Category: Social Media

  • Crowd Control by the crowd

    Its rightly said that however thinly you slice the bread, there will always be two sides. Sometimes the very features that makes me love the social web – sharing and transparency, are not treated with the respect they deserve. Or, to be more specific, the crowd is not able to react maturely when someone is being transparent, or sharing something innocuous, or just doing his job. I remembering touching upon mob justice in the case of the Hasbro vs Scrabulous issue too.

    Since then there have been several instances of what Jason Calacanis might describe as the ‘madness of the mobs‘. From Hotmail users fighting against the new design, virtual protests and self immolations on Second Life against a steep purchase and maintenance fee increase, to relatively harmless breast beating on Twitter and Facebook, there has been a lot of action happening all around.

    A few recent incidents have made me look at the otherwise wonderful features of the social web in a negative light again. Rex Hammock recently wrote about a Dilbert strip in which its creator Scott Adams did a bit of ‘in house’ product placing – for DilbertFiles.com, an online sharing and file storage service that was the result of a deal between Adams and Sendyourfiles.com, which Adams had explained on his blog. In fact he also points out that

    As the number of traditional newspapers continues to shrink, this is the sort of thing that will help keep Dilbert free online.

    But several readers took exception calling it a ‘shameless plug’ and ‘unethical’. Thankfully there were many in the crowd who were objective enough to see it as ‘lame but not ethical’, and several others who found it interesting, and a great way of promoting the service. I, for one, thought it was some neat ‘brand integration’. The debate is now over, i guess, and Scott Adams made some candid, cool closing remarks on the issue. You can read them here.

    The other incident that caught my attention was the case of James Andrews (@keyinfluencer on Twitter). Here are the details. In short, this is what happened. James Andrews, from a company called Ketchum, in Atlanta flew to Memphis to visit FedEx, one of his agency’s biggest clients, to talk to their corporate communication team about social media. Being a regular Twitter user, he tweeted on landing

    “True confession but I’m in one of those towns where I scratch my head and say, ‘I would die if I had to live here.’”

    Instead of the lil argument that would’ve happened on Twitter over this, it became a classic ‘tempest in a tea cup’, when a person from the Fedex Corporate Communication Group took this up and sent a mail to Andrews. And thus it became a story of the agency guy (Andrews) talking ill of his client’s city. (the entire mail can be read in the link I shared earlier) All the poor man did was give a personal opinion about the place he landed in. That is a crime in social media, according to a few social media storm troopers. Suddenly, there are statements to be made, the agency has to apologise on behalf of Andrews. I say, FedEx, thats #FAIL. Kudos to Funkidivagirl for defending her husband so eloquently, and putting things in perspective.

    Both the situations made me think of expectations. Scott Adams is perhaps thinking of greater good (keeping the online strip free) when he makes a deal like this. He even explains the reasons on his blog. He doesn’t have to. And the crowd, or at least a part of it, loses it. James Andrews tweets personal views about a nameless place  (Fed Ex’ reaction ensures everyone knows about Memphis now) and his agency and work are judged based on that!! We’re supposed to be careful of what we tweet.

    The last and most recent incident is the worst, because unlike the other two, this one’s effect was real and physical!! And at the receiving end was none other than Tech Crunch’s Michael Arrington. As he was leaving a conference, someone walked up to him and spat on his face. The pain in his words are unmistakable as he relates the incident. It doesn’t matter whether you agree, disagree, love or despise TechCrunch or Arrington, but their contribution to the web and startups transcends that, and cannot be denied. If this has to do with what he writes about as part of his job, this is a despicable reaction. I, for one, would really want to know what provoked such an act.

    We expect transparency, honesty and sharing in the social web.  But are we always ready to handle it maturely when its given to us? Yes, brands and people have a responsibility towards us, but shouldn’t that be reciprocated by us too? By having unreasonable expectations from brands and people, especially in a scenario where the rules of engagement are only beginning to be formed, are we forcing these entities to stop sharing and stop being transparent? As RWW correctly notes,

    Whether you believe in monitoring yourself online or not, don’t forget the point of the social Web: to get to know other like minded people, share resources, have fun, and leave the place a little nicer than you found it.

    Let’s have some of this spirit back, and show some maturity not only when we share or tweet or try to engage an audience as a brand/PR person, but also as a reader, when we consume this content. After all we are human, and I like to think that with web 2.0, we’re on our way to making this cold machine driven entity called internet , human. Lets not make the reverse happen.

    until next time, you have the right to remain silent, sometimes the duty too..

    PS. but you should comment 😉

  • The Long Tail of Caves

    I read about the Jaipur Lit Fest, only thanks to a tweet from prolificd/roshnimo, this despite the fact that I fancy myself to be quite a voracious bibliophile. So, I wouldnt have been surprised to be asked ‘Have you been living in a cave?’.

    I blame it on the information overload, and wonder if we have reached full circle. Once upon a time, the means of communication was so minimal that most people lived their lives without most of the information they’d have liked to have. These days, its the other extreme of communication means, but the effect is the same. Even if I have an interest for something, I might end up missing the information, simply because of the large amounts of data I’m plowing through in terms of Twitter, blogs, Facebook, news sites and so on. Don’t even think of saying noise, or filter. There are limits and it doesnt help if you have interests in the social web, Bollywood, puns, books, Formula 1 and so on.

    The more interest I have in different verticals, and the more conversations I have in any one of these, I expose myself to being in a ‘cave’. Different people based on their interest areas and levels of interest, would thus create a hmm, long tail of caves!!

    I’m getting by now by paying special attention to those whom I trust, in specific fields, to give me the latest, valid information. A sort of virtual look out. But I’m hoping for a better solution, like say, a few vertical networks?

    until next time, wassup? 🙂

  • Tweets w00t

    I’ve never plugged plugins before, but in this case, I’ll gladly make an exception, because its so damn useful. Quite a while back, after installing the friendfeed plugin, I remember asking on Friendfeed whether there was a WordPress Plugin that could pull in any sharing of a blog post. Think of the trackbacks we have for blogs, and then imagine if we had a similar mechanism for Twitter, Google Reader, Delicious or any of the sites we share stuff on.

    Mashable wrote sometime back about the concept of Tweetbacks, and thanks to the magical way in which web 2.0 operates, the bridge from fantasy to reality was quickly created, and the WP Plugin creation was called yes, Tweetbacks. Dan Zarrella, you’ve heard this before, you’re awesome. 🙂

    I’d recommend it strongly to all those bloggers who are familiar with Twitter (actually even those who aren’t) and would like to see who’s sharing your post there. Its an absolutely hassle free plugin- easy to install and adds another dimension to connecting with people and conversations. And now, Dan has built another plugin called Tweetsuite, which adds a load of functionalities. Testing it out now. Suggest you do too.

    until next time, hoping for a Reader and delicious plugin 🙂

  • Brands among sheep

    A few days back, I read a post on Adage, about how Facebook has become a place to collect friends. A large part of the post was about how people one barely knew became ‘friends’, how we all seem to be involved in each others’ lives in superficial ways, merely by sharing stuff we do, how we are failing to live the moment because we have to update our status first. 🙂 Not surprisingly, he was burnt at the comments stake.

    At some level, the author is right about the ‘collecting friends’ part. This would explain the success of Burger King’s ‘Whopper Sacrifice‘ app, in which sacrificing (deleting) 10 friends would get you a sandwich.  Somehow, Facebook didn’t seem to find it that cool, and took action.  Meanwhile, Facebook has been trying its bit to customise the news feed by allowing ‘more/less about’ options for status updates. In addition to the grouping of friends, an obvious Orkut like classification of friends, acquaintances etc might help too. Meanwhile, I read about what seems an interesting new network that aims to put an end to the random friend addition – hipstr.

    Meanwhile, the post actually did raise a couple of interesting queries, which were lost in what was seen as an anti-Facebook rant – one, in this communication avalanche that’s happening among consumers, is it possible for brands to squeeze in their communication at all? And are friends becoming the new platform for advertising? I’ve seen several Facebook ads that use friends as an ad platform, and most of the ads that I see with my friends’ endorsement are without their knowledge. (xyz uses abc app) I dont think that’s the scalable model we’d want.

    The easy answer to the first question (as described in many comments) is context and value creation. But in terms of advertising, I think (and this is highly debatable) Facebook lacks a definite context. I update, I share photos, I write on the Wall, I play a few word games, try a quiz out and so on. So I wonder whether context can play as good a role as it does on search, because the intent for which I frequent Facebook is completely different. It made me wonder if an all encompassing generic network like Facebook will find it difficult to be of commerical use? Like I commented on a good discussion on social media we had on Twitter, perhaps, in the realms of social networking, the scope is for vertical networks (there are many which’ve already popped up) that cater to more specific interests. The version 1 of that would be LinkedIn (business networking). The scope for context and value addition could be much greater there.

    But perhaps better mining over a period of time will give feasible solutions like say, integrating the birthday calendar with a gifting opportunity. So if my friend abc has his birthday today, and is a fan of a particular product/service on Facebook, then Facebook will ask me if I want to gift him that product/service. No, not just virtually, really. Or say, a status update of mine says I’m having a house party, and the Pizza Hut app sends me a mail asking me if I’d want to consider its services. Of course, design, privacy issues etc are to be kept in mind.

    I’m also hoping that the above premise will be taken to a whole new level with Facebook Connect. Mashable had a good post a few days back on 10 great implementations of Facebook Connect. It includes a traditional media brand (CNN) and an energy drink brand (Red Bull). Perhaps Connect will bring in the much required context.

    until next time, dont throw a sheep 😉

  • Web 2.0 and transience

    As I am wont to do at infrequent intervals, I came up with one of  those  quirky connections – this one, for Tata Sky. I mentioned on Twitter that “aamir’s ghajini character could find Tata Sky Plus’ features quite useful-pause, rewind, record 😉 wonder if they’ll make a TVC with that”. In the days that followed, Asin has been extensively used in the Tata Sky campaign, so now I’m hoping thay actually make that TVC, complete with the Tata Sky helpline number tattooed on Aamir. 😉

    It led me to a tangential thought on social media. (the FB, Twitter variety, not business networking like LinkedIn) In what might amount to blasphemy, I wondered whether brands should make desperate efforts to be ‘engaging’ in social media. They need to be there definitely, but perhaps its only to know what’s being talked about them, and why. They perhaps need to be there more for reactions than actions. This also saves them the challenge of generating interesting ‘engagement ideas’ at all times.

    Why did I think all this? Because I realised that the engagement is being created by users themselves, for each other. For non web 2.0 brands, the engagement is most likely a result of something that’s been done offline. A TVC, a billboard, a radio jingle and so on. Must say, this perspective on how to use twitter for Marketing and PR made me think too.

    At one point, web 1.0 used eyeballs as measurement, that’s an idea thats not going anywhere great? Web 1.o gave us many great websites and lessons, but in a few years time, we jumped into web 2.0. The attention span and shelf lives for most things are becoming smaller. Is web 2.o just a transient phase that is needed to get us to another version? The optimist in me (which is usually bullied into submission) says that when a certain version is reached, the engagement and revenue models will manifest itself in an uncomplicated manner. (now you know why it needs to be bullied). Maybe the baby steps of getting connected are meant for simple things. Maybe it is only meant to let businesses know  that a connected world can shake up existing models. Maybe there’s some growing up to do, some discovery to be made, before revenue models and engagement by brands can happen as a regular occurrence.

    Or perhaps I’m going out of whack and being impatient. Center Networks has a good comparison of Web 1.0/ 2.0 revenue models and profitability. As this good post sums up in a different context

    New business models for media require entirely new exchanges of value — it’s not about finding new ways to balance the old equation.

    Perhaps the more meaningful discussions lie in figuring out how the basic pillars of web 2.o – connecting, sharing, collaborating-  can be used to build brands. The ‘How to use Twitter/Facebook for Marketing/PR’ are based on tools, and that would mean that we’ve been confusing tactics for strategy.

    until next time, discover 🙂

    PS: A few things that I thought were good to share

    Discovery Is The New Cocaine – Going Beyond Engagement

    View SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: discovery ux)

    Social Media PR vs Social Media Marketing, and in context,a tool – CoTweet, that’d be a help to teams handling a brand on Twitter.