Entries in anti-social (4)

Thursday
01Oct2009

This is not a social media blog

I have been struggling for content a little on this blog recently, despite having more time on my hands. As I write in my bio, I have never felt that social media is the only topic worth discussing, despite the fact that I am increasingly positioning myself as an expert in that space. But it's not the only space I have worked in, unlike anyone who has "guru" or "ninja" attached to their title. And that's why this blog needs to be more than social media. There are enough blogs out there discussing it, and most of them are redundant. As Rebecca Thorman writes:

Stop writing about social media. Talking about how Twitter is or isn’t an effective networking tool is boring. Really, freaking boring.

I read a lot of posts on social media hoping someone will say something new, but that never happens. We need to stop masturbating to what the tool is and start using it to see how it works.

This blog post is from March, by the way. And still relevant. Anyone who blogs should strive for something that is readable and relevant months (even years) later.  How many blog posts were wasted on "Twitter-killer" Plurk? How many will be written on Google Wave? Just this week, even Amber Naslund reached out to her readers for ideas that matter to them, due to the circular nature of the social media conversation.

My goal here is to write something different than everyone else, rather than recycle the same conversations and adapt them to whatever new technology emerged in the last week. I've have always believed in the difference between Soundbytes and Solutions, and I'll continue to apply that ideology to this blog. If I'm not writing, it's not because I'm not paying attention to what's happening in marketing, new media, etc. It's because I'm waiting to write something that I think is interesting, rather than just creating noise.

So bear with me as I continue to re-think the types on content I write about here. And stop by my Posterous blog, which is one of the top reasons I don't write here as much nowadays.

Friday
21Aug2009

Breaking through the clutter with snail mail

(And, yes, I'm serious.)

A few weeks ago, I received the Ambassor Manifesto for the Maker's Mark Ambassador Club. (I had signed up about a month prior.)

I don't get much mail -- most of my bills and important things are sent to me electronically, and the rest is a minimal amount of junk mail. So when I received the Manifesto, it didn't have a lot of competition. I took a close look at the design and actually read through it. It has a rustic feel straight out of Kentucky, with language that makes you feel like part of an exclusive club. Honestly, though, it was the stock it was printed on I liked the most. It's one thing to see a well-branded item, but actually feeling it (in the tactile sense) adds to the experience.

So why did I find this so interesting and refreshing? Because I don't get a lot of mail anymore.  Email, Facebook, Twitter, banner ads, microsites -- almost all brands have gone digital.  My laptop receives more digital ads in a day than I receive by mail in a month.  That means an intriguing piece of snail mail stands out, because it is unique to receive a smart, tactile piece of branding.  (See Chris Brogan's and Joseph Jaffe's reactions after receiving pitches by snail mail).

Brands are always trying to break through the clutter, and one of the most cluttered spaces right now is digital media, where they are all fighting for your eyeballs on email, on their Facebook page, at their online community, and on and on.  So many have abandoned snail mail to the point that the medium has come full circle -- it actually FEELS unique when I receive something interesting from them in my mailbox.

As with digital, the rules of Permission Marketing still apply.  But once you have my permission, there's a lot less competition to get your message heard.

Tuesday
11Aug2009

The Most Exclusive Content is not Online

With the help of mobile phones, more public wireless and services like Facebook, twitter and Foursquare, more people are lifestreaming than ever before (whether they realize it or not).  The New York Times brings us this piece: Party On, but No Tweets.  An excerpt:

In an era, when a stray gripe about your boss can land you on an industry blog, when waking up hung over can frantically send you to Facebook to untag your name from photos of the previous night’s frosting-wrestling contest, when shots of you in unflattering jeans become part of your permanent Google search results, there are signs that some are tired of living their lives on the Web.

Social technologies are changing the way people communicate online, but they are also changing the way that people communicate offline.  And, not surprisingly, there's a bit of a backlash and a desire to get back to the basics of face-to-face communication.  There's an increasing need for people to unplug from the web, and even a movement in from cafes in New York to limit wireless access for laptop users.

I have written before about the brands differentiating themselves by not being social.  We're starting to see both businesses and individuals striving to create their own self-contained social environments -- one that doesn't spill out onto the web.  This doesn't make them anti-social.  It just a realignment of priorities: not everyone should have online access to your offline experiences, just as your offline friends shouldn't be subjected to lulls in conversation while you tweet about your meal.

The most exclusive content doesn't exist online to top-tier members of your community or social graph.  In fact, the most exclusive content doesn't exist online at all.

Friday
05Jun2009

Anti-social as a differentiator

As brands continue their mad rush into social media -- building customer communities, tweeting with their customers and urging people to join their group on Facebook -- Influx Insights brings up a valid point: "Should Corporations be Nasty?".

The more you Tweet and Facebook friend your consumers, there's always the potential that you loose your point of view and edge because you're so busy trying to be "them" and cater to their every whim.

If every brand is following the same social formula -- "add me", "join me" and "what do you think of us?!" -- do the brands that don't become the differentiators?

To create a metaphor:

The social brand is the guy in student government. He knows everyone. He's friendly, he's outgoing and just about everyone likes him. There are no surprises. But some people may be more interested in the guy chain-smoking across the street from the high school who doesn't give a crap what you think.

Our perception of brands works the same way. For some, there is more value in being sought out vs. readily available.