Hey, That’s Not Me

Here’s a nice example of a website doing something different to achieve their goals. Mixx is a news/info/photo/link  sharing site. Like most sites they know they will get better results if people SEE THEMSELVES in the site and if their friends and colleagues see them too.People are more likely to use the site, link to and from the site etc.. 

Most websites today that ask one to register and upload a photo are pretty humdrum in their appeal. They have a generic photo if you don’t upload your own, they might have a little bar telling you what percentage of your profile you’ve filled out, etc.

Mixx is mixing it up. Here’s how they’re gently encouraging me to fill out my profile. A smart underdog move.

Now You Have a Friend in the Diamond Business on Facebook (Not)

I’m kind of blown away by something… the number of brands that talk about the concept of friendship in their branding…

… and who don’t play this up (at all!!) in social networks.

photo by swamibu, via creative commons

Some examples…

If you have ever lived in a market where the jewelery retailer Shane Co. operates (some 14 U.S. states) you have likely heard the voice of Tom Shane. Shane & Co. have been ubiquitous radio ad buyers for a long long time and their slogan is likely therefore seared into the memories of a large percentage of the population.

Their slogan, said at the end of each ad in Shane’s down home soothing voice is “Now You Have a Friend in the Diamond Business.”

Can you think of a company with a more natural opportunity to create a presence in social networks as a form of community building, of marketing, of advertising?  And yet It’s not possible to be Tom Shane’s friend on Facebook. It is possible to be a fan of Shane & Co. on Facebook now. But there is no mention of or attempt to play with the fact that they have been offering up his friendship for years while now there is an entire generation smack in their demographic that is “friending” online.

F.R.I.E.N.D.S. the TV show has close to two million fans on their Facebook page. Also… no creative attempt to merge into the cultural lexicon of social media.  Sure the show’s in syndication but still people are making real $ off it and need to promote it.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has, for years, been saying “Friends Don’t Let Friend’s Drive Drunk”… a key audience for them are Facebook users.  A real opportunity here.

Cox Communications: “Now You Have a Friend in the Digital Age”. Again… nothing.

Fly the Friendly Skies. United Airlines. They still use this slogan at times, created by Leo Burnett in 1966 (the year I was born, btw) Nothing.

into the friendly skies.. photo by gradstudent 2007 via creative commons

hmmmmm

The Swimmer and the Water Pipe

The photo ran in News of the World

Michael Phelps is apologizing for appearing in a photo a few months ago with a bong. The apology feels fake… like his mom did his homework for him.

“I engaged in behavior which was regrettable and demonstrated bad judgment. I’m 23 years old, and despite the successes I have had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner that people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public — it will not happen again.”

It feels like this was a hastily thrown together response. Audiences can handle (and want) something more nuanced and interesting and honest than this. It’s “boardroom fear” that causes this sort of thing to be “wordsmithed” and said. I know it’s tough when so much money is at stake in the short term, but long-term brands need to have more soul than this.

This episode reminds me of the scene in the documentary “Shutup and Sing” when the Dixie Chicks return home from the UK after Natalie Maines made her comments about George W. Bush and Texas — and the band sits around a table with a consultant for one of their major endorsers. It was an awkward scene. The band, ultimately, chose to go in an open, honest and VERY soulful direction. And the film itself (which chronicles this very struggle about being famous and human, independent and not) became a great communications piece for the band.  Do check it out if you haven’t.

One really nice thing (and smart move) is that Phelps’ statement was made on his Facebook page (where he has just shy of two million fans).. and the 714 comments (so far) are very human in their response.

Humans give brands a soul. In the case of inanimate brands (like, say, a cereal, for example) the humans are the managers and the creative people they hire — and the customers who respond to the brand. It’s no different with brands that are actually people (like, say, a swimmer, for example). With this apology, it seems, the managers are trying to keep the Phelps brand soulless. His audience is giving it soul — per the Facebook comments.

It will be interesting, and nice, to hear from the swimmer himself at some point.

This isn’t a case of Shutup and Swim. This kid should be seen AND heard.

Of Qassams and Whoppers… Some People Are Really Starting to Understand Facebook

Two uses of Facebook by communicators caught my attention recently. The teams that built the applications — and the causes they built them for — couldn’t be more different. But they share a smart approach to the medium.

One, Whopper Sacrifice, was created for Burger King by the almost-always cutting edge Crispen Porter and Bogusky and sub-contractor Refresh Partners. The application gave people a coupon for a free Whopper if they sacrificed 10 Facebook friends. The idea, of course, was to show in a tongue-in-cheek way that the Whopper trumps friendship (and maybe it does trump certain Facebook friendships, no?). The application got into the heart of the Facebook/social media experience and tweaked it, played with it. Too well, I guess, as Facebook forced the team to remove the viral essence of the application— the part that alerted people that they had been unfriended in the name of one tenth of a free Whopper.

Whopper Sacrifice

Far more serious (and I’m guessing lower-budget.. but I don’t know) are these…

QassamCount allows people to “donate” their Facebook status messages (the little box that says what you’re up to right now… and is spread amongst your friends when you update it). Donated status boxes are automatically filled in with info when a Qassam rocket hits Israel from the Gaza strip. The app was created by Dan Peguine and Arik Fraimovich. Their goal was to counter what they (and many others) believed was distorted news coverage of the conflict in Gaza and neighboring Israeli towns. A competing application was created called STOP Israel’s War Crimes in Gaza by Abdallah Ehab in Egypt to counter what he (and many others) believed was distorted news coverage of the conflict in Gaza and neighboring Israeli towns.

QassamCount

These are smart applications. They also go to the heart of the experience… and they really hone in on where the “media” (the communications real estate) is, and leverage it. Arik believes that every donated status box is seen by about 20 people. He says they have 75,000 donated boxes… that’s a reach of 1.5 million people.

Communicating a Fraud… The Flaws of Perception

As many have written, Ponzi schemes are usually built on trust  … on tight social networks (in the pre-Facebook sense). From the perpetrator’s perspective, there is an inherent communications decision here.. using social networks as communications channels. You don’t market your product via a TV ad or newspaper or web ad.. your ads are people who take your messages into their trusted social networks.  And everything about these people communicates.. their clothes, their language, their jokes, their friends, their hair, their cars.. very subtle social/cultural cues that build trust.

In the massive alleged Madoff scheme, communication was gilt-edged… it took place in glamorous, elegant settings, sheathed in layers of wealth. (The NY Times has a very interesting piece on how Maddoff allegedly communicated and distributed his product in this way).

Potential customers clearly WANTED to believe. If they saw clues that something was seriously amiss, they looked past them. In retrospect there were clues. This image of the offices of Madoff’s outside auditor (how hard would it have been to find this office before dropping a few million dollars or euros into a fund?) gives a VERY DIFFERENT image/message. That naked cinderblock with the oozing cement IS the reality. It’s sheathed in NOTHING.

More photos at Yahoo News

The Name is Murdoch, James Murdoch

It’s day 2 of Monaco Media Forum week at everythingcommunicat.es. I’m sharing the parts I found most interesting — now that I’ve had some time to let them sink in a bit.

James Murdoch — Chairman and Chief Exec for Europe and Asia of News Corp. — was actually pretty inspiring to watch.

It seems he’s not one to gently stir around his media a bit.. he likes it SHAKEN. And since he oversees almost EVERY kind of media imaginable, it was interesting to hear his perspective.

Shaken. (photo credit Beadmobile)

Murdoch, spoke eloquently (he was interviewed  by Rich Greenfield, co-head of Pali Capital’s media and cable systems equities research) of NO LONGER DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN OLD AND NEW MEDIA.

Murdoch isn’t the only one to express this idea. Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC described it in his own (Murdoch might say “subsidized”) way.

It is a good sign that people are starting to think like this — and make decisions based on this thinking.

As an example, Murdoch spoke of a strategic decision he made while running BritishSkyBroadcasting to get as many PVRs (Tivo-like devices) in the hands of customers EVEN THOUGH it would negatively impact their own advertising business.

Why? Because it made the television viewing experience better for customers. And they sell a TV experience. He actually spoke a lot of the customer experience… and improving it as much as possible.

To hear him talk, News Corp. seems pretty OK with itself when it comes to shaking up their analog and digital businesses into one integrated media business.

News’ MySpace is an interesting example. They have something like a 16% share of the online display ad business vs. Facebook’s 1% (eMarketer, Nov. 2008). And MySpace has fewer users and less buzz amongst the so-called “technorati”. I think this has everything to do with MySpace being part of, well, a media company. News Corp. is filled with people who know how to actually sell an ad. And then they do things like buy huge social media joints and the technologists who build them.

That said, of course, Facebook is trying…(please see this post from last week and this really interesting piece by Brad Stone in today’s NY Times) and they might actually create a totally new form of advertising that even News doesn’t yet see.

But I suspect the Murdochs’ openness will bring this thinking into News as well.

If you’re interested, here is Murdoch’s interview.

Where’s The Media in Social Media? Facebook’s Innovations Begin to Show the Way… PLUS, How to Speed Up The Process

Facebook could ultimately become a really interesting — and truly new kind of — media property.

Right now it’s a property, but not a media property. From the perspective of advertisers Facebook is undeveloped land (though there is A LOT of it).  When Facebook figures out how to let advertisers take advantage, it will become a media property. And from the perspective of investors then, Facebook’s abundant traffic will be “monetized”.

A Digital Version of Cheers
Facebook, like many “social platforms’ is a digital version of  Cheers — not the show many people used to watch on TV (that was a media property!) but the bar the show was based on. In Facebook everybody does know your name. Not all of Facebook’s gazillion active users know your name, of course, but the 20 or 60 or 400 you hang out with inside know your name, know what you’re doing right now, know who your other friends are, know what you’re reading and sharing, know the last comment you made to another friend. They know a lot.. as if you were all sitting around a bar, having a drink and talking. And this bar-room get-together (or dinner party if you prefer) can happen in real time or over time — usually a combination of both as different members are around and cross with each other at different times.

This “social platform” is not unusual now. Many sites offer means for a bunch of friends or colleagues to interact in real time or over time. What IS unusual is that Facebook is trying to create a new form of media to sell that leverages this — to become a social media property.

Facebook’s Innovations Are Important … Most Companies Abdicate to Google
It is very good that Facebook is taking on the important and difficult work of creating a new media platform to go along with the new media they offer. So many other web 2.0 companies abdicate this.. they don’t invest in turning their compelling properties into compelling media properties. They drop in a few lines of code from Google, use Google’s ad technologies, and  get some revenue flowing in — but develop no real value beyond their traffic.

With any new medium this is a tricky business. A balancing act between outright, short-term revenue maximization and a respect for the overall experience and long-term value of a consumer — or viewer, user, end-user, member … pick your term.  (BTW.. one of the smartest people to articulate the need for the balancing act is indeed an architect of online search advertising. Check out Tim Cadogan at Monaco Media Forum here.)

If Facebook Succeeds the Net Result Will Be a Totally New Form of Advertising
Facebook hasn’t had the easiest time with this.. But don’t write them off.. they are iterating, testing, trying… And if they figure it out,  the net result WILL actually be a totally new form of advertising.

Facebook’s Engagement Ads Create Micro Tiger Woodses (Or Whatever the Plural Is!)
Facebook is now (literally now.. if you are a Facebook user you are just just starting to see them) rolling out a form of advertising they call “Engagement Advertising.” This is a smart name because it incorporates the biggest idea being bandied about in ad circles now — how to engage with customers. So they have got the jargon/naming bit down.

Another Engagement Ad... for Papa Johns Pizza. This one lets Facebook members become a fan of a brand. This fact can show up in their profile, and therefore spreads across their network of friends who can comment on this fact. This actually generates a proto-form of a measurable "brand conversation".

These ads so-far take a few forms. They let members become a fan of brand — a fact that (if a member allows) becomes known to members’ friends — essentially inviting friends to become fans too. This tying of advertising to conversations is interesting and potentially powerful. People with social influence who associate themselves with a brand become de-facto endorsers. This works on a grand scale for, say, Tiger Woods who influences millions. Why shouldn’t it work on a micro scale too. Let’s say I have two or three people who  find my taste/way/life somehow interesting … if I associate with a brand, I bring along a few others with me.

Add to this idea the fact that Facebook has one of the most interesting targeting systems for online advertising already. Their hyper-hyper targeting means it is possible to serve unique ads based on where people work, what their major in college was, etc. This level of targeting might not be valuable to all advertisers today — but it presents some powerful means for near “total-personalization” of ads.

How to Speed Up The Process
I love that Facebook is pushing on developing a new media.

That said…

Facebook should make building a compelling social media platform based on the unique and powerful idea of weaving advertising into social interactions and conversations HALF their job. They should make the OTHER HALF about making it possible for advertisers to get more noticed in general — and focus on some more core concepts of DISPLAY advertising.

Right now, all Facebok ads are very, basically, hidden away. That is an exaggeration, of course. But they ARE tough to see/notice. No matter how targeted or social they are.. Facebook needs to make it possible to create more visual ads.  RULE ONE about advertising  is standing out — and Facebook needs to let people create ads that will actually pop out of the page. Because Facebook’s content is so compelling (highly personal information about one’s friends and colleagues) the ads need to be even more compelling. Facebook should allow for larger, richer, more compelling ad units.

Here is one basic mockup of how an ad could be more prevalent– yet sensitive to Facebook’s members. This is a quick idea based on a print ad for Martini made by Italian agency Armanod Testa in Turin.

Now imagine this ad backed by:

-targeting (of any sort.. behavioral, contextual, semantic, demographic)

- social .. allow users to become a fan, comment, etc.

- interactive.. Make the woman standing on the bottle move around the screen. Make her interact (visually, audibly…) with the interactions members are having with their friends.

Now you’re talking a new media platform!

October 2008 Comment Prize Awarded

This blog’s first most-interesting-comment-of-the-month prize (October 2008) goes to Hans Peter Brondmo, CEO of social-technology firm Plum. He commented on a post about consumer needs in tough economic times in which I discussed Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs. Hans Peter said:

Glad you’ve got “social” on the list ;-)…

I happen to believe that connecting with people becomes a need and perhaps in some cases a rediscovered virtue and value in times of turmoil as well.

For his prize, Hans Peter can choose between Lego-style iPod speakers or a Moleskin notebook. Soon I’ll decide on the prizes for November’s most interesting comment.

BTW… even in this month’s comment prize there is a something to think about for digital communicators… Hans Peter’s comment didn’t actually appear right here on this blog.. but on a “distributed” version of it on Plum itself.

I find it  effective to push the blog beyond it’s own pages to other sites with quite a bit of traffic of their own. Depending on the post, I “syndicate” the blog  to Facebook, StumbleUpon, Plum, AlwaysOn, Fast Company… all of which have their own set of people who comment either there or by linking back here.

And I salute Hans-Peter for promoting his own platform by commenting on Plum.