Tag: twitter

5 things we’ve kept from the ‘90s

Posted in Books, Movies, Religion & Philosophy (sorta), TV, Webby Internet StuffTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 45 Comments

Oh, how we loved poking fun at the ‘80s! But when the things we hated most about them were brought back by American Apparel and possibly Marc Jacobs, old was new again. So I’m convinced that we’ll come to a similar conclusion about the ‘90s because they really weren’t so bad, and, if we want to get all sentimental about it, they helped us build the new millennium. Plus, good or bad, we actually held on to some ‘90s stuff. Here’s proof.

1. The a-ha! ending

What do The Usual Suspects, Fight Club and The Sixth Sense have in common? An unexpected, what the?, second-viewing-required ending. If anything, these movies improved the suspense genre. Alfred Hitchcock was a strong enough storyteller to tell you who the killer was right away and make you itch in discomfort until they got caught. But replicating that experience has been a challenge. And then writers realized they just had to be more clever to build a better mystery. The best example is probably Memento, but the tradition carries on with pictures like The Machinist and Shutter Island.

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

2. Here, queer & (getting) used to it

There’s nothing pretty about it: right up until the ’90s, gay and lesbian characters in movies or novels were often crazy, obsessed with the object of their affection, and/or just plain evil. AIDS gave people one more thing to blame on homosexuality, but when hetero women started contracting the disease, we couldn’t generalize these things any longer. That’s when we had to acknowledge the LGBT community, its budding voice and its rights. Then, on the heels of pop artist Keith Haring’s death, Madonna went into public service. She commented on religiously-backed bigotry and sexism in “Like a Prayer,” encouraged women to demand an orgasm in “Express Yourself,” celebrated/stole a gay club dance trend with “Vogue,” and hired mostly queer dancers for her Blond Ambition tour, as documented in Truth or Dare. That’s how the ‘90s started, and those sensibilities about the LGBT community remained in our consciousness. Though homophobia is still present and marring equality to the tune of Proposition 8, it didn’t quell Ellen’s eventual coming-out or the popularity of Will & Grace and The L Word. Today, we’ve replaced the term “lifestyle choice” with “orientation” (but we could still do better), and more people accept that sexuality, in all its forms, is biologically assigned. Maybe it’s because we dealt with so many LGBT issues in the ‘90s and part of the 2Ks that Lady Gaga’s butch-on-girl kiss in “Telephone” is a relative non-issue now.  Certainly compared to how people reacted to “Justify my Love” in 1991. There’s still a whole lot of progress to be made. But we’re lightyears away from 1989, thank goodness.

3. Political correctness

Having hoorayed for gays, it must be said that the ‘90s also introduced a whole slew of new terms to replace old words that were borne of racism, chauvinism and general power structures that no longer reflected our new equal & empowered reality. I’m not saying it was a bad thing, and I couldn’t because I’m a woman. I personally benefitted from these changes. Still, the double-edged sword of political correctness is that it essentially masks old views instead of replacing them. A word can alter your language about an issue, and that’s certainly important. But it takes conviction – not just vocabulary – to create a revolution. That’s why words like “tolerance” have always irked me. It means putting up with something you don’t like, when, especially in the case of discrimination, it’s the dislike that needs to change.

4. “I’ve never been to me”

This is probably one of my least favourite ‘90s hangers-on, but it’s so popular that I have to address it. From John Gray to Alanis Morissette, if there’s one thing the ‘90s taught us, it’s that people in the westernized world have the luxury of spending a lot of time on their own problems. Enter Self-Help, which has its own bookstore section, right in between “Psychology” and “Cooking.” It taught us phrases like “scarred for life” and “you can’t love others until you love yourself.” Since the ‘90s, this trend has gotten bigger and, I would argue, more dangerous. Case in point: The Secret is still riding high on Oprah’s endorsement, and it teaches little more than you will get rich just by sitting on your ass and thinking positive thoughts. Why? Because the universe owes you. Which is exactly like saying that children toiling in sweat shops could change their fate if only they thought of bunnies and flowers instead of, you know, eating.

5. The Internet

Okay, so the Internet, as a technology, has actually been around since the ‘60s, but it wasn’t used by the public until 1991, and it only became commercialized and widespread in the mid-‘90s. If Twitter’s taught us anything, it’s that the way people interact with your invention is often more important than the invention itself. Although the Internet has all but replaced the library, abbreviated your TV and usurped the Associated Press, its most considerable achievement, I believe, was to make Playboy kind of soft core.

Laugh if you will, but back in the day, this machine was the shizzle.

Coming up: things the ‘90s can bloody well keep to themselves!

Hello, audience! This is all about you.

Posted in Advertising & MarketingTagged , , , , , Leave a comment

In the little bit of time I worked at Cossette, one of the senior copywriters took me under her wing. Perhaps because she picked up on my insecurities about having gone from rinky-dink agency to big-time ad firm in one leap. Or maybe because we had the whole “writes English but was brought up French” thing in common. In any case, we were assigned to work together on a project, and when I made changes that involved turning an imperative into a passive, she immediately vetoed it. I wondered why, so she explained that our project was instructional. You have to use the imperative because it provokes a response, and that’s what you need when the the people you’re talking to are learning something. “Know your audience,” she said.

I loved two things about that sentence.

First, in the ad world, you’re constantly referring to targets, markets and demographics. Rather scientific categorizations, necessary though they are. On the flip side, the word “audience” doesn’t connote the idea of people; it very plainly spells it out. There’s no separation between yourself, people and the thing you use to measure them. It’s just you and the people looking at you.

And second, it’s not enough to acknowledge your audience. You also have to say, “Hey! You, over there, in the white t-shirt. I know who you are!”

Since then, I left the ad world, returned to journalism, and then found myself kind of doing both. The two professions aren’t as different as people think they are. In both cases, you have to be extremely mindful of the people watching you, because what you say weaves itself into who they think they are, and what they think they know. The method is different, but the outcome is pretty much the same.

Yet, like anyone who work in words, you end up doing some stuff just for yourself. You can’t help it. They’re your words, your expressions, your choices, and your stream of consciousness. If you can’t take ownership of these things,  you’ll be as compelling as a dictionary.

Here’s the real kicker, though. Without your audience, your words don’t exist. Sure, they’re still in that dictionary, but they don’t come from you or from anywhere, therefore you don’t exist. Not as a writer, anyway.

And I tell you what: I was more or less comfortable with that arrangement until Roger Ebert started following me on Twitter, and took it upon himself to link to my blog. The whole thing boosted my readership and followers by a hefty 500%. And just like that, I had to wave goodbye to self-indulgence.

Of course I’m flattered that Roger Ebert, who I’ve been reading for about 12 years, would even give my blog a second glance. It’s just that now I’m faced with an audience I didn’t have before, and I don’t know anything about you. Naturally, I’m grateful. I write this blog because I want to reach out to people to begin with. But if my blog stats are any indication, there’s a good chance that the majority of you who were reading me pre-Ebert were my friends. (By the way, thanks buds!)

So here’s a challenge. Why’n’t you tell me a little about yourself? If I’m not just writing for my friends anymore, I’d like to know why you stopped by.

On that note, Roger Ebert, an avid Twitter user, has made it a point to link to many blogs (after paying them a visit). Today, he led us to Miss Banshee’s blog, which, on top of being hilarious, balances confession and control. She really puts it all out there, but she doesn’t name names. Know what I mean?

I wish I could do that, but, if I’m honest, I don’t think I could even out the tensions as delicately as she does. Not until I get a better look at you, anyhow.

Hello, my little niches

Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Webby Internet StuffTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , 18 Comments

A couple of weeks ago, I came across this nifty video, which I feel compelled to share.

In this panic-stricken economy, many companies are looking to new media for a solution to their branding problems. Some people found it: Twitter. I’ll admit that I have a Twitter account, and I’m not nay-saying the tool. However, like the above video argues, I’m reticent to latch on to this platform while it’s still in its “escalation” phase. This means that the buzz is greater than the quality of the content, and use of the platform is still largely experimental.

Still, certain marketing luminaries believe this is the answer, and I haven’t experienced many discussions about where Twitter, in particular, is headed. To wit, when I asked Scott Monty, head of Social Media at Ford, to share insights about how he feels Twitter will evolve once the buzz has passed, he had this to say: “No one knew how the telephone or email would grow, but look at them now.” When as I asked him if he could be more specific, trying to come across as not a skeptic, but rather an interested party (in his defense, probably inadequately, since this back-and-forth was via Twitter), he replied: “As I implied – akin to the phone & email. It’ll be a part of daily life.” [ed. note: Scott Monty has since personally responded to this blog entry and provided helpful feedback to the discussion. Please take the time to read below.]

Meanwhile, marketing speaker David Meerman Scott feels that social media is the best way for brands to merit their customers’ loyalty. In one of his blogs, he argues that you can “buy” attention through advertising, “beg” for it through PR, “buy” it with sales, and “earn” it with social media. While he’s not explicitly saying that conventional marketing methods should disappear, his rhetoric appears to be in favour of social media. [ed. note: David Meerman Scott has clarified his stance on marketing methods in a comment below. Please take the time to read it, and by all means, visit his blog. We might not agree on all things, but he’s pretty gosh-darned brilliant.]

Maybe I’m too cautious, which is why I’m reluctant to experiment with something that’s still, in my opinion, an infant.  Though some might think me a scoffer, I’m actually looking forward to seeing how Twitter will grow, and especially what it’ll mean to use it intelligently. For now, I feel that David Meerman Scott’s theory seems to apply rather suitably to individuals (e.g. celebrities), but to what extent does it help products and services (e.g. cars)? There’s also something desperate about a beach ball manufacturer creating a Twitter account to tell anyone who’s listening what’s playing on their iPod, in an attempt to humanize themselves. During a recent speaking engagement for airline companies, Satisfly CEO and founder Sergio Mello questioned the effectiveness of social media when a company or brand has over 500,000 followers. How do you keep that many people on message? How do you maintain an intimate connection with them?

And really, how do you keep customers satisfied and engaged in your brand? It used to be about uniqueness, quality. Now, it seems to be more about consistency. Delivering on the promise, rather than promising to deliver. While I’m still unconvinced about Twitter, I can’t deny that customers’ proximity to a company has largely increased, and that really informs one’s experience of a brand. Personally, I’m all about the Mom ‘n’ Pop shops because they know who I am and can customize their services accordingly. Isn’t Twitter just providing a macrocosm of the very same idea?

So all this got me thinking about a company with a marketing and business model I’ve long admired: Lomography.

Why Lomography rocks

There are many things that I love about Lomography. First, and most importantly, they’re talking to a very specific market: lo-fi photography lovers (amateurs and pros alike). They know who they are, they know who their market is, and they don’t try to please the masses. They’re quite content to deliver a quality product and service to their niche.

Long before Myspace, Facebook, and now Twitter, Lomography’s website existed primarily to support the Lomo community. When you get any Lomo product, you’re encouraged to create a personal profile on lomography.com for free and upload photos regularly, sharing them with like-minded folk who can add you as friends and become part of your international, photographic network. In fact, the website served this purpose even back in 2002, ages before we’d even started to identify “community-building” as a 2.0 activity (which, incidentally, was more like a 1.0 idea).

What’s on the homepage? Though it’s undergone a recent redesign, the basic principles are still there. New and exciting products (which, as a Lomographer, you’ll be excited about; it’s a simple preacher-choir equation), photos taken by fellow Lomographers, a Lomo profile of the day (inciting visits to someone you might like to include in your network), and the latest “magazine” (which is really a blog) article. What I like about this set-up, so far, is that Lomography doesn’t waste any time with boring introductions. You’re just thrown into the fire, with no precursor, and they figure you have the wherewithal to know how to find what you’re looking for. If you’re not a newbie to the Lomo world, you know exactly what’s in front of you, and you’re already salivating.

But there are more functions of the site that are interesting. Besides being able to create profiles, Lomography also has a series of incentives for its community. For one, there are many ways for any person to win prizes, including monthly “missions” (basically photo contests), having your profile highlighted as “home of the day,” and submitting useful tips for handling certain cameras. Rewards usually entail either Lomo products (usually cameras) or Lomo piggie points (coupons you can use to get rebates at the Lomo online shop). What’s notable is that the incentives are rather minimal, when you think about it, and yet, participation is quite sizeable. Plus, each incentive-based activity actually promotes the community. A “home of the day” generates thousands of views to your profile, and interest in your photos. Contest winners are always interviewed, again generating views to the victor’s page. It seems less about winning and more about seeing new photos and meeting the person who took them.

But what I really love are the microsites. Lomography manufactures and distributes many lo-fi cameras, and for most of these, there’s a microsite that reflects the camera’s “personality,” complete with a nifty photo gallery displaying the given camera’s range. When you consider how many cameras Lomography distributes, it’s actually a tall order. But there you have it: Lomography is as devoted to their cause as their customers. If you need further convincing, check out the microsites for the Supersampler, the Lomolitos, and the Minox. What’s more, each of these microsites is constantly being redesigned to include new photos, usually submitted by the community.

And then there’s the fun part: buying a Lomo camera. Why is it fun? It starts with the packaging. Every Lomo camera comes in a unique package that, once again, mirrors the camera’s idiosyncrasies. Plus, there are special editions to some of the more popular models, which means you’ll again find neat new “containers” for the content. As the proud owner of 6 Lomographic cameras, I distinctly recall the package each came in (to the point where I had trouble getting rid of them). My Holga came in a lovely box, with yellow and white rays, right out of 1940s communist propaganda posters, and a gorilla planted square in the middle. Why a gorilla? Because once you open the box, a leaflet explained that the Holga is a big, clumsy piece of plastic that somehow takes some of the most beautiful pictures imaginable. My Colorsplash came in a translucent, multicoloured plastic box. And my Diana came in an action-figure style container, with the camera wrapped in moulded plastic, surrounded by designed cardboard.

Then there’s what’s inside the package. Each camera I’ve had the pleasure to purchase comes with the usual warranty and instruction manual, with an important difference. The “how-to” is written by a bonafide copywriter, who really underscores what makes the product fun,  rendering the whole thing accessible. In one funny (and honest) example, the Holga instructions warned that the little wire that controls the “automatic vs. bulb” switch usually breaks after one year, but that this adds to the camera’s excitement. However, what really makes me want to buy Lomo cameras are the little picture books inside each box. These neat little books show off some lovely photos taken with the camera you just bought, providing enchantment, inspiration, and insight. I particularly like the photo book that comes with the Holga starter kit; it boasts eye-popping visuals while explaining the techniques behind them.

Recently, I got a Diana F+, which came with a little photo book, as well as a thicker, hardcover book, containing short stories and more pictures. In this hardcover book, Lomography states that the content will be ever-changing to include new stories and photos by fellow Lomographers. What a delightful way to engage the community…again!

Lessons from Lomography

  1. Don’t try to be everything to everybody: Know your audience, and embrace it.
  2. Spend time making your product rock: Urban Outfitters first started to distribute Lomo cameras because they tend to like all things retro, but Lomo’s success at Urban Outfitters is largely due to the cool and fetching packaging, and the repeat consumerism is due to satisfaction.
  3. Make your product the incentive: If your product is great, you won’t need to lower your price or host a contest. Apple/Mac provides the best example.
  4. If you host a contest, you don’t need to give everything away: People like to participate in contests for the chance to win, and regardless of whether or not they’ll win.
  5. Redesign and refresh to reflect the evolution of your community: And I’m not talking Facebook’s fear of Twitter, and changing its homepage to look more like it. I mean ways of making it easier for your community to find what it’s looking for.
  6. Never assume that your product is perfect: Be open to improving it as necessary. It tells your community that you’re listening.
  7. Be honest: While you can strive for perfection in your product, most things aren’t built that way. Rather than skirt the issue, why not admit to the flaws (like the Holga shutter wire), and remind people of the complementary benefits. There are many folks out there running around with non-automatic Holgas, and they don’t seem to mind. Barack Obama’s transparency also comes to mind.
  8. Reflect your product’s personality: That’s essentially what a brand is supposed to be. If your brand were a person, what would it say? How would it act? Lomography products are fun, and so is the brand. If your product isn’t fun, no biggie. That doesn’t mean it can’t be interesting, and it most certainly doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its own unique story.
  9. Don’t try to control your community: Just give it the proper means to propagate itself, and it’ll find a way to take care of the rest. Any interference on your part will be ill-received, not to mention futile.
  10. Build your community in a way that makes sense for that market: A photographic product should allow users to create their own photo galleries and view other people’s pictures easily. It’s not rocket science.
  11. Market your product in a way that makes sense for that product: Twitter isn’t the answer for everyone or everything. It’s a tool, like many other tools. Incidentally, Lomography doesn’t advertise anywhere, but it’s built such a solid word-of-mouth machine that it doesn’t need to. Still, we can’t forget that because its community thrives in and revolves around photo galleries, beefing up the website to support this function made sense for this product. This doesn’t work for every product, especially those that don’t have much to offer in terms of an online experience.

Parting thoughts

Traditional marketing methods still work like magic for certain products. TV advertising, for example, are still an effective way to get a message across about cars, since you can see the car in action, which, due to its mobile nature, makes sense. The fact is, each brand or product requires a customized solution. Each is different, and each is valuable. So to nay-say conventional marketing activities, at this point, is somewhat heretic.

Ooopsy: Democratized marketing for yuppies

Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Webby Internet StuffTagged , , , , , , , , , , 3 Comments

When I worked in advertising, some of us were hardly left indifferent by this ad:

Then came the buzzword “viral.” And a new game began, and the leaders were Têtes à Claques, Digg, YouTube and company.

Then came the client requests. “We want a viral campaign,” or its fraternal twin, “Let’s go viral with this!”

In the advertising world, we struggled to comply, because while the kind folk at Ogilvy, who created the hugely successful Dove Evolution campaign, hoped that their ad would impact millions, the viral part of the equation was mostly an accident. The campaign was good, and that’s why people paid any attention to it. But there’s plenty of good stuff out there (I know; I send it all the time), and people don’t always respond to it. So really, it was a crapshoot, and it always is.

At the end of the day, it’s the people – we mere mortals – who decide what’s popular. And how that’s decided is based on an infinite number of variables that make it virtually impossible to predict how a campaign will fare. The other night, my sort of boss and I were at a fundraiser, and we talked about Twitter, Stumbleupon, Facebook and friends. All of them tools that can be used to spread the “virus” about a company or campaign. All of them left up to the user to exploit. My sort of boss said he liked how the Twitter people were honest about the fact that they don’t have a business model. I made the point that it’s probably smarter for them to think of a business model after someone uses Twitter in a clever way that nobody’s thought of, and subsequently makes tons of money from it. The viral potential of any site or its components hugely depends on what applications are available on a site, and how these allow people to express themselves (or simply take in information they’re interested in).

The fact is, even developers don’t fully realize the potential of their medium until a creative user does something that even the developers hadn’t factored into the experience. Take Myspace, the evolved Friendster and Facebook prototype. At this juncture, it’s become a hub for artists to gain support and market themselves, especially musicians. Yet when the music player was made available, the point was to share music you, the user, liked. By accident, musicians began to use the hub to promote themselves. Not a bad idea, once users thought of it. Then, it was only a matter of time (and not too much of it) before the Myspace guys were able to build a business model from it…and for ad agencies who create spots for iPod to select the next track for the next commercial.

Let’s use “25 Things” as another example, the chain letter that’s been widely circulated in the Facebook realm. What made this different from other similar chain letters where you answer questions that allow us to know more about you? In this particular format, users got to reveal the facts they wanted to reveal, and at the length of their choosing. No questions. Just answers. The fact that users had complete control over it made it hugely popular.

What can we glean from all this? Viral is unpredictable. But people are creatures of habit, and a conceited bunch at that. Give them the opportunity to  talk in more detail about themselves, and with the least amount of effort, and you’ve got a winning formula.

Maybe.