“It is not slickness, polish, uniqueness, or cleverness that makes a brand a brand. It is truth.” -Harry Beckwith
I love that quote, because – if you’ll pardon the pun – it’s so true. A company can dedicate immense resources to its branding efforts, but that’s all for naught if it doesn’t reflect a fundamental basic in life: truth. B2C or B2B; we’re in the era of the empowered customer, according to IBM – technology like the Internet and social media channels mean customers have more power than ever before in their decision-making. Intense competition means more choices.
I speculate most customers aren’t only price-oriented, but also seek an experience with a brand that makes them feel comfortable and confident and aligns with their values. In other words, that’s their definition of truth; not necessarily (or not only) base honesty. When customers find all those things, they talk about it, on social media channels and elsewhere, which creates brand identity, perception and reputation.
But can a brand, for lack of a better phrase, "orchestrate" that experience? I wonder if that’s what’s happening with the amount of unique content being generated and flooding social media channels. I visited the website of Beckwith Partners and ran across this post from Harry, which I encourage you to read, because it’s both impactful and short, maybe 150-200 words. In it he talks about the immense amount of content being generated, most of which is less than useful and thus in his mind "noise":
"Some days I feel overwhelmed by the noise. Are others? And is the world of ‘content’ sowing the seeds of its own destruction? Anyone?"
Like Harry, I do sometimes wonder if social media as a means of unique content delivery is doing little but turning customers off. There is so much of it, and a lot of it is accompanied by intrusive attempts at engagement that are about as transparent as plastic wrap. Collectively, I wonder if that’s building mental walls in the minds of customers over time.
Like I said in the last post, having a lot of content is fine, but especially in the case of social media channels, it has to be planned to meet the specific needs of a brand’s followers (i.e., the tribe members I mentioned), and not merely posted and forgotten. Where I think some (many?) brands are going wrong is by blasting out a bunch of content with the hope of getting more followers, likes, etc. That strategy may equate to quantifiable/justifiable data, but it’s also backward thinking.
Lack of engagement, and connection, dilutes the opportunity for their content, and that brand, to align with a specific customer’s needs, and ultimately, their definition of truth.
What do you think? Is there just too much unique content? And if so, what’s the solution? Let me know your thoughts below.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Respectfully speaking because you’re the expert, I don’t see unique content as the sole problem by its self. Unique content is good provided it serves a purpose otherwise, it’s like a “hanging chad”. I see the lack of purposeful engagement as the real problem. If one is Tweeting to build a brand, Tweeting without a plan is planning to fail. For example, I enjoy Tweeting that challenges perspectives, questions conventional wisdom, offers food for thought, promotes others or shares commentary more than I value the repeated selling offers. Tweeps might consider how they Tweet and what they Tweet as part of their brand recognition strategy.
Felix: Really appreciate your input, because it’s very insightful, and I love the “hanging chad” analogy.
)
A colleague of mine has a phrase that’s very apt: “Targeted program, targeted results.” The idea is that you’re targeting your efforts toward a certain group of people – in this case, a brand’s followers on social media channels. Targeting is a “package deal,” if you will: engagement with those followers (and a legitimate connection with them as well), the unique content that’s made available, and the eventual destination and resolution for those followers.
I think what Harry is driving at is, even if every company is taking that approach (which they’re not), there’s just a lot of content, all screaming to be viewed as the thought leader. At what point does all that content become white noise, like the commercials on TV we fast-forward through? At what point does little or any of it appear to be targeted?
So to your point, and what I alluded to in the second-to-last paragraph, there is going to be more onus on engagment that leads to an actual connection between and follower and a brand going forward. Why? Those followers are getting bombarded with content from other outlets, much of which is easy to ignore.
Let’s keep this conversation going, shall we? Do you see engagement vs. connection, i.e., which is more important?
Greg, the opportunity to offer input to this discussion will obviously be of more benefit to me. For the point of clarification, when I refer to content specific Tweeting, I refer to services offered and clients serviced. Any content marketing I engage in is specific to the education of and increasing awareness of a specific audience or interested recipient who might seek awareness or benefit from my Tweeting. Such an effort would not be a helter-skelter effort but rather a targeted one focusing on narrowly specific related content designed for recipients to be influenced. It is not a “shotgun blast” but rather a “bulls-eye” targeted approach that would drill down to only those having an immediate or future need.
Agreed, and in principle, that’s how it should be in social media: Targeted program, targeted results. I have to ask myself, how much content being generated and posted is truly targeted toward the specific needs of an audience?
That is the big question.
Agreed Gregg! As to your question of how much content is truly targeted to the specific needs of the audience, that’s a risk laden burden that a poorly designed campaign will generate. On the other hand, if the content is generating audience engagement and participation the campaign will on the surface have achieved its desired intent of generating a measured response. I guess my concern would be, if it’s perceived as noise and not valued then the risk of a poorly designed social media campaign self-sabotages the effort.
Your noise reference is a social media reality clouding effective messaging and engagement. While one person’s thoughtful post is another’s noise, intentional noise undermines one’s effectiveness. I think that there is value in posting general information, so long as it’s addressing a general audience’s needs and if it’s responding to an inquiry or sharing information.