I’ve written a lot about advertising trends this year: fake infomercials, product displacement, product placement jokes, brands with authentic (and inauthentic) voices to name a few.  Here’s a new one – product placement, in other brand’s commercials.

First I saw this Geico ad featuring their familiar Gecko that has an ad for the Disney movie The Frog Prince inside it:

Interesting.  Then I see this ESPN – This is Sportscenter ad:

Wow, that’s a pretty blatant Gatorade plug.

Here’s how I read this: As product placement in shows becomes more common it’s becoming more expensive for brands. It’s also become less authentic and consumers are becoming desensitized. They know you’ve paid to be jammed into the show. Your own ads, even with your own product placements in them are being ignored thanks to Tivo, so where can you insert your brand? Inside somebody elses ad! But not just anybody elses commercials, you have to find ones that people don’t skip over. I couldn’t find research data, though I’m sure it exists (help me out here TiVo), that would show that ESPN and Geico ads are watched more than the average commercial.

The Gatorade placement makes sense within that context. For me the Disney Frog Prince is a little bit of a stretch – ok, a frog talking to a gecko, I get it. I think this is different than the ‘Icons’ MasterCard Priceless ad from a few years back:

The intent with this one is different. This is more of a partnership, or even an homage.  Though it does raises an interesting question: Did ESPN approach Gatorade or did Bolt’s people say, “If you want Usain, you have to include Gatorade”?

Who is making this deal happen? Is Gatorade (through their ad agency) looking for opportunities to be integrated into relevant ads? Is it Bolt’s agent? This is a whole new area and you can see where the smart and fast are going to figure out how to work this to their (financial) advantage.

If you work at an ad agency, the role of the strategic (or account) planner is well known to you. Originally conceived by J. Walter Thompson and Boase Massimi Pollitt in the UK in the 1960s, the discipline has played an increasingly important role in advertising over the years.  If you want to read the definitive book on the subject, check out Truth, Lies and Advertising by Jon Steel. More great planner info and resources at the Plannersphere wiki and the Plannersphere Ning group.

A couple of developments in the world of planning recently that I thought were worth sharing. First, PSFK, in conjunction with RedScout, has a tremendous video series on planning. They gathered the smartest folks and asked some intriguing questions. The video series is called Spur, here’s the intro video:

Watch episode 1, Is planning impotent? Overcoming planning’s identity crisis here. Episode 2 is entitled, “Talent.”

In other planning news, Mike Arauz from Undercurrent has been doing what Mike Arauz does; ask penetrating questions that challenge our notion of the status quo. First he asks, “What is strategic planning?” then follows that up with “On strategic planning (again…)”

It’s an interesting time for agencies of all stripes. The ones that will survive are those that have the courage to ask tough questions of themselves and adapt to the needs to the clients.

A week or so ago I took a look at the fake Infomercial creative concept (as did others), which seems a little played out at this point. A similar concept I’ve seen a lot of is the “isn’t funny how we’re – wink, wink – acknowledging that we’re doing a product placement and by doing so we’re actually cool and not really selling out, but actually we are, but at least we admit – nudge, nudge – that we don’t like doing it, but don’t dislike it enough to actually not do it.”

Brandchannel speaks of the technique here, using NBC’s 30 Rock as the example. And yes, I like the show, but they do this a lot. It’s reached the point where it really isn’t that funny, it’s just lazy.

When Mike Myers did this in Wayne’s World 2 it was a real commentary on the Hollywood machine:

But that was in 1993!  I’m all for tweaking marketers, but it’s time to come up with a new schtick.

Nets - A franchise in search of an identity

I went to a New Jersey Nets NBA game on Saturday. They were playing my favorite team, the Boston Celtics, and the experience became a good lesson in branding. First, some context:

As an NBA franchise, the Nets have never really had a strong identity. They don’t have a consistent track record of winning, will always play second fiddle in this market to the New York Knicks, they are trying to move to Brooklyn and right now they don’t have any really marketable players. Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?

So I take my seat at the Izod Center (which is at least the 3rd name I can recall for the place where the Nets play – part of the problem) and you can really see the uphill battle the Nets are facing. It’s a decent Saturday night, against one of the top five teams in the league and the 20,029 seat arena is only about three quarters full. Of those in attendance, at least a third are Celtics fans (I’m probably being consertive in my estimates). So, 20,000 seat arena and only half those seats are being used by Nets fans. Did I also mention the Nets are winless on the season?

Let stop right here and commend the Nets organization. I’ve seen (and worked for) sports franchises that just don’t care about the fans. That’s not true with the Nets. They are putting in a real, honest effort to connect with fans. Yes, the ticket prices are way too high, but for those in attendance, there was no shortage of engagement. Let me quickly run down a partial list of what was going on:

• Free youth t-shirts upon entering
• Free ‘thunder sticks’ were passed
• Free t-shirts launched into the stands
• Music, fireworks, cheersquads, dancers, mascots and a hypeman
• Games and contests for fans during time outs

Again, just a sampling of what was going on, and individually, those were all worthy efforts. But taken in total, and you get a weird amalgamation that begins to resemble a meatball sundae. The Nets’ identity crisis starts to become clear. Do they want to appeal to an urban crowd with the hypeman and Jay-Z songs blasting? Are they family friendly with the cute mascots, kids t-shirts and on-court contests? Are they trying to attract 20-30 year old males via the provacatively dressed dancers? The answer to the above questions is a collective… yes!

And here’s where we have the problem. The Nets are trying to be so many things to so many people, they end up being nothing to everyone. If you brought you kids to the game, the dancers and Jay-Z music blasting might be a little too much. If you are a die-hard hoops junkie, you can probably do without the music chairs game they played at half-time with a dozen 8-year olds.

Both on and off the court the Nets need to pick an identity and stick with it. If you are going to go for the urban market, great. Add a live DJ to the hype man and make sure the courtside seats are filled with hip hop royalty or at least up and comers every night. Have Jay-Z record an anthem for the Nets and develop a line of Nets gear with Roca-wear or Phat Farm.

You can base your larger marketing campaign around this thematic as well where basketball and hip hop intersect: passion, improvisation, creativity, hard work, authenticity, integrity…  Notice I’m not suggesting you have to adopt some sort of gangsta persona, there are many positive, productive aspects of hip hop to emphasize.

Once an overall theme is selected, I’d like to see the Nets develop both a game and season narrative. What do I mean by this? Each year sports teams pick some sort of bland, generic marketing line – I believe the Nets are going with “More than a game” this year. See what I mean? Instead, why not go with something bold and daring that is really tied in to the team’s identity (let’s continue with the hip hop theme).  Not saying this is brilliant, but you can see how the Yankees adopted Jay-Z’s Empire State of Mind for the baseball playoffs, so pick a song, or even an album and expand that a bit.

Then, I’d hire creatives from Hollywood and the hip hop community to develop a story line that could evolve over the 42 game regular season. This narrative could involve players and team staff and engage consumers at games as well as via traditional and online/social media. Maybe it becomes a concept album, or a short film. There are plenty of possibilities, but now fans have something to follow and talk about that lives beyond a one-time freebie they get at the game.

Each game becomes an episode (or song) in a season long production culminating in some sort of dramatic conclusion at the end of the season.  Does any of this improve the product on the court (or matter if the team doesn’t get better)? Not directly, but any team feeds off the crowd. Create a compelling scenario for one type of fan and you’ll get some hardcore supporters because they’ll appreciate that you are speaking directly, and exclusively, to them. They’ll support the team passionately and the players will feed off that. It won’t happen overnight, but it will grow a strong foundation that will last even when the team isn’t playing well.

It’s time for teams, especially a team like the Nets to take a new approach to marketing.

Occasionally a topic comes up that inspires a longer post with commentary and viewpoints beyond my own. With so much talk recently about crowdsourcing it seemed like a good time to really tackle the issue. I’m positively thrilled to have input from some of the top minds in advertising and marketing communications contribute to this post. I want to thank Johnny Vulkan, Cliff Lewis, Evan Fry & Aaron Bateman who provided thoughtful commentary to this post as well as those who I have linked to for adding their insight to the discussion. I encourage you to print it out, bookmark, and of course share it with others.

**

A BRIEF HISTORY OF CROWDSOURCING

It's all his fault

If it seems like you’ve been hearing a lot about crowdsourcing lately, it’s because you have.  Crowdsourcing is one of those buzz words, like synergy or viral that people are throwing around now to cover just about anything.  According to Wikipedia, the term was coined in a June 2006 Wired magazine article by Jeff Howe.

My first experience with the concept came when I participated in The Beast, the Alternate Reality Game tied to the Steven Spielberg movie, A.I., back in 2001. As a member of the 6,000+ strong  Cloudmakers group, I joined fans from across the world to solve puzzles and interact within this fantastic fictional world. We worked together to create a ‘collective detective’ that competed against the puzzle makers, not against each other, and it was brilliant.

And now crowdsourcing is very much in vogue. Howe took the concept and ran with it, turning it into a book, as did James Surowiecki with his tome, The Wisdom of Crowds.

THE CREATIVE INDUSTRY EMBRACES CROWDSOURCING

Crowdsourcing is gaining steam within the advertising agency community at the same time as another issue becomes more pressing - the broken agency business model. Shops big and small, from a variety of industries (ad, PR, digital) are all looking to do things differently. Earlier this year Agency Nil took a bold stand with their “Will work for all it’s worth” manifesto. That was followed by the recent launch of Victors & Spoils, which somewhat boldly bills itself as The world’s first creative (ad) agency built on crowdsourcing principles.

PSFK has more on Agency Nil here, and George  Parker sounds off on Victors & Spoils via PSFK here. Other great takes include Amadeo Plaza of Crayon on V&S and Contagious takes a look at V&S here. BBH Labs on Agency Nil here and here. You can read my interview with Alex Bogusky of CP+B and Hank Leber, founder of Agency Nil, here regarding agency business models. The Proffesional Artists League is taking a pretty strong stand against Work-for-Hire which can be interpreted as crowdsourcing. Take a look at their POV here.

AdAge is currently running a poll (through Nov. 6) asking if crowdsourcing is a threat to agencies.

BRANDS JOIN IN ON THE ACTION

I’m excited to see really smart people like the ones at AN and V&S make bold moves like this. Creative industries need this sort of thinking to keep them from stagnating. But here’s where it gets interesting. If you’re going to crowdsource, why does the client even need a middle man like V&S? Mountain Dew seems to have asked that question and come up with the answer: They don’t.

As part of their Dewmocracy campaign, the fizzy beverage is crowdsourcing their new TV ad. From the website:

Mountain Dew asked their biggest fans to band together and create the next DEW, from the flavors to the TV ads. Now’s your chance to get involved.

1) Create A DEW Spot
Direct, shoot and edit a 12-second DEW spot that shows off your skills.

2) Upload it
Your 12-second video must be submitted here by 11.30.09

3) Cross Your Fingers
Approved videos will be added to the gallery to be voted on by DEW fans. When voting closes, the six leading submissions will be revealed. In the end, three finalists will be selected to receive funding for a :15 TV DEW spot.

Once again the indespensible PSFK has more here. From the PSFK piece:

The brand insists this initiative will not impact its relationship with agency of record BBDO Worldwide, who has been involved with Dewmocracy from the start and will continue to play an important role in the process.

I don’t think this is a threat to BBDO, but is it a threat to V&S?

Apparently this whole crowdsource thing is a big hit with the junk food crowd as Snickers is in on the action as well. [Disclosure, my agency, Taylor, does some work with Mars, but is not involved with this project]. Another crowdsource effort comes from Genesis Today, who will award $10,000 for a good Social Media idea.

After the jump, insight from principals at Agency Nil, Victors & Spoils and Anomaly as well as agency biz model gadfly Agency Future.

INSIGHT FROM INDUSTRY LEADERS

Here’s what Cliff Lewis, Executive Producer and Creative Resource Director at Agency Nil, had to say about crowdsourcing:

“Crowdsourcing” is the new creative mantra, the “curator” the new CD. The

The Agency Nil mantra

perception is that the crowd will give you the answer at a fraction of the cost. That may well turn out to be the case – occasionally and for the right task. I don’t believe the crowd will always get it right but I do think the crowd has an important role when used correctly. It forces agencies into a new era of real collaboration and to re-evaluate their process and their value.

Established agencies have to come to terms with giving up some territory and realise that actually, the crowd is an extremely attractive resource.

Shops like AgencyNil are well positioned with fluidity and access to quality talent. With clients attracted to their low overhead value proposition, they may find themselves affordable brand “curators”.

Agency Nil is looking to utilize crowdsourcing themselves with a call to action for an agency manifesto video.

 Evan Fry, CCO of Victors & Spoils, shared his thoughts as well:

 Question: How does crowdsourcing directly by brands affect established agencies, and how does it affect shops like V&S?

 Evan Fry: A brand going straight to the crowd with a given marketing assignment is exciting for everyone. It’s exciting for established ad shops because it’s interesting and fascinating to see what the community is going to come up with. Ideally it’s not a threat to established shops because they realize that their strengths lie in strategy and wholistic brand handling and product solutions, the whole thing.

But if what the crowd is coming up with is satisfying for the brand and it’s costing less, then it could probably be stressful for established agencies if a given brand decides to crowdsource everything and pull an account. As far as V&S is concerned, brands going straight to the crowd fascinates us too. If they do it to a point where they feel 100% satisfied with their crowd’s output, they wouldn’t need us just like they wouldn’t need an established shop.

Because we too have strengths in strategy and complete brand/company guidance. But for us right now it’s testament to just how compelling it is. The more brands that do it, the more we think crowdsourcing’s current pluses and minuses will be exposed. We believe we can minimize the minuses while plusing the pluses.

Eyecube: What role can a shop like V&S play in collaborating with consumers on behalf of brands?

EF: We offer the role of feeling just like a regular ad agency for their relationship and points of contact. We feel like an ad agency. But we work with the crowd, guide the crowd, keep them on strategy and on brand for the client. And deliver to the client a shaped crowd solution. So we play the role of the familiar trusted agency partner for the brand. While using the power of the people and the magic that can bring to deliver the most relevant solutions where their customer base and culture at large feels ownership and love because they helped make it.

Eyecube: Does crowdsourcing directly with the public work better for some aspects rather than others? For instance, are you more likely to get better copy or art from consumers?

EF: I think it’s too early to tell. And as we adapt and evolve the early interpretations of how crowdsourcing currently works we can build in ways for anything to work really smoothly. Right now, the existing models seem to work best when you carve up tasks so that they are fairly straightforward. Those kinds of things can work pretty well. If it gets to multiple levels with a complex task, you have to have someone with the vision for the project and the brand wrangling it all and making sure each piece fits seamlessly.

So right now, things like logos work pretty well. Or really pointed tasks such as name a car color or code a simple website can work great. Putting together an entire product launch or something like a pitch or helping a company “get into social media” requires shaping and direction. But we’re figuring this all out as we go just like everybody else. We hope to help it all evolve and help the whole thing be better understood, better used and better leveraged.

New Biz Model Vets

Johnny Vulkan of groundbreaking agency Anomaly  is no stranger to unique business models. Here he shares his thoughts on crowdsourcing as an agency model:

I think it’s an exciting experiment and the calibre of the people involved is great so I expect good things. As a company who launched with a desire to test new ways of working, creating and making a business from that I obviously instinctively commend any group of people who do the same.

[Eyecube: Can crowdsourcing work as a business model?]…the very honest answer is I don’t know. I think crowd-sourcing as a behavior is a wonderful by-product of what technology has enabled us to do. As a continuous feedback loop ‘the crowd’ provides insight, data, and a vocal audience for any company to be accountable to. It’s raising the bar on everything and that’s a good thing. Smart businesses and their brands are already harnessing that by conversing in an open way, modifying their take on customer service and feeding that back into the products and services they make. There have also been examples where crowd-sourcing has been used to create communications back to the crowd – Doritos being the most written about. 

I don’t think it works for everything though and curation, editing and definitive personal opinion are vital. I think the recent ‘elect the jury’ concept is a case in point. Jimmy Wales and Clay Shirkey were languishing in the lower leagues while the top few names on the list were Global Creative Directors of large networks the last time I checked. Is this the wisdom of crowds or a response to company all staff email that creates that effect? Things get gamed and in the process some bits of genius may get overlooked. The future of the communications industry may be a more interesting one if people like Jimmy and Clay got to voice their opinions in that forum but that will take an individual decision to elevate them if they are unwilling to use the front page of Wikipedia or the NYU database to help them.

There have been experiments with co-written books, co-written films and co-written experiences that have sourced widely but they are yet to beat the creative vision of ‘Blade Runner’, ‘Shawshank Redemption’ or even ‘CSI’. We will see something soon I’m sure but it will be a rarity rather than a normality.

I realize this isn’t the ‘crowd sourced’ agency model but I think it is a watch out. Volume doesn’t always equate to quality and you are frequently faced with the overwhelming paradox of choice. There are also legal mine fields to navigate. For example at Chiat if someone sent in an Absolut ad idea it was immediately returned as if a concept ran that was similar there was a chance of legal action. You can say that is not ‘open’ and short sighted – but while the communications industry has embraced open source the legal industry is still a little way further behind.

It’s also hard to do with clients who require NDAs. We have several in place covering everything from new beverages to new technology… we can’t even tell everyone in our own office, let alone take the conversation broader.

But, it is going to be right for some people and for some occasions and if there are enough of them it is going to be a great business. We’ll use it, as will others, but it won’t become a default option. The future is not about absolutes. There are going to be many models, many paths and many businesses. There is no one size fits all but I do think the latest ventures are fascinating ones and they have the talent and will to succeed so I suspect they will.

The CEO of Agency Nil, sees things through the lens of his time at P&G:

People seem to be wowed about what Mountain Dew are doing….but isn’t this process what marketers have always done?

Consider this….P&G poll consumers in huge numbers, have focus groups, have fictitious products in baskets of goods, show different ads to would be consumers, use data in multiple ways in an effort to get into the purchasing intent and likely demand of would be consumers…and to create the best product, packaging, commercials, smells, flavors…you name it….they plug into consumers throughout the process….it starts at the concept stage and rolls all the way through from packaging to consumption….they have ALWAYS done this….

What is Mountain Dew doing that it hasn’t done before? There seem to be three key differences – 1) they are using more consumers than usual while calling it ‘crowd sourcing’ instead of marketing….2) they are making the process public….and 3) they are paying an agency to produce the creative for the crowd sourcing Dewmocracy angle instead of the creative work for the new product itself….is there a difference?

Aaron Bateman runs the Agency Future blog and works for Advance. He’s a student of agency business models and is an astute observer of the changes taking place in the industry. Here’s what he had to say regarding crowdsourcing and agency models:

Eyecube: Should we judge V&S and Agency Nil based on their success, or should we simply applaud them for having the courage to try something new?

Aaron Bateman: Both, I say. It takes guts to do what they’re doing. Not to mention complete conviction. But the litmus test is if they’re still around in a year, two years etc. My personal feeling is that they are agencies for the here and now. I have reservations about the longevity of the model, but if they get the business basics right they’ll probably be able to stick around.

Ultimately the best agencies – the ones that endure societal and economic fluctuations – are those that can adapt to their environment (to paraphrase someone a lot smarter than me). The closing of Cliff Freeman perhaps demonstrates what happens to agencies that capture the zeitgeist but then maybe don’t evolve.

 Eyecube: What’s the one problem with crowdsourcing that people aren’t addressing?

AB: I have a very personal opinion on this that is at odds with most of the people I’ve talked to about the subject. Essentially, I wonder where genuine visionaries fit in in a crowdsourced future. I think there’s a danger that an over-reliance on the crowd can be detrimental to the careers of genuinely truly creative souls.

When faced with thirty creative solutions that riff around the same idea, how many ad buyers would be brave enough to pick the one that’s completely off the wall? I guess I’m saying there’s a risk of some kind of collective groupthink that marginalises the real talent.

Eyecube: What do you think about Mtn Dew and Snickers going straight to consumers to crowdsource commercials, skipping agencies altogether?

AB: A great way of generating one-off ads/campaigns that cut through and generate buzz. My question is what happens next. Do brands crowdsource strategic partners too? I wonder if there’s a danger of a brand losing a sense of direction in some kind of constant quest to be flavour of the month. Of course, the idea presents a challenge to agencies already under pressure to justify their fees. If it helps sort the wheat from the chaff, then great.

Here’s a great little piece over at Gizmodo which illustrates the benefits of a strong client-agency realtionship. Steve Jobs thought the name iMac was horrendous, and in fact had come up with his own idea for a name that apparently was so bad, the entire universe would have collapsed in on itself had it been used. But ultimately Jobs trusted TBWA/Chiat/Day and went with iMac. I just don’t think crowdsourcing is going to achieve that level of trust.

For my money, crowdsourcing is an exciting development, but as noted above by some of the contributors, it’s not a magic bullet. I think it can be used to engage consumers effectively and if costs are an issue it can help there. But I think it will be very difficult to crowdsource brilliance. And of course the flip side of that is that brilliance may be run over by the ‘wisdom’ of crowds as genius is rarely seen as such by the majority when they are first exposed to it.

The smartest people and ideas I discovered or was introduced to via Twitter in October:

Smart People / Smart Ideas October 2009

Kicking off Oct. Smart People / Smart Ideas #245 with @briansolis Great stats on SocMed: People Defining Social Networks http://bit.ly/fo11P

Smart People / Smart Ideas #246 2 smarties for the price of 1: @GeoffLiving talks to #BlogPotomac Speaker @jquig99 http://bit.ly/25GvQk

Smart People / Smart Ideas #247 @themshow creates the PR agency of future http://bit.ly/3cm14h [hat tip @DougH] Must read 4 PR agency CEOs

Smart People / Smart Ideas #248 @BBHLabs talking AI and Augmentation http://bit.ly/8GiAD & http://bit.ly/4dmZ36 Great reads. 

Smart People / Smart Ideas #249 @briansolis’s PR 2.0 blog has a guest post by @mediaphyter  re: SocMed consultants: http://bit.ly/3Tbd9G

Smart People / Smart Ideas #250 @BostonPRPro says it’s still about building relationships http://j.mp/u4wEp [h/t @TDefren] 

Smart People / Smart Ideas #251 @DougH guest-posting for @TDefren on the new Google Sidewiki – http://j.mp/xxuyL

Smart People / Smart Ideas #252 @mikearauz says you get what you measure. Time to adopt a Valuable Measurement approach http://bit.ly/8rWKN

Smart People / Smart Ideas #253 @briansolis introduces the Social Compass: http://bit.ly/QqC6Y

Smart People / Smart Ideas #254 @awolk on opportunities to get edgy in his new AdAge column: http://bit.ly/1mGTB8

Smart People / Smart Ideas #255 @its_amber talks brand integration via Willy Wonka http://bit.ly/436v93 [hat tip @NakedNY]

Smart People / Smart Ideas #256 @malbonster on organizational response http://bit.ly/2r5X12 [Massive post, h/t @Malbonnington]

Smart People / Smart Ideas #257 @media_reveries teaches the Ad Industry what they can learn from Bollywood:  http://bit.ly/4kPnBS

Smart People/Smart Ideas #258 @AmberCadabra reminds us that Humans don’t scale http://tinyurl.com/yje9utz Worth a click 4 the image alone. 

Smart People / Smart Ideas #259 @BBHLabs on Adaptive Brand Marketing: http://bit.ly/2GhgzQ [Seriously, you haven't hired these guys yet?]

Smart People / Smart ideas #260 @jinal_shah is rocking it with her new Content Decoded site. Here she riffs on @faris  http://bit.ly/1OA9co

Smart People / Smart Ideas #261 @MackCollier on Rock Stars and Rock Star ideas: http://is.gd/4CxMJ

Smart People / Smart Ideas #262 @AmberCadabra on Social Media Time Management: Getting Organized http://bit.ly/4×1jo5

Smart People / Smart Ideas #263 @TDefren  explains why some ad agencies are having a hard time with SocMed: http://bit.ly/17S93

Smart People / Smart Ideas #264 Joe Duffy (via @fastcompany) gives a plea: Stop Going to Work http://bit.ly/1Vcdhe [h/t @eeki] 

Smart People / Smart Ideas #265 @anjali28 on Brand Fiction via Mad Men http://ow.ly/x3hB [hat tip @madebymany] 

Smart People / Smart Ideas #266 @michaelSurtees: Story vs. Systems, or as things will be for the time being http://bit.ly/4wZOal

Smart People / Smart Ideas #267 @inakiescudero gives well deserved props to @BBHLabs & @madebymany  http://bit.ly/UP71n

Smart People / Smart ideas #268 @ShannonPaul on The Trouble with Blog Influence Statistics http://tr.im/DABg [hat tip @MarketerBlog

Follow me on Twitter to get the Smart People / Smart Ideas links as they happen.

I haven’t always loved Weezer’s music (though the blue album is brilliant), but I love the band. They’ve always had a knack for understanding their audience and providing content (music, videos, blankets – more on that later) that shows they perfectly understand their fans. Here’s a quick review:

First, the Buddy Holly video:

Directed by the brilliant Spike Jonze.

Then they tweeked the Internet meme with their video for “Pork and Beans”

But now they’ve taken it to a different level with the Weezer Snuggie:

Clever, but when you add in a copy of their latest CD it shifts from clever to shrewd. If you think the Snuggie is dumb, and a Weezer Snuggie is really dumb, then you probably aren’t going to like their music anyway. But if you’re a Weezer fan, you love this type of stuff.

Can you imagine what Weezer concerts must look like now? Thousands of people in Weezer Snuggies. Of course the true diehard fan will be sporting the exclusive Weezer Safari Snuggie. Jimmy Buffett gets a lot of credit, and rightly so, for creating a strong community around his music, Weezer are doing it as well and are guaranteeing themselves a hardcore, devoted fanbase for years to come.

While you’re at it, look at the fantastic Weezer YouTube channel, complete with behind the scenes videos and other good stuff.

Twitter Lists

How many lists are you on?

 

Whose lists are you on?

Who else is on the list with you?

Aside from debating the overall functionality, those seem to be the questions regarding the new Twitter Lists function.

In other words it took just a couple of days for Twitter Lists to become just another way of measuring ourselves and each other. It’s still early and people are just starting to use this feature, but it’s disappointing to see so many rush to the bottom. Mark Drapeau voices a similar concern here.

Maybe it’s because I use Tweetdeck, but I’m having a hard time seeing the appeal of Twitter Lists. Yes, I do appreciate that my lists will come with me from computer to computer, but I can still only see one List stream at a time. Am I really going to toggle between my main stream and two or three lists, back and forth, back and forth? Rachel Sklar is also somewhat less than impressed with the whole operation.

Perhaps Twitter Lists aren’t intended for power users who are already using third-party interfaces, but rather for the more casual users. I’d be interested to see h0w sophisticated users with four or five lists are getting along with this new functionality.

This is an excerpt of a post I contributed to Jinal Shah’s excellent new site, Content Decoded. You can read the entire piece here.

I think one of the bigger trends of the last few years has been increasing ability for consumers to customize the content they receive. At first blush, this seems like a good thing. Being able to pull only the relevant content you want sounds great when there is an overwhelming amount of content out there.  This sort of filtering can work on both qualitative and quantitative levels. But what is often overlooked is what is lost with this sort of filtering, the serendipitous discovery of content.

When I flip through a magazine or newspaper invariably my eye will come across an article that piques my interest. Not something that I’m necessarily a huge fan of, but something close enough that my curiosity has now gotten the best of me. Let me give you an example. I remember seeing a review or interview or some sort of mention of the novel Netherland when it was first published. While critically acclaimed, this wasn’t the type of book that was going to generate Dan Brown-type hype. If I don’t flip by this story in the paper, I’m probably never going to know of its existence. I’ll come back to Netherland in a moment.

This idea of serendipity is important, especially to people working in creative industries. We need a wide base of knowledge and experiences, yet by subscribing to certain feeds, email alerts and newsletters we tend to shrink our knowledge base. But what if, rather than narrow our sources, technology could be used to widen them?

Pandora is a fantastic application for music lovers that helps them discover new music. Not completely alien music, but rather music that is somehow similar to music users already like. So, if say you are a fan of Belle & Sebastian, Pandora will recommend Kruder & Dorfmeister or perhaps Stereo MC’s. That’s cool, I like both of those groups too. But it will also give me Sofa Surfers, a group I’ve never heard of. But I feel comfortable checking them out because there’s a pretty good chance they’ll be in the same ballpark.

Go to Content Decoded for the rest of the idea.

As we approach the end of October and I look back on 2009 I think there is one lesson that stands out from the rest for me: The “Free Economy” has its drawbacks.

I’m not speaking specifically about the web here, though you certainly see many examples of the Free Economy on the Internet. This is a more general statement about how we interact with each other, the value we give things and the commitment we make to others (and the commitment we accept from them).

 From my experience, here are five examples of ways the Free Economy generates a less than stellar exchange:

1. It’s too easy to join

Quick, how many Social Networks, newletters, websites and ‘exclusive societies’ do you belong to right now? I’m guessing you’d need at least both hands to count them. You probably didn’t even think twice about joining them or ask yourself what real benefit you’d gain once you did. Now most of these emails just clog your inbox, you probably don’t even open many of them anymore, you just delete them. And when was the last time you made a real contribution to that group you were so excited to join on LinkedIn nine months ago?

2. It’s too easy to quit

Which of course leads us to the flip side – it’s too easy to quit. Maybe you realized that the group you joined would require some effort on your part. Or you get tired of automatically deleted all those emails. So finally, one day, you decide to take the time to unsubscribe to all these things. As you do so you think to yourself, “I know there was a reason I signed up for these in the first place.” But without any financial connection, it was just too easy to let things slide. 

3. Free creates weak communities

When it’s free to join and free to participate communities become weak. This happens in a couple of different ways. As noted above, it’s too easy to join and you end up with people who aren’t really committed to the cause. They are joining on a whim. Soon you’ve got a lot of dead wood, look at all the people who join Twitter, and then never tweet. The next phase then is quitting which is easy as well, and soon you have a community filled with people flitting in and out, not contributing to the cause, yet still taking up administrative resources.

The other drawback is that it creates an environment for trolls. Take a look at popular YouTube posts, or trending topics on Twitter. They are filled with spammers and trolls mucking up the system. If these people had to pay $5 every time for the privelage of writing, “Get rich using Twitter, ask me how [insert link]” we’d see a lot less of that type of stuff. In this case it may not even be a matter of money. A simple username and password system can be enough of a ‘cost.’

4. Free devalues the product

On a couple of occasions this year I’ve asked friends for a “favor” that included they provide me with a good or service that is part of their livelihood. Maybe I offered some sort of weak barter in exchange, but in retrospect, shame on me. If I valued their talent, I should have offered to pay them the going rate for their services, and if they demured I should have insisted. Once you ask for a “favor” you relinquished all your rights as a consumer. If it isn’t quite what you were looking for that’s too bad, you can’t ask for revisions, they are doing you a favor. Are they not meeting your deadlines? That’s too bad, they are doing you a favor after all.

It works in the other direction as well. If you are asked for the favor, sure

Ok, yes, some things should be free

you want to be a nice guy and say yes, even if it’s not quite up your alley. Then, a couple of days later you realize this isn’t a project you really want to work on, or you have other paying gigs that take precedent.  Pretty soon you start dreading this “favor’ you agreed to. Now everyone is a loser as you aren’t going to do your best work, and your friend isn’t going to get what he wants either.

5. Free creates work of lesser quality

It’s very easy to fall into the thinking of, “Hey, nobody’s paying for this, it doesn’t have to be perfect.” When you create something, whether a community, a good or service, when people aren’t paying for it, you as the creator have an out. It’s going to be hard for people to yell at you regarding the quality because you can always fall back on the ‘you get what you pay for’ retort. Expectations – of yourself, and from the consumer – are lowered in a free transaction. It can work if it is something you are wildly passionate about, but otherwise the quality will suffer.

I’m not some sort of arch capitalist who thinks every last dime needs to be squeezed out of every opportunity, but putting up even some small economic barriers can address many of these issues. I hope that in 2010 I’ll be more thoughtful when it comes to the type of things I decide to participate in and how I ask others to participate in my efforts.