THINGS I SEE...

Firestarters and Twitter4Brands

This week has been a good one for information, and it hasn’t come from the usual internet links but actual real life interactions - out in the real world with real people. 

Wednesday was Google Firestarters where some of agency lands best thinkers addressed ‘innovation in agencies’ - is anyone doing it right? Does anyone know what it is? Can it be defined? 

Then on Thursday it was Twitter For Brands. The yearly event Twitter puts on to roll out new products and showcases some of the best branded uses of the platform.

There was a lot of information across both events. But what I thought I’d try and do is connect the two, as actually in a way I think they complimented one another. 

At Firestarters it was apparent that there isn’t one single definition on what being ‘innovative’ as an agency actually is. Phil Adams made the point “it feels like being seen to innovate is more important than having a sound commercial reason to innovate. Clients and complicit agencies collect new ways of doing things like Foursquare badges…”. Glyn Britton added in his presentation “agencies are like the KLF. We look like we know what we’re doing”. Reassuring then, we’re all doing it wrong? That’s not a bad thing if you acknowledge it and like many in the room are therefore aware they need to change that. 

Where do you look for that change? Part of the problem with innovation is that it often alludes to new things that haven’t been done before - a nice shiny fame maker for the client. Executionally on the technical side of things you’ll push the importance of  the platform - “mobile first” - however as Anthony Mayfield said “put the customer first” (which was nice to hear) just in the broadest sense that you cut all the glossy shiny objects and focus on what the customer wants. Yes, we want to know and talk about 3D printing, Web GL, HTML 5, {insert other buzz tech} and try to determine the future of all of those things, we get excited about them and can paint a creative layer over it to retrofit the customer - but more often than not it’s inaccessible, case study video material and idealistic or just a ‘me too’ copy. They can be a distraction, while you’re talking, researching and waiting for things to become affordable, you’re not making any money or ‘doing’.

Part of it feels like the early days of Facebook, when you’d hear all about how this great participation idea was going to mean that customers film themselves with the brands product and then upload to your page and then other customers will come and view those videos and then they would feel warm and fuzzy so go out and buy more product. It was a description of what you (well more so the client) wanted to happen and what you wanted the customer to do but it often wasn’t the case. No one is forgetting the customer altogether but the excitement of what might be and the execution takes over and we’re off with mobile first outweighing customer first. 

On to Twitter4Brands and why it feels like we can learn something from them. Firstly, there was only one section on their advertising offering and in that we heard about how they have added keyword targeting to their repertoire so you can get your tweet dropped in front of the right person at the exact time they’re talking about what your brand potentially offers as a solution. Everything else focused on some great case studies about how brands have used twitter with great success and learnings on how to be successful on twitter. They introduced their new #music app. Why have twitter created a music app? Well turns out that 50% of tweets are music related and 8/10 of the most followed accounts are musicians - so boom - they’re operating in the right area, even if the perception might be what authority does twitter have in music? 

They’ve innovated, from being just 140 characters they’ve never changed what they are but they have made what they are mean more and that 140 characters is now richer than ever (mostly thanks to twitter cards). 

They’re a platform, they’re using technology and making things to keep people using it, coming back to it and they’re figuring out how to make some money along the way without pissing those people off.

You couldn’t help notice though, that in every piece of advice and case study  despite them defining rules or breaking down the principles - it relied on the right person to action the principles. The right person who needs to understand the ecosystem they’re working within and culture that surrounds what it is they are doing and who they are talking to. 

O2 wasn’t awarded their #flock (which looked amazing, check it out) for outstanding use of twitter because they followed ‘principles’ it’s not a box ticking exercise, the person sat at the computer was a huge part in that, turning those ticks into the words that people appreciate, notice and hold up. Without the right person, it’s just a slide in a presentation.

Here’s what should make a successful tweet. Pick two: 

Now, it’s nice that this has been identified as a guide but pick 3 people at random and chances are that even if you gave them the same two the output and results will be very different. The people on stage talking, the writers behind some of the wittiest and popular accounts out there were so deeply engrossed in culture that their 140 characters are far superior than the average tweeter, they’re so aware of what is going on that they have a huge arsenal of knowledge at their disposal.  

As agencies we have an array of different people sat with expertise in particular areas. Even when collaborating on a project as closely as possible they’re still fulfilling their part of the task. It’s not one person, each department and skillset is adding their 20 characters to create the full 140. That will do the job, you’ll have a nice looking tweet, but for it to be more superior than any other out there it needs to resonate, and that’s the cultural layer, the timely relevance. It’s how small rundown pub in East London can be more entertaining and popular than most multimillion pound brands out there. 

If we’re admitting we don’t know what we’re doing, that’s fine. But the one thing we can do is make sure that we’re doing it for the right reasons, with the right people behind it and giving our experiments a solid back bone, so no matter how they turn out they still stand for something.