Lately there has been a lot of discussion about privacy issues on social media sites, including Facebook's recent changes to 'Like' the entire Internet. The brew-ha-ha has blown up to the point that this morning I received this email from the US Department of Homeland Security:
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! HIGH RISK! BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SHARE ON FACEBOOK! (Click the icon above to share this message on Facebook).
The irony made me laugh. The message itself was pretty basic: You may feel safe sharing personal information online, it's stupid to think that, don't be stupid.
It seems like common sense, but as social media becomes more and more prominent, it's good to recognize that just like all things on the Internet, social networking is not 100% safe. Bottom line: don't make any personal information public you wouldn't be OK sharing with the next stranger who drives down your street (especially if that driver happens to be the Google Street View truck).
Read more!
How are you feeling this morning? Everyone nursing a wicked hangover from the wild 'Nurse Jackie' viewing party you went to last night to celebrate its second season premiere on Showtime? No, me either. Did you at least read the tweets from one of the show's characters last night(@DoctorCoop)?
'Nurse Jackie' is Showtime's latest attempt to launch a successor to the aging "comedy" 'Weeds.' It stars 'The Sopranos' Edie Falco as Jackie, a nurse in a NYC emergency room. Like all of the main characters in Showtime's half-hour shows, Jackie is a dysfunctional anti-hero. She's just your regular run of the mill no nonsense nurse, wife, and mother with a pill addiction and fidelity problems. There's also a ZANY cast of supporting characters that fill up the hospital with their own quirks and problems.
Yeah, it's about as lame as it sounds. Jackie is an annoying character that gives the viewer very little reason to root for her, and despite all the zaniness, the show is rather dull. I watched the entire first season assuming at some point things would get exciting and interesting. They never did. I was going to ignore the show's second season, which kicked off last night, but I had to see how their unique interactive Twitter marketing experiment would play out.
As the New York Times reported, in the episode the comic relief character Doctor Cooper (Peter Facinelli) would tweet about something in the episode, and his message would post to his Twitter account in real time, blurring the lines between fiction and reality. Kind of a cool idea, right? So how did it go down? Learn after the jump.
I'll set the scene for you. INT - HOSPITAL HALLWAY - DAY
About 10 minutes into the episode (so around 10:10 PM EST) Doctor Coop, who mistakenly believes that Jackie has a thing for him, asks Jackie out to a game that he has good tickets for. Jackie brushes Coop. We end the scene with a dejected Doctor Coop walking away and starting to pull out his phone. A few seconds later this message shows up on his Twitter account:
That's it. Nothing very earth shattering, but experiments like this do open the doors for more creative interactive marketing of television programs, and a great way to bring eyeballs (and therefore $$) to a particular show. A report issued by the Nielson Co yesterday found that multi-tasking is on the rise. The number of television viewers who simultaneously surf the Internet increased by 35% in 2009. The networks can use social media as an interactive TV Guide, reminding the viewer that 'How I Met Your Mother' is on now, and they should change the channel from 'House' to watch (and participate in) it. Plus, if you're on Facebook or Twitter and all of your friends are discussing what they're watching, don't you want to watch too and join in the conversation?
Extending the world of a fictional television series beyond the weekly episode and onto the Internet is not necessarily a new device. CBS' "How I Met Your Mother" has successfully used this marketing device by mentioning a website or video on the show, and then actually creating the "fictional" site mentioned, but it takes planning from both the creative forces behind the show and the CBS marketing department to do it effectively.
For example, did you catch the Super Bowl commercial with Neil Patrick Harris's character Barney Stinson holding up a sign in the stands with a phone number to call him? If you did in fact call that number, you would have heard a message from Barney asking you out on a date. On the program the next night, the characters on the show watched the Super Bowl wondering where their friend Barney was, until they saw him on TV, the same way you the viewer saw him. Barney's story in this episode was about how he was going crazy because all of these girls called his phone and now he has too many woman to choose from. If you were a woman who called that number the night before, Barney was talking about YOU!
Why go through all the effort to do this? To create a stronger connection between the viewer (consumer) and the program (brand). It builds brand loyalty. By interacting with these sites or videos, the viewer is essentially entering the fictional world of the program. They are seeing and experiencing the same things the characters are. Watching the show has transitioned from a passive activity to an active one. The fan or viewer feels they have a personal investment in the brand and will hopefully return to it week after week.
With fictional characters using Twitter in real time, the lines blur even further. The viewer is not only entering the world of the show, in their own way they are now experiencing the same things that are happening to these characters as it is happening to them.
This is a great way to market a show, and maybe even work in some paid product placement, but it also opens the door for a lot of creative opportunities.The success of 'Lost' has proven that when viewers are passionate about something they are willing to get online and dive deep into the world, all the while spreading positive word of mouth about the brand.
The networks should start experimenting more. How about a serialized show, a season long 'Twin Peaks'-style mystery, with every character and suspect tweeting their point of view and opinion in real time and throughout the week? The viewer would have to put together clues and cross reference stories to solve the big whodunit. I'd give it a shot, would you.
Or how about an SNL-type live improv sketch comedy show that allows the viewer to tweet suggestions to the cast just like if they were at a live Second City show?
There are a lot of cool marketing possibilities here. That being said, I don't think I'll keep up with 'Nurse Jackie.' It's still too boring. I will continue to follow @DoctorCoop though. If something interesting happens, I'm sure he'll tell me.
What do you think of scripted television shows incorporating real-time Twitter messages from characters? Would you participate or do you find it intrusive? How would you like this used in your favorite show (assuming Jack Bauer can find the time to tweet)?
Just when you thought jokes about Twitter and how stupid it can be were played out and no longer funny, David Letterman comes along and tries to tackle his "Twitter machine." In the clip below, from last night's program, Letterman attempts to tweet from the Late Show account (@Late_Show) for the first time. As always, sorry for any commercials you have to sit through. It's worth it this time.
For those of you who have yet to watch last night's episode of 'House,' and hasn't been spoiled by what happened, and don't want to be spoiled at all, STOP READING NOW.
I'm not a big fan of "House." My wife likes it, and I'll often watch it with her while multitasking. It's amusing enough, but I have no vested interest in the show. For those that do, however, last night's episode, where Kal Penn's character Lawrence Kutner is found dead by a self-inflicted gun shot wound in the show's first 10 minutes, must have come as quite a sad shock.
Unlike most television deaths, this one wasn't coming from a mile away. There wasn't a "farewell" episode, a redemptive scene, or endless foreshadowing. In fact, the suicide was so shocking (and realistic) because there were no signs or backstory leading the viewers (and characters) to a reasonable conclusion. The episode was well written, acted, and edited; a high point in the series this season.
Then Fox had to go and cheapen all that creative work with a stupid cross promotional marketing gimmick. Fox has set up a "In Memoriam" website for the character. On the site (which I do not want to link to), visitors can view a fake memoriam video, read fake letters written to Kutner from the show's other characters, read his fake obituary, and see clips from "Wolverine" while buying a "24" T-shirt via links at the bottom of the page.
Fox has also set up a Facebook group "in loving memory" to the character. There, viewers can post their favorite memories of Kutner and get a memorial badge to post in Facebook profiles and blogs.
First, there is something morbid and wrong about an international corporation asking me to join them in mourning a fictional character. Second, after so many people worked so hard to create this episode, why did they feel the need to cheapen all that hard work by turning it into a commercial for News Corp. products? They told a moving story that was less moving once Fox decided to manipulate fan's connection to the show to help them promote the network. Nowhere on these sites are there links or discussions about suicide or suicide prevention. Just a lot of ads.
Plus, THE CHARACTER ISN'T REAL!!! How can you share your favorite memory about someone that doesn't exist?! That's a waste of everyone's time. Instead of spending time mourning over "losing" a "friendship" that never existed, why not see what your real friends and family are up to. Lean on them during this "tough time."
What do you think? Did Fox cheapen things or do you want to see more of this type of cross-promotion?
Oh, and in case you haven't heard, Kal Penn asked to leave the show so that he could take a job as the White House's associate director in the Office of Public Liaison. I consider that a step up from "Harold & Kumar."
This first clip is from last night's episode of The Daily Show. Host Jon Stewart and guest Brian Williams of the NBC Nightly News discuss the use of Twitter by members of Congress and the news media:
Then, on last night's The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert yet again discusses members of Congress using Twitter during President Obama's address Tuesday night:
Does all this discussion of congressional Tweeting help or hurt Twitter? Will the younger generation be less likely to adopt Twitter; viewing it lame and pointless? Has it reached its saturation point?
Read more!
Take a look at these two orange juice cartons. If they were side by side at your neighborhood grocer, which one would you choose to purchase? Well, THE JOKE'S ON YOU! They're the exact same brand of orange juice!! The carton on the left is Tropicana's new packaging design. Some very vocal consumers, however, prefer the carton on the right. They can rest easy tonight, Tropicana announced they are returning to the old design.
Last month Tropicana was proud to introduce a new packaging design for their orange juice. Gone was their iconic orange with a straw stuck in it, and in its place was a tall glass of OJ. The redesign was accompanied with a $35 million campaign with placement everywhere including print, billboards and television.
THEN .... THE WORLD IMPLODED!!!
Even though Tropicana focused grouped the new design to death, consumers did not like the new package. Some loyal fans were downright outraged. They felt an attachment to the old logo, and felt the new design made the product appear like a generic brand of orange juice.
“Do any of these package-design people actually shop for orange juice?” one e-mail complaint asked. “Because I do, and the new cartons stink.” (Courtesy of NYT article below)
Thanks to social media tools like Twitter, as well as using blogs and e-mail to spread word of mouth, consumers were able to make their voices heard. More importantly, Tropicana was willing to listen and quickly change course. The old packaging should be back in the stores some time next month.
There are 2 key takeaways here:
1) Consumers use social media to organize and make their voice heard. Tropicana admits that only a small fraction of their audience complained, it was a very vocal and loyal fraction. Brands should listen to what is being said about them and be willing to respond if needed. By changing course so quickly, Tropicana avoided the further spread of backlash and anger that could have lead to a significant sales decrease.
Consumers can complain about anything. When I was little my sister wrote a letter to General Mills because she felt that they did not change the content on the back of the Frosted Mini-Wheats box often enough, and she was tired of looking at the same old info every morning. They sent a form letter thanking her for her loyalty in response. I wonder what she could do now with social media. Would she get more than a form letter if she was able to organize a group who felt the same way she did? Probably. Social Media has given the consumer that power.
2) Every logo matters. Tropicana president Neil Campbell admitted he did not realize consumers had such an attachment to the orange and straw logo. While it isn't as iconic as Coca-Cola's use of red or the Nike swoosh, the logo was recognizable. To completely remove it from the packaging was a mistake. Focusing on a glass or orange juice would have been fine, as long as that orange/straw image was present somewhere (even add the red and white straw IN the glass of orange juice). If you want to overhaul a logo, do what Pepsi did (which owns Tropicana) and make slight design changes that seem different while still being recognizable as the brand's logo.
What do you think? Did the new packaging bother you? Did you even notice it?
Cleveland Twestival – Thursday Feb. 12, Harry Buffalo on E. 4th St., 6p.m. – 9p.m. $15. Proceeds support Charity:Water
This Thursday, in 175 cities around the world, people are using Twitter to organize and promote events to benefit Charity:Water, an organization working to provide clean drinking water to those who need it.
Cleveland’s contribution will take place at Harry Buffalo on E. 4th St. downtown. $15 at the door gets you free wings, pizza, good conversation, a cornhole tournament, and excellent raffle prizes. Cleveland has an active social media community (check out the Cleveland Social Media Club by clicking on the badge on the right) that has worked hard in the past few weeks to organize this event. It should be fun.
For more information or to purchase tickets online, check out the Cleveland Twestival website.
On Friday night a mere $7 will get you access to four bands at a legendary venue. All proceeds benefit the Free Clinic of Greater Cleveland. An art auction will also be taking place at the nearby Waterloo 7 gallery (an after party will also be held at the gallery after the shows). Bands performing include Oldboy, Sparrows & Arrows, Tastycakes, & Beardo Bandini.
Chances are, if you have a Facebook account you have been made aware of the "25 Random things" note that has spread like wildfire over the past week. It has been pretty hard to avoid. The premise of this viral note is simple: List 25 things about yourself and then tag 25 friends who must then do the same.
According to a story in USA Today no one is quite sure where the note originated, but Facebook reps report that the number of notes posted has more than doubled over the past week and the number of daily people tagged has grown more than 5 times.
This note didn't include a funny video, marketing gimmick, or offer for free stuff. It was just a simple way for people to share information about themselves (# 7. I once played Boggle with Michael Stipe (and won), #16. My first real job was collecting shopping carts from the Wal-Mart parking lot on The Strip).
Despite all the blogging and Twittering about the marketing potential of social media, it is helpful to remember why most people use it: to SOCIALIZE; to keep up with friends and family. Socialization is still at the core of social media. Here is a note that is not trying to market or sell anything, and it is one of the fastest spreading games on Facebook.
A marketer's reason for participating in social media can differ from their audiences' reason. Users are only willing to accept being marketed to when it adds value to their socializing. This can be done through entertainment, providing helpful information, or using a brand to establish a personal identity (which I found in several "25 things" notes I read. Lots of people confessed their love for specific brands).
Some are predicting that this is only the start of these type of notes on Facebook. I've already seen one note about children and one about music. I'm sure the backlash will soon follow. I know I'm not going to fill out every note that gets sent my way. Facebook isn't MySpace; that's where pointless surveys belong.
Nevertheless, it has been fun to learn new things about my friends over the past week. If we're not friends on Facebook yet, and you want to be, just click on the badge on the right (the one with my former roommate Steve striking a pose), and we'll be the bestest of friends forever and ever.
Over the weekend the New York Times posted an article addressing the problems some brands have had seeing results from Facebook advertising efforts. The article cites efforts by Procter & Gamble as an example of campaigns that may generate a little buzz at their initial launch but quickly fade out and never lead to an increase in sales.
The folks at P&G seem dumbfounded by this. They spent a lot of money on generating creative and entertaining web "events" and sweepstakes, which resulted in thousands of "fans" of their products, how come that led few to actually purchase their products?
The amount of buzz and activity with brands on Facebook does not reflect on sales within the same audience. I call it the "Snakes on a Plane Corollary": Gen Y Internet buzz does should never guarantee specific action.
What is a brand to do? How much money do they have to throw at the Internet before Generation Y takes action? Why aren't they lining up to buy Tide? The article concludes that advertisers have two approaches available to them:
Be more intrusive by targeting extremely specific audience groups and using their "fans" as advertising channels by posting ads within their personal profiles.
Spend even more money on a regular basis to constantly create new entertaining commercials, viral videos, and games.
It seems to me that there is one other option that the article fails to mention: stop trying to be best friends with the community and start using Facebook to address the needs of your audience as they pertain to your brand.
That is not to say there is no reason to use the first two options to promote a brand, especially when launching a new brand or brand extension. However, that should only be one element of a brand's social media strategy. Use entertainment, games, and videos only to generate buzz and brand awareness. These are the sort of things Facebook users want to share with their friends and post on their profile, not direct ads for a brand.
The second element of a brand's marketing strategy should address the other needs of the audience. Altogether users seek media, including the Internet and web portals like Facebook, to meet four major needs:
The need for entertainment and escapism (games and viral videos would fall into this category)
The need to develop personal relationships (this is the main reason Facebook users log on everyday: to connect socially with friends and families, not brands)
The need to develop a personal identity through knowledge & interests (a Facebook profile represents the users personal identity, and can include brands that the user feels reflect their personality and interests. This is why people become "fans" of certain products)
The need of understanding of the surrounding world and sharing information with others (this can include information about a product or promotion that the user may find helpful)
Many brands on Facebook only try to address the first need fully and forget about the rest. In order for a brand to see results from Facebook, they should try to address all four of these needs.
If P&G wants to advertise the Tide brand to Facebook users, they should go beyond the entertainment to address the need that users want Tide to help with: stains and laundry. A lot of Facebook users are college students or young professionals living on their own. Why not use Facebook to offer advice or instructional videos to those who are washing their clothes for the first time (What does permanent press mean? Is that like ironing in the washing machine?)? I would not take movie or music advice from Tide, or consider them a better stain remover if they did, but I would certainly take laundry advice, and if it was helpful I would tell all my friends about it and feel a stronger connection to the Tide brand. Viral videos are fun, but they will not get the chili stain out of my shirt.
Brands should not forget what needs their product or service best gratifies. Facebook can be an excellent portal to generate buzz for a product, but it can also be used to address the needs of the user on a personal basis on their terms in a venue that they frequent. Companies like P&G need to realize that advertising on television or even elsewhere on the Internet serves a different purpose than advertising on Facebook.
Advertising on social media sites should focus initially on buzz, but more importantly at how a brand can really help users personally. If their need is met, I believe positive word-of-mouth will spread, and actual action will take place. That, in turn, can lead to a strong association with the brand, which creates a new influencer to spread the word.
NBC has created quite a stir with their announcement that they convinced Jay Leno to stay by giving him their entire 10pm slot. There is a lot that's been said about this so I'm not going to dwell on it too much. Alan Sepinwall of New Jersey's The Star-Ledger had a good analysis in his Tuesday column.
I agree with what he has to say. This is a short term solution to a long term problem for NBC. How long can it work? In everything I have read there has been no mention of how long Leno has signed on with the network. I give it maybe 2 years at most. It was only two years ago that Deal or no Deal was on four nights a week. That got old real fast. Now is it even on NBC anymore? This is a desperate financial decision that NBC is spinning as an entertaining gift to us all. What do you think of NBC's decision?
Anyway, what I really wanna talk about is the other big news in NBC's Late Night schedule: the official launch of Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. You won't find it on TV. NBC has launched a vlog at latenightwithjimmyfallon.com. Starting this past Monday night and continuing every night until the show airs in the spring, NBC will post daily videos of Jimmy Fallon bringing us behind the scenes of his new show and making a few jokes.
This is a (surprisingly) smart move by NBC. In 1993 when Conan O'Brien took over for David Letterman no one knew who he was, and Conan had no idea how to host a talk show. It made for an awkward year or two which brought the show to the verge of cancellation. With the web component of Fallon's show, NBC can slowly introduce the Jimmy Fallon brand to viewers and Jimmy can get comfortable just talking to a camera on a daily basis.
Fallon may not be the perfect choice for a late night talk show (neither was Conan at the time), but he is the perfect choice to host a late night show in the age of social media. Fallon has always had an interesting appeal. He spent several good years on SNL, but he is not in the same stand-up division as the rest of his comedy competition. He has always seemed like a regular guy who won a reality show contest to appear on TV. If he wasn't on TV he could be comfortable sitting with you on the couch making snarky remarks. That is the appeal of the Jimmy Fallon brand: not everything he does is hilarious, but you have a good time hanging out.
Take a look at Tuesday's video segment:
From the very start this feels less like Fallon putting on a show for us, but rather anyone and everyone putting on a show together. If you go to the show's website you will find the links he mentions in the video, including Facebook, Twitter (@jimmyfallon & it appears to actually be him), MySpace, Flickr, Friendfeed, Ning, YouTube and many other social media sites. It will be interesting to see how these different elements are used as the show makes the transition to television. His mention of having a laptop by his desk and TVs available for Skype make it seem like he plans on talking with his viewers during the show itself.
Although the Leno decision seems like one step backwards for NBC, Jimmy Fallon may be a positive step forward. In order for a late night show to be successful, it needs to have an interactive online element; the more interactive the better. By using social media Late Night with Jimmy Fallon will be able to make up for Fallon's lack of comic timing by establishing him as the talk show host who interacts with his audience and values their insight and talents. There is no better way to establish brand loyalty than to give the consumer a sense of ownership in the brand; a late night show starring Jimmy Fallon and YOU!! Does this make you more or less likely to watch Fallon's new show in the spring?
Finally, on Wed night's show Conan announced NBC's talk-heavy 2009 fall schedule:
JD Drake is a advertising/marketing professional residing in Cleveland, OH. He has never had a cavity, but lies awake at night in fear that the streak will soon end.
Posts
