Thread: so you wanna trend huh?

We are baffled by the idea that a campaign's success is rated by the degree to which it trends.

Should we rethink the implications of measuring success by degree of activity, as opposed to results on core fundamentals (e.g., sales or enquiries)?

Not only do trends largely encode noise (because some are covertly sponsored propaganda), but they also get associated with all sorts of undesirable stuff.

When was the last time you saw a trend, & thought: "the communication strategy is working well here"?

There are evidently significant distinctions between communicating through legacy media channels (e.g., TV, radio, print) & mass audience bi-directional communications channels (e.g., social media).

Why is simply making trends & hoping everyone sees them not advisable anymore?

Consider the issue of bi-directionality, because that's where real problems begin.

When the audience is empowered to create a rapid, & largely transparent, feedback mechanism; then amplification becomes the norm, & not the exception.

Since this feedback mechanism is emergent, it is virtually impossible to control (yes we have to take risk management seriously). We can monitor it, but we can't control it.

The internet never forgets, because we can't control it.

So why stoke fires that cannot be tamed?

We think the answer might be in behavioural aspects.

There's an emerging theory in marketing that's built on biological signaling theory.

We are hardwired to want to get noticed, but does being noticed translate into meeting fundamental objectives?

Perhaps we have to rethink performance metrics, & how potential consumers should be identified & reached.

For this, we need not only new thinking, but also new tools.

In the future, we see complex data analytics geeks having deep conversations with creatives.

Is it time we rethink campaign representatives screening, & campaign monitoring?

@joe_human_