The past 7 weeks have been an insightful and interesting process of analysis and views on the digital marketing stage and how it has transformed, affects current engagement and future developments.

What has become highly apparent throughout is the topic of data, its use and regulations surrounding its use for marketing benefits. This week coincidentally the BBC Panorama team released a programme focused on the practices of Amazon (Amazon, what they know about us, 2020), a topic discussed in week 4 by Reza (Zaman, 2020). Amazons founding business idea originated in the selling of books by Bezo at discount, was transformed by its founder through the realisation of and development of capturing and analysing customer purchase history, searches and behaviours. The monetisation of customer data helped turn Amazon into the global giant it is, with virtually no direct competition of a comparative size. This has a number of pros and cons. The analysis and insights into individual internet use allows Amazon to provide a highly personalised experience, however the programme also details how Amazon are also able to compare one person’s purchases with others to predict future purchases and tailor their marketing as such. It is said that Amazon now has over 1500 single pieces on information on every user, but this reaches beyond the confines of their own platform. Data is now a commodity that can be bought and shared, giving consumers huge concerns over how their behaviours are monitored and used.

The issue of security has also been a popular topic. Jack Willoughby in Week 6 discussed the development of new social media platform, TikTok (Whilloughby, 2020), a platform with no security settings that can be controlled by the user. This raises important issues over the restriction not only of data collection, but personal privacy also. It is one thing for a platform to gather data to analyse and hone their strategy, but something quite wrong to prevent users from restricting their personal information. The platform has also gained wide spread criticism for the hosting of challenges which have caused injury to participants (1130, 2020)such as the ‘jump trip prank’ and ‘skull breaker challenge’, particularly with its young user demographic. Whilst social media allows freedom of speech and encourages participation platforms must also be aware of the responsibility it carries through the functionality of their sites. It is no longer just ethical considerations that must be taken on-board, but the well-being of its users, both emotionally and physically.

This module has made me far more aware of my own digital use and how this may be used by marketers towards me and my children going forward. With increasingly levels of data captured and improvements in algorithms, technology and artificial intelligence to analyse my behaviours and predict my future, it is both exciting and daunting to consider what the future may bring. It is also thrilling to think how marketing campaigns and the delivery of these will evolve moving forward.

A great and insightful module with much digital food for thought!

 

1130, C. N., 2020. TikTok challenge has serious consequences. [Online] 
Available at: https://www.citynews1130.com/video/2020/02/12/tiktok-challenge-has-serious-consequences/

Amazon, what they know about us. 2020. [Film] Directed by Panorama. UK: BBC.

Whilloughby, J., 2020. TikTok fighting for the social media crown. [Online] 
Available at: https://jackwilloughbyblog.wordpress.com/2020/02/16/tiktok-fighting-for-the-social-media-crown/

Zaman, R., 2020. Data Handling and Ethics. [Online] 
Available at: https://stagegate.home.blog/2020/02/01/data-handling-and-ethics/comment-page-1/?unapproved=49&moderation-hash=fff45ae187d3f3553da68c656277cce6#comment-49

I am a self-confessed heavy YouTube watcher. You could say that I am a bit of an addict! This free-to-upload platform gives anyone the ability to express their individuality, opinions, tips, tricks and experiences at the click of a button and has enormous impact on a multitude of industries. Justin Beiber is a prime example of a young guy simply playing songs on his guitar before being “discovered” and now, according to Forbes (Forbes, 2017), is worth $83.5million! Not bad for a 13 year old simply uploading home-made videos from a bedroom in London, Canada! But let’s not forget that those who are successful at building an active following are also able to monetise their content and build a living from it.

The fact is we can now access video content on almost anything through this platform, from how to bake a cake, make slime (my daughters favourite), re-pressurise a boiler (guilty as charged), play guitar (2020 resolution), and even how to make a YouTube channel! Each creator has the ability to develop their own brand, share their message and create a community through their channels and even launch brands of their own (e.g. Jeffree Star Cosmetics, Tati Beauty, Makeup Geek). With the functionality of commenting and thumbs up-ing a video, conversations, relationships and opinions (both positive and negative) can be shared further developing and enhancing the creators brand.

This opens up opportunities in a number of ways. For the purposes of demonstration I’m going to use the beauty community of YouTube to demonstrate this, as D2C (Direct to Consumer) selling has changed the beauty sectors traditional marketing approach (Edited, 2019) as a result of “Influencer” involvement. 

In YouTube’s early years a large portion of beauty uploads had a focus on ‘tutorials’; teaching the everyday person how to improve their techniques and application. Then came the rise of the “haul videos” where creators would go and buy a huge quantities of products. This then lead to the rise in “reviews”, where the products purchased would be tested and feedback given for viewer’s interest. This developed a community where potential product purchase decisions were no longer just made on their online star rating, or recommendation from a department store worker or friend. Now consumers can see the application, wear and performance of products before making their purchase from a widely trusted source.

At this point is important to note the scale of Beauty YouTuber followings with a few examples of subscriber numbers:

• Jeffree Star – 17.4million 
• James Charles – 16.7million
• NikkiTutorials – 13.2million
• Tati Westbrook – 9.6 million

Through the evolution of YouTubers, they have created an enormous international audience that trust their views and opinions on products; and marketers were quick to take advantage. This has benefits for both the brands and the YouTubers. Brands started to design and send “PR packs” of their new product launches in order to have their products reviewed on YouTube by Influencers, and in return the Influencers would receive free product to facilitate their channel with the very latest ranges from beauty brands. 

Of course the desire for the brands is that they receive positive reviews, therefore increasing their sales and success of product launches. However, they also started to create new avenues to reduce the risk of this by:

• Paid sponsorship of their products so Influencers are paid to promote their products positively;
• Affiliate codes for consumers to get a reduced price on products from a brand and Influencers get paid each time their code is used.

This in turn had a negative effect on consumer confidence. If an Influencer they know and trust is now being paid to promote a product are their reviews truly honest? Or are they just saying it’s great because they are being paid to? This development instilled a level of cynicism amongst the audience which works against the brands targets, and with commentary being so public about this, changes need to be made to address this.

NikkiTutorials was the first YouTuber to address this in April 2019 (Dall’Asen, 2019) by implementing a new coding system in her uploads for all products she uses to differentiate between those she purchased, paid for, are from an affiliate company or been sent in PR thus giving complete transparency to her audience. Tati Westbrook on the other hand has been very vocal about never being paid for a product review ensuring her audience have always known and are therefore able to trust that her reviews are genuine and honest, even when they are negative.

Whilst YouTube has the ability to reach vast audiences way beyond the scope of more traditional methods of print and media, the scrutiny is much higher. The cost is also not minimal with Influencers charging $20 for every 1000 followers for a single product placement dependant on their following (Webfx, 2020) plus the cost of the PR set sent to them, so the pros must be sure to outweigh the cons and scepticism. However, with the beauty sector now valued at $532billion and growing (Insider, 2019) Influencers must be doing something very VERY well!

 

Dall’Asen, N., 2019. Reddit. [Online] 
Available at: https://www.revelist.com/beauty-news-/nikkie-tutorials-transparency-code/15108

Edited, 2019. Edited. [Online] 
Available at: https://edited.com/resources/what-the-beauty-industry-looks-like-in-the-future/

Forbes, 2017. Forbes – Justin Beiber. [Online] 
Available at: https://www.forbes.com/profile/justin-bieber/#6ad7096848b5

Insider, B., 2019. [Online] 
Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/beauty-multibillion-industry-trends-future-2019-7?r=US&IR=T

Webfx, 2020. YouTuber Influencer Marketing Pricing.[Online] 
Available at: https://www.webfx.com/influencer-marketing-pricing.html

It is arguable that now-a-days with social media being the forum that is it, we are now all marketers of ourselves. Most of us have done things we would rather forget, and certainly things that we would prefer others would forget! That drunken night out, that missed flight, that crazy text, that failed relationship, that misjudged outfit…. There are any number of things we would like to blot out of our minds and move on from. However, with many of us increasingly sharing all aspects of our lives on social media, allowing those moments of poor judgement to be removed is becoming harder and harder, and even if it can be removed at the source, the data has already been shared. 

And not only is it our own judgement about what to post that is in question, it can also be down to our friends and family, and indeed strangers, who can now add to our digital footprint, whether we want to or not. Have you ever woken up one morning to find a friend has posted that embarrassing photo of you dancing on the table the night before without your permission? Or gained access to your phone to search for dubious content without your knowledge as a joke? With Big Data being gathered from every aspect of our internet activity, impacting our interactions with adverts and mail campaigns based on our user history, how do we maintain control over what data is or is not shared with data processors now and in the future, and how can it be removed, and should in fact be allowed to?

“The Ethics of Memory in a Digital Age” (Ghezzi, 2014)discusses the issues and rights to allow users to selectively remove certain aspects of their digital footprint, a topic that has been widely discussed at all levels up to Government, as the digital landscape evolves, improves and develops greater efficiencies, it is clear that policies surrounding the use of personal data is well behind the times. With the introduction of GDPR in May 2019 giving people a new and simpler process to understand the data held by companies and the right to have it removed is a significant, yet small step in the direction to allowing greater control over what companies hold about us.

However, the question arises, should there be rules governing the different types of data held about us, and impose different regulations about our right to have this removed, and is it always possible to achieve 100%? Criminal records for example, these leave a permeant mark on people’s records, affecting future job prospects, finance options and home ownership opportunities to name a few. But should a minor offence be something that follows that person for the rest of their lives? Should someone be allowed to remove this level of detail after a period of time, allowing them a second start with previous errors removed, or if indeed so, or not as the case may be, who gets to make that distinction?

On a slightly less serious side, imagine a photo of you that has you being shown in a less than positive light has been posted on Facebook and tagged you to it. Maybe you are applying for a new job and don’t want prospective employers to see you less than dignified? Should you be able to have a photo that features you removed permanently, even if that photo does not belong to you?  Facebook has introduced the tagging system where you can opt to have yourself tagged or not, however it does not remove the right for the photo to appear on the posters feed. Should this be allowed? 

I suggest that there should be better governance with regards to photos and posts that include you. Should you be linked to a post, blog or photo that you don’t want public then a system should be in place to have this simply removed and deleted without the need to report and flag a friend or family members account. The right to portray your own online profile should be easier to manage and with the control placed strictly in everyone’s own hands, with minimal aggravation or awkwardness and confirmation of its permeant removal. 

While the issue of free speech is an important one, it is also important to maintain a level of self-regulation and control to maintain confidence as users with the use of our data by corporations, to ensure the lack of abuse of this but also to retain the ability to permanently edit and curate our own online presence, allowing users to be more selective in what data we share. 

Wouldn’t it be lovely to have a “crtl-z” function to our entire user digital history, while this isn’t currently possible, the development of more functionality to better filter and remove features from our past would be beneficial and ultimately increase user confidence, allowing companies to still gather necessary data, but only that which we consciously share. Maybe something as simple as a button to click when we don’t want the internet to gather information on our use….just a thought!

 

Ghezzi, A., 2014. The ethics of memory in a digital age; interrogating the right to be forgotten. Palgrave Macmillan.

I remember just 20 years ago, that in order to share my life stories and memories the process included taking a roll of film to Boots, having it developed and flicking through the developed pictures with friends and family, keeping my favourites in a physical album and the rest in the paper envelope; and to share our opinions focused around sitting and having a conversation or putting pen to paper and writing actual letters. 

The digital space has transformed the way in which we now share our lives, views and opinions, both personally and professionally. Allowing us to network and share experiences and lives with sometimes hundreds or thousands of people at once, not just one to one as per my photo developing process above details, allows more people than ever an insight into the parts of my life that I choose to share, my opinions and interests. However, through the digital nature of sharing, interacting and commenting actually means that we have little control over the extent to which our posts are viewed beyond our own chosen network.

This for me is a double edged sword. We are able to connect and reach out to foster important relationships and build new ones easily, all that is needed is the click of a button. The benefits from this, especially when building professional networks on platforms such as LinkedIn, allow you to virtually connect with potential customers, collaborators and employers/ees and share your professional interest, experiences and expertise without the need to divulge your personal life. The ability to demonstrate and importantly differentiate and segment the various aspects of your life is important. While your friends may be interested in the photo of your children at the park and what you ate for lunch, your professional network isn’t, and likewise your stance on an issue affecting your particular sector is of interest to those in a similar field, but your best friend wont.

It is important from a marketing point of view that similar to how we filter our choices to the appropriate social platform, that marketers filter their messaging to the same, as discussed by George and Paul (Paul, 2020). Content should be of an advertorial nature, both educating and demonstrating expertise to address an issue, and suggesting solutions, targeted just at those with a specific need. 

The nature of digital footprints better allows platforms to direct their adverts with increasing accuracy based on user activity history, which in itself raises the question about how much we want our online history to be available and used to marketers’ and indeed other sectors benefit. An example of this was when one day I was daydreaming and searching through Expedia at holidays I would never be able to afford, and almost instantly my Facebook feed was full of 5* all-inclusive holidays. This highlights the fact that marketing can be targeted almost to the second to potential customers, but also demonstrates that it is not always accurate. A moment of searching does not mean that the person will become a customer, and has a high chance of actually irritating the person targeted. This level of transparency and tracking can be useful for a company, but can also intrude into people’s lives in a way that is less than desirable.

However, there is a serious aspect surrounding openness, what people choose to share or not on their social accounts and to whom, and the implications of doing so. The question has been raised and discussed widely as to what is private and what is public. Increasingly as detailed by Podolny (Podolny, 2013)digital media content is being utilised by investigators and insurance companies (to name two) to see whether claims such as personal injury accidents are accurate with court cases using social media content to investigate fraudulent claims. With digital content being developed, shared and being difficult to remove through the functionality of screenshots and screen recording software, and the ease at which it is to share and interact with posts more widely (simply the removal of content from platforms does not mean it is gone forever) it is obvious that it is increasingly hard to edit your digital presence, so the focus must be on the initial creation and focus in the first place.

For personal reasons I am increasingly weary of posting in general, despite having been a prolific Facebook poster for many years (yes, I used to post about making a cup of tea or putting on the washing machine…). Yet, I do see the enormous benefit in engaging in the digital space from a professional view for my employer, my career development and ‘personal brand’, from a personal view my interactions are certainly minimal, and I actively share less, as I want as little of my private life and choices to be made accessible from external sources or people unknown to me. 

Cup of tea to post online anyone? 

References

Paul, B. G. a. J., 2020. Digital Transformation in Business and Society [electronic resource] : Theory and Cases, s.l.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Podolny, R., 2013. Current Trends in Discoverability of Social Media Evidence. Advocates’ Quarterly Like It or Not.