Category 'News'

8 Results Showing

Why you should be fashionably late when spending money on 'trends'

Consumer Trends & Insight, Culture, General, Innovation, Insights, Media, News, Richard Edelman, Technology, Trust
IMG_0484[1]

February, finally. Is it safe to assume you’ve read up on your fair share of 2017 trends and know what ‘25 Things your Marketing Strategy Needs in 2017’? Good, it’s time to focus on three things of actual importance. As my colleague, Steve Rubel – chief content strategist for Edelman, points out here, there are three major inversions taking place as we speak, that all marketers and communications professionals need to be aware of (or probably already know and need to take seriously). Over the next few hundred words, I’ll attempt to add a useful, local filter on influence, attention and distribution.

February, finally. Is it safe to assume you’ve read up on your fair share of 2017 trends and know what ‘25 Things your Marketing Strategy Needs in 2017’? Good, it’s time to focus on three things of actual importance. As my colleague, Steve Rubel – chief content strategist for Edelman, points out here, there are three major inversions taking place as we speak, that all marketers and communications professionals need to be aware of (or probably already know and need to take seriously). Over the next few hundred words, I’ll attempt to add a useful, local filter on influence, attention and distribution.

 

On Influence

I probably heard the word influence more times last year than I have in my entire life, albeit mostly in the context of how much ‘influence’ some influencer had. Influence, as defined by Google is, “the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something, or the effect itself”. This definition is important to keep in mind as you develop plans and / or briefs to influence your consumers in 2017. Most important to note is that influence no longer simply comes from above, but predominantly through our peers. Although this is something that most of us haven’t questioned, we’ve never understood the value or impact of peer-to-peer communications in the same way we do now.

For the purpose of keeping this article under 700 pages, I’ll spare you my entire POV on influence and focus specifically on why it’s important for influencer marketing.

  • Own your program: So, you have a list of ‘influencers’, they all have big followings, and you want to do something with them. Stop. Wrong way. Go back. This happened and failed way too many times in 2016. This year, please start with the end in mind. Think about what you’re trying to achieve, what your consumers want, what they’re talking about and with who, understand the forces (today and tomorrow) that are impacting them and your brand and design a program accordingly. Then and only then should you consider casting it with the right people. Most importantly, make it measurable – maybe even throw in an old-school feedback loop. For more information, feel free to email me: linton@edelman.com.
  • Understand the rise of micro-influencers: and know that ‘peer-to-peer’ influence is not a justification to pay a fitness blogger with 1 million followers on Instagram your entire campaign budget to post an image you have no say over. Micro-influencers are classified as social personalities with 1,000 to approx. 10,000 (100,000 in the US) followers and more often than not, have deeper engagement and therefore actual influence over their communities than ‘mass influencers’ do. Their audiences generally act with more passion as they feel a greater sense of relatability and connection to the influencer.
  • Don’t forget that ‘influencers’ are practically their own people: with their own thoughts, opinions, pens and cameras. Don’t simply think of influencers as amplifiers of your brand’s message, but don’t go letting their ‘brand’ outshine yours. Respect their creative process and relinquish some control, align on outcomes and go forth and partner with them, you may even influence someone along the way.

Finally, I’ve listened to and read quite a few interesting perspectives on influence and influencer marketing, but none more so than this Digiday Podcast where Brian Morrissey talks with Digiday managing editor, Shareen Pathak and senior reporter, Sahil Patel on the ‘influencer bubble’ and the prediction that it just might burst this year. That’s not to say there isn’t a place for brands to work with independent third parties that genuinely impact the decisions their consumers make, just that in 2017, some things need to change. Give it a listen.

 

On Attention

Today, consumers are paying more attention to their limited attention and don’t just want to give it up to any ol’ brand, for any ol’ reason. Here are some things to think about if you want my attention:

  • We’re over gimmicks: Whether you’re a Pokemon GO fan or not, you can’t deny that in 2016, augmented reality was brought to the masses. In the same way, there were also great developments in VR, livestreaming and other immersive technology that made ‘shiny new gadgets’ more accessible than ever. I could sit here and throw out a load of stats and info about video consumption and all the coolest tech that we can expect, but what’s more important is what that means for consumers – access. Not only do they have access to great content that is being produced by all the biggest and best brands, but they have access to the equipment to make content (almost as good, if not better) themselves. And it’s this access in 2017 that means you need to start to think more practically about the application of new tech and the opportunity it offers to connect and interact with your consumers in new and useful ways. Think purpose and story first and make them some content they just can’t refuse; that either adds value to their lives or at the very least, their newsfeeds.
  • A good story isn’t told by robots and algorithms: Last year, there seemed to be a growing focus – almost obsession – with using the latest tech and tools rather than achieving business or marketing objectives. This year, it’s important to be careful not to focus too much on the tools, and think story / purpose / objective first. A bot might be an important component to a campaign, but it shouldn’t dictate it. We’re communications professionals, professional tellers of great stories, let’s not forget that every time some new technology is released or Facebook and Google get creative with math.
  • Respect access to their attention. They expect you to: Consider that your consumers expect brands to respect their attention, so don’t get too caught up in playing with tech for tech’s sake. It’s not so much that attention spans are getting shorter, but consumers are getting less forgiving of brands or waste their time and exploit their attention. Don’t be that brand.

 

On Distribution

Like anything, content doesn’t exist in a build-it-and-they-will-come type scenario. Almost more important than the story you must tell is how and where it’s found; and with the collision of technology and media, we see greater importance and power in the hands of platforms. Here’s what’s important to know when thinking about distribution:

  • Even the media is on social: Trust in media is at an all-time low, as it struggles to create the agenda. Here, Richard Edelman sums up the 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer findings and impact well:

“the media, the vaunted Fourth Estate in global governance, plunged in trust this year, distrusted in more than 80 percent of the countries we survey, to a level near government. Media is now seen to be politicized, unable to meet its reporting obligations due to economic pressures, and following social media rather than creating the agenda. Donald Trump circumvents mainstream media with his Twitter account, in this way seeming more genuine, approachable and responsive. Technology has allowed the creation of media echo chambers, so that a person can reinforce, rather than debate, viewpoints. In fact, 59 percent of respondents would believe a search engine over a human editor. It is a world of self-reference, as respondents are nearly four times more likely to ignore information that supports a position that they do not believe in.”

  • Community matters: What’s important to note about the above is that as trust in media declines, trust in community and actual ‘people like me’ continues to rise. And as marketers, it’s important to consider your consumers and their community in every interaction. Remember that social networks are open to institutions of all shapes and sizes but fundamentally exist to connect people. For this reason, when thinking about distribution, it’s critical to consider how your community may respond to any brand communication and whether there is (or should be) an opportunity for them to interact (or react).
  • Distribution is not amplification, it’s about planning: As easy as it can be, it’s important not to treat distribution as an afterthought, but start to consider it at the very outset of campaign planning. Thinking about distribution from the very beginning is critical for delivering good and effective ideas. Note: this is not a trend, it’s best practice.

If you only remember three things in 2017, remember these:

  • Want to create good content that is both entertaining and useful? Think a little differently and make use of the tech available to you – but don’t let the tech lead your story, it should play the supporting role – your consumers expect it if you want their attention.
  • Got a good story? Think about how and where your audience will hear it – and who they’ll hear it from. They trust their peers (and maybe even your staff) more than they trust the media, so think people and channel when thinking through distribution.
  • People are no longer influenced from above. So consider micro-influencers and don’t get caught up in the mass-influencer bubble.

Finally, I’ve been writing this article for longer than I really should’ve been. Every time I read an article or listened to a podcast that mentioned marketing and / or media, I’d change my mind or tweak my point of view on something. In 2017 (and every year) I encourage you to do the same. This is the year of greater access to tech, greater strength in community and the greatest decline of trust in media. Brands, marketers, agency people, anyone who reads this, this year, be curious and keep an open mind, but always keep your eyes on the prize.

Mike Baird does a "John Key” and quits politics

News, Public Affairs
sydney-220003

Despite his success in running Australia’s biggest state, outgoing New South Wales Premier Mike Baird, who announced his resignation today after nine years in Parliament, was never going to be a career politician.

Despite his success in running Australia’s biggest state, outgoing New South Wales Premier Mike Baird, who announced his resignation today after nine years in Parliament, was never going to be a career politician.

Baird, a former Sydney investment banker, carefully considered his future over the recent long Christmas break. He reflected on the highs and lows of his Government and also on the health challenges being faced by three members of his family.

Then he acted, putting his personal situation as a priority and announced his departure from State politics altogether from next week.

Baird leaves behind a government and state in strong financial shape. New South Wales is the leading economy in Australia with low unemployment, a significant budget surplus, a building and construction boom creating thousands of jobs and government infrastructure projects that will continue for two decades.

Baird took over the Premier’s job in 2014 from his friend Barry O’Farrell who resigned over not declaring a $3,000 bottle of Grange Hermitage given to him by a party donor.

Baird’s main competitor for the leadership at the time was Gladys Berejiklian, the ex-banker who did not stand in the end to preserve party unity and became Treasurer and a loyal Deputy-Leader.

A political moderate, Berejiklian has worked hard managing the financial fortunes of the state including overseeing a multi-billion dollar privatization program including the sale of New South Wales’ power assets. As a result, much of the money is being spent on roads, rail and other major projects to transform the state’s transport system.

A hard-working Minister, Berejiklian has the numbers to assume the leadership (she has already declared her candidacy) but there may be conservative candidates considering nominating for the job. The lay Party in New South Wales is factionally very divided between moderates and the hard and centre right groups so competition for all key positions can be expected. We will know the outcome next week.

Despite economic success, the Baird Government has had its problems, most of them self-inflicted.

Responding to public concerns about alcohol-related violence, it put in place regulations to limit late night trading hours for hotels, bars and entertainment venues in the Sydney area around the City of Sydney and Kings Cross. This effectively ruined many smaller businesses and upset people who would traditionally have been Liberal Party supporters. Only a growing wave of protests against the “Nanny State” saw the Government back down in late 2016, loosening the laws.

And in an almost dictatorial move, Baird personally moved to shut down the state’s greyhound racing industry that had been plagued for many years with bad practices including incidences of cruelty to dogs. Without warning many smaller trainers and owners in rural areas (again traditionally conservative voters) were contemplating financial losses including the closure of their businesses and livelihood. Once again, after much hand-wringing (and appalling opinion polls) the government softened its position.

Whoever wins the leadership contest next week the new Premier and government faces electoral challenges. Change will bring new faces into Cabinet and new approaches although the private-enterprise friendly complexion of the government won’t change. The next election is not due until March 2019.

What Baird’s surprise announcement today says that (like the recent departure of John Key as Prime Minister of New Zealand) good political leaders in the 21st century are not focused on longevity but doing what they set out to do then handing over to someone else to take over.

Just as in the corporate sector (with the shelf life of a CEO three years), politics is probably following that trend.

Turnbull shuffles the deck

Government Affairs, Health, News, Public Affairs
Aus_Parliament_Image

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has announced a minor re-shuffle of his ministry following the departure of Sussan Ley as Minister for Health earlier this month.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has announced a minor re-shuffle of his ministry following the departure of Sussan Ley as Minister for Health earlier this month.

Turnbull has moved quickly to replace Ley following a revelation of misuse of her parliamentary travel allowances and ahead of the return of Federal Parliament on February 7 and what is likely to be a robust political year.

The key appointment of former Industry and Innovation Minister Greg Hunt to the high-profile Health portfolio is the biggest news of the day.

Hunt is from Victoria and is a political moderate who is close to Turnbull. He is a highly-energetic and capable minister who was previously a successful Minister for the Environment. He negotiated the repeal of the unpopular carbon tax through Federal Parliament and was instrumental in Australia signing the Paris Climate Change Agreement in 2016.

Hunt has family connections to the health portfolio. His wife was a nurse and he regularly supports fundraising and awareness-raising efforts in his electorate of Flinders for juvenile diabetes and autism. His mother was bi-polar, so he has a strong affiliation with the impact of mental health issues on families.

As a moderate, while philosophically to the left, he will need all his negotiating skills to maintain spending levels in the traditionally high cost of the public health sector in the face of the Turnbull Government’s desire to cut expenditure and reduce the country’s rising deficit.

The other main portfolio change is to appoint Senator Arthur Sinodinos to the Industry, Innovation and Science ministry formerly held by Greg Hunt. A high-profile and well connected New South Wales Senator, Sinodinos is one of Turnbull’s closest advisers and parliamentary friends.

He was instrumental in seeing Turnbull succeed to the leadership of the Liberal Party in September 2015, deposing Tony Abbott and removing several right-wing members from the Cabinet.

While some question remains over Sinodinos in relation to his fundraising activities in New South Wales politics while Treasurer of the Liberal Party (which is still subject to an ICAC review), the Prime Minister has nevertheless appointed him to an important portfolio that includes Innovation, one of the key planks of the Coalition’s election campaign in 2016.

Senator Sinodinos’ old job of Cabinet Secretary will now sit within the Prime Minister’s office as a public service not elected position. Another key ally, Senator Scott Ryan, has been promoted to Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Cabinet while Ken Wyatt, the nation’s first indigenous House of Representatives Member has been made Minister for Aged Care and Indigenous Health recognising two of the key public policy challenges facing the Government. Conservative Michael Sukkar has been made Assistant Minister to the Treasurer.

While Turnbull has avoided major changes to his barely six-month-old ministry, we can expect these won’t be the last as the year unfolds.

The Prime Minister’s media statement can found here

Nic Jarvis – Head of Public Affairs – Edelman Australia

nic.jarvis@edelman.com

Explaining America

Government Affairs, Insights, News, Public Affairs, Reputation, Trade
United States flag blows in the wind

Last night’s election of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States not only stunned the pundits, but confirmed many of the trends we’ve seen in populist movements worldwide. It signifies the potential for dramatic change to come in American policy on issues ranging from foreign policy and immigration to the environment and health care. It appears America chose to turn inward.

Last night’s election of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States not only stunned the pundits, but confirmed many of the trends we’ve seen in populist movements worldwide. It signifies the potential for dramatic change to come in American policy on issues ranging from foreign policy and immigration to the environment and health care. It appears America chose to turn inward.

This was a declaration by working class white Americans, who have suffered a decline in living standard and fear for their future in a globalized world, echoing the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. It was a profound rejection of the establishment, especially of the mainstream media, which uniformly endorsed Secretary Hillary Clinton. Here are a few thoughts on the implications of the election.

Why this happened:

1. Inequality of Trust and Income Has Consequences — The 2016 Edelman Trust Barometer found that the informed public/elites (college plus education, top 25 percent of income, report significant media consumption) had much higher trust levels in institutions, than the mass population, particularly in the U.S. and UK (respectively). Income inequality correlates with trust inequality, with a 31 point gap between high and low income respondents in the U.S. on trust in institutions. Trump’s victory is a vote of no confidence in institutions and in the establishment.

2. Twitter Triumphs over The New York Times  Trump went direct to the people, mostly through his community of 14 million followers on Twitter. The mainstream media, notably The New York Times, broke stories on Trump’s non-payment of taxes, his failed Trump University and his questionable behavior with women. None of those stories ultimately were enough to change the tide. There was a near-universal set of editorial endorsements of Clinton. Trump used this disparity to his advantage, to claim media bias and unify his base of supporters. Social media coverage captured the angry tone of the country better than mainstream because it relies on a ‘person like me,’ doing away with the hierarchical in favor of the personal.

3. Genuine and Authentic Beats Intellectual and Measured — The short-form, speed and consistency of communication by Trump beat Clinton’s nuanced, detailed and long-form communication. Trump came across as more genuine, Clinton as less than transparent. Trump engaged directly with his community, Clinton spoke through the media in a careful and less frequent manner.

4. Advertising and Celebrities Hurt the Cause — The dominant advertising advantage of Clinton, with spending of 10 to 1 over Trump, reinforced the perception that she was trying to buy, rather than earn, votes. Her emphasis on negative campaigning, focused on Trump’s persona, instead of on economic issues, proved ineffective. The use of celebrity spokespeople may have rallied her base, but among swing voters it only exacerbated the feeling Clinton was part of the establishment, out to protect its own interests.

What must happen next:

1. Business in the Dialogue, Not Bystander — The temptation might be for business to use the Republican dominance in both Houses of Congress and in the Executive Office to seek less oversight in environment, financial services, and health care. This would be a mistake of monumental proportions, seen as the politics of self-interest. His Republican party can be deeply hostile to business. The need for Business to lead has never been more evident, whether on supply chain, pushing for free trade, or on immigration. CEOs should fill a leadership void, educating employees and their communities on issues such as trade while creating movements such as Starbucks’* 100,000 Opportunities jobs program.

2. Business Must Calm the Resentments — The election reflects a deep suspicion about the pace of change, the threat posed by globalization and the rise of the sharing economy. The Trump campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” is a simple line that relies on nostalgia. There must be a better explanation of the How and the Why, not simply the What. Any sense of cultural condescension must go away, in favor of a narrative that can be shared with employees and their families.

3. Recognize that Much of Your Audience Rejects Established Authority — The usual cultivation of academic experts and opinion leaders on issues is insufficient, if not counter-productive. We have to find voices who are believed by the average person, from long-tenured employees to passionate brand enthusiasts.

4. Consider the Impact of Nationalism and the Power of Local — We must recognize the rejection of long-accepted brands in favor of upstart locally sourced brands. National identity will be deeply important. The foreign companies seeking to prosper in the U.S. will have to emphasize their community involvement, training programs and local executive talent. There will be a much higher hurdle for brands from developing markets such as China.

5. Every Company Needs to Be a Media Company — Institutions are better served by going direct to end users, establishing a channel for direct dialogue and feedback. It is a world of many to one, not one to many. The predominant axis of communication is horizontal, that mass population relies on search and social, not mainstream media. Our content has to be short-form, shareable and with an opportunity for consumer generated response and engagement.

6. Truth Matters More Than Ever — In the campaign, there were several instances of exaggeration or part-truths. The hashtag #NeverHillary spread lies like wildfire. In a post-election context, there will be a need to prepare for similar pressure through social channels, best answered by passionate consumers and well-informed employees.

In January, in my essay on the findings of the 2016 Edelman Trust Barometer, I suggested that the Grand Illusion of the elites was coming to an end. The illusion was premised on three concepts: that elites had superior information, that elites were acting in the best interests of the mass population, and that someday a few in the mass population could become elites. The results of the Brexit vote and the U.S. election have confirmed the idea that the Pyramid of Influence, with elites at the top holding authority and influence, has been flipped on its head, with mass population now in control and wielding influence.

Historical context is vital. Many were concerned that the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 would provoke nuclear war with the Soviet Union; ultimately he reached a deal on nuclear weapons with Soviet leadership. The populist sentiment unleashed by Trump has unsettled minority and LGBT populations. We would be advised to remember this is a country of laws, with a three-branch government designed by the Founding Fathers to check any momentary popular impulse. As an American running a global business, I have faith in our system, in our Constitution’s mandate to the balance of powers. President Obama said this morning that “Ultimately, we’re still on the same team.” Gridlock will cause government to walk away from key issues, giving the private sector an opportunity to fill this void. Edelman employees should also get more deeply involved in volunteer work for non-profits, to take up some of these societal challenges. Together, it’s our time to lead.

Richard Edelman is president and CEO.

*Edelman client

Please update your browser.

This website requires Chrome, Firefox, Safari or Internet Explorer 9+