I love the Nissan Shift campaign, probably one of my favorites in the world of car advertising. Yet, their most recent truck commercial seems familiar. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great spot, horrid music aside, but there something wrong here.
Now, compare and contrast.
See what I mean?
Well, first, what’s “competitive commenting”? It’s the name we’ve coined here at POKE for the trend of “discussion as game/competition” that we’ve seen growing across the web. What started in the comment sections of blogs and other sites like YouTube has grown to include new experiences specifically dedicated to creating competitions out of digital interaction.
We introduced the idea of competitive commenting when we launched Embrace Your Grace, a blog-like fan site for TNT’s Saving Grace that offers up a point-counterpoint discussion about some of the hard-hitting topics presented in the show, and allows readers to vote for either side and submit thoughts of their own.
Tengaged is another prime example. Essentially a digital version of the popular show Big Brother, Tengaged groups ten players into a room where their conversations and interactions within the group become their basis for staying in the game. Those who don’t add value get “voted off”.
Edopter, which we’ve discussed over at ThingsAmongMany, is yet another example. While not a direct competition where someone gets voted out, Edopter has created a “game” in which users are valued based on their predictions of upcoming trends. The more people who agree with a prediction, the more influence the user gains within the system.
Of course, those are both specific sites that require a user to maintain involvment with yet-another social network - a practice that many of us are reaching critical overload with. But what if this notion of competitive commenting could be expanded to include something that we’re already using? What if, say, your tweets - the comments that you’re making already anyway (you ARE on Twitter, right?) - became the mechanism by which the competition were measured? Well, now they can.
Hubspot recently launched Twitter Grader, a new service that pits you against everyone else on Twitter to determine your score (out of 100) compared to the rest of the field. Yup, these guys have successfully created a scoring system to turn Twitter into a game. *AmongMany is currently chugging along with a 63, but hopefully that will increase in the near future as we continue to post content and gain followers.
So how do they measure your worth? According to Hubspot’s VP of Marketing, Mike Volpe, the system takes into consideration:
Of course, Hubspot isn’t the first to consider grading Twitter users. The now-defunct TweeterBoard offered similar functionality. And this app called TwitterGrade offers a more tongue-in-cheek response to your query, though it does embrace the question of ego theat should be considered by anyone willing to look up their own grade on Twitter. Definitely worth a chuckle.
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!
J. Crew has been widely lauded lately. They’ve taken huge steps toward separating themselves from competitors like GAP and Banana Republic by bringing a distinct feel to their brand. Unique partnerships and tactics – like offering vintage Rolex watches and high end, created just for J. Crew pieces, as well as their recently opened Tribeca Men’s Store – have set the company in a league of their own. But, despite the company’s recent rise as one of the premier mid-level fashion brands (Is it just me, or is it a little scary when $70 shirts are “mid-level”?), consumers are standing up and taking note of their sometimes questionable statements and actions facing loyal customers.
Perfect example? While poking around in hopes of finding a coupon or free shipping code for an order I was placing, I came across this short but interesting thread of comments. A distinctly unhappy undertone from a few customers was compounded by this statement, presumably from a J. Crew employee:
Just so you know, we’re onto the people who abuse coupons and we will now check all pre existing orders to ensure you have not used the same coupon twice.
That, of course, instigated even further negative response from the contributors. Complaints of poor service and a decline in quality are most prominent – an issue that I’ve noted myself based on my latest order. I’m still waiting for a sweater that I ordered on Sept. 24, and I’ve received not follow up or further indication of when the item might ship (despite it being listed as “in stock” when the order was placed). I also had a couple of items that were simply dropped from my order due to “lack of availability”, but that I was able to reorder the following day.
For a company with this kind of following, and make no mistake, they do have a following, moments like the comment above are just about inexcusable. Perhaps it’s true and they are cracking down on coupon use, but there’s no reason to broadcast it to the world. We can only hope that this was a random incident by a proud employee.
Perhaps this is a perfect demonstration, then, that larger companies need to start thinking about social media training. They need to understand that their employees actions have resonance for their brand. Sexual harrasment training is mandatory at just about every sizeable company today, and that’s an issue that only costs them money in the event of a lawsuit. Social media mistakes are a daily occurance, but go unchecked at every turn.
There’s money to be made in this folks. Someone step up and make it happen!
We were selling rich women their own fat asses back to them.
Yep, here we go again, quoting movie lines to make a point about branding. Hey, not my fault if Ed Norton has a way with words (Not sure what scene I’m referring to? Have a look here.).
So, the question is…are we? As marketers (advertisers, branding gurus, digital desperadoes, call yourself what you will) we sell ourselves on our expertise of many areas. Sure, we call it “marketing” or whatever, but when it comes down to it, we’re selling our understanding of human nature (psychology), our ability to tap into that in a manner that will gain attention (creativity), the potential of that message to have an impact on the people we’re talking to (strategy), our ability to sell our ideas through to the client (salesmanship), how well we can actually create what we’ve said we can create (production), and a slew of other bits and pieces that we encounter along the way.
That’s a lot of “expertise” – a lot of different minds – that comes together to be successful at this thing we do. That’s lot of points along the way for something, even the smallest point, to go slightly awry. It’s no wonder, then, that we might occasionally get caught up in our own heads. It’s easy for us to get excited and see the potential behind an idea that makes perfect sense to us, based on our background, but has little meaning or resonance for the “average joe”. It’s easy for us to get caught up in the excitement of buying back our own fat asses.
This begs the question: how much of what we do, especially digitally, actually reaches out into the “real world”? How many of the soccer mom’s in Wisconsin engage in the newest methods of digital communication – the mechanisms that we often consider the forefront of the digital revolution?
Consider this: just the other day I found myself explaining Twitter to a project manager at a popular traditional “hot shop” that we’re partnering with on a current project. If she didn’t know what Twitter is, can we expect the masses to encounter a message that we propagate using it as a distribution tool? Probably not.
Perhaps more importantly, though: do they have to? If the mechanisms that we’re using to reach the influentials are successful, does it really matter if the soccer mom hears directly from us? Isn’t that the point of targeting the influencers - so they’ll spread our message to the masses? Aren’t the social media tools that we use to spread our gospel really just weapons in our arsenal that can be used to reach the specific people we want to hear about our cause because we know that they’ll help spread the word?
Or more simply put, are we buying or are we selling the fat asses? And do we have the gumption to accept the voice of reason and understand when we’re getting caught up in our own heads? I don’t expect a simple answer. It will vary by company, by project, by client, by concept.
But as soon as we lose awareness of the question, we lose our ability to control the answer. And once that’s gone, we’re just another cog in the fat ass economy.
On August 30, 2007, YouTube user Levinator poked a little fun at game-maker EA for their “glitch” in PGA Tour ‘08:
One year later, in preparation for the launch of PGA Tour ‘09, EA responded:
EA just took a HUGE step up in my book. (Now someone prove me wrong and show me that EA was behind both videos.)
“Word of Mouth” is one of those popular catch phrases these day. Everyone wants to know how to make it work for them. There’s not really a secret key to make it “work for you”. There is, however, a really, really easy way to make it work against you: piss off your customers. The notion that people will be vocal when they’re upset, but don’t say a word when they’re happy is pretty standard. You’ll always have a disproportionate number of complainers willing to bash you your product compared to the silent masses who happily go about their daily lives with your product in tow.
Case in point…
Sean Howard of CrapHammer fame tweeted this the other day:
The tweet links to this post on Bikeforums.net, a popular cycling message board. (As far as I know, Sean isn’t a cyclist, so how he stumbled into this post, I’m not sure, but it probably got passed to him by someone.) The post, by Bikeforums user ReachHigher, outlines her story of a recent visit to Wal-Mart via bicycle. Due to the lack of bike racks outside the store, she opted to walk her bike into the establishment (a practice that she’s apparently done before), only to be turned away by the “greeter”. The arguement that ensued involved a removal of clothing in protest to a policy that the store manager seemed too flustered to back up. We’ll let you read the rest here, since the story itself isn’t the prime purpose of this discussion…
The main purpose here is to point out just how quickly certain stories will spread across the web. The day that Sean tweeted this, I believe the discussion on Bikeforums was at about 2 pages. It now sits at 15 (at the time of this posting). A quick search reveals a number of other sites that have picked up on the story:
Bikeforums.net
The Consumerist
Fark
Digg
BNet Industries
Liberty Forum
The Outskirts
The Nerd
Unfortunately, the stories that spread like this are far more prevalent than the positive ones (which do happen though, check out the Zappos Story if you’re not familiar with it yet). Regardless of whether your story is positive or negative, though, this is a perfect demonstration of the power of the spoken word. Whether someone is touting your new business to their friends at work, or venting their frustrations about a major retailer, the word will spread.
Certain things can help that will help your word along. Here’s a few quick thoughts…
Finding the right people: who is going to “get” what you’re doing and who you are? Who’s going to enjoy and appreciate your efforts and be willing to spread the word? Those are you Brand Evangelists. Cater to them.
Tackle everything that comes at you, good or bad: What would you do right now if you were Wal-Mart? Ignore the situation? How about taking part in the conversation? Don’t make excuses, don’t throw money at the problem, but take an active role. Maybe install a bike rack?
Be honest: This is probably one of the most important things ANYONE can do. As soon as companies try to hide something or change the rules, people are quick to call BS. Honesty is always the best policy. Most people understand that businesses are around to make money. Do so in a responsible manner, and they’ll be more likely to work with you rather than against you.
Have some other ideas? Do share? What do you look for in a company that you find yourself telling friends about? What are you quick to bash someone for?
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.
