This disparity should more than frighten brands in the western world but at the same time it offers the agile and progressive brands a real opportunity. For those who choose to embrace it, they have the chance to build the brands of the future and to deliver both longevity and loyalty. But how can this opportunity be realised and what does this mean for agencies and marketers?  I’ve been fortunate enough to spend this week in Cannes and have witnessed a lot of related noise on this same topic.  I will pepper my blog below with some of those comments.

Last week we saw that 32% of consumers regularly consider the impact of a brand on people’s wellbeing or the environment when deciding what they buy. That’s 1/3 of us ! The challenge this presents us with is identifying when and where a collective well-being message is most relevant; an increasingly difficult task as new transactional models emerges. Rachel Botsman, social innovator and author of the renowned book on “Collaborative Consumption” summed it up nicely  on stage at our Havas Cafe on Las Croisette:

” There is a fundamental shift and redefinition in our economy; if brands don’t like change, they will like irrelevancy even less.” 

Today’s consumers (and Rachel even called for that word to be banned!) are always on and with mobile technology they no longer “go shopping” but are always searching, discovering or transacting. The traditional purchase funnel has been replaced by a game of snakes and ladders; the new generation of media promises precision targeted, meaningful messages which connect at the right time to influence behaviour. Brands therefore must know and have a better understanding of their customers (and this was a theme that came out of the marketer ‘data’ panel at Media 360 last week) and big data is a way to gain that but more importantly it’s about asking the right questions. To be meaningful, a brand first needs to understand the range of meaning to different people; that will mean a world where media planners are dealing with 20 target audiences not 2 in the  near future.

In our survey, real people are crying out brands to have a purpose and to live that purpose in what they do. That may sound overly worthy but in real terms, it translates in to increasingly expecting marketing to be more personalised to their own needs. Being meaningful as a brand for us at Havas is about creating connection and belonging for people; it’s about putting relevancy & interaction at the heart of your marketing strategy. As Rachel Botsman put it yesterday, we need to bring some ”humanness” back to how we interact and transact with each other and businesses.

I predict that the marketing of the future will become more about customised and useful “experiences” that confuse the recently established boundaries between paid, owned and earned. Brands need to talk more like real people and care, adapt and help if they want long-term relationships, just like in the real world. Content and new technology platforms will erode paid media, fact. To use a term that Mark Howe of Google coined “technology is ambushing marketing” but that negative can quickly be turned in to competitive advantage with bravery and foresight.

BMW’s Director for Brand Management, Steven F Althaus made a rally cry on Monday this week for the marketing industry to “move closer to the business and be part of the inner circle” rather than “putting lipstick on gorillas”. He’s right; marketing is about understanding people and their motivations and then making a brand relevant to those people in whatever way is most effective so that ultimately they buy your product. The end game is always about buying product but too many are still focused on marketing the “product” or the “brand” and not putting consumers’ needs first.

It’s controversial but many communications need no or little paid media investment today. Data and insight are critical to knowing what really works and drives incremental return. Then and only then, can we as marketing practionners claim that we know that even 50% of what we do works.

My other rally cry to the industry is to stop defending legacy models and embrace the future. Real time trading will and must flow in to the TV and OOH world, it’s just old school practitioners that seek to block it for as long as possible to protect their own margins. As Rachel also wisely said yesterday;

“Too many businesses are worried about cannibalising the old to make way for the new but business and brands must be a force for change.”

We are at a tipping point in how agencies should be defined and thus for me, a more consulting based model, where the answer can as easily be, re-engineering customer experience as it is spending money on paid media. Agencies need to worry less about the volume of spend put behind a campaign and more about what will drive meaning for people and in turn genuine business success.

To do that though, we do need some brave clients (like BMW perhaps) to stand up and challenge the current procurement model. If we are treated like media buyers then we behave like media buyers. It’s time for a new solution led approach. Media agencies have already evolved to work on payment by results but to get truly closer to “the business” as Althaus calls for, we need to be invited in to different types of conversation.

My major observation this week on La Croisette is that there are two worlds that need to come together; the technology and programmatic companies are omnipresent at the same time that Lions are toasted for work that is rooted in the past. We need to all take a step back and recognise that people make their decisions in much more simple human terms than we think, so let’s get back to thinking about people and then as an industry we can step forward together in to all together more meaningful world.

@paul_framp

As a consumer, how irritating would that be?

As a Marketer, though, how amazing?

Hardly any competition to fight you for share of market? You could probably spend less money on advertising……..(as long as you had the right strategy).

Now, continue with me on this little flight of fantasy.

Imagine being a client who can walk into a boardroom and say your business is outperforming the stock market by 120%.

Pretty good eh? You’d be in Marketing’s Little Black Book before you could say Craig Inglis.

Obviously, we can’t offer a market with hardly any competitors, but our Meaningful Brands research shows that you can put yourself ahead of your competition and outperform the stock market by ensuring you make a positive impact on people’s lives and contribute to their wellbeing.

We’ve talked about Meaningful Brands for a while at Havas Media but our latest set of research is so clear that being Meaningful makes a difference that it’s time to move beyond talking.

We want to use this latest set of results as a rallying call.

People increasingly want to make a difference in the world and to the lives of those around them and they try to do this consistently in their everyday lives.

So why shouldn’t they expect the brands they interact with to treat them in the same way?

In fact, we have proof that 70% of people in the UK think that companies and brands should play a role in improving our quality of life and wellbeing.

However, just 24% of people agree that companies and brands are working hard at improving this.

This is a disparity that needs rectifying.

At the same time just 32% of people trust companies and brands. This is just poor.

Add to this that most people in Europe wouldn’t care if 93% of brands disappeared and it doesn’t say a lot for the Billions of pounds spent on marketing every year.

It’s time to ask what this is actually achieving?

The good news is, the research also found that 54% of people in the UK trust brands that are socially and environmentally responsible. This shows that Responsibility does therefore count.

In my opinion, the key fact here is that 32% of British consumers frequently consider the impact of a brand on people’s well-being or the environment when they are deciding whether or not to buy a product.

This shows that for a fair proportion of people, if you positively affect their lives, can be pushed right to the end of the purchase funnel. And this is where being Meaningful makes an impact on cold hard cash.

This is why we should all live and breathe this Meaningful ethos.

It’s not just enough to say these things anymore because consumers instinctively don’t trust our messages.

As Umair Haque, our famous econometrician and leader of Havas Labs (and massive brain) said recently: “Every institution and establishment is being questioned in this “age of damage” as the NSA, tax scandals, horse meat scandals all illustrate. You can and will be caught out if you say one thing and do another and shutting down social communications for months at a time is not a sustainable or indeed effective solution.”

It’s no longer good enough to sell products through marketing or even to push brand marketing, consumers want to see genuine value added to their own lives. We need to go back to consumer need states and help satisfy them through meaningful connections with brands that are both relevant & appealing.

We have to earn consumer’s trust, we have to work for that trust and we have to make sure we don’t break that trust once we’ve got it.

And we have to be Meaningful. Our consumers don’t just want it, they deserve it. And if we do it right, we will get our rewards.

And we will deserve it because we will have got it for the right reasons.

(Next Week I will give our views on how we are taking this research and turning it into effective business solutions).

The Meaningful Brands research (now in its 7^th year) broke this week and looks at the impact that brands have on society. It also looks at how people are feeling in general.

In The latest wave we asked over 100,000 people across 23 countries about more than 700 different brands in 12 categories.

In the UK the research sampled 9,939 consumers about 72 brands across 9 industries.

The Copper Box Arena was one of the success stories of the London Olympics, drawing in some of the most animated crowds for the handball and fencing rendering it the catchy sobriquet the “box that rocks”.

So it seems fitting that the venue’s operator Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL) this week signed a year-long deal with promoter Frank Warren to showcase fights at the venue.

While boxing has its marquee stadium, like Bethnal Green’s York Hall, the 02 and Excel, there is a dearth of second tier venues, which is a void the 7,000 seat Copper Box Arena will hope to fill.

The first fight night will be on Saturday September 21 headlined by a middleweight title showdown between two British fighters.

Along with boxing, the Copper Box Arena is staging British Basketball League side London Lions, badminton’s London Grand Prix, along with being available day-to-day as a community facility.

It is also hoping to mirror the Olympic stadium site and host music gigs, though given its size this is more likely to be Roxette than Rihana.

Profits will be split between the running of the Cooper Box Arena and the GLL-owned Aquatics Centre, which is expected will need to be subsidized.

Commentators, on the whole, think the Copper Box will prove a knockout hit for boxing: it is located in east London, a heartland of boxing, has excellent transport connections, and punters can eat and shop at Westfield before the fight.

And things are moving fast at the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park: tardiness in opening the Aquatics Centre apart, the London Legacy Development Corporation has been busy signing deals: Live Nation concerts (snatched from Hyde Park) at the Olympic Stadium;  West Ham anchor tenants of the Olympic Stadium and NFL matches likely to be staged there.

On the flip side, brands have been noticeably quiet on this front, with the notable exceptions of one or two, such as BT.

None of the London 2012 sponsors to my knowledge have come out with long-term tangible legacy commitments and have checked out once the cameras and flashlights checked out.

Some at City Hall are peeved at this, accusing 2012 sponsors of abandoning their commitment to the Olympic legacy, with the Greater London Authority (GLA) struggling to raise funds for sports-participation projects.

While it is accepted that brands take in a period of assessment following the significant outlay they have made in sponsoring an Olympics, the kudos a brand would get from acquiring the naming rights to one of the Olympic Park venues would surely be worth it given that the park shows every sign of being a success in the long-term.

This may have been the cry from the Nadalites watching but according to fashionistes the Spaniard’s apparel during the French Open failed to hit the sweet spot.

“Boring” and “unimaginative”, fashion critics cried, wanting a return to the day when Rafael Nadal looked like an ice-pop on court.

Nadal was kitted out in Nike, as was Serena Williams, who swooshed her way to the women’s title.

But the preeminence of Nike and rival Adidas (Andy Murray, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Caroline Wozniacki) is under threat from the fashion upstarts in the shape of H&M ( Tomas Berdych) and Uniqlo ( Novak Djokovic).

The two fashion brands have paid out big money to sign Berdych and Djokovic conscious that there is a large untapped market for mid-market-priced replica tennis apparel.

Nike and Adidas may have had the lion’s share of the stars on display at Roland Garros this year but the days of court Philippe Chatrier being exclusively the domain of Nike and Adidas are long gone.

Joma, Lacoste and Asics were out there, alongside H&M and Uniqlo.

The worry for Nike and Adidas is that H&M and Uniqlo’s cheaper replica shirts will smash into their market share

And replica Nike and Adidas can be punitively expensive. Nadal’s French Open Nike top costs £45 -15 quid more expensive than Djokovic’s at £29.90.

Having already signed David Beckham, it is clear H&M is making a serious move into sportswear,  although its claims of marking a “new chapter in the relationship between sport and fashion” are a little overcooked.

Like all tie-ups between sport/ music and fashion nowadays, Berdych is presented as  “co-creator” of his H&M range, however what was on show in the first round of the French Open was so bland that it remains to be seen whether fans will be racing out to buy replica tops. It didn’t help his performance too, as he lost.

What is most interesting is that both Berdych and Djokovic ditched established sports brands, Nike and Sergio Tacchini, to try something new- both players labeled their respective brands as “cool”, which would seem a dig at the dominance of  the establishment in the shape of Nike and Adidas.

The problem for H&M and Uniqlo is that Djokovic and Berdych do not have the appeal of Federer and Nadal: kids may respect the Serb and Czech but they want to emulate Federer and Nadal.  And that could prove problematic when selling shirts.

However if companies think CSR requires a simple wave of the corporate wand – or credit card – then they are sadly mistaken. Research from Initials Marketing finds that consumers are deeply cynical of CSR initiatives from companies that have a bad reputation nationally, with that scepticism directly affecting consumers’ purchase decisions.

Our Brand Generosity survey, carried out by YouGov, canvassed 2000 people from all demographics across the UK to gauge opinion on CSR. It found that we have complex, and at times conflicting, feelings about companies trying to do the right thing within local communities.

National brand reputation has a direct impact on shoppers’ purchasing decisions. Over two thirds of us (68%) won’t buy products from a company if it has a bad reputation. Another third (31%) believe that national businesses will never be a part of their local communities regardless of the support they give, while 37% dismiss CSR activity as nothing more than a PR stunt.

However it’s not all bad news for today’s management boards, who could be forgiven for wondering how they will square the CSR circle. Many people understand that community projects need private companies to operate and many treasurers of small charities will be firmly in this camp. Suspicion makes people want to be selective; fast food chains face an uphill struggle to convince consumers that they are worthy community champions.

Consumers expect honesty around the fact that really effective CSR initiatives deliver win-win scenarios that are a force for social good and also maximise profits. Many (50%) of shoppers accept that companies will want to promote the fact that they are “doing a good deed”. CSR is recognised as a legitimate method of corporate rehabilitation, as shown by involvement from banks. Despite the damage the industry has suffered over recent years, almost half of shoppers (45%) want involvement from banks in their local community.

So what are corporates embarking on CSR campaigns to do? Firstly, companies must ensure that CSR projects add value for themselves and the community and there’s a way of getting the message out as to what they’re doing. In terms of the mechanics there are a few options, the best known being sponsorship, which is already widely used by industry. Consumer exposure to sponsorship was hugely increased last year with the Olympics and Paralympics. However the sophistication level of activation that the Games’ sponsors delivered means that our expectation of future sponsorship activity has now been raised beyond traditional logo-slapping.

Another option is helping to get disadvantaged people into the workplace using schemes like apprenticeships; this route appeals to shoppers (60% say so) and government alike. There has been much talk in parliament about the need for more apprenticeships, and canny industrials could boost their lobbying efforts by playing the government’s tune on this. Recently workplace placements have also enabled employers to tap into significant PR opportunities, like the Evening Standard’s ‘Ladder for London’ campaign which saw extensive positive coverage for industry participants.

Consumers may still be suspicious of companies trying to do good, but there’s no question that we’re starting to expect more than a passing nod to excellent corporate citizenship; and effective, authentic, CSR is an increasingly vital part of that.

Jamie Matthews, CEO, INITIALS Marketing

In April, Santiago Swallow was exposed, not as ‘one of the greatest thinkers of the Millennial generation’ but as a fraud, a figment and proof that in social media, ‘the truth can be sketchy business’.

Swallow was in fact created to show how easy it is to fool users of social media and those responsible for spotting people of influence.

Swallow is the brainchild of British technology expert Kevin Ashton, who helped conceive of the “Internet of Things ” as an engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 14 years ago.

According to Metro, Ashton created Santiago Swallow in just two hours one Sunday. To demonstrate influence he purchased 90,000 Twitter followers for just £33. He set up a fake Wikipedia page and website to corroborate Swallow’s existence and prestige.

Twitter suspended the account once Ashton confessed all. But he’s now back online as an out-and-out spoof and in a short space of time, has already amassed almost 23,000 followers (whom I suspect are now in the main genuine Twitter users).

So if the exposé has proved he’s a fantasy, why are people still interested in what he has to say?

In part, because the revelation itself makes Swallow even more intriguing. And for me personally, I find his tweets quite refreshing. They’re pithy, ironic and easy to read. He doesn’t try to squeeze in too many bit links, litter his comments with @ mentions or even re-tweet other people’s comments; all of which can make tweets difficult to decipher. His statements are pretentious, ridiculous but also very funny. And importantly, they make me look good. Following Santiago Swallow suggests that I also don’t take myself too seriously; which feeds into the perception I want to project in the Twittersphere.

Projecting half-truths or just the best version of ourselves

Not only are fake personalities enjoying a relatively active existence online, but real people also seem to be treading a fine line between truth and fabrication, as they project a more successful version of themselves.

In an article for Brand Republic, media monitoring firm Precise (and a Brands2Life client) noted that adults tend to use social media to curate aspirational images of themselves.

For instance, many people tweet about ‘cooking from scratch’ to boast of their accomplishments. Likewise, Mumsnet is awash with mum’s sharing their own success stories.

I’m certainly aware that adults tend to put their best foot forward when it comes to social media. A survey recently revealed the top social media peeves are fitness boasters, overly proud parents and pictures of peoples’ suppers. I have to say I find the first category particularly irksome (given that other peoples’ training schedules just make me feel guilty as I spread out on the sofa).

The psychological impact of self-promotion

Jeffrey Hancock, a professor of communication at Cornell University and author of a study on Facebook’s psychological effects, noted that “Unlike a mirror, which reminds us of who we really are and may have a negative effect on self-esteem if that image doesn’t match with our idea, Facebook can show a positive version of ourselves.” Hancock believes ‘selective self-presentation’, whereby users can choose what they reveal about themselves and filter anything that might reflect badly, is a positive affirming practice.

However, Alex Jordon at Stanford University warned that Facebook can create unhealthy peer pressure – especially for women who strive to keep up with what they imagine is the happiness of the Joneses. “By showcasing the most witty, joyful, bullet-pointed versions of people’s lives, and inviting constant comparisons in which we tend to see ourselves as the losers, Facebook appears to exploit an Achilles’ heel of human nature.”

Power of the imagined self

Authenticity does count in social media, but it would seem, not as much as the projected image. Justin Bieber might not have as many genuine followers as we were led to believe (it’s been suggested that many of his 38 million followers were bought for a price) but does that really matter? In social media, the imagined self seems to carry as much as favour as the real self – in fact, probably more. Parody ghost writers  have greater license to express strong personalities and opinions than real people, who always need to consider how their tweets will affect the way they are perceived in the real world. This freedom is perhaps the reason why parody accounts are so popular, including a waspy tiger mum from New England (@PeanutFreeMom) who provides unbridled, narrow-minded judgements about raising her son in this seemingly too liberal world.

What this means for Brands

Clearly brands need to be transparent about the truth (or face a mauling), but personality seems to be the trump card. Old Spice is famed for putting the power of humour and irony to good effect in their adverts but this same personality is now mirrored in their Twitter handle.

Just as following Santiago Swallow reflects well on me by suggesting I have a sense of humour, people interact with certain brands because its fits in with the way they want to be perceived. For instance, I follow notonthehighstreet.com, Farrow and Ball and Etsy because affiliation with these brands suggests that I’m an arty (middle-class) person with a penchant for interior design. Some brands are very good at validating people’s status. Others could perhaps do better.

The social media success stories will have tapped into a zeitgeist, real or imagined, and will either be famed for being very funny and creative or helpful and instructive.  I’m not sure there’s much room for in-between.

Sara Downey, account director, Brands2Life

Customers want an experience that is defined by their goals, be they getting the best deal, seeking empathy, or wanting to touch and feel what they are buying.

In thinking about the future of retail, we’ve identified three fundamental elements that align retailers’ goals with shoppers’ goals spanning whatever channel they’re using at the time. They are PHD; Physical, Human and Digital, and can be defined as:

-          Physical: The tangible – from objects that can be touched, to settings that can be experienced

-          Digital: Electronic tools – technologies that talk to everyone or just talk to me

-          Human: Dynamic interactions – with individuals, social groups and employees that come alive both physically and digitally

Instead of focusing on the delivery mechanism, these experience elements each contain natural benefits that people seek out, irrespective of channel. For example, physical elements have the advantage of creating immersive experiences, being able to touch products and give you immediate gratification more than any digital or human elements ever can. Similarly, digital elements best cater to needs around perfect information, endless choice and seeking out the lowest prices.

Sure, directing customer experience using customer needs and brand strategy is nothing new. But the underlying rules have changed. Some retailers who used to focus on providing huge choice in store are shifting this benefit online (or losing out to others that did it first). Other retailers are adapting to extend the benefits of their intrinsic human elements to an online environment.

One such retailer is our client, John Lewis.  While the upmarket department store is no slouch when it comes to multichannel, the brand defined itself on the Human elements of the experience. Their levels of empathy, attention and care in their customer service offer create a brand worthy of shopper love and trust. And their extended success online can be easily attributed to this same authority on trust. While a multitude of online retailers sell the same products at the same or lower prices, a rare few possess the degree of consumer faith that underpins a John Lewis purchase.

Single-mindedness is critical to building competitive advantage for a retail experience. John Lewis’ stated strategy places employees at the top of its priorities. By excelling at the human element, they have built an experience that stands apart its competitors and is difficult to copy. Retailers who can manage to dominate one facet of the experience, over their peers, can create a unique ‘experience signature’ that contributes significant competitive advantage.

Another brand is Fixtures Living who has built a unique experience signature centred on the advantages of Physical elements. The US super-premium home furnishings retailer hosts fantastical experiences in-store such as taking a private mud bath, then showering under a $45,000 shower, only to BBQ up some venison burgers on one of the chef-quality ranges and eaten in a $250,000 kitchen.

While supported by a strong human service offer, the Fixtures Living experience focuses on the immersive and tactile benefits that only a physical setting can provide, and there is no possible way to emulate those key benefits through the other elements. As a result, Fixtures Livings is one of the few retailers that enjoy a higher sales/sqft ratio higher than Apple.

New channels also enable retailers to completely remake the way they deliver their offer. B&Q inChinalaunched a brand new offer into the market. ‘Vivid Homes’ from B&Q uses the digital elements of the experience to put the customer in charge of the home renovation experience. New customers are asked to begin their projects at Vivid by creating their profile and visiting a store that is less about product and the hard sell, and more about display, ideas and consultation. 3D projectors are employed to show how their new rooms will look once all their preferences are combined. Favourite looks are translated into product selections and then turned into project tenders that accredited builders can bid on…all through digital.

The project is managed over digital, providing weekly updates to home owners with images of progress and any new cost approvals being tracked. Vivid has tapped into the advantages of digital to give their customers near perfect information and confidence in their ability to bring a renovation project in on time, on budget and to their style.

New channels open up new opportunities for retailers. But focusing on those elements important to your shoppers will enable retailers to understand where to place big bets, and to create sustainable advantage with a unique ‘experience signature’.

Aaron Shields, Strategy Director – FITCH @FITCHdesign

We live in a world powered by algorithms. From the collaborative filtering engine at the heart of Amazon, through to the largest interest engine in the world, Google search, we are increasingly reliant on the metaphorical head, rather than the heart to make choices for us. Whether that be, which DVD to buy or which website to visit.

Cracking the secret for creative success has been a challenge that the entertainment industry has been trying to crack for decades. The power of data and the algorithms used to compute that data has slowly provided a few success stories in recent years. Music Xray, a three-year-old start-up seeking to democratize the music business compares the structure of a song to tunes of the past, and the algorithm grades it for hit potential. This algorithm rightly predicted the success of Norah Jones and of the band Maroon 5 before they were major artists.

Not surprisingly, film can now also be rated via machines too. A company in the states called Epagogix uses script analysis to predict box office successes. In six of the nine cases, its predictions are spot-on.

Looking at both of these examples from the entertainment industry, one could argue that success in that sector is driven by a formula that hasn’t really changed for over a 100 years. Classic Hollywood film narratives always follow the model of equilibrium, disruption and resolution with common archetypes and iconographies.  Most major pop acts follow the same structure of verse/chorus/ verse/key change/stand up off your stools/chorus. The fact is, we are more easily swayed by patterns in creativity then we may realise. We find them comforting. In fact, part of the pleasure is being in on the joke and feeling the tension as we anticipate the next predictable section.

But what does this mean for marketing?  Well I would argue that formalising the creative algorithm of advertising effectiveness, is much more complex because in the main, advertising is unwelcome. It has always been based on disruption and interference, and has had to evolve and mutate to keep up with the cultural sophistication of the audience. Because of this, creativity in advertising has been vital in cushioning the blow, to make that disruption less grating. Increasingly TV advertising in particular has evolved into the same narrative structure and tricks to make us care and to make that disruption more palatable.

But in the Digital age, the HUGE amount of data we perhaps unwittingly give advertisers and media owners has allowed an evolution away from the disruption model.  Data allows relevance, and relevance is the most important commodity of the future web.  We are living in an age where access to enough data transforms advertising into relevant, targeted, and personalised information.  And information that is relevant to me is far more welcome than broad disruptive messaging that is completely non-relevant.

Facebook advertising is the perfect example of this evolution and, I would argue, the perfect example of why we still need human interaction to make marketing a success. Using the large amounts of data Facebook holds about us and our connections, advertising doesn’t need the same amount of creativity to achieve success. It knows I am a father of two who lives in Walthamstow, so any supermarket in the area that wants to sell me nappies doesn’t have to dress their messaging with a big creative wrapper. It simply needs to just tell me the information.

But here is the issue. Facebook media, just like the Amazon, Google and the entertainment industry is great at surfacing relevant information or content for my consideration…the first part of the loop. But does is make me care? Does the algorithm create that emotional connection that will let me welcome that brand into my life and build an emotional connection to it?

Algorithms are all about finding similarities whereas advertising is all about finding the differences. The future belongs to those who can use algorithms to suck in customer insight, and who then respond with creative that can disrupt in a positive way. Something useful, relevant, funny, surprising or emotive, to attract the attention of consumers who are bombarded by messaging, from an increasing number of screens.  A left Brain/ right Brain approach if you will.

In a world empowered by social marketing, agility and reactivity in advertising is key. But more importantly we need to find those moments in advertising that will surprise and delight and create a human connection. We cannot predict the complexity of the human mind, and I’m not sure a machine will ever be able to do that.

It’s possible for algorithms to rule our heads, but our hearts will always require a little more humanity to be conquered.

Neil Kleiner, head of social, ais London

Since 2008, in particular, charities have learned to accept that, with public sector coffers tightly controlled, living standards squeezed and economic growth a distant memory they have had to fight as hard as anyone to compete for their place in the market.

While always remaining faithful to their values and mission, they have nevertheless had to  accept that, to survive, they need to diversify and commercialise their income streams to ensure they stay secure while delivering the same vital services and information to their beneficiaries.

It’s no exaggeration to suggest that this sector has probably seen the greatest rate of digital advance in recent years.

For a long time having an online presence has been a key part of many charities‘ functions, but with technology rapidly advancing, being online has come to mean a lot more than simply having a website or writing the odd blog.

Charities, NGOs, social enterprises and community interest groups are now as aware as any PLC of the importance of creating an effective online presence and are starting to utilise online technology such as social media, donation/giving and fundraising tools with the objective or raising awareness.

A CRM system integrated with social media is a must but, as charities become more business-minded, they need to be more flexible to avoid missing key opportunities to engage with potential donors online outside of normal office hours. There is an increasing variety of smart, online tactics available to them including advertising to raise awareness, email to engage supporters and mobile phones to raise funds.

Charities also need to think about innovative ways of thanking their supporters – an app called Vine seems to be taking off as a vehicle for this. Increasingly they want consumers to articulate what they want, if only by clicking the “like” icon on Facebook.

However if you’re a charity, before you dive headlong into the world of online marketing, it’s important to do your homework to ensure that what you’re buying into is right for your organisation. Above all, you should speak to digital professionals before investing any money in a strategy that might not work.

Each year brings fresh innovation and new techniques and such rapid change can provide cover for some unscrupulous operators, promising what they cannot deliver.

Online marketing is no quick fix and it will not suddenly transform the performance of your charity. It should be integrated into a broader marketing strategy that uses a series of complementary platforms, including your website, blog, direct marketing and advertising to create a coherent and consistent message.

St Andrew’s First Aid is one of Britain’s oldest charities, delivering first aid services for more than 100 years. It developed from a small, local organization into a global brand promoting first aid in the community and providing first aid cover, training, advice, guidance and supplies to the highest standard.

It faced the challenge of introducing and implementing a range of sophisticated digital communications and management services into an organization which had managed its staff and business relationships using pre-digital methods for decades.

An important part of the brief was to ensure that the commercial side of the organization, the sale of products and services, continued to support the charitable side, promoting the first aid message and engaging with volunteers.

“The commercial side enables us to do what we do as a charity at a higher level,” says Paul McGarry, the organisation’s communications manager.

“Embracing digital technology has allowed us to promote our message quicker and more widely. Most significantly, it has allowed us to measure the impact of what we do.

“Previously, if we put out an advert, then perhaps we might get a bit of feedback from members who had seen it. Now we can measure precisely the impact of our message down to the people who see it, where they come from, what age they are and what they think of it.”

Charities will continue to operate a philanthropic model that rightly puts welfare before profit but those which fail to recognize the importance of business principles in the digital age are just throwing good money after bad.

Rafael Cueto is the founder and managing director of Leith-based digital agency Crush which has provided digital solutions to a range of charities including St Andrews First Aid, Children 1^st, YMCA, The Royal Blind School and Women at Work.

Traditional enterprise models approached the market through cycles of forecast, production, sales, delivery, customer service and companies had some time to go through these steps as the major communication was between the company and its customers in a one to one or one to few basis.

Such models are facing a threat from the digital disruption due to tablet, smartphone proliferation as they snow-ball the interactions amongst customers, and companies are getting sidelined as they are unable to ‘sense’ and ‘serve’ the needs in time.

Walmart & Amazon -

Let’s take an example – 50 plus year old Walmart, the largest retailer in the world with an online sales forecast for this year as 2% of its overall annual sales ($450Bn).  Amazon, a 19 year old e-commerce company, the biggest online retailer in the world, reported $61.1 Bn annual sales last year, which is approximately 7 times Walmart’s online forecast for this year. Facing increased competition from online retailers, Walmart uses delivery firms FedEx and also its own same-day delivery service called Walmart-To-Go. Acknowledging the cost, scale-up and management issues with this model, Walmart is now toying with the idea of crowd-sourcing home delivery – the company is inviting in-store customers to deliver packages to others who made online purchases. Though there could be legal and customer satisfaction obstacles, with the crowd-sourced delivery members requiring personal liability insurance and sometimes delivery delays affecting the quality of some goods etc., it might be a step in the right direction to test and find a workable solution by leveraging the customer-to-customer ecosystem.

Community delivers again: Prior to the days of large scale retail companies, when local shops were more prevalent people used to easily buy goods and those who couldn’t go to the shops due to time constraints or health issues would ask their neighbours, friends, family to buy/deliver the goods for them. Now with large stores being centralised in towns and with packed weekdays and other reasons, the whole concept of such community delivery has disappeared. For today’s large and medium retail companies that have a growing home delivery customer market, having in-house employees and logistics partners to fulfil the opportunity may not be effective in the long run, hence companies have to go retro and leverage the old practices – community delivery.

Brand evolution is back: Before the advent of modern branding, the (brand) promise would evolve from the products/services experience and marketing was more interactive (in-person), this was possible when the shop was local, it was a small customer group and there was a community connection. Today, with the ‘web of voices’ brand managers are slowly losing control over the messages which are moving to the hands of the customer’s – back to how it was in the local shop situation. Brand managers are moving towards becoming enablers and aggregators of customers’ emotional perception and product messages.

Word of mouth transforms into web of voices: Word of mouth was and is a very strong influencer and local community shops have a direct connection with their customers, hence pay attention to customer voice to immediately fix issues. Despite various efforts the large, centralised retail companies over years have somehow lost that direct touch of being in-sync with their customers’ voice. Again technology, social networking and crowd-sourcing delivery can help large retailers to form local (and virtual) customer communities to get back to the starting-point of customer satisfaction – Know your customer. Web of voices is both offline and online.

The power of precision marketing: In a local shop scenario because the shop owner knows the customer so well, they can make tailored offers only for that customer and they’d know whether they accept or reject it and the reasons. Also if they had stock imbalances they’d make a good deal for few customers and cut their losses. In the centralised model marketers run many campaigns, sometimes the advert shows up in the wrong time ( say 7 months before a car insurance renewal) or the coupons given are either irrelevant or people forget to bring it along to claim. Similar to the local shop scenario, when a customer enters a retail store – by linking loyalty programs, shopping data, social to the power of mobile using geo-fencing, systems can configure relevant offers, present the offers when the customer is in a particular aisle and is using in-store mobile app to locate the products. Usage of mobile during check-out then shows the marketer the difference between the offers made and offers accepted, so that next time it’s more relevant (leveraging data just like in programmatic buying in the advertising industry).

Taking cues from the retro models, today’s marketers and businesses can re-start customer experience in four steps:

1. Leverage customer community: Some customers tend to know more about a company’s strengths and weaknesses than some of the employees; companies need to listen more, tweak their approach and customers can contribute towards building or re-building the company when it is a win-win scenario. The early days of experimenting with social media programs are over; the focus now is not only about fans and followers but also about customers and advocates

2. Leverage employee community: Just like the employees in a local shop, corporate employees tend to have rich information through various sources and can amplify, arbitrate messages within their spheres of influence (communities); with a strong internal program, marketers can leverage ‘web of positive voices’. Best buy trained 2500 tweeting employees to respond to simple customer queries online. In today’s fast and connected world, when there is a delay, a simple problem that quickly gets precipitated leads to negative customer experience despite best efforts by customer services agents.

3. Think and act like a start-up: Successful start-ups continuously seek information and ‘external’ validation from their customers and do course-correction in order to start-up, stay relevant and grow. Unfortunately, large enterprises sometimes can slow-down due to various reasons including employees seeking information and validation in order to stay relevant ‘internally’ and grow within the organisation. George Foreman, Founder of Kodak, picked a new service on two occasions even though it cannibalized existing services but successive CEO’s didn’t.

 4. Do what you say and say what you do: In the age of ‘web of voices’, if you (businesses and marketers) don’t follow this simple rule, your customers (and communities) will say what you do, which might go viral, and your competitor might just do what you say, which might put you on the defensive. Imagine how life in the community would be for the local shop owner if there is a big gap between the brand promise and the product/service experience by customers.