Every digital property is a platform for <X> to do <Y>.
This is important, and is at the heart of today’s Internet. It’s so important that I’ll write it down here again for your reference:
Every digital property is a platform for <X> to do <Y>.
Let’s break that down into its component parts.
‘Digital property’ sounds a bit vague and legalese. I prefer ‘digital asset’ myself, but the term most often used is ‘Web site’. Unfortunately, the concept I’m going for is bigger than ‘Web site’, so it’s not enough. A banner ad is a digital property. A Facebook account is a digital property. A URL, Twitter feed, RSS feed, email, or Yahoo Messenger status message are digital properties.
A platform is an enabling tool or technology. But you already knew that.
In marketing communications, the “to do” portion tends to express itself as “to communicate”. Agency people will interpret “<X>” as the client, while “<Y>” is the client’s message.
Every digital property is a platform for a client to communicate a message.
This would be easy if the Web followed the rules of engagement of the offline world, with media scarce and therefore expensive. But it doesn’t. A Web site costs peanuts to put up. You can sign up for an email address for free. Ditto for a Facebook or Twitter account.
The Web democratized communications by providing abundant, low-cost media for pretty much anyone to share a message. That means that every Tom, Dick and Harry with an axe to grind can be and are online, sharing with others their message of how much your client’s product or service sucks.
Every digital property is a platform for a disgruntled customer to communicate a message.
Traditionally, companies have struggled to drown out the noise of competing messages (other companies’ advertising) through a bigger media spend. But being louder than the competition only worked when media was scarce and the alternatives few and far in between. Today, shouting louder than the guys complaining about your service is a terrible strategy. Advertising your great service when many, many others are decrying it as terrible and overpriced makes you and your client look ignorant and foolish. You can’t move the needle when your market is pushing back.
Whether we like it or not, the burden is now on client and agency to be open to feedback and accountable for their actions. This is a huge paradigm shift.
When a service does not work as advertised, your client might not want to hear about it, but potential customers definitely do. Unfortunately, given the way clients and agencies are set up, it’s often the agency’s responsibility to monitor (and sometimes respond) to negative feedback, usually with scant preparation or resources.
Unfair to agency? You bet. But that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
I’m going to come out and say it here: working for a client who refuses to be accountable and open to feedback is trouble. This is as true in the ATL world as it is in the digital world, but it has more teeth in the digital world because of the nature of the Internet. Internet denizens bite back, and they know how to hurt a client – by savaging his credibility and reputation.
If, on the other hand, you can persuade your client that communication is no longer one-sided and that openness and accountability are the order of the day, his brand might just have a chance at flourishing online.
After all, the Web is a platform for a brand to communicate with its consumers. And vice versa.
