A load of rubbish

The Guardian today reported that Lady Greenfield, professor of synaptic pharmacology at Lincoln college, Oxford, yesterday told the House of Lords that social networks like Facebook risk “infantalising” the minds of the next generation of adults, creating a generation who can’t interact with people in the real world, who become obsessed with flashing screens and anonimity.

She said:

If the young brain is exposed from the outset to a world of fast action and reaction, of instant new screen images flashing up with the press of a key, such rapid interchange might accustom the brain to operate over such timescales. Perhaps when in the real world such responses are not immediately forthcoming, we will see such behaviours and call them attention-deficit disorder….

…a much more marked preference for the here-and-now, where the immediacy of an experience trumps any regard for the consequences. After all, whenever you play a computer game, you can always just play it again; everything you do is reversible. The emphasis is on the thrill of the moment, the buzz of rescuing the princess in the game. No care is given for the princess herself, for the content or for any long-term significance, because there is none. This type of activity, a disregard for consequence, can be compared with the thrill of compulsive gambling or compulsive eating…

…[we are] enthusiastically embracing [the possible erosion of our identity through social networking sites]. [these site errode where the virtual world] finishes and the outside world begins…perhaps the next generation will define themselves by the responses of others…[social networks provide] constant reassurance – that you are listened to, recognised, and important…[real world conversations are being avoided and are] far more perilous … occur in real time, with no opportunity to think up clever or witty responses and require a sensitivity to voice tone, body language and perhaps even to pheromones, those sneaky molecules that we release and which others smell subconsciously.

[She fears] real conversation in real time may eventually give way to these sanitised and easier screen dialogues, in much the same way as killing, skinning and butchering an animal to eat has been replaced by the convenience of packages of meat on the supermarket shelf. Perhaps future generations will recoil with similar horror at the messiness, unpredictability and immediate personal involvement of a three-dimensional, real-time interaction.

First of all, Greenfield appears to confuse several issues in her attack, between social networks and computer games. Whilst it is probably true that being shut away in a room constantly engaged in any single, solitary activity with little interaction with other people will result in a socially stunted individual, this is not what social networks are for. The clue is in the name – they are social. They are there for social interaction, the polar opposite of Greenfield’s attack.

So to Greenfield’s fears that social networks will actually make people interact differently and leave them unable to operate “real world” relationships. I think this is rubbish as well. Primarily, social networks strengthen real-world relationships. People use social networks to augment their existing friendships. To keep in touch with people they may normally lose contact with, or to rekindle old friendships. These friendships are based in the “real world” so they miss this anonymity.

Sometimes conversations are easier online. You can take three days to think up that witty response. But if it makes your friends laugh, is that so bad? Also, because you still have day-to-day contact with people, then you maintain these skills.

Secondarily, social networks are used to form new relationships and links. Anonymity can be a problem here, but I think Greenfield really underestimates the medium. There are places where people may exagerate their personality, or invent a completely new one. But these tend to operate in spaces where anonymity/fantasy are the rules of the game. People accept this and they work within these parameters. This isn’t so different from offline role play, make believe, amature dramatics. Crucially, I would say that these fantasy interactions take place in spaces where fantasy is the norm - it is a different world.

Your carefully crafted facebook profile saying your a spy with an Austin Martin and a taste for martinis is soon going to be blown when that person from work asks to be your friend.

Most boring tweet in the world

Man asleep, 4rank, flickr

Ok, so this isn’t about the worst twitter feed in the world, but all the other titles I could think of were rubbish.

Twitter is a social networking tool. This means that it must be social. This means that you can’t use it to pump out an anonymous corporate line. If you’re going to use it for marketing you need to use it as a tool to make connections with your audience. You only get these connections by having a personality and being interesting.

A good example of someone doing it wrong are Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats. Post after post reads just like the beginning of a press release, linking to a web page where you can read about their latest policy brief, or something that someone has said. If I wanted to get their press releases I would sign up to their RSS feed from their website. If I’ve subscribed to their flickr feed then I want a connection. They need to give me an insight into Nick’s life and the inner workings of the Lib Dems. They need to give me personality and a story to keep me interested, otherwise I’m going to switch off.

There are some brands that are doing it well.

Innocent: personality with a distinct voice that is telling me interesting things.

Red Nose Day: again, a strong voice with a personality behind it means that I pay attention to their tweets.

Brands really need to get to grips with this if it is going to be a successful marketing tool.

Any other examples of brands/orgs tweeting well or badly?

Genius

This is funny:

Almost as good as the Apple one:

(Thanks to Dave Briss)

Straight to digital

Found this (via brand republic). It’s a campaign run by an India women’s group who are mobilising on Facebook against a male religious group who beat and assualt women for visiting bars. They’re getting support to a group and then asking the group members to send a pair of pink pants to the Male organisation that is involved in the attacks.

It’s really interesting to see civil society in developing countries really latch on to new technologies, and in particular social networking. Much has been written about mobile use in Africa and how this has by-passed fixed line use. I think the same will happen with campaigning and development practice in developing countries.

I’m waiting for the first digitally-led development organisation that uses social networking tools, technologies and principles to drive its work to spring up soon (if one hasn’t already?). My guess is that this will happen first in India as adoption of social networking and digital is already quite advanced (see the twittering of the Mumbai attacks).

Anyone know if any charities like this exist already?

You need a content strategy…

I really like this new video from tfl as part of the cycling safety campaign (hat tip to RubbishCorp).

It got me think about viral content.

I don’t like the word viral. People use it too frequently and have turned it into a commodity – like “oh, we’ll do a viral”. It’s just regarded as another marketing channel for many, like press ads or tv - and that’s why so many attempts fail.

Because the word “viral” describes what happens, not what the “thing” is. The “thing” is content. Not just any content. Really, really good content. Targeted the right audience. Content so good that if you don’t send it on to your mates you might just literally explode.

Ok, the last part might be an exageration, but you get my point.

Content is king. And not just in terms of “viral” – but throughout the internet. That’s why it is far better for marketers to spend their time developing content strategies for digital spaces, rather than channel strategies. We should be asking “what stories can I tell”, “what stories are going to resonate with my target audience”, “how can I tell those stories in a way that’s going to add value to my relationship with that audience”?

Only then, after finding and developing those stories should we be asking how we can disseminate it to and through our target audience.

And this is where I think that marketers are missing a trick. I think there’s a perception that you create a viral, press send, and then it’s a sensation. If you’re properly following a content-driven strategy then should be looking to leverage all of your online and offline relationships with that content: Seeding it; Using it on social networks; Turning it into banners; Using it to enhance on-going dialogue with people in digital spaces. This massively amplifies what you’re doing, gets more value out of your investment in content, and gives you more chance of developing a viral effect for your message.

Your success will depend almost entirely on how good your content is so invest your resources there.

Computer Tan

Computer Tan is a campaign by Skcin to raise awareness of the dangers of skin cancer.

The viral has had a lot of hits and has driven a lot of traffic to the microsite so it seem like people were suckered by it.

It is well executed and seems like a great execution for the target audience – people who think that there is a quick fix for a tan are very likely to be sucked in by this and are probably the kind of people who end up bright red on a beach in Spain.

But a couple of things niggle.

Why isn’t the mobile app ready for the campaign? Brand Republic say that this is a limited campaign before a big reveal – though their cover has been blown by an article in the Sun. So why isn’t an app ready for the 2 week campaign window? This would have been a great hook and a good way to get the message out there, especially if you could send it on to a friend. This just seems sloppy.

Secondly, the video on the microsite took ages to load and I’m on a fast connection. Annoying.

Thirdly, how did this tiny, unknown charity get to work with a big agency and get loads of (presumibly free) media space? Having worked for a small organisation I know how difficult it is to make an noise and get impact. This is just envy though!

Photosynth

I’ve been playing around with Photosynth. I took some shots of my bedroom. I thought that it had enough distinctive features in it so that Photosynth can get to grips with everything and piece the pictures together.

Here’s what I came up with:

As you can see, it doesn’t all quite work. Don’t get me wrong, i think this is incredible. And I love the TED talk. But I was a little disappointed.

Oh well, I’m sure this will be amazing soon!