Tag: twitter

  • 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

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • ‘Algebra’ & Twitter

    My favourite story in Paul Theroux’ ‘The Collected Stories’ is Algebra, a simplistic tale of a clerk easing his way into London’s literary crowd through one chance meeting and several arranged ones thence.

    Friendship is like algebra, but there are operations most people are too impatient or selfish to perform. Any number is possible!…. But one can be unselfish…. in giving everything and expecting nothing but agreeable company. ‘Giving everything’, I say, but so little is actually required – a good-natured remark, a little flattery, a drink.

    Last week, I completed 5 years on Twitter, and while I haven’t broken into literary circles nor started drinking, I have made friends. In the self conscious, real time and usually selfish world of twitter, where snap judgments are the order of the day, it is not easy to give at all, let alone expect much in return. And yet, many a time, I have been at the receiving end of acts of kindness. On most of these occasions, they are unaware of what they’ve done and the difference they have made. I’d like to think that I have passed it on. But meanwhile, they reside in my favourite list on twitter.

    until next time, follow through 🙂