Woolworths, Dixons – can big brands really live on in ‘Internet heaven’?

What’s your poison?

For malicious virus writers it’s virtually anything that’s breaking news. Most recently it’s been Google search results for the hype-rumoured death of rapper Kanye West and the managerial status of Harry Redknapp at Spurs, but in the past we’ve seen everyone from Michael Jackson to Barack Obama succumb to their wicked ways. Of course, their real tour-de-force was purporting to offer anti-virus software which was actually a virus in itself! If nothing else, should us marketers have a sneaking admiration or perhaps even learn something from their wily ways?

The sheer speed at which they appropriate and hijack today’s talking points and turn them into evil deeds? Any self respecting web designer would surely envy their click-through rates.  Obviously they’re going for the lowest common denominator, but it’s the seemingly instant ‘tapping into’ the zeitgeist that’s most impressive.

 The fact is, by the time many organisations latch onto to a web trend, it’s already upped and left the building. Take the way that ITV, YouTube and Simon Cowell missed out on the potential windfall from selling advertising against clips of Susan Boyle. Act in haste and reap the benefits, indeed.

It’s a boy. We’re getting divorced. She’s dead.

What exactly is/isn’t acceptable fodder for announcing via social media? A pregnancy – complete with scans on Facebook? A compressed critique of landlord failings via Twitter? A video diary of your kidney stone op via YouTube?

Marketers V psychologists. Let the battle commence!

Marketers could teach evolutionary psychologists a thing or two. That’s the inference of Geoffrey Miller’s latest book, Spent: Sex, Evolution and the Secrets of Consumerism. Well, at least according to Dylan Evans’ pithy review in Saturday’s edition of The Guardian.

It’s Miller’s, probably rather obvious, contention that marketers develop an intuitive understanding of consumer behaviour through their experience of selling real products. It’s this that could help evolutionary psychologists refine their theories of evolved preferences and sexual signaling. But hey, wait a minute Mr Marketer, that Nobel Prize isn’t quite in the bag yet! Evans also points to Miller’s argument that marketers tend to use overly simplistic models of human nature. Ones that remain uninformed by the past 20 years of research by evolutionary psychologists and behavioural ecologists. Indeed, Miller himself talks about marketers who, "…still believe that premium products are bought to display wealth, status and taste, and they miss the deeper mental traits such as kindness, intelligence and creativity".

So what’s the conclusion? Well, I guess that it’s a case of ‘could do better’. Miller gives what one might consider to be a salutary wake-up call. The truth is there’s a wealth of deep data at our disposal – especially from the wonderful world of digital. It’s real data too – not stuff conjured up in an evolutionary psychologist’s ivory tower. However, this needs to be combined with a much deeper understanding of what makes people tick. It’s simply not good enough to rely on the same outmoded stereotypical definitions of who our consumers are and what they are doing. As a discipline, marketing needs to draw upon much wider learnings if it is to discover humanity’s secret selling points!

Sue that tweet!

According to the BBC, a tenant who used Twitter to complain about mould in her Chicago apartment is being sued by the lettings agency. Is it really libellous though? As someone quite rightly points out, should a humble tweet be deemed as a form of publishing? Or, is it merely the 'electronic version of a coffee shop, where you can gripe privately but have your gripes overheard?'Twitter is fleeting and disposable by its very nature. Does this mean that all our pronouncements will now have to be run by our legal departments? If I tweet that my train isn't running on time will I have to consider being sued by Virgin? Or risk the wrath of McDonalds if I say their mozzarella dippers turn my stomach? Tread carefully fellow Tweeters, indeed.

Friends Reunited to be sold at £160m loss?

Poor old ITV. It dived into the world of social media just as the tide was turning. Now, according to the Mail on Sunday, it could be selling Friends Reunited for a paltry £15 million; that’s £160million less than it paid for it 4 years ago! FR was rather a one trick pony though, wasn’t it? Once you tracked down Biffer Bradock, shared reminiscences about Spotted Dick and dinner ladies it all kind of fizzled out; or, of course you had an affair with an old girlfriend/boyfriend! The real clincher was the rise of MySpace, Facebook and Bebo though – social media based very much in the here and now. But is this a salutary warning? How should we price these sites? Especially given that their life span may be as little as 5 years? How long before Facebook goes the same way? I’m already trying out Gather.com – the site that professes to not be about ‘…who you know or people from your past; it's about connecting with new people who share your interests and experiences today’. 

You’re revolting and it’s getting ugly for 118 800.

It seems like we’re all revolting and complaining on the web these days – from musicians making revenge song virals about broken guitars on major airlines to the latest privacy concerns over fledgling mobile phone directory 118 800. It’s a potent way to speak your mind – that’s for sure. It’s a PR nightmare too. If you come out screaming ‘boo hiss’ you’re adding fuel to the flames. It’s your customers talking and you’d better be listening! However, are all these campaigns really being instigated with the best intentions? The ones against 118 800 were founded on plenty of mischievous mistruths e.g. that every single UK mobile number is in the directory and that our kids are going to get direct cold calls night and day. Isn’t there a little bit of new found revelry in the power of the little man? After all those years being at the whim of the big brands we’re sparking revolutions here, there and everywhere.

Michael Jackson rises again

Last night global web traffic rose a third above normal – peaking during the moving memorial service to Michael Jackson. However, it was nowhere near the unprecedented surge following the announcement of his passing. It was then that people clamoured to be the first to pass on the shocking news and fans descended into mass hysteria. It’s all been relatively restrained though – especially in an age when we get in a lather over any old Boyle, Goody or Potts. His ‘cult of personality’ seems no more extreme than any other. What’s more interesting is the fact that last night was further evidence of a burgeoning new era for the Internet. Thanks to the ubiquitous I-phone, Facebook, Twitter et al, consumers are becoming directors and disseminating information with much more immediacy than the TV networks. Most importantly, they’re putting their own personal spin on things. Something which mass media can never do. What about the question of ‘over coverage’ though? Yes Jackson did push much more important stories out of the limelight. But, like or loathe him, this was one the major cultural figures of our era – so perhaps, for once, all the fuss was justified.

Hey, blogger – it’s time to reveal yourself!

No longer can we hide under the cloak of anonymity; bravely publishing our pithy pronouncements from behind witty pseudonyms. Thanks to yesterday’s landmark High Court ruling it’s clear that we no longer have the right to keep our identities secret. The case itself centred around prize-winning blogster, the NightJack. His damning indictment of politicians and police officers made it a regular ‘must read’. However, the judge ruled that he had no ‘reasonable expectation to anonymity because blogging is essentially a public rather than a private activity… and it would seem to be quite legitimate for the public to be told who was choosing to make quite serious criticisms’. Does this stifle free speech? Obviously it depends on the blog. We’ll gravitate towards certain blogs because of the star author e.g. advertising industry stalwarts. But others are appealing because they’re penned by anonymous whistle-blowers reporting from the inside. I guess it’s a thin line. If someone's going to criticise they’re eventually going to have to stand up and be counted. But if we stifle them from the outset, will they speak out at all?

Webster’s Millions

It’s official, at around 10.22 today, ‘Web 2.0’ will become the millionth English word or phrase to enter the language! No longer just a whispered refrain for us digital types… it has, apparently, crossed over into common usage. What does it all mean though? Well, probably nothing. For a start, many linguists claim that we hit the million mark eons ago. English is, after all, top of the hit parade for words – with at least double that of any other language. Of course, half of those date back to when it became the language of science. It’s also exceedingly popular and resilient. A point that some put down to the fact that it’s the easiest language to speak badly! However, the good news is that ‘Web 2.0’ is now well and truly centre stage – after so many years languishing as a matter of conjecture. But can the debate be finally laid to rest – that it does, indeed, refer to a next generation for the Internet not just ‘Web 1.0’ with slightly fancier clothes on?     

Bing it or bin it?

Back in the day we marvelled at ‘search’. It was like questioning the all-seeing internet oracle and being granted a whole world of knowledge. How we laughed when it threw up weird fuzzy-logic responses. Remember the rumour that the world would end if you typed ‘google’ into Google!? Not any more. Now you want the one result you’re looking for, and you want it now! Enter Bing – the new search, or should I say ‘decision’, engine from Microsoft. Its aim? To shift work from consumers to search engines – actually answering more queries on the search engine page itself, without having to click through to the result. You enter ‘weather’, it’ll give you an instant forecast based on your IP address/location. You enter ‘flights’, it’ll tell you whether the fares are likely to go up by tomorrow morning. Is it really so new though? Google already offers much of this functionality. Also, I think it might get on my nerves after a while. Like some over keen minion that jumps to conclusions before I’ve even finished a sentence. If the inference is wrong, I’ll have to start all over again anyway. Ho hum. They are throwing a multi-million dollar campaign at it though. Will it be enough to make people switch from Google though? We’ll have to wait and see.

Make millions with Twitter

It’s the eternal dream – turning everyday Tweets into pounds and pence. Well, Kogi, a little known barbeque company in the States may have the answer. Basically they’ve got BBQ juggernauts chugging around selling fancy tacos to hungry pedestrians. The big trouble is that they only have two vehicles and no one quite knows where they’re going to pop up next. The answer? Tweet people of course! It’s turned them into an overnight mini food cult sensation. There’s all the thrill of the chase – where will they pop up next – as well as the secret insider thrill of being the first to know that today’s special is spicy pickled cabbage! One might say that it’s the perfect marriage of fleeting disposable messaging with fleeting disposable food. The company is also small enough to come across as a nice cottage industry rather than 'a big nasty global company getting in on this nice parochial social media thing’. It’s all very reminiscent of the early days of rave – when one little text would have a thousand students heading for the nearest warehouse or field. In fact, I’ve just logged on to find that Kogi have taken the concept one stage further – with a tie-up with the Bone Marrow Registry. You pop along and get a free bite to eat in return for a little talk about signing-up to the register. Could any company pull off a similar trick over here though? Innocent? McDonalds? Wall’s? Starbucks? www. kogibbq.com/ http://twitter.com/kogibbq

Richard & Judy lose it

The law of diminishing returns has struck again – with Richard & Judy’s trek from This Morning to Channel 4 to digital cul-de-sac coming to an abrupt end. The pair’s show on Watch will end in July and there’s talk of them pursuing separate projects.It was always a brave move; but was it foolhardy too? Should any celebrity really expect their fans to follow them wherever they pop up on the digital landscape? They certainly weren’t lacking in big name guests – everyone from Mirren to Rourke. However, my guess is that their core audience are probably people who still only have the five channels. If it’s a choice between a free edition of Paul O’Grady and a pay-per-view Richard and Judy, they’re always going to plump for the former. That said, long before R&J, Clive James successfully took his own brand of wry interviews online – with a succession of high profile intellectual conversations. The show is now in its sixth series and streamed through the much easier to find Times website. Maybe it’s something Melvyn Bragg will be carefully mulling over with the imminent demise of the South Bank Show?      

Facebook Feeding Frenzy

Facebook 2.0? Not quite, but today’s the day that it looks set to open up access to the ‘feed’. What we’re talking about is the rich real time data that developers would give their eye-teeth to get their hands on; the stuff we’re all sharing with our fellow Facebook users. It’s important because it ups the ante in the ongoing battle with Twitter. After all, search the net, and you’ll already find a plethora of news aggregation sites based on the most popular things people are Tweetering on about.  Knowing what people are sharing is one thing, but imagine filtering it by geographic or company location too. The big question is precisely how much of the feed will be opened up and how it will sit with thorny privacy issues.  What’s to be applauded though is the fact that they’re acting quickly to assimilate the best of competitor social media. People’s attention spans wane quickly online, so anything that sustains interest or reinvigorates has got to be welcomed.

Susan Boyle is bigger than Bush, Obama and Palin!

It’s true. According to Visible Measures, the unexpected star of Britain’s Got Talent has received 47.7 million online views and 125,000+ comments. This trounces views of the Bush vs Shoes incident (33.2m views), Tina Fey’s impression of Sarah Palin (34.2m) and Obama’s victory night speech (18.5m).  What’s it all mean for the future of light entertainment? For a start, it’s further evidence of our insatiable appetite for the plucky underdog – John Sergeant, Paul Potts et al. It probably also points to our desire for a new shared visual experience. After all, very few of us watch the same TV programme at the same time these days  - it’s all Sky+ and iPlayer. Nowadays isn’t it all about gathering round a colleague’s computer and reliving the same clip together? It’s the modern day equivalent of sitting in front of the wireless – collectively enjoying a piece of entertainment and then critiquing as a group. Of course, it might just mean that we’re a bunch of shameless voyeurs with too much time on our hands!