If you think of Facebook (or Twitter or LinkedIn) like a large sports arena then the idea that advertisers and marketers looked for ways into the system is not surprising. I think was is more surprising is the amount of people I meet who are upset by it–sponsored ads, promoted Tweets, banner ads, and the like are all venues to generate revenue for publishers. (In this instance I’m referring to publishers as web publishers.) And so to continue to innovate on those same networks, publishers have to earn money somehow. More interestingly those big brands are getting more creative on how to dig into social networks.

I’m not suggesting that fans attending sporting events aren’t also annoyed or bothered by the advertising blitz across stadiums around the world–but I think when the general population logs into their own social network they’re surprised to find Best Buy or American Express suggesting products to them based on highly personal demographics. (I’ve noticed that the algorithms for the Facebook ad serving platform are getting better and better–for awhile I was getting ads for diapers and wrinkle cream…diverse offerings based on the female demographic.) Now you might see an ad that calls your employer out by name, or one that seems oddly timed (a free birthday drink?). These highly personalized ads also closely mimic the basic design elements of Facebook–same size, same shape and limited branding except in the image. There is a certain ‘bait and switch’ element to them. But ads are easier to spot than advertorials.

Advertorials–content that is served up as an editorial piece (content) with the fine print contributing it to a corporate sponsor. On TV they’re fondly called ‘informercials’ and in print media they’re often easier to spot–the text may be close to the style of the publication, but somewhere on the page is information that calls it out as an advertisement. But digital advertorials are less well-defined. And in some cases may not even look like an ad, but that’s what they are…right? At the end of the day companies are in business to make money and boost brand awareness. Take Levi’s as an example.

Levi’s embarked on an ad campaign in 2010 that loosely resembled a digital advertorial–this is purely my own definition of it in the online space. They created a series of commercials and media about the now-failing, once-booming town of Braddock, PA. Compelling storyline paired with iconic American imagery–hard-working people wearing blue jeans. A match made in advertising agency heaven.

Here is the blog post from the company–be sure and read the lone comment posted: http://www.levistrauss.com/blogs/braddock-pa-15104.

The commenter asks a good question–so what? In researching the Braddock+Levi’s connection a case study on the topic comes up in search results. A case study written by Facebook. The case study details what went well for the brand–increased user engagement with key demographic of 18- to 34-year-olds, more ‘likes’ on it’s fan page and a boost in organic impressions. And what the company hopes will be positive affiliation with it’s brand in retail channels when all those ‘likes’ become actual purchases.

What’s not easy to determine is if the campaign and film series helped the people of Braddock. Did the bottom line of Braddock improve? If the lone commenter on the Levi’s blog is telling the truth (and I have no reason not to believe that it isn’t the truth)–Levi’s didn’t stick around long enough to find out.

And it’s with this lens (and my two semesters of college as a sociologist) that I like to use when looking across the perceived phenomena of social networks as amplified by the digital age. There is a lot of fodder here for blog posts and I anticipate circling back on this topic again, but for the sake of today’s post I’d like to focus on how social media and the social networks we use are compelling thousands upon thousands of people to do really stupid shit. Case in point: the television shows on Comedy Central: Tosh.0 and MTV: Ridiculousness.

Alright, before I dig into how social media and stupid people coincide I want to point out that I’m not the demographic for either program. However, I do find Rob Dyrdek to be one of the funniest and most sincere people on television–with wickedly good timing when it comes to applying business logic to his booming empire.

Back to the stupid shit that we do–in a comment on a previous post a commenter used the term “disinhibation effects”. I’m paraphrasing here, but essentially online we (all of us) act in ways that we wouldn’t normally act if we were in a face-to-face conversation. In some forms the effects can be harsh or rude emails (frequently referred to as flame mails); and in other areas the impact may be a candid review of a restaurant that calls out personal traits of the server. In both situations the alignment to cyberspace creates an area of refuge, whether actual or implied, so a user (or reviewer or the guy down the hall) can interact with other people in a manner different than they would in person. If you’re ever interested in more about this topic there is a bevy of results from a quick search online.

I did some more digging–and found John Suler’s Psychology of Cyberspace. Let’s ignore for a moment that it was first published in 1996 (with a follow-up in 2006). The accuracy with which he categorizes different online personas is true today. He discusses in laymen’s terms:

• You Don’t Know Me (dissociative anonymity)
• You Can’t See Me (invisibility)
• See You Later (asynchronicity)
• It’s All in My Head (solipsistic introjection)
• It’s Just a Game (dissociative imagination)
• We’re Equals (Minimizing Authority)

The effects, he describes can be benign disinhibition where people “…attempt to understand and explore oneself” through atypical (albeit positive behaviors); or the effects can be toxic disinhibation that at the core may be rude language or even threats, but could easily account for the underbelly of the Internet. However, the one area that he did not explore because it didn’t exist in the same format today is YouTube. Not only is YouTube the largest video-sharing platform in the world, it is also the world’s 2nd largest search engine.

Say what? YouTube is a search engine?

A recent post in Search Engine Land mentioned the statistic, “Online video viewership reached record levels in October, with YouTube passing the 20 billion views mark for the first time.” Millions of people are watching millions of videos. The amount of user generated content is huge; and to stand out in a crowd sometimes you have to resort to flashy moves…or just stupid moves.

<<I was going to insert some stupid videos here, but I really didn’t think I was the best person to curate such a collection–I’ll leave that up to Rob and Tosh>>

What I find most interesting about the stupid people doing stupid stuff to be in videos–is that the online popularity of it all has migrated into mainstream media. Yes, MTV and Comedy Central are cable television networks–but they’re still on TV (primarily) and augmented by cyberspace. So now instead of being passed around the digital realm (or in addition to) your video can be shown to millions of people on TV. The networked effect of disinhibition culminates in popular culture’s acceptance of idiotic, dangerous and grossly exhibitionistic behaviors–all filmed with the greatest of ease.

It might be a good time to do a Google search (or YouTube search) on yourself to see what appears.

More from me on Twitter!

I’m paraphrasing below, but whether it is a website, a mobile application, a social network or some-yet-to-be-named channel online consumers:

-       Visit websites to ‘do something’

-       Expect advanced media, but tolerate low production value

-       Choose to participate

-       And can be experts in their own right.

If we consider each of the bullet points above as parts of the whole, then the trust proposition remains true. Let’s start with visiting websites to ‘do something’. When was the last time you went to a website and clicked on nothing? You didn’t search for anything (type in search word), you didn’t make a purchase, you didn’t look for a store location…you did nothing. Assuming you landed on your intended website and not something else, I am willing to bet that it’s less than 1% of the time you spend online. Utility drives engagement online—and utility can be in the form of tools, search boxes, even compelling content (call-to-action) are all different types of utility.

Which leads me to my next point—consumers expect corporations to provide advanced media (or content), but will tolerate low production value. In Hanson Hosein’s Storytelller Uprising: Trust and Uprising in the Digital Age he outlines the shift that occurred when the cost of production equipment made it accessible to anyone willing to purchase it. And in removing a significant barrier, in this case high-quality technology, and making it cheaper to use allowed the digital ecosystem to swell with user generated content. Moreover UGC can be stand in place for corporate-backed product descriptions—think of people who upload user reviews for new technology. These are not sanctioned by the manufacturer, but rather exist as user testimony. The very fact that it is produced by everyday people also means that production values can dip; without impacting the message.

User reviews are also a strong indicator of just how far we’ve come as a digital society—we expect to rate, review, or provide our opinion publicly on any and all products/restaurants/nanny services/etc. Bought coffee online? Great—rate it and review it. Booking a trip to London? Better check out what the Internet says before you check in. The third point above is almost as pervasive as the search bar—in allowing real-time feedback, we (marketers) encourage that loop to continue.

Finally, the low production value combined with high user participation also means that we see far more ‘experts’ online. People who may actually be a subject matter expert on any given topic. This point relates more to product usage (for example a forum dedicated to VW van restoration), rather than the general public. However, it’s still valid—we’ve lowered the bar to participate, expect it to happen, and allowed channels for experts to emerge. The sweet spot is when companies recognize this and allow it to happen within their very own walled garden.

Here again is where user communities and forums come into play—smart organizations moderate and monitor those digital destinations with the intent of providing feedback to product teams, looking for customer service opportunities, and engaging with their public. But it can happen anywhere customers and brands co-exist. As I wrote years ago, “By extending trust beyond…corporate boundaries and practices…we (can) orchestrate the opportunity for direct collaboration with…customers.” (Boiko, Hartman 2010)

How can you encourage and incorporate user feedback?

More from me on Twitter!

I’m still unsure of what the business model (how are they making money?) is for King of the Web, but I grabbed a quick description from the website:

Our first site is called “King of the Web“, which launched to the public in early April. King of the Web is an online monthly competition to reward internet awesome. Anyone can compete and the web can vote for who and what they think is awesome online. Winners get cash and prizes, plus the illustrious crown. Check out one of our competition blogs on our YouTube channel.

People are encouraged to vote for their favorite internet star so they become King of the Web. Much like Yelp or other websites where there is an opportunity to review or provide feedback, many web managers or community managers are out patrolling the comments.  The comments tend to be positive, but negativity still abounds and without trying too hard I found lots of negative comments that had little or nothing to do with the subject matter of someone’s video.

I sincerely believe that because the Internet allows anonymity in spades; it also allows a direct channel for people to be jerks. Oftentimes, a comment or statement that one person wouldn’t disclose verbally to another person finds acceptance in the digital ecosystem. And Maggie’s reference to those people as the Hater Plague works.

In a quick online search I found several articles and blog posts dedicated to dealing with negative reviewers–in the travel industry negative reviews can significantly impact a hotel or restaurant’s bottom line. And many companies in that industry spend time answering those negative comments–think of it as digital customer service. And those negative comments can actually be incorporated into a property’s scorecard–weighed equally as much as an in-person interaction or comment card.

Here is one video I found from SpinSucks, a PR blog–the first part includes drinking wine and talking about her haircut (the bangs are cute)…skip ahead a bit and she gets to answering the question of how to handle negative comments.

I agree and disagree with her–on one hand I don’t think I would drink red wine for a video series (purple teeth, anyone?) but I also don’t think that human nature is a reason why people leave negative comments. Instead I’m more apt to believe that people leave negative comments because they believe that there is a cloak of anonymity around them when they’re online. And without seeing any repercussions (a person’s physical reaction perhaps) it only confirms the behavior. So the Hater Plague continues without being held in check.

How would you deal with negative comments on your blog/website? Have you left a negative comment on TripAdvisor or Yelp? And if so, why didn’t you speak directly to the management of the restaurant or hotel?
More from me on Twitter!

Off you go…

Sensationalism sells ad space. Social media channels like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook need advertising revenue to keep cranking out innovation that keeps them ahead of all other social channels. Page views and visits are important, but what is equally important are eyeballs. Yours, mine and theirs. If I started my post with the dry a-ha moment that brought me here, then you might not read it. And if you don’t read it, you won’t share it. And if you don’t share it then I won’t get the nice boost to my ego that goes with shares/likes/followers/fans. I digress–let’s focus people.

In the late 80s television news programming began airing shows called ‘newsmagazines’ — thirty minute programs that included “…mix of tabloid crime stories, investigations, and celebrity gossip; now it has become a mix of news, bizarre crime, investigative pieces on consumer scams/safety, pop culture features, celebrity news/gossip, offbeat stories and human interest stories.” (Wikipedia, 2011) It was tabloid TV–taking fodder from pop culture and slapping salacious titles with dramatic introductions to entice people to watch. The more people watched, the higher price the major news networks could charge for advertising. Broadcast journalism competing against print journalists; and this was how the network reacted. Traditional news programs weren’t sexy enough.

Media competition continues–now for a network to grow readership, subscriptions and the like they have to compete with EVERYONE. Anyone with a flip camera or an iPhone is now a content creator. And there are numerous channels for them to share their content digitally and traditionally. Broadcast media is being outdone by citizen journalists who are posting clips quicker than a news crew can be assembled. The YouTubers of the day are also skilled at search engine optimization, keywords and tagging. A title for a clip may be purposefully provocative with little content that relates (or frighteningly opposite…unprovocative and with many reasons to display an adults only warning) so that it can be viewed over and over again. The content creator in this instance may or may not profit (Justin Bieber was YouTube sensation after all). So who wins? Who’s cashing in?

The new broadcast media networks: Facebook, Google, and thousands of smaller ad publishers. Advertising in this age requires a nimble web development team, software engineers, and pervasive ad units that disrupt the digital experience of your audience. The drop-in, cover, drop-down, page tear, skyscraper and leader board banner ads are all meant to continue to capitalize on that precious white space surrounding the experiences of consumers online. Companies like Microsoft and Yahoo! are spending millions of dollars in research and development to find ways that allow ads into more channels online–more ads means more advertising dollars. This is the part that makes social media a sticky conundrum–Facebook may have been built to allow anyone to share pictures, updates, videos, etc. with a group of their friends. But Facebook is also a corporation; and one that aims for profitability.

But we win too. Facebook is free. Google+ is free. YouTube is free. The price of premium content is (still) free–we get to see more, read more and learn more across the digital landscape. That freedom (like basic TV programming) still costs us in wonky ads hoping to will us to click on lower mortgage rates or how to control belly fat. And if we journey back to the original premise of this blog post: sex and candy lured you here, and the price is sensationalism in headlines, keywords, and metadata. This, in turn, requires us all to be the curators of our own digital experience. A small price to pay for this.

More from me on Twitter!

#mcdm cohort 11

]]> http://kelleymyers.com/2011/09/25/it-goes-to-eleven/feed/ 0 kelleymyers It goes to eleven