Becoming street wise online

Yesterday afternoon something funny happened. I retweeted a message that one of my 'real life' friends had tweeted.

The tweet said something along the lines of "this guy is awesome & looking for a job in SEO".I sent it onto another friend who I knew was recruiting for an SEO job.

It didn't take long for the original friend to start poking fun at the fact that I hadn't clicked on his link to see that he was in fact, recommending Rick Astley for the job....

Ha. Ha. Ha. The joke is on me. However, in light of this personal experience and yesterday's fake BP twitter account, it got me thinking about what trust means and how it operates differently between the on and offline worlds.

There are some people in my life (ie grandparents) who wouldn't trust the internet for a second. There's no way that they'd make purchases online or believe that once they pressed 'send', an email would safely arrive at its destination. These are also the same people whose words of advice to me as a child were 'don't believe everything you read'.

So, it raises the question 'why do I seem to trust the internet and what I read on it, more so than traditional broadcast media?'

And, I think its due to the personal factor. I have a higher degree of trust in those that I interract with online and whom I also know in real life BUT, these lines are easily blurred.

Take twitter for example, I have started following people (and trust the links that they post plus, I value their opinions) but simply because they are part of the network of other people that I trust.

Its somewhat of a viscious circle.

Having now experienced an unharmful yet eye-opening breach of trust online by an offline friend, I'll be aiming to limit my levels of trust. I don't expect this to be easy though given that I expect people to trust what I endorse or post online. I guess its just about being more thorough & having what would be akin to street-sense when navigating the web.

The beauty of simplicity

I am going to start simplifying my work.

I've been inspired by the wonderful Mark Pollard who manages to clearly articulate most of his arguments (here's an example).

I find myself struggling to demonstrate the volume of thinking that goes into an end product without putting a whole heap of physical evidence on the table. This is possibly due to an element of immaturity and a desire to prove my worth.

Irrespective, what I've learnt from Mark is that a clear articualtion that people just 'get' is much more powerful than a detail laden document that demonstrates one's 'smarts'.

This is just a bit awesome

I just stumbled across this awesome execution from Jay Jays (thanks bannerblog).

Jay Jays, whilst primarily a retail brand have found a creative way to engage with their consumers whilst communicating the core benefit of their offering "inexpensive wearable fashion".

The brand have mashed up music, dance and fashion (and they tell you this when you jump on their site) to provide an entertaining, interactive catalogue.

I do have a few questions for them though.

1. Why launch it AFTER So You Think You Can Dance has finished? Or if it was launched previosuly why haven't I seen it anywhere except on an industry blog?

2. You filmed it in 3D and are driving people in-store to get their glasses - have you harnessed any other 3D-ready platforms like cinema or TV to generate further awareness?

I guess the point here is that it will be a great shame if this little piece of awesomness, like so many other great digital ideas, goes missed by many because the balance between production and distribution budgets is not... well... balanced. There isn't even any SEM against it!

Is there any point doing something great if no-one gets to see it?

What's the value of integration?

A few months ago I was having a conversation with a colleague about integration. It was sparked due to me having been exposed to hours upon hours of fishing programs thanks to my other half. What I noticed was that while the producers had done an awesome job of integrating a 4WD brand into the program they obviously had a template.

I only noticed this because the episodes were running back to back but essentially Episode 1 (probably from the current series) featured Ford and the second featured Mitsubishi. For me, the viewing experience didn’t differ from episode to episode.

It made me realise that while the level of integration was likely deemed excellent by the marketers of each brand, it was probably of little value in terms of its impact on the consumer.

I remember at the time, stating that if the brand doesn’t have a truly unique role to play in-program then this cookie-cutter approach to integration is probably more harmful than of value – I’m guessing it is most damaging in terms of misattribution and differentiation.

Operating with this principle in mind, I wanted to recognise the awesomeness of Steggles current involvement in the NRL. The brand has carved out a sponsorship with the Roosters (funnily enough) but seemingly, not the NRL.

Some smart cookie has come up with a specific role for Steggles to play in their sponsorship which not only adds value to the brand but also to the viewer experience.

“For every point the Sydney Roosters beat their opposition by in the 2010 season, Steggles will donate $1,000 to a Charity Nest, while the Sydney Roosters will also contribute $250 per point.”
I would argue that more so than the brands that have paid for broadcast sponsorships Steggles is cutting through the clutter and emerging as a highly recognised brand. Further, I assume Steggles would not have been able to secure a broadcast sponsorship due to KFC’s involvement – nice one Steggles you’ve trumped the fast food joint in terms of exposure and meaningful involvement.

Steggles’ cause-marketing effort has received ample coverage during the live broadcasts without the regular 4 x 30sec spot content of other advertisers. The ‘Charity Nest’ program has put skin in the game, even for those matches that aren’t highly anticipated. They’ve capped the contribution at $250,000 (although I haven’t heard the commentators talk about this) which means its much cheaper than the rate card NRL sponsorship.

It goes to demonstrate that unique thinking and finding an actual role for the brand as opposed to tacking it onto a pre-existing template is what we should be striving for. I wish I was the one writing the effectiveness award for this idea at the end of the campaign!

Practise what you preach

This is brilliant. An Aussie creative agency, BCM have just launched the first Twebsite (according to mumbrella).

The profile in it itself has all you need to know about the agency, but what is really clever is that it demonstrates a willingness to practise what they preach in terms of social media and, also encourages clients and prospective clients to understand this emerging space.

This is not dissimilar to what American agency booneoakley did last year when launching their website as an interactive youtube video.

I think there is something to be said for agencies that use their own 'brand' indentity to tout their skills at promoting the identities of their clients. Not only does it generate positive PR within the industry but also demonstrates confidence in their own abilities.

Is this the first Twitter-com?

Today I have started following @needygirlfriend and @aloofboyfriend who's banal banter to each other has me cringing with thoughts of "OMG I've done that" and has me laughing with thoughts of "thank god I never said that out loud".

The 'couple' are new on Twitter and I'm not sure who they are, if they are actually a couple or if they have been planted by an advertiser.

In her bio @needygirlfriend states "I just think this relationship could use more holding." Whilst @aloofboyfriend aptly says "What's up? I'm just chillin'. Whatever."

Irrespective of who they are or where they came from, they are entertaining. It is like working at home with Gossip Girl on the TV (yes, guilty as charged).

What I find interesting about this pair is that if they have NOT been planted by an advertiser it is a brilliant way for a client to jump on board the Twitter bandwagon - by launching a Twitter 'TV' program.

It reminds me a little of the old school radio sitcoms where you were privy to the conversation but not to the body language or appearance of the actors.

The benefit is, that once you have recruited the followers you can speak to them at set times of the day and start to build up a routine. I wonder if this will happen with @aloofboyfriend and @needygirlfriend resulting in 'appointment to watch/hear Tweeting'.

How cool is this?

Its been awhile since I've posted because well... sadly work got in the way of curiosity. Anyway the new year has brought with it some breathing space and time to be curious again.

So - how cool is this?

I found it on Katie Chatfield's blog Get Shouty

It is a poster that requires interaction to complete. The back of the poster is covered with ink which you need to rub on the front side to reveal the image.

I think it gives a new meaning to print as an interactive medium.