Karan Chadda

Global digital marketing and communications leader

10 quick-fire responses to Twitter’s 280 character trial

  1. Double the length, half the insight.
  2. I was going to write a short note, but didn’t have time so I wrote a long one.
  3. At least 100-tweet threads will be half the length.
  4. Sedentary thinking leads to bloated ideas.
  5. War with North Korea is now twice as likely.
  6. Less editing lowers quality.
  7. You’re not supposed to feed the trolls!
  8. If brevity is the soul of wit, Twitter’s soul is dying.
  9. We have double the characters to lament losing a sixth of our Jaffa Cakes.
  10. Too many tweets makes a tw*t (ht @David_Cameron).

Social media changes – summer roundup

 

What changed on social media over the summer? A fair bit. Brush up here.

LinkedIn decided to jump on the native video bandwagon.

Instagram began allowing verified accounts to add links to their stories.

Medium rolled out a partner programme, essentially a way to trial community publishing that pays.

Medium also decided to encourage applause.

Facebook dived into TV, sort of.

Facebook also took a tiny step toward stopping ads on pages that spread false news.

Facebook expanded marketplace, watch out ebay.

YouTube had a spruce up, the changes go beyond the logo.

YouTube also took its first step in social sharing within its platform.

Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube formed the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism. Not exactly The Avengers but it’s early days.

LinkedIn went Lite in emerging markets.

Google let people publish posts directly to search results.

Google+, yeah it’s still there, launched a discover tab.

No one cares about your diamond

In 1849 the Treaty of Lahore was signed. A 10 year old boy, who also happened to be the Maharaja of Punjab, lost his kingdom to the British government and a very special diamond to Queen Victoria.

The then Governor General of India, Earl Dalhousie, played a central role in obtaining the diamond. Once the treaty had been signed, he wrote to a friend declaring, “I had now caught my hare.”

Dalhousie believed, having captured one of the East’s most venerated gems, he was going to be a hero of the Empire.

When news spread of the Kohinoor’s arrival in Southampton, Britain was gripped. People clamoured to see what was, at the time, the largest diamond in world.

The first opportunity for people to see it was at the Great Exhibition. There was a great rush, but the crowds left disappointed. Newspapers reported that it didn’t really sparkle. It was overrated.

A lot work went into fixing Dalhousie’s gift.

First, the organisers cut off all natural light to the diamond and shone lamps upon it at specific angles. Reports came back that although its lustre was much improved, visiting the Kohinoor was a hot, close and arduous visit. Some viewers fainted.

It was then decided that the diamond be cut. In the process it lost almost half of its size, but it shone like never before. At last the diamond was fulfilled its promise. It went on to be set into jewellery and has sat in the crowns of three different queens.

What did Dalhousie get wrong? He misunderstood his market. In the East, the fashion with precious gems was to leave them as natural as possible so you could appreciate the beauty of nature’s creation. In the west cutting and polishing gems to bring out their lustre was the thing. It was about getting the most sparkle.

Dalhousie was mesmerised by his product, but he ignored the audience. They weren’t impressed. It’s an instructive lesson: he failed to understand his market so even the world’s largest diamond did not impress.

Do you know if you’re capex or opex?

The brutal logic used in accountancy is a useful tool for understanding where you fit in your clients’ eyes. If you understand how you’re seen, you can deliver a better service and achieve greater growth.

Take the concept of breaking expenditure down into two buckets: capital expenditure (capex) and operational expenditure (opex). Broadly speaking, capex is money spent buying, building or maintaining assets, and opex is money spent on running the company.

Why are these two definitions useful? They help you understand what a client sees when they buy your services.

Advantages and challenges

For instance, if you’re a law firm that specialises in mergers and acquisitions, then a client might see the money they spend on you as capital expenditure. It’s money they only spend because they’re building their business. If they stop investing in growth through acquisition, they’ll probably stop using you. If they delay investment plans, then your planned fee income will be delayed too. The advantages of capex are that it normally has specifically identified budgets associated with it and there is a clear business objective (e.g. buy that company).

However, if you’re a public affairs specialist working with firms in heavily regulated industries, you’re probably operational expenditure. Your clients will need a dialogue with legislators and regulators, either through you, your competitors, a trade association, internal capacity or some mixture of all of these.

The big advantage from opex is more stable and cyclically defensive income; you’re a necessary expense for the business. The challenges typically come from greater or more constant scrutiny: why does this service cost this much? Where can savings be made? Efficiency gains in opex tend to accumulate over time. If costs can be cut by 10%, then future costs have also been cut. It is a perpetual saving.

P&G’s $100m saving

Let’s take a real world example, Proctor & Gamble (P&G) recently cut its digital ad spend by more $100m and claimed to see no detrimental impact from the move. At the same time, P&G’s CEO said the company was investing in new digital capabilities.

In effect, that $100m is an opex efficiency saving, meanwhile capex on digital marketing continues. So some agencies will be growing their business with P&G, others will have lost a lot of income.

How do clients see your firm and how are you using that knowledge to plan and grow a stronger business? Contact us to have a chat about capex, opex and how marketing can help.

Four points of note from the CAP’s report on gender stereotyping within advertising

A lot has been made of the ASA’s announcement that it will more strongly regulate gender stereotypes in ads. Here are four points worth noting from the report.

1. Extending existing work

The report advocates an extension of the ASA’s existing work on gender. At the moment, ads that objectify or inappropriately sexualise women can be banned. The CAP report proposes formalising the framework in this area and extending it to look at gender in terms of:

  • Roles
  • Characteristics
  • Mocking people for not conforming to stereotypes
  • Body image

2. The public believes brands have a responsibility to ensure ads aren’t offensive or harmful

Reading through the qualitative research part of the report is a reminder that people are aware of the ubiquity of advertising and its power to normalise stereotypes and body image.

One participant is quoted as saying, “If you are seeing it all the time, you just get used to it… it becomes the norm doesn’t it.”

There is particular concern among the public in the way children and young people can be affected or even harmed by advertising. It is an issue brands should take seriously.

3. That responsibility extends to social media

The concern for children and young people extended beyond advertising into social media. Again, the qualitative research part of the report is revealing.

This comment, by a 15 year old girl in York really stands out, “Singularly, no but put together and seen on a daily basis then yes. Let’s say you follow Topshop on Instagram and you check it every day. You see that kind of picture every day. Then you get into that mindset that this is what you’re meant to look like. Especially if you see it from a young age. “

It’s a powerful reminder that the daily repetition of images and messages not only sells products, but also leaves a lasting impression on people.

4. It’s not censorship

While the mooted changes will alter how the ASA assesses ads, they don’t affect the process. People will still have to complain about an ad before the ASA will review it and issue its decision. The days of controversial ads are not over.