Tag: Facebook

  • Too big to fail

    I had a bit of an epiphany a few days back. A sign of the needle shifting from social to media. In the era when the two words were grudgingly stuck together, one of the catchphrases I’d heard was ‘fail fast, learn fast, fix fast’. It was a time when the rules hadn’t been made, and experimentation was the only way to learn. Though this practice had its share of critics, there was hardly any choice.

    But now there is. Facebook has an entire suite of offerings now – it’s no longer vanilla display ads, there are Sponsored stories, Page Post Targeting, Offers, to name a few  – all meant for specific purposes. They even have case studies put together over a period of time. (we – Myntra – were featured a while back too)

    So, the epiphany? In a conversation, I realised that things were more serious now. Brands are now loath to experiment since the general feeling was that a lot of people would see it and it would affect the brand image. It’s not just ads, posts, but even social actions! Smelled like traditional media. Is that good or bad? I don’t know, but I do know it’s evolution.

    until next time, traditional social 😉

  • Social grows up to be media

    On the first page of BG Verghese’ “First Draft”, he talks of The Times front page on the day he was born -21 June 1927. The paper was priced at one anna and “only carried advertisements on its cover page as was the general practice.” This was how traditional media companies had always worked. They had probably begun as journals, and later had sponsored information. (ads) In an era of information scarcity, this was probably required and appreciated. Even if they were not, the complaints would spread only as WOM. More importantly, while they took money from readers, their real survival (generalising) depended on advertisers. In the case of radio and television, it is even more evident. Then came the internet, and a story that has oft been repeated. We’re not going there.

    Though from email to BBS to Geocities to Friendster and beyond, everything can be considered social media, it began for me in the form of blogs (in 2003) became social networking via Orkut and really took flight with Twitter (May) and Facebook (July) in 2007. By this time, ads had begun to be ‘noise’ as media platforms proliferated. Twitter as well as FB served different purposes. As the cliche goes, “On Facebook, you connected with people you went to school with, and on Twitter, with people who you wished you went to school with.” In fact, such was my affection for Twitter that I even walked the talk. 🙂

    Why this long winded narration now? Because what I’d considered social is now very clearly becoming media that happens to have a social past. Facebook’s Promoted Posts will now reach people who have not Liked the brands as well, and it is working on measurement systems that resemble GRPs. From its options – a real time cloud API company and a media company, Twitter has clearly chosen. It has now started throttling the third party apps that made it the rockstar it now is. In their chosen line, this is an inevitable step to protect the ‘value’ it sells. Promoted tweets can now be targeted on the basis of interest.

    The disappointment, even if I reconcile myself to the fact that social is media, is the extent of evolution, or rather, the lack of it. Of the two, I have better hopes for Facebook now. Mark Zuck, despite the IPO, still controls it and from whatever he has spoken thus far, it seems this is not just a business for him, and though the ‘Promoted’ stuff on Facebook has now taken centre stage, the potential of the Open Graph remains and if it does evolve (as mentioned in an earlier post – last paragraph) it will continue to be interesting. Twitter? Oh well, Google’s AdWords is a megabucks one-trick, and it has Android. In the Google-like path it has chosen for itself, I can only hope that Twitter has a vision beyond being “sponsored”. If there is anything that media history has taught us, it is that irrelevance is just one service away.

    until next time, growing pains

  • Raw Talent

    Last year, when I wrote about transmedia, one of the examples I had used was WWE. Perhaps it is because pro wrestling is usually given a pass by mainstream media, except when there are celebrity appearances, that WWE has made significant investments in building a social media presence – Facebook (almost a crore fans) , Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram and more recently YouTube.

    Last week, it celebrated 1000 episodes on television, Charlie Sheen was their social media ambassador for the event. During the show, they also interviewed the fan who was their 100 millionth social media follower across networks. They begin and continue storylines on Twitter, and gets stars to make hashtag trends – The Rock being the best example. Stars have also used social media to further the TV time they got – Zack Ryder’s exposure shot up several notches after his YouTube show became a hit.

    And now, as per announcements, they plan to go further. It has added Tout to the list of platforms used, thus allowing video interactions with fans. The app’s sudden popularity owes much to the WWE marketing push. They also plan to increase the duration of the show from 2 to 3 hours, with hashtags and polls allowing viewers to influence the content of the show – practically live. A huge gamble. And there’s no surety of a #win. But that’s probably not the point. The lesson here (and what I admire them for) is how an old school wrestling promotion has consistently adapted to changing media scenarios and platforms – from selling live events, to running TV shows and pay-per-views and now on to social media, without forsaking the earlier endeavours. It continues to live dangerously, and thus thrives. It requires tremendous conviction in their product, their employees and their audience, called the WWE Universe.

    They might not make it to case studies, but that kind of cold shouldering is what they are used to by now. They probably don’t need it anyway. 100 million fans/followers – in essence, they are their own media. That’s not something a lot of brands can boast of.

    until next time, Raw is War #youremember (Barring occasional forced breaks, I’ve been watching since 1994) 🙂

  • Brand experiences

    Twitter’s event based hashtag pages (as opposed to brand based) made me think about brands as experiences. In another era, the ‘experience’ was restricted to a limited number of media vehicles (and I include non-social network WOM too) and the actual touch-feel, pre or post purchase, including retail outlets. But times have changed – social, media and technological platforms have increased the experience touchpoints manifold.

    A big fallout of this, with relation to brands, is the challenge they face on building a cohesive (no, not consistent) experience across these hugely varying platforms. We’re still at an early stage in this and though many brands like Starbucks have taken this challenge head on, others will probably take time to adjust to this flux that seems like a permanent state from now on.

    An interesting meta version of this, to me, is what is happening with Facebook. Product is more or less brand in this case. The Open Graph and the ubiquitous Like button had set a good stage for the network, but the recent business push (read Ads) and the “Mobile is to Facebook what social is to Google” death mumbles seem to be testing FB’s ability to adapt to the ever changing landscape. I am a very mild user of Path, but I sometimes wonder if it or others like it is the future because of its obvious comfort levels with the smartphone.

    But I also wonder if Facebook will split its services (like Messenger already – remember Beluga) and build specific value with an assortment of contexts eg. photography, (Instagram) location (Gowalla) and so on with the social layer working ‘quietly’ in the background. Facebook is also moving from the Like button, whose ‘meaning’ remains divided between marketers and consumers 🙂 , to (reported) Want, Purchased, Donate buttons that allow better consumer expressions and also allow brands (and FB) to contextualise experiences. These are only a couple of example of how Facebook is trying to evolve. In Facebook’s negotiation of its landscape, I think there will be lessons for brands -(whether FB succeeds or not) on adapting to platforms, consumption and technology itself, and creating a brand/product experience that uses these to its own advantage.

    until next time, advance booking

  • 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…