this is what makes the whole thing even more beautiful.

As people responsible for the creative manifestation of brands, I believe we should look for this same seed in our strategies. To aim and pursue for a experiential path in which creativity could produce a two-way communication process resulting in better relationships and conversations.

After all, what do you think those guys were thinking when they decided for letting their fans chose what price to pay for the musics of the album?

Planning, interactions and experience

When I think about my future as a planner, or even the future of planning, I like to think that I’ll evolve from a discipline that happens through messages to one that happens through experiences.

When experiences take a major role, our mindset has to shift as a radar mapping great interaction opportunities.

In my mind, interactions presume both sides giving something valuable to each other. No part playing a passive role. Instead, an active exchange between two parts.

That’s how interactions turn into dialogues.

Creating rich dialogues, we will create richer conversations – that major topics and events existing in our culture, where brands happen.

Ok. I know that this thinking is not so clear, maybe just thrown away as things appear in my mind, but not so far from what Colin has wrote with great simplicity here:

Why the separation between planning and user experience design? As “planners”, we need to evolve our thinking to be interactions-based. Insights and strategy that drive brand interactions, retail interactions, product interactions, digital interactions. Brands create paths for people to follow.

As you can see, and I like to think, we have a very interesting path ahead of us. So, let’s contribute with it.

Good micro site advertising

Contagious is a very inspiring source for me and I really like the way they cover what is happening in the communication’s world. A while ago, I sow an analysis of four automotive micro sites and decided to put two of them here. Because I think they illustrate well what I consider a good and not so good usage of a micro site as a medium for advertising.

The first case is the micro site of the New Ford Ka launching in Brazil where I felt like if I had wasted my precious time going to the site. I found a difficult navigation; I was lost and had to play games I didn’t want to; I didn’t know where to find information about the car and when they appeared they were like specs not translated into benefits. I wonder what kind of reaction the possible prospect of the car had with it…

The second case was different. I’m talking about the Smart micro site in UK. At first, it shows what it is all about – Smart truths. This site involves who’s there.  Easy to understand and navigate, intuitive and entertaining. The benefits of Smart For Two are directly and funny pointed out. Not just the experience was pleasant as I wanted my peers to take a look into that.

For me, what makes the two examples so different is the way they where thought for the consumer. The first case is the replication of the old advertising approach. The second is the application of a conversational approach. I’ll put it simple as that:

• Case 1 – message.
• Case 2 – message + MEDIUM EXPERIENCE.

 

I believe that when brands think about people’s experience they tend to get a good response. On the other hand, when they just want to communicate without thinking on the other part, they tend to get nothing.

Look at Nike and Red Bull

Everyday new powerful creative ideas emerge on the marketing field trying to empower the brands behind it. A lot of them make me feel very pleasant on the way some companies and agencies are walking the walk, by the way.

But nothing makes me feel so enthusiast as when I see brands doing differently on its strategy to connect and engage with consumers as a result of its inner belief on how to be more meaningful for them.

Two brands that I believe do differently because of their beliefs and behaviors are Red Bull and Nike.

Red Bull has always had its own particular way to build the brand. It ever knew what it was all about. And to communicate its values and spirit, there was no best way than to focus on the targets’ lifestyles, promote the integration between the brand and communities and offer incredible experiences only reached via Red Bull.

You can say that events, athlete sponsorships and PR coverage were the main pillars to deliver the Red Bull experience. But if we look more carefully, we see that digital marketing, and even advertising, were also important to complete the whole brand experience (delivering different messages as well).

Nike is another brand that has also always created its own culture, but is now putting more importance on the experience with the brand. What is most interesting about Nike today is how it is changing its marketing approach to connect with consumers.

The brand that once used tv ads to be at the top and to immaculate a bunch of sports stars is now more concerned on creating bonds with real people. Doing that through programs and strategies anchored on an idea of how the brand could provide experiences and services that are more useful. Moreover, using the power of its own brand and products combined (e.g.: Nike ID and Nike Plus).

For me, it’s the perfect example of a brand that understood that the age of brand image has passed away (as John Grant defends with Brand Innovation). Relevance and differentiation today have more to do with the way you connect linking brand experiences to what consumers can take from it.