"helping the groundswell support itself" - jericho

(sorry this is a few hours late professor - I wrote the reflection in Word and then totally forgot to post it!!!)

ad campaign before fan input

          Out of these last readings in Groundswell I was particularly interested in chapter 8, “Helping the groundswell support itself.” In the traditional model of marketing and product promotion, the company was solely responsible for getting the word out there and ensuring customers were interested in their products. Oftentimes, companies do not actually need to spend as much effort figuring out what customers want when they are using social media to readily dish out their opinions.

•           I absolutely loved the example of CBS’ show Jericho and how the fans were so attached to the show that they actually rallied together to let the producers know they didn’t want it to be cancelled (their appeal was so extensive that many news corporations picked up on the story, for instance ABC News' article "Nutty Jericho Fans Make CBS Reconsider Cancelling Show"). I thought that the way Nina Tassler, the president of CBS, addressed their demands was expertly crafted. It was honest, insightful, and heart-felt all at the same time. Coming from a huge corporation where the big “muckey-mucks” often seem to live on different planet from the rest of us, that was huge. Here is a slightly shortened version of her post to the forum where fans were communicating:

the ad campaign after fan input

“Over the past few weeks you have put forth an impressive and probably unprecedented display of passion in support of a prime time television series. You got our attention; your emails and collective voice have been heard.. a loyal and passionate community has clearly formed around the show… But that community needs to grow… We will count on you to… recruit new viewers… On behalf of CBS, thank you for expressing your support in such an extraordinary manner. Your protest was creative, sustained, and very thoughtful and respectful in tone. You made a difference.”

          In my opinion this was an all-around win. The viewers got more episodes of their favorite show with the promise of more if they could get enough people interested, and CBS was able to save money by not having to try out new shows to replace one that was already clearly adored and with the clear possibility for expansion (and probably continued support and suggestions from real viewers – for free!).

          Li and Bernoff called this process a “supportive dialogue” which seems rather fitting – it goes back to their earlier point about talking with their customers, not at them. When corporations (especially huge ones like CBS that can seem aloof at best and down-right uncaring at worst) make an effort to engage in a dialogue with the customers and demonstrate that they do in fact care about their opinion, it really makes an impact. Unfortunately, the fans’ efforts were short-lived as those few extra episodes were the only to be aired before CBS did officially cancel Jericho. This time they released an official statement regarding the cancellation (probably a good idea since the backlash from the fan forum could have been quite unpleasant):

“The March 25th episode of Jericho will be the series finale. Without question, there are passionate viewers watching this program; we simply wish there were more. We thank an engaged and spirited fan base for keeping the show alive this long, and an outstanding team of producers, cast and crew that went through creative hoops to deliver a compelling, high quality second season. We have no regrets bringing the show back for a second try. We listened to our viewers, gave the series an opportunity to grow, and the producers put a great story on the screen. We're proud of everyone's efforts.” (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/24/us-jericho-idUSN2430060520080324)

the issue was so widely disucessed that
it even got a southpark parody!

          Again, I thought this was well-put (if a little more formal than the blog post, which is expected given the media change) and focused on the positive side of the issue while explaining clearly that they cannot run a show that does not have enough viewers, no matter how loyal the small fan-base is. This too is a lesson in the limitations of the groundswell – you can’t make other people like something they have no interest in. Even if all those huge Jericho fans got a bunch of their friends to try watching the show, if those friends didn’t like it in the first place, there would be nothing the fans could do. In my opinion the groundswell is wonderful in that sense – it does not circumvent our needs, it lives off them. Yes, it can create hype and interest that would not have existed without it, but if Mini Coopers were just bad cars, or the eBags of poor quality, no amount of hype can fix that. The groundswell is a great resource for companies with a real product that is actually needed (or at least desired) by their customers. 

          I was happy to discover, however, that CBS still had their website keep the Jericho page (until now even) where fans can watch all of the second season for free, even though the show has been off-air for several years now. It definitely shows their commitment to working with the groundswell and trying to appease their fan-base as best as they can while still being able to make a profit. 

Advertising the Groundswell - Esurance

                I have always been very interested in advertising – in particular the methodology with which advertisers use to lure customers in. What makes an ad “work”? For the most part, “coolness” is advertised (or at least an advertiser’s interpretation of coolness). In a reverse-psychology kind of fashion, it is possible to actually trace back what was considered popular at the time (to a certain extent) through what is being advertised. Take for example Esurance’s television advertisement:

                If some communications major a hundred years from now was studying us as a civilization, what would this ad tell them? For starters it brings out many facets of our culture from working out to cute animal youtube videos. Using familiar scenes is a very common advertising practice – it narrows in on the target audience (here, younger “hipper” American clients, the ad is for the “modern” world) – but it is the voiceover that just gets me. The advertisers have honed in on so many of the ideas discussed in Groundswell that I wouldn’t be surprised if they had read the book themselves. The company’s embracing of the groundswell in an advertisement shows just how important the concept of transparency is to modern clients. The narrative style invokes honesty by using a young man whose presentation, while fluid, does not appear overly scripted or complicated. He also does not belittle other companies but is still able to refer to them, while many ads have started to become almost cruel in their treatment of rival groups.

                Most importantly however, is what the ad chooses to focus on once it has passed the catchy intro – the company’s facebook page. The male narrator argues that the way you choose your car insurance should come from references by real people (not cartoon characters or fancy ads – ironic… yes, but effective nonetheless). The ad uses this more traditional form of persuasion to encourage viewers to view the more important form – the open facebook page, where anyone can post comments about the company. The television ad focuses on the positive reviews, but the actual page does not hide nor belittle the negative comments. In fact, every single comment is responded to by an Esurance employee (as was explained to a curious customer in the comment shown below). Even silly comments, like Osama who said “hi,” are replied to in a friendly and open manner. If someone has a complaint the reply message tells the person where to go to or asks if there is something they can do to help. The company also does an excellent job of monitoring this page (this must be someone’s entire job) so that replies are given almost immediately after a comment is posted on the page.

facebook.com/esurance

                Even the page itself uses a very direct image that exemplifies its decision to embrace the groundswell by saying “real customers. real comments. really.” The ideas portrayed in Groundswell have clearly become a crucial part of the American mindset in determining what companies to trust. Customers want great customer service, close relationships with the company itself, and access to accurate information. This exemplifies the “listening” and “talking” functions a company must now perform to be successful. And the facebook page is a completely free way for the company to get some insight as to how satisfied their customers are. Instead of relying on statistics and yearly income, they can see comments directly from customers that fully explain their experiences to make the company stronger and more successful in the future. 

Strategies for tapping the groundswell

                From reading Groundswell it becomes clear that one of the biggest issues for businesses trying to tap into the groundswell is how different it is from traditional business practices. Obviously there are other concerns as well, but for the most part all of those fears stem from the fact that business practices are just so different now. Why else is the fact that customers have easy access to communicating with one another such a great problem in the eyes of so many businesses? It is because this is a practice that they are simply not used to dealing with – a force they have not needed to invest much (or any) effort into before now.

                In my opinion the book does an excellent job in quelling the fears companies may have regarding this issue of newness. In part by simply separating each chapter into very coherent sections that lead from understanding the actual changes to learning how to work with them and put them to your advantage. In chapter four there is a really interesting table (pg. 69) that the authors made up to demonstrate the links between existing business practices and their groundswell alternatives – a decision which I think was integral in clearly setting up their main talking points in that chapter (and the rest of the book for that matter). They list research, marketing, sales, support, and development as traditional business functions that occur now, and matched those up respectively with listening, talking, energizing, supporting, and embracing. The concept of what each task does is very similar, except that the groundswell versions rely much more heavily on the customer’s input and customer-to-customer communications.

                For example, the difference between the traditional “development” and the new “embracing.” Companies are always trying to develop their products and make those things more marketable themselves so that more people will want to purchase them. Traditionally this has been done much more “in-house” and often with very intelligent and gifted individuals working on ways to accomplish this. But with the groundswell, this process does not need to be so cut off from the outside world. In fact, companies are encouraged to use their customers as a main resource to improve products and services. Companies have easy access to direct suggestions (or complaints that can lead to suggestions) from customers.

                From my point of view, this works out amazingly well for both sides. The customers have a say in what kinds of products and services are being offered so that they get exactly what they need. It also enables companies to greatly increase their profit margin if their products accurately reflect the changes that their customers demand. It does make for a pickier customer (one who wants everything personalized because they know companies are listening to them) but ultimately, I believe, happier ones in the end.