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
Sunday, September 27, 2009
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)
