Media Week

Good point. Most people are pretty ill informed on most things so the quality of what you get back is likely to be relatively dire.

I tend to think that there is a certain 'type' who would regularly engage in consumer feedback so it wouldnt be representative in many cases.

If it were up to 'democracy' in choosing everything, we'd be plied morning noon and night with quick fix, Big Brother, takeaway, WAG front cover, vomit inducing pap.

I'm thinking that you should these platforms as the basis for a meritocracy ie the best ideas win...

The progress in technology should not cloud the continuous need for commercial decisions to be grounded in insight. Expertise will always be required to identify trends and foresee opportunities rather than collating poll results. In this context, online platforms serve as a communication channel (albeit a far more efficient one than the traditional suggestion box). It should be used as a tool, with others, to guide judgment rather than dictate a knee jerk reaction.  

These initiatives are just new ways of gathering consumer insight - just more cost affectively, in real time and probably more honestly. If the customers are wiser is debateable, but as brand guardians we are still the experts and should still lead the way. It's just more interesting now since we can tap into such a large pool of ideas – the more we know the easier the decision.

Hi Lincoln, How can you guard brands now? Anyone can upload a YouTube video trashing your brand? Any one can publish a blog attacking your brand and it can be top of google search in minutes. How can you be a brand guardian in that context?! Surely you have to keep up an element of control and begin to immerse yourself in the conversations - one to one.

I think the problem lies in the enthusiastic take up of the loose concept or term "wisdom of the crowd" rather than a true application of the concept.

The concept a the heart of the wisdom of the crowds is about the ability of a groups of no experts - often under informed individuals - to predict an outcome as well as if not better than the experts. Often the examples are numeric outcomes - number of sweets in a jar, weight of a oxen etc. In addition an important factor is that predictions are usually blind to other individual's predictions. The move has been to take this insight and apply it to a wider expectations of a crowds ability to make better informed choices than the experts.

If we push the model to more subjective areas - which advert is better or creative solutions - come up with the best advert, then my expectation it is less likely that a crowd will perform better.  In addition where predictors can see what others have predicted or propositions then we get less independent input from the individuals, we can more to basic follow the leader behaviors.

Dell idea storm, my Starbucks etc are all forms of useful social engagement and a way of bringing the crowd or more specifically the passionate brand consumers into the fold. Any activity which allows this form of dialogue has potential benefit as long as the outcomes are substantial actions and not just a marketing exercise.

The expert is not dead, and the crowd is wise - in certain situations, and the crowd is certainly informed and wants to be heard. The informed consumer is on the rise and they expects brands to respond and react to their rants and raves. We must listen and enter appropriate responsive dialogues, but neither can we completely abdicate product, marketing or brand strategy to the crowd.

how wise are the intelligent people in the crowds?

Interesting thread, the crowd is not always wise, but the fact is we all like to think we are experts, and many of us do have good ideas and, without even knowing it, a great insight into the products and services we buy. Now, through Social Media, we have the ability to share the information on what products are good and bad and what features we like / dislike on each with other like-minded individuals around the world. This is something that brands cannot afford to ignore, if brands and corporations want to survive and flourish in the 21st century then they need to engage their audience via social media and learn to understand their likes / dislikes, concerns and their ideas.

With regards to the comments above around brand guardianship, I would sight the book "communities dominate brands" - excellent read in this area: to summarise: Brands must engage with social media to survive, in doing this they must accept that they have both advocates and detractors and that in the social media sphere they cannot "spin" their way out of discussing their weakness', brands that succeed will be those that engage in the whole conversation, both positive and negative, to encourage the positive and find out why negative comments are being made.

- I may be slightly bias as I work for a social media agency (www.socialmediamonitoring.co.uk - shameless plug, sorry) But I do believe that social media really is the future and that in the modern world communities are coming to dominate brands.