Servant of Chaos

Does Social Media Scale?

Over the past week or so there have been a series of ideas coming together in my mind. I had been struggling to pull them together into a coherent framework until I saw this post by Peter Kim. He asks some difficult questions around the benefit of social media, but goes further -- suggesting that social media does not scale:

One-ninth of the WORLD's population watched the 2006 FIFA World Cup final.  Social media vs. Television for marketing purposes just doesn't match up.

But in my view, this is looking only at potential reach around a single, fixed-in-time event. And surely the predominant global brand on display during the match was the FIFA World Cup -- all the rest of the advertising space would have been segmented to maximise the returns available in each broadcaster's market. This fragmentation of ad space is exactly the domain and power of the long tail -- where social media can provide a resonance and relevance to niche audiences.

Having said this, there is an issue around the human resources required to activate a social media program. As Peter says:

I do believe social media can help sell.  Social content has started integrating into traditional tactics like banners and emails.  I have a better opinion of Comcast after Frank helped me with my cable modem and will resist Verizon FIOS for a while longer.  From my last post asking if social media matters, the commenting consensus seems to agree, with its impact in awareness, consideration, and preference.

But if social media marketing matters, then does it scale?

I don't think so.  I think the technologies scale.  But the programs - especially those with a labor-intensive component - don't.

The labour intensiveness of an active social media program can become a bottleneck. There simply are not enough Richard@DELL's around to help every person with an issue. However, the aim -- or certainly the aims I normally have in mind when constructing a social media or digital strategy -- is to foster the growth of a community in such a way that "external participants" begin to play an active role. So rather than taking a broadcast view of social media, the aim is to facilitate a range of participatory action/activities. Effectively this means using social MEDIA to activate social NETWORKS.

In doing so you have to manage the constraints -- COST, SCALE or CONTROL. Any change you make to one will impact both the others. The more you activate the social network, the less control you will have of your brand, your messaging and your story. Yet this is the cost-benefit paradox -- for while you release your brand, your services and maybe even your support into the wilds of the social media landscape, you find, perhaps, a more authentic brand story coming to life -- a story borne out of a participatory experience between your evangelists and your everyday or casual consumers.

Social Media = Consumer Terrorism?

With the emergence of self-organising groups such as the Social Media Club, Planning for Good and even Interesting South, is it any wonder that the peak bodies that represent the media, advertising and digital services are feeling under pressure? Often these bodies only provide services and membership to corporations, not individuals -- which does not take into account the sweeping changes in the nature of work in these areas. After all, with the vast array of easy-to-use tools, we can all now publish, broadcast and market to a worldwide audience. It seems anachronistic for these industry bodies to not recognise and adapt to the changes that characterise the industries they represent.

And while bloggers such as Laurel Papworth have taken a swipe at Australia's AIMIA and Gordon Whitehead has questioned the value of the Australian Marketing Institute, it is clear that there is a disconnect between those who represent the industry, and those who make it up (see also the debate hosted by MarketingMag). But the situation here in Australia compares favourably with the state of play in Belgium.

Kris Hoet's popular blog, 'crossthebreeze, builds on the conversation surrounding the Belgian Direct Marketing group's upcoming conference -- Revenge of the I. Roughly translated (by Kris), the email announcing the conference states:

“During the congress we’ll deepdive into the current era of ‘consumer terrorism’ that is coming up with the rise of digital and social technologies such as blogs, social networks and email.”

As Kris points out, not only does this remind brands and companies to treat consumers with suspicion, it sets up an artificial divide between the "traditional" and "new media" camps. Branding and marketing is no longer something that is forced upon consumers (if it ever was). After all, it is easy enough to simply click away, delete the email or fast forward through the advertising. The POWER disparity between brands and consumers has been eroding for years -- and it is time that all parties -- brands, industry bodies, practitioners and even consumers (yes, yes invite them in) began to collaborate to find suitable solutions that deliver value all round.

Yes, it is time to join the conversation. It is already happening. You start by listening.

The End of Channel Marketing

In this interesting post, Nic Hodges asks why aren't we creating great digital work. By this, I think he may be referring specifically to the Australian advertising industry (but I could be wrong) -- for there are certainly some excellent digitally-driven campaigns and case studies available for other markets. Nic discusses three issues around producing truly integrated work -- lack of skills/knowledge, difficulty in convincing/educating clients, and a lack of process surrounding the integration of digital into an overarching campaign. He explains:

The fundamental idea that underpins these issues is that digital is a channel. Radio was a new channel. Television was a new channel. Digital is not a new channel, digital is a new world. It is an evolution of media that has taken with it the advertising industry. It is an evolution that, in the relatively short history of advertising, has not happened before.

This got me thinking. Perhaps the challenge that we are facing is not one of channels, nor of integration. I have a feeling that we are approaching this from the wrong direction -- from the agency, or from the brand out -- and maybe it would profit us to think in the other direction. I made the comment that:

We need to look at the nuances of the traditional channels and then think about how best we can amplify, enable and transform the experiences that consumers have with brands.

With a clear shift away from passive interaction with brands, messages and advertising and a growing adoption of social networks/media, user generated content and experiences that extend from the second to the third screen, the role of the digital strategist will necessarily move from the margin to the hub of campaign planning. This is not to downplay the role of the traditional or even the channel planner. But, in the near future (ok, now), brands need to be reaching and inviting us all to participate in ways that deprioritise the channels that favour one-way communications -- opting instead for digitally-enabled experiences that blur the boundaries, amplify the stories and activate our engagement in polyphonic conversational structures. It's time to stop looking through the channel and start listening to the conversations that are already ringing in our ears.

Future of Media Summit 2008

Ross Dawson's Future of Media Summit was held simultaneously in Sydney, Australia and San Francisco, USA.

I live blogged the proceedings using CoverItLive (my first real usage of this service) while also attempting to feed this information into the Twitter stream -- which you can view via Summize.

There was much "traditional media" vs "new media" discussion which bogged down the flow. This was particularly evident during the panel discussions which were heavily laced with members of "traditional media", with bare and often no representation from the "new" side of the business. This forced the alternate conversation into the "back channel" -- the Twitter stream which was equally one-sided.

It wasn't until later, during the unconference sessions, where Stephen Collins and Jed White took the lead in introducing the participants to Twitter (and the under-conference that had been happening all day). Unfortunately I had to leave by this time, but was able to roughly follow proceedings via Twitter -- with new names popping up every couple of minutes. Perhaps, in this way, the future of media is PARTICIPATION.

But before we can get to participation, there is some work to do on education and on technology. There is some effort required to re-think the business models and the frameworks that we use to value communities, consumers and the space where they intersect with brands and publishers. It seems that ten years on, the vision of the Cluetrain Manifesto is coming into focus.

Congratulations go to Ross Dawson and team responsible for bringing together some of the stakeholders. I will be interested to see the way that this conversation pans out over the next 12 months.

I will have more analysis around this event in the coming days -- and keep an eye out for the coverage from Stephen Collins, Stilherrian, Chris Saad, Craig Wilson, Mark Pesce and other attendees.

Pubcamp Sydney Voxpop

Craig Wilson and Gordon Whitehead from Sticky Advertising took some time out at Pubcamp Sydney to probe some members of the audience on the future of media in 2008. Here is the first set of responses ... featuring (in order of appearance Gavin Heaton, Sean Carmody and Markus Hafner).

I am currently writing up a review of the Sydney event, but in the meantime, take a look at Matt Moore's summary or view the twitter stream for yourself. Don't forget, Pubcamp Melbourne next week.

PubCamp - The Web 2.0 Media Day from Sticky Advertising on Vimeo.

Your Platform is Not My Friend

I was reading ReadWriteWeb's post on social networks and filtering and was immediately reminded of the Tangerine Toad's Your Brand is Not My Friend. RWW's Corvida is looking at the large amount of "noise" that occurs in social networks and suggests that filters are the necessary next step in the evolution of social networks.

However, one of the things that I most like about social networks is that the WAY that participants actually USE the social platform is what determines its value. Take Twitter for example. If it was down to Twitter, we would still be answering the question "what are you doing". Instead, the Twitter community have moved in a completely different direction, finding connections, conversation and activism a far better use of the 140 character micro-blogging format.

When you add the concept of personal branding to this, you can begin to see the importance of conversation. In this Age of Conversation, we are what we talk about. We are known by what we say and who we say it to. Our reputations rely on the connections we make, the friendships we build and the content we create. The platforms that we use to carry on these engagements are, to an extent, irrelevant -- afterall, the almost all aggregate under the all-seeing eye of Google.

So while, yes, filtering would be a nice addition to most social network platforms (especially when you start to link them), the best form of filter is your friend. Not the platform. If you take the time to listen, learn and TRUST, then that personal network will pay back your time and effort many times over.

The Dream of Influence and the Democracy of Action

Over the last couple of days there has been a rash of conversation, discussion and analysis around the concept of "influence" -- driven by the publication of Duncan Watts and Peter Dodds article on Influentials, Networks, and Public Opinion Formation. David Reich points out that the Fast Company article, Is the Tipping Point Toast, offers a little more context on Duncan Watts and his area of research; and this great post by Noah Brier drills down into the concepts even further.

Basically, Watts and Dodds are challenging the notion that influentials ("a minority of individuals who influence an exceptional number of their peers") are important to the formation of public opinion. This flies in the face of accepted marketing theory and the popularity of The Tipping Point. It also challenges the notion that marketers have of influence -- and the way in which this notion of influence makes our lives easier. After all, it helps us target our messaging, our communication and our schmoozing efforts. This is why we dream of influence -- it is aspirational. As marketers we like to feel that we have a finger on the pulse of society ... but what happens when that pulse flatlines -- or simply proves to be a phantom?

Late last year I wrote about the strength of weak ties. This fascinates me. The findings of Mark Granovetter's research into social networks demonstrated that it is the WEAK ties that lead to action. If this is the case, then influence may only play an important role in the very early stages of branding efforts -- to facilitate AWARENESS. But as consumers begin to engage with the brand messaging and various forms of communication, it appears that the power of the social network lies not in the level of influence of any select group but in the susceptibility of the audience to contagion.

Why is this relevant? Because on some level, our role as marketers, strategists or activists is not simply to raise awareness. Our job is to change the way that people think, or act -- we want to prompt a change in perception or in behaviour. As marketers then, perhaps our best efforts -- and probably our strongest DIGITAL STRATEGY lies in activating the weak links and leaving influence to the mass/traditional media (or to those bloggers who have mass audiences).

It is the democracy of action that drives much of my interest in social media ... take a look at what is hot on YouTube or on Technorati. Think about BSP and the way in which a number of people "suddenly" begin writing on a similar topic. It is not the "influentials" who are going to instigate a new trend ... they are merely documenting its early rise out of a network of weak links. So while my heart tells me that influencers are important, my head is telling me to go for the gold -- and that seems to be quite a turnaround. Now ... if only I could model it! 

Brands -- Are Bloggers in Your Sights?

From the outside, the "blogosphere" is a weird, anarchic and slightly self-obsessed world. With over 70 million blogs and countless thousands starting up each day, it is little wonder that most brand managers, marketing directors and CEOs have no idea where to start.

But have you thought about it? Who are these people who write blogs? And how would you respond if a "blogger" contacted you? Do you have a strategy? A policy? Any idea?

Here is how one leading brand responded to an inquiry about their latest ad campaign:

“Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because [we do not] ... participate with nontraditional media outlets. This practice is in place to allow us to focus on publications that reach our core guest".

Can you guess which brand this is? Have you heard about it already?

To my surprise, this was the response that was sent by Target to Amy Jussel, Executive Director of Shaping Youth. Amy had written to Target protesting about the depiction on their latest billboard -- they are, after all, a family brand and one which should have an affinity with organisations such as Shaping Youth. Indeed, Target's "values" include the following statement:

From national partnerships to local initiatives to our own programs, Target is committed to making our communities better places to live.

This story has now been picked up by the New York Times ... and has spread like wildfire. And while the focus of discussion by NYT has been around whether brands should treat bloggers the same as traditional media outlets, there are other things to consider. Amy is not your average blogger -- she runs a professional and high profile not-for-profit organisation. She is a parent and she is a regular patron of Target. Before this episode, there was clear a affinity between Amy, Shaping Youth and the Target brand. But the actions (or non-actions) of one of Target's employees (or PR team) has had an amplified reaction. What could have been done better. Let's take a look:

• Keep it real: Clearly Target has a digital/social media strategy of some sort. They have done some high profile work with Facebook and have amassed over 20,000 members to their group -- so clearly the response was not completely honest.
• Quick research: In the time it takes to send a form response to an inquiry, you can easily do a search on the domain, the blog or the profile of the person writing in. In Amy's case, Shaping Youth clearly appears at the top of a Google search with the following description -- "Shaping Youth is a consortium of media and marketing professionals concerned about harmful media messages to children". A moment's research can help guide your response.
• Blog it for free: Time and time again, companies ask whether they should blog or not. Clearly a consumer brand could actively use a blog to engage, converse and discuss a range of topics. A blog would have provided a space for this discussion and would have allowed them to enter this conversation in a more natural and harmonious way.

For brands, the question might be "are bloggers in your sights"? The reverse is certainly true -- brands are in the sights of bloggers. And while one blogger acting alone may have limited impact, en-masse, it is a very different ball game. Perhaps Target could benefit from the social media insight and skills of Mack Collier, Drew McLellan or Christina Kerley.

What do you think? Is TargetGate a parallel to Dell Hell?

Old News from an Old World

Old News
Originally uploaded by Exaussie

Stories on archaeology always catch my attention. There is something that draws me in to tales of discovery ... it is the sense of wonder and the desire to be astounded.

So when I saw this article in today's Sydney Morning Herald, I was excited t learn more. The discovery of the cave where Romulus and Remus were suckled by a wolf is no small find. It is, afterall, the founding place of Rome. But I wanted more information and Australian news sites are notoriously stingy in linking through to additional sources of content that is not of their own making.

A couple of seconds later and Google had delivered me a spectacular number of links and pictures. But what suprised me most was this article by National Geographic reporting the same story. Only, this story was published in JANUARY!

To masquerade old news as a story of current interest quite simply astounds me. Do the editors at SMH think that we can't check? Do they think we won't? Surely, in the midst of an election, there is plenty of current (and important) newsworthy material available.

Just goes to show that many of the Australian publishing houses have yet to realise the significance of the changes that are overtaking their industry. Australia is no longer at the other end of the world ... and news shouldn't take six months to get here? Did it come by sailing ship? That would be so old world.