Tomorrow, Google will hold its third annual I/O Developer's Conference in San Fransisco. Traditionally, the company has used the platform to announce big product development and news; the question on everyone's mind is, what will they display this year?
My guess? Nothing special.
Maybe preview the next edition of Android or discuss the Chrome operating system. Aside from that, though? Probably not much.
Google desperately needs momentum. +1 was an incredibly mediocre product launch. They are watching many engineers walk out the door to work at other startups, and have had to cough up millions of dollars to keep others from joining them. Google hasn't premiered a truly innovative, industry-defining product in years.
Google has been playing catch-up to other mobile and social players for a long, long time. They've been letting the market, not their own innovation, dictate their strategy. If they had a truly unique product to bring out, they would have paraded it around already.
Apple overtook Google today as the #1 brand in the world. If Apple kills it at their developer's conference in June and Google doesn't prove me wrong and bring something great out, they could stand to lose a lot more ground.
i felt such love for you i thought my heart was gonna pop
Monday, May 9, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Lesson Learned
Had I known that I would be featured on a social media website and have a post garner as many pageviews in an hour as this blog has gathered over its entire lifetime, I probably would have spent more time proofreading it.
Oh well.
Oh well.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Facebook's Spam Problem
It was only a matter of time before hackers, 'sploiters, and evil-doers figured out how to use Facebook to take advantage of the rest of us through Facebook-spread malware.
As Facebook begins to steal market share away from email as a primary mode of online communication--links that used to be emailed are now shared on walls--malicious programmers have updated their tactics to reflect the shift. Particularly abusive in the past few days have been links offering users the chance to see pictures or videos of bin Laden's death. Unwary Facebookers click on the link, are invited to allow an app access to their information, and boom: the phony link is rebroadcast out to all their friends.
This chain of events should not be unfamiliar. Email experienced the same problems in its early years. While I admittedly was a bit too young in the early-to-mid 90s to fully understand the concept of email spams and viruses at the time, the parallels seem obvious. One of two things must happen for the tide of spam and viruses to stop:
The more and more I think about it, the more I become convinced that social networking, at some point, might replace personal email. The more popular Facebook gets, the more incentive there will be for hackers to program malicious viruses to steal information and compromise security. Unless Facebook can stay one step ahead of them and begin protecting users' news feeds from these sorts of attacks, they may one day find themselves in the same category as AOL: forgotten tech giant.
As Facebook begins to steal market share away from email as a primary mode of online communication--links that used to be emailed are now shared on walls--malicious programmers have updated their tactics to reflect the shift. Particularly abusive in the past few days have been links offering users the chance to see pictures or videos of bin Laden's death. Unwary Facebookers click on the link, are invited to allow an app access to their information, and boom: the phony link is rebroadcast out to all their friends.
This chain of events should not be unfamiliar. Email experienced the same problems in its early years. While I admittedly was a bit too young in the early-to-mid 90s to fully understand the concept of email spams and viruses at the time, the parallels seem obvious. One of two things must happen for the tide of spam and viruses to stop:
- Facebook users have to get smarter and stop clicking the links.
- Facebook must put filters into place capable of stopping these messages before they get to users walls.
The more and more I think about it, the more I become convinced that social networking, at some point, might replace personal email. The more popular Facebook gets, the more incentive there will be for hackers to program malicious viruses to steal information and compromise security. Unless Facebook can stay one step ahead of them and begin protecting users' news feeds from these sorts of attacks, they may one day find themselves in the same category as AOL: forgotten tech giant.
and when you said i couldn't save you enough, i started giving you up, i started giving you up
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Osama bin Laden Dies First on Twitter and Social Networks, Mainstream News Plays Catch-Up
This article originally appeared on the Three Ships Media blog.
Just over twenty years ago, CNN was a very small fish amongst the Big Three American television networks of CBS, ABC, and NBC. The concept of a twenty-four hour news cycle was still foreign, and most continued to get their news from nightly programs such as 60 Minutes, 20/20, and the local news. However, in 1991, a funny thing happened; when the United States invaded Iraq in the dawn of the Gulf War, CNN was the only news network able to communicate with viewers back home and provide footage of the conflict unfolding half a world away. It was a historic scoop, and for the first time ever, CNN was being played in millions of restaurants, businesses, and homes as Americans turned to the only news source capable of delivering to-the-minute updates on the war’s progression.
Last night, another Middle Eastern development might have marked a coming-of-age for a different news channel. As Business Insider notes, Twitter provided hints that Osama Bin Laden had been killed and that the President would address the nation nearly half an hour before most mainstream news sources could officially confirm the information. Much of the information that powerhouse news stations such as MSNBC, Fox News, and, yes, even CNN, were conveying was derived purely from gossip and rumors received via social networks.
The snowball started rolling when Keith Urbahn, chief of staff to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, tweeted at 10:24 EST that he had learned that Osama Bin Laden had been killed. Eight minutes later, a CBS producer tweeted that a House Intelligence aide had confirmed the report (interestingly enough, this tweet was made from a personal account and not from the official CBS News feed). Fox News was the first mainstream news outlet to tweet the information from an official account at 10:41 EST. You can view the entire timeline here, but what is interesting is that individuals, not branded news sources, informed many of what is potentially one of the biggest news stories of 2011.
The rabbit hole goes deeper. According to a Mashable poll (whose readership is, admittedly, probably more likely to use social media than the average U.S. citizen), 34% of respondents first heard about Osama’s death through Twitter, compared with 15% through television. Interestingly enough, television was not even second; the runner-up title belongs to Facebook, with 19% of respondents saying they heard of the news through the world’s most popular social network.
Additionally, in retrospect, it seems that one user actually liveblogged the event as it was happening without knowing it. Traditional news sources need cameras and microphones in order to report; Twitter is capable of receiving information from anyone, at any time.
While time will tell whether Osama’s death is the type of watershed moment for Twitter that the Gulf invasion was for CNN, Twitter has been showing signs of acting like a legitimate media source for a while, most notably during the uprisings in Iran. Twitter is even in the process of rebranding itself as a media and news content aggregator as opposed to a social networking tool. As audiences tire of the punditry and redundancy of traditional news channels, Twitter is quickly emerging as a “faster, more accurate, and more entertaining” news source.
This example does, however, speak to a pressing need for businesses to become involved in social channels such as Twitter By its very nature, news is quick-moving and conversational. As these conversations continue to shift from traditional media to online sources, it is imperative that businesses participate and join the discussion in order to engage both current and potential customers and create news rather than just react to it. Additionally, businesses must develop the skills necessary to target, filter, and create valuable content in order to break through the noise of social media.
How did you hear about Osama’s death? How often do you get your news from channels like Twitter or Facebook? How is your business benefiting from the modern word-of-mouth?
Just over twenty years ago, CNN was a very small fish amongst the Big Three American television networks of CBS, ABC, and NBC. The concept of a twenty-four hour news cycle was still foreign, and most continued to get their news from nightly programs such as 60 Minutes, 20/20, and the local news. However, in 1991, a funny thing happened; when the United States invaded Iraq in the dawn of the Gulf War, CNN was the only news network able to communicate with viewers back home and provide footage of the conflict unfolding half a world away. It was a historic scoop, and for the first time ever, CNN was being played in millions of restaurants, businesses, and homes as Americans turned to the only news source capable of delivering to-the-minute updates on the war’s progression.Last night, another Middle Eastern development might have marked a coming-of-age for a different news channel. As Business Insider notes, Twitter provided hints that Osama Bin Laden had been killed and that the President would address the nation nearly half an hour before most mainstream news sources could officially confirm the information. Much of the information that powerhouse news stations such as MSNBC, Fox News, and, yes, even CNN, were conveying was derived purely from gossip and rumors received via social networks.
The snowball started rolling when Keith Urbahn, chief of staff to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, tweeted at 10:24 EST that he had learned that Osama Bin Laden had been killed. Eight minutes later, a CBS producer tweeted that a House Intelligence aide had confirmed the report (interestingly enough, this tweet was made from a personal account and not from the official CBS News feed). Fox News was the first mainstream news outlet to tweet the information from an official account at 10:41 EST. You can view the entire timeline here, but what is interesting is that individuals, not branded news sources, informed many of what is potentially one of the biggest news stories of 2011.
The rabbit hole goes deeper. According to a Mashable poll (whose readership is, admittedly, probably more likely to use social media than the average U.S. citizen), 34% of respondents first heard about Osama’s death through Twitter, compared with 15% through television. Interestingly enough, television was not even second; the runner-up title belongs to Facebook, with 19% of respondents saying they heard of the news through the world’s most popular social network.
Additionally, in retrospect, it seems that one user actually liveblogged the event as it was happening without knowing it. Traditional news sources need cameras and microphones in order to report; Twitter is capable of receiving information from anyone, at any time.
While time will tell whether Osama’s death is the type of watershed moment for Twitter that the Gulf invasion was for CNN, Twitter has been showing signs of acting like a legitimate media source for a while, most notably during the uprisings in Iran. Twitter is even in the process of rebranding itself as a media and news content aggregator as opposed to a social networking tool. As audiences tire of the punditry and redundancy of traditional news channels, Twitter is quickly emerging as a “faster, more accurate, and more entertaining” news source.
This example does, however, speak to a pressing need for businesses to become involved in social channels such as Twitter By its very nature, news is quick-moving and conversational. As these conversations continue to shift from traditional media to online sources, it is imperative that businesses participate and join the discussion in order to engage both current and potential customers and create news rather than just react to it. Additionally, businesses must develop the skills necessary to target, filter, and create valuable content in order to break through the noise of social media.
How did you hear about Osama’s death? How often do you get your news from channels like Twitter or Facebook? How is your business benefiting from the modern word-of-mouth?
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Facebook Send: Fresh Idea or Old News?
This article first appeared on the Three Ships Media blog.
In an attempt to declutter their ecosystem and vocabulary as well as disrupt email as the preferred method of sharing links, Facebook has rolled out a new feature they are calling “Send”. Send will allow users to send news articles or other types of information directly to a Facebook Group or to a specific friend’s inbox. The button has the same look and feel as the Like button, and Facebook is hoping that it will become a similarly ubiquitous way to share information.
If this all sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Facebook formerly had the option to “share” a website, and it maintains the option to “recommend” a website on one’s own wall. From a cynic’s perspective, there is reason to be pessimistic about this new feature. Will its usage merely mirror preexisting clicks on things such as “share” and “email to a friend”, or will it actually promote sharing and conversation that otherwise would not have happened? There is significant room for doubt.
However, cynics doubted the Like button, and that feature has turned out to be one of Facebook’s biggest triumphs, providing an easy-to-understand lingua franca for designating relevant content in an ever-expanding Internet. Additionally, it has been an enormous boon to Facebook, providing them with an unparalleled database of consumer information–all provided voluntarily.
Should Send take off, it will provide a similar treasure trove of demographics. Want to target a user base who are between the ages of eighteen and twenty five and “Liked” a specific movie page on Facebook and “Sent” the New York Times review of that movie to their friends? In Facebook’s world, it’s completely possible.
By integrating a Send feature that looks and feels like the popular Like button, Facebook is positioning itself to steal some of email’s thunder–and collect a vast amount of information while doing so.
What do you think? Is Facebook Send a groundbreaking idea, or is it merely a fresh coat of paint on an old tool?
In an attempt to declutter their ecosystem and vocabulary as well as disrupt email as the preferred method of sharing links, Facebook has rolled out a new feature they are calling “Send”. Send will allow users to send news articles or other types of information directly to a Facebook Group or to a specific friend’s inbox. The button has the same look and feel as the Like button, and Facebook is hoping that it will become a similarly ubiquitous way to share information.
If this all sounds familiar, that’s because it is. Facebook formerly had the option to “share” a website, and it maintains the option to “recommend” a website on one’s own wall. From a cynic’s perspective, there is reason to be pessimistic about this new feature. Will its usage merely mirror preexisting clicks on things such as “share” and “email to a friend”, or will it actually promote sharing and conversation that otherwise would not have happened? There is significant room for doubt.
However, cynics doubted the Like button, and that feature has turned out to be one of Facebook’s biggest triumphs, providing an easy-to-understand lingua franca for designating relevant content in an ever-expanding Internet. Additionally, it has been an enormous boon to Facebook, providing them with an unparalleled database of consumer information–all provided voluntarily.
Should Send take off, it will provide a similar treasure trove of demographics. Want to target a user base who are between the ages of eighteen and twenty five and “Liked” a specific movie page on Facebook and “Sent” the New York Times review of that movie to their friends? In Facebook’s world, it’s completely possible.
By integrating a Send feature that looks and feels like the popular Like button, Facebook is positioning itself to steal some of email’s thunder–and collect a vast amount of information while doing so.
What do you think? Is Facebook Send a groundbreaking idea, or is it merely a fresh coat of paint on an old tool?
Monday, April 25, 2011
Twitter missed a HUGE opportunity by not purchasing IntoNow
Twitter keeps billing itself as the "savior of live television," as its constantly-updating stream allows viewers to talk to one another in real time, encouraging live viewing instead of hours-later DVR (and commercial-skipping) playback.
If that's true, it just missed an enormous opportunity to build on this position.
Earlier today, Yahoo bought tech startup IntoNow for $20 million. IntoNow is a neat little mobile app that allows users to "check in" to TV shows the same way one would check in to a location via FourSquare. Watchers can then broadcast this information to their social graph, allowing them to easily figure out which of their friends are watching the same stuff they are.
Yahoo has made no secret about their desire to enter the television market, and companies such as Netflix are starting to get into content production instead of content curation and distribution. IntoNow provides Yahoo the capability to add a social layer on top of live TV as well as streaming video via its channels.
Perhaps more interestingly, IntoNow can recognize the soundtracks to television shows, allowing the company to send information to you before you even know that you want to use the app. While sending users a barrage of apps the minute the opening chords to "The Office" are played might be a big obnoxious, users might enjoy receiving game updates via their mobile device whenever the phone hears the Monday Night Football opening.
Twitter was also in the running to buy IntoNow, and it missed a huge opportunity by not doing so. It just lost a huge piece of its making-live-TV-relevant strategy. Imagine if you could check into a television show via Twitter and automatically be taken to a hashtag set up for the discussion of that show with other viewers, or if news anchors could more easily read viewer responses in real-time? It would certainly make Nielsen ratings a snap. It could be a huge boon to the service.
My guess is that Twitter failed to buy IntoNow simply because it does not have enough liquidity. It has been valued highly, but it does not have a great (optimistically, a more realistic description might be non-existent) revenue model yet and thus does not have a lot of spare cash to throw around. Yahoo, on the other hand, is fighting to stay on the brink of relevance to the Internet community at large and is willing to make some gambles in order to right its course.
Perhaps it's time for Twitter to sell to a company with large stores of cash (cough, Google, cough, Netflix) that can help it grow and expand into something that isn't easily replaceable; make no mistake about it, Twitter is currently a fad that could be swept over by a better idea any day now. This would give it sudden boost of capital that it could use to buy services to augment the platform, like it should have done today.
Twitter missed an opportunity today to make a buy that would help transform it into the holistic media source that its management claims it one day will be. It can't afford to miss too many more.
If that's true, it just missed an enormous opportunity to build on this position.
Earlier today, Yahoo bought tech startup IntoNow for $20 million. IntoNow is a neat little mobile app that allows users to "check in" to TV shows the same way one would check in to a location via FourSquare. Watchers can then broadcast this information to their social graph, allowing them to easily figure out which of their friends are watching the same stuff they are.
Yahoo has made no secret about their desire to enter the television market, and companies such as Netflix are starting to get into content production instead of content curation and distribution. IntoNow provides Yahoo the capability to add a social layer on top of live TV as well as streaming video via its channels.
Perhaps more interestingly, IntoNow can recognize the soundtracks to television shows, allowing the company to send information to you before you even know that you want to use the app. While sending users a barrage of apps the minute the opening chords to "The Office" are played might be a big obnoxious, users might enjoy receiving game updates via their mobile device whenever the phone hears the Monday Night Football opening.
Twitter was also in the running to buy IntoNow, and it missed a huge opportunity by not doing so. It just lost a huge piece of its making-live-TV-relevant strategy. Imagine if you could check into a television show via Twitter and automatically be taken to a hashtag set up for the discussion of that show with other viewers, or if news anchors could more easily read viewer responses in real-time? It would certainly make Nielsen ratings a snap. It could be a huge boon to the service.
My guess is that Twitter failed to buy IntoNow simply because it does not have enough liquidity. It has been valued highly, but it does not have a great (optimistically, a more realistic description might be non-existent) revenue model yet and thus does not have a lot of spare cash to throw around. Yahoo, on the other hand, is fighting to stay on the brink of relevance to the Internet community at large and is willing to make some gambles in order to right its course.
Perhaps it's time for Twitter to sell to a company with large stores of cash (cough, Google, cough, Netflix) that can help it grow and expand into something that isn't easily replaceable; make no mistake about it, Twitter is currently a fad that could be swept over by a better idea any day now. This would give it sudden boost of capital that it could use to buy services to augment the platform, like it should have done today.
Twitter missed an opportunity today to make a buy that would help transform it into the holistic media source that its management claims it one day will be. It can't afford to miss too many more.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Is there a new tech bubble?
Something I've been struggling with over the past few weeks is the issue of whether or not a new bubble in the technology sector is developing.
Twitter has been valued at $8 to $10 billion. Twitter hasn't opened their books, they've only promised investors that they are making money. Does this seem crazy to anyone else, especially considering that only 8-10% of the American population, depending on who you ask, are actually signed up for Twitter, with a far fewer percentage actually creating content with frequency?
Then, news breaks today that Color, a mobile photosharing app started by the creator of LaLa, received $41 million in seed money from investing groups Sequoia and Bain Capital. This is an app that not only produces no revenue, but just launched yesterday. So there's that.
That being said, there are several reasons why this bubble is dramatically different than that which happened in the late nineties:
In the late nineties, everyone who was anyone rushed to get an IPO valuation of as high as possible to get on the gold rush that was the dot-com investment boom. And, of course, the banks were happy to facilitate such transactions. However, this time, with the banking industry on its heels and public investors generally more wary than usual, seed money is being granted to start-ups by venture capital firms and private equity funds, thus limiting the systemic risk of a collapse.
I'm not ready to start ringing alarm bells yet. However, it is somewhat distressing to see this much money poured into what are essentially beta tests with no model for revenue generation. Fueling growth and innovation is one thing; placing unjustified bets just to make a name for oneself in the marketplace (cough, Bain, cough) is another.
-Taylor
africa to new york, haiti then I detour, oakland out to auckland, gaza strip to detroit
Twitter has been valued at $8 to $10 billion. Twitter hasn't opened their books, they've only promised investors that they are making money. Does this seem crazy to anyone else, especially considering that only 8-10% of the American population, depending on who you ask, are actually signed up for Twitter, with a far fewer percentage actually creating content with frequency?
Then, news breaks today that Color, a mobile photosharing app started by the creator of LaLa, received $41 million in seed money from investing groups Sequoia and Bain Capital. This is an app that not only produces no revenue, but just launched yesterday. So there's that.
That being said, there are several reasons why this bubble is dramatically different than that which happened in the late nineties:
- These investments are being made by private funds rather than individual investors.
In the late nineties, everyone who was anyone rushed to get an IPO valuation of as high as possible to get on the gold rush that was the dot-com investment boom. And, of course, the banks were happy to facilitate such transactions. However, this time, with the banking industry on its heels and public investors generally more wary than usual, seed money is being granted to start-ups by venture capital firms and private equity funds, thus limiting the systemic risk of a collapse.
- These investments are in the tens, not hundreds, of millions of dollars.
- The market is still relatively new.
I'm not ready to start ringing alarm bells yet. However, it is somewhat distressing to see this much money poured into what are essentially beta tests with no model for revenue generation. Fueling growth and innovation is one thing; placing unjustified bets just to make a name for oneself in the marketplace (cough, Bain, cough) is another.
-Taylor
africa to new york, haiti then I detour, oakland out to auckland, gaza strip to detroit
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Update: Google Announces Mobile Payments
As I discussed yesterday, this could be a big win for Google if they can get this right and popularize it in the areas where they roll it out before Apple has a chance to make a play.
Via Silicon Alley Insider
Via Silicon Alley Insider
Monday, March 14, 2011
Rumor: Apple to omit NFC in iPhone 5
Reports from The Independent seem to suggest that the iPhone 5 won't come with NFC built in, rendering it unable to make swipe-based mobile payments (unlike the Nexus S, Google's NFC-capable flagship Android phone). Sides are currently split as to whether this is a good or bad thing, and Apple's reported logic is that they don't want to implement a feature that isn't 100% ready to go on an Apple device in addition to the current lack of industry standards with respect to NFC technology. This rumor comes on the heels of reports that Android devices have overtaken the iPhone in U.S. smartphone market share.
I'm not convinced that this isn't a bad move on Apple's part; however, after thinking about the key issues involved, I am less convinced (just over "slightly") than I was when I first read the news (DEFCON 3). Here is what I've been able to come up with:
I'm not convinced that this isn't a bad move on Apple's part; however, after thinking about the key issues involved, I am less convinced (just over "slightly") than I was when I first read the news (DEFCON 3). Here is what I've been able to come up with:
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Coca-Cola to help Maroon 5 crowdsource new song; will presumably be even more generic than others
In the latest example of social-media-as-art, Coca-Cola is setting up a promotion that will allow users to help Maroon 5 write a song in just twenty four hours. Maroon 5, notable for being one of the first acts to have a hit single (This Love) predicted through computer analytics software, is now one of the first to allow real-time fan interaction and feedback on chords, riffs, and lyrics. Social media-loving fans are expected to encourage the band to adopt Bieber-like haircuts, autotune everything, and invite Lady Gaga for a cameo.
Via Mashable
Via Mashable
Monday, February 28, 2011
Still doubt mobile is important?
According to Eric Schmidt (CEO of Google, if you weren't already aware), people have stopped sitting around the TV with their laptop and have started using their phones to access the information that an advertisement sparks interest in during a viewing. For example, during the Super Bowl (perhaps the last relevant real-time TV program left, from an advertiser's perspective):
1. Mobile searches on Chrysler went up 102 times, compared to 48 times on desktops,
2. Mobile searches for GoDaddy increased 315 times, compared with only 38 times on desktops
Additionally:
1. More than 200 million YouTube videos are viewed on a mobile device daily.
2. 78% of smartphone users use their phones to access information while they are shopping.
3. Between one and two billion people without Internet access will be connected over the next few years, many of them solely over a mobile device.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Growing Pains
The one thing that has attracted me to the emerging media industry so strongly in the last few months is the sense of opportunity that surrounds it. As I've gotten deeper and deeper into the "social media" world (quotations because that means so many different things to so many different people) the more I've realized that nobody really has any clue what they are doing yet--or if there is someone who knows what they're doing, you have to look really, really hard to find them. Many PR and advertising firms have just sort of ad-hoc added social media to their repertoire of skills without taking into consideration what that really means, much less putting in place metrics to figure out how they're doing and what success really means. It feels like we're coming into (or are we already there?) a new age of how companies and consumers relate to one another, and it's really exciting.
That being said, considering the importance that social media is going to have in the coming years, it is shocking that UNC isn't taking steps to address it in its academic curriculum. I have heard of two classes that address it in depth, both taught by Gary Kayye, and both through the Journalism School. Even at the conference I attended on Sunday, the attendees kept being generalized as "PR and journalism students". It made me want to raise my hand and point out that other people besides those in the J-School were concerned with social media and the direction it was taking.
The topic was mostly given lip-service in my intro to marketing class. And with good reason; why should we expect professors to teach us about topics that 90% of companies and corporations have yet to figure out?
That being said, considering the importance that social media is going to have in the coming years, it is shocking that UNC isn't taking steps to address it in its academic curriculum. I have heard of two classes that address it in depth, both taught by Gary Kayye, and both through the Journalism School. Even at the conference I attended on Sunday, the attendees kept being generalized as "PR and journalism students". It made me want to raise my hand and point out that other people besides those in the J-School were concerned with social media and the direction it was taking.
The topic was mostly given lip-service in my intro to marketing class. And with good reason; why should we expect professors to teach us about topics that 90% of companies and corporations have yet to figure out?
Saturday, February 26, 2011
UNC Social Media and Related Technology Conference: Takeaways
I attended a five hour social media-centric conference today. I have mixed feelings about it because, although it was a great conference filled with great people, I wasn't exactly its target audience. The subjects were more geared towards social media novices trying to leverage the tools to build a career, and very few speakers approached the subject from a business perspective, my primary interest in the topic.
Maybe the funniest moment of the day was when Jeffrey Cohen from Howard, Merrill & Partners used Google's caching service to bring up Marvin Austin's tweets from over the summer, discovering: "I deleted my txt messages foolz, how they gon git me now!? #unc". Obviously, they still got him.
Maybe the funniest moment of the day was when Jeffrey Cohen from Howard, Merrill & Partners used Google's caching service to bring up Marvin Austin's tweets from over the summer, discovering: "I deleted my txt messages foolz, how they gon git me now!? #unc". Obviously, they still got him.
Live from UNC SMART Conference
I'm currently at UNC's SMART (Social Media and Related Technologies) Conference, the first social media-centric conference to be hosted on campus. I'm learning a lot so far--topics covered have included blogging, location-based services such as Yelp!, and the path of social media from 2007 to the present. Topics yet to come include Twitter and the future of social media. I'm excited about some of the speakers coming up and I'll be back later in the afternoon with some key takeaways from the conference. Follow me on twitter @taylor_w_smith to see constant updates under #uncsmart.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Pauly D Bashes Miracle Whip, Kraft Aims to Whip Up Supporters
I've never professed to be a fan of Jersey Shore. I think it's fascinating from a purely academic and pop-cultural standpoint, but the actual people involved in the creation of the show disgust me (full disclosure: I must admit that I am incredibly jealous/depressed that Snooki is a New York Times best selling author, thereby making her more successful from a commercial writing standpoint than I will ever be). Even more fascinating is that Miracle Whip has enlisted the aid of one Pauly D in order to sell its product.
Apparently, Miracle Whip is not up to Jersey standards. This is an interesting campaign: on one hand, Miracle Whip is actually paying a celebrity to bash its product on an open forum for discussion. On the other hand, why would any company want to be approved of by a Jersey Shore cast member.
I hate mayonnaise (or "sandwich spread", as Miracle Whip prefers to be called, as it can also be used as salad dressing) and have never purchased any for myself, so I personally cannot speak to the quality of Miracle Whip. However, the fact that Pauly D hates it makes me like Miracle Whip more. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Miracle Whip has invited viewers to comment on its YouTube page expressing either their undying love or burning hatred for Miracle Whip. With 76,000 views as of this writing, it will be interesting to see whether Kraft can spark the sort of discussion/argument they seem to be picking. Might Miracle Whip supporters take to the streets in support of their beloved spread? Mount an internet campaign against Pauly D? Let's see just how passionate mayonnaise fans are.
Apparently, Miracle Whip is not up to Jersey standards. This is an interesting campaign: on one hand, Miracle Whip is actually paying a celebrity to bash its product on an open forum for discussion. On the other hand, why would any company want to be approved of by a Jersey Shore cast member.
I hate mayonnaise (or "sandwich spread", as Miracle Whip prefers to be called, as it can also be used as salad dressing) and have never purchased any for myself, so I personally cannot speak to the quality of Miracle Whip. However, the fact that Pauly D hates it makes me like Miracle Whip more. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Miracle Whip has invited viewers to comment on its YouTube page expressing either their undying love or burning hatred for Miracle Whip. With 76,000 views as of this writing, it will be interesting to see whether Kraft can spark the sort of discussion/argument they seem to be picking. Might Miracle Whip supporters take to the streets in support of their beloved spread? Mount an internet campaign against Pauly D? Let's see just how passionate mayonnaise fans are.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Mr. Splashy Pants, or How I Learned to Give Up Control and Love the Conversation
Alexis Ohanian, the founder of popular news aggregator site Reddit.com, has a great TED Talk concerning social media. It's not very long, you can watch it here, and I'll discuss it after.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Measuring Social Media ROI by Argyle Social
Short post today. Just wanted to give a shoutout to Argyle Social who recently published a great white paper on measuring social media ROI, which expounds upon many of the ideas of theirs that I discussed a few days ago. It is a great read and has been well received by the larger community. It comes with my highest recommendation.
--Taylor
just split the sky and free me to be golden
--Taylor
just split the sky and free me to be golden
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
The Boundaries of Private
Nir Rosen, a former New York University fellow, resigned today over an offensive tweet he made regarding the sexual assault of CBS reporter Lara Logan in Cairo on Tuesday.
The Logan story has been repeated ad nauseum by this point, so I'll spare you the gory details. What I'm more interested in is Rosen's understanding (or lack thereof) of the boundaries between private and public comments on the Internet.
Rosen seemed to suggest over his Twitter account that Logan would enjoy the attention she would get over such an incident, perhaps even showing up touted newsman Anderson Cooper. When he was called out on his offensive statements, he remarked that "it would have been funny if it happened to Anderson too".
Rosen deleted both tweets, but to no avail; his comments were saved for posterity via the ubiquity of the Internet, and presumably saved in the Library of Congress.
Rosen later apologized, saying he "forgot that Twitter is not exactly private".
This seems like a 'well duh' moment. However, the quick pace of Twitter bears special notice. Facebook posts are somewhat different; although someone could take a screenshot of a status update and share it, Twitter has the unique capacity through its retweet function to make a post go viral almost instantaneously.
Sysomos has published that Twitter users are generally connected by five degrees of separation; the average US adult stands, on average, six degrees from another given individual. This speaks volumes of the reach that a single tweet can have in a very, very short amount of time. As seen today, this capacity can have devastating effects on lives and careers.
I am not trying to condemn Mr. Rosin; there is no doubt in my mind that similar (or worse) jokes were made in frat houses, living rooms, and on more anonymous message boards over the course of the past twenty four hours. We all make mistakes and say things that we probably shouldn't, myself included. However, we must utilize extra caution when posting things to networks such as Twitter. A seemingly harmless post meant only for our friends and family can quickly rocket out of control.
Thanks to Mashable for providing information for this story.
--Taylor
let it warm us from within
The Logan story has been repeated ad nauseum by this point, so I'll spare you the gory details. What I'm more interested in is Rosen's understanding (or lack thereof) of the boundaries between private and public comments on the Internet.
Rosen seemed to suggest over his Twitter account that Logan would enjoy the attention she would get over such an incident, perhaps even showing up touted newsman Anderson Cooper. When he was called out on his offensive statements, he remarked that "it would have been funny if it happened to Anderson too".
Rosen deleted both tweets, but to no avail; his comments were saved for posterity via the ubiquity of the Internet, and presumably saved in the Library of Congress.
Rosen later apologized, saying he "forgot that Twitter is not exactly private".
This seems like a 'well duh' moment. However, the quick pace of Twitter bears special notice. Facebook posts are somewhat different; although someone could take a screenshot of a status update and share it, Twitter has the unique capacity through its retweet function to make a post go viral almost instantaneously.
Sysomos has published that Twitter users are generally connected by five degrees of separation; the average US adult stands, on average, six degrees from another given individual. This speaks volumes of the reach that a single tweet can have in a very, very short amount of time. As seen today, this capacity can have devastating effects on lives and careers.
I am not trying to condemn Mr. Rosin; there is no doubt in my mind that similar (or worse) jokes were made in frat houses, living rooms, and on more anonymous message boards over the course of the past twenty four hours. We all make mistakes and say things that we probably shouldn't, myself included. However, we must utilize extra caution when posting things to networks such as Twitter. A seemingly harmless post meant only for our friends and family can quickly rocket out of control.
Thanks to Mashable for providing information for this story.
--Taylor
let it warm us from within
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
A Bit of a Leap, There
Russell Brand has a brilliant stand-up bit where he reads hate mail from angry viewers aloud to his audiences. He reads profane insult after profane insult, he finally reaches a segment that claims he supports "terrorists who destroy the world," causing him to proclaim, "A bit of a leap!".
I had a similar reaction to Twitter CEO Dick Costolo's keynote at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain.
He claimed that Twitter has become an ad-hoc partner with television, allowing viewers to comment on what they are seeing in real-time with people across the country. This has helped make television shows events again and emphasized the importance of watching television in real-time, rather than recorded on the DVR, that bane of networks that allows viewers to consume media and skip over advertising.
Even more promising, Costolo claimed that Twitter activity feeds support the notion that viewers are sticking around for the commercials--and not just on Super Bowl Sunday.
OK. I can dig it. We've already heard stories of people going on social media blackouts to avoid ruining the end of a favorite TV show or the result of a missed sporting event. As Twitter continues to grow and swallow up more channels of information, it will become more and more important to make sure that we consume information at the same time as everyone else to make sure that we are up to speed. Makes sense.
Costolo compared Twitter several times to water, calling his website "a utility so useful and ubiquitous, we almost forget it's there".
A bit of a leap!
Although I applaud Twitter for resisting the urge to copy Facebook's every move (Costolo has proclaimed that there will be no Twitter phone), the service is hardly ubiquitous. In fact, it seems to be all but useless to most users--Sysomos estimates that 22.5% of users account for 90% of Twitter's activity. It is a service that seems to be of great value to some and of very little to others. Doesn't sound like a great description of water to me.
There is no doubt in my mind that Twitter will continue to innovate, add features, and grow in importance. But until then, Mr. Cosotlo would do well to avoid such grandiose statements and gestures.
Thanks to CNN and Mashable for providing information for this post.
I had a similar reaction to Twitter CEO Dick Costolo's keynote at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain.
He claimed that Twitter has become an ad-hoc partner with television, allowing viewers to comment on what they are seeing in real-time with people across the country. This has helped make television shows events again and emphasized the importance of watching television in real-time, rather than recorded on the DVR, that bane of networks that allows viewers to consume media and skip over advertising.
Even more promising, Costolo claimed that Twitter activity feeds support the notion that viewers are sticking around for the commercials--and not just on Super Bowl Sunday.
OK. I can dig it. We've already heard stories of people going on social media blackouts to avoid ruining the end of a favorite TV show or the result of a missed sporting event. As Twitter continues to grow and swallow up more channels of information, it will become more and more important to make sure that we consume information at the same time as everyone else to make sure that we are up to speed. Makes sense.
Costolo compared Twitter several times to water, calling his website "a utility so useful and ubiquitous, we almost forget it's there".
A bit of a leap!
Although I applaud Twitter for resisting the urge to copy Facebook's every move (Costolo has proclaimed that there will be no Twitter phone), the service is hardly ubiquitous. In fact, it seems to be all but useless to most users--Sysomos estimates that 22.5% of users account for 90% of Twitter's activity. It is a service that seems to be of great value to some and of very little to others. Doesn't sound like a great description of water to me.
There is no doubt in my mind that Twitter will continue to innovate, add features, and grow in importance. But until then, Mr. Cosotlo would do well to avoid such grandiose statements and gestures.
Thanks to CNN and Mashable for providing information for this post.
The Tracking Problem
Eric Boggs from Argyle Social came in and spoke with us the other day about the importance of tracking where exactly your traffic comes from, especially with regards to Facebook and social media.
Whenever you see a ? followed by a string of numbers and letters after a URL, that is a tracking code in order to tell the website you are visiting where you are coming from so that the website can correctly monitor its traffic. If you click on a link after a search result from Google or Bing, this string of characters does not appear; the website doesn't know the difference between that and you just typing the URL into your browser and visiting that website directly.
The problem is particularly evident when using Facebook. When you click on a link from Facebook, those tracking characters disappear. To the website you are visiting, it can tell that you are from Facebook, but it can't tell exactly how you got there from Facebook. You might have clicked on a link on a friend's wall, or one of the posts from your brand's news feed. Obviously, these are very different leads that should be treated differently, and without this information, you are unable to differentiate between the two. There are several problems with this.
One, this offers no way to tell which of your social media campaigns are being productive and driving the most traffic to your website. This is a huge issue from a marketer's perspective, as those sorts of people generally like to know which expenditures are generating the most return on their investment. If traffic from Facebook is all just viewed as "Facebook" and not broken down into individual posts, contests, or status updates, then it becomes very difficult to monitor the ROI of specific activities or campaigns. This makes it almost impossible to optimize one's Facebook promotional activities.
This problem grows even more complex when one views it from the vantage point of a mobile device (specifically, a mobile device using a Facebook app, not visiting m.facebook.com from a cell phone). If one clicks on a link from a Facebook app, that website has no idea where you came from. You are an "unattributed user," and there is no difference between that visit and just typing the website URL into your browser directly. Considering that the percentage of social media consumed over a mobile device is already substantial and predicted to grow drastically, this is a significant issue.
Argyle Social comes into the picture as a developer of software that allows firms to track exactly which posts (and authors) generate the most traffic. This is incredibly helpful information, and marketers who try to measure ROI without capabilities similar to the ones provided by Argyle are kidding themselves.
On a more sinister note, the availability of this software coupled with the general newness of the social media industry provides for a moral hazard. Marketers have an incentive to not use tracking software such as this, because once they do they have to start being responsible and accountable for the traffic that they generate. If they don't use the software, they can simply point to friend counts and follower numbers--look at how popular we are! But, of course, this isn't a measure of ROI. At the end of the day, marketing is about selling something. As I read somewhere, "if you just want to talk to somebody, become a secretary".
Not that talking isn't important--I've devoted the past two days to talking about talking to people--but what is your end goal? As a company, it is to increase your bottom line. The way in which one goes about doing that is drastically different than it has ever been before, but let's not lose sight of that goal.
For a more in-depth (and no doubt more intelligent) review of Argyle's software, please refer to Jay Dolan's work over at Anti-Social Media, which is a great and hysterical blog in its own right, even if I am the sort of person and blogger that Mr. Dolan hates.
--Taylor
and then i woke up
Whenever you see a ? followed by a string of numbers and letters after a URL, that is a tracking code in order to tell the website you are visiting where you are coming from so that the website can correctly monitor its traffic. If you click on a link after a search result from Google or Bing, this string of characters does not appear; the website doesn't know the difference between that and you just typing the URL into your browser and visiting that website directly.
The problem is particularly evident when using Facebook. When you click on a link from Facebook, those tracking characters disappear. To the website you are visiting, it can tell that you are from Facebook, but it can't tell exactly how you got there from Facebook. You might have clicked on a link on a friend's wall, or one of the posts from your brand's news feed. Obviously, these are very different leads that should be treated differently, and without this information, you are unable to differentiate between the two. There are several problems with this.
One, this offers no way to tell which of your social media campaigns are being productive and driving the most traffic to your website. This is a huge issue from a marketer's perspective, as those sorts of people generally like to know which expenditures are generating the most return on their investment. If traffic from Facebook is all just viewed as "Facebook" and not broken down into individual posts, contests, or status updates, then it becomes very difficult to monitor the ROI of specific activities or campaigns. This makes it almost impossible to optimize one's Facebook promotional activities.
This problem grows even more complex when one views it from the vantage point of a mobile device (specifically, a mobile device using a Facebook app, not visiting m.facebook.com from a cell phone). If one clicks on a link from a Facebook app, that website has no idea where you came from. You are an "unattributed user," and there is no difference between that visit and just typing the website URL into your browser directly. Considering that the percentage of social media consumed over a mobile device is already substantial and predicted to grow drastically, this is a significant issue.
Argyle Social comes into the picture as a developer of software that allows firms to track exactly which posts (and authors) generate the most traffic. This is incredibly helpful information, and marketers who try to measure ROI without capabilities similar to the ones provided by Argyle are kidding themselves.
On a more sinister note, the availability of this software coupled with the general newness of the social media industry provides for a moral hazard. Marketers have an incentive to not use tracking software such as this, because once they do they have to start being responsible and accountable for the traffic that they generate. If they don't use the software, they can simply point to friend counts and follower numbers--look at how popular we are! But, of course, this isn't a measure of ROI. At the end of the day, marketing is about selling something. As I read somewhere, "if you just want to talk to somebody, become a secretary".
Not that talking isn't important--I've devoted the past two days to talking about talking to people--but what is your end goal? As a company, it is to increase your bottom line. The way in which one goes about doing that is drastically different than it has ever been before, but let's not lose sight of that goal.
For a more in-depth (and no doubt more intelligent) review of Argyle's software, please refer to Jay Dolan's work over at Anti-Social Media, which is a great and hysterical blog in its own right, even if I am the sort of person and blogger that Mr. Dolan hates.
--Taylor
and then i woke up
Monday, February 14, 2011
This is a new one
The fashion industry continues to be at the forefront of innovation when it comes to using newer social media tools such as Foursquare and Twitter.
Swatch ran a promotion in which they covered a model with over 100 watches, with the catch being that if a partygoer tweeted @swatchus with an appropriate hashtag, the model would remove a watch from the dress and give it to them. Predictably, it took just under an hour and a half for the model to be stripped bear of watches, revealing a Swatch-promoting cover underneath. Pretty clever.
Courtesy Mashable.com (http://mashable.com/2011/02/14/swatch-girl/#10031-1)
Swatch ran a promotion in which they covered a model with over 100 watches, with the catch being that if a partygoer tweeted @swatchus with an appropriate hashtag, the model would remove a watch from the dress and give it to them. Predictably, it took just under an hour and a half for the model to be stripped bear of watches, revealing a Swatch-promoting cover underneath. Pretty clever.
Courtesy Mashable.com (http://mashable.com/2011/02/14/swatch-girl/#10031-1)
Three Criteria of Leadership
"Most leadership that we're doing is about finding a group that's disconnected but already has a yearning, not persuading people to want something they don't have yet"
Seth Godin points out in the video that I discussed yesterday that all leaders challenge the status quo; in essence, they are heretics. They are unwilling to accept things the way they are and are willing to stand up for that one thing that is important to them and find others that agree with them.
Apple does not sell computers. Apple sells a way of life. Apple says to its consumers, "We think differently. We challenge the status quo. We are unwilling to accept the standard conventions of computing and we are willing to push the boundaries of aesthetics and performance until we reach a sublime merger of art and personal technology."
Think about why Apple's MP3 players have been wildly successful and have become an integral part of American pop culture whereas Dell's MP3 players have failed on a very fundamental level. At first glance, it doesn't make any sense. As one of the leading computer manufacturers of the 2000s, Dell is arguably much more qualified to make MP3 players than Apple is. However, think about the message each company presents to consumers:
Dell: "Our MP3 player has 80 GB of storage. It costs two hundred and fifty dollars. Would you like to buy one?"
Apple: "We have created our MP3 player out of frustration with the current state of the world of technology. We have blurred the lines between art and technology to create an experience that is at once engaging and simple. Join us."
I would hope it's obvious which pitch is more compelling (I took the brunt of this argument from this TED Talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html).
Godin asks us to view leadership in light of three questions:
1) Who are you upsetting?
We can't change anything if we aren't challenging the established way of doing something.
2) Who are you connecting?
People yearn to be connected--Godin points out that the thing people want more than anything is to be missed. Tribe leaders can fill that need.
3) Who are you leading?
Finally, leaders:
1) Challenge the status quo
2) Build a culture
3) Commit to the tribe
Many people object to a leadership position because they don't think they have what it takes. Godin notes that although all leaders have charisma, leadership does not require charisma; rather, leadership inspires the leader with the confidence they need to become charismatic. Charisma is an afterthought of leadership, not a prerequisite.
Social media gives us an unparalleled opportunity to connect with those that think like us. Brands have the incredible opportunity to become tribe leaders, and far too many simply use the medium as an extension of the traditional television message-pushing role.
What would it mean to challenge the way your customers think? What would it mean to step up and become the leader of your tribe?
--Taylor
i asked you not to keep me waiting
Seth Godin points out in the video that I discussed yesterday that all leaders challenge the status quo; in essence, they are heretics. They are unwilling to accept things the way they are and are willing to stand up for that one thing that is important to them and find others that agree with them.
Apple does not sell computers. Apple sells a way of life. Apple says to its consumers, "We think differently. We challenge the status quo. We are unwilling to accept the standard conventions of computing and we are willing to push the boundaries of aesthetics and performance until we reach a sublime merger of art and personal technology."
Think about why Apple's MP3 players have been wildly successful and have become an integral part of American pop culture whereas Dell's MP3 players have failed on a very fundamental level. At first glance, it doesn't make any sense. As one of the leading computer manufacturers of the 2000s, Dell is arguably much more qualified to make MP3 players than Apple is. However, think about the message each company presents to consumers:
Dell: "Our MP3 player has 80 GB of storage. It costs two hundred and fifty dollars. Would you like to buy one?"
Apple: "We have created our MP3 player out of frustration with the current state of the world of technology. We have blurred the lines between art and technology to create an experience that is at once engaging and simple. Join us."
I would hope it's obvious which pitch is more compelling (I took the brunt of this argument from this TED Talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html).
Godin asks us to view leadership in light of three questions:
1) Who are you upsetting?
We can't change anything if we aren't challenging the established way of doing something.
2) Who are you connecting?
People yearn to be connected--Godin points out that the thing people want more than anything is to be missed. Tribe leaders can fill that need.
3) Who are you leading?
Finally, leaders:
1) Challenge the status quo
2) Build a culture
3) Commit to the tribe
Many people object to a leadership position because they don't think they have what it takes. Godin notes that although all leaders have charisma, leadership does not require charisma; rather, leadership inspires the leader with the confidence they need to become charismatic. Charisma is an afterthought of leadership, not a prerequisite.
Social media gives us an unparalleled opportunity to connect with those that think like us. Brands have the incredible opportunity to become tribe leaders, and far too many simply use the medium as an extension of the traditional television message-pushing role.
What would it mean to challenge the way your customers think? What would it mean to step up and become the leader of your tribe?
--Taylor
i asked you not to keep me waiting
The American Stages of Thought Leadership
Seth Godin is a ridiculously smart and talented fellow. In my research on social media, he has been a wonderful resource on the impact and forces affecting social media. In particular, I have been grooving on this particular TED Talk of his, from which I am gleaning these particular insights: http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead.html
While there are countless insights crammed into this 17 minute video, I want to focus on the points he makes at the 4 minute mark, which revolve around the evolution of leadership in America.
He begins with the factory cycle, in which leadership centered around increasing efficiency of labor and machinery in order to "change the fabric of an entire country". The problem, as Godin points out, is that we are running out of both cheaper labor and faster machines--foreign nations are out-competing us in both regards.
The introduction of television changed this. Instead of leveraging cheaper labor and faster machines, we leveraged giant amounts of money in order to push our ideas onto the world. Volume ruled; as Seth notes, the marketer acts as a sort of king, deciding what ideas go out to the peons below him. One's level of influence is only limited by the amount of money he or she is willing to spend on advertising.
The advent of social media has completely changed this dynamic. No longer are consumers limited to the messages that marketers push on them; they are empowered with the ability to join in the conversation and connect with their peers in order to develop a message themselves. One needs only to look as far as the BP disaster this summer to see this effect at work. No matter how many ad spots BP bought pushing their message of apology and renewed environmental responsibility, they were not able to swing the dynamics of the conversation away from a witty guy (or gal) with a Twitter account named BPGlobalPR.
And thus, we are introduced to the newest stage of marketing and thought leadership, one that Seth Godin calls that of Tribes. Humans have always gravitated towards those with similar interests as them, be it through churches, political parties, book clubs, or bowling leagues. What the Internet has done is make it ridiculously easy to find those similar to us, no matter how niche or unusual our interest, or assort ourselves into Tribes, if you will.
In this stage of leadership, we gain traction not by pushing a message out onto the masses, but by stepping up and volunteering to take ownership over a preexisting tribe. Godin points to the Beatles and Bob Marley as two Tribe Leaders; they did not invent their respective followers, they merely volunteered to become a figurehead for similar ways of thinking.
Think about nearly every social media campaign you have ever seen. What was its purpose? Most likely, its aim was simply to be an extension of a TV advertisement, pushing out a brand message onto Twitter followers or Facebook friends. The companies that truly connect with their followers inspire tribe-like fellowships. See: Apple, Zappos, Toms, et al.
The next time you see a social media marketing campaign, look at it critically. Does it inspire conversation? Divergent thinking? A cause higher than selling something?
--Taylor
is my life about to change? who knows? who cares?
While there are countless insights crammed into this 17 minute video, I want to focus on the points he makes at the 4 minute mark, which revolve around the evolution of leadership in America.
He begins with the factory cycle, in which leadership centered around increasing efficiency of labor and machinery in order to "change the fabric of an entire country". The problem, as Godin points out, is that we are running out of both cheaper labor and faster machines--foreign nations are out-competing us in both regards.
The introduction of television changed this. Instead of leveraging cheaper labor and faster machines, we leveraged giant amounts of money in order to push our ideas onto the world. Volume ruled; as Seth notes, the marketer acts as a sort of king, deciding what ideas go out to the peons below him. One's level of influence is only limited by the amount of money he or she is willing to spend on advertising.
The advent of social media has completely changed this dynamic. No longer are consumers limited to the messages that marketers push on them; they are empowered with the ability to join in the conversation and connect with their peers in order to develop a message themselves. One needs only to look as far as the BP disaster this summer to see this effect at work. No matter how many ad spots BP bought pushing their message of apology and renewed environmental responsibility, they were not able to swing the dynamics of the conversation away from a witty guy (or gal) with a Twitter account named BPGlobalPR.
And thus, we are introduced to the newest stage of marketing and thought leadership, one that Seth Godin calls that of Tribes. Humans have always gravitated towards those with similar interests as them, be it through churches, political parties, book clubs, or bowling leagues. What the Internet has done is make it ridiculously easy to find those similar to us, no matter how niche or unusual our interest, or assort ourselves into Tribes, if you will.
In this stage of leadership, we gain traction not by pushing a message out onto the masses, but by stepping up and volunteering to take ownership over a preexisting tribe. Godin points to the Beatles and Bob Marley as two Tribe Leaders; they did not invent their respective followers, they merely volunteered to become a figurehead for similar ways of thinking.
Think about nearly every social media campaign you have ever seen. What was its purpose? Most likely, its aim was simply to be an extension of a TV advertisement, pushing out a brand message onto Twitter followers or Facebook friends. The companies that truly connect with their followers inspire tribe-like fellowships. See: Apple, Zappos, Toms, et al.
The next time you see a social media marketing campaign, look at it critically. Does it inspire conversation? Divergent thinking? A cause higher than selling something?
--Taylor
is my life about to change? who knows? who cares?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)