Pretty much all of us have “googled” at this point. But increasingly, some of us are “tweeting,” some “facebooking,” others are “stumbling” and “tumbling,” and many many many of us “flickr.” When Time Magazine named “You” their person of the year in 2006, they were talking mostly about how you’re using these new types of online tools—all captured under the moniker “Web 2.0.” And they were right: these websites make you the most powerful force in communications ever. You have become the most knowledgeable, the most connected, the most published, and the most discussed. Nicely done.
Facebook, Flickr, and MySpace are cool, but these hotshot websites are just the latest embodiments of concepts originated in weblogs. Weblogs—“blogs” for short—amount to personal websites where “regular people” (read: non-technical types) share information about themselves and spark discussion. Cynics charge that bloggers suffer from needy exhibitionism, but ultimately the whole of the Internet has always been—and continues to be—driven by the subtle truisms that people love to share, love to talk, and tend to trust each other. Blogs merely brought these truisms into finer focus.
Be it egocentricity or human nature, the drive to blog created a far more important side effect for marketers: blogs gave a permanent online home to personal opinion, and they made those opinions easy to Save, Send, Share, and Syndicate. These “four S’s of social networking” reveal the true power of Web 2.0; they connect informal knowledge with trust, in the form of personal relationships.
This connection holds vast implications for marketers. Brands were invented as stand-ins for real people—to endow mass-produced products with the same assurances and personality that a local maker or shopkeeper had traditionally provided. For the last hundred years, marketers built brands by publishing brand-centric messages, in the channels and formats they chose, in a way un-personalized to end customers. Brands literally controlled the airwaves, and “you” were forced to tune in on the right channel, at the right time. This was broadcast marketing, and it worked well: national brands like Coca-Cola, Ivory, and McDonald’s became far more trusted than their local or boutique counterparts.
But now, ever since “you” took control, you decide the where and when. And you demand that communications be personal—if they are not, you can now simply tune them out. Tivo past the commercial break. Tune in to XM. Read the newspaper via RSS. Though brands were created to build trust, consumers now trust each other more than they trust brands, or experts, or newspapers, and certainly more than they trust advertisements. Web 2.0 has enabled customers—both advocates and detractors—to endlessly opine on brands and products.
The result is that Web 2.0 turns traditional branding inside out. Social networking sites like Facebook are popular because they help to uncover hidden relationships between people—expanding each person’s network of opinions that can be trusted. To marketers, these networks are a bounty of information about consumer preferences, but they also represent an as-yet-untapped marketing communications network. Now “you” can share information fast and easy. Now you’re able to uncover expertise within your social network, effortlessly. And like never before, you can know about a product’s flaws and faults, in detail, from a trusted source—before you even think about buying.
Instead of creating stand-ins—broadcast brands—to provide products with “person–ality,” marketers should engineer their brands to engage the public directly and participate in the social networks and relationships that characterize Web 2.0. Marketers can know who’s evangelizing a product—and who’s complaining. And they can respond. Instead of placing ads on broadcast networks—radio, TV, print—use the network of existing customers to directly engage their like-minded friends. After all, a friend’s referral is a more trusted channel than NBC or PBS. This is narrowcast marketing.
Because of this dramatic shift in the communications landscape, national brands have never been more vulnerable to insurrection. For the small business, this spells opportunity. Brands were invented to help large companies compete with local businesses, but if the brand no longer functions efficiently for that purpose, then small businesses have a chance to level the playing field. Consumers desire a personal relationship; who’s better positioned to offer that relationship, a large company or a small one? Take advantage.
