BrandsAmongMany

I have to admit, this is really the first year that the term Cyber Monday has entered my lexicon. The idea makes perfect sense: an upswing in internet purchases the first workday back from Black Friday because people are buying things they couldn’t find over the weekend. I don’t have an issue with the concept of Cyber Monday…

What I find rather disgusting, however, is that companies are making a blatant attempt to extend the already overtly (and overly) consumeristic tendencies of Black Friday. By taking a term that was coined to encapsulate the economic trend of seasonal shopping and making it a forward-facing marketing term, retailers are attempting to sucker just that much more money out of us. And this year, they’re not taking it lightly:

There’s even been websites dedicated to it. Shop.org has created CyberMonday.com to keep track of all the deals, including a bunch of exclusive ones. And the list above barely scratches the surface. Of course, if you look at Shop.org’s About statement, things become a little more clear:

Since its inception in 1996, the Digital Retail Industry has joined with Shop.org to create a community of like-minded executives with the common purpose of advancing their industry through the sharing of knowledge, experience and expertise.

With over 700 member companies and thousands of actively participating executives, today’s Shop.org network is more vital than ever. The association is focused on the challenges and opportunities most pressing to Digital Retail:

All of which sounds great from a consumer perspective. A coalition dedicated to making digital retailers more aware of best practices and easy-to-use websites. Until you get to the final couple of sentences in that mission statement:

Shop.org’s exclusive focus is to provide a forum for retail executives to share information, lessons-learned, new perspectives, insights and intelligence about online and multichannel retailing

“Retail executives”? Wait, I’m not a retail executive! And now I’m not so convinced that they’re interested in me as a consumer at all. In fact, I’m feeling more like their mission is take as much from me as they possibly can, and to collaborate on how to best milk me for more. Yup, feels like Cyber Monday is another step toward scraping all meaning other than credit card debt from the holiday season.

Digital is changing the world. It’s changing the way we consume everything. Television isn’t television anymore – it’s just content. It no longer matters where we see it or how we take it in…

That’s an excerpt from a POKE project we worked on a while back. And it’s even more relevant today than it was the day we wrote it. As I sit back and look at how I consume media today, particularly “traditional” media like TV that was originally created for a specific mechanism of distribution, I’m struck by just how much things have changed.

There is exactly one show that I watch on television anymore, and that’s only because it isn’t readily available online. And even that show I watch when I want thanks to the joys of DVR. Everything else I want to see is available via some sort of online service: Hulu, ABC.com (though I don’t really follow their shows), CBS.com. And for movies, of course, I have a Netflix subscription. Add to that, their recently launched “watch it now” service for macs and I’m really pretty much set. And, of course, there will undoubtedly be a Roku set-top box in my future to make things that much easier. Or maybe an xbox.

Great! So what’s the problem? Well, the problem is that my home internet connection is rather…limited (to put it nicely). Or in simple terms, it stinks. Now, given what I’ve just said about how much I use it, that’s a major problem. We (yes, I live with roommates) have serious cable coverage in the apartment (DVR, lots of channels, HD, yadda yadda). But that doesn’t exactly help much when most of my consumption happens on another device. Granted, my roomies still watch TV the “old fashioned” way, so it’s tough to convince them that there’s something wrong with the picture.

But, if I had it to do all over again, I honestly think I’d go without the cable option. I’d pay a little more (if necessary) to get a good internet connection (and I’d make sure the system was set up so that I wasn’t streaming over wifi) and toss the rest. That allows me to see 95% of the content I’m really interested in, pretty much when I want to see it (Hulu and the network sites don’t always keep a full backlog of past shows) and the $75-100 per month savings in cable charges is just an added bonus. In fact, I’ve spoken to a couple of friends who are already doing just this, and they don’t seem to be missing too much.

Is it a solution that would work for everyone? No. I was talking through it with a non-technical friend who was scared by all the different sources, etc. that it entailed to view content. She’d rather just pay for cable. And, of course, the world of digital content delivery isn’t necessarily poised for this type of change either. Network sites still require a bit of patience because they don’t always work so well. Which, of course, brings me to my point and back to my original statement:

Television isn’t television anymore – it’s just content. It no longer matters where we see it or how we take it in…

How much longer is it going to take for that idea to really sink in? How much longer until the idea of connecting your television to a computer instead of a cable box is the norm rather than something that “requires patience”? It’s time people! Get rid of the boundaries between devices and start thinking about alternative means of delivery. Your audience will thank you for it. Sure, it will take a little while for it to trickle down the ranks, but your influentials and innovators are already waiting for it (or they’re making it happen by cobbling together their own solutions). This is the future, ladies and gentlemen, or so I’d say. What do you think? Do you have a unique system of consumption? Fill us in!

Flickr credit [funky_puppet]

Awesome, fantastic YouTube vid on the evolution of digital technology and its impact on people around the world. Researched by Karl Fisch, Scott McLeod, and Jeff Bronman. Originally tweeted by Tom.

Tom (aka. meat99) caught my eye with an interesting response this morning on Made With Computers. The question came from Tom Raftery’s Social Media blog. Tom (Raftery…this could get confusing) asked:

What is Social Media’s ‘big thing’ for 2008?

Here’s a quick excerpt from Tom (Raftery’s) post:

Looking back at Social Media, we have had a significant advance (a ‘this year’s big thing’) every year since 2004.

In 2004 - blogs started to really take off
In 2005 - audio podcasts started to take off
In 2006 - video podcasts started to take off
In 2007 - microblogging (Twitter in particular) started to take off
In 2008 - ???

We are in November now of 2008 and I still don’t see any big transformative Social Media technology which has occurred this year.

Has it stalled? What am I missing?

Tom (meat99) responded with:

2008 is the beginning of the “Curation” process. There is a quality revolution taking place in social media - video’s, blogs, photos, microblogs, etc will get more specific and more focused. Content will be much more focused on “how good it is” not on “how many people have seen it”.

As usual, an insightful answer from Tom (meat99) - hence why I love working with, and learning from, him. I don’t disagree with his response in the slightest; the idea of curation, especially through digital media, is something we’ve been looking at a lot this year at POKE. Just look at all the different digital services that have cropped up around culling down and presenting the “best of what’s out there”. Urban Daddy comes to mind quickly. So do Yelp, Going, and a slew of iPhone apps that could fill the rest of this page.

Of course, repeating his answer here doesn’t make for much of a thought - kinda wish I could rewind to before I read his post so it wouldn’t be stuck in my head. But after mulling it over for a few minutes, another important idea came back to me. This is an insight that I picked up on a recent project, and it’s something that has stuck with me. So here’s my response:

Perhaps the big evolution of social media in 2008 is the movement - or the acknowledgment and embracing of the trend - away from “collecting as many friends as possible” and toward the “advancement to the inner circles” of social media communities.

If we think about the history of social media for a minute, it’s pretty clear that some sort of caste system exists in almost every social site out there. Take a look at I’mInLikeWithYou, a dating site that masquerades as a gaming site that still works like a dating site (but functions like a social network)… Users “earn” the opportunity to get in touch with people who catch their interest by bidding and/or betting on a game started by the other person. But why are some games worth thousands of points while others barely jump above the 100 mark…?

Even simple message boards, perhaps the oldest form of “social networks” out there, often display a member number for each user. And the crew that’s been there the longest - those with the lowest numbers - have an unspoken seniority within the community. When they talk, others listen. And, of course, those members are often tapped to become the moderators and administrators of the community.

Recently, especially in the last year or so, we’ve seen more and more communities that make this a central focus. These social networks are no longer centered around how many friends you have, but rather overtly celebrate your status as a user within the community. Edopter, the “social trendcasting” site where users share what they believe will be the next big trend, is a perfect example. Rather than showing your friends on your profile, your rank within the system and your level of influence are placed front-and-center.

Yay Hooray!! is another excellent example - albeit one that I can’t speak to very specifically because I haven’t been invited to join yet. I do know, however, that it’s another community that labels its users according to a ranking system. Unlike some other communities though, on Yay Hooray!! it’s possible to skip over rungs on the ladder if an existing higher-up believes you’re worthy.

Of course, I guess Tom (Raftery) could argue that this doesn’t answer his original question if you take into account his reference to a “transformative technology” for 2008. But then, the difference between, say, audio vs. video podcasts (which Tom used as examples for ‘05 and ‘06, respectively) isn’t necessarily a big technological difference as much as it is a difference in the way that people are using the technology available to them.

So is this movement (shift in awareness? embracing of change?) THE ‘big thing’ for ‘08? I dunno. That feels like a heck of a claim that I’m a little hesitant to make (ie. commit to). But it’s definitely something that’s worth keeping in mind as we continue to move forward. Especially as more specialized, niche communities continue to grow across the web.

I’ve spent the last year telling various clients that its time they open their content to the world. In fact, one of my first projects here at POKE was for a TV Network who wanted to know how their brand could become more “digitally relevant” - our answer: set all of your content free. Let people see it when and where they want, embed it when and where they want, and even better, mash it up however they want.

Of course, that tends to scare clients just a wee bit.

Well, in the race for freedom of content…MTV WINS! Yesterday, the archetypal source for all things music-on-screen launched a library of 16,000 (and growing) music videos at MTVmusic.com. Search for your favorite artist and wade through their collection of video content on the fly. Watch it when you want it. Embed it wherever you want it.

But wait, it gets better. While not readily apparent on the surface, a couple of people smarter than I have pointed out that MTV has also built an API into their system. Everything is accessible. Want to put together a feed of Queen? No problem. Want to build a click to watch video site that leverages MTV’s library? Git codin’! Want more info? Check out their developer documentation.

So what’s it all mean? Well, it means that the bar has been set. High. For all of you content creation companies, this is where your head needs to be. What do I mean? How about Hulu – you guys listening over there?

THIS is how a video sharing site should work. Hats off to you MTV for stepping up and winning the game!

Advertising, in its most rudimentary state, is supposed to inform people on products and services. For me, advertising is so much more than just a, “paid form of communication.” The ideas and creativity in advertising is inspiring and it’s not just me.  Sure, I hope to make a career in advertising and I’m probably not the best example, but if people weren’t so inspired by great ads, why would someone view this commercial 3 millions times? Or this commercial 2.8 million times?

Many ad-gurus have been calling the television spot dead for years, slain by the internet and user-generated content. That’s ridiculous. Whether the spot is on YouTube, Vimeo, or the regular old television, a good ad evokes emotion and ignites action. Seems to me, with the help of the internet, the so-called “dead” television spot has even more potential. With Facebook, Myspace, e-mail, blogs, forums, message boards, and whatever other ways people connect on the world wide web, a television spot has literally unlimited reaches. The interactive age of advertising calls for better, more creative, and more inspiring commercials. And heck, a nice micro-site that tags along with a spot doesn’t hurt either.

Brands like Nike, Burger King, Volkswagen, Toyota Trucks, and Apple have been pretty successful on the web. Windows was doing pretty good when they had Seinfeld in their ads, but once they dumped the project, who even cared anymore?

From the Great Schlep to Gobama, Barack Obama has taken over the interactive “air waves.” Some of the most popular videos on YouTube in recent months directly support Obama’s campaign for presidency and the dozens of celebrity endorsements doesn’t hurt. The “Probama” user created content is significantly helping Obama gain popularity amongst young voters, especially considering the time they spend watching movies on YouTube or forwarding funny videos on Facebook. Obama is sucessfully winning the interactive front of the presidential race. The most recent work of Obama loyalists is Wassup 2008.

Recognize those dudes from the Budweiser commercials? Yeah, that’s them alright, back from an eight year haitus. In case you need a refresher watch this, this, or this. Nice to see these guys back in their element and no longer hosting the show, “The Best Commercials You Have Never Seen and Some You Have.”

Every once in a while there’s a new spot that pops up and takes the (ad) world by storm, quickly becoming the “talk of the town”. The latest in that genre seems to be from the fashioneers over at Diesel. This mashup has been flying back and forth across our office (and across the web) since the middle of last week, so I figure it’s high time to give it a nod.

No, it isn’t a masterfully genius piece promoting their newest jeans. In fact, if you blink you might even miss the branded payoff. But it is funny. Diesel has taken a selection of the grandest of ’70’s porn and made it SFW. ish:

Apparently this amalgamation of cartoonified skin flicks is intended to promote their 30th anniversary celebration, coming up on October 11 (get it? 30th anniversary…’70’s porn…). Though I have to admit, even after watching it a couple of times, I didn’t pick up on that fact until I stumbled onto the associated website.

So, no, I’m not going to sit here and delve deeply into the brand value of such a creation. This one, we’re going to take at face value and simply laugh at. So enjoy it.

Oh, and on a side note. We had a group of ad school folks here at POKE last week and decided to share this gem. Mid-way through, one of the students exclaimed loudly

Hey, that’s from Debbie Does Dallas!

and promptly turned bright red. Can you spot the clip?

Do you get the point? You should…

Great point from the Stuff That Happens blog by Eric Burke.

Last night, as a friend and I sat in my apartment, we found ourselves discussing the benefits and drawbacks of Flickr vs. Facebook as a photo sharing platform. Her feeling was that Facebook is a far more prevalent sharing system across the general public of 18-30 somethings. Despite being a purpose-built photo sharing site (and subsequently social network), her experience with Flickr is limited - primarily because she’s had no reason to use it.

Alternatively, I use Flickr all the time and have relatively few pictures on Facebook. Of course, this was a moment of two worlds colliding. Neither of us was necessarily wrong, but rather we have different interests in how our photos are used and shared. What bothered me was that I really couldn’t decide which platform would better serve the needs of the situation we were thinking through (I’m supposed to know these things, right?).

Though I hadn’t given up on the thought, I had moved on for the time being until I noticed this article this morning. Dean over at the PhotoPreneur blog wrote an interesting discussion on the finer points of Facebook’s privacy policy - you know, that thing you never actually read and just click accept every time you sign up for something new online these days. It was this statement that really caught his attention:

By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

Yes, there’s a lot of legalese to get through in there, but the gist of the statement is this: by uploading a photo to Facebook, you’re granting them the right to take, change, use, and even resell your image in whatever manner they see fit. Concerned by this revelation, Dean turned to photographer/lawyer Bert Krages for clarification. Krages explained that this statement essentially gives Facebook the right to take all of those images of you and your friends and turn them into a giant stock image library to which you will have no rights or recompense even if they use your mugshot.

While that’s probably not the end of the world for all of those shots from random 21st birthday parties or bachelor party antics, it does create reason to pause for photographers considering using Facebook as a means of attracting new clients to their work. It should also raise a red flag for branded group pages: be careful what you’re throwing out there for your group members to drool over unless you don’t mind the work wandering elsewhere.

As a counterpoint, it appears that Flickr’s use of member photos is limited to promotional purposes, a practice that’s pretty much par for the course when it comes to online hosting/sharing sites.

My reaction overall? Shame on you Facebook. Seriously. Isn’t it enough that you’ve slapped more advertising in front of your millions of members? Or that your shameless issuing of branded “gifts” is getting worse? Or that you got a multi-billion dollar offer to buy part of your…whatever it is you think of as your assets. You start running around making money off member photos, I think you just might begin to see a backlash. Maybe.