Sunday, September 26, 2010

A Controversial History Lesson

David Kirkpatrick's book (or at least the chapter I read for this week) was eye-opening. A detailed account of the rise of social networks, culminating in a controversial dispute as to who really created what we today know as Facebook, Kirkpatrick focused more on providing the details and letting the reader decide who in the end was the true King of Social Networks.

My personal opinion is that Zuckerberg deserves the credit for Facebook because as Kirkpatrick states: "Every social networking site on the planet by this time was influenced by Friendster". Based on the history of social networks, every new version was simply an improvement of the previous version, and used consumer insights to address unmet needs. In the case of Facebook, houseSYSTEM was too complicated - consumers wanted simple. Harvard Connection (or ConnectU) was a hybrid of what would become Facebook and My Space - consumers already had My Space, and they were looking JUST for Facebook. Zuckerberg met this need, at the right time (when digital cameras and fast connections were available) and the right place (among elite college students who sought an online platform for their "facebook").  Product development and the fundamentals of marketing at its best - so why should he be punished for this? If I'm being completely honest, I think a little bit of luck had some play in how the situation developed. Yet, that's also part of the deal: Zuckerberg got a little lucky, his classmates didn't. Or one might argue they did get lucky based on what appears to be a sizable chunk of change that they received from the settlement.

So, what do you think? Is Zuckerberg Facebook's true creator or did he just take advantage of his classmates? In the battle of crowning the Social Media King - who reigns?

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Aha! Followed By Oooooh!!

For this week's blog post, I read the first chapter of Clay Shirky's book, Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. His basic premise is that over the past decades, we have accumulated an endless amount of free time, which as a society we've filled up mainly by watching TV. Now, with the advent of social media, we are enticed by a world that we can create and become an active part of, rather than one where we are merely observants.

As I read this, I kept having "Aha! I never thought of that!" moments, followed by a questioning "Ooooh - I get it, but....!" realization. My first Aha! Moment (AM) was when Shirky recounts his conversation with a TV producer and gets upset when she says "Where do people find the time [to contribute so much to Wikipedia]?" His response is that TV is taking up all the time, and being honest with myself, I could see that. I too am from the camp that social media takes too much time - its no longer just updating a status on Facebook, its checking in on FourSquare, Tweeting to stay relevant, uploading pictures on Flikr, blogging about something or another, uploading videos to YouTube - make the madness stop! But the time I don't have to spend on doing that, is in part because I'm hanging out with my "friends" from Seattle Grace, mesmerized by the talent of my Glee "friends" or trying to figure out why women would subject themselves to abuse from Mad Men. Hmmm...seems like TV IS taking up much of my time. Shirky provides rationale for this - he says that you feel like you're with "friends" when watching a show, and so we've gotten so used to it, its hard to break away. So, now I feel like I'm in good company - no worries, right? Everyone has TV "friends"...

AM #2 - "Did you ever see that episode of Gilligan's Island where they almost all get off the island and then Gilligan messes up and they don't?" Good point. So now I relate it back to more current, dramatic and I think sophisticated shows. "Do you remember the episode when Meredith and Derek got together but then ended up breaking up?" Yup, four whole seasons of it actually. To counteract this, Shirky brings up that World of Warcraft, though lame to many, actually engages its users - you have to come together in groups to defeat the game, take an active part of the development and outcome of the game...whereas, regardless of the amount of times I have shouted at Meredith not to screw it up with Derek, she inevitably does. So social media has this huge advantage in that "You can play this game too", as Shirky says - and for many of us, myself included, its a powerful idea. (Point in case: He brings up the example of lolcats. Not knowing what it is, I go to the website and see that a) Yes, it is a ridiculously stupid idea and b) Darn it all, I want to put a caption down. Sigh.)

AM #3 - I wish it stopped there, at my realization that I watch too much TV and that I can't change the outcome of Meredith and Derek's relationship, but that I can become actively involved in a community. But it doesn't- my third AM comes from his discussion of More is Different, where Shirky discusses how as individuals our actions are unpredictable, but as a group, they are actually quite predictable. He gives the example that the chances that any one person is around to witness and document an event of global impact is slim - the chance that any human will is actually quite great given the fact that pretty much everyone has some sort of camera with them at all times. So now we don't rely on traditional media, we're actually relying on each other. No more Katie Couric giving me the news, its probably going to come from a person, just like me, in the Middle East.

Ooooh, I get it! Moment - so it's bigger than just checking in, tweeting, blogging. It's actually a whole cultural change where we go from being hibernating loners watching TV to interconnected social beings, webbed through social media. Yet you hear adults (and OK, even I've said it before), that younger generations are less social, they don't know how to interact with people, they only live in their social worlds...and while yes, we watch (way too much) TV, we do that with other people in the room and it sometimes spurs conversations (I'll give you a topic: why won't Meredith just realize Derek is the one?! Discuss amongst yourselves.).

So where's the balance? How do we become truly social again?

Monday, September 13, 2010

No One Needs To Die!

Our first reading assignment was the first two chapters of Brian Solis's book Engage (Ch 1: The Social Media Manifesto: Engage or Die and Ch 2: The Case of Socializing Media, by the Numbers). He shares a similar opinion to many social media experts*, mainly:

  • This social media thing isn't going away and is only getting bigger (I get the point)
  • Companies that wish to survive need to understand it, respect it, embrace it and use it
  • The traditional rules of marketing still apply, and perhaps, need to be taken even more seriously
This last point I think is the most critical and the one companies may know, but choose to ignore. Or maybe it's that they're running so darn fast towards the Holy Grail That Is Social Media that they forget the basics.

Is your target market on Facebook? No? Then Facebook isn't for you! I may have actually heard audible *gasps* coming from some people when they read that statement, but I really think it's true - and so does Brian Solis: "Contrary to popular opinion, your presence is not required in every network that populates the Social Web." What is necessary is that you understand the target market, know your brand as well as you know yourself and engage in two way communication about your brand. Having worked in marketing, I know this is easier said than done, but some companies are doing a great job at it which means others can too.

Another basic rule of marketing: keep your brand top of mind.  Solis points out that if your brand isn't being talked about, even in a negative way, this signals a problem. Your brand isn't being talked about. Period. Which means your brand isn't top of mind with consumers, and therefore, you need to do something to bring it back.  Just like with traditional marketing, study your consumer (this time in the social media space), and learn about ways to make a smooth transition into the conversation. 

One thing that Solis doesn't mention that I think lacks in his text is the integration of social media tactics with traditional ones. Social media, as he mentions, is a tactic within a greater strategy that includes other channels and initiatives. Integration is key - a social media campaign should have elements that connect it back to traditional marketing, point-of-purchase, promotions, etc. It doesn't live in a vacuum and only becomes stronger through integration.

Regardless, the important point is that brands can surely figure out this Social Media Thing, as they have figured out TV and the Internet. Solis ends his first chapter: "Engage or die". I say, it's all about going back to the basics - no one needs to die!

 

Another Blog on Social Media?

Kind of. Well, technically, yes. But this blog, unlike the many blogs on social media out there, is a journey in learning about social media. When I look at other blogs on Social Media, they are mostly "May my words be the end all and be all of successful Social Media execution". Mine is more, "May your comments lead me to understand more about this vast and overwhelming space".

I'm an MBA student at Boston College, and while I am concentrating in Brand Management and have studied social media from a theoretical standpoint, the execution, quite frankly, is daunting. So as part of an assignment for our MI621: Social Media for Managers course, here is my first venture into a blog...soon to be followed by my first venture into Twitter (follow me: MBAMLo), FourSquare, and other social media sites I've probably been avoiding (another one I have to update?!).

So join me - maybe you've been a bit overwhelmed and we can face the beast together, or maybe you can just get me as pumped as you are! Either way, it should be a good experience.