Adding a bit of digi to events...

Bit of a rushed one this time as I’m off to Tobago in 7 hours, but this last couple of weeks I’ve been doing a lot of stuff on combining digital media with experiential. It’s an obvious topic to cover and as offline and online worlds continue to merge it’s inevitable that the two media will align more closely but an interesting one nonetheless. Just think of the ways people were interacting with this year’s Bestival – live Tweets, Facebook groups, radio channel, Flickr updates, forums, T4 uploads on YouTube and so on.

So far, I’ve been tailoring my thinking around 3 main areas:

Sweating Content
Events create content that can be ‘sweated’ online. This content can be used during the event to either take it to a wider audience (eg allowing consumers not physically present to engage online – think live streams and updating Tweets) or extend an experience further (eg photos from the event uploaded onto a Facebook page).

It’s also worth bearing in mind that consumers will create plenty of content on their own as they capture and share their experience online. Brands should consider how to encourage, facilitate, even manage this process to help spread their message. Just think of the MJ moonwalk tribute.

Customer Journey
Digital can help an event form part of the ‘Bigger Picture’. An event on its own is only one touchpoint but digital can help provide a frame bringing it into the customer journey and maximising its effectiveness. From an invite to a customer database to a targeted banner campaign digital can help promote an event, and from a push to a website or a simple data-capture for an eCRM programme digital can help extend the experience afterwards.

Events Don’t Have To Be Online
There is an increasing trend for the whole event to take place in the digital realm. Solely online events are uncommon so far and usually exist in unbranded, at best brand facilitated, form. But these are something to look out for as brands continue to grasp the merits of social media channels. Twitter’s ‘Twestival’ and Spotify’s ‘Invisible Festival’ may be a sign of more to come.


Given the conversations about the supposed death of digital agencies I can’t help but think that soon we’ll stop talking about adding ‘digital’ to other more traditional media. I’m not sure how you reach this point but we need to as consumers are there already.

I’ll post the final piece on the topic if I remember, but let me know if you’ve got any thoughts on the topic.

Veni Vidi Data-avi(?)

OK - dodgy title I know (and will probably do bugger all for search traffic) but anyway, this week I was asked to right a couple of paragraphs on my opinion on the role of data in today's media climate. So I thought I'd share.

Media use, habits and diets have been changing steadily for several years – ‘Media stacking’, the Internet, e-mail, mobile phones, and so on. Unsurprisingly, changes in consumer behaviour have followed. As Bob Liodice (President and CEO of the Association of National Advertisers) confirms, “It’s no longer a matter of if consumers change their behaviour, but how fast and whether we can keep up.” Never has understanding the consumer been so important.

Today the customer journey may not be any longer than it was 10 years ago, but it is has certainly become much more random and harder to follow. Our traditional ‘funnel’ has become a snakes and ladders board.

Luckily, the increased use of digital technology has created a magnifying effect allowing us observe what consumers are thinking, experiencing and doing relative to the buying process with greater clarity and granularity than ever before. We now have access to real time information about what people search for, buy and how they make their purchase decisions. Facts, figures, likes, dislikes and so on. The value of data has increased tenfold*, if not more.
However, this data, unless it is harnessed, will remain nothing more than facts, figures, likes and dislikes.

Despite this changing landscape the basic principle of delivering the right message to the right people at the right time holds true. In today’s climate it is essential that we use this wealth of raw information to form real insights and a superior understanding of our consumers. Only then can we respond to what we’ve learned quickly and with a greater degree of relevance irrelevant of media.

We are no longer media-centric, but consumer-centric instead.


And there we go. Thoughts?


*Allen Adamson's new book BrandDigital was insightful on this

Interacting with Interactivity

OK, so I’ve been pretty inactive the last month (I blame it on house and job moving). Anyways, given that I’m now getting my hands dirty in the digital world I thought I’d better have a bit of a read up on interactivity. So I read one of the most un-interactive overcomplicated titled articles in the world –

“Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction” in the “Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology”.

(To be fair, once de-academicised it’s pretty good reading.)

Here's what struck me...

It’s generally agreed that there’s a basic advantage to digital methods of communication: it encourages active participation and not just passive reception. You can get involved more with it. It’s interactive.

Take a look at “interaction” in the Oxford Compact and you get two definitions:

1. Influencing each other
2. (of a computer or other electronic device) allowing a two-way flow of information between it and a user, responding to the user’s input

The second definition will carry no surprises for digi advertising folk but the first is interesting. Can simply making something interactive make it more influencing?

There's a solid argument to suggest so:

• Numerous studies (especially by Sundar) prove that there is a direct correlation between amount of interactivity and positive appraisal of a website. Basically, more interactive stuff makes people like the site more.
• Secondly, interactivity increases involvement which leads to greater engagement with the site's content. This, in turn, increases scrutiny of the site. People become more focused and form more considered opinions.

So are we saying that if we increase interactivity people will like our stuff more?

Not necessarily. There’s a few things to consider:

• Site vs Content – A positive opinion of a website doesn’t always mean a positive opinion of the actual content. I might think a funky new agency’s website is brilliant but it doesn’t mean I think they have something interesting to say.
• Navigation – What if interacting is a pain in the arse? Sure, there are loads of things I can click, tweak, drag, etc but if it’s too much of a hassle it’s a turn off.
• Cognitive Burden – If I’m using so much of my brain interacting and determining how to best digest the site have I got enough of my little brain left to absorb the actual content properly?

It’s funny really. People claim that more interactivity makes them like the site more. Yet, when it comes down to engaging with the actual content or message of the site there’s less of a correlation. Too little interactivity and no-one wants to get involved, too much and they miss the actual content. ‘Medium’ interactivity seems to be the way forward and results in more positive appraisals.

Of course, getting people to like your content is also dependent on the construction of the message itself not simply on the cleverness of the interactive design. Nonetheless, interactivity has the potential to generate greater involvement and engagement. There must be a sweet spot somewhere.

Finding this ‘sweet spot’ is one of the keys to making successful digi campaigns in my opinion, but it can be tricky. And does this spot change based on type of content (eg entertainment vs news)? Or by gender, relationship with brand (prospect vs advocate), motivation for visiting and so on?

Either way, maybe content isn’t always king after all…

South Park does digital

My last few entries seem to have gotten a little heavy, so here's something that made me chuckle. It's South Park dabbling with the digital world and trying to work out how many 'theoretical dollars' it's worth.

And the conclusion?

Stan: Boy, I'm sure glad that's over with.

Butters: Me too!

Kyle: Yeah, but you know, I've learned something today. We thought we could make money on the Internet. But, while the Internet is new and existing for creative people, it hasn't matured as a distribution mechanism to the extent that one should trade real and immediate opportunities for income for the promise of future online revenue. It will be a few years before digital distribution of media on the Internet can be monetized to the extent that necessitates content producers to forego their fair value in more traditional media.

Stan: Yeah.

Yeah?