5 Rules of Engagement for Social Media

Confession: I'm getting tired of social media. I feel personally involved in the lives of hundreds of people, and it's become somewhat of a shield against having to nurture one-on-one relationships; as though as long as I occasionally comment on a post, or remember someone's birthday, I'm being an acceptable friend. Meanwhile, every advertising conference I attend consists of 75-100% social media-centric workshops. SXSW Interactive this year was all about social networking. I can't look at a single tech website, or publication without seeing multiple pictures of Mark Zuckerberg's smirking, boyish face. However, there's no arguing the impact that this new internet-based world has on our society. The flip side of this new media is that your personal information is out there, potentially for all to see (and in the case of Facebook, nearly impossible to remove). If you're paying attention to the news, you've probably heard that hackers are breaking into websites all the time* and the stuff you post online may put you in jeopardy of having your identity stolen. So with that in mind, I'd like to share five tips might make your life a little easier down the road.

5. Everyone's an expert on social media. No one is an expert on social media. Ok... Social media has been around since humans began populating the Earth and began interacting. There is no right or wrong way to interact. This is no different with internet-based social media platforms. There are some good guides to effectively and efficiently using blogs, Twitter and Facebook, but ultimately it's an organic and personal medium. Do what feels right for your brand--be it personal or commercial--don't just do what some guy who wrote a blog tells you to do.

4. If you work for an organization, you are a representative of said organization. This should be common sense, but seriously, people, if something might put your job in jeopardy, DON'T POST IT ONLINE. I don't care if you're the organization's mail clerk or their community manager, when you post something negative about the organization, you run the risk of being removed from your position. If you have any doubts about whether your post may harm your company, divulge trade secrets, or openly degrade the competition, just don't do it. Your livelihood may depend on it.

3. Be aware of the dreaded Facebook updates and how to opt-out of them. So... Yeah. Zuck and Co. love adding new features to Facebook without telling anyone. And more often than not, these updates default to MORE rather than less of your personal information being divulged; in addition to requiring users to jump through hoops trying to figure out how to turn the blasted things off. So if you don't want Facebook to learn your face and ask your friends (or enemies) to tag pictures of you dancing seductively at the pub, learn how to opt out.

2. When using location-based services, don't check into your personal residence. Disclosure: I love checking into places way more than the next guy. I use Gowalla. A lot. I'm waiting by the phone for them to call me and offer me a job. Foursquare is cool too (though only because it's conveniently connected through Gowalla) and Yelp has become my favorite place to research local places. But when I see my friends checking into their house, I want to reach into my computer/mobile and just slap them. I get it. it's fun; in some services you get badges for repeatedly checking into places, but come on people: stop and think for a minute. When you create a spot for your house, you are effectively giving people GPS coordinates to your home. If someone is crafty enough they can follow you on Foursquare/Gowalla/Facebook/Loopt/etc.; determine the location of your house, then when they see that you have checked into the Super 8 in Timbuktu, they not only know you're out of town, but can go about the business of robbing you of all your stuff. Seriously, I can not stress this enough. DO NOT CREATE A SPOT FOR--AND REPEATEDLY CHECK INTO--YOUR HOUSE! EVER. (All-caps, bold and italics for emphasis.) It's bad practice and frankly it's kind of unnecessary.

1. Follow "Wheaton's Law." Most people know Wil Wheaton from Star Trek: the Next Generation or Stand By Me, but nerdy people know that he is a new-media wizard with +5 internet Intelligence, and +1 bonus on Charisma! Wheaton was one of the early adopters of blogging, has nearly 2 million followers on Twitter, and is active on just about every social media outlet know to exist. "Wheaton's Law" is one of the best practices to keep in mind when posting things on the internet, commenting on blogs, or interacting with friends on Facebook. So, if you take nothing else away from this little blog post of mine, please remember these four words: "Don't be a dick."

*Note: Though more media attention has been given to hacker groups such as LulzSec and Anonymous, hacker activity has most likely not significantly increased as much as it would seem.

The Greatest TED Talk Ever Sold

in his TED talk, Morgan Spurlock discusses why advertising agencies weren't too interested in getting involved in his new movie, "The Greatest Movie Ever Sold." I have lots of thoughts about this, but... Just watch. It's pretty enlightening and entertaining.

Makes me want to see the film!

Motivation or Distraction?

This morning, author and behavioral economist (and inspiration for the title of my weblog) Dan Ariely wrote a short, but thought-provoking blog stating that the proliferation of small luxuries have incentivized people to work harder, which has created new markets for these items.

While I think there is indeed some truth to the first point (particularly if goals and planning are involved), I also think that these things have brought about the "keeping up with the Jonses" mentality. If we didn't all have to have the coolest new car, or the bigger house with all the cool gadgets, perhaps we Americans wouldn't be in the current economic crisis...caused in great part by frivolous lending so people could buy that big house they couldn't afford.

However, from an economic standpoint, I can't argue with the second point, that our need to acquire these items has definitely created markets where none existed before. The speed of innovation and technology, while mind boggling at times has helped to create jobs, find new ways to enhance productivity, and even assisted in making us feel better.

So if we are motivated by luxuries, that's perfectly fine, but realize that we don't always have to have the new car or the iPhone right now. In-fact sometimes the slightly used car and free subsidized Android-based phone are just as good...and you get to keep some of that money you worked so hard for.

Remembering a "Different Kind of Car Company"

I am now driving my second Saturn automobile. In fact, since purchasing my first Saturn 4 out of the 5 members of my immediate family drove or still drive Saturns. They are good cars. Or I suppose I should say they were good cars. In 2010, alongside legacy brand Pontiac, and Hummer, Saturn was killed by parent company, GM as part of their attempt to escape bankruptcy.

So what happened?

To answer that question let's go back to 1985 when GM created the Saturn brand. Though it would be more than 5 years before the first car rolled off the line, the fledgling company did reveal a prototype, which definitely shows some styling cues seen on the S Series when it finally launched.

In many ways Saturn was an ambitious experiment. It was a wholly-owned subsidiary of GM, but they had their own factory, dealer network, the "no haggle" pricing structure, and vehicles that shared little with other GM brands. According to a quote from a Saturn dealer interviewed in a 1992 TIME magazine story, "Most of our customers don't know who makes the car, so when people come into the showroom and we explain that Saturn is a separate corporation, they think of it as Saturn first and GM second." In short, Saturn was for all intents and purposes an independent auto company. And while it may not have been an overwhelming money maker for GM, Saturn did build strong customer loyalty. From the same TIME article,

Saturn has in abundance what many of GM's other products so desperately need: prestige. The upstart division's high-quality products have proved so popular that customers have to put their names on waiting lists. If Saturn can translate its popularity into profits, the formula could help save the rest of the giant company.

Apparently the popularity did not translate into profit.

Beginning with the larger L-Series in 2000, Saturn started borrowing platforms from other GM vehicles. In fact by the time of closure, there was not a single unique body style in the Saturn line up; all but one model being badge-engineered Opal cars (The Outlook crossover SUV, while not an Opal vehicle, did share a platform with many other GM vehicles.) The plant in Spring Hill Tennessee built specifically for Saturn, had been retooled to produce the Chevy Traverse. Virtually everything that made Saturn unique and exciting was gone. Saturn was no longer treated as independent of GM and had become no longer relevant.

The experiment had failed.

So when it came time for GM to divest itself of the brand, there were few companies interested in buying. The brand had been tarnished. Rather than continue to push boundaries and encourage innovation, GM instead got lazy and doomed the brand to mediocrity. Sure the cars may have been of good quality, but if you look at an Opal Astra and a Saturn Astra the ONLY differences are the logo (the grille itself is virtually the same) and perhaps the side of the car on which the driver is seated.

Am I sad that the company is no more? Yes and no. Obviously, I like the brand, and had it been sold, would continue to support it. I would actually have liked to have seen GM take Saturn in the direction of Toyota's Scion subsidiary: stylish, hip and uncompromisingly unique. However, if the best we could have hoped for was an avenue for GM's foreign marques to be sold stateside, then it is probably best that the brand was dissolved sooner than later.

I hope that people look at the history of Saturn and realize that when creating a product or a brand, it is ok--and sometimes necessary--to reinvent so as to stay fresh in the evolving marketplace. However, to remain relevant companies must not lose sight of their core competencies.

On the Road Again

I was on the road almost all day yesterday, so no blog for Feb 17th, but there's more to come, so watch this space.

A Follow-Up to Violence in Videogames

As a timely follow-up to Sunday's blog post about media violence, Toronto institution, Ryerson University today released some statistics from a scientific study looking at the issue of violent video games.

Turns out the media content has little on Emotional Memory. From the University's press release:

The researchers hypothesized that video game players would be less sensitive to the negative images and therefore show reduced memory for these materials. The results, however, showed no difference in the memory of video game players and non-players. Moreover, exposure to video games was not associated with differences in self-reported arousal to emotional stimuli.

"The findings indicate that long-term emotional memory is not affected by chronic exposure violent video games," said Bowen.

Will this and further research end the debate on violent video games? Probably not, but as with anything knowledge is power. Personally, I'd be interested to see if these findings bear any weight on the pending Supreme Court case Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. (#08-1448)

Finally, let us not forget that it is ultimately the decision of the parents to police the content being consumed in their household, and not the government or media vendor. Associations such as the ESRB, the MPAA and the RIAA exist to offer insight into the content of their respective media.

For further information on the issue of violence in video games, including some interesting demographic statistics (hint: gamers are older than you think), the Entertainment Consumer's Association is a good reference point.

For the Love of Old Spice

Happy Valentines day!

Love is in the air. Can you see it? can you feel it? Can you...smell it? To celebrate, I wanted to take a moment to highlight the brilliant ad campaign that is the Man Your Man Could Smell Like!

Here's the newest spot.



Now, while the spots follow a very standard formula of witty writing, clever visual trickery and light sexual innuendo coming from the smooth-talking former football player, Isaiah Mustafa. But the best thing about the campaign is that it doesn't stop at TV.

The promotion famously went viral last summer when Old Spice took social networking into the next frontier. Primarily using Facebook, Reddit and Twitter, fans made comments, to which individually-tailored responses were produced and uploaded to YouTube--in many cases within moments of the original tweet.

But did you know they're still putting videos on YouTube? They Are! Check it out!

Now I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't say something about the ROI (return on investment), so I'll reference a story in Adweek discussing those very numbers from the time after the YouTube extravaganza. 107% is not too shabby at all.


So there you go. Have a great Valentine's Day, and keep it fresh!