Brand As Facilitator

Brand As Broadcaster
In this dynamic world of "social media" that we're all gushing over, it's healthy to remind ourselves that most brands are still acting as "broadcasters"—dishing out content, information, products and services to people.  In some cases we're helping brands continue this model when we produce things like "branded entertainment"—content modules which get pushed out to audiences in perhaps multiple mediums or "channels".  But it's still a top down approach.  The brand manufactures the messages and figures out how to get that message out wherever there are eyeballs to take it in.  It's more realistic that although this model has become less effective as people have become more empowered, it's probably not going away.

Brand As Facilitator
What some brands have chosen to do is to act as "facilitators". This means that like any good facilitator, they get off center stage, move over to the side and let others do the talking.  But just like any good facilitator, the brands who succeed in this direction need to master it as an both and art and science.  Good facilitators know how to actively listen, how to create environments which stimulate productive conversations and interactions and most importantly they add incredible value even though they may come across as the least vocal in the group.  Brands now have the opportunity to empower influential voices who reach others.  They have the opportunity to leverage the "brand ambassadors" who are likely already out there.  And in the possible scenario that there aren't any—a brand can still become visible in the online conversations that are likely happening about it or topics relevant in it.  Some people believe that good facilitators are "invisible"—I believe you always know they are there, you just feel comfortable talking around and with them.

I don't believe brand as "broadcaster" is going away any time soon, but I do think the exciting challenge which lies ahead of us is to figure out what tactics actually work in the "brand as facilitator" category.  It's something I've been chewing on the last few weeks.  If you've got some examples of the latter, I'd love to hear about them.

Comments

[Luc Debaisieux - mindblob]

David,

Great parallel between the two "worlds".

About the Brand as Facilitator visual perspective, does that mean that the small groups are "within" the brand sphere? Maybe the brand could be within each micro-sphere of people? This would let some space for segmentation and also let the brand be dynamically influenced by each group (this is all about conversation, right?).

In other words I don't think that people should be "in" the brand sphere, but that instead... they would (or would not) accept the brand in "their" sphere.

I don't believe a brand should be invisible, because people want authenticity and like brands to have good values. What's the point of hiding if trying to embrace what people want?

[Helen Phin]

First facilitator brand that pops to mind: Flickr

[Paula Thornton]

In a piece I'm working on now I postulate that Markets aren't Conversations, but that Conversations are Markets. A brand is an artifact that is part of the exchange (an equal role -- not a controlling one)...an influencing factor.

It is also part of the "aesthetics" layer of decisions (choice). Experiences become part of the aesthetics layer (anyone drawn that model yet?) when the individual turns them into "archetypes that inform our cognitive process" http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/the-apple-core-vs-linear-logic.

We forget that there is a shorthand (sometimes visual) occurring inside of our heads, that play a more significant role in informing our choices than the 'transparent' ones (why people will 'doubt' explicit messages, filling in for what's not being said, based on their own beliefs and assumptions).

The point is, the brand can't "do" anything. There is no Brand (piece in progress, "There is no Enterprise"). The brand -- it's meaning, and it's relative ability to influence choices -- is 'owned' by the individual. That perspective can be influenced, but only through conversations (e.g. including 'voiceless' transactions and experiences, where the individual will have a one-sided conversation on their side of the fence).

Where your suggestions would be relevant would be in a 'brand as enterprise' role. In that case, the brand is simply a 'voice' in the conversation, and yes -- it can facilitate the conversation, but only so far as the choices of others will allow.

There is no conversation if there's no one there and it takes considerable time/effort to 'throw a conversation party' (the reasons those costs are going up is the only thing forcing this practice to be rethought -- it's been broken all along). The most natural points of conversation with the brand are at the touchpoints of doing business with the brand. That said, most businesses don't understand where their 'natural' touchpoints are. For example, for an office product manufacturer, a natural online touchpoint is in the search results on the office product retailer's site and the corresponding 'product' page, not on their own site (except for other specific scenarios -- which is why scenarios are so critical)

The reasons conversations are breaking out elsewhere is because they're not accommodated in their natural spaces. The natural order will seek an outlet where ever it can. But also, brands get discussed in normal conversations. The context of how and why the brand came up is critical for finding a way to 'extend' the conversation [tapping natural energy] -- not start a new one.

[steve cunningham]

David - great concept as usual.

I think the really smart brands out there realize 2 THINGS. First, that the brand needs to create an amazing experience. Nothing less than a stellar product wrapped in an experience that gives you the warm fuzzies (or a killer adrenaline rush) will do. You do this through innovating your customer experience.

Second, that nobody wants to talk about a brand - they want to talk about themselves. Great brands facilitate conversations around their users' lives, not around the brands themselves.

EXAMPLE: our creative director's son went to Band Camp today at the Apple Store. Tonight, his son isn't going to go talk to his friends about this amazing brand Apple. But he's going to whip out his laptop (a Mac) and show them what HE created. It's a seemingly small distinction, but one that makes a HUGE difference.

CONCLUSION: good/mediocre brands worry about how to "get people talking". Great brands worry about how to "get people doing" - because when you do that right, the talking takes care of itself.

[jMac]

David - great work...

I have spoken of little else for several years so it is with great pleasure I see this post!

As always the visual representation is fantastic and I would like to quote you in my forthcoming book. Have tweeted you - please join the conversation :)

[Julian Cole]

Hey David,

Three diverse examples of Brands as Facilitators

Marketing Magazine – www.marketingmag.com.au
Marketing Magazine found the bloggers that they thought were most influential and creating the best conversation starters, they facilitated the conversations.

Vintage Ford Car Club – Ford created a monthly car enthusiast meet up, it facilitated conversations between car enthusiasts.

RedBull Rooshambull Facebook App – Facilitation is not just limited to conversations as well, with the example of Red Bull Rooshambull, this brand facilitated in users playing games through a Facebook app (paper scissors rock)

David you talk about Brands as Broadcasters as if it is something that is less valued than Brands as Facilitators. I would strongly disagree, give me a 1,000 people consuming my branded entertainment over 1,000 people being in conversations that have been facilitated by my brands. Branded Entertainment is so so so much more powerful, lets take a blog for instance. If a blog is creating content that the audience is valuing and consuming, this is going to be far more powerful in terms of positioning and relationship than a brand facilitating a conversation which does not give a big indication of where the brand wants to stand.

Let me put it in a NBA analogy, tell me who you are more likely to remember?

It is the 1991 NBA Championship Chicago Bulls vs. Blazers, who are you more likely to remember the man who produced amazing content and scored 35 points and a record 6 three point field goals in the first half? Or are you going to remember the referee who facilitated the matches?

Jordan or the Ref?

I am not saying that brand facilitation is not a goal for marketers but I just think that Brands as Broadcasters is more valued than Brands as Facilitators in the majority of cases.

[philmang]

Julian -
I would say that Brand as Facilitator is not asking the brand to be the ref (it would have a really hard time doing so anyway,) rather the brand should try to be the ball or even better in this case, the shoe.
Wait, you do remember the shoe still don't you? The brand already is the shoe...Nike Air Jordans have made Nike huge amounts of $$ and fame by being part of the facilitation of the game (conversation) and Jordan (the thought leader.)
The point being that the brand can do just as well by being part of the conversation and supporting the content creators/prosumers as it can by creating the content itself. In fact, it is often more authentic for the brand to support the prosumer and perhaps turn them pro than it is for the brand to produce the content.
That at least is my read. Thanks for the metaphor, as it helped me position the layers in my head better.

[Julian Cole]

Hey Phil,

Great build! I have to concede that one too you. Great point about the shoe. I guess it is more about me not sitting on the fence, I really think having a direct communication channel with the consumer is going to be stronger than being the faciltator. I just think of the Red Bull Rooshambull and it seems like such a weak engagement with the brand, they would of gained more from being able to set a relationship up, where they can provide valuable content to an audience member, who can then take it to their communitiy as social currency.

Jules

[Dirk Singer]

Hi David,

A great post and completely agree - something we posted about recently, about the number of players who still give clients the sell of 'hey, join the conversation!', when that's not what it's about.

An example of someone who has got it right? I'd highlight Orange in the virtual world Second Life.

As you know, a lot of brands got their fingers badly burned last year, chiefly because Second Life "residents" didn't really want to buy the virtual versions of real goods.

Orange set up a space (orange-island.com) that it by and large gives over to the community - you really have to search hard to find information about handsets. It is used as a forum for exhibitions, classes, displays of virtual art and so on.

[Eric Karofsky]

David:

I wonder how being a broadcaster vs facilitator changes if the company is public or private.

Just like earnings, private companies have much more ability to do what's right for the business - therefore i would hypothesize that they would be more capable of facilitating an experience - one that has the ability to grow as conditions change. Alternatively public companies may feel they need to "stay the course", and be much more conservative -- therefore having a harder time sensing and responding to the market.

-Eric

[John Kiker]

Nicely said, David. As you noted, any brand can act as a broadcaster. Any brand, by virtue of its own actions can also be a (positive or negative) conversation initiator.

To be bold enough to take the next step and facilitate a conversation, a brand should tread lightly and understand the inherent risks and potential benefits...
-Inauthentic framing of conversations will be sniffed out quickly
-If their product experience sucks, they will quickly know about it and the conversation could be a bitch session, ruining a lot of first impression opportunities
-Use it as a learning and research tool vs. an advertising one. Let the product experience and other touchpoints do the broadcasting

[Richard Shaffer]

Israeli wine parties all across the US for us seem to be a way to enter and participate in /facilitate good conversation! SO much learning for us goes on there - instant feedback about the wines, about how an audience wants to interact with us, a way for us to share messages through an exchange vs one-way that no one listens to anyway. The live events facilitate experiential SURPRISE at the wines that then get talked about right away.

Richard

[Marc Meyer]

David, you have "brand as facilitator" as a fixed entity in your second slide. I would venture that truly a proactive brand moves in and out of the conversations passively as well as actively. The brand as a lurker even amongst brand champions is not healthy.

[Sean Scott]

Brand as a facilitator makes me think about utility and relevance. Two core pillars that i think should apply to any marketing effort these days.

An example of a campaign that puts a brand up as a facilitator to me is the Starbucks Google Gadget. Sure it's branded but the end goal is to get you and your friends or colleagues to socialize/meet at the nearest Starbucks.

Heck i would even throw in here twitter, the app (when it works) that connects a huge amount of people together.

[Griffin Farley]

This is a great post and I agree with the challenge that social media presents from a metrics position. As consumers participate on social sites, consume content and connect with each other, understanding what stage they're in and how to move them from one to the other is nearly impossible. What's more impossible is aligning media and engagement opportunities with each stage. Branded Content can create awareness, peer reviews can influence consideration, and a positive customer service experience can spawn electric word-of-mouth and influence purchases. We have more on this at our blog http://blog.22squared.com

Brands as Facilitators (brands that are good at conversing with influencers)

Method Home
Special K Challenge
Moleskin
Craigslist

[Alex Wipf]

Western Union just went from being the "fastest way to send money" to a purpose-driven brand: to help people on the move become better adjusted and successful in their new environment. It was based on insights about immigrants (largest users of western union) and their needs as they leave their loved ones and need to adapt to new conditions. Leo Burnett defined a human purpose that allows the brand to great human brand acts instead of just broadcasting ads. The acts included outfitting Western Union branches with infos about cheap real estate, clubs for the different nationalities, tips and tricks in the new city, SMS confirmation that the money was received by relatives.

The best way to become a facilitating brand is by observing human behavior instead of inferring knowledge from social milieus, socio-demographics and the traditional focus group. Behavior doesnt lie, and behavior and knowing people goals and tasks is where act creation should be based.

[Scott Crawford]

@Alex Wipf Amen to that!

[Paula Thornton]

Great...now can we get some degree programs in Behavioral (cognitive) Economics [http://del.icio.us/iknovate/CognitiveEconomics] that then incorporate Design?

[BIG Kahuna]

First time poster, please be gentle.

How do you account for brand identity in this situation? My fear is that there needs to be some top down approach to develop what a companies brand identity is first. Otherwise consumers will make a brand image on their own.

For instance, Volvo is about safety. If they had started with Brand as a facilitator they may have a completely different brand image today.

I think there needs to be a little of both. But brand identity should remain the companies choice not the consumers. If done correctly it should be the happy medium that works.

The biggest challenge we see is the gap between how a company wants to be perceived (brand identity) and how they actually are perceived (brand image). In this graphic consumers could dicatate brand image which is not always the best way to go.

I really like the idea as Brand as a facilitator after the brand identity is set and all employees are on board, like Zappos. Zappos developed their "service" identity from the get go and then went out and lived that brand identity.

[@toddlucier]

omg, this post says it very well.
Even just by skimming the article, the advice is pertinent to any business trying to grow their relationship with their ideal client(s).

Since the Web is really about communication, it's about knowing when to call on others to offer advice or service when we can't meet a client's need to the level they deserve.

In our work with tourism industry we call this:
"Do what you do best and partner for the rest!"

But it goes further than this. On services like Twitter, I've connected others to people and products that will meet their needs.

It's really just about being helpful.
Being helpful can be good for your brand.
Insightful, but not surprising.

Nice topic for a post.