Archive for the ‘Murketing’ Category

1 Comment

OpenIndie is pioneering a new distribution model… will it work?


2009
10.28

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Featured, Hollywood 3.0, Murketing | 1 Comment »

For the last few weeks I’ve been following – with great excitement – the efforts of Arin Crumley (of Four Eyed Monsters fame) and his business partner, Kieran Masterton, as they try to raise money for their new venture. It’s kickstarter windowcalled OpenIndie, and if successful, will open a world of possibilities for independent filmmakers desperate to get their films in the hands of their audience.

Arin is an interesting guy to begin with, but what’s really cool about OpenIndie is their dogged devotion to democratizing access to film product and their belief in the conviction of their supporters. To raise the $10,000 they need to get the website up and running they’ve turned to Kickstarter, a “funding platform for artists, designers, filmmakers, musicians, journalists, inventors, explorers…”. They have until October 29th to raise their target, and if they don’t hit 10k then they get nothing! A little harsh perhaps, but Arin is very humble (as if we needed another reason to like this guy) in saying that if they don’t reach the goal, then perhaps it’s because there’s not really a need for something like OpenIndie. I think we all know there is, and with a little under 36 hours to go, they have only $202.69 to go, so it’s looking good!

What Arin and Kieran are trying to do is brave, necessary and close to our hearts here at SocialNotions. Starting in early January, we’ll be contributing to a Strategic Management Research project at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management that aims to map the entire marketing, distribution and exhibition landscape of Independent Film. As part of this effort, the team will be developing strategic recommendations for filmmakers who want to know how they can locate and access their film-loving audience in a more cost-effective and compelling way, given the current state of the industry. We’re really excited about this effort and will keep you posted as it gets underway….

In the meantime, I’ll leave you with Arin as he explains what it is they’re trying to do with OpenIndie. All I can say is…. Bravo!

What do you guys think? Is there something here, or are they clutching at straws? Love to know what you think, as always.

-d

  • Share/Bookmark
No Comments

Is Collective Invention any better than Design by Committee?


2009
09.09

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Murketing, Socialmediology | No Comments »

Preakness anyone?

Preakness anyone?

They say that a camel is nothing but a horse that’s been designed by a committee… and given my experience working in a large company with large clients, I have to agree wholeheartedly with the idea that sometimes the best results don’t come from the input of many.

But while it’s true that fewer cooks often lead to more delectable meals, is there any merit to the idea that, although committees often produce a solution heavy in appeasement and compromise and light in innovation and impact, sometimes great inventions come from the egalitarian contributions of a mass of individuals? I mean, isn’t this the ethos of open source development, and the reason that we even have such things as Linux and the Internet?

So why the camel stigma then? Is it just that small groups are a breeding ground for competition and posturing or is there something more to this idea? While you ponder this thought, check out Quirky.com, a great site that came to my attention through  Consumed (trust Rob Walker to find another weird and wonderful intersection betweeen products and people).

signup

Quirky.com

What’s it all about? Well, here’s how it works:

  1. You pay $99 to submit your idea;
  2. The sociosphere votes on your idea and weighs in with suggestions for improvement;
  3. The best ideas are produced and marketed without you having to lift a finger;
  4. The more people weigh in and/or vote, the more “clout” your idea develops i.e. the larger your share of the pie;
  5. 30% of all takings go back to the “community” i.e. the people who contributed to your idea.

So, basically, I can pitch an idea into the collective brain of the sociosphere, watch them improve it, watch someone else make it, and then take in up to 15c for every dollar my idea generates in sales? Hmmm… out of curiosity I ran some numbers on one of the items advertised on their front page:

Quirky.com

The Scratch-n-Roll sells for $14.99 (let’s call it 15 bucks). So, if I made 15c for every dollar, that’d give me $2.25 for every unit sold … or put differently, I’d break even at about 45 units.  If it sold a thousand units I’d make about $2,150, and if it was a hit and cracked 10,000 unit sales… I’m about 22 grand richer! And to make the dreamer in me happy, imagine we could move 100 thousand units… well, then we’re talking North of a quarter million dollars. Doesn’t seem too bad for simply sharing an idea and then sitting on my ass!!

Now, I don’t know whether this product, or even the concept, will be a success. But, the socialmediology wikinomicist in me hopes like hell it will, and I’ll be following this with keen interest.

So, then, how do we explain the success of crowds versus the perceived failure of committees? I’m not sure… but I’ll be scratching my head about it until I am. Any psychology major or consumerist out there with an opinion? Would love to hear from you.

-D

  • Share/Bookmark
2 comments

Ford’s Social Media Effort Irks the Murketing Crowd


2009
08.10

Posted in All things social, Murketing, Socialmediology | 2 Comments »

If you’re a fan of Rob Walker, like I am, you’re probably familiar with the column he writes for the New York Times each week, entitled Consumed. And if you are, you may even be a fan of the Consumed Facebook page, which is where the inspiration for my blog entry today comes from.

Some background.. for all the failures of the auto industry of late, Scott Monty and the folks in his social media team at Ford Motor Company have been doing quite a few things right and, quite rightly, are receiving credit for their efforts, including a recent nomination in the Shorty Awards, which honors the best content producers on Twitter. Among the many accolades Scott frequently receives from those in the know, he’s often praised for having a very natural social media style and embodying all the right traits of someone with a high social media IQ. And I must say I agree… great marketeer and definitely “gets it”!

So it came as something of a surprise to me that the murketing loyalists who move in the Consumed circles were accusing Ford of  “faux grassroots” marketing after their recent Ford Fiesta campaign, which called on Fiesta fans all across the country to submit videos explaining why they should be chosen to receive the free use of a Fiesta for 6 months. I quote from the Consumed FB page:

“Here, a self-identified “YouTuber” explains why she thinks it’s really great that Ford wants to “work with” people like her. Her opinions sound like verbatim marketing-guru talk, which is a little disconcerting. And her (I guess sincere) comments seem so synthetic: hand-waving and jump cuts that signify amateurish, but feel practiced.”

Now, I should mention that Undercurrent were responsible for this campaign, and it’s not clear to me whether or how much Scott Monty was involved, so let’s not start questioning his instinct just yet. In fact, before I go any further, you should take a look for yourself:

Sincere? Or rehearsed? Okay, no, wait… it’s definitely rehearsed and she’s clearly performing (in a sense). Rather, the question should be… sincere? Or contrived? As a consumer, are we offended by this since it is so blatantly a marketing ploy? Or should we take the position of: so what if it seems like a marketing ploy… of course it is! But who cares? Isn’t it enough that one of the worlds largest brands is engaging it’s consumers at the ground level?

My opinion? As a fan of all things murketing, I can’t say I’m not a little disappointed by the over-produced look and feel of what is supposed to be an amateur video, with all it’s editing, cuts and cutesy inserts. I also have to be honest and say that even if she didn’t intend for it to come across as selling out…. it kinda did. And her explanation only made it worse. (You can find more in a related post here). That said, wanting to give Scott and crew the benefit of the doubt I spent a few minutes on the campaign’s website and found that the vibe differed quite a lot from agent to agent. Sadly, there are those who seem like Ford employees masquerading as real people, yes. There are many others who are more believable, however…. more authentic, and who come across as regular people taking part in Ford campaign.  Check out Allison H… is this not great social media, cussing included?

So, what’s the verdict. Well, in my view, if Ford made any mistakes in this campaign, perhaps it was in the judging…. some of it, that is. The campaign itself is great, even if some of the winners aren’t.

What do you think?

-D

  • Share/Bookmark
3 comments

(Un)Branding: What to do when your brand becomes a liability


2009
07.23

Posted in Murketing | 3 Comments »

In one of my recent posts I highlighted the innovative use of Product Displacement as a humorous and clever means for fostering brand affinity. If you read that post, you’ll remember the example of “Coffee Bucks” and how, in a strange way, it actually worked out for you-know-who.

sbx

Starbucks have struggled with trademarking infringements in emerging markets

Now, I should confess that I spend a good deal of time at Starbucks, enjoy the fact that there’s one on every corner (literally) and can’t complain too much about the product. That said, it is quite sad to see a brand that first established itself as something anti-commercial, local and authentic go the way of Mickey D’s. But here’s an interesting twist in the evolution of the green giant…

Earlier this month, the Seattle Times reported that Starbucks are opening three new unbranded locations, starting with the first in Seattle’s trendy Capitol Hill. Called “15th Avenue Coffee & Tea”, the store will  be absent of any Starbucks logos and all merchandise will be labelled with the 15th Avenue name. According to their SVP of Global Design, the new store format and name is intended to give the stores a “community personality” and will serve beer and wine in addition to the coffee they’re famous for. Sneaky? Or just smart?

I have to applaud their recognition that the brand has actually become a liability in some markets and for their more discerning consumer segments, who like me, are pleased to be able to get it anywhere, but disappointed by just how commercial the brand has become. It’s a bold move, although the stores they’re trying this with are supposedly stores that were slated to be closed in their recent wave of re-sizing. Perhaps this is a smart move too, since the neighborhoods are likely to be buzzing with the news of a pending store closure and perhaps likely to welcome with open arms their new “local independent”? Of course, there is the possibility that local may shun the new store as an insult…

It also occurs to me that by giving us what we ultimately desire – decent coffee we know and like – in a setting that is more appealing, not so in-your-face, and doesn’t play into the MacDonalds-ization of their brand, Starbucks are fostering even stronger connections with their brand. Kinda like the Coffee Bucks example… we know what it’s all about, but don’t mind because it feels like a real acknowledgement of our needs. In the case of product displacement, the need is to not be insulted by obvious brand insertion, and in the case of 15th Avenue, it’s the need to “go local” but still stick with what we know.

I know there are a lot of coffee fans who read this blog… how do feel about Stealth Starbucks? And what the marketing implications? Are they just resetting the clock, or are they onto something very innovative? At least it would help with their trademarking challenges… I mean, what branding would the wannabees copy if there is none?

Would love to hear your thoughts as always.

-D

  • Share/Bookmark
6 comments

Product (Dis)Placement


2009
05.18

Tags: ,
Posted in Murketing | 6 Comments »

Those of you who know me, know that I’m all over the more subtle aspects of marketing and how things are changing in this regard.  So, it should come as no surprise that I’m really intrigued by the conversations taking place in venues like Rick Liebling’s eyecube and Rob Walker’s Journal of Murketing.

One of the more interesting topics they’ve latched onto of late is that of Product Displacement, a term coined by Gladys Santiago on her blog. What is it, you ask? Well, we all know how prevalent (and annoying) product placement has become in film and television – anyone else remember the famous parody on product placement by Mike Myers in Wayne’s World?

 

 

But have you also noticed the fake brands that have made their way into shows like Scrubs(Cofee Bucks) and 30 Rock(the Slanket) ? Gladys calls these “fictionalized brands”, because unlike the fictional Acme brand we all got used to thanks to Wile E. Coyote, the fictionalized brands are all trading on familiar signals that established brands tweak in our brains.

Take the Coffee Bucks brand from scrubs:

Can anyone watching this actually say with a straight face that this doesn’t enhance brand recall for you-know-who? Which begs the question:

Instead of annoying viewers with clumsy attempts at clutter-busting in the way of product placement, wouldn’t it be smarter for brands to fictionalize themselves? If it went unnoticed, they would still get the subliminal recall impact they’re looking for, and if not, then it would still make a positive impact with consumers who may appreciate brands willing to spoof themselves?

To me, this is just like Dad’s old business cards, which listed his credentials: Charles D. Ferreira (F.S.S. A.M. T.F.R. N.S.O. (S.O.)) Impressive, no? Well, those to whom certifications were important would never ask what it stood for, for surely they should know. But for those who didn’t really care, he would explain: Failed Standard Six, Also Matric, Tried Furniture Rep, Now Shop Fitter, Sort Of.  They’d laugh their ass off and think he was hilarious… worked both ways and endeared clients to him regardless of their interpretation. Genius.

Well to me, Product Displacement is no different. Smart academic that she is, Gladys Santiago explains it very eloquently on her blog:

It requires no stretch of the imagination to recognize “Tit Tat” and “Coffee Bucks” as stand-ins for real brands, but that recognition allows audiences to engage with product placements in a manner that is significantly more encompassing than simply spotting a branded product onscreen.  Referencing these product displacements to their real world counterparts requires audiences to actively draw upon their cultural capital and awareness, therefore they have more resonance than a strategically placed can of Coca-Cola or character mindlessly raving about his/her T-Mobile phone.  Ultimately, product displacements have the opportunity to flatter the intelligence of viewers, especially if they are parodic and satirical in nature.

Moves like this contribute heavily to what Liebling calles a Deeply Immersive Narrative Universe for consumers. Since we all like stories, and if you believe like I do after reading Rob Walker’s book, that we are all in a constant state of authoring a narrative for ourselves that has as it’s central character ourselves, then Product Displacement provides a means for us to develop even richer narratives with more complex connections to brands. Fascinating idea…

Thoughts? Any examples you’ve come across recently?

  • Share/Bookmark