Author: manu prasad

  • With a little help from friends…

    It’s official now. I had suspected it for a while, but this post from Simply Zesty

    shows that page admins across the world are wondering why the ‘Reach’ figures of their posts are on the downswing. This then starts affecting the other ‘vital stats’ of the Page as well – like PTAT. It really doesn’t matter whether FB is showing the actual reach number (you may question that if you’re also monitoring via 3rd party apps) or decreasing it further just to pile on the pain, because fundamentally they’re throttling the reach and you would have to go by the numbers they claim, because well, it’s official!

    I’d say that FB is now behaving like a true media monopoly. It’d have been fine if the % of people who saw a page post were dependent on the positive/negative action taken by the people who liked the page. But this is just an “offer you can’t refuse” for the various advertising products that FB has begun pushing out aggressively. Should have known that IPOs have side effects. It hurts more because just sometime back, I’d written – in my ‘Social grows up to be media‘ post – that of the two (FB, Twitter) I had better hopes for FB. While Facebook owns the platform, (some) brands have done a lot of hard work in attaining fans organically through excellent content and engagement. By not allowing the content to reach these very fans, FB is being unfair. It becomes even more interesting when we figure that FB is now allowing brands to truly broadcast (beyond fans and friends of fans to everyone) their posts. On one hand, they are making their money from brands and at the same time, showing me an ad I never asked to see.

    This could be just the start. I’m already hearing ‘viewpoints‘ of Facebook charging brands for pages. Knowing the way PR works, FB is probably setting the scene for this and we’ll be seeing more articles of this nature. Is this an unfair way to monetise one’s platform? That, in Facebook’s own words, is complicated.

    More importantly, the larger debate of whether one should build (on) owned properties now becomes even more pertinent. What do you think?

    until next time, pay walled…

  • a1000yoga

    A1000yoga.com aims to bring yoga back into our lives with world class studios. In conversation with founder Pradeep Gowda.

    [scribd id=111237819 key=key-15ufaw7ce22hhz975q3b mode=scroll]

  • Mean better than average?

    BBH Labs offered some excellent perspective in a post titled ‘Mean Brands‘ a few days ago, which pointed out that when brands are asked to be more human online, we overlook the fact that humans are not nice online. Expanding on this, they showcased three scenarios – brand vs consumer, brand vs brand and brand vs organisation – with examples, and asked whether this was a good strategy to build stronger brand allegiance.

    I was reminded of something I had tweeted earlier this year when Cleartrip was at the receiving end of some good old fashioned twitter outrage when putting an abrasive and stupid (non) customer in his place. I was convinced after going through the preceding tweets that Cleartrip had tried their hand at explanation before getting exasperated and reacting with sarcasm, just like a human. It was bold, but more importantly it also showed character and conviction.

    Even as brands are trying to be human, humans are becoming (or are trying to become) brands. When they do get an audience, an increased sense of self-importance is inevitable. Most of the time, objectivity is minimal and the thrill of shaming/trolling a brand is too tempting. So perhaps a level playing field is only fair. Of course, it is always more fun when the knockout punch is delivered with a solid punchline. Richard Neill’s comedic rant and Bodyform’s hilarious response is an example. A few more here. (via @sunnysurya)

    until next time, brands mean business!

  • bookStalk

    Everyone enjoys a good story, and booksTalk aims to get everyone to listen to them through audiobooks. In conversation with co-founder Jai Madhukar Zende

    [scribd id=110860116 key=key-24y64vi5vbju3b9r7veu mode=scroll]

  • Transmedia and popular culture

    Last week, I chanced upon Coldplay’s latest comic-video. It’s apparently a prequel to a six-part comic which can be pre-ordered at the Coldplay Store. There’s also a live concert happening soon. I thought there was real potential here for some transmedia work – they already have a music video, comics and live concerts – with Facebook, Twitter and other digital properties it could have been a great mix.

    But what I was really wondering about is how pop culture can be used by brands for building transmedia narratives. Comic books, music bands, television programming etc, and user generated content on social media can be a potent mix. When I have thought about transmedia (and written about it) it has always been with the brand as a driver. But what if the lead is taken by a pop culture phenomenon and the brand, understanding a commonality, tag on. In-movie promotions are probably a crude example I can think of.

    The typical way brands handle it is by trying to push their messaging, and in the process destroy the pop culture phenomenon’s attraction. But if they find partners who have a connection, spend some thought on it, and help in advancing the narrative without forcing it in a selfish direction, they might actually get a completely different audience to become interested. A step further is in taking the help of the audience themselves to forward the narrative.

    In many posts, I have mentioned that organisations need to find their purpose and then  nurture employees who can identify with it. Perhaps the above is an inorganic way of doing the same on the consumer side.

    until next time,  to be continued 😉