Every marketer wants to influence people to think favorably about his brand (in the hope that this favorable thinking will ultimately convert into purchase). In an earlier dinosaur age, this influence was through advertising on mass media. This influence now seeks to transition to social forums. And the reason is simple – the viewers have moved on … to social networks!

The various tools of social influence at the disposal of brands are already well documented as a whole new vocabulary – Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Twitter, social networking, peer-to-peer, blogs, social media eco-system etc. In this new world, many brands have been experimenting with digital influence in spurts and starts. But the majority still finds this new language to be both intimidating and bewildering.

The net impact – many marketers are still struggling to find a seat on the table full of consumers chatting with each other, forming opinions and making up their minds.

There is a deeper issue beyond just being unable to find a seat. The very idea that conversations between two people (and the choices they make) can somehow be curated, molded, controlled or influenced assumes that consumers are inviting the marketer into the conversation. And this may well be a fallacy.

Convention dictates that, from here on, this should now become yet-another-article that spouts venom on all that is wrong with the old way of marketing, argue for a new paradigm shift, sprinkle a new, new list of incomprehensible jargon and pretend to have created a new magic formula (the book rights follow!).

However, this article posits an alternative. Rather than asking how ‘conventional’ marketing can socially influence consumers, it re-frames the problem – What is the role of marketing in a digitally consumer-networked world?

A response to this question is a brave new hypothesis: Marketing 2.0 is the creation of ‘contagious’ entertainment with embedded product placement.

Once created and sent out into the world, this entertainment will have a life of its own. It will be shared, mashed, re-mixed, responded, commented, Digg’ed, tweeted, uploaded, copied, mocked, criticized and liked… by people to other people.

One of the first likely criticisms of this definition would be that it sidesteps the core function of marketing i.e. satisfying consumer needs and wants in mutually beneficial ways.

The author’s argument to this is that there are no ‘new’ fundamental needs or wants. Almost all product innovations of today advance (or value-add) pre-existing solutions on some dimension. These innovations hasten the solution, simplify it, multi-function it or make it more elegant in design terms. These innovations, but naturally, creates new desire in the consumer to upgrade.

Said in other words, people do not need to be informed about how their needs can be fulfilled. They have the smarts to figure out what they need and the available competing choices that accomplish it. This is further compounded by aisle shopping in supermarkets and online search.

However, in this choice-driven world, they gravitate towards (or upgrade to) some choices rather than others because these choices fulfill some ‘new’ desire. This new desire may be under-pinned by the innovative product but, crucially, the ‘crowd’ magnifies it. New desire is driven by what ‘other’ people think. And the crowd only transmits what it thinks is ‘entertaining’ to the rest of the crowd!

So, here is the new algorithm:

Marketing = f (Creating new desire) = Product innovation powered by Entertainment

Lest this be construed as confusing, in simpler language, marketing is the creation of entertainment with embedded products with the end goal of creating new desire. Marketing 2.0 are the new movie producers of today, if you may. And consumer crowds become the marketers who drive new desire for these ‘movies’.

Does it remind you of how P&G pioneered tele-serials in America? Well, it is back to the future, but with three big differences …

Difference #1: In today’s age, we need to ensure that the created entertainment is truly medium agnostic, i.e. ensure that the same content gets transmitted over multiple mediums like film, television, video, gaming, ringtones, events, merchandise, V-O-D etc. Being more medium-agnostic directly translates to more reach of your entertainment.

Difference #2: In today’s age, we need to integrate the entertainment with the shopping experience to complete the consumption circle. Ride the new trend in convergence where offline media and online content converge with out-of-home shopping spaces. Create that shopping cart symbol in every medium.

Difference #3: In today’s age, we need to encourage and catalyze consumer experimentation with created entertainment – Support consumers to be co-owners of the original entertainment itself. Use collaboration (rather than one way monologue) as a mantra to connect with the attention deficient consumer. Read more on this here.

The biggest implication of these three rules is that every brand will need an entertainment strategy that sits on top of all the component parts viz. digital strategy, offline media strategy, in-shop strategy etc.

Now is the time to become the fodder that people talk about to other people about.

In sum, we would be better off creating conversations rather than influencing social networks. In this new paradigm, marketing is re-defined as an entertaining content creator. Some handy navigation rules in the creation of this entertainment are to keep it medium agnostic, integrate it with the shopping experience and encourage consumer co-creation. Any other road for marketing in this socially networked world? Would love to hear from you …