The Entertainment Election

This was first posted on my company's blog.

In the opening line of Mark Kenny’s post “The election about nothing“ on The Punch, he comments that Election 2010 has been dubbed the Seinfeld election and adds that at least Seinfeld was entertaining.

Well with a wink and a smile Mr. Kenny, I beg to differ. The actual political game may be about nothing, but the goings on in the wider community have made participating in the election a leisure activity. The magic combinations of TV, Twitter and other useful platforms on the internet have created a community that doesn’t want to just observe what’s happening in the current political climate. They want to partake in the great Australian tradition of the pisstake.

Picture my house on Monday night. I have QandA on the TV with producer-selected #qanda tagged tweets flashing on screen, I have my Twitter on ready to observe the complete flow of #qanda tweets and I include Gchat into the mix to corroborate and share any good calls beyond my 140 character limit. It’s a media deluge combining the one-to-many with the one-to-one, and it’s a lot to keep up with.

Gruen Nation and Yes We Canberra don't have tweets on screen, but they aren’t left out of this strategy either.

As a viewer, the focus of the show is not that one can be swayed from one political view to another. It is merely the ability to find the best jokes regarding our politicians. And it’s all facilitated via Twitter. Some of the best ones to watch include @Fakefielding, @FakePaulKeating, @GodwinGretch, @the_Chaser_, and the Chaser Boys, @craigreucassel, @andrewjhansen and @Chaslicc.

It’s changing the way we watch live TV, it’s adding another dimension and it’s creating a community of connected Australians who just want to have a laugh.

And we aren’t talking a couple of tweets, we’re talking at least 8,000 tweets on #qanda relating to Monday night’s show . Since July 19, day 2 of the campaign, we’ve logged 40,000 tweets mentioning #ausvotes (we’re testing some new tech at Media Monitors so I can’t share any more).Those numbers aren't anything to frown at.

Twitter in this country is allowing for new ways to connect with people. I’ve made a handful of new online friends and it’s nothing to be scared about. It’s just another access point to get more funny stuff about the election. It’s created an election about something, something entertaining, something to talk about and share with your friends. Social currency has gone through the roof and everyone wants to be that person who gets their RT shot into the limelight.

This is a winning social media activation and a key insight into a proportion of the Australian population who want to connect around topics of interest. For the first time in my life I’m enjoying an election, not for the politics, but for the way people are connecting with each other. I only have 2 questions, will this excitement die post the election and will it impact other mainstream media events?

Online Media Measurement Hysteria

This is a post on the Media Monitors Blog.

Social media has shaken our communications methodologies to the core.
Proliferation across all channels has created marketing hysteria and tracking complications.
No longer simple, no longer controlled. The mass of content out there is overwhelming.

Online seems to be the current focus and the key to analyse the right content lies in the ability to filter the noise. But you know, any Jo Shmo can use searchtastic and activate Google Alerts to catch any mention of any search string. I question:

• How does that really help you when you’re getting hundreds of content items a day?
• How does that help you when the ability to filter out words with duplicate meanings is non-negotiable?
• What about other media? Does it compare? Does it shift from one to the next? Where is the starting point? No one really lives in a digital vacuum.
• And do you really need to react to every single mention that’s relevant to you? If someone with a nonexistent virtual social life makes a mention is it worthwhile to respond to? Usually the life of these comments lives and dies with the next topic stream, sometimes even an inhalation is enough.

What am I getting at?
Yes, we can listen to any type of noise out there. For example, if I want I can indeed track all mentions of an Apple, whether it’s Steve Job’s baby, Gwyneth Paltrow’s or a piece of fruit. But if I want to track those important apple mentions relevant to me AND get the most traction with a sizable audience- i.e. I should definitely be aware of them so I can react accordingly- I want to know about them as soon as they happen. I don’t want to sift through hundreds of mentions of Apple Pie before I know that Apple, Gwyneth’s baby, is as cute as pie.


In actuality, looking at absolutely every single mention is not that important. That’s what interns are for. They can listen to the noise and the random mentions. They can deal with those small time issues. But the decision makers of an organisation need to be aware of the mentions which have legitimate audiences requiring PR expertise and a strategic response effort. This could be those blogs with the most readers or the news sites which are employing comments and interaction. Social media spread across consumer generated channels is just as important as the social media uptake on professional offerings.


As a strategist with a focus on new media, I have developed an outlook which incorporates a balanced approach to communications. I value that I can discern between the bogus and the bonza. I know that a lot of tools out there don’t actually offer me any value because:

• I can’t segment audience by region, and even if I can, it doesn’t appear to be legit.
• I may be able to filter by the source region, but the internet is global and readers live far and wide.
• I’m limited by more sources to predominantly ugc sites, but so many corporate sites now offer social media capability. Those conversations are just as important.
• Online and print coverage varies. If you don’t believe me, look at this white paper entitled “Comparison of print and online content in Australia’s metropolitan media”

We aren’t all digital, we aren’t all tech heavy and we all like to know what’s going on with the world without getting spammed. The problem is that 2-bit marketers often flash bells and whistles about great analytics, the volume of mentions and the strength of a search term. But, when you really think about it, the value of that volume is minimal. A search term can have double or even triple meanings and if measurement isn’t consistent across channels, it doesn’t mean much.


All this new media is still new. It’s no surprise. The good news is that we’re learning how to navigate it and digest it. But when we make leeway like this which helps to make our understanding of it more intelligent, it’s worth taking that kind of learning on board. Something I’m proud to say, is being done here. It is possible to filter the validated and legitimate mentions as well as analyse the overall impact. I am actually genuinely excited to know that this can be done. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a really great post and then learned it came from some guy living in a cave in Siberia with an audience of 3.


Being realistic about analytics, we can no longer look at diluted content streams in entirety and consider them valid . We need to be smart about how we approach our internet tracking.
There’s value in minimising our work load to have exactly what we need, when we need it.
There’s value is knowing what your local audiences are exposed to.
There’s value in the ability to identify duplicates with the originating source.
There’s value in integrating online reporting and analytics with broadcast and print.
And there’s value in the ability to validate legitimate sources.

Simply put - content in context. The cherry on the cake. 

See, there is a song called "F-ing Boyfriend" and it's great.
Dedicated to all the ladies out there with a similar issue.

AdTech Sydney: Hits and Misses

Latest findings from AdTech Sydney unveil some interesting perspectives on how to handle various components of social media.

Hit

Adnews: Lion Nathan former national marketing director Margaret Zabel stresses media mix is crucial for branded content.
Lion Nathan's '6 Degrees of Separation' branded content for Tooheys Extra Dry would have been more effective with better media choices, its former national marketing director has admitted.

Here is an example where a brand has gone out guns blazing into the social media sphere and realized there are a gaggle of improvements that should be implemented when creating content. Lion Nathan should be applauded for these efforts and realizing the necessary changes they need to make to future content initiatives.

The problem with content today is that there is a volume mismatch. Branded content disappears into the content vortex where the millions of content creators fight for eyeballs. The mismatch lies in the fact that branded content aims to be a short-tail initiative in a long tail world. This is why so many branded content pieces fail. Only a few can ever rise to the top in this fashion.

This is where a more solid media mix comes into play. A brand needs to utlise its capacity to buy media time and invest its dollar into both environments to ensure traction with the right audience.

The lift should be enough to rise above the pack and hit the eyeballs required.

Miss

Adnews: Social media demands commitment
Marketers must avoid hype and commit to the long-term relationships they create in social media, according to a panel at Ad:tech.

This excerpt outlines that any social media activity needs to go for the long haul. It’s an interesting perspective, and one that brands/agencies have been touting since the early days of social media. However as time has passed it has become apparent that:

People care about a brand only when it’s relevant for them.

People might not need to know about your brand on a daily/weekly/monthly basis.

People get bored.

This is a clear case of not using metrics, data and the correct human insight to create a social media strategy which works for a brand in its category in it social media space. The intent to use social media for the long haul does not work for every product and is a statement that should be used with caution.

For many products, their audiences have different social media soft spots. I’ve written a previous post which discusses this briefly. Brands need to create social media strategies which speak to their objectives. If one of those objectives is to effectively manage resource and an organization can’t support activity within a social media environment all day every day, then create a strategy that meets that requirement. And if a fan gets irritated that you aren’t available 24/7, make that fan the 24/7 representative! If they fan is that loyal they’ll love it.

You can also read this post on my company's blog


Love this clip of Greg Wilson. Imagine the world when mixing started, people learned their lessons. If only it was the same in social media

Olympics Use 'Best' Social Media To Reach Younger Demos

Mediapost: In advance of the Vancouver Winter Games, Olympic organizers have launched a global social-media promotion looking to build interest among a younger set. In conjunction with YouTube, participants are encouraged to upload videos to the site showing themselves one-upping well-known Olympians.

There is one ingredient missing, failing to read the Olympic Charter
The Olympics is a great event. The ideas behind it, the bringing together of the best of the best and the patriotism it inspires, is a brilliant way of creating a global community.

However, over the last decade, the IOC has been left behind as technology and media solutions have advanced. I believe this is due to the belief of IOC officials that people believe in the Olympic movement as they do. That it is impossible that the Olympic movement can fail in bringing people together.

The other component that has kept the Olympics in the dark ages is the stranglehold on the brand and the conviction that this branding cannot leave traditional media or be exposed outside of licensed arrangements.

Now, there has been a minute step forward. Creating this social media campaign was part of a resolution that "the Olympic Movement should actively engage the next generation of Olympic fans through digital media", but one component seems to be missing, using the IOC charter to help shape and formulate social media strategies which meet an organisation's objectives.

The charter basically states that the Olympic marketing programme has become the driving force behind the promotion, financial security and stability of the Olympic Movement. But creating a social media campaign just to target youth is a bit sightless. Youth aren’t the only people who use technology or the internet. What about everyone else? And what about creating marketing efforts which reach across the globe? There are global athletes, but where is the global media placement? This seems to be so US centric.

As a fan of the Olympics, and yes, even a volunteer in 2000 (see pic below, put that in your pipe and smoke it), it has saddened me that the IOC has failed to create something more than just an event in a chosen city every 2nd and 4th year. They have failed to use the tools at hand to create something which brings people together from across the globe, WHILST generating returns to keep the movement going. Social media is not just a marketing campaign and for something like the Olympics, it needs to be utilised as a business solution. It is my belief that the Olympic movement possesses the assets to be the leader in global multimedia monetisation. It’s a complete mismatch against basic and now expected consumer need- i.e. viewers having the opportunity to access Olympic events when they want, how they want.

Timo Lumme, Director of IOC Television and Marketing, you know what I'm talking about! We spoke briefly after the 'jing, but then you were always too too busy after that....Give me a call buddy. We’ll go skiing in St Moritz and talk it over. Bring Jacques Rogge while you're at it.

Juan and me. Talking Olympics and digital.

Redefining "Social Media"

Our friend, Wikipedia, defines SM as:

"Media designed to be disseminated through social interaction, created using highly accessible and scalable publishing techniques. Social media uses Internet and web-based technologies to transform broadcast media monologues (one to many) into social media dialogues (many to many). It supports the democratization of knowledge and information, transforming people from content consumers into content producers."
source

I don't think this is correct anymore. Social media may have started out as a voice of the people, but now that we've evolved and businesses are involved, it's become much more of an exchange- informational and media based. With the potential for so much growth, "social media" should ensure additional factors are incorporated.

Social media is still about allowing users to have their own voice and allowing people to connect directly with an organisation. But what about the organisation in an ROI sense? Not enough activations in social media pool results together to give businesses solid data about their customers in the context of the business in question. In fact, I don't think enough organisations are thinking about social media outside of a marketing context.

A lot of the tools that have been developed in social media allow businesses the resource to reshape and reformulate purchasing cycles to effectively minimise resource and maximise return. The data stream that can be gathered internally is incredibly valuable. A company has the potential to tailor products and services based on exactly what their customers are asking for. When companies go guns blazing on the YouTube, the Twitter and the Facebook, they lose the potential of taking a well thought out internal approach which can increase sales dramatically.

This type of business change works very well for service based industries, where there is a large exchange of information required from both the individual and the business in terms of what the business offering is. It's a long term initation. For FMCG and the like, it's a lot closer to the existing models- short, sharp promotional activations.

So, the sum of the parts of social media becomes:

1. Exchange of interaction/information between consumer and business through some form of a social media engine- here companies can understand what their consumers really want from them.
2. Companies analyse data to understand where their customers are headed and isolate areas of the business which can answer these needs
3. Businesses reshape offering and resell these back to those interested customers.

The process becomes a universe where users actually attain what they're after in a timely fashion. On the flip side, a business makes sale. Everyone wins. How can you argue with that?

Everybody, Get on! It's the social media ride!

As I nibbled on petits fours and sipped afternoon cocktails in yesterday's summery sun, I had the lovely experience of discussing my favourite* social media conversation for the umpteenth time:

Social Media Conversation numero 63:
We're making Facebook groups for all of our sub brands. It's great! What do you think?

It is great that this company has decided to make a move into the new marketing opportunities that have become available. I'm happy that they're trying new directions. But when I began to probe and asked "Why are you going on the FB? Who are you trying to reach and what are you aiming to achieve?" - I was and am often faced with blank stares and silence. It quickly became obvious that the only objective was to put a tick next to "Set up Facebook page" on the to-do list!

Who on earth is going to want to see the page besides staff? And that's often because they have to! If there is no incentive for any of loyalists, indifferents or even detractors to have a look- then forget it. Replicating information from a website is not creating a social media page.

Prior to social media conversation numero 63, it often helps to ask:

• Do we have reason to be on a social media site? Will it help grow our offering in the right way?
• Do people care about us enough to want to engage with us in a social context? Can we create that context?
• What will our objectives be? Sales, awareness, promotions, spread, customer service etc?
• Do we want to engage with interested audience or motivate new user bases?
• Do we have enough to push our page through to the long term? And is there a strategy to keep content fresh?

If even a couple of these questions are answered, it's a good starting point. And at least if some of the initial strategies don't work, it's an easy enough fix to reoptimise and keep moving forward.

*The use of favourite here is to be taken lightly.

Mastercard Moments: A case of the short term feeding into the long term

The Mastercard Priceless idea is about special moments that have a simple hook. The hook is a common human truth, making the moment more accessible to everyone.

Moving from a campaign level, Mastercard have gone to the next stage and adapted their rewards program to be more functional for their user base. The rewards that they offer can become moments and priceless experiences. Mastercard Moments is a natural progression in both a business and marketing context.

Their adaptation of their rewards program is an aggregator of their offering inside a simple social media framework. When I say simple, I mean a user has access to only their profile (not the universe) and can access those offers that are right for them, setting the ones they like to a wishlist. The mechanic is that it seems to allow users to find and discover what rewards they're after and access it easily. Consequently allowing Mastercard to know what their customers want. It's a tool which seems to meet needs without wasting time.

It's a no brainer. Much smarter than using your audience to create your content - ie Mastercard could have asked users to submit their own Mastercard moments into a repository. But that begs to ask the questions-

1. who cares about what Joe the Plumber has been up to?
2. Why is relevant for a user to filter through what becomes everyone else's irrelevant experiences?
3. What purpose does that serve to the Mastercard user?
4. What purpose does that serve to Mastercard?

Here we get an ongoing adaptive process. Feed successful marketing campaigns into new long term business solutions and allow those business solutions to feed back into short term campaigns. Using the business solution as a guide. For example, Mastercard can see which offer motivates most users and work towards short term communications to maximise returns on that offer. Very Nice.

And as long term solutions create a direct communications exchange with consumers, business find opportunities to give consumers what they want. One feeds the other and we end up with businesses maximising their returns.

...it's taking all my strength to hold off on a priceless gag....

We aren't in Kansas anymore Auntie Em

This, is the biggest storm in a teacup since they put visible hearing aids in John Howard's wax dummy at Madame Tussaud's.

Hey Hey it's Saturday's Red Faces is an Australian heritage. You could compare this to how racism in America used to be the right way to go. Taking the piss in the land of Oz just is.
Yanks don't get it, that's why Georgie would always tug my arm and tell me he was "taking the piss" whenever he told a joke, most often at my expense. Georgie is used to the Yank not understanding because they simply don't. Even when it slaps them in the face.

This type of non-journalism makes me sad. This is in actual fact a witch hunt. No one thought there was anything wrong until that gimp made Daryl apologise. And then, the media took it and ran. With the apparent uproar in America, which basically means they had nothing else to write about, the local journos have resumed their America envy. Shame on you Australia for being UnAustralian. The worst insult around.

There are also 3 facts that I would like to draw your attention to:

• Those guys did this skit 20 years ago. No one had a problem then and racism in this country seemed to be largely unaffected from this tomfoolery. However, in the US, racism seems to have hit a new high. The events coined "Rodney King" and "beers in Obama's Rose Garden" come to mind.
• Michael Jackson is white. His death does not change that.
• And as one FunkyDreddUK said on YouTube:
  "I don't believe they intended to offend but in America this is higly sensitive because of the history of black Americans and how they were treated. However, Americans are quite happy to portray Arabs, Asians and pretty much everyone else in a negative and offensive manner on tv without much controversy..."

So yeah Harry, where were you 20 years ago? Huh? Huh? Take your book burners, your fun killers and that weird drooped face you now have back to your jazz club and stay there. America's history is its own and Red Faces belongs on an entirely different spiritual level.

For a touch of luxury where you need it most

...and you'll never guess where- a lady's cha cha:

"The U by Kotex Platinum range of tampons and ultrathins brings you a touch of luxury where you need it most. The range is packaged in stylish cartons and includes unique product features to help you take the ultimate care down there."

It's so nice that Kotex has considered the luxury option for when Flo comes to town. If feet can have Prada, should punani not have these same options?

As I passed the bus stop with this ad, I thought the same exact thing. I've really been pondering for a while now why there is no diversification and growth in the feminine hygeine market. Luxury and concern for vajayjay appears the optimum choice.

The tagline really takes it to the next level "a touch of luxury where you need it most". I'm not sure about that. Does hoo-hoo need this kind of attentiveness? Luxury seems to have always been something that's on display. Being able to show those premium wares goes with the territory. To make something which is hidden a luxury, seems odd. I'm sure the research was done and women wanted their fancy pads, but was it looked at in context?

...unless. Unless Kotex is talking about the packaging and this needs to go on display. But I dunno. It isn't a Platinum Amex, we're talking about periods and most women don't really want that information on parade.

There seems a disconnect. But feminine hygeine is a tough product. Kotex, I sincerely hope you do well. I don't know if you're thinking social media, but just take some lessons from Tampax's foray into social networking before you tamper with that angle.

2 obsessions that have me bamboozled

1. Usage of the movie Downfall in the mocking of any advertising scenario
Well, I think Mr Servant of Chaos Heaton did it first with the Age of Conversation. He got lots of backlash, really for no reason. He started a trend.
There was something recently with George Parker and Enfatico's actual downfall. Good work
And then there is this lovely shot at iSnack2.0. Great writing, really solid.

I am loving this Downfall obsession. It is making great appropriation of content and there are lots of others out there that aren't just marketing related.
As soon as a brand gets involved as the instigator, this whole phenomenon will be toast!

2. The dancing Flashmob

What is the deal with this?
Those prisoners in the Phillipines doing it was cute and great. They have nothing better to do with their time, it just fits for them to become a dancing ensemble.
And Improv Everywhere have been doing it for ages with free people. They are/were great.
Then there are lots of other dancemobs, everywhere. They aren't that good anymore, it's getting very "boy who cried wolf".
With this latest dance mob, I at first thought Oprah just wanted to get on the bandwagon, because she does that. In fact she loves doing that- taking things from people and making it her own. But only at the very very end did I notice it was for T-Mobile. They love this shizz. But is it really doing anything for their brand? They just tack their logo at the end of selected song. It's sucking. T-mobile- stop it. Please. For the love of god. Let the prisoners have their candy back.

Unhappy little Vegemites vent their fury over iSnack 2.0

Julian Lee, SMH It must have seemed like a good idea at the time. But no sooner had Kraft trumpeted the name of its new Vegemite variant, iSnack 2.0, than it was met with almost universal condemnation by customers.

i-GeValt iSnack2.0
When I saw this campaign, I thought 2 things:

1. I've seen this name that flavour thing before - Smiths is doing it with the chip flavour thing, and they copied that with Walkers Chips. Winegecarribee library even had their own renaming competition for their young adults section and they did it back in June to win an iPod. The list should go on, but 3 is enough, enough to make it unoriginal. (there's a crap load of others here)
2. If I've seen this scenario before, it's been a case of that meeting room discussion:
   "We'll, this is working pretty good in the market right now, why don't we do it too. If all is going well for them, the laws should dictate that it goes well for us."
   Wrong iSnack 2.0. The first law of new media is that if you copy something without appropriation or amendment it will be doomed to fail. Not only because it is a copy, but because you have put no thought in to how your brand should behave in conjunction with the particular activation.
   The second law is that the consumer is 7 steps ahead of you. If you do something that the consumer is doing now, their ADHD won't handle a repeat.

And it's great that Vegemite has shipped 3 million jars of the cheesey vegemite spread, and in the end this discussion will blow over by the end of the week. BUT, and the big but, is why do agencies take the lazy route and recommend things to their clients without thinking them through properly? Or, for that matter, attempt the new stuff? Australia is lucky enough to have a relaxed enough consumer community to really push the envelope and here you are trying the tried, true and boring! Step up to the plate, use your options and make happy little vegemites proud!

...and I'm taking a holiday from cliches.

Social media guns or bums?

Apparently the rule is that If you are a social media “expert” you yourself need to be active and on top of every single social media offering.

But really?

But why?

Of the top 3- blogging, tweeting and managing a Facebook profile with the prowess of a gossip magazine editor, there is not much time left in between.

Not only do I not understand how the apparent social media gurus get any work done, I also see it as a massive problem in immersing oneself up their own asshole. Basically ye guru feels the need to create such presence, be such an opinion maker, creator of their own image that I feel they forget what really matters- an understanding of the real world!

By being so focused on creating a presence within the social media community, the real world suffers. The real world, as in your audience, aren’t stuck up this internet hole. They don’t sit in front of their computer screens for hours on end, seeing which 3 people commented on their latest blog posts and if it was even coherent. The vast majority of them have real lives, and tend to live them, with balance.

The thing that I think social media peeps forget, is they themselves live in a passion point. I’ve spoken about passion points before- these are the lynch pins which guide any execution in the new age. In the social media guru’s case, the passion point happens to be the fulcrum of the social media sphere. An unusual scenario, but the social media gun must recognise these subtle differences- how the real people absorb and use platforms to participate and interact around their own unique passion points. This allows a marketer to tailor and use platforms for their ultimate objective, creating new rules and rationales about these platforms.

But the bums...the bums are so intent on watching the social media sphere like a hawk. They dive bomb on anything new and analyse it from every angle and that’s all they do. The problem is that they look at these activations in isolation and the weakness becomes the lack of perspective. The blinders are on and they miss all the things that real people see. It’s a problem and a shame.

If you take anything from this, let it be a step back. The advent of new technologies has created a base for us to adapt and meld into the existing realms of human behaviour. There are no rules or guidelines, only learnings .Without this type of approach the onset of young, arrogant bums who fail to see these vital nuances, is inevitable.

My 2 never fail tricks for social media

If we’ve learned anything in the last couple of years in this new social media driven world, it’s that the consumer ALWAYS comes first. Regardless.
This means that for any campaign that’s about to activate, the thinking needs to back the consumer. Think about their experience from their perspective, whether your objective is to inform, educate, help or entertain.

So recently, I’ve adhered to 2 rules that every activation must stand by. “Keeping it Real™” and “Happy Families™”.

Keeping it Real™
This is no secret. When brands enter into a social media space, they must be completely transparent.
But the real secret is -if you are the voice of the brand, be yourself as the brand representative. That other thing that everyone keeps saying “find your tone, your POV”- this is BS. You become a robot and what’s the point? Instead, I say, be conscious that you’re the brand ambassador, but be honest with your individuality and let your own personality come out.

Individuals know that this “voice of the brand” is an actual person who has taken on the mantle. When it’s a “human” on the other end and not an apparent robot, people will understand if you can’t get information immediately, or if you don’t work on the weekend. All you have to do is manage the relationships, just like you manage your client.

This “voice of the brand” mantle can even rotate among different representatives. As long as you announce it and continue to manage the relationship with your audience. People will most probably welcome someone new- it’s fresh and gives you “new news” to announce if your brand is starved of anything exciting to tell. It’s essentially that personality makeover that you’ve probably always wanted for yourself.

Happy Families™.
This is the crowning glory, but VERY difficult to pull off.
Today- consumers lead the way. In relationship building, in connecting, in sharing. They essentially come together to help themselves. This is where all the good social media stuff has come from- by following this example.

So, if consumers are leading the way and showing corporations how to behave, this means corporations must take themselves to this next level as well. The key behavior is how consumers band together for the benefit of the larger community. Companies must copy. They need to get together to create solutions (media, social or otherwise) that their consumers will respond to. It may be a small sacrifice to the bottom line, but in the long run more consumers will flock because it appears company in question “gets” their consumers and you earn yourself a stellar brand reputation. This equates to absolute brand love.

Whenever we have Happy Families, things work. The level of uptake and the level of positive response is immense.

Take Mentos/Diet Coke equation, or Sony saying it’s fine for it’s fine for it’s fine for that wedding to use their Chris Brown song.
H-A-P-P-Y F-A-M-I-L-I-E-S.

Through my own recent experiences with various platforms and the recent news of Apple v Google- brands fighting creates shit experiences for consumers. Consumers lose as a result- they don’t get a feature or a tool which would fulfill some entertainment/information utility need. In this case, Apple, the rejector, looks bad and Google experiences a halo affect because it appears they wants to make Happy Families so that all consumers can be filled with glee.

The lesson here- letting go of a small portion of control enables your brand or your message to spread further. It’s very difficult because most companies want to hold on to the reins so tight that they end up cutting themselves off from the real world and prevent themselves from creating stronger more tangible connections. But if brands can get together to create more useful solutions, what's the harm?

We know sharing is caring, it’s not new news, but somehow news to companies

Jackson’s death crashes Google

B&T: News of Michael Jackson’s death caused Google to crash temporarily as social media sites Facebook and Twitter were bombarded with people clamouring for news of about the king of pop’s demise. There were so many people across the world typing “Michael Jackson” into the search engine that Google believed it was being spammed.
Users were greeted with this message when trying to access Google. "We're sorry ... but your query looks similar to automated requests from a computer virus or spyware application.”
A Google spokesperson in the US confirmed that it had “experienced difficulty” for 35 minutes.

What’s this? Google FlashMob?
I remember fondly, the time I went into a shop and there was no one in it. Within 30 seconds the place was packed and I cheekily commented to my friend that we had been the victims of a flashmob. A great and wondrous feeling.
Here we see the first case of a Google Flashmob. And this got me thinking, how would it be possible to ever recreate something as great as crashing google for 35 minutes? You would have to get at least 5 million people (maybe 2) to participate methinks, and how would you do it? Send out mass emails? Tweetmob to get everyone to enter the same term at the exact same time? Marvellous
It would be glorious. Every so often you could organize the world to crash google for a period of time. Why does it feel so exciting? And why does the world seem to join together to create these fun little pranks?
My instinct tells me it’s the power of the individuals banding together to make a difference, but it also appears that this is the tip of the iceberg.
One thing I do know, I don’t think it will be long before we see an orchestrated Googmob.

Social media used “badly”

BandT: Australian marketers may be adopting social media platforms to engage with their customers, but are, for the most part, using digital channels “badly”, according to a leader in direct marketing.
Speaking at the Australian Direct Marketing Association forum in Sydney today, Douglas Nicol, partner at independent agency The Works, said marketers need to reconsider the way they are using social media both on their own websites and external platforms such as Twitter.

Not on my watch, bub
Really? Methinks no and perhaps the 'lady' doth protest too much.
There have been a couple of good campaigns in this country. V-Raw comes to mind. I think the youths kind of enjoy that one and still do.
Sprite with their how to series, particularly "How to get into any club" , we're very good. And these are just 2 that are top of mind.

I think on the whole, all marketers GLOBALLY don't know what they're doing. But some people, some good chestnuts and good eggs, do. And these people are making some beautiful campaigns and activations that really bring some goodness into people's lives.

It's very hard for marketers to adapt to a totally different methodology to one they have quite literally been brought up on from prehistoric marketing text books. Social/digital media is still very, very new. The change won't happen overnight- just think it took 18 months for both YouTube and Facebook to tip over into the mainstream - it will take longer for marketers to get it. To say badly is a little unfair.............they're on a learning curve.

Facebook Makes Another Twitter-Like Move

AdAge by Ian Schafer: Starting Today, You Can Make Status Updates Public.
Facebook just took another shot at Twitter.
Starting now, you can publish status updates not just to your "friends" on Facebook but to everyone. That means your status updates can be visible to not only those in your social network but those who aren't and, maybe even more importantly, Google, Bing and every other search engine that indexes Facebook pages and profiles.

Well that shoots the sacred Facebook privacy rules to shit
2 ways to look at this:
1. FB, darling, what are you doing honey? It's like you don't know who you are anymore. You just trying everything like a Madonna and end up losing everyone's respect.
2. Interesting FB, very interesting. Adapting twitter like updates that are global could create a better understanding in this microblogging medium.

2 questions though-
how does everyone look at everyone else's updates?
And does FB think they can overtake twitter?

The problem is, not everyone wants to know what everyone else is saying. That's why Twitter only works for some people. And FB is a totally different type of user experience- a little bit more involved and I think that's why so many people like twitter more, they only have to expose a little bit of info, not the whole shebang.

Let's see how this unfolds, but I don't think it will be causing too much concern

Let's remember the good songs shall we:

Gays and Lesbians Love Social Networks

Emarketer: US gays and lesbians are using social media in fabulous numbers.
According to a May 2009 Harris Interactive poll, gay and lesbian Internet users were more likely to be social network members than straights—55% of them were on Facebook, versus 46% of heterosexuals, and the differences were similar for MySpace and LinkedIn, too.

Ummm, no surprises there!
Social media flourishes when the individuals participating are so passionate about something that they want to connect and find like minded individuals.

e.g. Cyclists love talking to other cycle freaks, shoppers love talking about the best shops they've found and the best bargains. It's only natural that homosexual men and women would want to connect with other homesexual men and women. I also hear that the pick up scene in these communities is off the charts. Apparently is takes one look and all bets are on. If only straight people could behave in such an easy and uncomplicated manner.

Mad Men Characters Conduct Online Survey

Adrants:
As part of his research project "about the future model of advertising" for thesis work at the Berlin School of Creative Leadership, AlmapBBDO Creative Director Sergio Mugnaini created a Mad Men-themed online research survey that's very cool. The survey takes scenes from Mad Men and dubs the survey questions right into the scene. Way more interesting than page after page of plain text. Ingenious, actually.

This survey is a little ripper!
Certainly the best online survey I ever did!
Asking the questions in video, dubbing with entertaining parlance. I laughed, I answered the questions honestly and in my opinion the survey finished too quickly. Is this the way of future online research? Because it damn well should be!

Online research is so blasé. Click here, click there, make a little pattern. I'm just trying to get points to have free sms at the end of the day. There is no impact in the survey. This one could have almost been a form of communication I am so affected and impressed by its delivery....

Bliggity Bloggity Boo

Starved of the blogging, I return.
I am completely unsure how people work, tweet, post and have a complete social life. It simply cannot be complete. Or social. Those silly people in the top 41 must not have social lives. Clearly.

However, let's begin, shall we?

Issue 1: Tossers who tell you what to say on Twitter

Sorry? Since when do social retards tell other people how to be social on a social network tool?
Is social networking the place where all social retards go and feel accepted? It may be because no one can see their actual awkwardness and they can snuggle up in cyberspace.

I digress.
The only people who really don't understand how to use social networks are marketers. Something happens and they forget their human abilities and how to talk to people. They sometimes need a bit of a refresh that human tone is not something to discard.

Quite frankly, all those things that are mentioned in the post about what not to mention are actually interesting, IF i'm interested in what that person has to say. I'd love to know what new song my music aficionado friend is listening to and whether anyone bumped into the "Shape Shifter" on the 6 train again (...a story for another time).

Twitter, like Facebook and MySpace is not for everyone. Some people will respond to the format, others won't. And people will in general use the medium differently- as people do. It is obnoxious and arrogant to suggest what people should or shouldn't say on a social networking tool. Be fluid, do what feels right. Like high school, those who appreciate you will, and who cares about those who don't?

Issues 2 and 3 will appear later this week.

Paid for content “inevitable”
The move by online publishers to introduce subscription-based news content is inevitable but will only be successful if content is targeted and the price is right, according to industry analysts Frost & Sullivan

Mmm, as Bruno would say "Ich don't think so"
You're joking me right? Has anyone at Frost and Sullivan seen the internet? Bottomless pit? Multitude of content to choose from? And, the sweetest and juciest part- if someone decides to make something 'paid for', some other company sees an advantage in making exactly the same content available for free. There's already been a lot of commentary about the Facebook example- if it became paid for the majority of members would just move to something else. One article here.

Don't even start to think about blogs as a way out of paying, where more and more people look to for opinion on news stories, but rather think about the concept of piracy - 41% of all software is pirated. A huge massive figure and a testament to the nature of people v IP.

It's looking like the software, movie and music industries appear to have gotten that chestnut "under control" and I don't think news would be any different. Yes there are some properties seeing some traction in a paid for model, but in the end you can get the content anywhere if you look hard enough and know the right search string.

Frost and Sullivan, you got the wool over your eyes. Yes, some people are honest and they'll pay, but the internet is anonymous. Which means most people won't pay because they cloak themselves in the fact that they can be dishonest because no-one knows who they are and that, Frost and Sullivan, is the bott-om line.