The Webjam paradox ... Thinking aloud

After the resent Webjam’s news (I repeat, all of them extremely good), I began to think of the "Branded Webjam Services."

Let me give a few steps back and then come back and try to argue my thoughts…

Somehow, Webjam is generating a brand experience that is unique. It is not for everyone, but for a specific tribe.

The Webjamers have different aspirations, promote different contents, create specific formats, however, share an agenda of values and behaviours that emotionally support our decision to join and stay in the system.

Webjam has been explicit in its business model. Surely, they have a call to action idea that makes Webjam a firm and not merely a business, however it is still implicit.

Today, as external “user” audience, there are four ways of being part of Webjam:

The ones who visit an area in particular, even register to a Webjam, though without creating their own Webjam
The ones who have a Webjam
The ones who have a Webjam and are premium members
The ones who are partners with Webjam (corporate)

Each of these possibilities creates a different relationship with Webjam and therefore a different experience.

In the first case, Webjam is something that is there, without further. people are more interested in the contents of the visited site
In the second case Webjam is the brand of reference
In the third case, those with a premium account, Webjam is, but they have the potential to give more weight to their own brands
In the fourth case, Webjam is the messenger; the presence of brand would be low and/or almost invisible. And this is the case of the "Webjam Branded Services"

What I mean by this is that the Webjam brand has different roles. In some cases, corporate brand (for shareholders, employees, investors, media, Webjamers), in others it's a product brand, and in general, Webjam could be an ingredient brand.

And here comes my thought… As ingredient brand, Webjam visibility is low. Take for example a B & Q (UK’s Leroy Merlin). Since his paintings have duPont as an ingredient brand, not only sell more, but also sell better (20% more expensive).

Possibly, if each Webjam, such as Hey!, uses "Powered by Webjam", it could create a win-win situation: Hey! earns more value because the ingredient brand gives greater and deeper meaning, and Webjam too, because its brand would have greater presence. What if, for instance, the templates of Webjam carry this inscription? What if all of us (Webjamers) agree to use the "Powered by Webjam"?

And here lies the paradox… The branded services appear to be "Webjam unbranded"… Premium pages can lose the word "Webjam" in its URL.

The value of a brand on Internet is usually calculated using models such as the "End-Game". This model considers the presence of the brand and investment … It considers topics such as:

Presence in the URL
Presence as an ingredient brand
Presence in each site

I'm talking about Euros!

I buy a computer without a recognised brand, but pay more if it carries "Intel inside". I get out trecking and pay more for a Patagonia’s jacket that was produced with "Goretex"… Pay more for a leather sofa by Natuzzi…

Brand experience are becoming more semantic, are a dialogue. And that is where everyone wins… Surely, the Webjam team is thinking about this… And we, the Webjamers?

I am thinking aloud… just that.

Comments

written on 16-Jul-2008
julio.ferro [http://webjam.com/heydesign] says:
Webjam works as my megaphone!
I've been playing with Ning, but the user experience is a little messy for me. Webjam is simple and gives you the tools to create not a web, not only a social ring but a channel.

Since the endorsment my traffic has increased a lot and reading the references, 30% comes from people looking for "online site builder" and "webjam" keywords.

P.S. you can quote me for free. jajaj
written on 16-Jul-2008
cristian.saracco [http://www.webjam.com/brand30] says:
You're like MasterCard... No price!
written on 16-Jul-2008
albertob says:
Hi Christian,

I am forwarding the link to the team.
Fantastic thinking, very relevant for our current discussions.

Thanks a lot.

I will be back with more comments.
written on 16-Jul-2008
cristian.saracco [http://www.webjam.com/brand30] says:
I hope it helps!... Thanks to you!
written on 16-Jul-2008
redhead says:
Hi Cristian,
I think there is no one right way or one definitive need in the relationship/process you are describing.
Of cours - we all want Webjam to become a brand that people will be proud to have as the infrastructure for their site (a-la-intel). That would be fantastic, and we are working towards that day. In the mean time - every community that is using Webjam and doing it well - is not only enjoying our work, but we enjoy their work, in the sense that they bring traffic/users/media to Webjam, and help make the Webjam brand known, respected, used.

On the other side to all this, there is still the business aspect, which cannot be ignored. If there are organisations who want to use the Webjam platform, because it answers their needs, but do not want or need the Webjam brand, they want to keep everything under their own brand - that is a need we can provide.
To me - this is another strand of our business, and if we manage to answer many organisations' needs, and get our name known as a platform for such organisations - that is also a good thing, that will undoubtedly promote the initial brand.

So I don't see a conflict here. At the end of the day - we want many people to use webjam. Real people, real communities - those are our users who we want to please. Doesn't matter if they come for Webjam as a brand, or because of a specific community.

A little long... but I hope I made my perspective clear.
written on 16-Jul-2008
Phailanx [http://www.phailanx.co.uk] says:
Hi,

I think Cristian outlined the ways in which webjam can be used quite productively as there are many approaches to Webjam which I think is one of the positive factors of the platform. You can use it as a website builder, a social network, a private arena, increasing brand equity for a company and also for fun digital marketing campaigns.

I don't think the categorisation is important for the user. However, it probably is important from the needs of the business and when monetisation becomes an element. Hopefully the user graduation process of the product will increase the use of the product, as well as starting to define and answer some of the things mentioned above. Without a doubt brand equity is increasing, to what extent that will impact Webjam, imho, is still unknown.
written on 16-Jul-2008
cristian.saracco [http://www.webjam.com/brand30] says:
Hi! Did you read the full post?... I don't know what is happening with Brand 3.0... Menu and this post...

As soon as everything is OK... I'll answer!...

Thanks for your comments!
written on 16-Jul-2008
cristian.saracco [http://www.webjam.com/brand30] says:
Hi Hadas & Azlan!

Now again... Thanks for your candid comments...

Everything here is already solved... The menu is back and this post too.

Hadas, regarding your comments:

- First, I enjoy writing, answering, reading, participating... being part!

- As I told in the post... it's an aloud thought... just that!... I'm not trying to describe a relationship/process. Probably, this post is an effect of my "branding mind bias"

- As you may see, I'm also enjoying Webjam and deeply thank you guys for the idea and work that you are doing... It's fantastic!

- Regarding the business aspects... I do believe that a strong brand experience is based on strategic thinking. So, my point is not if companies want (or not) Webjam as an ingredient brand... My point is that this is a decision of Webjam Ltd. and that ingredient brands use to add value to the involved companies... See the DuPont example... B&Q recognized that DuPont as an ingredient brand added value (30% ACGR in sales with a 20% higher price per unit), and DuPont recognized that being an ingredient brand added value to them (this situation had a direct impact in DuPont's economic brand value)... However, this was a DuPont strategic branding decision ("We are going to be ingredient brand under this conditions...")

- There is no conflict... Just a thought!... However, it goes beyond functionalities... It's pure emotional (but could impact directly the Webjam relational capital)

Hazlan... I agree with you, the categorization is not an issue for the user... It could be for Webjam Ltd.... Also, I'm sure than brand equity is increasing... The issue is that there are ways to estimate the impact (and also to simulate different branding options)...

In my thoughts I envisage Webjam as a leading brand that everybody want to have as an endorsement!

Uffff.... to long... Sorry!
written on 16-Jul-2008
ym [http://www.webjam.com] says:
Hi Cristian, you're getting all of us here at Webjam in overdrive with your analysis which is very interesting. I would just add at this stage that our goal is to be essential to anybody, individual or organisation, who want to pro-actively manage the interaction with their community(ies). The various level of branding and customisation we propose ( http://about.webjam.com/webjam/blog/$webjam_b ... esses ) are here simply to match different market needs, even though I agree with you that the holy grail is to have people value a simple "powered by Webjam" on their site. The good news is that some clients are already saying this as being on Webjam gives their credibility as true social publishing platform. Thank you again for your endless contributions in helping us build a great services for our users and clients.
Yann, Webjam co-founder & CEO
written on 16-Jul-2008
cristian.saracco [http://www.webjam.com/brand30] says:
Hi Yann!

Thanks for your message!... And sorry to produce wiht my post a kind of strange effect there!

BTW, I read that post (I think in one of your Webjams... and answered it!)...

Thanks again & cheers!

Page navigation

The semantic blog » The Webjam paradox ... Thinking aloud

Comments

Leave a Comment