What is Twitter? No Really….

There are lots of people trying to define what Twitter really is.  Those who love it call it the best communication platform since the telephone….those who don’t love it call it….well basically they don’t call it anything…they just don’t use it.  It has been called at one time or the other a personal news feed, a sophisticated advertising medium, the next generation sms, a spam device, etc…..  It is of no surprise really, to find that all these definitions work.  It really depends on what you tweet about and what kind of followers you have.

What do I mean by that?  Well lets say you only tweet things that happen to you.  I have people I follower (usually not for long) who tweet about everything they do…no humour, no insight, just banal day to day activities.  To these people, and the losers/voyeurs/fans who follow them, this is a personal news feed.

If you promote your product or service or retweet a product of service, then you are using Twitter as an ad board.  If you use it primarily to tweet with your friends to arrange meetings or bitch about something, then you are using Twitter like an email or group sms system, albeit a really really unreliable one (I know the Fail Whale logo better than the Proctor and Gambol one…).  If you tweet personal insights or on specific topics or even if all you do is aggregate all related information on a specific topic and retweet them….then you are using it as an online forum.

Followers fall into three main categories.  Those that follow you because you follow back…and you don’t know them from Adam.  Those that follow you because they are your friends or acquaintances in the real world.  Finally those that follow you because they actually think you have something interesting to say (fans!).  So it should now be obvious what Twitter means to both parties.  In the first instance, because there is no social tie between members other than the tenuous link based upon mutual following, Twitter is a spam board.  In the second instance, because your Twitter universe comprises only friends, then Twitter is primarily a glorified sms system (a heck of a lot cheaper than using the group sms function which props up the business of most telcos).  In the final instance, Twitter is a powerful tool in brand building and communication.  Unfortunately, while many companies and individuals aspire to this, few if any actual attain this e-marcom nirvana.

The truth is, most of us have a combination of the kind of tweets we tweet, and the kind of followers we have.  I would find it hard to believe that all those following Ashton Kutcher are his fans…most I would suppose follow him because of the hype.  Following CNN on the other hand is a totally different proposition.  There is some real value in the tweets a major news agency sends out.  Unfortunately, given the speed of the internet, I usually only check CNN tweets to confirm information that had already been tweeted elsewhere….and I mean hours ago (MJ’s death was a classic example.  It was tweeted close to 5 hours before the first major news agency confirmed it).

So in a way, the power resides with you to determine what Twitter is or can be.  The beauty of these simple platforms is that you are only confined by your imagination as to how it can be used for your personal benefit….and if you run out of ideas…..tweet me at #hhtong……

Hsien-Hui Tong

Why are we so quick to rundown a teen’s opinion about social media?

Yesterday, the Guardian in the UK published a “research” report by a 15 year old intern from Morgan Stanley listing out how teens consume media.  It created a storm of controversy with opinions swinging from “revelation of the decade” to “piece of worthless trash”.  As a quick summary, part of his “earthshaking” revelation was:

–  Most teenagers are not regular listeners of radio

–  Teenagers do not watch a consistent amount of TV..it depends on the season (programs)

–  No teenager of his acquaintance regularly reads the newspaper

–  Wii is the most popular gaming console

–  Most teenagers have Twitter accounts but don’t use it regularly as they prefer sms being more private and cheaper

–  Most teenagers are reluctant to pay for music.  Even iTunes is too expensive.

–  Teenagers tend to go to the cinema more frequently in their early teens than in their later teens

–  Teens prefer mobiles with large capacity for music (Sony Ericsson was cited as an example)

The problem with this report is that it lacked any supporting data to demonstrate its validity.  Critics were quick to say that the lack of supporting information meant that it wasn’t possible to validate any of the statements made.  In this era of superficial data gathering to support spurious facts, it was said that the lack of any real research data showed that none of the statements made had any basis in fact.

To these so-called experts, I say bull.  Having been a data analyst before, I know how flimsy the premise for drawing any real conclusion from a set of data is.  There are too many inherent biaises in data gathering, not just relating to the where and how.  In the paradox of Schroedinger’s Cat, the act of observation changed the outcomes.  Similarly, the act of gathering this information inherently changes the conclusions that can be made from the data.  Ironically those who were the sharpest critics were those who had the most to lose (so called Social Media experts and Twitter specialists).  Twitter is such an anonymous application that I would question very closely any conclusions drawn from research data on Twitter.  For instance, it is not difficult to create many Twitter accounts and put in any age you want, then to join a service like WeFollow.com and quickly accumulate thousands of followers, none of whom are of any value.

So lets examine the boy’s statement impartially as logical thinking adults:

–  Why and under what circumstances would teenagers listen to the radio?  As an adult, I only listen to the radio when driving and on the way to work, and even then I have the option of my iPod.  The radio programs just don’t interest me and the talking just makes it worse.  I would listen only to maybe catch a song I haven’t heard in a long time.  So is this possibly an accurate statement?  YES

–  No one other than a rootless vagabond watches a consistent amount of TV everyday.  There are programs we want to watch and programs we don’t.  During the football season, I watch more football on Saturday.  In the off season, I don’t.  Is this a reasonable statement then?  YES

–  No teenager of his acquaintance regularly reads the paper?  I would expand that to say no one to my knowledge consistently reads the paper other than those whose job it is to read it.  Otherwise most people get their news from online papers, blogs, etc….  So, YES, it is a very possible statement.

–  Well I won’t challenge the issue of Wii….I think this is the one statement that is supported with very real data.

–  Teenagers don’t like Twitter.  Well so don’t a lot of people.  Real research has shown that as many as 80% of Twitter users don’ regularly update their account.  Since this is data that is less subject to biase, I am willing to consider it validity.  Given that only 20% regularly tweet, then it is not hard to draw the conclusion that kids just don’t use it.  Sure, some do, but then again, we are looking at the bigger body of teens than just a select few.  In fact I would speculate with substantial data to support me that NO age group consistently tweets.  Its just a few tweeting 80% of all tweets.  So I would say, YES, it is a possibly valid statement.

–  Teens don’t like to pay for music?  Who the heck LIKES to pay for music?  And anyone who was a normal regular teenager would know how expensive $1 a song can be when your allowance is small.  This is the most obvious YES of them all.

–  Again, teens preferring to go to the cinema in their early teens vs their later teens is something of an obvious statement.  I think bars allow patrons above the age of 18 to go in…nuff’ said.  YES.

–  Teens prefer mobiles with a large capacity for music.  Since they don’t listen to radio they need to listen to something.  And since iPhones are maybe too expensive for most teens, Sony Ericsson which allows you to play all those ripped off music makes sense.  YES again.

So looking at it logically instead of screaming about lack of supporting data, it appears that what the kid says makes sense.  I wouldn’t plan my marketing program around it, but I could do a lot worse than to take those assumptions and apply them for specific programs.  I can tell you what though….if I were to take the opposite as true, I am guaranteed to fail, and I know most marketers worth their salt know that too.  So give the kid a break.

Facebook and Privacy. Why Don’t People Get it?

I gave a talk recently on Facebook. The talk was meant as an introduction to the concept of Facebook and how it could be used to build communities and enable interaction. While the age of the attendees ranged from mid twenties to seventies, the predominant demographic was those aged fifty and above. This wasn’t a big surprise as the technological revolution has left a number of these people in its wake and even younger ones (myself included) have to constantly keep up with whats new in the realm of technology.

What surprised me most was that quite a number of those attending the talk had already registered Facebook accounts. In fact the majority had an account but did not use it. Their biggest worry was not how to use it (although I hope I was able to show them something new in the talk), but about the possibility of losing or having their identity stolen. It is unfair to deride them for being luddites simply because they have a valid concern which in fact few younger members have. As you get older, you have more to lose than a teenager whose “street cred” only extends as far as the end of the street.

What a lot of them failed to realize is that Facebook offers one of the most customizable privacy settings of any social media platform I have ever used (including MySpace, Ortuk, QQ, Socialtrak, Drupal, etc…). The ability to exclude groups of your “friends” as well as individual friends from viewing parts or all of your profile is what I think is an important function within Facebook. The process I suggested they adopt was the following:

– Don’t put anything on your profile that you don’t want others to see. For instance, I wouldn’t ever consider putting my credit card number or my actual address on Facebook, even if I have the option to block it out.

– Group your friends based on how close you are to them. I don’t mind my best friends seeing everything on my profile and photo album. I have a few FB “friends” solely for the purpose of the FB games I play. These I don’t give any access to anything other than the most basic information about myself.

– Go to Settings -> Privacy in your Facebook account and “customize” access for each of the logical segments of information categorized.

I understand that Facebook will shortly be changing the Privacy Settings page to make it more user friendly. Hopefully this will not remove the granularity of customization that we are now used to.

On the flip side of the equation, I have seen teenagers with FB profiles that are open to everyone and anyone. Basically even without being a friend, you can see everything they have available. This might be a concern in terms of physical and online safety. I think most of them only realize how dangerous this can be when their parents view their profiles….and comment! One of the most amusing sites I have visited recently is http://myparentsjoinedfacebook.com which posts screen captures of parents interacting with their children on Facebook. You wouldn’t believe how fast these kids figured out the Privacy settings after that!

Tong Hsien-Hui

Michael Jackson’s Dead and Never So Popular!

I’m not a fan of ole’ MJ. Let me clear that up front. I’ve of course heard his music all through my adolescent years to early adulthood, but could never click with the rythm or lyrics. Blame it on my upbringing, social influences or just plain good taste.

So I’ve had a quiet decade not being overly bombarded with his music or dancing (ok, so he’s a good or was a good dancer). Sure, there are the odd articles about him trying to mess with kids, but then anyone with half a brain could tell he was a closet or overt pervert. It didn’t take a court case for us to realize it, I mean geez, he looks like a ghost, dressed like Captain Crunch and lives in a zoo…

When I received news of his demise via twitter about a couple of hours before a legitimate news source announced it (I mean these news sources actually have to VERIFY their information), I didn’t think much of it. Maybe a sigh of relief at not having to listen to recordings of his proposed World Tour and seeing how pathetic it is for a 50 year old man to moonwalk. But otherwise a good riddance to bad rubbish kind of attitude.

Apparently I am in the vast minority. After a decade of silence, the outpouring of “grief” through all forms of media was shocking to say the least. The fact that it actually SLOWED the internet down showed how much of impact his death had been. Kids who had never heard him perform or listened to his music were wondering why their parents were all sad and nostalgic about him, but more importantly why World of Warquest was slower than the molasses. And the radio stations were even worse. Some seriously considered a weekend full of Michael Jacksons’ music before cooler heads prevailed. That would indeed have been hell on earth.

Tonight I’m going to a party. Organized much earlier and meant to include lots of drinking, lots of eating, fun and games. I’ve just been told by my enthusiastic friend who is organizing this that there will be a moonwalk contest and we are to dress up like MJ. I haven’t moonwalked in two decades, but I think I can still find a pair of black pants, black shoes, white socks, and a single glove decorated with nonya beads to simulate the famous glittering glove. Too late for plastic surgery and skin pigmentation treatment though.

So MJ, while you rest in peace…the rest of us here are going to share your pain for at least another few days..

I still don’t like Twitter

   So I’ve been using Twitter since like forever.  I jumped on the bandwagon early last year when most people had never even heard of Twitter, and found it a novel way of communicating in bites (bytes) with followers.  Those were the days of having 20 close friends following you and you following them.  Then came the wave late last year as Twitter became the “in” social media platform, and everyone was expected to have thousands of followers to show you had “presence” online.  I never bit…but I have to admit I accepted a number of followers that I did not know or who did not really know me.

 

Now my tweetspace is a mess.  I still monitor interesting stuff that my friends tweet about, but if I were to see my tweet list, I have an eclectic mix of sales pitches, religious sayings, tweets in foreign languages and the ubiquitous tweeter who tells you every damn thing that goes on in his/her life.  I could really do without those “I tweeting while trying…God I’m constipated” tweets first thing in the morning.

 

So while lots of people find it “amazing” and “the next big social media thing”, I find minimal value in it.  Thats not to say I don’t think it serves some purpose.  After all, telcos could never figure out what the big deal about SMS was about…before it became a major revenue stream.  So Twitters somewhat similar.  Its a one to many web based SMS system that seems to work for some reason.  

 

If you were to ask me what a really useful service is, I would say a web based version of traditional SMS.  Sending free tweets to specific people, having the ability to send tweets to specific groups,  etc….but hey, isn’t that what Skype and Messenger are???

To Facebook or not to Facebook?

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve been working with more senior members of our community on a variety of ways in which lives can be enriched even after retirement.  It has to be stated first that these members, while not at the very top of Abraham Maslow’s heirarchy of needs, are certainly not at the bottom either.  So financial security is a given.  

 

Their biggest issue is with how to enrich their otherwise drab and routine lives which now tend to centre around looking after their grandchildren.  One of the reasons why I got involved is because technology and more specifically social media is probably more suited to this segment of the population than any other.  While the younger set use social media for convenience, issues of physical mobility are significant for our more elderly citizens and social media platforms can help facilitate their continued social interactions.

 

However, while the benefits of an engagement on this platform is intuitive to people familiar with it, it is not always so for others.  I realized after engaging this group that the following fears are prevalent:

–  Fear of technology, and more specifically how to use the computer or the internet.  This fear centres around how to navigate what for us is a familiar landscape but for others, an almost alien environment.

–  Physically being unable to read from the screen comfortably.

–  Fear of their personal information being stolen

–  Fear of new things.  

 

These fears are not without foundation.  I am just grateful that they were open enough with me to be candid.  The benefits I like to highlight are:

–  Maintain contact with their current circle of friends and even reach out to other friends who might have been forgotten with the passage of time.

–  Keep everyone updated on their current activities, or be incentivized to be more active to enrich their profile

–  Relate to their children through this medium.

–  Join or lead interest groups that are important to them.

To address the fears they have listed, I proposed the following activities:

–  A series of training courses to bring them from absolute beginners to familiarity with the philosophy and context of social media platforms

–  A manual on how to use large fonts for their computer.  If this is insufficient, it is possible to use the mobile version of Facebook on your computer…with a little bit of work.  The mobile version is very clear…especially when expanded to the PC screen.

–  Part of the training should include a section on privacy and parameters on what to or what not to put on the web.

–  The hardest part is the changing of the mindset.  But if someone is willing to turn up at your course, it shows a willingness to at least consider the options

 

 

Tong Hsien-Hui

The Unforseen Release of the Pirated Version of Wolverine has had No Impact

A few weeks ago, a pirated version of a pre-release of the blockbuster Wolverine movie generated a lot of hype both on and offline.  Fans were able to download pirated versions of the movie, albeit a version missing some special effects and touch-ups (apparently straps could be seen on the actors when performing acrobatics), on the internet, and close to 4 million downloads were recorded.

 

The studio, Fox, were understandably angry at the piracy and vowed to find the culprits responsible.  Their fear was that with so many people having seen the movie before its release, the movie would not be able to hit its projected numbers.  They need not have feared.  In the past weekend, the movie grossed close to $160 million worldwide, topping its production cost of $130 million.  A tidy profit for a movie in its FIRST weekend.  In fact the figure would have been higher if not for the closure of theatres in Mexico and the fear of transmission of swine flu in other parts of the world.  Other factors such as major basketball matches in Boston and Chicago were also mentioned by a Fox executive, obviously delighted with the way the movie has performed.

 

So given the case, what was the real impact of the pirated version being leaked?  Did Wolverine actually gain more free publicity as a result of the media circus that went on for almost a week after the leak?  Would the attendance have been higher if the leak had not occured?  Lets look at the three possible outcomes:

 

1)  The movie grossed LESS than it would have if the pirated version had not been released

This pre-supposes that all those who watched the pirated version did not subsequently go and see the actual movie in the theatre.  I personally don’t think this is the right conclusion to draw from the issue.  There are a lot of reasons why moviegoers have stopped going to movies.  The recession across the globe has killed millions of jobs and most people have been tightening their belts in the face of reduced paychecks or in the worst case, no paychecks.  Movies are a luxury good.  If the satisfaction gained from watching the pirated version was the same as going to a movie, I would predict a significant dropoff in the early takings upon launch.  After all, downloading isn’t the only means of transmitting the pirated movie.  It could also have been copied, shown among big groups of friends, borrowed, etc….The 4 million downloads could potentially have reached many millions of people more virally.

2)  The movie grossed the SAME as it would have if the pirated version had not been released

This would imply that the pre-release had no effect on the attendance for the actual release.  I don’t quite think this is right either.  However, it could be the correct conclusion given that those who downloaded the movie were more likely to be fans of the movie and would have gone to see it anyway.  I’m pretty sure that to download a movie, you need to be a big fan as there are a lot of issues to consider; the prospect of piracy, the download time, the poor quality, the possibility of downloading a virus, etc….  I’m not that big a fan and didn’t bother.  Neither did I care to watch the pirated version even though it was readily available.  When I went to see the movie, I heard a number of people watching it discussing and comparing it to the pirated one…so if you were to ask me, at a minimum, Fox didn’t lose many dollars from the fiasco.

3)  The movie grossed MORE than it would have if the pirated version had not been released

This is a controversial one.  It implies the pirated release actually generated more hype for the movie than it would have been able to on its own.  Its not an uncommon social media tactic to prerelease news articles to bloggers so that they can prepare their blogs to coincide with the actual release.  I don’t think however, that this was on the minds of the Fox executives.  No one though, can deny the hype and publicity that swirled round this movie prior to its actual launch.  The fact that it did better in the opening weekend that 2 out of 3 of the X-Men trilogy says a lot for how hyped up the movie was.  I do know that there were people who went to watch it after watching the pirated version, just to see how different the actual one was.

So no conclusions can be drawn at this stage.  It is my personal belief that the movie will gross what is projected, maybe even more.  I think the impact of the prerelease will primarily be in the DVD market, but that has already been shrinking, impacted by DVD Rental stores and yes, BitTorrent, and its ilk.

——————–

Hsien-Hui Tong

MySpace doesn’t know what they are doing

As anyone who follows developments in social media, even on the periphery, know, MySpace is losing the platform battle to Facebook.  Late last year, Facebook overtook MySpace as the largest social media site in the world and while Facebook has continued to grow, MySpace has more or less stood still.  

 

To compete effectively, MySpace had to so something radical or accept their new position as number two to Facebook…and given the growing popularity of Twitter, maybe even number three.  One of the reasons Facebook has been able to attract so many new members has been their focus on adding new languages to their traditional english-based profile.  Members can choose from a fairly comprehensive list of languages in which to navigate their social interactions with other members.  This is a powerful tool as one of the reasons for the highly fragmented nature of social media has been the inability of some popular sites to localize their offering.

 

It makes sense of MySpace to also quickly add this functionality in their offering which they did recently.  However, there is where the similarity with Facebook ends.  Facebook, in their localization efforts, kept the philosophy of letting their members choose how they want to see their site.  If they were existing members, they would initially see their site in english and were offered the option of changing it to whatever language was suitable for them in the Account Settings.  If they were new members, they could opt for a change in language with the little icon at the bottom left of the sign up screen which would convert the screen to the language desired.  This is a logical and fairly seamless way of giving your members options.

 

MySpace on the other hand, perhaps being now part of a large corporate entity, decided that they knew better than anyone else, especially their members, what language their members should be using.  So in their latest effort, they automatically converted pages from certain countries to what they THINK is the native language without bothering to ask if thats what their members wanted.  So on a given day, a member would try to sign into their account and find that everything has been converted into a language some of them don’t even speak.  

 

I’m not sure what is worse.  The assumption that they at MySpace know better than their members what they want, or that what they know is so obviously wrong.  I will give you the example of my country of residence, Singapore.  Singapore is a country in South East Asia and although the population demographics is about 70% Chinese, there is a significant Malay and Indian population as well.  With this diversity, the medium of communication has always been English and not Chinese (simplified or othewise).  Its not unheard of for Chinese Singaporeans not to be able to read Chinese.  MySpace on the other hand, thinking that since Singapore is in Asia and that everyone in Asia speaks Chinese, set traditional Chinese as the default language option.  In doing so, they made two mistakes.  One, that all Singaporeans speak and read Chinese.  The second is that traditional Chinese is used in Singapore.  In truth, traditional Chinese is used in only two territories:  Hong Kong and Taiwan.  Mainland China uses simplified Chinese as do most other countries.

 

With the sign-in page showing everything in a Chinese dialect, its been difficult for users to convert their pages back to English because they can’t even find out where to make the change.  In social media, if the platform is hard to use, no one will use it.  Such has been the case with a number of my friends who have stopped using MySpace wholesale and decided to build a new profile on Facebook.  The barriers to “churn” are extremely low.

 

If MySpace think that this latest initiative will help them take on QZone in China, then I think they are sadly mistaken.  They also misunderstand the cultural differences between social media users in China and in the US.  This latest foolishness just helped to alienate some existing, loyal members.  They don’t stand a chance against Facebook.

 

Tong Hsien-Hui

Can Facebook possibly make money?

Thats really the billion dollar question.  With 200 million users worldwide and growing, Facebook zipped past MySpace as the world’s largest social media networking platform at the end of 2008 in terms of number of users.  As they expand their repertoire to include foreign languages, the potential for membership growth increases day to day.

 

However, what venture capitalists, investment bankers and investors want to know, is how Facebook is actually going to monetize their huge membership base.  According to calculations done by independent auditing firms, Facebook makes less in advertising per member than MySpace does, and as their costs increase with every new member and new feature provided, this can only be detrimental to Facebook.  The traditionalists have put forward their views on how Facebook should do it:

 

1 – Advertising.  Currently it actually costs less to target a clearly defined segment rather than a more nebulous one.  For instance, targeting male graduates from Illinois is actually cheaper per member than to target male graduates in the whole United States.  From the marketing perspective, this is ideal as most campaigns have a very tight focus anyway so this is good for companies advertising on Facebook….its not so good for Facebook.

2 – Paying Membership Tiers.  Currently the full suite of Facebook services are free.  There is a possibility of adding a paying tier of members similar to what Twitter is trying to impose.  

3 – Revenue from Apps.  Facebook does receive a small sum for every application that is developed for deployment on their platform.  However, this is a small percentage of their total revenue which in itself is nothing much to shout about.

4 – Revenue from Apps transactions.  Again, Facebook receives a small commission every time some one pays for buying a virtual product from one of the applications.  

5 – Facebook Connect.  This recently launched application allows people to use their Facebook profile AND their Facebook contacts to be automatically uploaded to an independent site which has this widget embedded in their sign up page.  What makes this interesting is that a person doesn’t just join the new site, but brings his/her whole community along with them.  It is an evolution from the previously maligned Beacon initiative.  More insidious but probably the most effective tool in the current Facebook repertoire.

It is my belief that there are fundamental weaknesses in the traditional models being considered or being used by Facebook.  I understand from an interview done last year that Facebook intends to remain relatively hands off with regards to the way their current members are using Facebook and that they intend to make money from a variety of business models so as to ensure the integrity of the whole.  However, while their strategy appears solid, their execution sometimes leaves much to be desired.  

–  Advertising.  Social Media was, for marketers, supposed to be the next step after data mining and campaign management.  The basic tenets of data mining is to maximize the returns from ever more targeted markets.  Facebook is actually incentivizing marketers to go after the whole community again instead of restricting their ads to those who are more likely to respond to those ads.  By forcing marketers to go after the whole community they are not only doing a disservice to their clients but also to themselves as the community might react negatively to the irrelevant ad placements.

–  Paying membership.  From whatever research has been undertaken on this topic, it is clear that most members would consider only paying for membership that removed ads from their page.  This in turn would impact Facebook’s advertising revenue, so its not an easy option to consider.  I think Facebook can only seriously offer paying options for new features.  If they start to block off features from their site to only paying members, they may soon find no members left as people will start to switch and soon even paying members will leave because their communities are depleted.

–  Revenue from Apps.  I believe that a service like PayPal would be a very good fit for Facebook.  If they can provide a small range of financial services like escrow services, transmitting money, enabling members who do not have a credit card to pay for services or products on their site,…..then I think a lot of companies will see Facebook as a good platform to offer their e-commerce services.

Of the few options available, I seriously think that if Facebook can offer financial services, they would have a real winner on their hands, both from the membership as well as the profit perspective.  The alternative for them if they are unable to work out a solution would really be to sell themselves off to a Google or Microsoft.  I think Google would be a better fit in terms of complementary services and at the same time Google can integrate their Ortuk platform with them as well.

 

Tong Hsien-Hui

Social Media and the pirating of the new Wolverine movie…

One of the biggest issues dominating discussions on cyberspace these last few days hasn’t been the meeting of the G20 which gathered for their annual social events where expensive wine is consumed in copious quantities and general decisions are minimal.  Nope, what has consumed most of cyberspace’s attention has been the news that a pre-release of the much anticipated Wolverine movie was posted up on multiple P2P Torrent sites on Tuesday where close to 200K (at latest count) copies have been downloaded .

 

Obviously 20th Century Fox is up in arms over this.  Their chairman came out to state that the release was missing some key scenes and wasn’t fully edited yet, and promised that the perpetrators would be found and dealt with.  In what I applaud as the first sign that the cyberspace community is acting responsibly, most reputable blog or movie review sites refused to carry reviews of the pirated download.  The general sentiment is that piracy is inherently bad for long term production of good content and that it should not be encouraged.  I know of several site or community managers that took this stance even in the face of serious opposition and threats from their own followers.

 

So wasn’t it ironic and extremely annoying to all of us that the first review posted by a site with any authority was that of FoxNews, a subsidiary of the Fox empire of which 20th Century is part.  Carried by one of their own writers, it made a mockery of the company’s stance that this was something they considered a serious breach of the law.  When this report was first posted on Friday, a number of the people I discuss these matters with were up in arms.  They felt that since Fox wasn’t taking this matter seriously, why should they, as outsiders even be bothered to help them at the detriment of their own online cred?  The general sentiment was that the gloves were off and screw the so-called corporate lawyers.  I read a number of articles that were being prepared for release on Monday, all pertaining to a review of the pirated movie.

 

Just a few hours ago, Fox announced that they had fired the columnist responsible for the article.  They also removed the article from the site.  They also posted another article over it so that even viewing the Google cache of the page won’t show it.  Needless to say though, thousands have already read it so the damage is done.  I am really trying to get my head around what the editor who allowed the article was thinking when he/she gave the go-ahead to post it.  Didn’t they realize this was akin to committing corporate suicide?

 

I speculate that the following issues at Fox lead to this misstep, all of which are enshrined as problems facing big companies in the social media space:

–  They believe that to develop a strong following, you have to be badder than bad.  In their mind, controversy pulls the crowd in.  

–  To be successful in the social media space you need to forget corporate structure and position

–  You don’t need to see what others are doing online…..they are probably doing something just as bad

–  There is no morality in social media

 

All these stances, in one form or other permeate corporate thinking with regards to social media.  Sometimes its due to having a person in charge of the social media initiative who is too inexperienced to know what marcom is like in the real world.  At other times its because the person in charge has his/her strategy entirely coloured by what they read on DIGG or Twitter.  What is more often true is the following:

–  Being bad or controversial doesn’t really lead to long term communities unless there is an underlying cause.  Being bad just because you want to be bad just makes you look stupid.  Controversy is a subset of Innovation.  Ultimately the most innovative or original content builds the largest, most loyal following.

–  You don’t just forget you are part of a bigger company just because you are in social media.  Relationships with your community is dependent not only on what you do online, but what you do offline.  Don’t ever forget that unless your money is all made online, that the offline experience is more important than the online one.  People sometimes forget mistakes or arguments online, but are much less forgiving if this happened to them in the real world.

–  Not checking the general mood of the online community is a common mistake made by executives with little time to do such research.  Thats why so many promotions fail.  Nearly all marketing consultants in the field of social media tell their clients to do their groundwork in understanding their online target audience…only a very small percentage in my experience, actually do.

–  To build a strong online community you need to have a consistent moral position.  Its well and good for the once a month blogger to write scathing articles on everything from religion to government, but quite another for a blogger with a strong reputation to uphold in a pretty fickle community.  That is where a distinction must be drawn between the community leader and the community followers.  In this example, the followers were all for piracy.  Its the leaders that finally put their foot down and said that it was not right to do so and backed it up with action.

 

Its ironic and idiotic that the so-called leader who finally broke ranks was from the company that actually suffered the most from this issue…..in social media, we learn new lessons every day…..

 

Tong Hsien-Hui