I never understood fully what was meant by the term 'chase' until I started working on a recent big project taken on by Total Exposure. My first impression of the term was that - as a content producer - a certain amount of copy, image and video chasing had to be done in order to retrieve it from the various sources. Once that is done, the content is packaged and sent off to media channels who agree to use it.
A pretty simple process, no? More or less like the copy flow on any newsdesk (i.e. from the reporter/wire into copytasting, then into subs, then revise, then ready for page). But this is the mechanical gatekeeping process in which content is basically shoveled from one filter to the next, with certain selection policies in mind.
From a publicity perspective, content production largely forms part of the first step of that overall gatekeeping routine, and within that first step there is a portion constituting an expanse of messy human interaction involving curt or otherwise vague responses, corrupted video files, inbox-jamming images and whack unedited writing from listless freelancers.
'Chasing', in this sense, could mean sourcing and executing delivery from those sources in time to meet the deadlines of the other media representatives that you, in turn, are the source of. If you aren't seeing how messy this is, stick around.
About a month-and-a-half ago I began this big project by acquainting myself with the various people I needed to get content from to supply to the other parties involved in the communication merry-go-round. The first step (as always) was to establish telephone and email contact. Step two was sorting the email addresses into mailing lists/groups to ensure the correct people receive information that is relevant to them- to keep them in the loop, so to speak.
Step three was to adopt a tone for these emails that reflected not only the directness necessary for the back-and-forth slog but also one that affirmed the acceptance of email as the primary means of communication, hence a response time of no more than 45 minutes. Step four, I think, entailed devising a process of retrieval from these sources, i.e. creating deadlines on which content is taken from the source and stored appropriately for simple re-sourcing. Step five would then be to re-source accordingly- supply only that which is asked for to the people who asked for it.
Now the cause for concern - dealing-with-people wise - arises somewhere between the beginning of step two and the end of step four. My first criticism of this procedure is that within the creation of mailing lists/email groups lies the risk of inadvertently excluding relevant people or including irrelevant people in particular instances, which leads to post-send regret. Should I have cc'd the client's marketing manager on what - at second glance - seems to be a snotty email to the programming coordinator?
This leads to the bottomless hole of questions surrounding tone. What I see as a direct, professional tone others might read as just plain rude or, even worse, arrogant, especially when considering the stuffiness created by the 'no-more-than-45-minute' response policy. Content retrieval (step 4) then becomes increasingly difficult where people, because of this 'directness', retract into a state of rejection. Why should I give him what he wants if he's being so outwardly demanding?
The integration or at least smooth transition between steps three and four determine whether the content will ultimately reach its desired destination in its intended form. One solution may be to adopt a tone that primes the recipient for delivery, that is, letting him/her know what process you have in mind for retrieval and if that's not agreeable work out a process that would suit all parties involved through discussion.
However, this discussion in itself requires a certain tone and the ability to initiate an agenda as emotionally neutral as possible. This said, is a good communicator one that is able to set an agreeable agenda from the outset, or one who adopts a flexible agenda-setting policy where the intentions and emotions of all involved parties are taken into consideration and dealt with accordingly?
Not too long ago I read a piece on how email is a dying form of communication. (Would have linked it but can't remember where it appeared and didn't bookmark it). As you might guess, it was written or at least endorsed by a Web 2.0 guru of some sorts so it was heavily skewed in that direction. Basically, what it argued was that social media takes the tone and back-and-forth agony out of communication by firstly enabling those involved in the communication to know each other better and secondly create a platform for 'softer' interaction that accounts for human emotion.
This may be true to a certain degree but, as discussed a few posts ago, email may still be the tool to use for agenda-setting agency speak. Besides, where would the elusive chasing game be without good old email?
Kind regards,
Ahmed Patel
Monday, November 2, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Speaking of sterility...
Check this out. Mashable describes it as such:
LEAKED: Details of the Facebook Home Page Redesign [Screenshots]
Monday, October 19, 2009
Facing a rhetorical explosion
It's risky business admitting you're a late adopter, especially when this adoption is something you're supposed to be professionally involved in. I don't think it would be fair for me to bore you with details of my psychological malfunctions over the past five years or so in trying to deal with the Mypace explosion and subsequent Facebook dilemma.
Why an explosion and why a dilemma?
Well, I think I used to place an awful amount of trust in representation, regardless of the medium employed; believing that whatever is thought about and applied through such representation - however unqualified, inaccurate, incredible, unpopular or vice versa - is an 'histo-cultural' artifact whose (infinite) value is reckoned through the jadedness of having absolutely no idea of what the future has in store. On this basis, I used to think, every mediated representation is imperative in the anxious preparation for the unknown, to serve as records and/or references in a puzzle-solving exercise in the distant future.
Nauseatingly romantic? Maybe. A firm basis for engaging professionally with media, particularly those of the social kind? I'd have to say yes based on two things. Firstly (this is the most obvious reason) because the word 'social' in the term 'social media' implies having to deal with psychological malfunctions and dilemmas inherent in the randomness of social interaction; and secondly because approaching something professionally allows one the privilege of detachment, allowing for the selective implementation of communication ranging from personal interaction to full-blown rhetotic.
Now, if I wasn't a late adopter, chances are I would have been sucked in on the consumer end back when Myspace was thought to be everyone's chance to get noticed. You made your page look sexy then you made friends to show them how sexy you are. What's more is that everyone else was doing it so you didn't have to feel alienated, as most actors probably do. Enter Facebook and its marvelous promise of connectedness, 'safety' and easy in-group sharing - packaged more like a sterile directory vis-a-vis a sexy TV show - and you figured that Myspace was more for people who regarded their activity on that channel as products (e.g. musicians, bands, actors, etc).
Facebook, in all its sterility, presented a solution to being noticed in a slightly more modest way, a retreat from being exposed on Myspace to a simple listing. Here's the dilemma: in listing yourself on Facebook while acknowledging it as a social network, you inadvertently exposed yourself as a potential product much like an electro-glitch band's flashy neon Myspace page.
You may ask how and why a product and not a participating consumer, but isn't that exactly what a participating consumer is, especially when considering relatively new terms like User Generated Content (UGC) and User Generated Media (UGM)? It's simple, at some stage you're going to accept a friend request from a person whom you may or may not have met in real life and know something about them through some association, that person is a group or Fan Page administrator, his/her profile or page status updates appear in your news feed, you decide whether to click through or not but either way, you got the message in headline form which means you're already an indirect contributor to the product's overall representation.
Now all you have to do is click the 'Like' button...
But is being a product by virtue of being a participating consumer really that bad? After all, there is a transaction taking place whereby the sender constructs a message to elicit a response from the receiver and the only manner of gauging the effectiveness of such construction is whether it is responded to upon reception. Similarly, the only manner of gauging your personal success on social media channels is selecting and effectively responding to messages that are of interest to you, thereby enhancing your profile.
Coming from the perspective of a late-adopting Facebook ghostwriter, this dilemma is one that helps explain things more than it does cause retraction because it is likely that through a seemingly dichotomous situation a dynamic solution can be derived.
Kind regards,
Ahmed Patel
Why an explosion and why a dilemma?
Well, I think I used to place an awful amount of trust in representation, regardless of the medium employed; believing that whatever is thought about and applied through such representation - however unqualified, inaccurate, incredible, unpopular or vice versa - is an 'histo-cultural' artifact whose (infinite) value is reckoned through the jadedness of having absolutely no idea of what the future has in store. On this basis, I used to think, every mediated representation is imperative in the anxious preparation for the unknown, to serve as records and/or references in a puzzle-solving exercise in the distant future.
Nauseatingly romantic? Maybe. A firm basis for engaging professionally with media, particularly those of the social kind? I'd have to say yes based on two things. Firstly (this is the most obvious reason) because the word 'social' in the term 'social media' implies having to deal with psychological malfunctions and dilemmas inherent in the randomness of social interaction; and secondly because approaching something professionally allows one the privilege of detachment, allowing for the selective implementation of communication ranging from personal interaction to full-blown rhetotic.
Now, if I wasn't a late adopter, chances are I would have been sucked in on the consumer end back when Myspace was thought to be everyone's chance to get noticed. You made your page look sexy then you made friends to show them how sexy you are. What's more is that everyone else was doing it so you didn't have to feel alienated, as most actors probably do. Enter Facebook and its marvelous promise of connectedness, 'safety' and easy in-group sharing - packaged more like a sterile directory vis-a-vis a sexy TV show - and you figured that Myspace was more for people who regarded their activity on that channel as products (e.g. musicians, bands, actors, etc).
Facebook, in all its sterility, presented a solution to being noticed in a slightly more modest way, a retreat from being exposed on Myspace to a simple listing. Here's the dilemma: in listing yourself on Facebook while acknowledging it as a social network, you inadvertently exposed yourself as a potential product much like an electro-glitch band's flashy neon Myspace page.
You may ask how and why a product and not a participating consumer, but isn't that exactly what a participating consumer is, especially when considering relatively new terms like User Generated Content (UGC) and User Generated Media (UGM)? It's simple, at some stage you're going to accept a friend request from a person whom you may or may not have met in real life and know something about them through some association, that person is a group or Fan Page administrator, his/her profile or page status updates appear in your news feed, you decide whether to click through or not but either way, you got the message in headline form which means you're already an indirect contributor to the product's overall representation.
Now all you have to do is click the 'Like' button...
But is being a product by virtue of being a participating consumer really that bad? After all, there is a transaction taking place whereby the sender constructs a message to elicit a response from the receiver and the only manner of gauging the effectiveness of such construction is whether it is responded to upon reception. Similarly, the only manner of gauging your personal success on social media channels is selecting and effectively responding to messages that are of interest to you, thereby enhancing your profile.
Coming from the perspective of a late-adopting Facebook ghostwriter, this dilemma is one that helps explain things more than it does cause retraction because it is likely that through a seemingly dichotomous situation a dynamic solution can be derived.
Kind regards,
Ahmed Patel
Monday, October 12, 2009
Snap out of it
To try and avoid projecting the image of ranting helplessly in the face of ignorance, I'll attempt to navigate my way around certain clouds in my head toward understanding how and why Online Reputation Management (ORM) may or may not be the elusive grand solution to any digital/social media/webpr/online guy's major problem; that is, finding and maintaining focus long enough to crack the vague level he's currently on and proceed to the next non-level.
I think I've reached the point where I see ORM, or at least one of its many magical powers, the same way I'd imagine a roving reporter at a stadium rock concert tasked with getting a vox pop from every person who attended: 'Good evening, sir. Can you briefly tell me about your experience here this evening?'... thousands of times.
What makes this kind of reporting slightly different to that done on crime, sports, politics, entertainment, etc is the process of data analysis, and therein lies the problem. This expansive data has to be processed, analysed and interpreted while it's being generated, and only once this uber exercise in multi-tasking is complete can one shift from hyper- to mild-anxiety and compile a report detailing the successes and failures of the campaign. Seems like voodoo, alright. Didn't we integrate computers into our lives to avoid the burden of multi-tasking in the first place?
From this sprouts a paradox. Using of the word 'campaign', as we often do in our business, implies there is a beginning, a middle bit and a climax. How should a person working on a medium that was developed and is continuously developing entirely organically approach reputation reporting and management when what he/she is working on is conceived and subsequently planned in strict adherence to a timeframe? I think now's the time to kill all that buzz around the advantages of the Internet's immediacy.
Experience in research has taught me that the only good report is a done report (thanks, Prof Kariithi) and the only good way to get a report done is to take time and think about it as deeply as you think you possibly can, note those thoughts, find relevant things to read, review your notes with the reading in mind, conjure up an hypothesis and test it with your data in order to justify, in conclusion, the inherent thread of partiality throughout the process.
This tried and tested research process would work well for a postgraduate producing a paper on the ephemeral and simultaneously self-rejuvenating nature of the Internet and social media, but not for a digital strategist eyeing a non-level from the precarious vantage point of a vague one.
Isn't it time to develop a simple methodology for qualifying the vast quantity in a manner that bypasses the 'rating system' and its obfuscating implications? Should reputation management tools out there offer methodological solutions rather than final reporting solutions, or do they already? But most importantly, isn't the creation of a custom methodology part of keeping up with the Internet's dynamism?
Maybe viewing something in awe is the first step toward learning about it.
Yours sincerely,
Ahmed Patel
I think I've reached the point where I see ORM, or at least one of its many magical powers, the same way I'd imagine a roving reporter at a stadium rock concert tasked with getting a vox pop from every person who attended: 'Good evening, sir. Can you briefly tell me about your experience here this evening?'... thousands of times.
What makes this kind of reporting slightly different to that done on crime, sports, politics, entertainment, etc is the process of data analysis, and therein lies the problem. This expansive data has to be processed, analysed and interpreted while it's being generated, and only once this uber exercise in multi-tasking is complete can one shift from hyper- to mild-anxiety and compile a report detailing the successes and failures of the campaign. Seems like voodoo, alright. Didn't we integrate computers into our lives to avoid the burden of multi-tasking in the first place?
From this sprouts a paradox. Using of the word 'campaign', as we often do in our business, implies there is a beginning, a middle bit and a climax. How should a person working on a medium that was developed and is continuously developing entirely organically approach reputation reporting and management when what he/she is working on is conceived and subsequently planned in strict adherence to a timeframe? I think now's the time to kill all that buzz around the advantages of the Internet's immediacy.
Experience in research has taught me that the only good report is a done report (thanks, Prof Kariithi) and the only good way to get a report done is to take time and think about it as deeply as you think you possibly can, note those thoughts, find relevant things to read, review your notes with the reading in mind, conjure up an hypothesis and test it with your data in order to justify, in conclusion, the inherent thread of partiality throughout the process.
This tried and tested research process would work well for a postgraduate producing a paper on the ephemeral and simultaneously self-rejuvenating nature of the Internet and social media, but not for a digital strategist eyeing a non-level from the precarious vantage point of a vague one.
Isn't it time to develop a simple methodology for qualifying the vast quantity in a manner that bypasses the 'rating system' and its obfuscating implications? Should reputation management tools out there offer methodological solutions rather than final reporting solutions, or do they already? But most importantly, isn't the creation of a custom methodology part of keeping up with the Internet's dynamism?
Maybe viewing something in awe is the first step toward learning about it.
Yours sincerely,
Ahmed Patel
Monday, October 5, 2009
Pressure's always on when rolling backwards
I am inclined to think the vast majority of reading and writing done by people in the business of communicating falls within the frame of a window belonging to an email client like Outlook or Thunderbird. If we had to go a little further, it might even be worthwhile suggesting that most people who have a reasonable amount of access to computers and the Internet do a considerable amount of email reading and writing. Think about those endless gmail threads on any given workday with either bored or chatty friends stationed at other workdesks in different companies, firms or agencies... and that excuse to knock off the first forty five minutes at work every day.
What's more is that we expand our literacy, or lack thereof, communicating on social media platforms that not only serve as vents for workplace angst, relationship troubles or baby daddy issues, but also operate on the fundamentals of electronic mail. Reading friends' status updates in our Facebook news feeds is as entertaining, informative or tactical in the time-wasting game as receiving daily newsletters, RSS feeds or updates from the plethora of so-called established news and information services.
Social media platforms have, in this sense, become the primary facilitators of most communication whether it be as inane as sharing with others what you did over the weekend, or as earth shattering as breaking the news - via Twitter - of Princess Diana's return from the island where 2Pac and Hansie Cronje live.
Based on this, what seems evident is that electronic communication defines a large part of the humanity of the workplace not only because people share minutiae of their lives online while they are at work, but also because they do so in ways they perceive as expressive of their emotions given the limitations of the sharing medium. That makes everyone, from the PA or admin clerk to the director or CEO at any organisation complicit in this game of communication and indeed social media.
In other words, it might be worth everyone's while to view social media the same way we view email, fax, cellphones, telephones or postage stamps. It's here, we have to use it whether we like it or not, so I guess we must come to terms with it and start using it in ways that suit us best.
Yours after a great weekend,
Ahmed Patel
What's more is that we expand our literacy, or lack thereof, communicating on social media platforms that not only serve as vents for workplace angst, relationship troubles or baby daddy issues, but also operate on the fundamentals of electronic mail. Reading friends' status updates in our Facebook news feeds is as entertaining, informative or tactical in the time-wasting game as receiving daily newsletters, RSS feeds or updates from the plethora of so-called established news and information services.
Social media platforms have, in this sense, become the primary facilitators of most communication whether it be as inane as sharing with others what you did over the weekend, or as earth shattering as breaking the news - via Twitter - of Princess Diana's return from the island where 2Pac and Hansie Cronje live.
Based on this, what seems evident is that electronic communication defines a large part of the humanity of the workplace not only because people share minutiae of their lives online while they are at work, but also because they do so in ways they perceive as expressive of their emotions given the limitations of the sharing medium. That makes everyone, from the PA or admin clerk to the director or CEO at any organisation complicit in this game of communication and indeed social media.
In other words, it might be worth everyone's while to view social media the same way we view email, fax, cellphones, telephones or postage stamps. It's here, we have to use it whether we like it or not, so I guess we must come to terms with it and start using it in ways that suit us best.
Yours after a great weekend,
Ahmed Patel
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Social this and that
I met a chartered accountant the other day who works at PWC and naturally we started talking about what we do for money. In fact, we only spoke about what I do for money because we both knew that I pretty much already knew what he did. CAs coordinate and sign off audits, right?
He was quite intrigued by this 'niche' in media agency and publicity. 'So, what do you do, sit on Facebook all day?' he asked, but not in a sarcastic or condescending way. One thing I've noticed about accountants and engineers is that they expect straight answers to seemingly simple questions. I paused for a while before answering, knowing that this would become a standard response to anyone who might want to quizz me in future as regards my vocation.
So, in true fence-sitting tradition of a humanities graduate and indeed media practitioner I replied yes and no, days are long and if you spend them sitting on Facebook you might as well be working as a sub-editor at any given newspaper or magazine in the world. He didn't get it and neither did I because everyone knows that sub-editors split their work time three ways: one third on online dating channels, one third smoking and the rest bitching about how writers these days simply can't write.
I realised then that this can't be my standard response firstly because it lacks definition and secondly it exudes a certain verbosity that sure as hell won't go down in most professional circles. And if we're talking about circles and such, what I've embroiled myself in over the past few months is just that- an attempt to break into social circles that I think may be interested in the products Total Exposure has to offer on behalf of its clients. Yes, Mr CA, the plot thickens.
What's more is that after I successfully infiltrate these virtual social circles, I must influence their members to talk about what I've told them even when I'm not there. After I explained this to him he noticed the challenge and conceded that albeit an interesting field of work it is something that can be done with relative ease provided messages are communicated by likeable, or sociable, people. I grinned and said yes, even though electronic communication is widely perceived as impersonal, mechanical or otherwise anti-social, there is that nuance of personality that exists in the social media space.
People flock to 'blog gurus' not only because they possess the technical know-how of Web 2.0, IT and programming but also because they willingly share this knowledge in an approachable manner while developing likeable characters for themselves, the geeky skinny guy with a quirky sense of humour comes to mind as an example of this character (think a Windhoek Light-drinking Zach Braff in Scrubs except he works in a cubicle at some office park in Sandton, wears Old Khaki, plays social hockey and often has friends over to his Fourways townhouse for a serious session of Guitar Hero).
I guess that's one of the objectives of This is Total Exposure: To develop an approachable online character for the agency and somehow build a good online reputation. I don't quite know if it's working out yet, it might be too early to tell but in the mean time I'm taking lessons in likeability, approachability and general cordiality. Will keep you posted as to how it's going.
Your friend,
Ahmed Patel
He was quite intrigued by this 'niche' in media agency and publicity. 'So, what do you do, sit on Facebook all day?' he asked, but not in a sarcastic or condescending way. One thing I've noticed about accountants and engineers is that they expect straight answers to seemingly simple questions. I paused for a while before answering, knowing that this would become a standard response to anyone who might want to quizz me in future as regards my vocation.
So, in true fence-sitting tradition of a humanities graduate and indeed media practitioner I replied yes and no, days are long and if you spend them sitting on Facebook you might as well be working as a sub-editor at any given newspaper or magazine in the world. He didn't get it and neither did I because everyone knows that sub-editors split their work time three ways: one third on online dating channels, one third smoking and the rest bitching about how writers these days simply can't write.
I realised then that this can't be my standard response firstly because it lacks definition and secondly it exudes a certain verbosity that sure as hell won't go down in most professional circles. And if we're talking about circles and such, what I've embroiled myself in over the past few months is just that- an attempt to break into social circles that I think may be interested in the products Total Exposure has to offer on behalf of its clients. Yes, Mr CA, the plot thickens.
What's more is that after I successfully infiltrate these virtual social circles, I must influence their members to talk about what I've told them even when I'm not there. After I explained this to him he noticed the challenge and conceded that albeit an interesting field of work it is something that can be done with relative ease provided messages are communicated by likeable, or sociable, people. I grinned and said yes, even though electronic communication is widely perceived as impersonal, mechanical or otherwise anti-social, there is that nuance of personality that exists in the social media space.
People flock to 'blog gurus' not only because they possess the technical know-how of Web 2.0, IT and programming but also because they willingly share this knowledge in an approachable manner while developing likeable characters for themselves, the geeky skinny guy with a quirky sense of humour comes to mind as an example of this character (think a Windhoek Light-drinking Zach Braff in Scrubs except he works in a cubicle at some office park in Sandton, wears Old Khaki, plays social hockey and often has friends over to his Fourways townhouse for a serious session of Guitar Hero).
I guess that's one of the objectives of This is Total Exposure: To develop an approachable online character for the agency and somehow build a good online reputation. I don't quite know if it's working out yet, it might be too early to tell but in the mean time I'm taking lessons in likeability, approachability and general cordiality. Will keep you posted as to how it's going.
Your friend,
Ahmed Patel
Thursday, September 17, 2009
It might not make sense now
A friend of mine who, out of recession time, is a freelance copy editor and proofreader went for an interview a few days ago at one of the big photo syndication firms for the position of picture researcher. Apart from his regular trade of editing and proofing, he has had some experience in researching images for a B2B publishing firm in Cape Town.
Since the money's in Joburg, he moved here (like many honeymooners from down south) about two months ago in search for a job. The above mentioned interview was his first since then. When he told me about the interview and position I thought surely he'd get the job. I mean, how many people out there do you know who ply their trade (or have in the past) as a picture researcher?
The day after the interview I waited in anticipation for him to tell me all about it, and he did. 'I didn't get it, man,' he said with a tone, I assumed, to be that of disappointment (we were on g-mail chat). I asked him why he thinks he didn't get it and to my surprise he told me that the people who interviewed him told him they are looking for someone with a sales background. Being a philosophy major he obviously doesn't.
That's ludicrous! I thought. Why would a picture researcher need a sales background? But then I thought again... it's recession time, EVERYONE needs to be a salesman.
Which leads me to ask: does being in a recession warrant aggressive advertising and sales strategies? If so, what are the implications for social media? Isn't the ethos of Web 2.0 only that which is compelling will be bought? You know, the whole I'll-choose-what-adverts-I-consume vibe?
If not, does this mean social media consumers have already bought wholesale into aggressive advertising under the guise of mediated choice, making SM channels the prime platform for playing the capitalist game, i.e. making people buy stuff they don't really need or necessarily even want?
Either way, this is an interesting dilemma and a nebulous one at that. Cheaper, more 'compelling' advertising via the web may be the answer for many large businesses that are being forced to cut back on advertising budgets (which is good news for E-Marketing and WebPR firms or agencies). Simultaneously, wouldn't this cheaper form of advertising or publicity increasingly appear to be just that, cheap advertising or gimmicky PR- blows below the consumer's already tightened belt?
Where does this leave the social media consumer? I am inclined to believe that at least 70 percent of people who use the Internet, particularly social media, are aware that it is one huge selling machine. So, let's sit back and see where the recession takes this so-called democratized medium.
Yours in these confusing times,
Ahmed Patel
Since the money's in Joburg, he moved here (like many honeymooners from down south) about two months ago in search for a job. The above mentioned interview was his first since then. When he told me about the interview and position I thought surely he'd get the job. I mean, how many people out there do you know who ply their trade (or have in the past) as a picture researcher?
The day after the interview I waited in anticipation for him to tell me all about it, and he did. 'I didn't get it, man,' he said with a tone, I assumed, to be that of disappointment (we were on g-mail chat). I asked him why he thinks he didn't get it and to my surprise he told me that the people who interviewed him told him they are looking for someone with a sales background. Being a philosophy major he obviously doesn't.
That's ludicrous! I thought. Why would a picture researcher need a sales background? But then I thought again... it's recession time, EVERYONE needs to be a salesman.
Which leads me to ask: does being in a recession warrant aggressive advertising and sales strategies? If so, what are the implications for social media? Isn't the ethos of Web 2.0 only that which is compelling will be bought? You know, the whole I'll-choose-what-adverts-I-consume vibe?
If not, does this mean social media consumers have already bought wholesale into aggressive advertising under the guise of mediated choice, making SM channels the prime platform for playing the capitalist game, i.e. making people buy stuff they don't really need or necessarily even want?
Either way, this is an interesting dilemma and a nebulous one at that. Cheaper, more 'compelling' advertising via the web may be the answer for many large businesses that are being forced to cut back on advertising budgets (which is good news for E-Marketing and WebPR firms or agencies). Simultaneously, wouldn't this cheaper form of advertising or publicity increasingly appear to be just that, cheap advertising or gimmicky PR- blows below the consumer's already tightened belt?
Where does this leave the social media consumer? I am inclined to believe that at least 70 percent of people who use the Internet, particularly social media, are aware that it is one huge selling machine. So, let's sit back and see where the recession takes this so-called democratized medium.
Yours in these confusing times,
Ahmed Patel
Friday, September 11, 2009
Gone
Okay, so due to some legal issues with Freemantle, the production company that owns the rights to SA's Got Talent, we had to pull our attempted viral video.
Before I heavy-heartedly clicked delete in our YouTube account, I took a screenshot:
That's 607 views in just over 2 days.
Even though it's gone, my questions from the post below still apply.
Yours faithfully,
Ahmed Patel
Before I heavy-heartedly clicked delete in our YouTube account, I took a screenshot:
That's 607 views in just over 2 days.
Even though it's gone, my questions from the post below still apply.
Yours faithfully,
Ahmed Patel
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Teach me something wonderful
Is it just me or does M-Net's September movie theme totally suck? Tonight I'm being treated with The Cutting Edge 3: Chasing the Dream. These dancers have been chasing the same dream since The Cutting Edge with seemingly no resolve. Maybe I should turn the music down and watch the movie with its original sound, but Of Montreal is just too good to stop for this rubbish.
Anyway, video has captured my attention over the past week, firstly because I watched this rad clip about the Blue Whale on (one of) David Attenborough's YouTube channels; and secondly because Total Exposure was involved in disseminating an exlusive sneak peak at what's in store for SA's Got Talent viewers from October 1 via our channel.
Now of all the social media available on the Internet I have always had this affinity to YouTube, I don't know why but I think it mainly has something to do with the name and also the relative freedom people have to upload whatever they want or deem fit to broadcast. As a South African, growing up in a country where broadcasting is reserved only for the use (and abuse) by mega corporations, it is something to appreciate.
Coupled with that, there's the massive potential broadcasting has to influence a mass audience a.k.a, 'go viral'. This was the idea behind the Jaytee Turner SA's Got Talent YouTube clip. During meetings with the production company, official broadcaster and other stakeholders, it was my job to convince them to supply us with exclusive footage to be pushed online, a space where everything lives all the time. The lynch-pin in my argument was keeping the audience 'captivated' during the dead time between the auditions and the TX date, a six-week period.
So they agreed, and yesterday the clip went live. In the first few minutes thereafter it got about 150 views. My eyebrows raised slightly after the YouTube page refreshed. This encouraged me to hit the F5 key everytime I found myself on that tab in my browser. During the course of the day I saw the view count rise but not to my liking. Aren't so-called viral videos supposed to get hundreds of thousands (or at least thousands) of views at a rapid rate?
The mechanic around making the clip go viral was pretty standard: create hype, make it live, get the link, send it out to our agents to include in all communication they're involved in, and tweet (status update) it 'til the point of almost spamming. As a result, a few traditional publications picked up on it and it was re-tweeted and mentioned by some in the twittersphere. The view count, according to YouTube is now (at 10.30pm September 09, one-and-a-half days later), sitting at only 456. What went wrong?
Admittedly it is one of the fastest rising videos on our channel, but I have a feeling it's not enough. This is where you, dear time-wasting reader, has the opportunity to bash my methods by answering these questions:
1. Was the mechanic too aggressive and/or standard?
2. Is the clip not compelling enough?
3. Is there some tagging/optimization voodoo I omitted?
Go on, teach me something wonderful.
Yours in absolute sincerity,
Ahmed Patel
Anyway, video has captured my attention over the past week, firstly because I watched this rad clip about the Blue Whale on (one of) David Attenborough's YouTube channels; and secondly because Total Exposure was involved in disseminating an exlusive sneak peak at what's in store for SA's Got Talent viewers from October 1 via our channel.
Now of all the social media available on the Internet I have always had this affinity to YouTube, I don't know why but I think it mainly has something to do with the name and also the relative freedom people have to upload whatever they want or deem fit to broadcast. As a South African, growing up in a country where broadcasting is reserved only for the use (and abuse) by mega corporations, it is something to appreciate.
Coupled with that, there's the massive potential broadcasting has to influence a mass audience a.k.a, 'go viral'. This was the idea behind the Jaytee Turner SA's Got Talent YouTube clip. During meetings with the production company, official broadcaster and other stakeholders, it was my job to convince them to supply us with exclusive footage to be pushed online, a space where everything lives all the time. The lynch-pin in my argument was keeping the audience 'captivated' during the dead time between the auditions and the TX date, a six-week period.
So they agreed, and yesterday the clip went live. In the first few minutes thereafter it got about 150 views. My eyebrows raised slightly after the YouTube page refreshed. This encouraged me to hit the F5 key everytime I found myself on that tab in my browser. During the course of the day I saw the view count rise but not to my liking. Aren't so-called viral videos supposed to get hundreds of thousands (or at least thousands) of views at a rapid rate?
The mechanic around making the clip go viral was pretty standard: create hype, make it live, get the link, send it out to our agents to include in all communication they're involved in, and tweet (status update) it 'til the point of almost spamming. As a result, a few traditional publications picked up on it and it was re-tweeted and mentioned by some in the twittersphere. The view count, according to YouTube is now (at 10.30pm September 09, one-and-a-half days later), sitting at only 456. What went wrong?
Admittedly it is one of the fastest rising videos on our channel, but I have a feeling it's not enough. This is where you, dear time-wasting reader, has the opportunity to bash my methods by answering these questions:
1. Was the mechanic too aggressive and/or standard?
2. Is the clip not compelling enough?
3. Is there some tagging/optimization voodoo I omitted?
Go on, teach me something wonderful.
Yours in absolute sincerity,
Ahmed Patel
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Spot price of brent crude...
I knew it would be a bad idea for me, the current 'digital strategist' at Total Exposure to start writing the company blog. Afterall, we do have Vista Kalipa writing The Conscientious Observer and Walter Gelderblom about to write Walter's Way. But seeing this spot empty every day as I check up on our various profiles has kind of coerced me; and, it was my idea in the first place to get people in the office to share their thoughts on this often vacuous medium.
Thing is, the only thing that attracts me to write this is the prospect of gaining followers who might give their twocents worth in the comments section... it's always funny reading peoples' 'opinions' of others' thoughts.
So, what can you expect from This is Total Exposure? Well, a lot of commas for a start. Also, you can expect the opposite of what you'll hear from most PR agencies out there, i.e. 'Oh my God, this or that is amazing! I'm so going to do that or believe this...' You know how it goes.
The truth is that Total Exposure is more a publicity agency than it is a PR firm. This means we have far less tall, blond ladies at our office compared to those traditional events management firms. We currently have 9 people working for us, most of whom are agents - spin doctors, if you want to be crude - who are either on the phone when office-bound or out there spinning their yarns with South Africa's finest. If you're reading this as a consumer, that is, not as a media practitioner, you might find it interesting how much agency is applied to the media products you consume.
But, more of that as this post develops.
If you're a media practitioner, well, stay tuned, you might just stop hunting for your stories and find it all here. Yes, this IS Total Exposure.
Kind regards,
Ahmed Patel
Thing is, the only thing that attracts me to write this is the prospect of gaining followers who might give their twocents worth in the comments section... it's always funny reading peoples' 'opinions' of others' thoughts.
So, what can you expect from This is Total Exposure? Well, a lot of commas for a start. Also, you can expect the opposite of what you'll hear from most PR agencies out there, i.e. 'Oh my God, this or that is amazing! I'm so going to do that or believe this...' You know how it goes.
The truth is that Total Exposure is more a publicity agency than it is a PR firm. This means we have far less tall, blond ladies at our office compared to those traditional events management firms. We currently have 9 people working for us, most of whom are agents - spin doctors, if you want to be crude - who are either on the phone when office-bound or out there spinning their yarns with South Africa's finest. If you're reading this as a consumer, that is, not as a media practitioner, you might find it interesting how much agency is applied to the media products you consume.
But, more of that as this post develops.
If you're a media practitioner, well, stay tuned, you might just stop hunting for your stories and find it all here. Yes, this IS Total Exposure.
Kind regards,
Ahmed Patel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
