Year: 2009

A plus cases on Twitter

Last week, @aplusk beat @CNNbrk in the race for one million followers. In plain English, Ashton Kutcher, an actor, challenged CNN on Larry King Live – who would get to a million followers first – to prove a point that an individual could have a reach equal to a large network on Twitter. Twitter joined in the fun, because unlike the norm, users couldn’t unfollow either of the parties, of course smart tweeps found a way out anyway. Point taken, AsKu, though the irony was that until a week back, the CNN account was not run by them, though for sometime they’ve been managing the account through the person who created it.

For more than two years, the CNNBrk account (for breaking news) had been created, maintained and run by a 25-year-old British Web developer who just wanted a way to beam short news alerts to his cellphone.

And that’s the beauty of this user driven service. Something that I fear might change with the ‘mainstream’ spotlight and the rush of real celebrities. Its only a matter of time before a new celebrity thinks of a new stunt. But it is to be noted that Kutcher is donating 10000 mosquito nets worth $100000 to a charity. In fact, one week before that, I’d read about Hugh Jackman’s donating AUS $100,000 to charity via Twitter, the charity to be selected via Twitter pitches.

Now, I’ve always maintained that users should figure their own comfort levels and use the service accordingly. But I also feel that a sudden influx of people with no intent other than rooting for a celebrity might be the kind of inorganic growth that will work against the service and its more regular users. This could range from a disruption of the service due to the load to a change in the ‘culture’ of the service.

Kutcher’s point was about getting a reach higher than a media giant. I’ve always had a problem with numbers – followers, updates etc as a means of measurement on Twitter. I find it a paradox for a place which became popular because of a qualitative measure – conversations. CNN will deliver breaking news regularly, and (as someone suggested on Twitter) Kutcher followers will just have to wait for those occasional Demi photos. Reach has been an index to sell traditional media space, is that the benchmark Twitter wants to take forward?

There was a very interesting post on Tech Crunch on whether Twitter should remove its follower count. Like I tweeted, I’d agree. Once upon a time, it was a medium to share an instant – something you thought/read/saw/felt to make others smile/think/share their own expressions. With growth came the ‘how a tweet might cost you a job’ and ‘5 ways to increase sales with Twitter’ theses, and the instant was lost. Perhaps you will ignore that as a subjective grumble. But think of the times you see the ‘need 5 more followers to get 500. please RT’ and what you feel then. What happens when that’s the norm and the service changes to accommodate and encourage that culture because that’s what helps them make money. [Note: I’d love for Twitter to make money, but I’m sure they’ll find better ways]

While on celebrities and Twitter, closer home Gul Panag has been quite active on Twitter the last few days. The Twitterverse has had its share of imposters and has been trying to ensure there’s no ‘identity crisis’ this time, so much that poor GulP might have one soon. This tweet of hers caught my attention. (Oh, okay the dimples too!!)

Spicy Jet news. Poor them. It reminded me of a post I’d written sometime back on ‘Social Ambassadors‘ – what would happen when the transparency of social media met celebrity bloggers? In this case, micro bloggers. In fact, micro blogging is even more ‘dangerous’ since the interaction is real time, and not like a PR draft that can be posted on ths site, and replies given in a few hours or even days. This becomes all the more important if celebrities use social media as a personal broadcast medium to their fans. Of course, brands can use the media to their benefit too – for example, create conversations between celebrities (a Twitter conversation between Aamir and Gul basis their Tata Sky TVC would be fun), use celebrities to communicate beyond the obvious advertisement etc.

The challenge is for celebrities too. Perhaps it will also make celebrities more responsible when making endorsement choices. (It would be fun to ask SRK/Aamir why they switched soft drink brands in between.) Also, can celebrities retain their ‘interestingness’ when they are in touch with the fans all the time, unlike a traditional system when news about them was less abundant?

On an aside, when celebrities move to direct-to-crowd platforms, what happens to the go-between media for whom they were the news makers, and we were the news consumers? And what happens to the micro celebrities on Twitter? 🙂

until next time, when twitter streams meet mainstream

April 23, 2009
Moult

Two new malayalam movies watched in a fortnight. Nothing special in that, you’d think. What does make it special is that they brought back characters from the past.

“2 Harihar Nagar”, the official sequel to a movie, after 19 years, has four characters who’d set a benchmark in comedy at that time. [Priyadarshan, as he regularly does with decent Malayalam movies, screwed it up in Hindi as Dhol] Handled by a capable director and an extremely good screenplay, these guys managed to pick up right where they left off. They had us in splits this time too, and add to that, sprinkles of nostalgia and some good suspense, this movie was a treat. It was amazing to watch their chemistry, intact, or perhaps rekindled, after so many years, more so, because their ‘image’ has changed quite some in the years that have passed. A couple of them play character and villain roles now, and popular ones at that; one had some time in the limelight, even being anointed the “common man’s hero”, before making an idiot of himself in inconsequential roles and TV shows, and the last flirts with the screen once in a while. But what we saw in the movie was a transformation, and a pleasant surprise.

“Sagar alias Jackie”, the director claims, is not a sequel to any film, but merely uses the hero (and one more character) of an earlier one. On hindsight, that makes a damn good disclaimer. The original movie ‘Irupatham noottandu’, made in 1987, starring Mohanlal as an enigmatic ‘smuggler with a conscience’ , was one that in no small way contributed to his rising stature in the industry. Over the years he has proved his acting skills time and again, until recently. These days he is more of star, and scripts pander to this. He is easily the best actor I’ve seen, and though I used to be a fan of the superhuman avatar in the initial days, when it used to be backed by excellent screenplays, these days his roles are quite indistinguishable from each other. More stylised, this one proved to be the same fare, unfortunately.

Both scripts used the equity of iconic characters. While one set of actors broke their current moulds, and recaptured the feel of their original characters, another actor was caught in a mould and couldn’t come close to the original character. One could argue that the scripts made the difference, but maybe the difference was in acting, and one set proved better because they stayed true to character, and the portrayal automatically fell into place?

It made me think whether this also applies to us too. Over a period of time, do some of us get cast in a ‘have to be’ mould, arising from others’ and self expectations, or a ‘want to be’ mould because of our own aspirations? Do these moulds take us away from what we originally are, is there an original mould, and would reclaiming it and living with it give us the joy we seek? The choice is an intriguing one.

until next time, casting lots with the self

April 21, 2009
Video Night in Kathmandu

Pico Iyer

Set in the mid 80’s, Pico’s travel writing worked on two levels for me – one, in terms of his destinations, and the other, in terms of time. Right from the first page, with his interpretation of the Rambo phenomenon in Asia, his sharp wit makes this book a great read.
He uses individual characters in different places (India, China, Tibet, Nepal, Burma, Thailand, HongKong, Japan, Philippines) to describe the place’s character. In some cases, the stereotypes are reinforced, but in a lot of others, he manages to fit in and yet observe objectively.
He discusses the influence of the West on the East and tries to show each of the places he has visited have reacted to it – some by shunning it, some by completely absorbing it, and some by adapting it and making it their own.
I felt that throughout the book he stayed true to his observations, though the perspective was tinged with a favouritism for the east.

April 20, 2009
The brand…behind the scene

The advantages that social media has to offer are best derived by participating. When brands understand that, we get to see Facebook pages (or profiles) and twitter accounts. While these might display the brand name, the interactivity of social media makes it seem like communicating to a person. As far as social media tools go, compared to Facebook pages/ a YouTube account, a Twitter account is perhaps more difficult to handle, thanks to the real time interaction required (though it’s possible on Facebook too now). That perhaps explains the rising instances of ghost twittering – where a personality or a brand pays someone else to tweet on their behalf. While many examples have been cited, from Obama to Britney and 50 cent, I’ll focus on the companies/brands.

In these early days of social media, there are very few companies which have an organised social media strategy. (a good global list, and the Indian version of brands on Twitter) In the global list, it can be seen that the organisations are represented by their own employees, and in many cases they belong to the marketing function. But what’s interesting are the handles – some use the brand name, some use the person’s name and some others use a combination of both.

In my last post (partly) on this topic, I had supported the usage of the brand name with the account being handled by “multi functional teams which can communicate with consumers on different aspects with authority and domain knowledge”, but it’s obvious that no ‘one size fits all’ policy works in social media, especially when people value dealing with other people more than impersonal brand logos.

I am still not sure of the person representing a brand with his/her own name, since I wonder how both the personal and brand personas can coexist in one account, especially if they have differing personalities. Also, like I’ve said earlier, one also has to wonder how long the employee will stay in the organisation and when he/she leaves, who owns the equity generated thus far. (even in the absence of a social media strategy, there is always the typical case of the lone enthusiast bringing his brand on to twitter only for the account to lose steam after he/she leaves) In a one to one marketing scenario, will marketers’ personal brand equity on services like Twitter also be of value to future employers? I quite like the idea of a combo handle (person and company). It allows a whole lot of customising – different people for different domains within the organisation, replacing users etc, while still giving the human touch to the account.

The other scenario which interests me is an agency handling the brand’s social media strategy. Would they handle the twitter account after disclosing that they are only speaking for the brand? What impact does that have on the one-to-one conversations that the brand is supposed to have with its consumers on social media? Does it make a case for agencies to stop at monitoring and ensuring that the spokesperson is still an employee of the brand?

All of this is keeping in mind that a twitter account is only a part of the social media strategy and thus the role of an agency could possibly be justified for many other reasons. But at a broader level, if a lot of social media is going to be one-on-one marketing, it would make sense for organisations to figure out who would be the “one” representing them, and how much he/she/they would be empowered. Of course, it also makes sense to figure out whether they should be on Twitter at all.

until next time, handle it

Update: Just saw a term for this – Brandividuals

April 20, 2009
HongKong Hustle

That’s the retaurant formerly known as Saigon. In fact, when you approach it from Brigade Road the signage with the new name is difficult to miss, but the front signage is still that of Saigon. This is on the 2nd Floor of the building that houses Oye Shaava, Oye Amritsar and Ruby Tuesday. They have valet parking too, and for those wondering, no, I didn’t try it out for my two wheeler. :p

As you go up, do check out the posters of Oye Amritsar, good stuff. On the second floor, we were greeted with a nunchaku doorknob. Wonderfully creative start. In fact the entire place, I realised was a creative trip. I didn’t take photos and hoped someone had, and my faith in the www was reinforced when I came across this site.

We had reserved a table, but if you’re going early (before 8pm ) that may not be required. There are some great 2 seaters that give you a view of Church Street, and options for larger groups too. I love those ‘watch the world go by’ views, as regular readers would know. The welcome mat greeted me warmly and told me that they were not too sticky about formalities, and that I should look around, enjoy myself, but asked me to save space for dessert.

The person in charge of our table asked us if were familiar with the dining style they followed. I’d only read one review so he explained the concept of Mongolian Barbecue. Daniel, as he introduced himself, did a great job of explaining it, and said that we would be served soups and starters before we got on with that part. The staff uniform is the Karate Gi gear. Daniel wore a red belt which means he’s a captain. Stewards wear yellow belts.

We had a choice of Burnt Garlic veg soup and a Sweet Corn Chicken soup. I asked for half a bowl of the latter and was only disappointed that I couldn’t get D to try it out, though I kept telling her it was very good. The solid attack started with 5 veg and 5 non veg starters. We had Chinese green dim sum (mushroom and corn), crisp potato, cauliflower in spicy ginger sauce, grilled vegetables in tangy sauce, and veg dim sum, I evinced only passing interest though the cauliflower starter was exceptional and the others were good too. The non veg starters – Fish in chinese parsley sauce, chicken wings, lamb in BBQ sauce, chicken dim sum and prawn papaya spring rolls, were obviously given more attention. (except for the last one since prawns are allergic to me 😉 ) All of them great, and I loved the chicken wings, awesome stuff. If you like something, feel free to ask for a second or even third helping. But remember there’s the main course and deserts to follow.

The main course is the Mongolian barbecue. You get your bowl and select from over a dozen kinds of sliced vegetables – mushroom, bamboo shoots, capsicum, cabbage, broccoli and so on, arranged in a buffet. You are then asked to choose your sauce from a display board and the meat/s you would like to add, and they stir fry it for you. To go along with it, you can choose steamed rice, fried rice or noodles with veg and non veg (lamb, fish, chicken) options. I ordered my stir fry with lamb and a pepper & onion sauce, and chicken noodles to go along. D ordered her stir fry with chicken and spicy chinese wine sauce and veg fried rice (@#$%, Veg? asked I !! and was rewarded with a Buddha smile) to go along with it. The other sauce choices for the day were Sweet and Sour, Golden Garlic, Hunan, Oyster/Chilli Oyster, Hot Garlic, Chilli Plum and Sapo. The stir fried stuff and your rice/noodles are brought to your table, in less than 10 minutes. Awesome. You could order another round if you’re upto it, maybe with a different sauce. I remembered the desserts and didn’t.

The dessert options were Sago Float, Fried Mango, Cut Fruit, Ice Cream Date Pancake and Chocolate Mousse. We tried all, and you can guess what I asked for a second helping of. I was also tempted by the Sago Float – coconut flavoured with jelly like Sago ( D says sago is sabudana), but chocolate always wins.

All of this – soups, starters, main course, desserts work like a buffet – charged Rs.349 + tax for dinner (works out to Rs.785 for two) and Rs.249 + tax for lunch (fewer items, I suspect). They also serve a la carte based on your preferences, there’s no menu card. They do have a liquor menu though, thats extra. I am not trying to hustle you, but you do need to give this place a try at least once, for the unique dining experience it offers. I’ll be your fortune cookie and say “Go on an empty stomach. Serve you well, it will” 🙂

Hongkong Hustle, 2nd Floor, Asha Enclave, #20, Church street, Ph: 41122855

April 19, 2009