What's Your Beef With Consumer Crowdsourcing?

I’ve written in the past about how excited I am by the possibilities presented by digital communications in regards to consumer crowdsourcing. In my mind, crowdsourcing represents the ultimate method for engagement, in that it instills in consumers a sense of ownership in a brand. That ownership fosters loyalty and personal connections. On the flip side, consumer crowdsourcing gives us communications folk a direct line to what the public really wants from a given brand. Regardless of the inherent benefits, crowdsourcing is still viewed cynically, and not without a tinge of contempt, amongst some advertising professionals. In this regard, I have a message for my colleagues: “We need to get over ourselves!”

Is that harsh? Maybe. However, it is certainly not as harsh as what is coming from our community at large. With every consumer crowdsourcing campaign there is commentary that mitigates that campaign’s results. Most often this commentary is little more than industry people making fun of what the consumers create. Truthfully, a lot of these comments are funny. I admit that. However, underneath the humor I believe that there is actual disdain for the work of those we view as amateurs.

We create, we innovate, we communicate, and many of us are pretty damn good at it. But we should be; it’s our job! The kid who creates a logo or the mom that suggests a new line of baby food is just trying to have some fun or offer an opinion. Is much of what results from consumer crowdsourcing amateurish? Absolutely. Is some of it downright stupid? Sure it is. Why should we expect anything else?

Granted, consumers are not privy to the behind-the-scenes information that we are. A great idea to a consumer might be preposterous for us to conceive, given client restrictions and real-world application. Yet, perhaps that preposterousness is where we might find the kernel of genius in these campaigns. Instead of resenting the consumers because they are not us, let’s embrace that fact. Isn’t it possible that we might be too far entrenched in our own professions that we often miss out on the layman’s perspective entirely?

There is another aspect to consider here, and it has nothing to do with consumers. In the advertising community, crowdsourcing is a four-letter word. The idea itself is subversive to the status quo we’ve been operating under for decades. This is an ego-driven industry, and people work hard to achieve the recognition that comes from putting in their time and creating great work. If I were a creative-type or a strategist who had dedicated a better part of his/her life to becoming a go-to person for ideas, I would probably be resentful of crowdsourcing too.

But fear not, my fellow egotists! Crowdsourcing will never, ever replace the outstanding work you do. The sooner you embrace that fact, the sooner you will be able to see it for what it simply is: an effective tactic.

Regardless of what they actually create, consumers are interacting with brands, and that is what is most important. What we need to accept is that the environment in which we operate has changed dramatically, and that the real ownership in the brands we represent now lies with the consumer. Everyone has a voice now, and we need to pay attention ... even if the result is sometimes stupid.

GM tries Nostalgia.

It’s been a few weeks now and the verdict from industry professionals has been swift and near unanimous: Goodby, Silverstein, and Partner’s new campaign for Chevrolet misses the mark. Aside from the harsh criticism of the tagline “Chevy Runs Deep” -- criticism that ranges from perplexity to the mocking of the sexual innuendo inherent in the line --there has been a damning commentary regarding the agency’s “Chevrolet Anthem” spot, one that evokes the industrial days of yore, when GM was as much a part of Americana as the Yankees and apple pie. Whether invective-filled or rationalized, the basis of the reaction to the campaign has been this: Why is GM, fresh from a government bailout and a decade of poor market performance, bringing up the past?

The question is valid. In fact, I agree completely that it’s a quandary. However, I understand how the campaign came to be, and as much as I disagree with it, I get it. I get it because I was raised in the Detroit area.

My father worked in the automotive industry. The majority of my friends’ parents worked in the automotive industry. In my youth, I took approximately six school field trips to the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn. If I were to search my parents’ house, I’d probably find a “Buy American” pin or T-shirt packed away in a cardboard box. The automotive industry is inexorably tied to my upbringing, as it is tied to most who hail from the Detroit area and other areas tied to the Big Three. Myself, and those like me, grew up in what I call “The Big Three Bubble.”

But then I moved away from Detroit. I lived in Washington, D.C. for a while, then onto Chicago where I currently reside. As Midwest and blue collar as the city of Chicago is, the themes -- or anthems, if you will -- of my youth are not present here because there are a multitude of industries that drive the workforce, not just one as in Detroit. I have lived outside the Bubble for several years now, and let me tell you something: The sentiment regarding the American automotive industry is much different on the outside.

The truth is, consumers and the American public outside of the Bubble have a short-term memory. In all that has happened in the past decade, it is hard for them to remember anything too far in the past. What they remember is that General Motors would have collapsed if not for the drastic action of the federal government in the 11th hour. What they remember is the decade’s worth of vehicles that just couldn’t quite compete with their foreign counterparts.

However, if one were to take a look at the demographic of the Big Three’s executive class, I’m willing to bet good money that it is comprised of men and women who have lived inside of the Bubble their entire lives. To these people, the most important, treasured aspect of their respective brands is that they are embedded in the foundation of American industry -- and therefore embedded in our national identity. The “Anthem” campaign rings true to these executives, right to the core of their collective being.

Now, this is all supposition, but I’m willing to bet that Goodby came to Detroit with all sorts of out-of-the-box ideas that were shelved because the client’s notion of the Chevrolet brand still only exists inside the Bubble. Or perhaps Goodby drank the Detroit Kool-Aid, and who could blame them? The goal of all great advertising is to connect on a strong, emotional level with the consumer, and what’s stronger than the connection Detroiters have with the automotive industry?

The shame of all this is that soon GM will pay back the bailout loan and the federal government actually will make money off the deal -- and that the new lineup of GM vehicles are legitimately great products. Goodby’s work doesn’t convey any of that, not yet anyway. As an admirer of Goodby, and as someone who genuinely wants to see the Chevy brand do well, I look forward to new campaigns that convey the state of the brand as it is now, as well as conveying what it may become in the future.

Go Big or Go Home

For the first time in my career, I am not with an agency. Thankfully, this doesn’t mean I am unemployed as I am currently operating as an independent contractor (working as a social media consultant, in fact). While contracting has its perks, I am eager to get back to agency life. As to those perks, many are obvious (working from home, calling my own hours, etc.), but one that was not-so obvious to me when I began is the time it has afforded me to wax philosophically about the next step in my career. I want back in to the agency world, but I don’t need back into it as far as the necessity for a paycheck is concerned. What I mean to say is, since I am not in the dire straits of being without an income, I have the luxury of choice. But I have found that this choice has less to do with where I’ll be and more to do with what I’ll be.

In the past several months, I have interviewed with digital, PR, and advertising agencies that run the gamut of size and recognition. Among the best of these agencies, one key characteristic seemingly is shared: fanatical devotion to the job. “We burn the candles here” is a common saying I've heard from employees of these agencies. Sometimes the demand of the job isn’t even veiled by euphemism; sometimes it is asked if you are prepared to work 70-80 hours a week.

I have an old college friend who is a talented copywriter and has worked with some great agencies in his career. Until recently, he worked at a well-known, global agency. He confided in me that toward the end of his tenure there, he began to question whether or not he really wanted to continue being an Ad Man. This friend began to train for triathlons and, in doing so, discovered in himself a passion for something other than advertising. His passion for training and competing did not trump his passion for advertising. What it did for him was open his eyes to the fact that some things in this world indeed exist other than his occupation that had come to define who he was as a human being. He just didn’t know if he wanted copywriting to be his whole life anymore.

Is it sad to think that we must choose between personal happiness and a successful career in this industry? Absolutely. Is it an inescapable decision we all must make at some point? Yes, it is. To return to my friend’s story, he knew that in order to be one of the “greats,” he would need to continue living, breathing, and eating advertising. This is not to say his life would be horrible if he chose to continue on, merely that his career would have remained the dominating facet of his life. To his credit, it was one or the other; he knew all too well that in the gray area between the two lay only mediocrity.

So here I stand, on the precipice of what could one day be an outstanding career, but only if I am prepared to devote my heart and soul (not to mention my time and sanity) to that career. That is what I have been philosophizing on all these months.

The truth? I can go all Descartes on the matter, but there is no decision. Not really. Not in my case. I made the decision long ago that this is what I want to do; that this is what I want to be. Those close to me wonder why I am so determined to find work with an agency that does great work, why I’ll up and move anywhere in the country for the right gig. They don’t get it because they are not in this industry. Those of us who are in this crazy business know the price. The question you must ask yourself is whether you are willing to pay it.

Talkin Bout My Demographic

I cannot live this lie any longer. It’s time for me to admit to the world what I am. This is my confession and as I write it I cannot help but wonder what my friends and colleagues will think of me after reading this. Most of all, I fear for how my girlfriend will react as I have worked so hard to hide this awful truth from her.

Here it goes:
I…
am…
a nerd.

Yes, I am a nerd. Like, a big nerd. I’ve participated in in-depth arguments over which superhero is more likely to win in a head-to-head grudge match: Batman or Superman (Batman, of course. One needs only to look in the annals of comic canon to see examples of him whooping the Man of Steel). I can recite from memory each and every line of dialogue in the original Star Wars Trilogy and I feel as equally rancorous about Episodes 1, 2 and 3 as I do about the handling of Hurricane Katrina. My Xbox Gamerscore is a modest 8075 and the excitement I feel watching each new video preview of the upcoming Halo title is so great it may as well be pornography. Perhaps most telling of how truly nerdy I am is the fact that I find the films of Kevin Smith to be funny.

Let me be clear, my nerdom has nothing to do with my love of gadgetry. Thanks to Apple, obsessions with technology have become far too chic to be embarrassed about. I’m talking about the “living in your mom’s basement playing World of Warcraft” type of nerdery.

Why have I chosen this column to make my grand confession? Because, as advertisers and marketers, you should be trying to get me and my brethren to buy your client’s products. Forget “Soccer Moms”, it is we who comprise the Nerd Demographic that are truly deserving of your attention.

Stripped of all pretenses, advertising is simply the selling of products. Fragrances, luxury cars and tennis shoes are not products that will cure cancer or solve world hunger. They are material things that, at best, will make a consumer feel a little bit better about his or her own self-worth. My point is that, in the grand scheme of things, these products amount to very little.

However, a nerd will go to fisticuffs over the most inconsequential matter. We nerds live in a world where the most innocuous subjects are matters of life or death. For example, two Soccer Moms won’t get into an intense argument over whose mini-van is best, but two Nerds will hurl the basest insults at each other over the merits of Red Bull vs. Monster. This is because the requisite characteristic of a nerd is blind passion. Blind passion is reason why a Storm Trooper will never show up at a Trekkie convention and it is why we are likely the most brand-loyal consumers that exist.

Several years ago, when I was working in experiential marketing, I pitched to senior management San Diego’s Comic-Con as an event for our automotive client to participate in. I not only thought it was a great event but I really wanted an excuse to go, so I put together what was probably the best Power Point deck I’ve ever created (remember, a nerd is passionate) and proudly gave a presentation chockfull of stats and case studies. Perhaps I erred in showing too many pictures like the one I included in the deck of a woman dressed as Princess Leia arm-in-arm with a man suited up as Boba Fett, because my crowd was too busy snickering to really understand what I was pitching. Once I had finished, it was a single person who summed up management’s thoughts, “Great job, Justin. It’s just that this is all so…nerdy!”

I look back on that memory today and I still believe that if management had seen past their own “coolness” and given the event a shot, Comic-Con would have been our client’s most successful event of the year. I don’t hold onto that belief as a nerd scorned, I hold onto it because as a professional I have seen the value of brand evangelism raised above all else in this industry. Over 100,000 people attend Comic-Con each year and that makes for over 100,000 would-be evangelists for any brand smart enough to court them.

Comic-Con San Diego 2010 wrapped up last weekend and several reports in the news questioned whether the event had become too “commercialized.” If Comic-Con has indeed become too commercialized, then I know that I’m not alone in assessing the nerd demographic as fertile ground. So take me at my word as a nerd and try throwing some of us into that focus group next time client tasks you with a product launch. Just make sure you have a capable monitor because with that many nerds in one room, things could get ugly fast!

Note: The Author neither lives in his mother’s basement nor plays World of Warcraft. He does not pass judgment on those that do.

#SocialMediafail

Over the course of weeks since the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, there has appeared to be one thorn in the side of British Petroleum’s PR team that has served to stoke the ire of the corporation more than any other. It isn’t the media with their 24/7 coverage and underwater live-cam footage of the leak; it isn’t the politicians spouting toothless threats; and it is not Greenpeace and their pseudo mililitia. What has BP flaks at a loss for an appropriate course of action is one man. Or rather, it is one man and a Twitter account.

Shortly after the disaster struck, Leroy Stick (an admitted pseudonym) launched the Twitter account @BPGlobalPR, which he meant to use as a means of parodying the cliché PR messaging coming out from BP crisis communications team. What began as Leroy’s personal outlet for expressing his frustration through comedy gradually grew (through the magical power of social media) into one of the more poignant commentaries on the subject.

But you all know this story by now; in fact a number of you reading this column are probably one of @BPGlobalPR’s 170,000 followers. There is no point in my rehashing what many other PR and social media experts have stated on this matter. The purpose of this piece is to illustrate that when it comes to issues of social importance, the way we as communicators approach and execute initiatives requires a different kind of thinking and, most importantly, assessing the reality of the situation.

An example: Back when I worked in Washington, DC in public affairs, we handled an account composed of a consortium of corporations that were concerned about certain environmental legislation that was being debated on the floors of both houses at the time. Our job was to attempt to sway opinion against this legislation and, well, let’s just say our client’s and the Sierra Club didn’t see eye to eye on the matter.

During a brainstorming meeting, someone at the table brought up the idea of producing a video for Youtube that would deliver our message in a new way. Several present at the meeting thought this was a great idea - I did not. My reasoning was simple: Our position was one that was easily assailable. Anyone with enough time on his or her hands and a moderate level of cleverness (someone like Leroy Stick for example) would be able to take the serious-in-nature video we produced and, using the most rudimentary of equipment, create a parody in response. Users, specifically those on Youtube, do not seek out clips that are serious and informative, they seek out clips that are funny and entertaining. If we had been lucky enough to get 10,000 views of our clip, any attempt at a parody would likely have garnered tenfold that amount (case in point: @BPGlobalPR and its 170,000 followers and the 14,000 followers the verified account of @BP_America).

It has been discussed ad nauseam and countless case studies exist with evidence that corroborates the power of social media as a means to propagate social causes. The tricky thing is, this is a one-way street. If you happen to be employed to rebrand the Legion of Doom (I may be dating myself here), social media is not the platform you would use to broadcast their message. @TheSuperFriends is going to wipe the floor with you in terms of fervent followers and you will likely see a rise in negative public sentiment stemming from their twitter acolytes.

The mistake that BP made is one that Comm students cover in Social Media 101. Social Media is not a soapbox for corporations to stand upon to trumpet quarterly reports, new branch openings, or generalities that fall under the “Look how great we are” category. Users aren’t interested in that information because they are using social media as a means to interact with a corporation or a brand. BP chose to use Twitter as a soundboard of banal talking points, rehashing the very same quotes BP’s hapless CEO’s used on Fox News and CNN Headline News.

If BP had been smart, and possessed the requisite cajones, they would have used Twitter as a “hotline” by which the concerned public would use as a direct line to bemoan, harangue and chastise them (the key to this being a success would be someone on the other end responding). BP made a mistake, they needed take ownership of it and they needed to listen to the public. At least then the irate public would have felt like someone was listening.

So next time there is a chemical spill, nuclear meltdown, automobile recall or any sort of calamity whose fault lays squarely in the lap of one of your clients, think about what I’ve written here. If you’re client is courageous and thick-skinned, social media will be a useful tool in your arsenal. If your client is not, stick with press releases.

The Great Schism

This past week, I experienced internally a Great Schism, one not unlike that of Rome and Constantinople, East and West Berlin and Charlie Sheen and his ex-wife(s). My mind, it seems, has split into two distinct personalities: The Marketer and The Consumer. What has caused this rift, you ask? Well, these two sides have held an uneasy truce ever since I began working in this industry, but the culprit is easy to identify: Facebook.

Go ahead and pull up Google News, then enter “Facebook” into the search box. Your results will invariably pull up two perspectives: Outrage over Facebook’s disregard for user privacy and excitement over what Facebook’s new initiatives will offer brands and marketers. Having read ad nauseam of opinions from both camps, I find myself both outraged and excited. I feel like the only recourse I have is to use this column to give voice to each of my personalities and hope that through discourse and discussion they can once again come to uneasy but functional terms.

The Consumer: Orwellian! That is the only word that can describe what is going on here. When I joined Facebook several years ago, I joined because it was a way to keep in touch with friends. That’s it. The information I made available on my page was meant for friends and friends only – I reserved the choice of who was privy to my information. Now, Facebook dictates that I no longer have that right to choose. There is no State of Facebook, and Facebook does not have marshal authority over its user community.

The Marketer: Then quit! It’s that simple. If you don’t like it, get out. Yes, if you stay you will be providing Facebook and certain third parties (i.e. marketers) with specific, benign personal information. In return for that information, Facebook users will experience a higher quality web experience. Meanwhile, marketers and advertisers will be able to glean insightful information that will allow them to create messaging that will better resonate with users. Furthermore, thanks to enhanced targeting made possible by these initiatives, users will not have to sift through ads that do not apply to them. It’s a win/win for both sides.

The Consumer: How extremely altruistic of Facebook! The fact remains that we, the user community, did not sign up for Facebook as an advertising platform. I get the “improved user experience” point, but it’s not for me and other likeminded users. All we are asking for is the ability to opt out of participating in these new initiatives.

The Marketer: According to the “likeminded” you mentioned, last week it was Google, not Facebook, that was planning world domination. You and others are not surrendering your passwords, checking accounts, and social security numbers in order to participate in Facebook. Facebook is simply providing third parties with behavioral data on users. The Web is evolving and as it does users will find that giving up this type of information is necessary for participation.

The Consumer: Fascist!

The Marketer: Hippie!

Well, this was clearly an exercise in futility. I’m not sure that I will ever personally approve of Facebook’s privacy policies, but I know that they will indeed improve on how I professionally earn a living. I think that on some level all of us marketers, advertisers and PR flaks all struggle with this duality - it comes with the turf. I know that I will remain wary as to what information I share on Facebook, but, as a professional, I will definitely take advantage of the information shared by my community peers that use Facebook with less discretion.

How will I find peace? I’ll just up my donation to the ACLU this year.

Has Digital Killed Experiential?

My very first gig in this industry called communications was with a marketing firm that handled the experiential marketing initiatives for General Motor’s Saturn brand. My position was that of a ground troop, and it was my job to travel all over this country to engage consumers at events large and small on behalf of Saturn. My career has taken a winding path since then but I count myself lucky to have entered this industry at a time when the paradigm was shifting from vertical to horizontal engagement, and to have begun my career with a position that embodied that shift. Now as a professional that is seeking to define his career in the digital realm, I have to wonder if my first gig has any role in today’s business environment.

I stated above that I count myself lucky to have had that job in experiential marketing and I was being wholly sincere. From the start of my career I was able to see firsthand the powerful effectiveness of genuine consumer engagement. I will say that my job wasn’t terrible difficult, since the Saturn Brand is a case study of how to create and grow a brand-loyal consumer base. I am still amazed when I recollect my encounters with Saturn owners and just how excited about the brand they were.

One instance in particular involved a 5-year old child and his mother from my very first event. The boy was a savant when it came to cars. He could recite with a Rainman-like delivery the specs of each of the vehicles we were showcasing. I had a blast with him and spent a good amount of time helping him in and out of the cars, popping the hood so he could check out the engine and being quizzed by him on each vehicle’s features and amenities.

It was about two weeks later when I received a forwarded email from my boss the contents of which surprised and warmed me. The original email was from that boy’s mother, who wrote to thank me for spending time with her child and to let me know how much he had enjoyed it. There was even a picture of him and I in front of an engine attached to the email. As any good marketer would do, I never divulged that I represented anyone but the brand, so it was impressive that the mother took the time to track down a way to thank me.

I think about that mother and child often. For me that experience is the purest example of what the modern day marketer/advertiser/PR pro hopes to accomplish. I tend to believe that she is always reminded of that experience almost every time she sees a Saturn vehicle, and isn’t that what we strive for? The association between the experiences we create and the brands we represent?

When we as professionals use social media it is exactly that association between brand and experience that we attempt to create, and that is the greatest treasure in the bounty social media presents us. Realistically, we cannot create the level of engagement online that I detailed above, but we can create micro-experiences with thousands of consumers with the click of a button. With digital there are no costly logistical concerns, no displays to transport or per diems to assign. Simply put, digital is cheaper. And as we operate in an uncertain economic environment, the bottom line is really all the case there is to make.

In the time between when I left that position and when Saturn announced its liquidation, the agency and the one that inherited the work saw an incremental decrease in demand from the client in regards to experiential initiatives. To be sure, there were other motivating factors, but perhaps it was finally a cost/benefit analysis that was experiential marketing’s doom in that situation. I for one believe in the power of experiential marketing and have to believe that there is a time and a place for it, though I’m just not sure when or where. However, as a digital communicator I use the knowledge gained from that episode in my career as a benchmark for what can be accomplished through true consumer engagement.