The brand police are knocking at the door.  You can run but you can’t hide!

In today’s Ad Age, Jack Neff writes about Good Guide, a consumer brand rating site that has already put their scale of 1-10 on over 75,000 products.  While consumer watchdogs have been around a long, long time, this more recent entry highlights a rising note that we have mentioned in prior posts—in the digital age of massive choice, one of the biggest consumer demands will be authenticity.  GoodGuide highlights the fact that the engaged consumer will not tolerate the brand that mouths claims that are not demonstrably accurate.

Utilizing their academic backgrounds, UC Berkeley professor, Dara O’Rourke,  and his colleagues use the power of various databases, consumer input and the want / need for a reinvigorated policing source, Good Guide seems to have most of the modern marketing maxims in play.   They are delivering objective information on the authenticity of consumer brands—proving their own authenticity (the lack of ads helps).  They are creating a genuine partnership between their site, the brands, and the consumer by both utilizing consumer input and informing brands, very transparently, about how they can improve their scores and, thus, their standing with the public.  They are also delivering all of this in the mandatory personal way.  Within brand conglomerates, divisions can work on their own ratings.  For the consumer, O’Rourke says they will soon allow users to create their own personalized scales based upon how each of them weigh the various indicia of “good”.

It all seems to be working.  Awareness of the site is rising. Brands are actively engaging.  Aileen Zerrudo, the Director of Communications for Clorox notes that they are genuinely listening to what the consumer is saying via GoodGuide.  Moreover, the company claims that click to conversion rates from the site to Amazon.com are 5-10 times higher than most retailers’ traditional returns.   A well-known brand actually wanting to listen, improve and increase market share?  I’m betting that the smart brand begins to actively seek out these kinds of relationships.

So how does a brand fare well with GoodGuide and, presumably, turn the maybe consumer into a loyal participant?  According to GoodGuide: (1) Change Ingredients to meet the desire for natural; (2) Quality Management (avoid recall disasters); (3) Internal Policies matter (fair labor, CSR, etc.); (4) Green and Responsible (a clean record and sustainable production); and (5) Be Transparent (if you hide data, we will find it).

So let’s say a brand follows the rules and carries the day with a “10″.  Now they just need to pat themselves on the back and incorporate how they got there into every aspect of their marketing.  By following the same rules in their marketing (being authentic, delivering personal value, being transparent, and actually caring enough to engage), brands will ride the wave instead of ending up in the trough.  Tout your score (in the right manner of course—sorry nitpickers) and score big with the public.  In the end, quality and authenticity need to become key elements of a brand’s story.  Deliver that story to the audience on their terms and you end up with quality, loyal, and passionate participants.

In today’s WSJ online, Elizabeth Holmes, writes about how teen retailers like Aeropostale are starting to do a deep bow towards those with the purse strings.  They are adding chairs for Mom so she can more comfortably survive the teen shopping frenzy.  They are creating personal shopping programs, available at mom-friendly times.  Wow.  They understand that their consumer needs to (a) get to the store and (b) have money before they can make a purchase.  Hope springs eternal.

Now, all we have to do is broaden this marketing epiphany and start to apply this power-of-the-purse recognition to all aspects of branding and marketing.  Moms and Dads are as much part of the fragmented digital space as anyone.  They too have a ton of choices.  They too don’t want to be “sold”.  They too exist on line and in self-selected pods on the social networks and passion sites.  As I have noted in the past, Moms buy jeans, TVs, skateboards, cars, and the offerings under virtually every vertical.

If Mom is more likely to embrace Aeropostale thanks to a place to sit, imagine what would happen if they installed a Man Cave. A back room, flat screen, BIG chairs, etc.  I can see it now.  Saturday morning, I wake up, have my coffee and excitedly wake up my girls and say “Hey kids!  Let’s go to Abercrombie!”  I’d be loyal to that brand.

You can produce a strip, prime time chat show, even with a high cost talent like Leno, for a fraction of the investment required for an hour drama or half hour sitcom. Period.  On the “Zucker is wise” front, you have lower cost, less risk of audience rejection of 95% of your original offerings (if they like Leno, they will just keep coming back and NBC can pre-book that), and you get to plant your flag in the “new”  10pm slot with a tried and true brand while others must follow.  If broadcast does become the repository for reality and event TV, NBC might reap the rewards of being first to embrace.

On the other side, you give up the major windfall that the occasional hit narrative delivers here and abroad for years and years to come in syndication. NO one will argue that chat is evergreen (though original reality formats may be).  I’m having a hard time trying to figure out how the move toward inexpensive programming will balance out against the loss of the annuity of a “Friends” or “Seinfeld”.  Part of the answer may be a top to bottom embrace of the need for reinvention of the overall approach to broadcast, cable, and digital and who becomes who in the content zoo.  I’m betting on NBC.

If the Leno project works, NBC owns 10pm and has the luxury of exporting the model and success to 8-10 pm.  NBC reinvents broadcast prime time.  Where do the dramas and quality narrative go?  NBC’s cable unit.  Their cable outlets have been their success story for years and, under Jeff Gaspin, have become quality content profit centers.  There is no reason why FX should own the quality ribbon. Of course, that move will necessitate lower production budgets and the current scripted programming sources will go kicking and screaming.  As Zucker mentioned however, lower cost doesn’t have to mean lower quality.  Examples of budget and content bravery abound.  Lower budgets, lower risk, even bigger windfalls when they find a hit—and the ability to genuinely brand their cable channels.

And what about digital?  NBC is banking on Hulu.  Fine for now.  But if they genuinely want to be the Mother of Reinvention, they must actively pursue a custom strategy for serving the digital landscape.  Yes, they will offer their shows on line.  Fine.  But for a growing and evolving digital generation it won’t be enough to shoehorn “TV” into the content offerings.  The audience will increasingly demand customized, personal, quality content that is crafted for who they are, where they consume, how they consume and what they wish to consume.  They won’t be sold, won’t be washed over with message, and won’t engage unless you invite them in.  No one has the answers yet. But if NBC wants to genuinely lead the way and reap the rewards of audience loyalty, THIS is where the tough work needs to be done.  What does the online user between 7 and 11pm want?  Has anyone really bothered to find out?  That answer will be the linchpin to success.

NBC will figure out the new world of  broadcast, it will build on its cable success and we’ll see if it can address digital.   If they bother with all three prongs, they will clean everyone’s clock by being the content source that creates the 360 degree, on demand, content and distribution plan that is the future.

In today’s Brandweek.com, T. L. Stanley, confirms our suspicions, and notes that brands are dipping a bit more than a toe into these waters and reaping the rewards.  Stanley outlines the key elements that make brand integration a genuine tool as opposed to the hail Mary of yesteryear.

This time around, content and brands are on more equal footing.  It’s no longer the juvenile business built around the “wow, I can put stuff into stuff on line and….”  These days, brands are (1) looking to get involved during the nascent stages of content development; (2) willing to accept less overt, less “salesy” integration; and (3) partnering with content producers who are willing to find ways to use integration organically with story and format.

Those three key elements make me hopeful for a true creative partnership between companies like mine and brands across virtually every vertical.  We would add a few more arguments to the mix as well as some wishes and warnings to keep this momentum going toward an effective brand / entertainment marriage.

When you look at the cost basis for digital branded entertainment, you can’t beat the potential ROI in terms awareness and even conversion.  But that is just the tip of the “why integrate” pyramid.  The opportunities and results also depend upon how well we can collectively  exploit the public’s increasing willingness to accept branding in content.  They have a specific set of demands that we need to deliver upon in everything we produce and distribute:

(1) make it engaging, entertaining, informative and great or shut up;

(2) make it authentic and honest (as opposed to a sore thumb interrupting my content);

(3) make it an invitation to connect with versus “buy” your brand; and

(4) earn my attention by delivering something of personal value (entertaining and something I care about).

If we develop and produce content that fits this bill, there will be no need to have another branded content nuclear winter.  Instead, our business with the brands will grow, develop, evolve and prosper.  The seedlings are all here, right now.  Creatives have a better understanding of how to pick and choose content that is customized for a given brand.  Brands are rightfully demanding to be involved early on.  Creatives’ fear that brands will “ruin” the content is not proving to be rational.  It behooves the brands to have their say while letting the producers produce (ahh, if only televison were like that).  All of this means that our ability to work with brands on more than just the on-the-nose, fact-based product content is here and, hopefully, here to stay.

Consumers are more willing to embrace longer form web series covering every genre.  New narrative series, including our —here comes the shamless plug—–”Operation Midnight Climax”, a dramatic series about a true-life black ops, mind control CIA experiment, are getting a lot of attention.  “In the Motherhood” and “Haute and Bothered”, for example, have been seen millions of times.  Perhaps we aren’t far away from brands thinking of shows like this, as a go-to branding device as opposed to an experiment?

What happens next depends upon both sides of the equation.  Brands need to step up, spend on digital content, stop retreating to the more traditional media, and deliver quality content to the consumer “on their terms”.  We producers need to do our part to make sure brands and consumers have a positive experience so that we don’t have to wait another 6 or 7 years to have at it again. If we all stick to the rules of engagement outlined above, I think we might just turn this into a business.

One of the key components of our company’s branding mantra is the need for personal engagement through authentic messaging.  Our formula always stresses (1) specific and personal = loyal and (2) keep it real.  In other words, no brand is going to earn consumer attention and loyalty without delivering something of real value (content) that can get past what we like to call the extremely sensitive BS meter that exists in today’s marketplace.  In a recent post, Diane Verde Nieto (CEO of Clownfish, London) takes this point to an even more granular level that we should all take to heart.  It’s not just about “getting past” the BS meter.  It’s about doing so because your brand genuinely lives and breathes your brand message.  Diane points out that corporate social responsibility (“CSR”) efforts, in which brands incorporate their corporate causes into brand messaging, are a key route to building a loyal relationship with the target audience.

So, so true.  A great CSR effort can make a major difference in the eyes of the audience and the returned favor of loyalty.  But like all things, it has to be done correctly, which as the author points out, mean honestly.  In this market where the consumer wants and demand it all on their terms, honesty is paramount.  All brand content has to be authentic.  CSR driven content must be even more.

I was recently discussing with some colleagues the need for brands to do what Diane suggests, walk the walk at the core of their business.  That means, don’t just take on a cause and promote your “stuff” with it via window dressing.  Rather, prove to your audience that you are for real by making your CSR effort internal and sincere and not just for the public’s eyes only.  This means that from the ground up in the company, the CSR must be a 24/7 subtext of the business.  Employees, management, hell, even outside vendors have to live it.  Be this genuine and your content effort will do a lot more than get past the BS meter.  You will be believed, trusted—and remembered.

If good brand storytelling is about hitting emotional touchstones, I can’t think of a more emotional campaign than matching up brand CSR and the things that your target audience genuinely cares about.  Per the post, women do need soap—but they choose Dove because the brand (via their self-esteem, female oriented content efforts) literally cares about all of the other things that women care about in their daily lives.  Dove passes the sniff test because, in fact, they care….inside and out.

The opposite.  Look at some of the failures where brands have disingenously jumped on the healthy or green wagons.  When a brand’s message is no more than profit driven “fashion”, they can smell the rat. We won’t be fooled or green washed.

There are lots of “green” organizations for example.  But which of them deserve and earn our trust?  The ones you can believe because they have proven credibility.  Case in point?  We recently did a video celebrating the 40th Anniversary of Friends of the Earth.  It was a labor of love and we know the content is going to help this Godfather of environmental activism because they are, demonstrably, the unrelenting, uncompromising organization that was there before anyone would listen and is still in the thick of battle now that we know we’re killing the planet.  Our company (hence my vendor argument) lives this way.  It was a creative and passionate marriage that we hope continues for a long time.

It’s tough out there.  In a prior post we talked about the new “Simplifiers” who don’t want to be sold “stuff”, but rather, offered personal, important experiences.  So how does a brand differentiate itself and earn the attention it needs to prosper?  Don’t “sell”.  Present something people need / want  and place it organically in the context of the bigger picture.  Connect with the things in our every day lives that matter.  Do so honestly and with integrity.  It’s human nature.  Common cause, common experience equals community.  I don’t want to emotionally connect with soap, but I might with the soap community that cares.

As a guy who still likes to touch paper, I fear she is correct.  The more I think about it, however, the more I am starting to realize that my fears are unwarranted.  The key fear that I share, apparently, with many others is that we will be reduced to taking our news from the uninitiated, ill-informed, biased sources that are the Mongol hordes besieging the traditional news media.  This is, in reality, unlikely to happen as it ignores all human experience, human taste and behavior and the lessons we have already learned from other periodic assaults on the media status quo.

Yes, there is a LOT of drivel out there.  That said, has the print and broadcast news world been devoid of its respective share of the same?  I have two thoughts.  First, people vote with their eyeballs and ears.  Second, we forget that there is market segmentation when it comes to content demand.  As the digital world evolves, why would those fundamentals of human behavior change?  The platform is really going to alter who we are, what we want, and when we want it in such a drastic way?  Really?

My first point goes to the quality fear.  Why do we assume that quality won’t rise to the top?  Why do we assume that the experienced professionals we hold dear won’t adapt, move on to other platforms and figure out a way to evolve their business?  The entire content space, right now, is a bit of a wheat field and, of course, we are still trying to figure out a new system of sifting the wheat from the chaff.  But that does not mean that we are eons away from new models that allow intelligent choice and the development of a pecking order when it comes to digital media sources.  There is a Murrow out there–and I am betting more than just one.

Secondly, it is not like the public has en masse, always turned their attention to the in depth, detailed reporting that most say they will miss. The market has always been segmented into the New York Times Crowd, the USA Today Crowd, The Star crowd and all of the nuanced mini markets in between.  There is no doubt that the dust will settle and the audience will self-select similar segments to which they will throw their support.  For those who want “journalism”, there will be journalists and quality content.  For those who like the brightly colored pictures and care little about fact checking and objectivity,  there will be plenty to go around.

When a guy like me (a paper toucher) finds himself checking news online, on my phone, etc. then you know times are a changin’.  As in all things, I think the news delivery / quality issue will find a new equilibrium.  Everyone will get what they want—only now there will be no more waiting for the paper to be tossed under the lawn sprinkler on Sunday morning.  I think we will all be ok with that.

Pfizer is pulling off a branding master stroke.  They are giving away certain prescription drugs to those who have lost their jobs and health insurance due to the recession.  Put yourself in the consumers’ shoes.  “I’m broke.  I can’t afford the meds that I have relied upon.  I really need them.  Wait, the drug company is going to let me have them for free until I get back on my feet?  Wow.”   These consumers are never going to forget this.  Pfizer delivers a message of caring about their audience, they deliver a tangible, high stakes benefit, and they do so at a time of need.  Nice.

Hyundai pulled off the same move even earlier with their “we’ll buy it back” offer.  In each of these instances, the brands showed up and stepped up for the consumer on the consumers’ terms.  That is the part that makes it memorable and that makes for brand loyalty. From the time the mouse removed the thorn from the lion’s paw to today, a friend, in those times of need, is a friend indeed.  Like the lion, the public won’t forget.  Now all we have to do is get brands to apply these same principles in all of their efforts, at all times.

Times are tough, especially if you’re planning a wedding.  As the business of weddings changes, happily engaged couples are also adjusting their plans by hosting their own interactive websites in lieu of invites, and using video registries (don’t forget to ask for the Shamwow!) to cut back.  One question you might want to ask if you’re planning a wedding: do I really need to hire a wedding videographer or can I enlist the talents of my wedding party?  If you abhor the idea of anyone but an esteemed video professional capturing the emotion of your day, stop reading this post, type “wedding video” into Google and start perusing the over 26 million choices.

Consider this: we have video cameras on almost every type of smart-phone (even the new, upcoming iPhone).  We have tape-less HD video cameras that fit into the palm of your hand.  You can even broadcast live video from your phone with sites like Qik.  One of my favorite parts in a wedding video is the interview portion where your esteemed videographer and his/her 3200k floodlight that melts the rouge off Aunt Barbara and makes Uncle Jerome squint, sets out to capture “personal moments”.  This is effective, but is it really personal?

If your goal is to capture the emotion of the day, then what might a UGC wedding be like?  You’ve painstakingly narrowed down that list of attendees and been careful to only include those you consider worthy of the money you spent on their meal.  Why not make them earn it?  Every one of your invites could be armed with a digital video camera or still camera, capturing the tender and hilarious moments as they unfold.  You could ask people to document peoples’ journey to the wedding and other moments leading up to, during and following your special day.  These “moments” could be cut together into one large video or several pieces.  You could ask friends and family to cut their own DVD version or people could host individual video clips on a free, video site like Vimeo.

Wedding stories are memorable because they’re personal.  And sometimes what happens is worth mentioning and is just as important as what is carefully rehearsed, forgotten and then laughed at later.  A UGC wedding would uniquely capture perhaps the single most relevant day in your life, where you’re surrounded by the people you love the most, in a way you may not get to experience again.  My only suggestion would be, to refrain from making UGC or professional video a part of your bachelor/bachelorette party and wedding night…..then again, wouldn’t that make a great website!

Zach Jordan

Thumbnail photo credit