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

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?

We came across a few websites pushing this idea…

Idea bounty

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

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?

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.

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?

The discussion became heated.

I couldn’t get my words out quick enough.

I was trying to say “wanky marketing” and it came out as “wanketing”.

We laughed. Then we decided that it’s not such a stupid concept.

Too often we find ourselves surrounded by wanketers (as we shall now refer to them). We are pretty certain you know the exact person we mean unless, of course, you are one of those people in which case we’d rather you weren’t here thank you very much.

We Are Shift F7 are pioneering to stop the wanketing. Why should clients have to put up with marketing agency folk talking bullshit to them? Why should ANYONE have to put up with wanketers talking nonsense? There’s no point in talking about something for 15 minutes and boring or confusing your listener when it could be explained in two short sentences.

We Are Shift F7 promise only to speak in simple, clear and meaningful terms. And if we don’t, you have full permission to give us a slap…

Evoking memories of childhood?

Apparently, this turn of nostalgia is the way forward at the moment, and is proving to be key inspiration for a lot of marketing and promotional activity; creating campaigns that are very much based on users exploring and searching, just like when they were kids and the world was an exciting place to be.

Case in point:

In the US, the Levi’s Go Forth ARG hunt will award the ultimate winner with $100k, whilst Red Bull is hiding it’s new ‘energy shot’ drinks all over the country for people to find (access through Facebook, nice social media twist). Samsung is running a more traditional scavenger hunt, albeit with a photographic twist. Even Stephen King is getting in on the act, divvying up his new book into 5,196 pieces (must be relevant to the story somehow?) and scattering them all over the internet, giving UK players clues to find them and piece the story together. And what about Editors, promoting their new album by inviting users to explore a virtual London through Google Street View, searching for areas where they can listen to new songs? Not forgetting, of course, the plethora of brands, film and gaming companies and record labels who create interactive videos, either bespoke or via YouTube Annotations.

Why?

We have also noticed a distinct sense of nostalgia in traditional TV advertising, looking back at “the good old days”, reminding consumers of times gone by and childhood memories. Just look at last year’s uber-nostalgic, multi-award winning TV ad for Hovis, which had such a good PR backing that the first view of it (in the ad break of Corrie no less) became a must-watch event in itself.

Why?

It’s not just advertising. Film studios appear to be making a lot of kids books and TV shows (Where The Wild Things Are, The Fantastic Mr Fox and the Transformers franchise to name but three) into box office filling, family friendly movies that remind the adults in the audience of when they were young.

Why?

Is this a reaction to the recession? In hard times, do we tend to look back to times past with rose tinted glasses? Does this notion of nostalgia make us feel better about the situations we now find ourselves in? Does this method of tapping into nostalgia ACTUALLY sell more products? Is this all just a symptom of post-modernism? Ah, now THAT is another blog post in itself…

Of course we are!

Follow us @WeAreShiftF7 and we might just follow you back!

It’s true, the buzz around Social Media is still going strong and if we were to personify it, Social Media would probably be the most popular person on the planet right now.

Many brands want to join this ‘Social Media Revolution‘; our competitors are doing it, we must too, right?

Traditional Marketing

Far too often we here at We Are Shift F7  think that brands are jumping on this bandwagon, but using it in a traditional way; one way communication, getting ‘their message’ out there, not listening but shouting… who can shout the loudest gets the market share, right? This was the traditional method of marketing/advertising, by informing consumers of the benefits in order to sell to them. Focused around the product, to a degree, not so much the consumer. Obviously the best products filled a gap or need, then fly off the shelves, metaphorically speaking. Before this, before the internet, this was a given. You needed to let consumers know your brand exists in order to ’sell’ to them.

Combat noise by shouting louder!

We see a number Twitter profiles and Facebook Groups with little or no content or updates. This is not using ‘Social Media’ in a social way. This is using the platform to have the much needed ‘presence’.

Conversation

So what does the definition of Social Media actually mean? (from our beloved Wikipedia)…

Social media are media designed to be disseminated through social interaction, created using highly accessible and scalable publishing techniques. Social media supports the human need for social interaction, using Internet- and web-based technologies to transform broadcast media monologues (one to many) into social media dialogues (many to many). It supports the democratization of knowledge and information, transforming people from content consumers into content producers.

Big point in that paragraph above, “Many to Many”! It’s not a straight up, one-way communication channel anymore, it’s two-way, and that’s also “Many to Many’.

Why, you ask?

Person A states comment about Brand X. Person A has many friends/followers on their social network. Followers/friends see this comment (word of mouth). Some pass this on to their friends/followers. And so on.

Resistance To Change

Brands too often take the traditional PR approach where they want to monitor and control all conversations. You cannot do this with social media, as you couldn’t in the offline world where people talk face to face. You join the conversation, take comments on board… and therefore improve the relationship between your brand and your consumers. Don’t take these comments personally, treat is as a live suggestion box.

So far, we have looked at one aspect of the conversations that could take place… but what else is ‘Social Media’?

Relationship Building

The traditional marketing approach is to build awareness, interest, desire that then leads to action by using such tools such as DM and Advertising (for example). Social Media as about building a relationship with your consumers, creating a two-way conversation channel. Think about it as a relationship with a real person. It is two-way, give and take and, most importantly, listen.

Social Media campaigns that are successful take this into account, add value to the consumers life, in addition to what to product does. Enable the brand to build a relationship with the consumer. This, in turn, is a stronger bond than what is effectively a chat up line. You go from one night stand to long term… What do you think holds more value?

Summary

Don’t think of social media as being one of those traditional tools of marketing, use the potential it has to create that conversation channel and build up the long term relationship you are both looking for. No need to shout. Listen. Consumers like to be spoken to and heard.

In short, Google Wave is a collaborative mechanic which allows the user (or ‘waver’, as I like to refer to them) to create a ‘Wave’ (email, document, whatever) which can then be edited, amended, added to and so on by others. The result of this can be seen, in real time, as it happens, by all collaborators. I like to think of it, in layman’s terms, as a combination of traditional email, IM and wiki.

However, this is Google, and it would not be as simple as that. Google has cleverly integrated a whole host of other features to Google Wave, such as a real time language translator and an API which will open up limitless opportunities; basically a developers wet dream.

Here’s a nice little intro video if you still aren’t sure.

Why do We Are Shift F7 love this concept so much?

It’s social!

Google Wave is all about being social; allowing collaboration and creating a multi-layered channel of communication between people all in one handy place.

Now, where is our goddamn invite…?!