This Stuff Isn't Simple
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
I was reading last week's New Yorker article about Zappos and was reminded what a great example they are of a company that does all this "social media" stuff well.I know that Zappos is a go to reference for a brand that gets Twitter. But, I feel like over the past 6 months or so, we've become tired of using Zappos as an example for other brands and companies who are trying to find their footing in this still nascent marketing environment.
(This may very well just be me. Please let me know in the comments if you feel the same, or otherwise.)
When clients used to ask, "Who does this stuff well?" "Who can we learn from?" "Can you give us some examples?" Zappos was always my go to. But then I started to feel like I was sounding like a broken record. I started to feel like this example was being ignored.
Reading this article made me realize that the reason why using Zappos as an example has lost its impact for me, is because it's too hard for me to explain what exactly Zappos does so well. I can't point to a specific campaign and say, "Remember The Giant Shoe Factory thing that everyone was passing around? That was Zappos." Most clients have a hard time understanding examples that don't feel like advertising campaigns.
What makes Zappos a great example is also what makes them hard to use as an example. The execute a totally organic, open, and bottom up approach to digital media that is lead by a strong unifying culture, unique brand personality, and a clearly defined calling: Service. Once those guiding forces are firmly rooted, their brand can become porous, seamlessly integrating with the rest of the web on a human scale.
This is what it's supposed to look like. This is what it will look like for all brands in the not-too-distant future.
It's not a shiny object tied up in a pretty bow. It's messy. It's a little chaotic and uncontrollable. But, most importantly, it's human.
3 Comments:
It's not easy to "teach" people Common Sense...I agree with you, and have had a similar experience. I mean, what can one tell one's clients! "you just gotta be you..." The thing is that most times they don't know who they are (or who they want to be) online.
They seem to understand the idea when I tell them that it is a little bit like rafting: you just gotta sit on your spot, in the boat, feel the current and paddle accordingly...and with a good team, there's always a way to hold up to the river's current with your own. Hence, you're right, "it's messy. it's chaotic and uncontrollable" and not only human, but -act- NATURAL.
Hey I thought for a bit, and started wondering how long Zappos has been around.
People usually tend to focus on the outcomes (all the success stories), and tend not to think about the often long and painstaking journey that led to the success.
I remember that Tony was for months, if not years, meeting with his customers IRL, slowly building credibility of his new company. He then continued building that credibility through transparency (Zappos annual books written by its employees; openness about the layoffs; early adoption of Twitter as a customer service channel). It seems that everything that Zappos does is super-transparent.
So maybe next time you need to explain its success, you say "consistency in building the brand". Sounds incredibly dumb, but in fact, not a lot of brands can really and truly can say that have that kind of organizational, business, and managerial consistency. Zappos brand is the outcome of it.
I too rarely use Zappos as an example. Not because it's over-used, but because it's impossible to replicate. Benchmarking yourself against Zappos is quite the mountain to climb. Plus Zappos is a pretty unique company. It prides itself on customer service, so embracing Twitter seems like a natural extension. Few businesses can play the same cards.
Post a Comment
<< Home