Archives for November 2007

Faceful of Fury

Jump the sharkNobody wants to jump the shark. It’s a surefire sign you’re on the downhill slope. The phrase “jump the shark” has embedded itself in North American culture, referring to the demarcation between “reasonably good Happy Days” and “incredibly lame Happy Days.” Many pundits of various disciplines jockey for position to be the first to declare definitively that “______” has jumped the shark.

The interest in amateur punditry has created a new dynamic, where a small critical mass of Shark Jumping Cries can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the cool kids turn on you, you may not recover. Which brings us face-to-face with Facebook again.

From Buyout to Sellout

I stumbled across a link (hat tip: Bill Green) to a news story about a rising tide of angst among the Facebook Nation. They saw the headlines about Microsoft’s Micro-purchase, which subsequently set a capitalized value of $15-billion. (To put that in perspective involving a completely fictional statistic, that probably works out for a dollar each time a user has been pestered to add an application to their Facebook profile.) $15-billion seems really high, until you think about all of the wonderful personal data each user has forever locked away within the Facebook vault. There’s got to be a way to monetize all of that, right?

Needless to say, Facebook Nation is awakening to the reality that they might just be willing participants in history’s largest marketing experiment. Many of them are starting to resent it very much. The sentiment is starting to build that Facebook is sporting a leather jacket and a tow rope, ready to…

(okay. No one is saying that yet. Except Kevin Dugan, but he was talking about something else way back in June and this is my chance to be the first to… ah, never mind.)

Perception Becomes Reality

Fonzie action figureThese memes are powerful, though. And they can spring forth from a very small nugget of reality. Why do you think Google has been ever so careful for so many years to cultivate the mantra of “Don’t Be Evil?” Because the cool kids in Mountain View understand just how quickly attitudes adjust online. Because the culture has been one of giving-giving-giving, with only moderate taking (and making money on volume-volume-volume.) Because Google has understood the value of wearing the leather jacket without the water skis.

Facebook is at a crossroads. Will it put on the skis, or will it tiptoe away to play another day?

Getting the most out of Facebook

Earlier, I mentioned how Facebook users were unwitting participants in a marketing experiment. As it turns out, we can turn the tables by doing market research of our own. For instance, in that same article cited above, we find an interesting little statistic:

It is early days, but so far Facebook’s online community is not impressed at being sold out. Discussion groups have sprung up attacking the new ad strategy. One, “My photos are MINE! NOT Facebook’s! Change the Terms and Conditions”, has almost 35,000 members, while around 12,000 people have signed up to “Facebook: Do not sell my private pictures! Change your terms of use, NOW!”

Contrast that with the feeble 600 so-called “fans” that Coke has on its Facebook page. And Blockbuster, that US movie lending giant, has a whopping two “fans”.

Blockbuster has only two fans on Facebook? I’m certain that the department that lobbied for the creation of that group had more than two team members. It’s rather embarrassing on two fronts. It’s bad enough if Blockbuster actually created the group – and it’s even worse if they didn’t.

A Blockbuster Failure?

Blockbuster is going through some very rough times. The brick-and-mortar stores are not faring well at all with the NetFlix model – which is based on the notion that postage and convenience is cheaper than physical buildings and redundant local inventories. Blockbuster has tried marketing an approach that is “best of both worlds” as it tries to establish on online rental alternative to NetFlix. At first glance, you might think that a Facebook presence would be helpful for Blockbuster, but not as a “Friends of” group. The more workable idea might be a “Movies I’m Watching” application, with an ever-so-slight branding. Something that shows what all your friends are watching too. Something that makes suggestions based on what your friends’ friends have liked.

I don’t know if Blockbuster is web-savvy enough to pull it off — and if Facebook is on water skis, then it’s too late anyway. I know that Blockbuster isn’t listening to blog entries. I wrote a very glowing review of my last experience at a Blockbuster, where an employee was quite helpful. I wanted to know how I could brag to about this employee’s exemplary service. I marked up the entry with obvious tags to Blockbuster. If they were even looking at all, it would have popped up in neon. All I wanted to do was brag on this employee who went out of his way. That was ago. The clock is still ticking. Now is gone. Consider the shark jumped.

Share Button

Defaced

Well, I was checking out the story on the Great Facebook Betrayal, when I happened upon a little nugget nestled below:

It is early days, but so far Facebook’s online community is not impressed at being sold out. Discussion groups have sprung up attacking the new ad strategy. One, “My photos are MINE! NOT Facebook’s! Change the Terms and Conditions”, has almost 35,000 members, while around 12,000 people have signed up to “Facebook: Do not sell my private pictures! Change your terms of use, NOW!”

Contrast that with the feeble 600 so-called “fans” that Coke has on its Facebook page. And Blockbuster, that US movie lending giant, has a whopping two “fans”.

Blockbuster has only two fans on Facebook?

As much as Blockbuster is trying to compete with the Netflix model, you’d think they would be more savvy with Social Media. For instance, they might have started monitoring the internet and blogs to see what people were saying about them. If they had done so, they might have noticed something very nice I wrote about them some ago.

If you want to track this down to the second, the clock is still running at the bottom of my sidebar. Should I be shocked they only have two fans on Facebook?
[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, Blockbuster Video, Facebook, marketing, social media[/tags]

Share Button

The Value of the Long View

Time for your Demotivational Devotional.

PERSPECTIVE: Taking the long view makes an ugly scene more tolerable.

(made with the Despair.com Do-It-Yourself De-Motivator)

Share Button

Chocolate Covered Cockroaches?

…trimmed with 24 karat gold leaf. That’s all I can come up with here.

Over on the left, I serve up a regularly-updated slice of my “Choice Cuts” from the web. Last week sometime, I included a link about a restaurant that set the new Guiness record for most expensive dessert:

The dessert is infused with 5 grams (0.2 ounces) of edible 23-karat gold and served in a goblet lined with edible gold. At the base of the goblet is an 18-karat gold bracelet with 1 carat of white diamonds.

The sundae is topped with whipped cream covered with more gold and a side of La Madeline au Truffle from Knipschildt Chocolatier, which sells for $2,600 a pound.

It is eaten with a gold spoon decorated with white and chocolate-colored diamonds, which can also be taken home.

That’s a lot of very expensive crunchy bits. And now, you almost want to question what some of those bits were:

Serendipity 3 on the Upper East Side failed its second consecutive health inspection in a month on Wednesday night after health officials found a live mouse, mouse droppings in multiple places, flies and dozens of live cockroaches, the Heath Department said.

I don’t know how many people actually ponied up the $25,000 to eat like a king, but I’m willing to bet there won’t be many asking for a second helping.

Share Button

Moving Mountains

{{myquote|It takes courage to get to the top, and tenacity to stay there. (author unknown)

…and it takes wisdom to realize when to pick a better mountain.}}

Share Button

Evil Greedy Stupid Sheep: 4 Modern Ways to Win An Argument

The great thing about internet communities and forums is that they give us a whole world full of disagreeable people we can disagree with. And since we rarely see these people in person, it is easy to completely depersonalize them through powerful debating tactics. The strategies I outline below deserve a special place in any list of informal logic fallacies, but that does not diminish their effectiveness online.

There’s an old story about a young lawyer getting sage advice from a senior partner. “When the law is on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts.”

“What if neither are on your side?” asked the newbie.

“Pound the table.” And as it turns out, these four techniques are right there on the table for the pounding:

  1. Dr. EvilEvil
    We’re all reasonable people, in our own minds. So it stands to reason that anyone who does not come to the same conclusions that you have must have a diametrically-opposed set of values. Therefore, they are evil. Those who disagree with us must be intent on raining down brimstone and weeping and gnashing of teeth. Why else would they advocate for the Apocayplse, unless they were Evil? And since they are Evil, we are justified in using any means necessary to remove their flawed influence. (my opponent is Evil because I am Good; see circular reasoning.)
  2. GreedyGreedy
    Next down on the list is the belief that your opponents – lacking visible horns, pitchforks, and pentagrams – must be on the take. It’s not that they spew evil with every exhaled breath, they are merely weak servants who have prostitued themselves to the highest bidder. Anyone (say a scientist who pursues a line of research) can be dismissed as a paid flack if we can properly assail the source of the funding as Evil. (my opponent is Greedy, and nothing they say can be truthful because they are associated with Evil; see ad hominem, association fallacy.)
  3. StupidStupid
    Lacking any hooks to hang the Evil and Greedy tags, you may want to insult your opponent’s intelligence directly. Look for any inconsistencies, no matter how far removed in time, place, or subject matter. All you need to do is confuse things long enough to render your opponent non-credible. It’s not that they have different values, nor are they so weak as to sell them. It’s just a simple simpleton who can’t logically connect A to B to C. (see circular reasoning)
  4. SheepSheep
    Sheep are blind followers. They might or might not be stupid, but they are through some circumstance surrounded by those who would lead them astray.Maybe they are tainted by the magazines or websites they read, or maybe by the people they communicate with. Our classifying them as “sheep” is not a deep insult, but rather an announcement that if only they spent more time with enlightened people like us they’d snap to their senses. Or better yet, become our sheep. (see Package Deal fallacy)

Just remember to keep your opponents in one of those four categories, and you’ll never knowingly lose an argument.

Share Button

New Blogger Tip #1: Full Feeds

One of the immutable laws of blogging (and building a community) is “share and share alike.” If you’re truly serious about cultivating relationships, remember it is what you say and not where you say it that matters. This notion still gets mishandled by some, who are depending on old metrics like page-views and click-throughs. The new measure that matters is influence, and you can’t influence people by switching to a partial RSS feed. Partial feeds just end up anno-

Click here to read the rest of this post.

Share Button