WHAT TALK REALLY MEANS

Everyone’s into conversations these days … on Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, even the network-able LinkedIn. 

At least on the agency and client front, the latest dialogue is all about engaging consumers with the brand, creating occasions and ongoing events that encourage an exchange relationship.  Proponents point to real-time communications – on the Web (e.g., McDonald’s Our Food, Your Questions), through the Twitter-sphere (cf. Oreos celebrating lights-out or saluting different demographics) – in the same places we as consumers meet our friends and colleagues.  In short, brands are people too … in this anthropomorphic perspective.

Here comes our heresy:  Pardon us if we have a difficult time envisioning when, exactly, we’d talk with a brand.  Do we want them to advise us on our shopping habits, our love lives, the ways we conduct our business?  Is it important that we dub brands as our next best friends?  [Except for the times when we’re disappointed in service or need/want additional information.]  A brand is simply that:  an inanimate object that, often today, is given human attributes, emotions, and interests.  Most consumers, we hope, would know that their brand relationship is actually staffed by real people who work for a real corporation; every time we go to a Web site or email about an issue, an individual, not the brand, responds.  [Or usually does.  There are times … ]

What we want in an engagement with a brand is something of value.  It could be relevant information that helps us work smarter, better, faster.  Or an app that saves time and money or answers critical questions.  In other instances, it might be a way to express ourselves quickly, as in “likes” and “shares.”  And a split-second of laughter that might lighten our mood.  Even an unknown “something” that will, some day, add to our lives.

We talk every day, with our clients, our friends, our colleagues, our family.  Do we truly need to engage in that kind of talk with a brand?

STORIES FROM THE FRONT: What we learned at retail

Been a regular devotee of Communicating By Design?  Then you’ll know we’re passionate, even batty about visual therapy; we go shopping often to get a regular dose of ideas and (in)sanity.

No kidding.

Our latest Eureka! emanates from the year-or-so-old retail tempest, called “showrooming.”  It’s an activity by a consumer who visits or calls a bricks and mortar outlet to check out products, then goes home, clicks, and buys online. 

At least one august b-school research claims that move is all about price.  Sure:  “Who’s got it cheapest” is definitely a motivator for many would-be buyers.  Other surveying institutions attribute the trend to less-than-satisfactory in-store customer service.  [And who among us can’t throw a stone, even at some of the best in the business?]

Target, for instance, has countered by pulling Kindle Fire and other Amazon products from its shelves. Some merchants add services or special deals to entice in-store buying.

Now it’s time to turn that topic inside out and relate it to our issues:  How many candidates or potential employees showroom your Web site?  Or surf the Web, even read print media and ask friends and family to check out your company and the deal it offers to its associates?  What does vault.com (or other online evaluators) say about working at Company XYZ?  What kind of “customer” service do prospects receive when contacted about a position … even when they’ve advanced to being a high-potential candidate?  How well do they understand what the company’s all about … if they’ve only clicked through your Web presence?

Yes, countering this slightly different form of showrooming is the province of human resources.  It should also be the territory of marketing and branding and design and communications, in partnership with the CPO.  Because no one function, no one department owns 100 percent of the real estate that attracts (or not) new employees. 

We all cover the front.