http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-myth-of-brand-engagement Opinions. Commentary. News. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:23:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32719 Mario Vellandi Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:16:00 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32719 Yeah, like everyone said! :) Even if you truly listen and converse, I would watch the language and avoid trite expressions. Yeah, like everyone said!
Even if you truly listen and converse, I would watch the language and avoid trite expressions.

]]> http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32718 gianandrea Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:01:26 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32718 I wish to add some consideration: - we live in a moment of huge hype (web 2.0, second life, facebook, etc) and a certain number of them lives few months - marketing depts are under pressure to apply the latest hype to show that they are cool and engaging with their customers - consultants and agencies are sometimes supporting this quest for the holy grail - but not all the brands are suitable to adopt these tools marketers have to be honest enough to admit when a company can embrace web 2.0, etc and when this is not the case I wish to add some consideration:
- we live in a moment of huge hype (web 2.0, second life, facebook, etc) and a certain number of them lives few months
- marketing depts are under pressure to apply the latest hype to show that they are cool and engaging with their customers
- consultants and agencies are sometimes supporting this quest for the holy grail
- but not all the brands are suitable to adopt these tools
marketers have to be honest enough to admit when a company can embrace web 2.0, etc and when this is not the case

]]> http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32717 Lee Erickson Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:59:42 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32717 I think you hit the real issue when you said people expect to get "helpful information." Too much marketing is about the company and not about the customer. It's a one-way conversation (is that an oxymoron?). "Engagement," "interaction," and "relationships" are two-way. It requires you to listen. If you constantly provide content that's relevant to your customers' issues and question, you can begin to build relationships and engage your prospect. It's got to be about them and not about you. The pitch is dead. Long live the conversation. I think you hit the real issue when you said people expect to get “helpful information.” Too much marketing is about the company and not about the customer. It’s a one-way conversation (is that an oxymoron?).
“Engagement,” “interaction,” and “relationships” are two-way. It requires you to listen.
If you constantly provide content that’s relevant to your customers’ issues and question, you can begin to build relationships and engage your prospect.
It’s got to be about them and not about you. The pitch is dead. Long live the conversation.

]]> http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32716 Dusan Vrban Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:32:58 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32716 Really great points and discusssion. But I must say that I get a feeling everything in programming gets into some marketing "big thing" and then suddenly looses pace. Take CRM for example. I don't know what's your experience on this, but in my environment years ago it was top 3 things everyone was selling (especially IT companies). Then it somehow slowed down and well... there are rare good examples of actually using and performing on it. And the nicest way to sell something to the marketing department and get them involved into "wow new stuff" is to tell them: "it will raise your brand awarness". :-) Really great points and discusssion. But I must say that I get a feeling everything in programming gets into some marketing “big thing” and then suddenly looses pace. Take CRM for example.
I don’t know what’s your experience on this, but in my environment years ago it was top 3 things everyone was selling (especially IT companies). Then it somehow slowed down and well… there are rare good examples of actually using and performing on it.
And the nicest way to sell something to the marketing department and get them involved into “wow new stuff” is to tell them: “it will raise your brand awarness”.

]]> http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32715 Cam Beck Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:50:29 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32715 Brandon - Great points. Everyone here has enriched this post so well that I hardly feel like I can take credit for writing it. The comments are far better than the original article. I hope people continue to develop these thoughts here and on their own. I love where this is going. Brandon – Great points.
Everyone here has enriched this post so well that I hardly feel like I can take credit for writing it. The comments are far better than the original article.
I hope people continue to develop these thoughts here and on their own. I love where this is going.

]]> http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32714 Brandon Murphy Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:57:44 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32714 I think Cam makes a great point. Web 2.0 gives brands a better chance to act differently and actually engage customers. But all too often brands behave in the same way they have since the 1950's and deliver a message in an effort to manage people's perceptions or persuade them to do something. They disregard what the customer actually wants, needs or is looking for at that moment. With this kind of behavior, I agree with TT, A brand is not my friend. But in the end, I think brands could benefit from thinking and behaving like a friend. Because web 2.0 gives brands the chance to be respectful, listen, be reciprocal and responsive. The term "engagement" is likely misused in the world of marketing 90% of the time. I think Cam makes a great point. Web 2.0 gives brands a better chance to act differently and actually engage customers. But all too often brands behave in the same way they have since the 1950’s and deliver a message in an effort to manage people’s perceptions or persuade them to do something. They disregard what the customer actually wants, needs or is looking for at that moment. With this kind of behavior, I agree with TT, A brand is not my friend. But in the end, I think brands could benefit from thinking and behaving like a friend. Because web 2.0 gives brands the chance to be respectful, listen, be reciprocal and responsive. The term “engagement” is likely misused in the world of marketing 90% of the time.

]]> http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32713 Cam Beck Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:13:35 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32713 Thanks, TT. I do believe that you have to earn someone's trust before they will agree to "engage" them, ala Apple. There are effective ways to do that, but hitting users over the head with your "brand message" at the expense of what they want is not the way to go about it. Thanks, TT. I do believe that you have to earn someone’s trust before they will agree to “engage” them, ala Apple.
There are effective ways to do that, but hitting users over the head with your “brand message” at the expense of what they want is not the way to go about it.

]]> http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32712 Tangerine Toad Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:39:23 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32712 Joe: Apple is one a a relatively few "Prom King" brands that have figured out the way to get consumers to like them so much, that they are proud to "engage" with them. Unfortunately, there are perhaps a dozen or so brands lucky enough to achieve this sort of magic. Some of it is smart marketing. Some of it is having the right product in the right category at the right time. Cam is right. Too many people view Web 2.0 as a chance to bore the socks off of people who may actually like the brand but really only want to buy their product and be done with it - they don't want to "engage" them in any way, shape or form. Because, as any of my readers know: Your Brand Is Not My Friend™ Joe: Apple is one a a relatively few “Prom King” brands that have figured out the way to get consumers to like them so much, that they are proud to “engage” with them.
Unfortunately, there are perhaps a dozen or so brands lucky enough to achieve this sort of magic. Some of it is smart marketing. Some of it is having the right product in the right category at the right time.
Cam is right. Too many people view Web 2.0 as a chance to bore the socks off of people who may actually like the brand but really only want to buy their product and be done with it – they don’t want to “engage” them in any way, shape or form.
Because, as any of my readers know: Your Brand Is Not My Friend™

]]> http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32711 Cam Beck Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:39:34 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32711 "I do believe brands like the ones I mentioned can unknowingly influence consumer behavior. The good ones can make people do things they might never have thought of." We're in complete agreement, then. At least on that point. You'll notice that in order to earn that kind of influence, it had to give something that benefited the audience first. If they removed that benefit, people, tending to their own affairs, would revoke the license for that influence. “I do believe brands like the ones I mentioned can unknowingly influence consumer behavior. The good ones can make people do things they might never have thought of.”
We’re in complete agreement, then. At least on that point.
You’ll notice that in order to earn that kind of influence, it had to give something that benefited the audience first. If they removed that benefit, people, tending to their own affairs, would revoke the license for that influence.

]]> http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32710 Joe Szabo Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:32:12 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32710 I don't think a brand can intentionally make a person think more about the brand than themselves, but I do believe brands like the ones I mentioned can unknowingly influence consumer behavior. The good ones can make people do things they might never have thought of. I don’t think a brand can intentionally make a person think more about the brand than themselves, but I do believe brands like the ones I mentioned can unknowingly influence consumer behavior. The good ones can make people do things they might never have thought of.

]]> http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32709 Cam Beck Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:06:23 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32709 Lewis - Right on. Broadly, I would say there are two basic steps to building a great brand: 1. Make an extraordinary promise. 2. Over-deliver on that promise. Of course, implicit in that is "not wasting the time of the audience," but we've covered that ground, haven't we? :) Lewis – Right on. Broadly, I would say there are two basic steps to building a great brand:
1. Make an extraordinary promise.
2. Over-deliver on that promise.
Of course, implicit in that is “not wasting the time of the audience,” but we’ve covered that ground, haven’t we?

]]> http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32708 Cam Beck Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:00:52 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32708 Pat - Touché. :) Pat – Touché.

]]> http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32707 Cam Beck Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:59:27 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32707 Joe - Before answering, I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing, I didn't say no amount of brand engagement is going to get people to think more about the brand, but that none will get people to think more about the brand THAN THEY THINK ABOUT THEMSELVES. (Not yelling, just trying to put emphasis when HTML is not allowed). Joe – Before answering, I want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing, I didn’t say no amount of brand engagement is going to get people to think more about the brand, but that none will get people to think more about the brand THAN THEY THINK ABOUT THEMSELVES. (Not yelling, just trying to put emphasis when HTML is not allowed).

]]> http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32706 Joe Szabo Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:33:24 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32706 While I agree that a company's brand isn't as important to its audience as it is to a company, I strongly disagree that no amount of "brand engagement" is going to make people think more about a brand. Let's start from within. Did you know, for example, that companies like SAS in North Carolina offer sports facilities, subsidized child-care, early schooling and a primary health-care centre, free to staff. The latter is increasingly being studied by other firms as they struggle to contain the growth of health-care costs. In fact, when Google was planning the Goolplex, they went to SAS for inspiration What does this mean? SAS's turnover rate is approx. 4% a year, compared with 20% in the software industry as a whole. If that's not keeping your staff engaged, then what is? Now let's look on the outside. Apple keeps their consumers engaged with products that continue to push our creativity. From the start, when Apple Computers made a PC that was simple to use, their focus was always on the end user: how can we make a better PC? How can we make a person better at being creative? Then Apple Computers made different computers at faster rates and newer designs, things people actually wanted to display in their homes and/or offices as works of art. I remember an old employer specifically buying a first generation iMac for the front reception desk so that when clients arrived, they saw it. No one else in the office had one. I call that brand engagement. Then Apple made the iPod and iTunes. Enough said. Then came the retail experience, launched at a time when all the "experts" said Steve was crazy to think of going bricks and mortar. That it would never succeed. Guess what? 20% of Apple revunue comes from their retail outlets. Then came the iPhone. Do I need to say anything else? What's interesting to note is how Apple dropped the word computers from their name. They no longer consider themselves a computer brand; they're an experience brand that continues to engage consumers with more design at more touchpoints. If that's not brand engagement then sign me up for fire fighter school because clearly, I'm not getting "brand engagement". While I agree that a company’s brand isn’t as important to its audience as it is to a company, I strongly disagree that no amount of “brand engagement” is going to make people think more about a brand.
Let’s start from within.
Did you know, for example, that companies like SAS in North Carolina offer sports facilities, subsidized child-care, early schooling and a primary health-care centre, free to staff. The latter is increasingly being studied by other firms as they struggle to contain the growth of health-care costs. In fact, when Google was planning the Goolplex, they went to SAS for inspiration
What does this mean?
SAS’s turnover rate is approx. 4% a year, compared with 20% in the software industry as a whole. If that’s not keeping your staff engaged, then what is?
Now let’s look on the outside.
Apple keeps their consumers engaged with products that continue to push our creativity. From the start, when Apple Computers made a PC that was simple to use, their focus was always on the end user: how can we make a better PC? How can we make a person better at being creative? Then Apple Computers made different computers at faster rates and newer designs, things people actually wanted to display in their homes and/or offices as works of art.
I remember an old employer specifically buying a first generation iMac for the front reception desk so that when clients arrived, they saw it. No one else in the office had one. I call that brand engagement.
Then Apple made the iPod and iTunes. Enough said.
Then came the retail experience, launched at a time when all the “experts” said Steve was crazy to think of going bricks and mortar. That it would never succeed. Guess what? 20% of Apple revunue comes from their retail outlets.
Then came the iPhone. Do I need to say anything else?
What’s interesting to note is how Apple dropped the word computers from their name. They no longer consider themselves a computer brand; they’re an experience brand that continues to engage consumers with more design at more touchpoints.
If that’s not brand engagement then sign me up for fire fighter school because clearly, I’m not getting “brand engagement”.

]]> http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32705 patmcgraw Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:46:55 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32705 You start off your article by stating that 'marketers have a curious way with language'. I would suggest that it's too easy to call oneself 'marketer' and that too many unqualified hacks position themselves as such because of their ignorance. Weed out the whackos and there would be far less "experience the brand". :) You start off your article by stating that ‘marketers have a curious way with language’. I would suggest that it’s too easy to call oneself ‘marketer’ and that too many unqualified hacks position themselves as such because of their ignorance. Weed out the whackos and there would be far less “experience the brand”.

]]> http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-32704 Lewis Green Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:21:30 +0000 http://www.mpdailyfix.com/the-myth-of-brand-engagement/#comment-32704 Excellent post Cam. When I conduct sales training/workshops/seminars, one of the first things we discuss is abandoning the pitch and replacing it with listening and then responding to what we hear, tp the customer's wants and needs. Brand is customer perception of a business, and it begins with the first company touchpoint, whenever and wherever it occurs. Nothing will create a bad first impression more than a marketing/sales pitch. Excellent post Cam. When I conduct sales training/workshops/seminars, one of the first things we discuss is abandoning the pitch and replacing it with listening and then responding to what we hear, tp the customer’s wants and needs.
Brand is customer perception of a business, and it begins with the first company touchpoint, whenever and wherever it occurs. Nothing will create a bad first impression more than a marketing/sales pitch.

]]>