There are many lessons from what is quite obviously a case study – an idea, its amazing execution, the co ordination between creative, social media and tech to get near real time responses done, the confidence/bravery/trust of P&G to allow this team the liberty to make the responses with minimal supervision and as Karthik wrote, the importance of creating some really kick a$$ content. And thus the point of the post – an example of brands being media.

When one way distribution platforms dominated, things were relatively simple – print ads, billboards, radio spots, TVCs, and even internet banners. But then came the tools of self publishing, the acknowledged game changer, with several possibilities.

It meant that brands, not unlike us common people, could create their own channels using multiple tools and services available. Some brands used it just as they would use the channels of an earlier era, and pushed until no one was interested.

When they were done with understanding that questioning the veracity of the content appearing online wouldn’t get them anywhere, some brands figured that the only difference that had been made was that a new breed of influencers and opinion makers/breakers/changers had been created. So, they formed alliances, sometimes transparent and sometimes not so. The thick line is now represented by multiple shades of grey. But that just seems to be the way the world in general works now, the Cisco-CNBC case, for example.

And then there were brands that went deeper and figured out that creating things that would spawn positive content would be a better idea, even if it meant that they had to rework everything. It could mean that they came out with a great product/service which created or mobilised legions of fanboys/girls. They could involve their consumers by asking for ideas. Or they could take on a cause honestly and contributed to the larger society. Not every brand has a CEO who sets a gold standard (here’s an excellent example of Anand Mahindra’s Twitter magic), but it definitely can create an environment that will make ambassadors of employees. It could create such great content or offer so much reward that  others generated excellent content for them (users create dan Old Spice voicemail message) , or at least link to them. And if these aren’t possible, a brand could at least ensure that you offered a little value to consumers on the platforms they preferred. And these are by no means the master set.

When brands and their fan boys and girls become media in themselves, it raises many challenges too. What happens when a brand goofs up on a product and makes its vocal supporters seem like losers?  (you got that signal, I hope) How much of ownership can the brand take for the fans and how will their action or inaction affect those common consumers who are watching it all? What happens when there’s random malice that uses your brand name? (the recent Coke Facebook scam) Even for the star of the moment – Old Spice, what do they do, when a celebrity retorts in the same vein, and asks them to donate to a cause, that’s creating erm, waves all over the world. I, for one, am waiting for a response.

But despite all that, I believe that the opportunities make the challenges worthwhile. The work is definitely different – doing an eyewash research, releasing an ad, and adopting vague measurement techniques like reach won’t really cut it. With technology that discovers newer and newer contexts for consumers to express themselves, and their intent, brands have to learn to react, if not be proactive, in real time. So, since the web has successfully bottomed the costs of distribution, it is perhaps time that brands started investing the savings into creating good content, finding their way on platforms and with the people using the platforms.

until next time, content. is. marketing. too.

PS. next post, in a fortnight

Related posts:

1. Twitter lists, Social Search and brand content distribution So its been quite a while since Twitter lists launched,...
2. Brand Chats – Google & Godin Last week, Seth Godin’s company Squidoo launched “Brands in Public”...
3. Brand Privacy The implications of Facebook’s recent moves are still gobbling up...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

[Read Mahendra's excellent key takeaways+thoughts post if you need a quick snapshot without having to read 216 pages.]

I was quite impressed with the scope of the presentation – from looking at people’s motivations behind their ’social’ actions to the insights that have been gleaned. I must admit that i was a bit surprised that Google, or at least its employees took social this seriously. Good to know that Facebook and Zuckerberg’s stated aim of 1 billion users in the near future is finally pushing Google to do something other than killing of services (Jaiku, Dodgeball…) or making a mockery of itself in front of its competitors with half baked products. And that they’re doing research too. My first thought, after I finished reading the document was

Its ironic that Google faces a ‘What Would Google Do’ on itself. The good news is that there is enough scope for developing a network for context based social relationships and transactions. Like I said in my last post, the tools available still don’t allow me the freedom to aggregate and disaggregate connections and content at will in different contexts. It is possible to build a social network around many contexts – enterprise/professional use, location, family, interests and so on. I even saw an interesting app built for ‘proximity based networking’ – it syncs your existing networks – Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace with location and thereby does a twist on location based networking, with seemingly good privacy controls.

The bad news is that Mark Zuckerberg won’t take too kindly to encroachments in his space. As if ‘friends’ weren’t universal enough (at least inside the FB universe – including Connect), ‘Like’ is even more universal, and Facebook’s recent play is aimed at pipping Google’s (relative) ability to deliver the most relevant content to the user. It doesn’t help that social doesn’t seem to be what Google’s comfortable with.

But assuming Google Me is a social platform of some sort, what I’m wondering is that how many users would use Facebook lesser for a service which allows context to be brought into the picture. There’s something really simple about the ’sharing’ on Facebook. For a service that used to be labeled ‘complex’ in the Orkut era, it has come far. Users have adapted. Also, how difficult is it for Facebook, which already has a massive userbase to introduce features that allow a user to create sub identities to splice and dice friends (already has lists) and content and choose what to use outside the network? It already has filters to control the kind of information I want to see on my newsfeed, these can be improved too.

The other thing is how/where Google would build this – a separate service/ something around or integrated with iGoogle/Buzz (brrr)/Chrome (browser or OS)/ Search itself ? A lot of the design would be based on this. And how can it balance the simplicity of Facebook sharing with the more complex needs of context and privacy?

A larger perspective is that we’re nowhere close to the end game as far as our (probably seamless in the future) network of digital and real activities go. Its having a larger impact than what we sometimes credit it for. In fact, we are only discovering how the web is changing our behaviour and even perhaps motivations. A few of us have yet to decide whether we want to sync our multiple online identities. And that means that though Facebook is probably the most accepted solution now, its by no means the perfect one, even for our current understanding. Facebook, Google and the ones we haven’t even heard about are all Work In Progress, but boy, what interesting work it is! No monopoly, lots of chance and multiple community chests

until next time, google yourself

Related posts:

1. Whereabouts : The next social play Like I mentioned in the last post on the subject,...
2. Square Routes Despite my niggle with location based services (specifically Foursquare) –...
3. Services, Information, People Even as the first trailer of ‘The Social Network‘ was...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It was relatively easy when the medium was one way – mass media. The number of influencers were limited and there was really no way to locate or measure the individuals who made up the long tail of influencers. Or at least few were interested in doing it. The web disrupted it. The influenced found an abundance of content, the influencer saw his power being diminished by millions of publishers. The object (including the service provider/brand/organisation/group etc) figured out that it wasn’t at the mercy of limited influencers, but discovered a huge list which had its own quirks, but had the power to influence a multitude. Yes, known stuff, just summing up for context.

I remember touching upon ’social influencer relationship management’ (yes, there is actually a term for it) late last year, and the importance of trust. Influence, for me, has been a difficult thing to wrap my head around. There are so many factors erm, influencing it – time (specific and relative), context, trust (and objectivity) and the fast changing content platforms- each of which seems to add yet another layer. The complex structure has been well illustrated well in the chart below

via ( a post similar to Mahendra’s, but more serious in tone )

At least in the medium term, I think its only going to get more complex, primarily because the platforms are only evolving – Quora, the service I mentioned in the comment to Mahendra’s post, for example, can help in establishing context specific expertise and therefore trust. Facebook, when its QnA service starts, will try to establish it within a known network. Twitter has already tried it too, but I agree with Surekha. I’ve noticed that with web platforms, after a certain scale is reached, the culture starts resembling that of mass (media) and the ‘influencers’ as well as ‘influenced’ begin a relationship that’s familiar from a mass media era. What also complicates is that the ‘object’ of the relationship sometimes discovers that it too has a voice or can hire a ‘voice’ and attempt influence. This is one of the ways it is trying to adapt to new platforms. But while there might be flaws in each approach, I do feel the direction is right.

At this point in time, as a user, I’m still evolving in terms of the platforms I use to establish networks of trust. The tools available still don’t allow me the freedom to aggregate and disaggregate at will in different contexts. That’s probably something brands can identify with too, thanks to the plethora of platforms and influencers across networks. Its perhaps the difficult transition state when brands have to manage traditional communication outlets, new media barons, their own content management systems that need to evolve, and a long tail full of influencers. More importantly, brand processes (like advertising, PR etc) had evolved in a mass media milieu and a struggle to adapt to the disruptions brought around by a two way communication mechanism is what we see around now. We’ll keep that for another post, and quickly jump to an aspect that intrigues me from the four influence factors I mentioned earlier- that of time.

Long back, I wondered how we could juxtapose product and consumer life cycles. Let me address it in this context. Different consumers will ‘reach’ the product/service at different points in its lifecycle. There is a ‘time divide’ that separates the different sets of users. The motivations of this set would differ and therefore , its influencers will also be different, as will their motivations. Brands (using it as a blanket term, includes services too) these days are constantly in the hunt for early influencers, which is why I found this article, which discusses why gadget manufacturers should target late adopters, very interesting. This could apply to platforms as well. I wonder how this thought can affect when and how brands try to influence on new media platforms. Does it make sense to wait till platforms evolve to an extent where they can work better for the brands or is technology moving way too fast and lifecycles of all concerned behaviours becoming too small to wait?

Meanwhile, what if the millions who have never used Facebook are influenced by the movie?

until next time, in flux

Bonus Read: I plan to riff on this soon, but in this context, you could check out pages 147-173 of this amazing document. (via Pluggd.in)

Related posts:

1. Brands and consumer social influence Sometime back, I had read a post on Inquisitr very...
2. Product Life Cycle and Consumer Life Cycles One of the social web’s by products er, products, are...
3. Early Bird Rewards At least two major virtual happenings, one that has massive...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In this context, I saw the three kinds of webs (similar to the ones mentioned in the last post) and more that are almost seamlessly connected now – information, service and people. The need for filters in this information deluge is indeed pressing. While I do see some nifty tools that are being developed (eg. Pivot , Avoidr, specific search engines or even Twitter’s annotations) I sometimes wonder if it can ever catch up with the broadening scope of commonly used services. That’s also the reason why I think Facebook’s Open Graph search engine, which aims for social semantic search, is a big step, even while granting that not everyone’s on Facebook and their execution still has some way to go. Add to this privacy/security concerns (even Twitter was pulled up recently), and it does look complicated. Further layers like location will only add to this. And I wonder what new levels of complexity Google Me will bring. With each new service, the deluge of information increases, many times in the form of repetition, and our consumption changes.

The increasing usage of these services has meant that the web of ‘friends’ have also increased. In my case, while FB consisted of only real friends earlier, in the last few months, the number of virtual friends – mostly from Twitter, have increased manifold. Since I don’t usually share anything on the web that I don’t want anyone to see, my problems with privacy have been limited. But as the amount of sharing increases, I realise there are things I share that could be taken out of context. There is also the fact that personal and professional lives are no longer silos. (Read) The other take out from the last point is that its not just communication from brands/services that need to be looked at closely, but people too.

When the three webs are absolutely seamless, we will also see a shift in the kinds of relationship we have shared with brands, services and people. Facebook making payment for advertisers easier, sending me marketplace links, services making it easier for embedding ads, posts from my ‘friends’ plugging services/products with no disclosure, all work as signs for me. I do see a lot of work in setting up new ‘trading currencies’ and even different kinds of social networks (mobile phones – closed network ) and also note that the one factor that all the three entities need to keep in mind is trust. And that’s when I begin to wonder if similar systems are being developed for ’sharing’ trust and whether they can keep pace with the deluge of information, services and people. Or maybe its already working under the radar – new services (endor.se), recommendations on LinkedIn, Twitter lists etc.

until next time, SIP investments for mutual benefits

Related posts:

1. Connecting people It might be time for Nokia to rethink that line,...
2. Everybody, Friendfeed, right now!! In a way, Friendfeed’s latest offering has revolutionised my usage...
3. Brand Privacy The implications of Facebook’s recent moves are still gobbling up...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Foursquare is the only one I use, and hence I’m a bit biased. But it really has been setting a scorching pace in terms of creating opportunities that widen its scope. Badge fatigue is definitely something I’d been wondering about basis my usage, and I read that they’re now looking at adding more real value to badges, beyond the regular ‘mayor specials’ kind of deals. For example, “users who check-in at an Internet Week venue will unlock a special badge. That badge — when presented to bouncers — will guarantee users priority entrance into some Internet Week parties and events.” (via Mashable) The association with WSJ for the ‘Add to Foursquare’ button- to add venues with a single click when they are mentioned in articles – is quite a good move, both in terms of publicity, as well as utility. (because WSJ also adds a tip, with a link, so they get traffic later)

Scoble has an excellent post with suggestions on what Foursquare should be doing, going forward. I think all of them are essential – especially badges as a platform so companies/establishments can use it too (read recently that they’re doing it, but can’t find a link), giving more importance to tips (I don’t even get points for them), adding multimedia content (Brightkite has started this already), and the checking out feature. I’d also like to add to the wishlist – the ability to (direct) message (not shout) other users, (actually buy Meet Gatsby)  a way for select users to preview my (say) weekend plan, a way to ‘like’ existing tips so future users can have some kind of mechanism to judge,  tie ups with the group buying players (see The Dealmap), and please, an app for Nokia (especially valid for India). Oh yes, these real badges and other merchandise, how about adding some Augmented Reality/Stickybits to it? That goes for the stickers that are coming out soon too.

Meanwhile, Google has rolled out Tags – an advertising feature for local businesses that allow them to post additional information (eg. deals), Twitter is going ‘Places‘ which will allow users to tag tweets with places – its already integrated with Foursquare and Gowalla and automatically goes to a page associated with the place, and as SearchEngineLand notes, could in time, provide some good competition to Google Places. Ok, Yahoo’s trying too, remember, it bought the Indonesian service Koprol last month.  In addition there are new players set to arrive on the scene too, like Placebook!! (via) That reminds me, the Facebook ‘location’ buzz has been happening for long enough now, and I’d say that once the privacy talks have been sufficiently muted, there would be an announcement. For the record, Facebook ain’t the only ones with privacy issues. The aggregators have also arrived on the scene – Fourwhere.

RWW has a classification of three different webs – data, people and services, all of which are the basis of mashups – current and near future. The web of people has thrown up the issue of privacy and the amount of personal data users want to share. Location based services stretch this even further. (Do read ‘Publicy and the erosion of privacy‘) As we live in the stream and move towards new social and data arrangements, what I find interesting is that without the data we share, mashups might find it difficult to throw up personalised recommendations. Users, services as well as brands will need to walk a fine line on this. Services, I think, have to do the balancing act most. They have to keep users comfortable in terms of privacy and what they receive for sharing the data. Placebook sounds good in this context. They also have to help brands deliver value to the user.  But as of now, the business models are still evolving. A recent study showed that only 10% of businesses would be willing to pay for Foursquare.  But as users evolve, consumption, social behaviour and data sharing comfort levels change and intersect, and services gear up to accommodate all this, we will surely see a rapidly changing landscape.

until next time, location based relationships next?

Related posts:

1. Whereabouts : The next social play Like I mentioned in the last post on the subject,...
2. Identity Crisis One of last week’s biggest news was the agreement between...
3. Early Bird Rewards At least two major virtual happenings, one that has massive...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

So what is the data that’s getting generated? As social networks evolve, the role that they play in the individual’s life is also evolving. While flow of information, and communication seem to find social networks as natural conduits, the networks are also now sources of entertainment for many. (study by Edelman) What does this entail for brands, their communication and the content they generate?

Amidst the social network revolution, brands have been trying hard to eke out a place for themselves -- to slide in easily into the conversations, and lives of individual users. Some have been successful, and some have not, the latter mostly when they try to use these as distribution channels for other media content alone. I read a few days back that the two official sponsors for the World Cup -- Adidas and Coke, had been trumped by their competitors -- Nike, and Pepsi, as far as WOM goes. Not surprising, both tell excellent stories. It makes us feel.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=idLG6jh23yE

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQmu48sZohc

There’s this excellent presentation by Rory Sutherland about intangible, and perceived value that brands create. A bit dated, but I happened to see it recently. It made me think about Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs and the tangibility of various levels.

As civilisation advances and scarcities and abundance are rapidly traded, and as brands progress, don’t the lower levels of Maslow’s needs hierarchy become hygiene? So, would users prefer brands that help them in the esteem and self actualisation areas? It perhaps might be an example of ’seeing the subtext you want to see’, but the Nike ad -- ‘Write the Future’ seemed to be all about self actualisation and the Pepsi’s ‘Oh Africa’ seemed to be all about an ever-changing crowd that seems to be impossible to keep pace with. To quote Clay Shirky, “The category of ‘consumer’ is now a temporary behavior rather than a permanent identity.”

Which brings me back to the data explosion. The challenge, I guess, is an old one. Finding motivations, sensing patterns out of all the data to understand why we ‘Like’, why we ’share’, and so on, and then give us a value proposition. With rapidly evolving technologies, even the value needs to adapt much faster than before, because if the brand is late, there’ll be another that delivers. But then again, at higher need levels, when the individuality/uniqueness quotient increases, will the manifestation of needs show a collective pattern? Or will the individual’s behaviour pattern become more important for brands? Multiple data sets, multiple patterns, multiple challenges. Interesting times indeed

Meanwhile, here’s one closer home. (via Gaurav) A very interesting project by Tithiya Sharma -- The 100 Heroes Project. I’m sure it’ll be a wonderful story and if I were an airline brand or even a MakeMyTrip/Cleartrip or anything to do with travel, I’d take a look at the project.

until next time, tripping on data

Related posts:

1. There’s a little bit of social networking in…. For all those who’ve been good and watching TV, the...
2. Services, Information, People Even as the first trailer of ‘The Social Network‘ was...
3. Brands – Maturity, Transparency, Objectivity On the day that gay sex was made legal in...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

And there’s the first example, which is easily becoming THE example now, for bad PR. BP – if the spill wasn’t bad enough, there was the spillage – the fake PR account – advice on what/why BP should or should not do with it, the tweet billboards, an old (fake) ad, the ironic sign, the ghastly, ghastly images, the user created logos, a coffee parody, and the post from the man who created BPGlobalPR. BP’s losses as a brand (intangible?) is much more than the real $costs that have been speculated. Meanwhile, it has finally reached out to the @BPGlobalPR account. (While on the topic, do check out Rob Cottingham’s excellent take on the subject)

The only commonality I’m looking at is the user generated content (or discontent). I don’t think this is an area which can be gamed easily. Sure, you can try to manipulate events and people, and search engines, try some good old PR, but there are no guarantees that it won’t boomerang. And I think it holds true across the spectrum – the two cases are polar opposites in terms of magnitude of the event, what the crowd did to it, and what the brand tried to do.

Deviating a bit. I read “Arundhati Roy on ‘War of People‘”, where she took the scope of the Naxal issue into corporate boardrooms, and was immediately reminded of Umair Haque’s latest post titled “Ethical Capital is Capitalism’s new cornerstone“. He defines Ethical capital as “the stock of techniques, tools, and practices not just for creating value, but for defining and refining values, that an economy possesses”, and CSR, social investment, social entrepreneurship etc as the baby steps towards building it. But the corporate world still doesn’t understand the rewiring, as he himself notes. And here’s where we loop back, I don’t think this building of ethical capital can be gamed either.

I can spot an increasing number of efforts – Pepsi’s Refresh Project, their efforts for production sustainability, Nokia’s eco profile for new products, their bicycle charger kit, to name a few. While the cynic in me sometimes disses official CSR, I realise its perhaps a level that has to be crossed before we reach out for bigger things. I also see efforts from the consumer side  -  CarrotMob (via Surekha)

I see all of this as a trend where users are linking the brands they use, and their consumption, to the larger context of their lives and the even larger context of the world they inhabit, and the culture they consume and create. The ‘badges’ have changed, they’d like to associate themselves with brands that accommodate or at least work towards these badges.  In the foreseeable future, I think that brands which understand this will not only align more people on their side, but also have inherent features and processes which would allow them to be transparent, reduce these costly mistakes, and admit to their mistakes without the PR approaches that are drawing flak now.

until next time, PR pressure?

Related posts:

1. Newsmakers Its ironic that I have to start the post this...
2. The brand your brand could be like The world seems to have loved the Old Spice guy...
3. Banking on data There was an article recently at PSFK, which, in addition...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

And then, a few days back, i saw this article in PSFK titled ‘The Birth of the Microhood‘, which talks about an organisation called The Bold Italic initiating “a celebration of pocket microhoods through block parties and featured cross-sections across the city, introducing and promoting the social net worth of the people and businesses that inhabit them”. You can check out the details of the last event here, and the comments on Facebook here. Note the different establishments taking part.

Those familiar to Bangalore might know of BangaloreWalks, which undertakes themed walks. With new services and technologies popping up and developing at a rapid pace, I wondered about the possibilities. On Foursquare, Chicago was a pioneer, allowing users to earn badges while exploring the city. Now Pennsylvania has followed suit. (via Mashable) There’s more. Check out the Augmented Reality iPhone app from the Museum of London. (via Gizmodo). The way it works – hold the iPhone up to a present day London street scene, the app shows the same location as it looked in the olden days. Tap a button and you get historical facts about the place. Meanwhile, QR codes have been around for quite a while now, also noticed Microsoft’s “tag” a few days back. While on the subject, also check out stickybits, a ‘fun and social way to attach digital content to real world objects’, through barcodes (existing ones, or new ones you print), and an app.

Imagine a Coke/Pepsi/Kingfisher using this to tell us the origins of various iconic retail establishments they tie up with? Imagine augmented reality apps that allow an establishment to show us consumer reviews of the food it serves, or some content from the chef, say, how he’s made the dish. Relatively unimaginative, yes, but we haven’t even got there yet. With the new version of location becoming increasingly important for brands, its perhaps time to check out the potential of using these services. A new way of aggregating content – videos, photos, literature – basis the location a person is in. More than anything else, i feel they offer splendid new means of storytelling, a way of making a brand go beyond the transactional relationship with its consumers, and the constraints of real time/space. It links the brand and its consumers through culture and shared experiences.

until next time, vocal locals

PS: To-do – check out my, ahem, interview at the newly launched www.foursquaretalk.com

Related posts:

1. Whereabouts : The next social play Like I mentioned in the last post on the subject,...
2. Square Routes Despite my niggle with location based services (specifically Foursquare) –...
3. The Virtual Address Read a very interesting argument yesterday here on how an...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I am quite a fan of the third approach and saw this excellent presentation by David Cushman, a few days back, which showed why ‘optimising business for social media’ is perhaps the best way in the long run. In fact, it does it in such a way that it almost seems like an afterthought. On the way, it addresses the much maligned combination of words -- ’social’ and ‘media’, and the subject of ROI.

Like I said, I don’t require any convincing on the third approach too, but the more I interact with clients, I begin to understand that with all the hype, the expectations of social media are akin to the other forms of media, and the stereotyped Facebook page and Twitter account are much sought after in the strategy presentation. And that forces me to think whether we can start with approach 2, and move towards approach 3.  The feedback from open social channels slowly creating a change within the organisation and making it view everything with a different perspective. That’s quite a change from asking for perfect products and services which could ‘withstand’ social media.

Meanwhile, I looked at it from another perspective when I chanced upon the new IndiGo Airlines ad, thanks to a post by L.Bhat. The spunky ad, which you can view here, is shot extremely well and showcases IndiGo’s dedication to being on time. Bhat raised a valid point that this punctuality might actually be beyond their control, in some cases. I completely agree, but like I commented, I’ve used IndiGo several times, and have never had a reason to complain. All the people who’ve commented on YouTube seem to agree.

I have to confess, there’s a style to Indigo that I’m quite a fan of. Right from the way they have communicated this data  below (do note the revenues, number of flights, market share, and compare)  inside the flight, to the menu items to their stickers and even their barf bag, they are quite unique, they have an attitude and are not afraid to show it.Check this out. (thanks @gkjohn)

(Source: Outlook)

(Can’t remember other airlines, I know Spicejet has quite plain stuff, anyway I liked these enough to keep a copy )

No, i wasn’t digressing. From what I read, IndiGo is hardly a major player in the social media space. But I think the TVC is a good way of approaching what would have been ’strategy 2′, with a conscious design of reaching strategy 3. All that, without social media. A purely communication  (internal and external)+ organisational culture based approach to  creating a social business. That may not be Indigo’s strategic intent, but it does make me think. Is it possible?

What can be done to this with social media, is a different discussion altogether.

until next time, thoughts in the air

Bonus: “Culture eats strategy for lunch” via Gautam Ghosh.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiFMJfrCO_0

Related posts:

1. “Bridging the Social Media Divide” There’s this hashtag on Twitter – #bsmd, which stands for...
2. People, Organisations, Media Shashi Tharoor. Sachin Tendulkar. The connection is not just the...
3. Figuring Social Media? Recently, Jeremiah Owyang wrote about Intel’s community efforts, which also...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I think it might be safe to assume  that we are different persons to different people. To the large set of siblings, friends, relatives, acquaintances and the various people we interact with, we share different aspects and versions of our personality, depending on the nature, time, depth, even expectations of our interactions and relationships. So, in a Facebook context too, we would like to retain different levels of sharing and communicating too, in spite of Mark Zuckerberg thinking that having two identities shows a lack of integrity. I think this might be the core of the current tussle – a failure to understand the need to segregate connections, and therefore the content that gets distributed to them.

When i read Adam Singer’s take on Chris Brogan’s post, I was completely in agreement, because I think HE has nailed a universal truth about normalisation. The last part of the post also mentions how we write basis the kind of audience we’d like. That is a kind of content segregation too, and it is necessary now more than ever, because of content abundance.

It’s not just to do with publishing, it is also to do with the kind of communities we become a part of. The net provides tools which allows us to aggregate  people like ourselves – basis interests, attitudes, beliefs, and if everything else fails, even location   My point, there’s segregation all around.

Which brings me to the usual suspect – brands. I started on this last week, and found myself thinking of it during the recent UTV Bindass scuffle. Now, if we go by UTV’s brand communication, its clearly a youth brand. I’ve realised that ‘Youth’ is a very flexible segmentation, and people my age might argue that its all in the mind etc, but it was interesting to see that the average age of opinion sharers was on the erm, riper side of 30. I wonder if the brand would want this audience segment as its viewers.

It reminds me of the Facebook user’s need for segregation choices. While the net gives the brand tools to find users in a desired segment/demographic, and the brand can limit itself to engaging them specifically, there really is no way to prevent interactions coming from/happening outside the segment. In an earlier era, it was easy, because it was mostly one way communication. Now, what does a brand do if its dragged into a conversation? The non-open options (protected tweets, invite-only community etc) are not really great. Now some would say that this thought approach is close to advocating control for brands – which is a strict no-no as per the tenets of social media – but I can’t help but think of the choice that the brand might want in terms of the discussions they want to be part of.  In a case like Bindass, will “Thank you for the feedback, but we all know that different audience sets have different needs and likes. Hope to have some programming that you’ll like, soon.” really cut it?

In Facebook’s case, while i can perhaps understand Zuckerberg’s version of how radical transparency will make us all better, I’ll still make a case for it to be a user’s choice, unhindered by beguiling ToS and changes to it. Similarly, in a scenario in which mobs and brand-baiting are rapidly on the rise, I’d say there should be a freedom of choice for brands too. How brands use it is a different discussion altogether.

until next time, the answer, my friend, is flowin in the stream

PS: Noted that Hippo, which is doing some excellent work on Twitter, replied to Tony’s Hippo-crates wordplay, (reply) but ignored the (same) one which i’d tweeted a couple of days earlier. (btw, he usually beats me to most wordplay stuff and more importantly, gives credit to original tweets when he doesn’t) Anyway, smart segmentation, Hippo knows i almost never snack.

PPS: Its got nothing to do with the fact that Tony is almost a decade younger, okay?

Related posts:

1. De-privacy The Twitter discussion last week with Surekha and Karthik, was...
2. Brand Privacy The implications of Facebook’s recent moves are still gobbling up...
3. Social Media – beyond strategy Unilever CMO Simon Clift, at Ad Age’s Digital Conference, spoke...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.