MARKETING IN COMMUNITIES

An interesting article/post from Shel Holtz examines briefly the phenomenon of Wikipedia marketing. He talks of a software company that posted its technology entry on to the community-grown Wikipedia.

Within 20 minutes, the post had been edited, and now has several pages of dense content on Wikipedia and appears highly on search results on Google for Labview. It is a great example of how marketers can jump start the creation of third party content that ends up being a wonderful selling and marketing tool - assuming you are able to release control and let the greater community take over.

After reading something like this, I am sure that unscrupulous marketers (and those with absolutely no budget but plenty of time) are going to jump on the free Wikipedia marketing bandwagon. I'm surprised that more haven't yet. I've heard rumblings of CP+B getting into this. A few other PR bloggers as well. But overall, the idea of using a community-based property like Wikipedia for cynical marketing purposes is inherently flawed. People won't allow it.

As Holtz writes:

While I have no doubt some smart PR people will use the idea of new entries in Wikipedia as a guerrilla marketing tactic, I also have no doubt that some clumsy, unprofessional, brainless dolts will apply the same techniques more brutishly, resulting in a backlash and (as so often happens in our business) wind up having the rest of us painted with their brush.

It’s a good idea, but tread carefully if you try it. Make sure your entry adds value to Wikipedia readers, not just to your client.

Oh yeah, and the MySpace and Facebook sites of the world. Hands off there as well. One only has to surf around for a few minutes to see the commercial colonization of those communities through fake profiles, message board product placments, and outright spam. Shameful.

A NEW MEANING FOR VIRTUAL SHOPPING

A new online store that just had its grand opening...in the virtual world of Second Life.

American Apparel, who in only 8 years has become the third-largest t-shirt maker in North America, has opened up a store in the game.

Some may call this advergaming, but I certainly disagree. To me, there is no difference in opening up an American Apparel store on Fifth Avenue than there is in opening up one in Second Life, where commerce abounds and fashion is one of the key things that allows for Second Life characters to achieve their own style and substance.

According to a post from 3PointD, the store...:

...located on a private island in Second Life, is set to open as soon as this weekend. The news has SL residents considering what it means that the first real-world fashion brand has made an entrance to Second Life. Fashion is one of the virtual world’s biggest industries, and the fashion business in SL is extremely competitive. So it’s not a surprise that the first real-world retail brand to set up shop in SL is a fashion retailer.


The fashions themselves are patterned after American Apparel’s real-world clothes, and were designed by several designers, including Aimee, though she wouldn’t say who else was involved. The clothing will be priced “high-priced reasonable” compared to other SL fashions, Aimee says. No comment either on where the revenue from clothing sales will go — which leads me to believe it will go to the designers as part of their compensation.

How awesome! Isn't this a bit of consumer generated media? Brand evangelism? E-commerce? Deep branding? I can see how certain brands are getting it...while others are still sponsoring My Space pages thinking they are ahead of the curve.

BRAND PLACEMENT OVERKILL

If you've ever heard me speak publicly about New Advertising, you would know how I feel about the "new marketing" techniques like Head-Vertising or Ass-Vertising. I think it sucks! But here's a new one for you: a mother thinks her son is so cute, she's willing to sell him out to the highest brand bidder.

Okay, before you get all riled up about this form of marketing pimping, let me explain further. According to Gush Magazine, a mother has set up a site called www.buyjake.com and thinks that "her child is so cute that companies will want to put their logos on his clothing or him for $100 000 a year. “I will dress in your company’s provided apparel (and sport a tattoo!) everywhere I go for the amount of time chosen. Want me to do a commercial? How about a public appearance? I’ll do that too.** All advertising must be pre-approved by Mom (nothing distasteful).”

Sport a tattoo? Holy crap! What has the world come to?

According to the piece:

A company called perfectpopcorn.com, has actually offered Jake $350 for a month’s worth of wearing their clothing. “Here is what Tim Farina, President & CEO of Javanni Inc. has to say about Baby Jake: In today’s creative world of advertising we not only need to know our customers but we need to find creative ways of reaching them to deliver our message. I believe advertising with Baby Jake would be beneficial to our consumer DVD transfer business at PerfectPopcorn.com. The BuyJake approach reaches our demographic and gets attention. I’m impressed.”

I'm not.

Experience the Message: BRAND PLACEMENT OVERKILL

GUERRILLA ADVERTISING?

A Business Week article tries to tackle a "new" form of advertising it is calling "guerrilla advertising," "a catch-all phrase for nontraditional advertising campaigns that take the form of theatrically staged public scenes or events, often carried out without city permits or advance public hype."

The term riffs on "guerrilla marketing," which was first coined by author Jay Conrad Levinson in 1984 to refer to unconventional, non-big-media-dependent brand-building exercises such as sending out a personalized letter touting a product to consumers, or canvassing with brochures. Such take-it-to-the-street DIY marketing and ad campaigns were once a low-budget strategy for startups and small businesses unable to afford a thirty-second spot.

Microsoft

But now, for a variety of reasons, even big-name brands are taking the guerrilla approach. It offers a way to engage highly targeted audiences, to develop a streetwise identity, and simply to jar consumers who are so inundated with advertisements—which have crept into video games and even onto egg shells—that they tend to ignore them.

But, interestingly, even practioners of the guerrilla advertising seem to think it has a limited shelf-life:

Adam Salacuse, chief executive officer of the Boston ad agency ALT TERRAIN (which devised the Microsoft [butterfly] sticker campaign), estimates that 65% of his firm's clients request what he calls "engaging" ads—a category that, he says, encompasses guerrilla ads.

Despite the trend, Salacuse says he and his colleagues are starting to "recommend turning away from 'eye-catching' or 'novel' tactics because they're initially amusing, but sure to fade," he writes in an e-mail. "Even if unique, more is not better. The focus needs to be on quality of consumer engagement."

Salacuse says that ALT TERRAIN is pushing more toward "influencer marketing," getting a brand's message out over time via tastemakers such as hair stylists or nightclub DJs who will promote a product or service in everyday conversation. He sees this as the next wave, now that consumers might already be growing weary or at least suspicious of guerrilla ads, which can seem like desperate publicity stunts.

Uh oh. Going into influencer marketing? Sounds a bit dodgy. As you have already read my opinion on buzz agencies like BzzAgent and others, I won't dive too deeply into this discussion. But a company who has made its mark stickering thousands of unwanted stickers for MSN (and then being made to take them down because no one liked them) is now going into influencer marketing. So, trade in the stickers for real people. Do you think that these influencers will disclose their marketing role? Do you think that the buzz that they want to create will be anything more than the buzz that the stickers had (albeit mostly negative)? I fear that to take lessons learned from something called guerrilla advertising and apply them to influencer marketing is either deep folly or real danger.

Experience the Message: GUERRILLA ADVERTISING?: "http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/294259/5621839"

Advergaming / Gamevertising

Advergaming: One Man's View From The Left Coast
by Erik Hauser, Friday, Sep 15, 2006 6:00 AM ET

EVERY DAY HERDS OF AGENCIES and brands dive in to make their impressions on the world. Some do a fantastic job, and some simply swing and miss. If games are the new canvas, then one can expect some to be innovative and true art--while others simply apply traditional thinking to the new canvas, like paint by numbers. What the heck am I talking about? The people that are using this new canvas to engage audiences by involving their brand in the game theory and objectives are doing themselves justice. Those that are throwing up billboards are just throwing up billboards.

Is there a difference between a virtual billboard and a billboard off I-95? I would say no. Sure, the research will tell you that gamers like the signs because it gives an added sense of realism. I interpret that to mean that they enjoy the game because it reminds them of the environment that they are conditioned to accept in the real world. I look at that as a mostly ineffective tactic in both worlds--the one that contains oxygen as well as the un-oxegenated world.

Innovative mediums should force agencies and brands to be innovative in how they use them. It is easy to throw up virtual billboards or virtual retail locations. It is tougher to make your brand relevant in the theory of the game. Think integrally and force yourself to see how your brand or client can enhance the game experience, not simply clutter the "virtual side of the road." I don't get the luxury of dreaming these kinds of things up all day. It would be an absolute joy--trust me.

The reality is that some brands should be in games, and some should not. There is no guarantee that a gaming medium makes sense for all brands. So, if you simply say, find us a game, and one is found, then please ask yourself some hard questions like, " Am I simply spending $4 million to follow the herd and be where everyone tells me I should be?" Who knows, questions like this may lead you to create the next innovative medium. Remember, forcing yourself to really think also forces your brain to step outside of your conditioned behavior and create new possibilities. The only question is, where is the next great canvas?

One thing is for certain--I am looking for my next canvas. Best of luck, and most important--GAME ON !!!!

Erik Hauser is founder and creative director of Swivel Media. He will be speaking at the OMMA Conference & Expo New York, to be held Sept. 25-26.