Marketing Off Line: Don’t Neglect “First Life”
Did anyone ask if you wanted to add a life to your current one? No one asked me, or I would have said no thank you. So, I now ponder the differences between those who were dying for a Second Life and those who’d be happy with just the one. The question of what kinds of people prefer online community to offline connecting is one that leads to this for marketers: who are the most likely adapters of social media and should brands focus on that channel to the neglect of those who aren’t, shall we say, social?
I am just back from a planning meeting for a 2008 conference on community (what it means/how to inspire it – from all angles), and the discussions with the small group brought to the forefront much about human behavior and offline vs. online connecting. Because that conference is anchored in residential and commercial development, we started our conversation by considering the spaces where people tend to gather – and off it went from there in many fascinating directions. Of course, Second Life and similar online communities were discussed, and that has kept me thinking.
You see – I am someone you’d think would be primed for social media, with my small town lifestyle and mainly online career. I’d be the perfect candidate for lots of online connecting! Still, I have not been tempted to join in wholeheartedly. At the same time, I have a close friend with a very similar lifestyle and career who has jumped on that bandwagon and believes that participating in social networks has greatly enhanced her work/life. Hmmm.
When I recently read an article by Andrew Ettinger in MediaPost on selling and "fanboys" this morning, the human touch topic struck again. The article led with Ettinger’s description of a recent tour of the Maker’s Mark distillery in Kentucky. Keep in mind that he is an associate media director in New York City (so – he’s a likely user of social media) who had an offline brand experience that resonated enough for him to write the piece. He doesn’t seem to think that brands should let the First Life fall by the wayside, and I would certainly agree. As he put it:
This is branding at its best – measurable
sales results coupled with enthusiasm for the product. We forget that
before the Web, there was another interactive medium: real life.
Physically interacting with a brand creates and reinforces brand
loyalty.
Physically interacting with a brand. That still gets mentioned in most integrated channel discussions, I’m sure, but perhaps as a symbolic gesture. How are the brands with products that really demand the human touch affected when they perhaps arbitrarily focus on the latest/greatest online social tools?
Can we safely assume that all young people everywhere will forever want to live online, or will the pendulum swing and the pull of physical interaction with friends – and brands – be felt again by the masses? (For more reading on this from the sociological perspective, check out Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone.)
There is certainly a buzz amongst early adopters of social media, but I’d suggest that brands selling products that really boil down to the physical especially, keep First Life in mind and keep improving the offline end of things at the same pace. If your customer is older than twenty, they have surely realized that life, trends and movements happen in cycles, and that it pays to indulge your cynicism about "progress" a tad.
And, if what Daniel Pink writes about in A Whole New Mind is true (and I’m a believer), we are heading out of the information age and into a more conceptual age – where things like design, storytelling and emotion are expected and rewarded in life and business. Those elements can certainly be delivered online and via social media to some degree, but, such human-scale influences will always shine brightest in that place where everyone hangs his or her hat at the end of the day: the First Life.





