Armed or unarmed? Publish photos or don’t publish? Extra judicial execution or justifed act of ‘national self defence’? How much evidence do we need to see before we stop doubting?
This week we have seen – very starkly – just how important credibility is, and how very hard it is to regain it once it is lost. That we doubt is the only thing beyond doubt.
Put simply: we don’t believe everything we are told. In business, as consumers, in global terrorism, in politics. And the more the story gets altered the less we believe. Saying something is true really does not make it true.
“we really are trying to lend to small business”
“none of us knew about the phone hacking”
“we are beyond petroleum”
Trust is born out of credibility and capability. If I believe your intent, and I believe you have the capability to deliver on that intent then I will trust you. Capability without credibility is worthless.
The straight down the line school of strategy says that most business growth is about leveraging capability. I’m pretty sure that’s wrong now. Brands like Apple, Tata, Tesco, Google, Virgin all show that if you can build a bond of trust, if you can build credibility with customers you can enter almost any category you like – whether you have the capability or not. If Apple made a refrigerator tomorrow it would be a hit.
You can buy or build capability. And smart businesses the world over are beginning to hook up with others in order to collaborate, in order to access capability they don’t have.
But you can’t buy credibility at any price. And you certainly can’t kill for it.
Tesco are selling used cars. Many leaders in the car industry used to think that a retailer like Tesco would never do such a thing ‘because they couldn’t live with the margins’. Hmm.
Tesco are going into banking. Have gone into mobile phones. Have gone into financial services, clothing, furniture, electricals, opticians, jewelery and even film production. Is there anything the Tesco brand can’t get into? And is there any brand that shouldn’t see a brand like Tesco as potential competitors?
Brands like Tesco, Google, Apple, Tata, Virgin are defined less by what they do, and more by what they believe. This makes them immensely powerful as it allows them to gatecrash categories which have grown complacent. If you have a trusted brand you can enter – pretty much – whatever category you like.
As Tesco’s move into car retailing shows it is much easier to buy capability than to build credibility. Which means it is harder for bank to become a trusted brand than it is for a trusted brand to become a bank.
The brands that will win in the future will build deep, trusted relationships with customers and expand what they do to fill more of those customer needs. The measure of success is now share of wallet – not market share.
In a move surprising to many, Google and Verizon have announced they are near a deal that will add a pay tier to Verizon’s Internet service. The service, which they have been planning for last 10 months, will give preferential bandwidth to paid content over the Verizon network.
What’s surprising is that the move is in conflict with a core tenant of the Internet; that network traffic, websites, email, videos, music, photos of your new baby, etc., is inherently neutral. Net neutrality, as it’s called, states that no single piece of data is more important than another.
There’s are many perspectives on net neutrality both for and against. The debates are extensive and come with variations of what a future will look like with and without it. But how they affect brands, their ability to innovate and their connection with their consumers is not as transparent.
The case against net neutrality rests with the providers of the infrastructure. Currently your Internet service provider receives monthly revenue from it’s customers looking to access the Internet. The goal is for them to create new channels of revenue by charging brands for access to a larger piece of their bandwidth pie. This will create more revenue that can be used for improving network speeds and business models built on-top of a tiered service plan for those willing to pay to be further up the queue of access. For these companies net neutrality is standing in the way of innovations in business.
In contrast, the case for net neutrality is focused on total network value. The value perspective focuses on the fact that networks become more valuable as the amount of information shared (transferred) increases. By adding barriers to the transfer of information the total value of the Internet suffers. For brands looking to create conversations with their customers, promote real interaction and ensure the data pipe is always open, this deal poses a challenge.
The success of this deal could lead to more and more deals of this kind. For an international brand this could evolve to be a cost requiring a new line item in annual budgets. Paying each Internet service provider around the globe to ensure their customers will always have access to their product, services, and content at reasonable speeds on a regional level.
A big player in the debate is the US FCC which has, by Congressional mandate, been tasks with creating a National Broadband plan to improve access to the Internet for everyone in the US. However the FCC’s ability to regulate the Internet was hindered by a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in April. (Though the FTC may be able to regulate the Internet instead.)
Personally, I see equal access to information as a core measure of social and economic success. Net neutrality plays an important role in ensuring this equality.
Capitalizing on the success of iPad and iPhone, Apple has decided to enter the mobile and online advertising space with the launch of iAd. Apple is now directly competing against Google in the ad space. The tech giants are now in the race, but have different strategies for winning.
Google is dominating the market with AdWords, an ad solution that relies on relevancy. AdWords places highly-targeted ads based on search queries or site content. For instance, if you’re searching for a restaurant, Google will provide ads based on your location. Google approaches ads on mobile phones in the same way as on computer desktops.
Apple is taking a different approach and is leveraging apps to deliver seamlessly integrated ad solutions on the iPad, iPhone and iTouch. Apple’s iAd relies on a well-designed, “emotion-driven” interface to engage users, with ad solutions that are built in the device operating system. Apple hopes that its superior design will drive consumer engagement in the same way that design drives consumer preference for all Apple consumer electronics.
iAd is another good example of how Apple can leverage its strong position in Design to deliver meaningful and better experiences to consumers. Be known for something tangible and your permission for brand extension will be granted.
An insightful film comparing social media and internet activity around the world. Social media activity has proliferated with 126 million blogs on the web. Facebook has 350 million users and logs in at 260 billion page views per month. Plus, there are 84% more women than men on social networks. The best part (at 2:51) shows the Launch Dates of Social Media Networks, showing an evolution of what we’ve adopted (and abandoned) from 1995 to 2010.
Today people experience brands in multiple ways, including built networks that allow for a closer interaction with the brand. It’s how users are trusting peer to peer recommendations or an active brand profile as opposed to a one-click search that is important. The marketing needs to be brand led, and have the capacity to take on different forms in order for the brand to be best brought to life.
