What impact has technology had on the way companies are branded and marketed?
As technology develops and the capabilities of digital means improve, companies are constantly changing and adapting their branding techniques to ensure that they are current and successful. Technology has had many negative and positive aspects on the way companies brand and market themselves; the rise of social media, use of data, email marketing and other digital aspects have all had a direct impact. This essay aims to highlight these advantages and disadvantages of these aspects, in order to identify how important it is for companies to use and understand technology successfully.
Social media has had many positive aspects on the way companies brand themselves. Today, 65% of online adults use social networking sites (Madden, M & Zickuhr, 2011). Whilst social networking platforms, such as ‘Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have generated perhaps the most publicity’ (Schivinski & Dabrowski, p3), they are merely a small area of the overall picture; social media also includes a huge variety of other digital areas - blogging, video and photo sharing, RSS and podcasts are just a few.
In one aspect, social media has had a hugely beneficial role on how companies are able to market themselves, as there are millions of new potential customers online that can be targeted. Siddiqui and Singh support this by highlighting that social media ‘helps to enhance market insight and stretch out beyond [companies] rivals with online networking’ (2016, p3). Companies can use online platforms to promote their products in a way that could never be achieved through traditional media; as opposed to digital media, traditional media brings a multitude of challenges, including a ‘large amount of valueless contacts, high expenses, and the diminishing impact related to the changes of media behaviour and the digital revolution’ (Karjaluoto 2010, 108-109). Therefore, in a way, social media has had a positive impact on how companies brand and market themselves.
The main problem with social media, however, is that companies must be as proactive as possible online to keep up a strong, positive reputation. In Social Media: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Colivec & O’Connor explain that a ‘firm’s social media actions may directly “feed the funnel” by bringing in prospective customers’(2016, p129). Whilst social media can be used as a platform to boost a company’s customer base, it can also be neglected, or wrongly used, to damage a company. Colivec further states that ‘social media actions affect brand equity, with the relationship mediated by brand awareness and willingness of consumers to recommend the brand through word-of-mouth’ (2016, p129). There is a downside to social media that should not be underestimated.
With social media, customers have the ability to say negative things about a company. A poor customer experience online could ultimately weaken a company’s brand image, online and offline. Bob Kelleher makes a point that strongly sums this up – ‘Unless you take control of social media, you risk social media taking control of you’ (2013). To highlight this, two examples have been analysed which emphasise how the misuse of social media can have a negative outcome on a brand.
The most recent evident example of social media misuse is Ten Walls’ homophobic Facebook post. Ten Walls is a producer who blew up after releasing a track named ‘Walking With Elephants’ in 2014 – it has racked up over 8 million plays to date. On June 3rd 2015, The Lithuanian producer posted a homophobic rant on his personal Facebook account, classing LGBTIs as “people of different breed”. One paragraph stated:
“I remember producing music for one Lithuanian musician, who tried to wash my brain that I don’t need to be so conservative and intolerant about them. When I asked him ‘what would you do if you realized that your 16-year-old son’s browny [anus] is ripped by his boyfriend?’ Well he was silent.”
Gay Star News publication picked up on the comments and posted an article on their site. Reposts on various social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, caused the story to go viral worldwide, and as a result, huge festivals, such as Creamfields, Pitch and many others, removed Ten Walls from their lineups. Today, Ten Walls has made a slight return; however, his reputation is still damaged. Whilst social media has had a positive impact, with his music becoming widely known through promoted posts and shares, it has also had a huge, long-lasting negative impact on his brand image as a whole.
Another example that highlights how social media can have a negative aspect on a company is the #McDStories campaign, which launched in 2012. As opposed to the Ten Walls situation, this was initially a positive marketing strategy that resulted in a very negative outcome. The concept, according to Forbes, was to ‘inspire heart-warming stories about Happy Meals’(2012). However, the result ended in an overload of tweets that completely went against the main aim.
The Los Angeles Times reported that the campaign was pulled within two hours, yet Twitter users continued to use the hashtag for much longer. The fact that this campaign was turned on its head without any of McDonalds’ doing highlights how carefully social media should be used. Overall, social media has had a positive impact on the ways companies are able to brand and market themselves. However, it is clearly very important that companies must understand how to use social media platforms to ensure that no negative repercussions are caused.
Alongside the impact of social media, technology has provided an entire new resource for companies – access to user data on a global level. McDonald and Adam, two American marketing professors, emphasise that ‘the use of the internet as a medium, and the World Wide Web as an evolving technology has made it less costly and allowed marketers to get information - both of low quality and high quality - more quickly and easily than ever before’ (1983).
Before the birth of the internet and ability to record data digitally, companies had much less of an insight into their customer base and important statistics / demographics. Today, “data-driven marketing” is the common-known strategy taken, where companies gather data and use it to meet their marketing goals. The types of data collected can vary hugely depending on the company’s end marketing goal.
Social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, gather information, such as ad clicks, email addresses, phone numbers, profile information, IP addresses and many other aspects. Companies are able to buy this information to improve their marketing strategies on such sites. Christian Fuchs, a professor of social media, highlights:
‘Facebook surveillance creates detailed user profiles so that advertising clients know and can target the personal interests and online behaviors of the users. Facebook sells its prosumers as a commodity to advertising clients; their exchange value is based on permanently produced use values, that is, personal data and interactions’ (2011)
The data bought by companies can be used to find out about specific statistics and demographics regarding their customer base. Information on ad clicks, post engagement and other factors all have direct impacts on future marketing strategies taken. In this sense, data technology has made the marketing process for companies much more efficient and fact-driven.
Yet, despite the very clear benefits of “data-driven marketing”, the ability to access data has made competition between companies much more challenging, as online marketing strategies must constantly be updated and reconsidered to ensure success. EY, a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services supports this, by highlighting that ‘the idea of data creating business value is not new, however, the effective use of data is becoming the basis of competition’ (2014).
One company that stands out with its extremely considered use of data is Amazon. Opposed to how some of the large social media companies that sell off information regarding their users, sites such as Amazon predominantly use the data they have collected to improve their marketing and platform. According to BloomReach’s 2016 State of Amazon report, ‘better personalization would make 2 in 5 consumers more likely to buy from a retailer over Amazon’(2016).
Essentially, this indicates that 40% of people prefer to buy from Amazon, purely because they have implemented their data into the shopping experience, to ensure that the content is personal and appropriate to users. In an industry report on Amazon, Greg Linden, Brent Smith, and Jeremy York explain how they used technology to make their platform superior to other shopping sites:
‘At Amazon.com, we use recommendation algorithms to personalize the online store for each customer. The store radically changes based on customer interests, showing programming titles to a software engineer and baby toys to a new mother’ (2003).
According to the BBC, Amazon has recently initiated dynamic advertising, where ‘rather than just directing pre-made clips at targeted audiences, Amazon aims to make its adverts more effective by creating them on the fly, tailored to each user's interests’(2016). This is done by using templates that can be altered in real-time by the company's algorithms. Today, ‘approximately 9 in 10 consumers will check Amazon even if they find a product they want on another retailer’s site’. In this aspect, it is extremely clear that technology has, and can have, a huge impact on companies when it is combined with clever marketing initiative.
In terms of branding and marketing combined, another successful example of how data can be used to drive a campaign is seen by Spotify’s 2016 campaign, which has the tagline "Thanks, 2016. It's been weird”. According to Business Insider, ‘different versions of the ads, which [were] rolled out across 14 markets, contain localized messages from Spotify, driven by data from listeners and pop-culture topics relevant to events from 2016’(2016). By analysing the data of millions of users, Spotify were able to find unique pieces of information that could be developed into a tongue-in-cheek advertising campaign. One UK billboard example reads: "Dear 3,749 people who streamed 'It's The End Of The World As We Know It' the day of the Brexit Vote. Hang in There”.
Seth Farbman, the head of Spotify’s marketed explained that ‘there has been some debate about whether big data is muting creativity in marketing, but we have turned that on its head. For us, data inspires and gives an insight into the emotion that people are expressing’ (2016). The campaign was hugely successful, and really highlights how technology has impacted the possibilities companies have when marketing and branding themselves.
Relating back to the aspect of data being sold by social media sites, whilst the ability to buy data allows companies to understand their customer base and get an insight into specific audiences, there are many associated privacy issues that come with data collection. Garcia-Alfaro and Lafourcade explain that ‘Facebook does not take adequate steps to protect user privacy’ – it ‘is a good target for researchers, governments, marketers and hackers’ (p3). In one essence, selling data allows companies to make a substantial profit that can then be spent on the development of their branding and marketing. Profits can also be used to fund the purchase of data from other companies too.
Steve Faktor, a digital commerce expert, argues that selling data ‘might do more damage than the pocket change it’s likely to bring in’, emphasising that ‘not selling data also applies to large companies, not just startups’ (2014). The main point that Faktor makes is that ‘personally identifiable information can be valuable, but it leaves a trail. If the buyer proves unscrupulous or sloppy, it can permanently alienate customers and cripple your brand’. Selling lucrative information can really damage a company’s reputation. There are many laws in place regarding privacy and data information being sold; therefore, companies must be careful if they wish to even consider selling collected data. All-in-all, it is evident that data has its pros and cons. Whilst it can be used to produce successful, direct marketing campaigns, it can also be used incorrectly to damage a brand and further the success of a competition company.
To truly judge the impact that technology has had on the ways companies brand and market themselves, one must look back at how branding and marketing was completed in the past – before digital possibilities existed.
In terms of marketing, the main benefit that technology has brought to companies is the ability to advertise to a much larger target audience. According to Eric Brantner, an online blogger, ‘46% of the world’s population is now online — 3.4 billion people’ (REF). Brantner’s graph highlights how there are over 3 billion users online today. This is a huge target audience for companies – one that was non-existent before the digital age. Without the Internet, companies would have previously had to advertise themselves through the use of printed media, such as newspapers, magazines, flyers, billboards etc. Whilst these methods of advertising were successful, it was much more difficult to find out about specific statistics and demographics. Meredith Davis strongly supports this point, highlighting that ‘it quickly became apparent that interactive media held the potential for bigger and better things’ (2012, p209).
Alongside the ability to create websites and use data, one aspect that has not been discussed is the effect that emails have had on the way companies market themselves. Before the digital age, companies had to notify their customers through the use of flyers, newpapers, paper ads, billboards and word-of-mouth. With email marketing, companies can now immediately contact their current customers, and also reach out to new potential customers, through the use of collected data. Renown email marketing company GetResponse emphasise that ‘regular email marketing to existing customers generates a 15 – 50% increase in total online business’ (p3).
Fariborzi and Zahedifard support this point that email marketing has been hugely beneficial, as they explain that companies can ‘easily find the number of E-mails sent, number of E-mails that have been opened and that those who have opened up, the number of people who are not registered, and click rate’ (2012). Emails can be personalized to customers and are immediate to send out. In this sense, the advancements in technology have given companies a much more efficient, direct option to get in touch with their customer base.
Despite the clear positive impacts of email marketing, there are some identifiable disadvantages. The main negative associated with email marketing is spam, and the over-frequent saturation of emails sent to consumers. Companies that send out too many emails, or emails that are resultantly filtered, end up in spam folders – which are mostly deleted and never read by consumers. Abusing certain spam regulations can also result in legal trouble, which would impact a company’s reputation hugely (Forneris, 2011)
Whilst Fariborzi and Zahedifard earlier supported the use of email marketing, they do agree that email marketing can have a negative impact on companies. They explain that ‘when an E-mail gets through to the consumer, there is so much E-mail that needs to be looked at sometimes it is difficult for the individual to distinguish between solicited and unsolicited E-mail, as well as have time to read through’ (2012). In this aspect, the use of technology can have a negative impact on the success of companies, as traditional marketing methods were less frequent and more engaging as a result. It is therefore very clear that a fine balance must be made when using email marketing, so that a positive reaction is received by the consumer.
Despite advancements in technology affecting company marketing, the way in which companies brand themselves has stayed fairly consistent. Today, whilst logos and branding campaigns are almost entirely digital, the overall image of brands has not changed dramatically since the days of purely traditional media. To highlight this, the history of Coca Cola identities has been analysed as an exampled. As seen, the logo created in the 1900s is still used to this day. This is essentially because a consistent brand image is imperative to a successful company. Rama Moahana Rao makes a crucial point that ‘the key to creating a brand is the ability of a service company to choose attributes such as name or logo that identify the service and distinguish it from others’ (2011). As indicated by the development of the Coca Cola identity, consistency is key when keeping a brand trustworthy to consumers. Technology has had an impact on the way in which companies brand themselves; however, it has had much more of an impact on the strategies taken through company marketing.
Overall, technology has had a massive impact on the way in which companies brand and market themselves. Despite competition becoming much more challenging with the rising increase of companies online, there is a huge online audience that traditional marketing methods could have never even touched upon. Abilities to acquire online data and analyse social media statistics give companies a much stronger ability to understand their customer base, and therefore create more informed, fact-driven campaigns. Whilst, emails have efficiently improved the way in which companies are able to contact their consumers.
As it is easy to get caught up in the digital age, it is still very much important to consider traditional methods, as they are still very effective. Particularly in the sense of branding, it is crucial to remember that a strong brand image is the fundamental underlying basis to a successful company. Even if a company is technologically up-to-date with the latest, marketing strategies, it will not be successful in the long-run if its brand image is weak. In this sense, whilst technology has had a huge impact on the way in which companies brand and market themselves, it is not necessarily the most important aspect to consider.
Bibliography:
1. 65% of online adults use social networking sites. 2011. Madden, M & Zickuhr. Available at:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/08/26/65-of-online-adults-use-social-networking-sites/
2. The Effect of Social Media Communication on Consumer Perceptions of
Brands. 2015. Schivinski, B and Dabrowski, D. Available at:
http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/26435/1/3908_Schivinski.pdf
3. Social Media its Impact with Positive and Negative Aspects. Siddiqui, S and Singh, T. Available at:
http://www.ijcat.com/archives/volume5/issue2/ijcatr05021006.pdf
4. Branding in Social Media and the Impact of Social Media on Brand Image. 2016. Tomi Jokinen. Available at:
https://publications.theseus.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/105658/Jokinen_Tomi.pdf?sequence=1
5. Social Media: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 15th IFIP WG 6.11 Conference on e-Business, e-Services, and e-Society, I3E 2016, Swansea, UK, September 13–15, 2016, Proceedings.
6. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Social Media. 2013. Kelleher, B. Available at:
http://employeeengagement.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/GoodBadUglyofSocialMediaWhitePaper.pdf
7. #McDStories: When A Hashtag Becomes A Bashtag. 2012. Kashmir Hill, Forbes. Available at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/01/24/mcdstories-when-a-hashtag-becomes-a-bashtag/#4c69637e193f
8. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. 1983. McDonald, H and Adam, S. MCB UP Ltd
9. The Political Economy of Privacy on Facebook. 2011. Fuchs, C. Available at:
http://fuchs.uti.at/wp-content/uploads/polec_FB.pdf
10. Insights on governance, risk and compliance. 2014. EY. Available at:
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY_-_Big_data:_changing_the_way_businesses_operate/%24FILE/EY-Insights-on-GRC-Big-data.pdf
11. State of Amazon 2016. 2016. BloomReach. Available at:
http://go.bloomreach.com/rs/243-XLW-551/images/state-of-amazon-2016-report.pdf
12. Amazon.com Recommendations. 2003. Linden, G, Smith, B and York, Y. Available at:
https://www.cs.umd.edu/~samir/498/Amazon-Recommendations.pdf
13. Amazon tests personalised video ads. Kelion, J. 2016. Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36773409
14. Spotify says: 'Thanks 2016, it's been weird,' in its largest ad campaign yet. 2016. Business Insider. Available at:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/spotify-global-ad-campaign-signing-off-2016-2016-11
15. Facebook: Threats to Privacy. Jones, H and Soltren, J. 2005. Available at:
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/student-papers/fall05-papers/facebook.pdf
16. Never Sell Data. 2014. Forbes, Steve Faktor. Available at:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevefaktor/2014/03/25/never-sell-data/#6dcc2bda11b9
17. Over 46% Of The World’s Population Is Now Online. 2016. Brantner, E.Available at:
https://www.scribblrs.com/46-worlds-population-now-online/
18. Davis, M. 2012. Graphic Design Theory. London: Thames and Hudson
19. Email Marketing Secrets Guide. GetResponse. Available at:
https://support.getresponse.com/uploads/2011/07/Email_Marketing_Secrets_Guide.pdf
20. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, Vol. 2, No. 3, June 2012 232. Farborzi, E and Zahedifard, M.
21. The Disadvantages of Email Marketing. Forneris, J. Available at:
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-email-marketing-3472.html
22. Rama Mohana RaoService, K. 2011. Operations Management.
