Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Brand

What the TweetDeck Acquisition by Twitter Really Means in 5 Simple Bullet Points

Just yesterday, I published a post here on the Corporate Eye blog about predictions related to Twitter ad spending over the next year. In that post, I wrote the following:

“Twitter’s recent focus on tightening the reins on third-party apps and acquiring popular properties like TweetDeck are an indication that Twitter is actively looking for ways to monetize the site beyond the standard timeline interruptions. These steps are also likely to provide even more demographic and behavioral data about users, which can boost ad targeting and returns for advertisers.”

Today, I want to dive a bit deeper into the future of the Twitter brand given its recent focus on third-party apps and Twitter’s acquisition of TweetDeck.

There are a number of reasons why increasing restrictions and control related to third-party app development are important to the Twitter company and brand. Those are the same reasons why Twitter purchased TweetDeck for a rumored $50 million (for now the TweetDeck team will stay unchanged in its London location). Remember, this is a business. At the end of the day, it all comes down to sustaining and growing the business over the long-term, and that depends on money.

So what does the TweetDeck acquisition by Twitter really mean? Here it is in five simple bullet points:

  1. Twitter needs to continue to find ways to monetize the site above and beyond the advertising currently allowed. TweetDeck offers such an opportunity.
  2. Twitter needs to have more control over its users’ actual usage, demographic and behavioral information. TweetDeck users don’t have to visit Twitter.com at all, which means their data is out of Twitter’s reach.
  3. Twitter needs to have access to more of its users’ daily Twitter-related activities. Again, TweetDeck users don’t visit Twitter.com, which is a big missing link for Twitter in terms of marketing, audience segmentation, advertising sales, and more, particularly since many TweetDeck users are considered to be power Twitter users (i.e., the most active and influential Twitter users).
  4. Twitter needs to keep third-party apps that keep users from actually visiting Twitter out of the hands of potential competitors. In the case of the TweetDeck acquisition, that potential competitive threat was UberMedia, a company that develops third-party Twitter apps and services.
  5. The Twitter brand needs consistency across user experiences. Acquiring TweetDeck is a step in the right direction toward developing a more consistent brand perception across touch points.

What do you think? Will Twitter’s strategy work in the long-term? It seems to me that they’re moving in the right direction, but with the fast-changing web audience, it’s hard to predict if their efforts will work. Leave a comment and share your thoughts about the future of Twitter and the Twitter brand strategy.

Image: TweetDeck.com

The State of Online Video Advertising

What do media, publishing, and marketing executives think about the world of online advertising in 2013? What are the biggest opportunities and challenges?

These are just a few questions answered during the Video Ad Effectiveness Summit. Will Richmond of VideNuze sat in on the day’s sessions and published an excellent summary of the key points discussed on the VideoNuze blog.

Richmond found three themes that carried through all discussions and among all executives, which he shared on VideoNuze. You can follow the link above to get all of the details, but to briefly recap, Richmond identified the following three themes from the discussions:

  • It’s still difficult to measure ad effectiveness across multiple screens.
  • CMOs value the security of television advertising and still want measurable proof that online video advertising is effective.
  • Experimentation is critical to learning more about online video advertising.

I thought these insights were particularly interesting given the findings in the comScore study about online display advertising that I wrote about on Corporate Eye earlier in the week. That study revealed that more than half of display ads aren’t viewed at all. For increased viewability, video advertising was suggested as a viable alternative to increase viewability.

All of these studies and discussions can be summed up briefly as follows: Everyone is interested in online advertising but no method is close to perfect. Just as advertisers can’t truly measure the results of most television ads, they can’t always truly message the results of many display ads and video ads online. The tools have evolved and consumers have more screens to view branded messages, but tracking isn’t completely accurate for any medium.

What’s a marketer to do? Refrain from online advertising? Keep investing in television advertising because it’s the safer investment (i.e., everyone is familiar and accepting of its ROI limitations)?

For executives, the problem comes down to a weighing of risks versus rewards. No executive wants to be the one who makes the decision to shift advertising investments in great amounts to newer opportunities like online video. They’re excited about it but quick to cover themselves by saying it’s not proven and they’re not going to make any bold decisions related to it.

This failure to act spells opportunity for smaller companies that are more willing to take big risks and make leaps of faith to drive needed results. Online video is growing rapidly and brands that move too slowly will need to catch up eventually.

What do you think? Leave a comment below and share your thoughts about online video advertising.

Image: stock.xchng

When Trademark and Patent Litigation Damages a Brand

Trademark and patent protections are vital to brands, but is there a time when too many lawsuits (or threats of lawsuits) over trademark and patent infringements can start to negatively tarnish consumers’ perceptions of a brand and damage the brand? If you look at the history of Apple’s patent suits, the answer is yes.

Matt Assay of The Register shared the graphic below from Verizon (published by Forbes) that depicts the “insane” number of smartphone competitor patent lawsuits. However, from the average consumer’s perspective, most of these lawsuits go unnoticed and don’t affect their perceptions of the brands behind them.

Click the image to view it at full size.

smartphone patent lawsuits

For the average consumer, brands like Apple, Google, and Microsoft dominate the buzz about mobile tech lawsuits with short-term buzz about associated brands like HTC and Samsung popping up occasionally. Consumers hear about the big brands hiring employees to focus on trademark and patent litigation, and a natural progression of human emotion ultimately follows – when people start to root for the underdog. That’s where smaller tech brands can position themselves to carve chunks out of mobile tech market share.

When does trademark and patent litigation shift from protecting a company’s assets and brand equity to bullying and arrogance? Fortunately, social media buzz can help brand’s identify reputation shifts, but operating from a position of brand dominance and leadership often leads to brand arrogance, a topic I’ve written about before for Corporate Eye.

We’ve seen brand arrogance hurt brands in the past with Microsoft offering one of the best examples, but Apple has been heading down the same path of brand arrogance in recent years. Will consumers’ perceptions of the Apple brand (or other brands heading down a similar path) be so tarnished by perceived arrogance that they’ll turn to another brand? Will Apple (and other brands heading down the same path) recognize the problem and fix it before it’s too late?

Only time will tell, but demise by brand arrogance isn’t a new phenomenon. What do you think? Which brand do you think is too far down the path of brand arrogance to save itself? Leave a comment and share your thoughts.

Is There Hope for Yahoo?

I’m still holding out hope for Yahoo! I want this brand to find its way and live a long life. However, this brand continues to struggle and recent rumors of leadership changes don’t necessarily mean that the right changes will be made to sustain the brand.

This is a brand that has lost direction and is grasping at a host of straws to find a way to remain relevant and stay afloat. I wrote about keeping the Yahoo! brand alive here on the Corporate Eye blog in November 2010, and little has changed in the 7 months that have passed since then.

Is Yahoo! a display advertising company? A search engine? A media company? The company claims to be about personalized content, but that’s not necessarily the message that consumers are getting. The content on Yahoo! could be found on just about any other site, and the addition of content from Yahoo!’s network of contributors sourced from its acquisition of content mill Associated Content aren’t helping the brand’s reputation. Crowdsourcing is a viable strategy for media sites, but that crowdsourced content must match the brand promise. What is Yahoo!’s brand promise?

The big question about Yahoo! is this: why should people visit the site each day? The answer isn’t obvious in people’s minds. Their perception of Yahoo! isn’t clear and there are other sites that are the go-to places for the same type of content that Yahoo! offers. This is a challenging time for media companies, and if Yahoo! wants to be a content provider, they face the same battles that all media companies are facing. How to deliver content that audiences want in a way that makes them choose your site over other similar sites. It’s a tough nut to crack, and Yahoo! has its work cut out for itself.

The lesson to learn from Yahoo!’s struggle is this: don’t forget your brand promise and when the time comes to revamp your brand promise, be ready to commit to that brand promise even if it means making significant changes to the way you do business.

The online audience isn’t going to slow down, and Yahoo! is running out of time to catch up. What do you think the future holds for Yahoo? Leave a comment and share your thoughts.

Image: stock.xchng

Only 3 out of 10 Companies Have New Product Innovation Programs

innovation new product development ideaAccording to the 2014 Media Growth Study from Econsultancy, only three out of 10 companies actually develop new product ideas through formal innovation programs. However, nearly the same number of respondents to the Econsultancy survey also said that new product and service development is expected to be the most important driver of growth over the next two years. Furthermore, more than one out of two top executives also believe that their biggest-selling products three years from now have not been created yet. They haven’t even been invented yet.

In other words, innovation is critical to growth but companies are not effectively prioritizing innovation through strategic and tactical innovation programs.

The reason for this lack of innovation is unlikely to come as a surprise to brand marketers. As you might expect, the study respondents reported that four out of five new product ideas come from senior management. It’s hard for a company to be innovative when product ideas are being mandated by a small group of executives.

There is hope for improved innovation though. Nearly three out of four respondents to the Econsultancy study said that new product ideas come from customers, which is an important driver of innovation. The third most common source of new product ideas, according to this study, is the sales and marketing team. Nearly two out of three respondents indicated that new ideas come from the sales and marketing team.

Following are the stats from the Econsultancy study, which identify where survey respondents said new product ideas come from for their companies:

  • Senior management = 80%
  • Customer requests = 72%
  • Sales and marketing team = 62%
  • Competitors and market dynamics = 56%
  • Defined innovation program = 31%
  • Vendor and partner ideas = 30%
  • External consultant or agency = 14%
  • Other = 5%

With that said, the best innovation program should include the entire company and customers. It’s not enough to just set up an “Ideas” box in the lobby or ask employees to send in ideas at specific times throughout the year. Every department should be required to hold innovation meetings where ideas are allowed to form and grow. Google is well-known for its culture of innovation where employees are encouraged to come up with new product or product enhancement ideas constantly. Integrate innovation into every aspect of your company and make it a key component of your company culture, and new products will have a better chance of succeeding.

If the majority of your company’s new product ideas are coming from top executives, then your company has a problem.

Is your company innovative? Leave a comment and share your thoughts below.

 Image: Raja R.