I have found myself addicted to the quirky, sometimes boyish humor of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Each episode tells story about the eccentric quests of five distinct characters that own a bar in Philadelphia. One of my favorite elements of the show is the acting style. It’s very humanistic, sometimes cheap, but always exposing the story in a blunt fashion that is rather satyrical of human behavior. In season 4 episode 3 (currently on Hulu), the crew decides to promote their bar. There is much banter over what methods will work best. After considering the initial option of a billboard, Dee suggests an idea for marketing the bar on YouTube.
Dee: “I’m going to take one of my characters, and launch a viral video!” Mac: “Viral video? There’s about a billion of those on YouTube, who gives a shit? Dee: “Oh, you think anybody gives a shit about a billboard? Uhhh, wake up donkeys, the internet is where it’s at.”
Charlie and Dee began brainstorming and in the ideation process, Charlie accidently stumbles upon Dee’s personal video diary, and posts it on YouTube as Patheticgirl43, which is a real YouTube account with the actual video from the episode.
The video currently has over 150,000 views. And perhaps even more importantly, has led those viewers to other content about the characters and show. If you look at the Related Videos section, there are currently well over a million views (collaboratively). This is a great example of using social media creatively and “baking it in” to the product. It’s important to note that this content was viewed by over a million people who actually sought it out. In opposition to traditional media, these views/impressions were not an interruption for the audience, they were a easter egg of sorts.
I recently came across a post about Platforms vs Campaigns on Geoff Northcott’s supercollider blog. Geoff covers some really great information and I definitely recommend reading the whole post, but I really wanted to share the two graphics below. I think this is a really good model for brands that want to begin building long-term presence on the web to consider .
Multiple campaigns over X amount of years with digital integration
Multiple campaigns that continually build upon an ongoing platform
I’m currently reading Convergence Culture by Henry Jenkins, in which he describes an idea called Transmedia Storytelling. I believe that one could make a case for VW’s recent campaign being an example of this technique, what do you think?
Volkswagen recently launched the “Punch Dub” campaign with the airing of a commercial during the Superbowl that showed all sorts of people punching their friends upon seeing a Volkswagen. I find the video to be delightful, and it’s currently rated as one of the highest on Hulu’s Adzone 2010. I believe one of the main reasons for the success of this ad is due to the fact that it plays on cultural knowledge. But what really interests me is the way that they chose to integrate the traditional commercial with new media, and how they chose to unravel the story with multiple viewpoints, characters, and use of current VW fans.
Although it may go by other names, the PunchDub game is familiar to most of us raised within American culture. This video evokes portions of the PunchDub story that may already exist in our lives, and it is delivered on multiple platforms within web, television, game, and print. In each of the tactics below, the story is supplemented with additional content that allows the viewer a more in-depth experience and background of PunchDub.
A series of videos about “Sluggy Patterson”, supposedly the creator of the game
A Facebook App was that lets users punch their friends with a wall-post picture of a VW
A PunchDub Official Gameplay manual offered in web and print
A Twitter account where people can ask questions of @SluggyPatterson
Links on VW.com that set up a search on YouTube with key terms (allowing pre-existing and future consumer generated content to be accessed from VW’s site)
The last bullet interests me in particular because VW is offering their consumer a level of control over how the game, and ultimately the brand is perceived by the world. VW is offering users/viewers several ways to dig deeper into the Punchdub story. However, I find it strange that they did not use the expensive Superbowl media placement to encourage fans to participate in other channels. Nonetheless, I think this campaign represents an example of how brands can use the technique of transmedia storytelling.
I also found the diagram below by Steven Dinehart to be helpful. Obviously VW’s tactics don’t satisfy each of the categories in the diagram; perhaps most of the tactics could be summed up in “Web”. Furthermore, an additional tactic labeled “Cultural Knowledge” could be added in this case. The diagram is really useful for understanding how this technique works, but in my opinion will drastically evolve with the media convergence Jenkins describes in his book.
Brand Tags has been around for awhile, but I just came across it today. It’s a project by Noah Brier that asks the user to write whatever comes to mind upon seeing the brand. It currently has 1.7 million entries. This is a really cool resource, help make the internet a better place by heading there now and adding some tags!
Over the weekend I went to the Bell House to see a band from Portland called Blind Pilot. Although I was not entirely familiar with them, I had heard about the band and liked what I heard. However, I had never heard of the bands that opened for them. And after dedicating an hour of my time to the openers, my mind started turning.
Lately I’ve been doing a great deal of reading about creating positive brand experiences for consumers. It’s often a daunting task to reach out to a consumer, especially if it’s a brand that they have never even heard of! Yet in the case of the show I attended, the brands/bands that I had never heard, captured my attention for nearly a half hour each. I think the most obvious reason for this lies in the fact that I know and like Blind Pilot; meaning that the “no-name” bands established credibility through being paired with a reliable source. However, my mind delved a step deeper, and I began thinking about the modern consumer vs. the “traditional” consumer.
In the case of live music, consumption patterns have drastically changed over the past several decades. I’ve always found this interesting, and to illustrate my point, let’s consider the 1970’s audience that my dad’s bands played for vs. the 2000’s audience that my band played for.
In the 70’s, the audience wanted to hear the biggest and baddest hits. Considering this, local bands’ sets consisted of almost entirely cover songs. A small-time band was judged on their ability to accurately cover songs by the day’s most popular artists. The modern audience however, craves something unique. They want something new and exciting, it’s almost repulsive to sound like a popular band.
I think today’s brands can use this information. It reveals to us that the modern consumer does not want a rehashed experience, no matter how good it is. They want something cutting edge, something they can be the first to know about, and something they can share with their friends.
Many companies want to interact with their consumers on the social web but have trouble figuring out how to involve them. This usually results in one of two things:
The company broadcasts something to the effect of “Free shipping on products over $100 if you order in the next 2 hours!”
The company doesn’t say anything at all. (Yes, that’s you @TimeWarnerCares)
However, I found two recent examples of companies that are successfully interacting with their audience on the social web. Both companies sell bag/backpack consumer products, but are very different in terms of annual sales. The answer to the question, “How much does it cost to interact with your audience?” is simple– However much you want to spend.
But that question leads to a more important one: “Are expensive social interactive plans worthwhile?” I’ll show you how both companies attempted interaction on drastically different budgets. Then I’ll attempt to answer the question of big budget vs small budget.
The first company, Chrome Bags, is one that I’ve followed for quite some time. They make extremely high-quality bicycle messenger bags that are sold all over the world. Although relatively small, the company has an extremely strong community of brand advocates. Chrome executes several marketing tactics that spill into the digital arena, but for now I’d like to look at their most recent attempt at engaging consumers.
For many companies, a product like this hip pouch is something thats collecting dust in a storage facility. For Chrome (who already has a following of brand enthusiasts), an item like this hip pouch is highly valuable to consumers because it is unique; it is likely of very little value to Chrome . The contest was held simultaneously on Facebook and only resulted in a small amount of publicly visible entries like the one shown below.
Things that were rad
Dirt cheap, simple contest with a clear call to action and ability for consumers to be creative
Although not very many, it generated consumer created content (In total, Chrome has 172 user-submitted photos on Facebook. If each Fan submitted only one photo, that means 7% of Chrome’s fans have submitted content)
Made use of the product and further enhanced the idea that Chrome bags can endure and carry anything
Things that could have been more rad
Lack of a centralized location for audience to view photos submitted for specific contest (Perhaps this is still to come, but timing is an important issue in social media)
Not very many photo submissions for the contest (it’s hard to know this for sure since they didn’t post them all, but based off users who publicly replied on Facebook, I can estimate they received less than a dozen entries)
I am not as familiar with the second example I want to examine, but I have done some research on their most recent social media endeavor. Nine West is a fashion brand that specializes in shoes, handbags, and other clothing accessories. Nine West prides themselves on trendiness and is in the midst of promoting a new line called the Nine West Vintage Collection. The Vintage Collection is strongly tied to American roots and Nine West has crafted an elaborate scheme in which the brand encourages consumers to record themselves singing through YouTube video submissions. Nine West calls the contest American Voices and entices their consumers to generate content with a grand prize incentive being a chance to record at a well known studio and a feature article in Lucky magazine. In addition to the grand prize, the company is offering seven weekly contest winners $100 worth of American Vintage products.
The contest lasted 7 weeks and was responsible for over 50 YouTube user video submissions. This type of contest generated extremely rich content for Nine West.
Things that were rad
Fifty users submitted 60 second clips of themselves singing!!
Although I don’t have before and after analytics, I can estimate based on the number of video views that these videos were responsible for a significant portion of the Nine West channel views– Many consumers were drawn to the page because of this content, and presumably stayed there to watch
Things that could have been more rad
The contest idea should have been more directly correlated with Vintage America Collection
Consumers are not using Nine West products in their video submissions, there is nothing about this content that makes the brand or its product more reputable beside the fact that Nine West was willing to provide the opportunity at stardom to consumers
For the expense of this contest, not very many people were drawn to the YouTube page
Of the consumers that were drawn to the page, there is no reason that they would be more inclined to buy Nine West Vintage America products after watching video submissions
Back to our question: Is it better to spend more or less when attempting to engage and interact with your consumer?
Neither attempt at interaction was a failure, both were successful in terms of persuading the consumer to generate content.
There is no clear cut answer, the amount of money spent on this type of contest depends on the brand objectives and the objectives of the particulal social media campaign. It is extremely important for a brand to know its goals with social media. From there, objectives can be devised to meet those goals.
We can learn from this analysis that it is not necessarily better to spend more. It’s important to create a social media strategy before attempting to craft contests and other tactics.
Everyone loves a good, friendly competition. And there is evidence of that in the growing number of participants in such contests. However, I feel that the web is beginning to be a bit overrun with this type of content. I speculate that the future will require some type of further augmentation to marketing plans than what is currently being executed.
Real-time updates through location-based, mobile technology is quickly becoming imperative to keeping such contests interesting. One example of a contest achieving this is the Eat ‘n Tweet Challenge which aimed to promote a book called This is Why You’re Fat. I actually competed in this event with my roommate Monica, who is a total foodie. All of the participants had a blast, and the involved businesses were swamped with interested bystanders.
The Eat ‘N Tweet Challenge sent contestants to six New York food carts for a This is Why You’re Fat-inspired menu item. The first location was announced from the @TIWYF Twitter account at 11:00pm. Another location was announced every 20 minutes, and the first person to tweet a picture of themselves eating the item from all six locations would win a 25-person This is Why You’re Fat party. Below is a video that we created for the event.
I want to run a fine-tooth comb through the interactive elements of this contest and point out some of the things that it accomplished very well, and some areas that could have been more polished. Any criticism below is merely constructive feedback, and everyone should know that in my opinion this was a very successful program.
The contest was a cross-platform user experience that organized participants on Facebook, and made them participate through Twitter. The Facebook application attempted to pull in realtime photos from the event in association with Vendr.tv. However, there were issues in that the application was a little clunky. The three steps only linked back to the TIWYF Facebook page and the realtime photos were not actually realtime. This isn’t the first Facebook application to offer a less than satisfying user experience. Other options should be considered whenever possible.
A Vendr.tv camera crew was originally meant to follow selected social-influencers participating in the event, this is a brilliant idea because it creates high-quality content that the influencer can distribute to their audience. And if the influencers are appropriately chosen, the client will have direct access to a highly relevant audience. However, due to a lack of resources, the crew was stationed at specific carts and filmed contestants as they came to get their treat. Vendr.tv has not yet released the video they captured. I hope this will happen soon, while the contest is still buzzing. The video portion of this contest could have been augmented further by using a live Ustream or BlogTV cast. This would have allowed spectators on Twitter to actually SEE what is happening in realtime, and ultimately build more interest on the social web.
I think the event could have done a better job at encouraging interaction between competitors. Although the hashtag #thisiswhyyourefat caught on with spectators, it was not being used by the competitors taking pictures of themselves eating. If competitors were asked to use this hashtag when tweeting their photo, it would have provided a realtime stream of photos on Twitter. It also would have allowed participants to “meet” their competitors and see what cart they were currently at.
How will technology change contests like this in the future?
I’m sure that the agency who designed this contest considered using an application like Foursquare for the event, but decided against it based on the general public’s unfamiliarity with the application. However, if this contest were to be executed when Foursquare adds the ability to attach photos and is a more commonly used application, it would allow some really interesting changes. “Checking-in” would give a much more clear exposure for the vendors involved and would allow participants a more streamlined user experience. Perhaps arrangements for a special “This is Why You’re Fat” badge could be implemented, giving an even greater incentive for competing.
As I said before, this event earned a ton of great press, buzz on the social web, and was a blast for those who participated. I’ve posted some links to other sites talking about the event.
Approximately ten days ago, I found myself captivated by the Southern charm of two North Carolinian video-bloggers. I hadn’t previously heard of BlogTV until I found myself mindlessly watching the young man pictured below for over 30 minutes. BlogTV began in 2007 and allows users to live broadcast themselves on the website. At any moment, at least a few people are blogging with an audience between 50-100. On this night however, Ty found himself with an audience of 1300+
Why did I watch this? Because this young man was offering a $300 gift card for the Apple store and I found myself looking at my own, now inferior and scratched up to hell iPhone 3G 8GB.
Ty did such a good job of publicizing his $300 dollar giveaway that his show made ‘#iphonegiveaway’ the Number 1 trending topic on Twitter. And for anyone that actually watched this broadcast, they would undoubtedly describe it as being unorganized, makeshift, and sloppy. For instance, the actual phone was supposed to be given away 40 minutes before it actually was. Nonetheless, viewers sat idle as Ty dragged the show out, attempting to keep his audience. Possibly, the reason the show held our attention was the goofiness of it all, and more importantly the burning question, WHY is this guy doing this?!
Even in hindsight, I can’t completely grasp why Ty did it, other than to promote his show. The giveaway certainly wasn’t in direct correlation with advertising a particular brand, and that leads me to think that if Ty could attract this audience with no apparent strategy, then how could someone use similar tools to attract an audience of even greater proportions? Imagine the value of this kind of exposure to a brand. Although, I’m not sure exactly how the long the entire event lasted, I estimate about 90 minutes. Even so, if a brand could attain an audience of 1300+ for 30 minutes for the mere cost of $300, it would be a tool worthy of consideration.
After great procrastination, Ty announced that the winner of the card would be the first person to call the cell phone number that he would shortly provide.
Perhaps Ty is attempting to gain a major following before working in collaboration with brands, I don’t know. Kudos to him for getting involved with the audience.
Has anyone else seen similar live webcast events? I’m particularly curious about brands that have attempted to engage in this sort of thing.
Marketing and Advertising | Greater New York City Area, US
Summary
I believe that the future of branding and communication relies heavily on making things rather than saying things. I employ a strategically-driven perspective in the creation of digital-physical experiences that utilize social technologies. I am fascinated with the role of technology in society and user-centered design principles. Attitudes are influenced through behavior; I see a vast opportunity for technology as a medium to elicit behavioral response.
Specialties: strategy, planning, social media, digital, interaction design, design strategy
The Gossamer Albatross II is seen here during a test flight at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, California.
The original Gossamer Albatross is best known for completing the first completely human powered flight across the English Channel on June 12, 1979. The Albatross II was the backup craft for the Channel flight.
