SHOULDEVERYBRANDJUMPINTOWEB2.0?

ByWernerIucksch

Web2.0isdecentralisingtheinternet,sinceeveryoneisgettingaccesstoplatformstogenerate,mixanddistributecontentatverylowcosts.PhenomenasuchastheWikipedia,Flickr,Facebook,Digg,YouTube,SecondLifeandothersonlysucceedbecauseoftheinterventionofthousandsopeopleeveryday.

Everydayitspossibletoreadsomethingaboutthevaluethattheinteractionbetweencompanies/brandsandpeoplecancreate,buttheexamplesgivenusuallyareeitherofcompanies/brandsthatwerebornontheweb,thinking2.0,or“Nike+”.Otherexamplescreatedbybrickandmortarcompaniesusuallycomeinformof“consumercreatedads”–suchas“crashthesuperbowl.com”–podcastswithuserinteraction,forumssponsoredbythecompanyandotherinitiativesthatmakesurethefinaldecisionsofmostthingsareinthehandsoftheadvertisers.

This“defensiveinteractionmanagement”,mademethinkwhethereverybrandshouldevenwanttobecollaborative.Afterall,isWeb2.0foreveryone?

Collaborationcanbeheavenorhell.IimaginewhatwasgoingonLegomanagers’mindswhenthefirsthacksfortheirroboticseries“LegoMindstorms”appeared.Theyfailedtorealizethatpeoplewantedtocollaboratewiththecompany,expandtheexperienceofotherusersbyaddingcodestothesoftware,andthreatenedtosuethe“toyhackingpioneers”.Soonafter,however,threatsweredropped.Thecompanyperceivedthatwhatthehackersweredoingwasactually

intheveryessenceofLego,theywerecreating.Thesourcecodewasopenedtoeveryoneanddiscussionforumssupportedbythebrandwerecreated.Thecompanyharvestedinnovation,bykeepingtheintellectualpropertyofanycodedevelopedandpostedintheirforums,perhapsmoreimportantthanthat,theircommunitywasstrongerafterallthis.

Lego,though,isanexception.Thereisresistancetocollaborativeinitiativesinside“traditional”companiesandmanyconsumercommunitiesaresuspiciousofsuchcompanies’approachestocollaboration.ThisisbecausemanycharacteristicsthatdrivepeopletocollaborateandshareareabsolutelydifferentthanthosethathelpedbuildmostofthebigcorporationsoftheXXcentury.Someofthem*:

Characteristics MassSociety NetworkSocietyMainComponents Collectives IndividualsNatureofcomponents (predominantly)

Homogeneous(predominantly)Heterogeneous

Scope Local ‘Glocal’(globalandlocal)Centralization High LowTypeoforganization Bureaucracyvertically

integratedInfocracyhorizontallydifferentiated

KindofMedia Broadcastmassmedia Narrowcastinteractivemedia

Numberofmedia Low High

Althoughmanysuchcompaniescanseevalueinadheringtoweb2.0communities,itisveryhardtochangetheirownstructuresformanyreasons,suchasembeddedcompanycultureandlackofproperhumanresourcestodevelopWeb2.0initiatives.

Additionally,itisinterestingtodiscusswhycompaniesdevelopbrandsinthefirstplace,tounderstandanotherreasonwhycompaniesareslowintogettingconversationwith“prosumers”further.DavidAakerquotesStephenKingfromcommunicationsholdingWPPonthissubject:

“Aproductissomethingthatismadeinafactory;abrandissomethingthatisboughtbyacustomer.Aproductcanbecopiedbyacompetitor;abrandisunique.Aproductcanbequicklyoutdated;asuccessfulbrandistimeless.”

Developingsustainablecompetitiveadvantageanddifferentiationarepossiblythemainreasonsforbranddevelopment.Todoso,marketersoperatejustlikethecreatorsofcomicbooks,moviesandtvseries.Marketersinvest(alotof)timeandmoneytocreatemeaningforsomething(i.e.theirbrands).Theycreateapersonallityforthebrand,developbrandvalues,thinkaboutthemarketsituation,thehumancontextinwhichitwilloperate,andtheycreateaworldinwhichabrandisalmostalivingentity.Lynx,forinstance,createdaworldinwhichyoungmales’fantasiescometrueandtheygetthegirlbyusingthedeodorant;MasterCardcreatedaworldinwhichcreditcardsareameanstolivepricelessmomentsandnotjustbuygoods.

Whenindividualsbegintodevelopnewstoriesusingcharactersandworldsthatarecopyrightedmaterial,itispossiblethattheydevelopstoriesthatarenotinlinewithintentionsoftheoriginalauthors.Withbrandsthereisthesameconcern,withtheadditionalproblemthatitismorecommonforpeopletomanifestthemselvesparodyingbrandsinanegativewayratherthanotherwise.Astheworkofanyonecanspreadincredilyfast,itispossiblethatacreationfromasinglepersonreverberatesdramatically.Itsimpactcanbeexponentiallyincreasedwhendifussedanddiscussedinsocialnetworks,blogs,podcasts,wikisandsocialbookmarkingsites,spawningnewversionsandcomplementaryworkasitslife‐cycleprogresses,potentiallydamagingthebrandequity,justlikethecaseinwhichGMaskedconsumerstomakeacommercialforit’sTahoeSUVandmanyconsumerstookthechancetovoicetheirantipathytosuchvehicle.

Asfinalobstacle,web2.0businessmodelshavenotrackrecordinmanyindustries,sotheprofitabilityofmakinglarge‐scaleparticipatoryeffortsareuncertain.IsitworthtryingtobecomeacompanysoinnovativeandrespectedasGoogle,ifthewholebusinessmodelhastobechanged?

Thetaskofgettingmanycompaniestocompletelyacceptideaslinkedtotheweb2.0(aswellastheotherwayaround)isverydifficult.Therearegoodreasonsfrombothsidestokeepacertaindistance.Thematterofcontroloveritsintellectualpropertyandmonetizationofitiscentraltomarketers,thesearchforfreedomandcollaborationiscentraltoindividuals.

Companiesmaynotlikeit,consumershavetheupperhand,fortheyarekeystakeholders.Withouttheircontribution,companiesandbrandsdon’texist.Therefore,associetymovestowardsthedirectionofcreating,adaptinganddistributing,marketershouldadapt.InwritingthisarticleIthoughtof4waysinwhichcompaniesmaybehave.Nottheonly4,I’msure,buttheyareastart:

1) Itmightbethecasethatnoteverybrandissuitabletobeleveragedbycollaborativework,forthechangesneededtodosowouldmakethemcommercialyunviableandjustpretendingtobe2.0canhaveundesirableoutcomes.Inthiscase,thebrandshouldn’ttrytotravelthe“web’s2.0road”.

2) Themajorityofbrands,however,needtogetintothisarenaandfacetheincredulityofsomegroups.Ifthebrandislovedinthe“offlineworld”(e.g.Lego),itislikelythatgoodsolutionsarepossibleandinthemediumtolong‐termrevealthemselvesashighlyprofitable.Ifthebrandsarecommoditizedthisisanopportunitytodifferentiateitselfandgainvalue,buttheworkislikelytobeharder.Persistanceandconsistencywouldhavetobepriority.

3) Companiescanstartcreatingnewbrandsthatarebornwiththespiritofweb2.0,inordertobeacceptedanddon’tfeelthepressureofcompanycultureasmuch.Suchbrandsmighteventuallyenterthesegmentsoftheowncompanies’establishedbrandsandreplacethem.

4) Analternativeapproachforbrandswouldbethatofcreatingweb2.0platformsthatgeneratedemandfortheirproducts,insteadofre‐inventingitcompletelyfromscratch.IfKodakorNikonhadhadtheideaofcreatingFlickrorSonytheideaofcreatingYouTube,forinstance,they

wouldhavegainedanoutstandingamountofcredibilityandpossiblybusinessamongcontentgeneratingusers.

Todecidewhichwaytogo,companiesmustfirstunderstandandaccepttherulesthatconsumersareadheringto.Brandmanagersanddirectorsshouldkeepbotheyesinwhattheirconsumersaredoingwiththeirproducts,somemightbehavingexceptionalideasandpostingtheminsomesmall,obscureforums.Manymaybeadoptingnewvaluesandbeginningtodemandnewattitudesfrombrandstheybuy.Knowinghowtoevaluatethesechangesandideasmaybethedifferencebetweenhighlyeffectiveinitiativesandcompletelyirrelevancyofthebrand.Acknowledgingthepossibilityofchangeandexperimentingwithitwillbekeytolongtermsurvivalofanumberofbrands,aswellastheirparentcompanies.It’sdifficult,butinteresting.

*‐Dijk,J.v.(2006,pg.33).NetworkSociety.ThousandOaks,California,USA:Sage.