Archives for January 15, 2008

Coattails and Drafting

It used to be considered an insult to say that someone or something was “riding the coattails” of something popular. For politicians, it is a back-handed sleight meant to diminish the accomplishments of a winning candidate. In other fields, it’s an implication that somehow the project or achievement is a fluke, and would not have succeeded otherwise. It’s the equivalent of penalizing a sprinter for having the wind at his back.

However, that paradigm of “having someone on your coattails” implies that you are being slowed down. A zero-sum game, where any energy expended elevating others is a drag on your potential.

Reciprocal Buzz

I live in the heart of NASCAR country. I’m not a fan by any stretch, but you can’t live 40 miles from the Talladega Superspeedway and not be a little conversant in the lingo. And the relevant notion is “drafting.” At high speeds, cars traveling in the same air-lane can go faster than by themselves. The trailing car gets pulled in by the air displacement of the first car — and the prevention of disruptive airflow around the back end of the lead vehicle speeds it up as well. It’s not “pushing” with a cushion of air, but the net result is about the same.

The same can be said of viral marketing campaigns, that spoof or play off something popular. Who benefits from this video?

Local 6 News rides the coattail of the undefined creature of Cloverfield. I’m willing to bet the homage generates a little pro-movie buzz along the way. The nature of influence is not a closed system.

[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, viral buzz, marketing, movies, WKMG, Cloverfield[/tags]

Share Button

It’s Who You Know

I’m a former news guy, so I do know a little something about credibility. I had sources that would tip me off to things that were happening. I had some that would pitch me on items that were important to them. Over time, they would earn or lose credibility based on what they told me and how well it panned out. The key there is “over time,” implying a relationship of trust — and it has a powerful business application.

Yesterday, I heard from an acquaintance of mine in New York City. He happened upon the partial collapse of a building in SoHo, and was close enough to share an eyewitness account on Twitter.

BREAKING: PARTIAL COLLAPSE OF TRUMP SOHO BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION. MAJOR CHUNKS RAINING DOWN ON STREETS

(Think of Twitter as a micro-blog and instant messenger that is friendly and compact enough to work on a cellphone.) He also found a way to upload a picture to his blog.

I’ve never met Peter Shankman in person. I met him through his blog, I’ve talked to him a few times and we’ve traded e-mails. Heck, I even helped him late one night when he was looking for information about the trains in San Francisco. But I’ve had enough interaction with him to know that he was onto something with the building collapse. In fact, I was able to alert my supervisors about the incident a full 15 minutes before the first cable news networks even sniffed the story.

Then late last night, while contemplating what I’d write for Now Is Gone, I got another Twitter message, this one from Jeremy Pepper:

Earthquake at 9.13 PM

That got my attention… and moments later I was able to confirm that everything was alright. It was only a 3.0 on the Richter scale.  (This isn’t the first quake I’ve caught on Twitter before the news, either.)  My social network is proving to be a source for newsworthy items long before they are mentioned in anyone’s news.

Faces and Curtains

Let’s contrast that to yesterday’s discussion about Wikipedia here at Now Is Gone. Not to rehash, but there are still issues about Wikipedia’s trust level. Most of the editors enjoy the protection of Oz’s Wizard, hiding their names, faces, and agenda behind a curtain of anonymity. Yes, it is nice to have hordes of free labor to work on your site. It’s not so friendly to business, and not as trustworthy, when those faceless minions can break you and you don’t have an opportunity to offer “truth” from a neutral standpoint.

The trick to social media is the “social” part. Just like every other aspect of business, it is who you know. Wikipedia might do really well in the search engines, and might just be good enough to write every term paper for the next ten years. But I don’t trust it blindly. I do trust the words of Peter and Jeremy, because we’ve established a baseline of credibility. The technology lets you “roll your own” sources and inputs — your judgment remains your filter about who to believe and who to reject.

Today, it’s even more than who you know. It’s what “the people you know” know.

(Ike Pigott regularly blogs at Occam’s RazR)

Share Button