Trends and Tragedies of 2011

With the end of the year approaching I figure it’s time for an end of the year review of what went right and what went wrong in 2011. In fact, this will be the start of an annual review. Without further ado, here are my top two trends and top two tragedies.

Trends :

2) Groupon Epidemic: Perhaps the most interesting development of the year was the Groupon epidemic, as dozens of other daily deals sites quickly sprang up to compete. LivingSocial, Facebook Deals, Google Offers, and many more. Along with that has been the quest to turn their often one-time customers into repeat customers. My guess is that until there are memberships and membership rewards for sites like these that pattern will continue.

1) Google+: Marking the expansion of social media was the arrival of Google+ September 20th. Google+ went where Facebook had yet to go, the next plateau so to speak. Google+ offered users the ability to create social circles and chose what was shared with each group (or circle). Additionally, Google+ gained attention with its “Hangouts” video chat feature where you can chat with up to ten people at a time and share content while chatting. Meanwhile, MySpace tried to reinvent itself by focusing more on music. Haven’t heard how that worked out, so either MySpace is hanging out under the radar or it died for the second and final time.

Tragedies:

2) Lowe’s: Yes, the recent incident with Lowe’s makes my list for a few reasons. Not only was it the wrong move, it came at the worst possible time when all companies are under the microscope. The holiday season. Lowe’s pulled its advertising from TLC’s American Muslim based on a call to boycott by Florida Family Association. Then they tried to claim it was because the show sparked a lot of controversy and they wanted to opt out of that conversation. Basically it made them look racist. It was poorly timed and badly handled, need I say more?

1) Groupon: In this case a top trend was also a tragedy as demonstrated during this year’s Super Bowl. Something Groupon has in common with Lowe’s is that the Super Bowl is also a poor time to make a poor statement. However, it’s even worse when it’s your public debut as was the case here. Groupon’s first ad spot was a series of commercials that turned tragedies into punch lines to drive deal-seekers to its site. Most notable was the plight of Tibet being turned into an opportunity to try its food. Oppression, destruction of the rainforest and decreasing whale populations are hardly material for a joke, but that’s where Groupon went here. Although it did attempt to make amends, Groupon learned a valuable lesson. Think before you speak or insert foot in mouth here.

Well, there you have it, a few things that made positive and not so positive imprints on the year 2011. A lesson in what to do, and what never to do again. As companies and brands prepare to start the year with a clean slate, well some of them anyways, we look to 2012 and the possibilities it brings for advertising, marketing, social media and journalism. Possibilities for new things, and in some cases rebranding and retribution, but mostly new things. Until next year, this is me, signing off.

 

Social Media, Welcome to TV

Social media, in many forms, is now a part of TV and TV viewing. Recent examples from my own TV viewing experience include Twitter hashtags at the bottom of my favorite programs, for example #Glee. I’ve also noticed social media’s presence during a commercial that prompted me to interact by using the Shazam app when watching a singing or dance reality show. Another more recent example is when I had a Music Choice station on, where I was shown a QR code with the message to scan it to receive a free song from a certain artist. Basically no one can deny that social media is a part of TV viewing experience anymore, and its entanglement is ongoing. eMarketer specifically states that “live-tweeting supports live viewing” and that “Social Media Brings New Engagement to TV” now. All of these examples have that one thing in common, they encourage live viewing and discourage DVR. As a side note I am a big fan of DVR, but even I have been tempted by some of these live-viewing offers. While I do not think social media’s involvement will completely do away with DVR I do think it will encourage more live viewing. Let’s face it, DVR is a threat to TV. Today’s viewers live in a world that demands more of their time. In a world like that the obvious solution is to put off or cut out other things and that has led to DVR’s popularity. Before DVR it was recording shows on videotape. Some people act like DVR came out of nowhere as a new concept when really it was taking the prior concept of VCR recording and further integrating it with TV. With social media’s involvement, live-viewing is making a comeback. At the beginning of this week the Home Run Derby took advantage of this trend and had players and fans interacting on Twitter throughout the event http://on.mash.to/pCuFJ7. Another part of social media that is making its way to TV is video chat. Last week I wrote about Facebook vs. Google+ and it seems that the video chat technology launched by both social media platforms is a part of TV and will continue to expand into more areas of TV. One way in which it will work its way in is through TV interviews.

Phandroid has already figured out how to record Google+ hangout sessions and so it’s a given that someone will find a way to record Facebook video chats http://bit.ly/oac4KK. What does this mean for TV interviewers and entertainment show hosts? A convenient, money-saving way to interview people while looking tech-savvy. It also prompts engagement because interviews are then tied back to social media accounts like Facebook and Google+. While you can only video chat with friends via Facebook so far, not fans, there are ways around it. Interviewers can always have viewers post feedback in response to something with the promise to friend their favorites. This would allow them to video chat or leave a video message and that could appear on the air. Al Jazeera’s show “The Stream” frequently utilizes Skype for interviews so it can be done and it will be done more often. Video chat also allows news personalities to interact with viewers in new ways, such as hosting a chat before newscasts like KOMU-TV has done. There are those that speculate that social media TV platforms and apps will integrate video chat too and that it will become a normal part of TV viewing and interaction. Now that I have discussed what it will do for TV and TV viewers, here’s what it will do for the ad industry. One example is product placement in shows and movies shown on TV. Easily a place for hashtag insertion and if nothing else more people will be watching, because of increased live viewing, so those product placements will not go to waste. Another outcome could very likely be that commercials themselves have hashtags or QR codes that are only active while viewing the commercial. The QR code would open up the Facebook page or website of the brand to prompt further engagement, such as purchasing the product online, making it a direct viewing to sales link. There are so many options and so many wide-ranging effects of social media’s involvement in TV. TV needs social media and social media needs TV. It is a mutually beneficial relationship that has no limit to what it can become. The only limits are your own imagination.

Facebook vs. Google+

As soon as Google rolled out their Google+1 button the rumors started about Google forming its own social network. Although they denied it at the time they were doing just that. Google+1 is its name and it has been up and running for just a week. In that time it has 88% male users (10% women and 2% who did not identify themselves), it has a ‘circles of sharing’ feature, it’s one of the top ten sites referring traffic back to Tech Crunch’s website and it has a popular group video feature called ‘Google+ Hangout’ http://yhoo.it/nmTnrX. The issues so far with Google are that its audience does not allow for a lot of connection. Right now it’s predominately a male tech lover’s domain. This dampens the features that might put it in contention with Facebook once Google+’s user base expands. Here I must mention that the ‘circles of sharing’ feature made me immediately think of Meet the Parents Jack Byrnes and his circle of trust. That aside, Google’s ‘circles of sharing’ is the answer to Facebook’s group feature except users manually manage who is in which circle. Those who are in someone’s circle do not know which circle they are in, or probably that they even are, and do not know who else is in the same circle. People seem to like this feature but how can that kind of secrecy connect people? Not quite sure this makes sense yet, it may need some more work. By far the most popular feature is the Google+ Hangouts, a group chat feature that allows users to stream multiple video feeds into a single chatroom space and even share videos there. While this may be its one redeeming feature thus far, it all comes back to who’s on Google+ and the answer so far is not many. Overall, how does this compare to Facebook? Facebook already has everyone there, making it easier to add on features and apps to further build relationships between users. This is obviously problematic for Google+ as they do not measure up in this category yet.

As for Google+’s ‘circles of sharing,’ Mark Zuckerberg claims that users do not want to manually manage their own friends http://read.bi/qRVImL. He goes on to add that his definition of groups is that everyone who is in a group knows that everyone else is in that group. As far as the Google+ Hangout goes, Facebook launched its own new chat features on Wednesday. Their new chat design, group chat, and 1 to 1 video chat features improve Facebook and enhance its ability to connect people http://bit.ly/oPExLg . The new chat design improves usability by making Chat a sidebar so users can more easily browse while they chat. Also, you can limit availability on chat, making you appear available only to a certain group of people whenever you choose. Secondly, users can add people to their 1 to 1 conversation to make it a group chat. If any information previously discussed should not be seen by those joining it’s not a problem because those who join see a clean slate. Conversation for them begins when they enter and does not appear as a continuation of chat. Then there is Facebook’s video chat option. Eventually they plan to partner with Skype for added paid services with more features. Perhaps they’ll even add a group chat to compete with Google+. For now a video chat increases the means of interaction available. Google+, for its part, plans to roll out non-user (read brand or company) pages later this year that link them to AdWords http://selnd.com/nB8m25. For now though, Facebook reigns supreme with its fully functioning company and brand pages. Overall, Facebook still has the edge. Mainly because it was there first and is in a later stage of development. The audience is already there and they are simply building upon their foundation now. Google+ has a lot of catching up to do if it is going to compete. Sure it has plans and Google+ Hangouts, but is that going to be enough to bring and keep users there? Facebook has the upper hand because social is the only thing that they do. Google is search, ads, etc. in addition to being social. That is a lot to juggle. Facebook sticks to social and it’s what they do well. Based on this, and my previous points, I see Facebook leading this competition for a long time to come.