1. Bruce DeBoer on April 19, 2005 11:18 AM writes...

Revolution: My first thought is that, while everything I read and hear about co-creation sounds great, I have my doubts that it is a revolution. Through the new technologies we have gained a more powerful back channel of information that has ignited a trend to listen to customers in a new way. I expect the trend to morph into a new tool that is more widely used on a consistent basis but I think “revolution” is a descriptor that’s too powerful.

Good marketers have always looked for ways to listen to customers as part of their research. Now that we have the ability to gain participation on a larger and broader scale, co-creation will be harnessed as long as it makes financial sense for the company. Through co-creation techniques we can cultivate brand advocates but results must be measurable to expand its universal recognition as a business tool. After all – we are in business to make profit.

Motivation stems from overall market growth with the speed and girth of Information distribution, network reach, and accessible knowledge being the new tools we use for that growth. Countless communities of common interests are being created daily and business opportunities emerge from those micro markets; it’s a new economy of scale. Change means opportunity for those innovative enough to harness it. Our motivation remains the same as it has through out our history.

Companies have never been able to control brand definition. They have influence but the real brand identity is formed during customer contact points. If the product is X and we try to convince people it’s Y we are wasting our money. The wider bandwidth backchannel of communication means that companies can gain more control of their brand because they have more information about their customer’s experience.

Let’s take Kryptonite locks for example. While it may appear that blogs nearly destroyed the brand, what it actually provided was a “co-creation” opportunity. What can emerge is a better product. A possible solution: Make an improved lock based on suggestions and your company innovation then offer a reward to lock pickers who can successfully hack the new improved model. Turn it into a promotional event and your brand has not only survived but is now enhanced.

Any control businesses have is in the response to the broader communication bandwidth. We never controlled our markets, only our interaction with it. That simple fact is merely more obvious than it was.

Just like with the .com boom, we have a tendency to isolate rather than integrate innovative techniques. I have read countless books, articles and blog posts that boost the death of marketing as we know it. The four P’s of marketing that we learned in college still apply but with new tools. Good business and marketing strategy is still solid even with new tactics.

2. jennifer rice on April 19, 2005 12:39 PM writes...

The reason I use the word 'revolution' is because, for the first time, customers are realizing their power. I think of the French Revolution; "let them eat cake!"... which is what corporations have been saying to customers for ages. But now we're recognizing our power. We're networking, talking, informing. We're banding together in ways that have previously been impossible. And we're demanding a change.

You're right, this isn't the death of marketing as we know it. Many core principles apply. And yet we're now dealing with a more complex, highly networked economy. Marketing -- and business in general -- must evolve to maintain relevance.

3. Bruce DeBoer on April 19, 2005 01:15 PM writes...

J-

I have a strong resistance for overstatement I guess. As fitting as "revolution" may seem, it makes me uncomfortable because I strongly urge my clients to incorporate these new tactics into a strong integrated strategy. Good successful companies will welcome a stronger voice from the market. Those who don't will become irrelivant. I don't see this as a revolution as much as an evolution.

Let's take New Coke as an example. A loud customer voice was heard that forced Coke to jam the gearbox in reverse. Today that happens broader, more often, and faster. Does Coke have more or less control over their brand as a result of the new consumer backchannel?

4. Haydn on April 19, 2005 01:33 PM writes...

It will become a revolution when new information products sufficiently undermine the traditional to force changes in editorial procedures so that media products are designed/produced radically differently.

At the moment most major media outlets are not really aware of what they have to do differently - they know they have to change but incorporating new voices? To an extent. Sort of.

There is a political culture in mainstream media that reflect the necessary bond between the advertiser and publisher and it has been there for six decades. Brand advisors might be moving on but media companies are not - not anyway at the necesary pace and not radically enough.

Twenty years ago I worked on a TV programme where we appointed 300 members of the public as our editors - it didn't go down too well - lots of conflict between the pros and the editors - but I've seen no attempt to replicate it even in the co-creation age.

Advertisers needs to tell TV companies and publishers that the future lies in co-creation, in editorial given over to readers and viewers, TV programmes made on behalf of an audience by the audience. Is there a brand advisor, agency or corporation out there talking this through?