YOU ARE NOT A STORYTELLER
As you know, Stefan Sagmeister is always right ;D. In this case I humbly disagree, but it’s fun to watch anyway! Love every word of him…
(via @AGENTURGERHARD <3 )
Brands are starting to experiment with emotions
Thankfully, a lot of brands are starting to embrace their roles as content creators. Like an artist who has only just realised he has more colours in his palette than yellow, advertisers are now looking beyond trying to make people laugh (probably the hardest thing in the world) and are instead focussing on making people blue.
Most importantly, the reason why brands are trying to make us cry is because it actually works. Recent research has found that the most shared ads of all time are the ones which elicit the strongest emotions.
In fact, videos which elicit strong emotions from an audience, regardless of whether they’re positive or negative, are twice as likely to be shared than those which elicit a weak emotional response. They also result in a huge uplift in brand metrics. So if brands want their ads to go viral they should aim to make people cry or laugh rather than frown or smile.
Only problem is - as I said before - making people laugh is incredibly difficult. Humour, while one of the biggest drivers of sharing, is also highly subjective and does not cross national borders easily.
Probably you’re happy it’s Friday. So am I! Watch this! Happy weekend, tumblr. (me, still rolling on the floor, laughing) ^..^
“ You Didn’t Understand The Problem You Were Solving.”
That’s probably the main reason for every failed project. That’s my prayer: Why are you doing this? What keeps you up at night? What do you want your brand to be in the future?
This is what I’m talking about, guys:
"Recognizing the need for integration, Electrolux’s digital, trade, brand and product marketers worked together to create a cohesive experience from pre-purchase, to the purchase itself, to post-purchase service and beyond. To this end we eliminated silos between functions including marketing, sales, IT, consumer insight, and innovation and established “consumer experience teams” in each business and region.
These teams include consumer insight, brand, product, retail, digital, social, and consumer care specialists who now closely work together to create integrated consumer experiences and launch plans. We also moved responsibility for the post-purchase experience into marketing — all of the services, onboarding, registration, and add-on purchases and support that people receive after they buy.”
Image via http://digitalworksconsulting.com
This is probably the most interesting article on #mashable today: “Are We Coming to the End of SEO?”
"What are you hoping for when you search for something on Google?
Are you looking for a site that deployed every SEO tip and trick to game their way to the top of the list? Or a site that has relevant, reliable, authoritative content?
Most likely it is the latter, and it seems Google may want that too. If it happens to represent the antithesis of the results of good SEO, that’s just fine with Google. They don’t make a nickel on your optimized site and they are worried that users may become underwhelmed with their search results if the only links appearing above the fold are those not with the best content but with those deploying the most effective examples of chicanery we know as “SEO.”
When Google in 2013 stopped providing data about keyword popularity, this must have served as a shot across the bow of SEO. It signaled that Google wanted to put a damper on SEO because they had determined it was skewing the results in a way unhelpful to its users.
In the “old” days, SEO was a matter of stuffing your metatags with top keywords; then it became more complicated as Google continued to refine its search algorithm. The current state of SEO, in rather sober fashion, calls for “quality content,” no keyword stuffing, longevity of the domain, lack of duplicate content, a well-ordered site-map and other items more esoteric. Really, it’s become more about just building a great site with great (and focused) content. Phony inbound links are not supposed to cut it anymore, although sometimes this can slip by undetected.
SEO is a big industry. According to a site called State of Digital, 863 million websites mention SEO globally and every second 105 people search for SEO links on Google. Most of them seem to be looking for “services” or “companies,” which explains how there came to be so many SEO companies.
SEO is also an industry full of promises. Despite evidence to the contrary, many SEO mavens continue to insist they can fool the Google algorithm into getting your site - no matter what it is - higher in the rankings. That it is easy to see whether it works when you search for your own company makes it an appealing payoff. But the waters of SEO remain murky and it’s difficult to measure success of SEO in any meaningful way (in other words, even if you got to the top, did it improve your business or did you just accumulate a very high bounce rate?).
Now SEO may be going the way of Megalodon, a 100-foot shark rumored to exist but mostly accepted to have gone extinct a million years ago. If it isn’t functionally dead, it’s certainly in the sick-house. Google does not especially want the SEO industry playing games with its rankings, and what Google wants, especially in a case like this, Google gets.
Customers still ask for “top keyword” reports as if they have not read the news about the unavailability of it - perhaps because they believe that if you wish hard enough for a pony on Christmas, one will eventually find its way under the tree.
It isn’t going to happen.
Certain SEO principles should not be ignored, simply as a matter of site-hygiene. A well-organized, content-rich site is a good thing to have. But most other SEO tricks and tips have just a little bit (if not a lot) of snake-oil in the recipe. It sounds like a great proposition to a site owner: Drink a bottle of SEO and your site will zoom vigorously to the top of the heap. But too often, and partly because Google does not seem to want it to, it doesn’t work as advertised.
There is no good reason for Google to stop trying to stamp out SEO, because in effect, SEO damps the quality of search results for the user. Google is interested in the user - and, as you might have guessed already, it reduces the value of a paid AdWord link. Because Google AdWords is a form of SEO, which really is SEM (search engine marketing); in other words, you optimize your site’s Google performance by bidding on Google keywords whereby Google makes pretty much all of its money.
SEO is not going to get easier. It’s going to get harder and eventually will most likely be next to impossible - because Google’s algorithms are always a step ahead of the marketers trying to game them. And with no keyword reporting, a major support system for SEO has been, quite simply, taken away.
If you want to rank high on Google, build a good site and market it the best you know how. Just don’t expect SEO to be the answer to your traffic-related prayers because, increasingly, it won’t be.”
Agreed! So please, let’s stop the SEO madness.
Taken from: http://mashable.com/2014/07/15/death-of-seo/?
Such a good read!
When I’m advocating for the potential of brand storytelling, there’s one neuroscience study that I’m always tempted to reference, mostly because of this super-sexy tl;dr: Three in eight people love a brand more than their spouses or kids, all because of the story button in their brains.
Neuroscientist Dr. Paul Zak came to this conclusion by testing the amount of oxytocin—the emotion triggered when you’re hugged by a loved one—released in people’s brains when they’re asked about brands they claim to love. He also examined their levels of other emotional responses, measured by factors like heart rate and nerve twitches. When Zak asked questions about the brands, and then followed up with questions about a loved one, an interesting pattern emerged: When a person’s relationship with a brand was tied to a story, that respondent showed more love for a brand than a loved one.
Those were situations “such as the subject who loved his watch, which was handed down from his father, more than his girlfriend, or the man whose life-long love of the Seattle Seahawks measured as stronger than his love for his toddler,” wrote Fast Company reporter Rae Ann Fera.
I loved this study when I read it and was tempted to write about it, but a couple of details quelled my excitement: The three examples above were literally the only three examples. Dr. Zak’s sample size was only eight people. That’s a liberal arts school writing workshop, not a statistically significant sample size. The study was also commissioned by ad agency Oceanan, and that made the small sample size suspicious; after all, it was hard not to imagine they weren’t hoping for a result that would help them pitch what they sell (brand storytelling!). Plus, the name Dr. Zak kept making me imagine Zack Morris dressed in a lab coat.
Still, I haven’t been able to stop thinking—or occasionally talking—about that study since it came out in March, and it’s because I believe the results would have held up under further scrutiny. Honestly, I love my friends and family a lot, but I doubt they’d outrank the New York Giants if I took part in Dr. Zak’s tests. The same might even go for Miller High Life, which was a fixture of many crazy stories from my time at Sarah Lawrence College.
Still, both of those brands lucked into my love. My dad passed down his love for the Giants; Miller High Life was on sale at $6.49 per 12 pack in Stop & Shop for the entirety of my very exuberant sophomore year.
There is really only one type of company that creates this type of emotional response without luck: entertainment brands. I will dance ecstatically to the Pete and Pete theme song at my wedding. My future grandkids will be just as tired of me talking about The Wire as two-thirds of my current friends. Tolstoy and Wes Anderson will always bring me to a place of strange, pure glee. And all that goes back to great, entertaining stories that have forged a deep emotional bond in my mind.
I maintain that brands can compete in the entertainment game as long as they make adequate investments. After all, 90 percent of media is owned by six massive corporations—aka brands. People don’t prefer the content put out by media companies because of some inherent rule; they prefer it because it’s usually better and because people these companies to create material worth their time. Meanwhile, audiences are conditioned to expect brands to interrupt them with 30-second commercials they don’t want.
But the success of blockbuster hits like The LEGO Movie, magazines like The Red Bulletin and Porter, and viral sensations from Old Spice, Dove, and Chipotle show people will watch anything from anyone as long as it’s good. If we accept that premise, most brands are being held back because they’re failing in two crucial areas:
1) Making content that’s as entertaining as what media companies put out.
2) Finding ways to distribute that content effectively.
Ultimately, the fact that brands continue to fail in this way seems a little bit insane. After all, you can complete with anyone in entertainment if you give talented people enough creative freedom and resources, and you can build an audience for that content as long as you hire the right editors or producers. Both of those things are accomplished by spending money, and brands have a lot of money to spend in the pursuit to stay relevant.
You want your brand to be loved? Give creative, talented people the freedom to do their thing, and get out of the damn way.
Article written by https://joelazauskas.contently.com/