I recently recalled a conversation I had with a health care professional at a private medical clinic. The gist is that the clinic actively avoids social media and web presence because they feel it’s not a channel that their target audience frequents. Taking it even further, they believe their clients attach negative associations with those channels and would therefore be turned off and way from their services. For reference, their average patient (anecdotally) is male, higher income bracket and over 40.

So I’m wondering if the clinic’s views are antiquated or perhaps a function of the industry and their strategy? The business is successful, awareness and reach are not a problem, and so engagement directly with patients does not seem to be necessary. Furthermore, in the health care industry, there are strict laws in terms of confidentiality, and I can see where twitter engagement could tread closely to these lines should a patient complain or even give praise. Social media is often a platform for grievances, but considering the seriousness of the industry, I suspect few would go to those channels, particularly in extreme cases. Patients would also get more immediate response from customer service if they felt slighted or disrespected. In other industries, for larger corporations or phone companies for example, they simply cannot deal with the volume and that is one of the major differences in this case.

However, does this mean that the clinic couldn’t benefit from twitter exposure or facebook in other ways? Complaints could be relegated to direct channels, but on-line postings could be more informative and a form of outbound messaging. I feel that a much tighter strategy and very specific voice would need to be developed for the messaging to resonate with the target audience. This is all assuming those customers even use the social web tools. The times are changing however, and those that are young now, will be old later and knocking at their door for service. Should they stay ahead of the curve or remain a back-channel, niche provider?

To forecast how this might play out, we can perhaps look at some comparables – situations in which internet marketing was not used deliberately to give an air of exclusivity and because of the target audience. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any such case…perhaps you can comment on one and I’ll get back to you.

I recall a quick experiment in class where, by show of hands, we measured the popularity of SnapChat. Prof Cubbon related our results (~30% usage) to that of his undergraduate class (~90%) and commented that Facebook and Twitter have, by nature, different content and different targets. But what does this say about those that do use SnapChat and those that don’t? There are many competitors such as Instagram and Twitter with photos now, but what is so appealing about the alternative? SnapChat allows the viewer to only see the message once and that has some potentially seedy implications. It’s the communication of choice for those risky messages, those that tread close to the line. That caters to a different segment, or more specifically, to a different mood of the same segment, but my conservative self doesn’t see the point. This is particularly true in consideration of how often we choose to text versus phoning, versus real in-person conversation. The chatting and posting has become a form of barrier or form of inebriation. We say and do things we wouldn’t normally say or do. We need to consider that, maybe if we wouldn’t do it in natural circumstances, we should pause and think twice. Why is it that people just don’t want to think twice? We need to move fast, as fast as the information, but I hope somebody creates a network that slows it all down.

So we’re in the thick of Movember and we can definitely argue that social media has helped expose the cause that much more. I hope somebody studies the effects, and not only the link to collected dollars but also to posted pictures and style of moustache. I wonder if that’s possible through some facial recognition software?

.

This is not Part III to the outdoor branding discussion, although I do expand a bit on some of the points.

As a bit of background, I have to mention that social media did not interest me up until recently. I have always felt overwhelmed by the information out there and avoided connectivity. I didn’t have an FB account until I was cornered into getting one for school, and I joined Twitter 5 weeks ago. I just got an iPhone last week, so perhaps Instagram and the like are next. At any rate, you get the picture. It’s not that I don’t understand the utility of the information, it just that I feel more comfortable searching it out on my own (provided I have the time).

So, from this starting point, I don’t necessarily feel that I have something to add since there is so much out there already. Why would someone listen to me? How could I possibly reach anybody beyond my personal network if they were only following me on Twitter out of pity? That was a couple of months ago, and then something odd happened…I started posting on FB some of those videos I mentioned (that’s not the odd part), and people began responding with quips and likes. At its current scale, there isn’t any widespread buzz about when I might post next, or anything of the sort, but it got me thinking a bit. In some ways, I had people’s trust and they knew they weren’t getting kitty videos if my name was attached. It was all well and good on-line, but to me, it’s all still a bunch of 1s and 0s, and relating it to the real world is important. If you can drive traffic without conversions, what’s the point? It might be good for a teenager but not a business. In my case, a small tipping point came in the form of a conversation with a classmate. We started talking skiing, and he asked about my next post, when it was going to be, where I get my info etc…This demonstrated to me, in a tangible way, that on-line conversations can form the basis of real-world influence even on my scale. Of course social media can start and foster revolutions (Egypt, Syria), but on a small scale, they can start conversations.

Moreover, I was impressed that I had an impact and credibility in the on-line community at Sauder, but I feel it started from my personal living self. I’m not sure that if I had started on-line without a walking-talking persona that I would have the same impact. But I don’t need to over think that one, I’m just happy I have some credibility.

I want to discuss an observation I made through my trawling of various outdoor brands I associate with. (aside: should I admit to associating with a brand? I don’t like being labelled. So maybe it’s better to just say “product websites I touch base with once in a while.”). I have found that I am increasingly going back to salomonfreeski.com and naishkites.com over and over again, despite the fact that my purchase cycle for their products might be 4 years at best. These firms are banking on the fact that I will give my money to them once decision time comes, but how can they be sure? Well, the nice thing about the internet is that it’s cheap to try to grab my loyalty, and the lifetime value is what they’re gunning for.

So how exactly are they nabbing me time and time again? It’s the once-a-month video episodes that are on the landing page, and the brands’ association with a specific place and lifestyle. The videos are front and centre on the landing page and are touted as “TV episodes”. They’re short (5-8min) and cover a variety of topics (exotic locations, athlete profiles, history) with a healthy dose of kite or ski porn. What surprised me the most on my first few visits were the high production standards of the shows. It seems to me they know how to get the repeat customer. Furthermore, the web-technology allows for an interactive experience where at the end of the video, you can click on the relevant players for that episode and get more information or biographies (or specifics about the gear they’re wearing in the show).

With regards to the associations the brands create, I have found that relating the product to a geographical location is an extremely tangible way to make an emotional connection.  And I have to say, it works well with me. For example, #Naish goes to great lengths to communicate that Mauii is where they’re headquarters are and that everything Mauii is also Naish. Similarly, Salomon has a local flair with Whistler being one of its activity hubs. Both those locations draw on some instant memories for me, and emotional recollections of great life experiences in nature. Both brands also create a mellow lifestyle messaging that is in concert with the locales and products alike. What’s interesting here is that they’ve used the web to evoke a more grand response within me and I’m not sure any other medium could achieve the same goal. Further to that, I haven’t started following these firms on twitter or Facebook. Those channels don’t create the same type of connection in my opinion. The flip-side is that the twitter+FB combo is often used to drive the user to the website, so the point might be moot in my case. Perhaps I’ll experiment with myself, and actually see if I can’t get anything out of their feeds?…Perhaps that can be Part III.

It seems to me that internet marketing might be at odds with the customers/participants of outdoor adventure sports in that the technology doesn’t necessarily meet these enthusiasts in their natural habitat. A skier, kiteboarder, climber or avid hiker isn’t plugged into twitter when experiencing a natural high. So how and why do companies such as #Salomon, #OceanRodeo, #Naish and #MEC manage to have such a well developed online presence? There’s no big secret coming on this question, but the topic does bring together some great talking points about the customer journey (or funnel) and brands. So let’s take a closer look.

I don’t think it comes as much of a surprise that the outdoorsy people we’re discussing are often gear-junkies. These personalities seek out information about many products, read reviews, look for the best deal and track weather conditions religiously.  A well positioned brand can take advantage of all aspects of customer inquiry on the aforementioned points to drive traffic and convergence. The most tactful companies use all channels (facebook, website, twitter…) but they also diversify their message even more by using tags and names specific to each sub-segment so that each message is refined. For example, the Salomon brand curates salomonrunning.com, salomonnordic.com and salomonfreeski in addition to at least 5 other product categories. This is an exhaustive example, but there is a trend towards this type of fracturing even with smaller brands. Intuitively, to me, this is indicative of simplification and impactful landing pages that give the customers what they want with the fewest required clicks.

And what are the customers looking for? Well, as previously mentioned, many research products down to the last detail but this also drives them to messaging outside the control of the brands themselves. Customer reviews and outside opinions are very highly regarded in the sports gear industry since they are the next best thing to actually testing the product. This is certainly the case for any product but the effect is amplified here because these toys can be the difference between life and death, or life-altering fun and a broken leg. So, with that in mind, how do these companies stay above the noise and in turn direct the conversation from afar? I have found that many companies are delving into a “show don’t tell” system to guide the gear-talk. Through videos, short movies and interactive graphics, the websites are able to demonstrate that ski X will not break, or that carabiner Y can hold up to the world’s most technical climb. The most clever marketing rolls these product placements into an overall brand message with sponsored athletes doing the heavy lifting.

Having videos extolling the virtues of a ski is nothing new, but this is only the beginning. With the advent of the GoPro camera, every Redbull drinking teenager has become a brand embassador and defacto product reviewer. And many companies are facilitating these interactions. The reviews cannot be controlled, but the videos don’t need to be because by their very nature, they show that the proof is in the product pudding.

I wanted to delve into online brand messaging a bit more, but I will take a breather and comeback to it in a few.

Interestingly enough, I felt that my intercultural fluency in week 2 was developed more through my interaction with my diverse classmates than the Danes in our group. This begs the question of “Why go as far as Denmark to learn the lesson?”. And I don’t know the answer to that. Furthermore, I felt I learned more regarding inter-age differences from the Danes, than specific cultural lessons. But, staying on task, I do have some observations regarding cultures and my personal growth in working with diverse people.

Stereotypes are difficult to overcome and I could sense that our group needed to ground itself to get past appearances in order to focus on each of our strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, we needed to trust each other early on and this was not a foregone conclusion. Since we’ve all been trained at various schools, in a variety of countries, I felt that I leveled different standards on people depending on where they were from. I began to realize that focusing on the person and trusting not only was the easier way to work, but gave for better results. This seems like a simple proposition, but when feelings and previous experiences are so deeply routed, it is difficult to overcome what comes naturally.

The evolution of my intercultural fluency has come to a point where I can work well with many different cultures in an efficient manner, without wasting time on making assumptions one way or the other.

The CSR lecture covered a number of interesting points. What came to the forefront for me in the potential inconsistency in reporting CSR across cultures/countries. Although standards might mandate CSR, we must be cognoscente of the source of the information. For example, as pointed out by one of the CBS MBAs, volunteering in the US has a completely different connotation that in Scandinavia. And it was interesting to see how philanthropy in the Nordics entails more cultural pursuits, and this is largely due to the governments’ taking on most social aspects of aid. So, as previously mentioned, CSR across borders is difficult to assess.

The trip is done. Glad to be back. Two quick weeks. Actually, they went by slowly for me. But let’s get more into week 1 and see what can be gleaned from the company visits and such.

The business presentation was extremely useful for setting the scene. At the time, I did not understand the close ties the country felt with its long running firms. By contrast, I would say that Canada doesn’t have much pride or connection as an identity to Beoing or Bell. Within a company culture, seeing the country as a stakeholder could be a very powerful tool. This was obvious in the first visit to Maersk. Even more interesting in that visit was the international flavor of the companies, and that continued throughout the week. It became very clear that Danish companies had to think globally from their inception because the Danish market was so small. I believe we can take away from that as well because in Canada, we often look to the US and possibly China, and then forget the rest. A last point on Maersk before delving into the bus trip was the surprising comment our guide made to “leave our litigious selves at home when visiting the companies”. It wasn’t clear to me what he meant and I think he was alluding to his perception of Canadians as apprehensive compared to his comment on Danes and how they were cooperative and held their word. The reason I mentioned this is because I was taken aback and my feelings were ratified to some degree as we continued our tour to other companies.

Moving forward in the week, it was interesting to see how old the companies were. I often joked that my take-home message from the visits was to start a company a hundred years ago. But, it was clear a start-up spirit and creativity existed within even the largest and oldest firms (Carlsberg and Danfoss). I believe this could be useful in my work going forward because at times I forget that even within a team, or hierarchy, one can be adventurous.

Touching on the foundation and family owned aspect of these companies, I was surprised that they managed to stand the test of time in that framework. Again, I think the success comes from giving employees at all levels ownership of their task. I don’t know if that is necessarily the case in Canada. We feel at times that we work for somebody and not with them. I think that that is a top-down problem and starts with the CEO or founder. Also, the Danish ownership model seems to have less of an exit strategy. The companies have gone through thick and thin, and have not succumbed to pressures to take the easy way out. In Canada, I sense that even a start-up is already looking towards acquisition or exponential success before the core has been established. This is obviously detrimental since focus is lost.

You can’t talk about Danish business and not talk about design, and particularly when it comes to furniture. It was very interesting to see two different and successful business models for furniture design and manufacturing. An automated vs a hand-made product. Much emphasis was made on design and innovation by both companies, but it was clear that the hand-made Fredericia model was much more adaptive, flexible and adventurous. The guide often mentioned failed projects and instances where they created new manufacturing processes (eg. 5 axis milling and high-curvature wood lamination). The automated Fritz Hansen line concentrated more on volume and looked internally to modify and market the Arne Jacobsen S7 chair, although, in all fairness, I must mentioned that they did work with independent designers to create new products as well. A final surprise, and speaking again to the international flavour of the businesses, was how many functions were being exported to Poland specifically. Cutting costs was still at the core of some of the expansion, and this was sad to see, but obviously a business reality.

Good Evening,

I’m trying to stay ahead of the to-do list, and as a result, I’m putting together my first ~200 words on the sunday of a long weekend. If that doesn’t sum up my initial baptism into the program, than perhaps the fact that I have 20 items left on my list, and one day to cross them off, will. This is voluntary, not unexpected and not a complaint, and to be honest, I’m not even working that hard. I’ve only been following numbered instructions and logging in to one thing or other and creating account after account for the n-teenth time. Hello digital world.

Moving along, allow me to reflect on the past few weeks and then close with something punchy.

The class and faculty that are in place excite me a great deal and I am ready for the upcoming challenges. More to the point, I’ve been ready for 1 to 2 weeks now, and my feeling is that these preparatory stages have elaborated on what is going to happen long enough. “Time for things to happen,” I say. Having had my first group meeting, a very productive time, and looking forward to the problems ahead, I am ankle deep and anxious for more. Having said that, I can just hear a voice warning, “Be careful what you wish for.”  But for now, I am content thinking that everything will just work out.

t.