#RiversideYourself
Posted by Dan | Filed under Blog, Work
A big and shiny “Happy New Year” from the We Are Shift F7 team!
Sorry we haven’t been around much recently. We were very busy bees throughout December, working on a new website (coming soon) and launching our first viral for Ministry Of Sound.
Our viral microsite, RIVERSIDE YOURSELF MOTHERF****R, is part of the promotion for the 4th January release of ‘Riverside (Let’s Go!)’ by Sidney Samson Feat. Wizard Sleeve. Users are encouraged to upload an image of their face which is then placed over one of the infamous Riverside dancer’s. The user is then able to select their city before viewing their own, customised version of the video with ‘Wizard Sleeve’ introducing them.
This viral was turned around in a very short period of time with a limited budget, and our lovely clients at Ministry Of Sound were very pleased with the outcome, which is nice.
You can Riverside yourself at http://www.ministryofsound.com/riversideyourself
#TheInternet: Makes you who you wana be?
Posted by Dan | Filed under Blog, Ideas, Thinking
I have spoken about the ‘Social Reality Show‘ in previous posts; the human obsession with the famous and the new tools celebrities use to gain media attention, but also the desire some people have to be an Internet star. It’s all possible with YouTube and Twitter. What Katie Wore and Shit my dad says are great examples of this.
Thinking about celebrity Twitter profiles, Facebook pages and MySpace profiles; what is the motivation for someone to pretend to be a celebrity and post as if they were them?
Is the motivation that some people behind the screen of their computer want this attention, they want the attention that major celebrities get? I think this in some ways ties back into what I wrote before about the ‘Social Reality Show’. Twitter introduced a ‘Verified’ element to their accounts. A seal of verification appears at the top of celebrities profiles when they have been validated to help stop this. That is the hard stop tactic, but I think we need to understand why people imitate in order to stop it (or if it can be).
When you were a child I am sure many of you pretended to be someone famous, either when scoring whilst playing football or some sort of role playing activity where you were Indiana Jones or the Karate Kid? Does the fact people create fake Twitter profiles mean that they want to ‘play’ at being Michael Owen for a bit longer, living their unfulfilled football dream, or as a supermodel to feel happy for a few moments?
Are we just talking about a different form of escapism here?
On a side note, does this also tie into ‘Nowism’? People want the feeling, the benefits, the attention, and they want it now? Social media by its nature has given us the opportunity to do this.
So maybe social media has widened the number of tools we have to escape?
Tags: escapism, facebook, Social Media, Twitter
#Crowdsourcing
Posted by Dan | Filed under Blog, Talk, Thinking
I have seen a lot of hype lately about Crowdsourcing, why so much? Do we think it is a good thing? Quite a few people have started talking and tweeting about this trending topic (so to speak), with lots of different views. I have a summary of some thoughts and opinions below…
We came across a few websites pushing this idea…
Idea Bounty is a website that allows clients to ask the world for creative ideas in exchange for a reward, or Bounty. The clients review the submissions and select the best Idea as the Bounty winner. Clients can only use Ideas that they pay the creative a Bounty for.
99designs is a disruptive startup which connects passionate designers from around the globe with savvy clients who need design projects completed in a timely fashion without the usual risk or cost associated with professional design.
I sent the 99designs website onto a friend of mine and this was his response (I have edited out the swearing):
I cheapens the whole design process and opens up the industry to a downward spiral that can only result with designers fighting against each other over cost/pricing rather than quality of concept and execution it will be like gladiators in the coliseum.
AND you give away all copyright for the work, given that the average pay from the site is $100-$600 they can suck my ####!!! – if I designed a logo for example a big bank and they had branches all over the world, i would expect to get a minimum of £5,000-£10,000 for complete copyright hand over and that is probably too cheap.
Sorry to rant but that is exactly the kind of thing I am against. It’s on par with free pitching. Crowdsourcing is a cheap way for c###s that dont wana pay for REAL quality, they just want something nice ‘n’ pretty for the least amount of money.
Bad days are just around the corner if sites like this start popping up everywhere.
This, as I am sure you have worked out, is a response from a designer. I can see his point here, although I don’t see free pitching as an issue. Going off topic for a second, in my opinion if you don’t get paid to pitch it ensures the agency presents their best work possible. It is a driver.
Back in the room… The same sort of POV as the above was posted on the blog of Amelia Torode, a planner in London. In the first paragraph we see Amelia state that it ‘cheapens outsourcing‘. Although this blog post was more of a discussion piece I think there are a few good points there. Do we need the ad agency if 1000’s of out-of-work creatives (assumption, I know) will deliver ideas for a lot less money?
I am a firm believer that good ideas can come from anyone… I also don’t think that ‘the creatives’ are the only source of these… But on that note, you do either have it or you don’t. Again I digress…
I guess we then touch upon economics to address another issue… If companies (or people, in this case) are competing against a fierce number of competitors, then more often than not the product or service comes down to price. Is this a problem or an advantage of Crowdsourcing? I think it depends on which side of the boardroom table you sit on.
We may be witnessing a revolution? A new ad agency has started up in the US called Victors & Spoils (wow, they have been getting a lot of press lately… first mover advantage?):
We are Victors & Spoils and this is what we do. As the world’s first creative (ad) agency built on crowdsourcing principles, it’s our goal to provide businesses with a better way to solve their marketing, advertising and product-design problems by engaging the world’s most talented creatives.
Why are we doing this? The way we see it, companies need an alternative to both current ad agencies as well as current crowdsourcing platforms. One that offers the strategic direction, engagement and relationship management that agencies deliver today, but one that also delivers the engagement, cultural relevance, results and return on investment that crowdsourcing {if managed and directed well} can deliver.
The old saying ‘two heads are better than one’ could be used as a analogy to describe Crowdsourcing, but does it matter who these heads are? On the one hand you have a team that works in an ad agency, doing it everyday, on the pulse with new technology (most are anyway), seasoned in developing creative ideas to meet a clients brief. Then you have potentially 1000’s of minds working away on your brief simultaneously – surely a few must be good ideas?
I guess we are assuming here that the people that partake in Crowdsourcing are not as experienced in meeting client briefs from a creative and strategic perspective.
The way I see it is as follows:
Go to an ad agency and you are pretty much guaranteed a solution that is based on thorough thinking about your brand/product. Agencies have planners that work with creatives for a reason; to ensure the quality of work that comes out meets the clients requirements. All good agencies will propose ideas that the believe (or intuitively know) will work.
The Crowdsource model is more of a gamble. You fire it out there, get loads back, then hope something will stick. Some will stick and could even be great, potentially the best marketing ideas to be developed… but are clients willing to take this risk, especially in times like these? Or even when things are good?
This post is lacking the clients view on this, so if you do work client side, please feel free to let us know your thoughts.
I am all about new developments, new technology and new thinking. Maybe I could even be accused of being resistant to change. Is this a good idea though? Clients use ad agencies as they are experts, can 1000’s of people that are not technically experts in a subject do better than a team of, say, 10 experts?
Tags: 99designs, crowdsource, crowdsourcing, Idea Bounty
Who should look after social media activity?
Posted by Anna | Filed under Blog, Thinking
This is a question I was asked earlier on in the week by a fellow social media-er and, do you know what? I had to stop and think carefully about it. It’s a tough one.
Initially I thought is was a “PR Agency vs. Digital Agency” question, but then I thought some more… Obviously a dedicated social media agency should be a key player in this debate, but what about simply doing it in-house? Is there available resource for this instance? Do they know what they are doing when it comes to social media activity? In some cases, this is fine and can work very well (see our friends at Glasses Direct and their Twitter efforts) but could doing it in-house be potentially damaging if not executed or managed correctly? Should brands and services employ someone specifically to look after social media in-house? Would there be enough work for this person? Could there be too much? Many, many questions and debates around this subject…
The person who initially asked me the question then went on to discuss what exactly comes under the ’social media’ umbrella? Sometimes, people forget that ’social media’ is not just Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Communities live in many different spaces online – can you ever reach them all? This throws up further questions over how you prioritise one channel over another…
Personally, I believe that the person (or people) responsible for social media depends entirely on the circumstances, the brand/service, what they are looking to achieve, what their audience are doing online and a whole host of other important contributing factors.
Obviously, in an ideal world, using a dedicated social media agency is going to be the best solution because it is in their blood; it’s what they know, what they do, what they live and breathe. But we don’t always live in an ideal society so maybe it’s not always the answer?
Either way, don’t go into social media marketing blind. So many brands and services have done this and made royal mess ups (Habitat’s Twitter fail, anyone?) whilst others have been far too half-hearted and the efforts are wasted and pointless.
Don’t waste an opportunity. Don’t be pointless.
Tags: pr, Social Media, social media agency
Brands, listen up!
Posted by Anna | Filed under Blog, Thinking
I came across this post on the Made By Many blog yesterday and it made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. A brand who are actually using social media to listen to their consumers, to respond, engage and connect with them.
The story in short:
Simon I’Anson, of social digital agency Made By Many, has taken to tweeting about the goings on in the Bose electronics shop he overlooks from his work desk. Using #bosewatch to tag his tweets, he wrote about the seemingly mundane occurrences in the shop. One day, Simon received a phone call from the shop’s Assistant Manager. They had a nice chat. Simon was invited into the Bose shop for a further chat and a look round. Off he went. And he reported back only nice things.
This is a classic case of brands being active within the online community; listening to what people are saying about their brand and then reacting to it.
It opens up a communication channel between the brand and the potential audience and makes the end consumer feel as if they are important to the brand.
It’s personal.
Then, this morning, my father sends me an email to say that Glasses Direct have asked him to appear in their next TV ad. Naturally, I tweeted about this. Within a couple of minutes, @glasses_direct had sent me a message saying that they were looking forward to meeting him and how could they welcome him? I LOVE this level of service and consumer outreach!
Listen. Understand. Engage.
It’s a good model for other brands to follow.
On a side note, my esteemed other Shift F7-er, the lovely Dan, would like to disagree with me on this.
Dan says:
“There are two perspectives; brands engaging by pulling in users by creating an exciting promotion or strategy, and then there are brands, such as the ones you mentioned, who actively look for comments to respond to. I think there is a line… certain comments brands can and should be responding to, but others they shouldn’t, as it is effectively stalking. Some people don’t want brands to contact them about their comment as it is a mundane statement… others may.
So as a caveat, yes brands can do this, but as always it shouldn’t be abused as it could be seen as SPAM!”
What do YOU think?
Tags: Bose, Glasses Direct, Made By Many, Social Media, Twitter
We are a digital creative & social media agency.