"You never change things by fighting the existing reality.

To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete" - Buckminster Fuller

UnME Jeans on Web 2.0

Synopsis

Brand Manager, UnME Jeans, Margaret Foley, facing an increasingly complex media situation: Traditional media plan not effective; Declining audiences; Increased advertising clutter & Consumers tuning out. Foley exploring Web 2.0: must cut through hype & determine options best for her.

Synopsis (BM)
New social media outlets (virtual worlds, social networking sites, video sharing sites) require strategic thinking & knowledge of consumer behavior in a new media landscape. Concept such as Co-creation of Brands: mechanics & impact to be understood; New consumer mindset impacting contemporary culture, changing the way Brand Managers & Consumers interact & communicate.

Case Study Objectives

1.

2. 3.

4.

Explore opportunities and risks for marketers in the emerging social media environment; Understand changing cultural mindset & factors driving consumers; Discover use of blogs, wikis, Twitter, widgets, podcasts, mash ups; Optimize Second Life, Facebook, MySpace & YouTube usage.

Case Study Objectives

5.

6.

7.
8.

Recognize mismatch between current media purchasing approaches & current consumer environment; Evaluate obstacles against traditional interruption model the need to talk with rather than talk to or talk at consumers; Understand risks associated with social media; Use of media metrics: reach, frequency, CPM? WHAT ELSE?

A. Diagnosing Foleys Problems Interruption model of advertising: Traditional advertising interrupts media viewing: TV, radio, print (Ads in between editorial content); Commercial interruptions at home, at place of work, along the road, at shopping centers & malls, on the cell phone, in the inbox; Reach measures achievement target market exposed to advertisement; CPM basis for comparing media costs.

A. Diagnosing Foleys Problems

Interruption model of advertising: Reach is a measure of exposure exposure is not the same thing as perception; CAN EXPOSURE TRIGGER PURCHASE DECISION-MAKING IN A CROWDED MEDIA LANDSCAPE? Frequency becomes important: Effective Frequency the key!

A. Diagnosing Foleys Problems Interruption model of advertising: In the interruption model, Marketers insert advertisements into media programs that support their brand image; How do you measure Impact? Impact is a qualitative measure of value of an ad appearing in a particular media vehicle, or of its placement in the vehicle.

Key advantage of Interruption model: Complete control over the message!

Diagnosing Foleys Problems A.Tuning Out Traditional Media:

Foleys traditional media plans targeted programs like American Idol, Gossip Girl, fashion & beauty magazines (CPM $3.50 to $29.95); Cost of traditional media increasing Y-onY; Audience size decreasing; Multiple touch-points require more investment; Gen Y tuning out of traditional media SHOULD FOLEY TOO?

A. Diagnosing Foleys Problems

Tuning Out Traditional Media: Foley already using Internet: BUT, Online banners & Google search advertising. Is it enough? Are these the right media vehicles?

A. Diagnosing Foleys Problems

Tuning Out Traditional Media: Foley overspending on TV & underspending on the Internet; Based on Gen Y consumer profile, spending on net is inadequate.

A. Diagnosing Foleys Problems Tuning Out Traditional Media: CASE FACTS! Exhibit 2: Banner/display decreasing importance;

Diagnosing Foleys Problems A.Tuning Out Traditional Media: CASE FACTS! Exhibit 4: marketing spend in social media expected to grow 70% (CAGR) over 5 years;

A. Diagnosing Foleys Problems Tuning Out Traditional Media: CASE FACTS! Exhibit 5: Online video to grow by 62% (CAGR) over five years;

A. Diagnosing Foleys Problems Tuning Out Traditional Media: CASE FACTS! Exhibit 6: Facebook to grow by 85% Y-on-Y.

Diagnosing Foleys Problems A.Tuning Out Traditional Media:

Reach & frequency metrics do not indicate if Foleys target consumers perceive, pay attention to & process her advertising. Two trends seen in consumer behavior that suggest ineffectiveness: 1. Advertising clutter: 5,000 ad messages / day; 2. Opt-out options: Digital video recorders and commercial free media options.

WHY Web 2.0 Model of Advertising?

Talking with & not talking to consumers; Four cultural values of the Web: 1. Consumer co-creation: interactive, participatory, collaborator. Co-creation includes customization of brand consumer, consumer generated advertising, consumer testimonials & storytelling; 2. Social affiliation: sense of community profile pages, branded widgets, sharing of affiliation, rapidly spreading messages.

WHY Web 2.0 Model of Advertising?

Four cultural values of the Web: 3. Digital self-expression: Avatars (digital representations of self), online identities, opportunities for virtual brand experience; 4. Sharing: P2P relationships, word-ofmouth communication, viral marketing. Threat: negative buzz, hacking. What benefits & risks does Web 2.0 offer?

B. Benefits & Risks: Branding in Web 2.0

Benefits: Access to Gen Y consumers: Foleys active social media users; Consumer receptivity: high because of participative nature; Consumer endorsement: WOM more believable & persuasive; Brand authenticity: participation & cocreation suggests authenticity. Risk of poseurs exists.

B. Benefits & Risks: Branding in Web 2.0 Risks: Lack of control: When consumers cocreate brands, some loss of brand meaning occurs; Pro-brand & Anti-brand Co-creation: Brands experience favorable & unfavorable projection; Bad news travels fast & wide: networked consumers exchange comments; A crowded bandwagon: Web 2.0 getting cluttered; banners & widgets crowding the space.

B. Benefits & Risks: Branding in Web 2.0

Risks: Receptivity? Deluge of commercial messages impacting receptivity; Is Web 2.0 just a fad? Fad? Or here to stay? Should Foley make the most of it while it is viable? Measurement of success is difficult: Do metrics from traditional media mean much on Web 2.0? ROI is difficult to assess.

C. Creating New Metrics for Web 2.0 Metrics for Web 2.0 must be able to measure: 1. Consumers co-creation of brands meaning, 2. Use of brand for digital self-expression; 3. Infiltration into social networks & 4. P2P sharing of information.

WHAT CAN FOLEY USE? ANY IDEAS?

C. Creating New Metrics for Web 2.0 WHAT CAN FOLEY USE? 1. Receptivity measures: Number of consumers who opt-in to receive brand information; 2. Participation measures: Number or percentage of consumers participating in contests/ games; Number clicking through for info; Number of times customer visits branded space (virtual store in Zwinktopia).

C. Creating New Metrics for Web 2.0 WHAT CAN FOLEY USE? 3. Co-creation measures: Number of consumers posting to web forums, creating messages or brand fan materials: songs, poems, fan-fiction, designs for jeans, or downloading UnME widgets; 4. Sharing measures: Number or percentage of consumers who share brand info (share UnME widgets); Number of people using the network.

D. Analyzing Three Social Media Options

Q.
Which of the three social media plans should Foley pursue? What benefits do they offer, what risks to they entail? How can the risks be mitigated?

D. Analyzing Three Social Media Options

Zwinktopia Strengths: 1. Highly targeted matches UnME market; 2. Likely to create buzz in fashion press online & off-line; 3. Virtual product offers opportunity for additional sales; 4. Virtual stores can offer multifaceted online experience;

D. Analyzing Three Social Media Options

Zwinktopia Strengths: 5. Digital self expression opportunity strengthens relationships; 6. Co-creation opportunities via virtual soapbox & design competition; 7. Consumer to consumer sharing of designs expand reach, get brand endorsement.

D. Analyzing Three Social Media Options

Zwinktopia Strengths: 8. Zwinkies exported to Facebook & MySpace give the brand exposure. Zwinktopia users can post videos on YouTube; 9. Not many marketers here yet UnME could gain first mover advantage; 10. Low-cost: upfront & recurring.

D. Analyzing Three Social Media Options Zwinktopia Weaknesses: 1. Zwinktopia has small reach: 7 million users; 2. Relatively new. Second Life declining in popularity; 3. Difficult to measure RO I sales one indicator; 4. Higher CPM ($14.29) than Facebook, magazines, radio, online search, banner advertising.

D. Analyzing Three Social Media Options Facebook Strengths: 1. UnME can strengthen brand personality through character Sasha; 2. Opt in nature of brand profile page receptive audience; 3. Experience with fashion sites e.g. Victorias Secret positive; 4. Large reach, frequent/ daily interactions;

D. Analyzing Three Social Media Options

Facebook Strengths: 5. Digital self-expression for consumers strengthens relationship with brand in real life/ virtual life; 6. Co-creation using widget designs for posting to Sasha profile page; 7. Customer to customer sharing of designs encourages endorsement;

D. Analyzing Three Social Media Options

Facebook Strengths: 8. Facebook much better established than Zwinktopia, even though shared; 9. Low upfront investment; 10. Very low CPM ($3.57).

D. Analyzing Three Social Media Options Facebook Weaknesses: 1. Less targeted than Zwinktopia; 2. Likely to generate less buzz many brands; 3. Larger recurring investment needed; 4. Loss of control a big risk: Wal-Mart experience negative comments; 5. Currency was likely to be less receptive see it as intrusion in their profile pages;

D. Analyzing Three Social Media Options

Facebook Weaknesses: 6. Facebook getting cluttered; 7. Difficult to measure ROI ( traditional measures of reach, frequency, CPM may be used).

D. Analyzing Three Social Media Options Video sharing on YouTube Strengths: 1. Allows strengthening of product in the two inspirational stories of target market (teenage girls); 2. Large reach (66 million); 3. Co-creation opportunities/ video uploading of testimonials; 4. Video ads more creative than TV ads; 5. Well established medium/ low upfront cost.

D. Analyzing Three Social Media Options Video sharing on YouTube Weaknesses: 1. Less targeted than Zwinktopia; 2. Large recurring investments; 3. Risk of loss of control; 4. Poor receptiveness YouTube experience with advertising initially weak; 5. Clutter; 6. Difficult to measure ROI; 7. Very high CPM compare to other options.