the frequency a kenny chung blog

Every first year Psychology student has learned about the phenomenon of confirmation bias. In a nutshell, it means that people tend to selectively interpret information in order to reaffirm their preexisting beliefs. For instance, let’s say you believe that microwave popcorn tastes better than movie theater popcorn. Then there’s a good chance that the next time you microwave the perfect bag, you’ll forget all the other times when not all the kernels popped or when it came out a bit burnt. You’ll only retain the memories of when the popping went right and ignore the consistency of the theater’s popping machines.

What does this have to do with branding and social media? Consider Twitter’s trending topics. Millions of Tweeters determine the trends of the day, week, or even month. At the most basic level, these trending topics tell us where the conversation is. In an ideal system, the topics would also be what people value the most or hold the most important. In a way, trending topics are an open system of self-reinforced agenda setting. Agenda setting is a mass communication theory that posits that the media can control what the public believes to be newsworthy simply by reporting about it. Repetition combined with freshness will make people believe that a story or issue is important (this ties in really neatly with the psychological concept of the availability heuristic).

Now think about how this can help or hurt a brand. Let’s use the Tiger Woods Nike Commercial that I last blogged about as an example. If Person A (let’s call him Brandon) just saw the commercial on TV without any context or explanation, where would he find information? A lot of people would go to news sites or social networks. So Brandon types in “Tiger Woods Nike” into the Twitter search box, which returns tons of opinions in real-time (more or less). In turn, Brandon, who hadn’t previously formed an opinion about the commercial, will see that different people find the commercial brilliant, confusing, or downright creepy. It’s possible that these Tweets will help Brandon make up his mind and feelings about the commercial.

But what if the person already had an opinion on a topic but still wanted to see what other people thought? Let’s consider Person B, named Judy. She watched American Idol last night and found her favorite singer Lee to be the best performer. So later on, she clicks onto a TV show review blog and reads blog posts or comments either saying that Lee was awesome or that Lee was terrible. Because Judy already formed an opinion on the matter, she’ll likely disagree with the divergent blog post or comments. Rather than consider both sides of the argument, Judy will knowingly nod her head when she reads thoughts that she agrees with and vehemently shake her head when she wonders how others can have a differing opinion.

For established brands selling products or services, returning customers and loyalists are much more valuable than new one-time purchasers. If Apple had to choose, I’d venture that the marketing team would rather have the person who buys every new generation iPod as a customer than the person who makes the iPad his or her only on-brand purchase (Apple has actually done an amazing job grooming more consumers to fit into the former category).

By extension, when it comes to social media pushes, the brand behind them should be looking to target both the Brandon’s and the Judy’s. Provide a jump-off for the social conversation and let people discuss freely. Companies have to accept that they cannot control the conversation anymore. Agenda setting is now crowdsourced by anybody who wants to get involved. Social media should not be an exercise in damage control, but rather, a chance to gain real-time feedback on whether or not a campaign was well done.

Therefore, if brands reward and reinforce the positive feelings that people like Judy have about them, that’s already more than half the battle. I’m not saying that the potential Brandon’s should be ignored, but brands shouldn’t have tunnel-vision and take the loyalists for granted. Treat them well, and their words will do a lot of the brand building legwork for you.

Source: M.T.A. Sells Naming Rights to Subway Station

The MTA has finally been able to sell the naming rights to one of their subway stations. Atlantic Ave/Pacific Street (which is the connecting station for various trains and the LIRR) will be named after Barclays bank. The logic behind this change is that the new Brooklyn Nets stadium (set to open in 2012) will be called Barclays Center.

So is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Well, let’s look at the facts.

The MTA has been in severe debt for many years now, and stories about budget deficits and cut service have been much too commonplace. If this $4 million deal will keep Metrocard prices steady (at least for another year or two), then there’s really no reason not to do it.

People may complain that the rebranding process dishonors pieces of Brooklyn history, but it’s just the subway station. Atlantic Ave/Pacific St is sure to become a historic landmark… when hovercars and public transit powered by positive thoughts become the norm. But for now, the subway system is going to remain as busy as ever. It’s not like they’re auctioning off the naming rights to historic streets.

And consider this. The area in question on Flatbush Ave is being completely restructured to become a downtown metropolis. They’ve already torn down old houses so that high-rise condos can be built. They’re going to be building a basketball stadium! Besides the obvious issues surrounding the gentrification of the area, how is any of that any less disrespectful to history? The bottom line is money. Why else would New York even bring the Nets over from New Jersey? Maybe they couldn’t find any companies who wanted to buy the branding rights of the New York Knicks.

Speaking as both a native of Brooklyn and an Advertising scholar, I say you gotta roll with the times.

May 6th, 2009
according to

Link: A Tech Company’s Campaign to Burnish Its Brand

The NYT article above is about the new ad campaign for Intel created by Venables Bell. It’s only a rebranding campaign in the loosest sense. Intel hasn’t changed their target demographic or what they do. In fact, they probably will never have to (barring some huge unforeseen event). Instead, under the advisement of Venables Bell, Intel is changing the “how” instead of the “what” of their message.

We’ve all seen Intel Inside for many, many years now. People know of Intel, even if they’re not quite sure what the company produces or why they’re important. But the problem is that in modern times, it doesn’t really matter if a computer is equipped with an Intel chip or not. In fact, the only ripple in recent memory in the everlong battle for processor market share was when Apple began offering Intel processors. Let’s face it, nobody will win this war unless one party goes bankrupt. Some people will always buy AMD. Some will always stay loyal to Intel. And others will find the third way.

The point is that when you can’t advertise your product, per sé, you have to appeal to consumer feelings. When that intermediate computer buyer walks into BestBuy and is looking at the specs of all available computers, that Intel Inside sticker has got to incite feelings of warmth and goodness inside that potential customer. It’s simple as that. And the easiest vehicle to achieve that? Humor.

So will this ad campaign be successful? Depends on Intel’s goals. I personally don’t think there will be much change in Intel’s market share (but I also think that a big name like Intel needs to rebrand itself too vehemently), and I highly doubt the minds over at Venables Bell don’t know this. So if their collective goal is to foster good feelings about the brand (as it should be), then how funny and memorable the commercials are will be the sign of success.

Creative Commons License
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.