It may be a toss up today whether the talk around the office will be more about the game (way to go Giants) or about the commercials. The commercials of course are a big draw for many and at least an entertaining bonus for others. Big name companies employ big name ad firms to come up with something that will hopefully be extraordinary and memorable. And at $2.7 million for 30 seconds, getting the most bang for the buck should be a no-brainer.
But unlike some of the popular TV shows, if the Super Bowl ads are any indication, it appears that many big companies and ad firms just don't get it and continue to deliver "Ads 1.0." Perhaps it is the big brand mentality that we so often see when dealing with the Web, but I'm not even talking about full-blown social media campaigns here--how about just getting the URL up on the screen.
After re-watching the commercials from the game over at MySpace, I saw that more commercials had URLs shown than I remembered. But the fact that it took another viewing and perhaps a freeze frame of the video to catch it is very telling. What's more amazing is that many of these advertisers spend huge amounts year-round on brand advertising--just building up impressions, maintaining that top-of-mind presence of keeping the brand out in front of people. This type of advertising should be all about capitalizing on building that connection with the audience, and what better way to do that than to get them to the Web site.
Never mind whether the commercial is a hit or a dud, it is still an impression, and the last thing I'd want to leave the viewer with would be how to see more about the company or the product. A number of the ads didn't feature a URL at all, and for many that did, it was so insignificant to even matter (especially when these end up in small video windows online). Only a handful of the ads made sure that the last few seconds of the precious 30 left the viewer with a clearly readable and hopefully memorable URL.
Thankfully though, not all of the companies missed the mark. There were a couple standouts that do get it, like Tide, with MyTalkingStain.com, and SoBe Life Water, with Thrillicious.com. They developed sites around the commercials to continue the conversation after the season wraps up. With some online interactivity, these are great examples of making the most of traditional advertising in a Web world. Hopefully if or when these standalone sites are decommissioned, they'll also be savvy enough to put 301 permanent redirects in place to capture continued traffic, PageRank, and link love.
The good news is that there is a year before the next Super Bowl for the company and ad execs to start thinking about how they can get more value out of the big game. Here's a little food for thought:
- Get your URL up in the last 5 to 10 seconds and make it big and easy to read, not just on the big screen, but for when they make their way to online.
- Put commercial outtakes or bloopers up on the site.
- Get the commercial out on YouTube or other video sites as soon as it airs.
- Give people a reason to stay on the site--coupons, games, tips.
- Give people a way to interact--put together a blog and have a number of posts ready to launch out of the gate and allow visitors to comment and discuss the ad.
- Look to other social media venues to round out the campaign--MySpace, Facebook, StumbleUpon, etc.
And that's really just the tip of the iceberg, but at this rate, better to aim at crawling before we worry about running.
Social media has certainly come into its own over the last year. Whether you log more hours online than you do sleeping or are the type that only turns your computer on every couple of days — gasp — there is a good chance that you have some familiarity with social media, even if you didn't know that's what it was.
Maybe you get a chuckle every now and then from a video on YouTube, upload photos to Flickr for friends and family to see, ask and answer questions on Yahoo Answers, do a little networking and reconnecting with old classmates and work colleagues on LinkedIn, keep track of popular news on Reddit, jot notes on your mates' walls in Facebook, or have carved out your own little corner of the web with a MySpace page. If you have a username and login at even half of those sites, then you know all to well the impact of social media. And for many, that list is but a mere sampling of their social circle.
But what happens when social media collides with daily life? Good, bad, or otherwise, most of us live extremely busy lives. We've found that all of the great tools that have been developed to simplify our lives and allow us more time, often just allow us to do more with the time we have. Is that a bad thing? After all, it is our life and if we are doing the things we want to do and that are important to us, wasn't that the ultimate goal to begin with? If you are expecting answers to those questions, sorry, they aren't coming.
The problem, or at least the challenge, with social media for individuals is simply one of mass. There is only so much time during the day and night that any one of us can put toward the social media venues. At some point, most of us will probably gravitate to a few key sites. Will this gravitation be a slow fade, or cold turkey? Will it be individually, or a revolt of mass proportions? Only time will tell of course.
But hold that thought. The story for businesses is a little different. Social media provides a powerful channel to reach out and interact with the community. While things in business rarely come without a cost, social media can be an extremely cost effective extension of nearly everything a company does. Even as social venues shift in popularity or come and go, businesses can introduce themselves and interact with those who share the same interests. As marketing channels go, the ability to connect with highly targeted, highly interested individuals at a personal level, is pretty hard to beat.
So while the future and popularity of individual social media venues may as yet be undetermined, and individual users' levels of interaction may vary, social media is here to stay. There's so much more that could be said, but I have to go check my Facebook page.
One of the best ways for an Internet-based company to enter the social media world is through the creation of a Facebook.com application.
A successful app will drive traffic to the company's native site, create direct sales, and promote online reputation.
So what exactly is meant by a Facebook app? Well, it could be a simple as the Vampires application that allows members to "bite" one another and become "vampires." This application is fun, simple, and has gone viral (in the sense that it has become very popular). The application is monetized by way of advertising horror movies in the application's interface. And because Facebook is all about sharing, all of one's friends can see one's Vampiric status via the same interface.
But complaints regarding privacy are starting to surface in regard to such apps.
Facebook applications can be based solely on direct sales. Companies like Overstock.com allow--or should I say encourage--Facebook users to purchase from its Web site through its application, without ever leaving Facebook.com.
The problem is that people's purchase information is being shared. After making a purchase, the Overstock.com app displays a small box in a corner of the browser interface following a transaction. This box alerts people that information will be shared with other Facebook users unless they click on it to negate the sharing. The box fades away after a half minute or so, after which consent is assumed, and all your friends can see what you bought.
I'm no lawyer, but that sounds kind of "iffy" to me. And even if it is a legally binding procedure, it certainly isn't going to do much for customer satisfaction!
There are, evidently, other large e-commerce sites with similar or identical interfaces, and my instinct is that Facebook and these large companies will solve the problem quickly. It makes a good example, however, of social media gone awry. The term "social" does not automatically imply that sharing is the default; part of being social is having the choice to share or not share.
Purchasing items, especially during the holidays, often involves gifts, and the surprise of a well-chosen gift to a friend (who may well be in your Facebook world) is as social as it gets.
A Gulfstream V jet
(Credit: Wikipedia)Mark spoke to attendees in the afternoon keynote at the Blog World and New Media Expo yesterday (Friday) in Las Vegas. (Great conference, by the way! And great parties too, including the bash that Zappos threw right after Mark's keynote!) During the Q&A, there was one comment that Mark made that peaked my interest in particular. Mark shared with BlogWorld attendees two companies he would love to buy. Alas, he confessed he can't afford either one of them. One was Facebook. The other was Verizon.
Facebook
I agree with Mark's assessment that Facebook is hot. So I have to admit that, at the right price, I think Facebook would be a great buy. But Internet users are fickle, and so it could be a risky purchase. For example, MySpace isn't as hip — particularly with teenagers — as it once was, whereas up-and-comer Bebo has gained a lot of ground with the teenage set, especially internationally. Will users see Facebook as old and tired in a year or two? Will Google's OpenSocial initiative level the playing field and thus lure users away to other social networks, taking market share away from Facebook in the process?Verizon
From Mark's talk at BlogWorld, it was clear he sees immense value in the pipes bringing high-speed data (Internet, video, voice,..) into the home. Could Verizon be the one to deliver on the dream of HD (high definition) video over the Internet? YouTube's video resolution sure does su... um, leave something to be desired. Personally I'd love for Mark to own Verizon and drive it hard towards that nirvana for all us bandwidth-hungry entertainment consumers.
I feel bad for Mark that he can't afford these two companies. Perhaps we could all pitch in with a few bucks of our own and lend him a hand so he can buy at least one of them? ;-)
If you can't join 'em, beat 'em: this seems to be Google's rally cry, and this time its Facebook taking a potential beating. The New York Times is reporting that Google is in the process of creating an open platform to allow software developers to write widgets and full-fledged programs for Orkut. Never heard of it? It's the Google version of Facebook/MySpace. But Google decided to make it a swarming strategy; the platform will also allow development for other social media sites including Friendster, LinkedIn, Ning, Plaxo, and Facebook's arch rival, MySpace.
Facebook has built itself up as a social media contender by way of open source programming for applications within their site. Google's tactic is aimed at adopting this strategy in attempt to outdo -- or at least match -- the 5,000-plus popular apps running in Facebook, many of which are used daily by millions of Facebook members.
Understandably, Google wants a share of these eyes, and building Orkut's popularity in the United States (it's already popular in many other countries) is surely another revenue stream in which they'd like to participate. Orkut hasn't made it here, and it will be interesting to see if the open source project will ultimately be a catalyst for success or a simple band aid. Regardless of Orkut, by including so many players in campaign, it's highly unlikely Google will lose.
- prev
- 1
- next
