The New Age of the "Statusphere"

Apple has a phone that has not only changed the face of the phone industy as a whole, but has also developed a market for applications that has had a profound impact on the advertising industy.

Google has a phone that's meant to give Apple a run for its money. By capitalizing upon the cultural change that society is undergoing in terms of digital media, Google's Nexus One (once they work the kinks out, of course) is supposed to be the quintessential utility for the quintessential digital consumer.

Now, however, a new theory is under exploration: that of a social media network- entrenched entirely in the digital community, making use of its own application on mobile devices, relying on others to propagate itself- expanding outside of our computer screens to bring to us...well, another phone.

What if Facebook were to come out with its own version of a smartphone? The AdAge article whose point of view I'm exploring can be found here: http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=141627

Steve Rubel, the author of the article, states that because change starts small- as in the case of Microsoft overturning how we perceive computers (an industry previously dominated by IBM)- the ways in which consumers perceive their phones is growing rapidly. According to the article, 17% of all US consumers now own smartphones. This means that out of the 250 million people in America, approximately 32.5 million of them own phones that are quickly becoming handheld computers. With the prevalence of applications, games, and utilities combined with traditional handset properties of text messaging, data storage, and, of course, calling, phones are now estimated to displace computers in terms of Internet usage within the next five years.

So, really, how hard would it be to believe that a completely Internet-based social networking site could profitize on its page stickiness and popularity to create a phone that not only makes use of all the features stated above, but has unparalleled networking and communication features in addtion?

What would a Facebook phone be like? Would it be possible to update your status while turning on the phone, to get RSS feeds of what your friends and coworkers are doing when you see the home screen, to have full Internet access along with your friends' favorite or featured pages? Would you be able to automatically add funny text messages to your favorite quotes wall, and to add pictures that you take on your phone automatically to your albums or profile pictures? Would Facebook form a partnership with other networking sites such as LinkedIn and Twitter, to give people the absolute utmost in a mobile social media experience?

And, most importantly, what would this do to the advertising industry? Of course advertisers now are attempting to break their way into consumers' minds by infiltrating social media, and this is something we in the industry are still trying to get the hang of. However, a Facebook phone with (if possible) all of the features I listed above would again completely recreate how we perceive not only mobility, but our social experiences as people. Advertisers could sponsor favorite pages, and phones could even be free with advertiser sponsorship. Live feeds via Twitter could be essential for brands, as direct messages could maybe be received as texts, and brands could update their Facebook pages with messages for soon-to-expire offers or product information. Put your brand's most popular commercials on YouTube so that those who subscribe to your company can receive, view, and send them to their friends.

To put it simply, a Facebook phone would change everything. Facebook already has the popularity and even (dare I say it) the absolute need that most consumers feel for it in today's age- because come on, who goes on the Internet nowadays without checking Facebook? Now you can be social on the go.

Welcome to the new age of the "statusphere."

A Sip of Idealism

Bolivian President Evo Morales didn't chew coca leaves at UN meetings just for the heck of it.

In an interesting politicial, social, and economic move, Bolivia's socialist leader has decided to manufacture a product that will give our capitalistic society something to think about:
A new Coca-Colla.

The name isn't a coincidence. It's intention is to give the U.S.'s Coca-Cola Company a run for its money, and theoretically put it into somewhat of a "villainous" position. According to the article at www.treehugger.com/files/2010/01/bolivia-enters-cola-war-with-new-coca-colla.php?campaign=weekly_nl , Bolivia's Coca-Colla will "kill two birds with one stone. Not only is the socialist leader drumming up support for standing up against the great capitalist symbol (responsible for inspiring terms like "Coca-Colanization"), he's aiming resources to bring a boon to the nation's coca growers."

The project, expected to reach completion in about four months, is expected to further increase Bolivia's controversy with the U.S. Now, I'm not a political theorist, but it seems to me that Bolivia's move, while done for "good" (depending on how you interpret the word) reasons, may not be the smartest, especially considering that the work force of the American Coca-Cola giant is larger than the Bolivian standing army by about 20,000.

The way in which Bolivia is propagating the project seems to me to be actively attracting negative attention from the U.S., and while this seems to be intentional, I can't help but wonder: what if they had put it in a more positive light? For example, instead of openly stating the "point" this new product is supposed to demonstrate to the U.S., perhaps they should merely tout the fact that it is not only helping support the economy of Bolivia, but also helping the nation's farmers- something the U.S. has yet to do in both respects. By assuming the same name as its American counterpart, Coca-Colla will be an outright statement of the aggressive stance Bolivia has taken with the U.S. in the past, and done nothing to resolve.

It remains to be seen what the colors and logo will look like for this upcoming brand, and if the government will keep the project completely state-run or if they'll try to attract private capital (which, if they did, wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of this anti-capitalistic soda?). I have to believe that it won't make use of the same colors or font that the current Coca-Cola uses for its brand, because if it did, it would then be relegated to the same status as impostor brands for companies such as Starbucks in other countries, and this soda is much too meaningful for that.

The Impostor Soda of Idealism. Hmm. The name itself makes me wonder whether Bolivia is just trying to ride off of Coca-Cola's success, or if they really mean it when they say they're trying to demonstrate a point. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

In the meantime, I think I'll go pop open a can of refreshing capitalism.

Can One Wax Socratic With Spotty 3G Coverage?

Cutthroatiness has apparently reached a new level.

From Subway's Jared to Taco Bell's Christine, from the ability of Kellog's Cocoa Krispies to improve children's immune systems to Frosted Mini Wheat's to "improve" their attention span, borderline false claims in advertisements have recently reached a new high (or would that be low?).

I totally get it. If something can be statistically proved, and we know how to say it in a sufficiently misleading- but not untrue- manner to plug our own brand, then why wouldn't we? Especially (and I hate to bring this up again, but alas, such is the century we live in) with the lower levels of consumer spending we've been seeing the last few years, and especially when we have competing brands that are similar in every way to our own.

But what I have to ask is this: Is there a point where the competition becomes so overwhelming that we can realistically justify stepping outside the bounds of ethics? And if so, have we reached that point?

Now, I'm not saying that Powerade's claim to be the "complete" sports drink was false, but the fact that Gatorade brought that claim to court and disputed it seems to me to be a bit, well...overkill.

According to the article in Forbes, last year a record 85 companies brought legal disputes against other companies for claims made in their advertisements- up from 63 cases in 2007. Yes, we should pursue it when companies make claims that really aren't true, but when we want to probe the meaning of "complete" as it applies to a sports drink? Oy.

It's fun to watch companies battle it out over the small screen. The recent AT&T vs. Verizon battle has everyone watching both companies' commercials to see which insult will be dished out next. Until now, I had never heard an audience say, "oooooh, ouch, he got you man" when someone accused someone else of having spotty 3G coverage.

But while we duke it out, let's try to keep in mind the ethical principles that are so important to consumers' trust in our industry. Because if we're taking each other to court over our own false claims, then what reason do they have to believe us when we say anything?

Make New Friends, and Keep the Old

What are we so afraid of?

This morning, AdAge published an article in which current research done by the Advertising Research Federation (ARF) revealed that most advertisers see the wealth of consumer online brand opinions as more of a curse than a gift. Their main concern is that it's difficult to measure accurately the correlation between what is said online and offline, as well as the very fact that they can't control what is said.

Just to get it out of my system (and also because I'm a college student): People, if it's free, USE IT.

Like I said in my last entry- the trend of consumer dialogue with companies and brands is changing the ad industry as a whole. The wealth of opportunities offered by unsolicited (and oftentimes, unbiased) consumer opinion, and consumer dialogue, is unprecedented! We could pay consumers to come sit in cold rooms and tell us their [read: biased, paid-for] opinions of our commercials, or we could merely do some research on Facebook for an hour and find more there than we would have in three focus groups.

Now, maybe this isn't necessarily true, and there definitely are advantages to traditional methods of research. However, everything in moderation. We shouldn't confine ourselves to traditionality when opportunity is banging loudly on our doors, and in the currently uncertain economic climate, it's always better to save money and be more efficient where we can afford to be.

Yes, maybe this does mean hiring one new person to keep updated on the buzz going on about a particular brand. Maybe it means a new person in client-side marketing departments to interact with consumers through their social media. This change is not coming slowly, and we don't have time to prepare or be reticent about it.

So keep having focus groups. Keep taking surveys, doing one-on-one interviews, and anything else that is traditional and necessary to satisfy the clients on the research side. But make sure to keep informed about what's going on digitally, and make a concentrated effort to engage consumers in dialogue about your brand(s).

They want to talk to you. If they didn't, they wouldn't be talking about you.
One is silver and the other's gold.

Ten Times the Fun

What the ad industry went through last year was, for lack of a better phrase, a mind-boggling experience. For the first time, agencies and clients alike were hit by the combined fears of the public: what to do with their money, and how to effectively reach them so that they're willing to spend it on us.

This year, as the public grows more and more aware of the effect that advertising has on them- and as they become more and more averse to it- advertisers and their clients should both be conscious of possibly the most important underlying theme to this dilemma:

Opportunity.

I just read an article in AdAge called "Planning Your Next Move in Ad Land: The Challenges and Pitfalls Ahead for the Industry in 2010." In it, AdAge discusses the (more often than not) negative trends that have been developing in the industry for quite some time: how automakers are dealing with the decline in television advertising; how soft drinks are facing a "sugar panic" from the general public; how agencies and clients are battling over compensation methods, especially in a time where cheaper digital media is growing in popularity while traditional forms of advertising are declining, and with it, the revenue of the agencies responsible. Those, among many other issues, are the challenges we face for the upcoming decade.

But maybe they're not as horrific as we think.

Maybe it's time for a change in the system.

This may not be realistic, but how about this: instead of keeping the divide between the big digital agencies, the small ones, and the ones that are just branches of full-service agencies, so that no one of them has all that is required in order to create a really compelling digital campaign (that is, great creative, great strategy, and effectiveness), why don't we collaborate all three so that we can get all three? How about, instead of worrying about the public's increasing tendency to shop online, we make it even easier for them, and thereby increase our own share in their lives? Have company-sponsored internet access on 3G networks for wireless providers (since people are living more on their mobile devices anyway, this really wouldn't be a bad idea). Make a Macy's department store iPhone app, where people can "walk around" a virtual store. Put signs in doorways of existing department stores with information about sales that's only available online- in the form of coupons, dates, etc. 20% of the American population owns an iPhone. How many more at least have some form of 3G?

I once saw a commercial for a pay-per-view movie where on the screen, there was a button you could click with the remote to watch the movie while it was being advertised. And therein lies one part of the answer for the auto industry- if they're afraid of completely breaking away from television advertising, why don't they integrate it with the online sphere they haven't quite conquered yet? In terms of the technological breakthroughs the article was discussing, why don't we make it possible for TVs to have internet access, so that we can explore products we may be thinking about as they're being marketed to us?

During my time as a participant in Disney's College Program this past semester, I learned about how the Walt Disney Company formed its global strategy. In the past, Disney was very fragmented- they marketed California Adventure to Californians, the Orlando resort to Floridians, and focused on what makes a theme park a theme park- attractions. Once they realized that wasn't working, they integrated their marketing strategy to have one global theme, which they now change every year. The first time they made us of this was with Walt Disney World's 50th Anniversary Celebration, in which Disney advertised throughout the nation, but still specialized its content to reach target audiences. The campaign had little to no television advertising; instead, most of it was over radio and internet, where people could interact with and customize the vacations they wanted to make. By taking what other theme parks had done before and integrating parts of that with their own ideas, Disney was able to establish a reputation that is known worldwide without ever really having to market it. They changed from the inside out. And that is exactly what the ad industry needs to do in this upcoming decade.

Instead of working through the problems we face, we should make the problems work for us. Every setback is an opportunity to do something no one's ever heard of before, and that is exactly what the times we're living call for. Instead of trying to figure out how to make consumers come to us, we need to figure out how to best let us come to them. We need to engage, we need to change, and frankly, we need to stop being so scared.

That way, we can go from being the industry that reflects the times in to being the industry that defines them.