Branding in Web 2.0

Measurability is a big cloud hanging over the heads of many managers when it comes to talking or investing in web 2.0. How in the world do we measure this? How do we know that the money we take from traditional media will yield better results in web 2.0? Why should we leave the monster we know for the monster we don’t?
Furthermore, the very measure used to for tradition media; reach ,frequency receptivity and presence would have to be substituted for a whole new genre or metrics; click through rates, page views, unique visits, and time spent on site.
There is also the issue of the IT human resources infrastructure in place versus what will be needed to properly manage web 2.0 campaigns. For traditional media, the message the organization wants to convey is careful crafted and put out once as a final product typically with one message. However, with web 2.0 there is no final product! It’s always changing and evolving!
An organization that wants to be successful with web 2.0 can’t just initiate and then leave it to run itself. A television campaign is created once but a news feed on facebook has to be constantly updated…comments/content on YouTube has to be constantly monitored. Because of the fast pace of change in trends and social values, IT can’t afford the time it takes to make the decisions with traditional media. A TV commercial shoot can be put on hold for months but a negative facebook comment by a “facebook user” needs attention now….a YouTube video in response to bottom-up demand has to be done now because the effect of doing or not doing, if felt faster than ever with consumer’s ability to share thoughts and opinions in record time in record numbers.
There are also some management implications that must be considered here. First is the issue of cost and obtaining financing for something that the organization is not used to measure. How will this be funded? Chargeback? Allocation? (To who marketing or IT), or corporate budget? How can we really know how much it cost? The Total Cost of Ownership approach may be best because beyond the cost of set up, there is the cost of constant monitoring, constant changing and constant evolution. Even then though, it still takes management back to the question: Total cost of ownership to whom?
Another issue is that web 2.0 is not a touch-and-go type of campaign. Companies that want to be successful have to in it to stay a while. It almost requires a change in strategy. This is very much a bottom-up approach where an organization makes a commitment to be in tune with what the consumers are saying and doing and then responding to their cultural values (consumer co-creation, social affiliation, digital self expression and sharing)
One of the greatest concerns that organizations have about web 2.0 is the issue of control. Typically, an organization can control the messages that are out there for the world to see. They carefully craft the TV commercials, carefully write the copy on websites, carefully script radio commercials and carefully present print ads, making sure that all these media say exactly what they intend them to say.
With web 2.0, it’s very different. Consumers now have the power to co-create the content on the internet about anyone and anything. While that may be a great advantage when consumers become positive evangelists that spread a good word to friends and family about the organization and thereby create more income (because of the higher conversion of personal referrals that people trust), it may be a very bad thing.
One negative experience by a consumer can reach 400 people in a matter of minutes or seconds….think what could happen in a month. It would be a damage control nightmare for the PR department.
If the organization decides to change, then there arises the issue of project management and the management of project risk, specifically the area of clarity.
According to Pearson and Saunders, “…a project is more risky when it is hard to define and clarity is concerned with the ability to define the requirements of the system….the project also has low clarity I f user demands for the system or regulations that guide the structure of the system change considerably over the life of a project.”
Well, welcome to web 2.0! Because that might as well be its definition. Web 2.0 is constantly evolving because users are constantly evolving…constantly creating, sharing and critiquing.
Many things will influence Management in the decision making process but one that is subtle but powerful are the technical influences. General Managers who are uncomfortable about technology often either ignore the issues, delegating entirely to IS organization or focus in appropriate attention on managing the technology to counter their fear. None of these are good for this new cultural wave.
Managers that don’t understand cultural drivers such web 2.0, or the technology that makes it all possible or even the habits of consumers today will do one of the above; anyone of which will almost guarantee the death of a successful web 2.0 campaign.
Could this also lead to the Bikeshed problem? As Larry Cone describes in his blog entry, (http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/coneblog/about-project-management-the-bikeshed-problem-32923 ) The fact that web 2.0 is still new to a lot of managers could either cause them to dismiss and bypass the details of the technology, culture and campaign and/or delegating entirely to IT because they don’t want t o ask question and look foolish or outdated.