Power to the People!

This week's readings and topics are all about the power of the people. My goal at the beginning of the week was to understand 1) the impact of internet communities on our culture, 2) the business opportunity at hand, and 3) why this is happening and why now - because at our local neighborhood community meeting attendance is low.....I work for a major CPG firm, so I will look at this groundswell shift through the lens of opportunities for consumer products.

I just got back from being in a friend's wedding in Jamaica last week, so I really didn't dive in to the reading until today. I will have to be more proactive and space this out, because I have spent the last 2 hours reading articles and watching videos! ("The Dawn of the Human Network", "Web Video", "Why the Groundswell?", video "Star Search").

Back to the topic at hand - Power to the people. First, "Why the Groundswell?" calls out the perfect storm of factors that have lead to this shift. People, Technology, & Economics. People have always organized and wanted to connect - whether to rebel, to share passions, to advance a social movement, etc. Technology has allowed people to organize, from every corner of the globe, in a cheap & easy way (sorry, local neighborhood meeting - you are too inconvenient). Finally, the economics of the internet rewards high traffic sites and blogs, therefore the business opportunity is about becoming a major community connection point in a relevant and authentic way.

The biggest thing that surprised me about the groundswell is how powerful it is or can be. It can take neutralize large organizations like the AACS LA in the Digg.com story, or it can help two college droupouts make $17 million in sales by having other people design their products (threadless.com). CPG companies can take advantage of this business opportunity by first plugging in to how their brands are discussed in these various communities. This means more than just watching your ratings on Amazon.com or other sites (Star Search - NPR video). Those can be "too nice" and don't always accurately represent the feelings on the brand or product.  

Once there is a clear understanding of the current brand reputation, companies can begin to join in on the conversation. The "prosumer" movement has proven that people want to create content and input into products. Ask about new ideas, ask about improvements, get prosumers to create commercials or package designs. Create a web video that becomes viral to get communities talking.

I think a brand that does this very well is Old Spice. This brand was once known as the "old guy" scent, and now is a hip, cool brand thanks to a hilarious campaign that reaches across TV, twitter, facebook, youtube, etc. The brand created a groundswell last summer by simply replying in Youtube videos to some tweets from fans. This immediately drove to a tweeting frenzy by fans, including celebrities who retweeted and the rest is history. You can read more about this at this link (and watch some of the videos). http://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2010/07/13/shirtless-old-spice-guy-replies-on-twitter-with-hilarious-personalized-videos/

Great campaign....followed the Web Video axiom of keeping it funny too!

So the business opportunity here is to understand that the people have the power, and the internet has maximized that. Jump in and join the discussion - you will better understand your brand, relate to your buyers, and can use their feedback and input to design your next product.

The Internet - Making us dumber or smarter?

I just read the two great articles in the WSJ, written by Nicholas Carr and Clay Shirkey. First, Nicholas Carr hypothesized that the advent of the internet and our use of it has made us "shallower" thinkers. This is because we no longer focus on one thing (like when we are reading), but are constantly multitasking online. He references a number of experiments that show when our attention is split, we retain less information. Therefore we understand less, and are worse critical thinkers and problem solvers.

On the other hand Clay Shirkey counters by claiming the internet is actually making us smarter. He hypothesizes that every medium, at its advent, has always been blamed for making the younger generation "dumber". He showcases examples from books to TV. The advent of each of these mediums has basically improved and updated how we think and reason. Everyone adjusts to the newest medium and then that becomes the norm.

Both authors make valid points, and I am  inclined to agree with both arguments in both articles, because I think they are not mutually exclusive. We may be more apt to multitask and process more ideas and distractions at once, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. This may be the new way of thinking in the future, especially as Web 2.0 becomes more commonplace. Mark Zuckerburg and Jeff Bezos (in the video a conversation with Amazon.com CEO) both strike me as the type of CEO's that have a very small attention span, multitask, and are "shallow" thinkers, but this has served them well as they started their internet companies. Maybe this is the successful thinking of the future?

Why is Web 2.0 the death of newspapers and TV?

This is my first blog post...ever. Which is crazy because I have been reading blogs and commenting on blogs forever. I get news about new products from blogs, I get customer service "ratings" on restaurants and stores from blogs, and I look to blogs for tips and tricks on various subjects. I guess it is ironic then that this first post is about how Web 2.0 (or Live Web as coined in "The Age to Engage - Chapter 1) has changed how people interact with products and brands, and how it has stolen value from TV and newspapers.

Successful marketers must constantly be reinventing their product & brands. This also includes managers of newspapers and TV stations. Historically, advertisers and marketers alike have been relying on newspapers and TV to distribute mass messages to the public. This was a push mentality - marketers pushing content to readers, viewers, or subscribers. Newspapers and TV stations made money, and consumers were happy for the information and entertainment.

However, as Gil and Frank outlined in the newspaper podcasts, the internet began to gain relevancy because it gave users the ability to customize content for free, and newspapers were painstakingly slow to respond. Soon, newspapers lost all revenue sources to the internet - automobile classifieds to cars.com, other classifieds to craigslist.com, personal ads to match.com and eharmony.com, and advertisements to email marketing, banner ads, and other more targeted avenues. Suddenly, newspapers lost relevancy as consumers received information and entertainment for free from the internet. Why would anyone pay subscription fees? As Frank said, people can begin to tailor their news feeds to match personal interests, and "pull" content to their preferences. This customization is something no medium previously allowed consumers.

The secret behind Web 2.0 is easy, free customization.

Before Web 2.0, publishing content was difficult - you had to be an expert in code to blog, or you had to work with a publisher to get anything in print, or you had to work with a newspaper to put in a personal ad. Now, it is easy. Facebook is easy & trustworthy ("Do you trust this face?" GQ Article on M. Zuckerburg). Blogspot makes distributing content easy and free, and setting up a profile is easy on match.com and it offers more customized choices than the newspaper.

Newspaper and TV as mediums do not have the value trifecta today: easy, free, customized.....the new Web 2.0 does. It is not hard to see why this has marketers and managers reeling.