Insatiable for Social Media

-

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

Everyone’s yammering about social media these days. It would be hard to name a client who’s brought a project to our door over the past year who had not asked that we integrate some sort of social media component with said project. One of our recent favorites was an RFP for an extremely large government initiative that insisted this blandly institutional program be outfitted with all the trendy social media accessories to make it capture the public’s imagination and spread like wildfire. We came up with some fun ideas, but all the same, we couldn’t really imagine the desired result actually happening. Why? Because, inherently, the message at the heart of it all just did not feel like it was worth getting excited about. In our opinion, no one was going to Facebook or tweet about this bad boy. From a social media perspective, we saw this as a very earnest effort to polish a marketing turd.

The fact is, like traditional marketing and advertising efforts, some social media campaigns work, and some don’t. And even if a campaign generates the desired buzz, where does that buzz direct you, and ultimately, does it effectively serve the bottom line? I recently read an article that made some interesting comparisons between various social media initiatives.

For example:

Have you ever had the opportunity to “elf yourself”? If you recognize that phrase, you’ve probably played with the engaging little online holiday application that allows you to personalize a troupe of dancing elves with photos of yourself and/or family and friends. Most likely you, and about 150 million others, emailed your brilliant creation to your circle of friends, and received a few of theirs in return. Lots of fun, and a social media phenomenon. The company that sponsored and paid for the application saw some impressive results for their investment: it has been the most-visited holiday greeting site two years in a row and netted 200 million visitors in 2007 alone.

Now here’s the question: do you know the name of that sponsor company? Chances are, you don’t. Sorry, Office Max. Despite all the activity engendered by the application, Office Max saw it’s sales drop 7.5 percent during last year’s holiday season and has posted losses over several quarters.

Now, when you hear the phrase, “That was easy,” or see an image of a red “Easy” button, what company do you think of? Staples probably bubbles right to the surface. Their “Easy” campaign has consistently and effectively communicated its core message – that Staples efficiently helps you solve problems. The result? From a social media standpoint, that message has become part of the social consciousness, ranking right up there with phrases like “I’m loving’ it.” and “Got milk?” They’ve sold gads of actual souvenir “Easy” buttons which reinforce the campaign in a very tangible way. And most importantly, since Staples remains solidly in the black, the economic results have been noteworthy as well.

To be effective, a social media initiative needs to have a strong connection to its brand. Elves are cute, but after all the ooo-ing and aww-ing, how do you make the connection back to office supplies? And how does Office Max in particular fit into that scenario? Fact is, it doesn’t. Office Max got a lot of fizz for their efforts, but no substance, and no resonance for their brand. Staples, by contrast, continues to get meaningful mileage out of their campaign.

As we move forward in putting more and more social media campaigns together, it would be smart to always do an “authenticity check”, and ask ourselves whether or not the initiative connects to the brand in a meaningful, memorable way. Additionally, let’s ask the even more basic question: does social media provide the right channel for this project? Will people care about the funny, flashy campaign but forget the brand behind it? Just because everyone’s yammering about social media doesn’t mean every campaign should use it.

The Formic War Model for Interactive Application Development

-

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009

Before we get too far into this blog post, you’ll need to present your Geek Card™ at the door for verification purposes: if you’ve never read the sci-fi classic Ender’s Game series, it’ll be hard to keep up. In any case, this story is a favorite of mine, and as with many war stories, there’s a hint of software development wisdom in the plot that can be peppered across almost any important effort. After a recent re-read, here’s my war plan for galactic domination, interactive agency style.

Craft Your Team Carefully

One of the main characters in the series, Colonel (and later Minister) Graff is a ruthlessly efficient planner. You can question his motives and ethical underpinnings, but you can’t question his results. He masterminds the Battle School experience, hand-picks child warriors, and shepherds the experiences of each of those children in a very specific way to meet his end-game goals. Ender and Bean are even genetically engineered, more or less. Agencies, especially smaller groups, must craft perfect teams, and create and protect their culture.

Crafting a perfect team does not mean you always hire the best people for the job. It means you hire the Bean to complement the Ender. Too many alpha males, a prima donna, or a weak link in a team group can cause disaster. Hiring is difficult master, especially in organizations where teams live and die like the projects they complete. Not only do you need a great employee, but that person needs to perform well in any ad hoc team they end up working inside of.

Practice Formations

If you’re doing the same thing everyone else is, you’ll probably not get very far. One thing I love and hate about working at Rain is our tendency to take on impossible projects. You really have to innovate and approach problems differently to succeed. We’ve all heard about out-of-the-box thinking, but what percentage of the day do you spend in that mode?

It may also be important to realize that there are entirely different levels of thinking that you can apply to a project. In the novel, Ender uses one brilliant strategy after another to win his battle room episodes. He spurns tradition, focuses on the game’s win conditions, and outsmarts more experienced teams, even when crippled and outnumbered. That’s one level of innovative thinking. The super-level is the fact that he’s playing these games as part of a master plan to eradicate a hostile alien enemy. The over-arching strategy is brilliant in and of itself.

Software Development Requires the Thorough Victory

While Ender’s extreme victories are an ethical and philosophical topic that underlies the series, the principles really can be brought across to software development. Every software bug must be treated like the invading buggers. Every miscommunication to the client, every imperfection in the final delivery needs to be wiped out like a Bonzo Madrid or Stilson on the attack. Ender really is right about one thing—allowing the enemy a second chance to attack may be your last decision.

While crafting the perfect team is a part of this, developers and managers need to maintain a vigil against bleeding problems. A performance issue that goes ignored, a sidestep from your tried-and-true process will almost always end in disaster. From a technical standpoint, every shortcut or sloppy implementation is a withdrawal from the glory fund you plan to cash in at the end of the project. You won’t get a second chance with an important client anymore than you would mercy from the invading alien army.

Protect the Children from the Horrors of War

As a project manager, I try to take a Graff-like stance on protecting my team from the pressures surrounding the project. Client complaints and inter-office politics should never be a worry for the development team. If you can turn development into a game, your team will be much more happy and productive in the long run. Unless you happen to be in the xenocide business, I think your developers will be pleasantly surprised to know about the war they accidentally won after the project is complete.

Summary

Should you be unfortunate enough to find yourself in a Rain-sponsored Call of Duty 4 match, you’ll find me shelling and bunny-hopping under the callsign “Bean”. I do that for a number of reasons, but the main reason is to help me remember one important part of doing something well: trying harder isn’t enough. Too many people who aren’t doing well at something seem to try to apply positive mental attitude magic to their workday, hoping that somehow the extra effort will make a difference. One important part of the Ender story is his focused, analytical approach to getting better at a game. Folks, if you can programatically and purposefully get better at the game, you’ll end up winning the war.

Traffic Jam Diaries : 1

-

Thursday, July 30th, 2009

Skinny Jeans on men.

Yes, they make it impossible to fart because they’re squeezing your cheeks together with a pressure that’s unachievable in any other way, but other than that, I fail to see any advantage to wearing them. They reduce sperm count, they make you look like you’re constantly on the verge of falling down, and they’re difficult put on without lubricant. And they don’t look good. On you. Oh, sure, they might have looked semi-normal on a Scandanavian named Aero and a Swede named Yan, but other than that, no. It’s like Gary Oldham’s hair in the Fifth Element. Sure, he could pull it off. But could anybody else?

Any comedy with Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller, or Will Ferrell.

Likably clueless guys who get hit in the crotch and learn to overcome a measure of their idiocy (but only a tiny bit) for love are easy money. I get it already.

WTF.

I mean, WTF is up with WTF? It’s ruined the whole phrase. That phrase used to mean something! It used to be that only the baddest-a$$ kids in school would say that. That’s how you knew who to be afraid of. It’s how the social hierarchy was kept in order. But now it’s been reduced to three fairly benign letters that everyone and their little sister will use. WTF?!

Glossy logos.

It’s like putting bacon on crap. That first bit is tasty, but after that… You just can’t hide the taste of crap. Or skanky clothes on a marginally attractive (at best) woman. Oh, I know you looked, but you regretted it, didn’t you? Because your more attractive, more classy and more liked-by-your-parents-and-friends girlfriend saw you look, and now she’s gone.

And glossy does not automatically mean “web 2.0″. It usually means “I have no idea what the mission or brand of my company is, so I’m going to make things shiny and hope they attract the easily amused.” Problem with that is the easily amused aren’t very loyal. Go figure.

Oh, I’m sure they’re appropriate every once in a while; nearly everything is. But, like my momma always used to say, if your friends all dressed in women’s clothing, would you? I admit I’ve done a few such logos myself, at the behest of client demands (and always presented next to much more appropriate brands for their company that would last longer than the next couple of years when “Glossy” goes out of style). Yes, I did them, but, like those whose job is putting dogs to sleep, a little bit of me died that day because I knew I was doing something very, very wrong, and I’ll never get that part of me back.