• Deconstructing a viral

    Google’s Project Glass demo was the best product demo I’d ever seen. The sheer possibilities with such a device was amazing, but in essence, it was the theatrics that impressed. Everyone I shared it with shared it on.

    It made me think of the concept of a viral. From many murmurs I have heard around me, “Let’s make a viral” has only evolved, not died. The question of what makes a content viral is also asked when 2 or more marketers/social media practitioners are present. I find it a bit ironic that sometimes when ‘virals’ are named, I can’t recollect them. I first thought this was just me, until I figured out otherwise from other blank looks. But that’s not surprising, considering our increasingly fragmented consumption patterns across media platforms.

    I realised lately that if reach were the only parameter, then every TVC/newspaper ad, by sheer consumption, is a ‘viral’. So, a necessary caveat is that the reach has to be through peer sharing. But what good is an eminently enjoyable creative if it does zilch for the business? The viral is thus walking that exact balance between entertainment and brand objective. But would our current definition of a viral deem the Project Glass demo a candidate? I don’t think so. Nor would flipping on the Open Graph on a website and allowing multiple contextual actions to go across newsfeeds and Timelines.

    And that’s where the evolution is interesting – because technology is slowly moving from being an ‘enabler’ (euphemism for cheap means of distribution – YouTube/Facebook, I always felt) to being the best tool to weave in the brand story, and an inherent part of the experience. It goes beyond just social platforms and into Augmented Reality, NFC and other legacy/new technologies. I saw quite a few examples (via) – Buy the World a Coke, Red Tomato Pizza’s fridge magnet, even Amex-Twitter and one of my favourites for quite a while now – Nike+. Would we call these virals? I don’t know, but they were shared, seen, and tied in neatly with the brand experience. So probably what needs to evolve now is the marketer’s mindset on what he/she defines as a viral. The opportunity and the challenge is that when everyone’s a publisher, the marketer’s real job is to make it more share-worthy – conceptually and practically. That hasn’t changed. 🙂

    Since we’re on arguable territory here, do chime in.

    until next time, viral ‘producting’ as opposed to viral marketing?

  • Realty Check 2

    The area was perfect. They called the number mentioned at the site, to be told that the price was Rs.13000 per sq.ft! The plan was simple – get a friend everyday to call up and start laughing hysterically as soon as the builder quoted the price. Hopefully, sense would prevail and the price would come down!

    until next time, remember Part 1?

  • Death of a Moneylender

    Kota Neelima

    Farmer suicides are unfortunately a ‘dog bites man’ story in journalism parlance, but Falak Anand is sent to a remote village in south central India to cover an almost ‘man bites dog’ version- a money lender has been found hanging, and an entire village is suspect.

    I quite liked the book for the premise, and the subject matter, because while this is a work of fiction, it gives a lot of perspective on the conditions and circumstances that forces a farmer to take his own life – crop cycles, dependence on rain/sun, credit facilities which show the reasons why farmers are forced to go to moneylenders despite the existence of banks, market economics and the wily middlemen, and the abject poverty that all these factors collectively land the farmer in. Add to this, a corrupt set of politicians and file-pushing bureaucrats, and the farmer is left with no other choice.

    In the context of the book, it takes the death of a decent moneylender who wishes well for the farmers, for this stranglehold to be loosened.

    Now, while I understand that the author has taken pains to ensure that the inhumanity of it all gets drilled into us, I felt that, as a work of fiction, it could’ve been edited better, especially the last 30 (about) pages, especially since the climax is quite predictable and given away by the summary.

    Also, except for Falak’s character, which dominates the proceedings, the others tend to be just supportive and all too stereotyped, despite a setting I haven’t encountered much before.

    But I’d still recommend it for sensitizing us to an India that is somehow forgotten amidst our relatively trivial urban dramas.

  • Social Interactions

    When Paul Adams makes an ‘appearance’ on this blog, it usually involves profundity. (background) Last week, on Simply Zesty, I saw this amazing presentation he made recently, which, in addition to showing the evolution of communication technology and its impact on us, also shed light on the role Facebook envisions for themselves. (Do read the post linked to above to the 3 main takeaways) The video is a must watch and worth the 20 minutes you spend.

    The part, however,that interested me most, and affects my current line of work, is where he mentions that the way forward for brands, before they get ‘heavy’. Many lightweight interactions over time, that’s what he says. And I nodded my head vigorously when I heard that.

    It also ties in well with the ‘tyranny of the big idea’ concept discussed here before. Lightweight interactions involve fewer resources – time and money, offer opportunities to create nuanced engagement based on objectives, user interests and other contexts. The tendency for brands is to use the media part of ‘social media’ and attempt to make big splashes. But I strongly agree that these are relationships which take time and a lot of interactions – to build trust and understanding. Once this is done, the big splashes will be made even bigger thanks to the support of an active and engaged user base.

    until next time, light the fire…

  • It’s all roleplay

    The other day, Samadooram, a talk show on Mazhavil Manorama featured Revathy, in the context of Revathy’s own show Kanamarayathu on the same channel, that deals with children who have run away from home. I’m not a viewer of that show, and cannot really comment on the content, but… (Opinion – on related things – follows. 🙂 )

    One of the things that piqued my interest was something that Revathy said during the show – that she was disappointed by the attitude of a well educated person who asked her whether they created so much melodrama on the show to attract more viewers. (that the Malayali audience is addicted to glycerin is well established by the success of the daily soaps on various channels) That reminded me of the twitter reaction to Day 1 of Satyamev Jayate and the posts that followed in the next few days – swinging from abject cynicism to equating it to the second coming.

    (Generalising) In India, there is obviously a huge difference between the perspectives of the low single digit percentage of people on twitter who are rarely directly affected by issues (barring #firstworldproblems) and the billions who are not on twitter but who are directly affected. However, the polarising of opinions is something I’ve seen outside of twitter too, increasingly these days. In that sense, twitter does act as a microcosm of the world outside. Which brings me to the other related point that Revathy made – sensitising people to the things that happen around them, not directly affecting them, but could later, or which they could influence in a positive way if they acted on it. Not to blame anyone, but I am aware that today’s society is becoming increasingly selfish and living in self made bubbles. Existential pragmatism perhaps.

    But what I’d like to think about here is media’s role – the question that was asked to Revathy. Media, and I’m talking of the institution here and not any one specific, could play a great role in sensitising, mostly thanks to its reach and the varied perspectives it can capture. However, such is the competition for eyeballs and money, that ‘any means necessary’ is the accepted credo. Such is the onslaught on the remaining senses that I wonder if collectively, media has forced its audience to move directly to a desensitised state without pausing at ‘sensitise’. Whose responsibility is it finally to filter – the sender (media) or the receiver? (audience) I am really not sure. On my part, I don’t watch news channels, and I can’t say it has damaged me permanently. What do you think? (No, not about the damage it has/not caused me, but the roles)

    until next time, know your role

    Postscript: While on the subject, a small bit on celebrity anchors. They have enormous personal clout, and (this is an example) this can do + and – for their shows – bring and take away focus. I don’t grudge Aamir making 3 crores out of a Satyamev Jayate episode. He is a professional actor and it so happens that this is a project that (seems as per propaganda) is close to his heart. He does not need to part with his remuneration to show his commitment to the cause. That’s like forcing an employee to spend x% of his salary to buy his company’s product/service every month on salary day, since he’s supposedly – in pop lingo – ‘passionate’ about his job. On the flip side, Aamir is not doing the world a favour by being the face of the show either. What he could do to help though, is to write a small note that clarifies his role for the audience. It’s not an obligation, but whether it’s a job as a professional or his own personal affection for a show – if he were true to it – he would want the conversation around the topic of the show – the issue at hand.