Posts Tagged ‘twitter’
a woman’s world is horrifying »
Wednesday, March 11th, 2009
For those that read my take on JCPenny’s “Doghouse” campaign, my reaction to the new Frito Lay‘s campaign should be obvious. Still, that won’t stop me (in spite of your silent protests).
What is “A Woman’s World?” Seems it should look something like the real world. If this is the case, after the introductory video, the real world is terrifying. Take a peek at the “Meet the Girls” section (if you hate yourself).
here you’ll find the professional, the artist, the rich one and the mom. The campaign makes Sex and the City or Charlie’s Angels look like militant feminist movements. Quotes like “secret shame: hides how much she spends on shopping from her husband” turn mild stereotype cuts into festering, infected wounds.
Oh well. Many that should be most offended will laugh at this, probably while buying chips. The world will be a happier (desolate) place. Or… we turn the conversation against this sexist uncreative.
Complain on Twitter, boycott the product or just tell your friends you’re not a simplified archetype. There are millions out there that don’t fit this mold and the interwebs finally give them voice. Frito Lay tossing out this candy-coated degradation shouldn’t be tolerated in the age of forums, tweets, comment threads and blogs.
Companies need to realize we can’t be force fed they’re unnecessary, near-harmful or useless products. But will they? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Right, Frito Lay? And (because I’m a pessimist) I can’t imagine a MotrinMom reaction to this (even if there should be). People never react as strongly the second time.
The more we ignore pathetic campaigns, disregard them as jokes or insignificant, the longer we wallow.
More here and here (ugh). Thanks @katlikewrites for the tip.
open letter: tourism bureaus »
Thursday, March 5th, 2009
I know what you’re thinking: Another open letter? Really? Yes. Really. I had a couple conversations this morning along these lines.
Dear Most of You,
There you are. You’re the be-all, end-all for your destination. You’re where people turn to book their trips, learn about your locale and plan their travel. Except for one thing: you’re not.
Don’t get me wrong, your sites are pretty, filled to brimming with helpful. Some find a lot of value in that but more find value in TripAdvisor (and ilk) with hands-on visitor feedback. Many travelers are going to Travelocity, Priceline, etc. to book their trips.
You’re letting your expertise be siphoned off. There are thousands of sites more specifically pertinent and millions of travelers looking for more.
We’re in an age of conversation, not broadcast. If you’re not talking with us you’re talking at us. We’re ignoring you. Your audience will dwindle as more become internet-savvy.
How large is your staff? 20? 40? 200? Even a small destination’s site could have hundreds of visitors per month. Put them to use; who doesn’t like talking about their travel?
Use Twitter, Facebook, etc. to relay useful tips and articles about your destination to followers. Ask visitors where they like to shop, eat and be entertained. Allow for comments and discussions.
Soon, creating a blog, loading Flickr images and sending tweets to both won’t be enough.
There are political obstacles. Keep your booking engines and link exchanges. If you’re funded through membership, even partially, have your users to mention your name when out and about. (Deals? Incentives?)
Your voice, while important, is not what travelers want to hear. They want to hear the voices of others or to be able to share theirs. Facilitate that conversation, adding your wisdom where appropriate, and your credibility will rise.
Or, you could keep on keepin’ on. You’ll weather the downturn only to be overshadowed. With so many free or cheap options out there to increase your status as a premium source of information, it’s on you.
Good luck.
Draynd
Sidenote: How many of you knew tourism bureaus existed or that you could book travel through many of them? Yeah… exactly my point.
the times goes crazy (yawn) »
Tuesday, February 17th, 2009
Friday, under their “First Look Blog” the folk over at The New York Times Online went nuts and introduced a new “article skimmer.” As far as I can tell, they took the layout and concept of AllTop and added a blurb with an image. (Original!)
There will probably be ads among the articles. How will that affect the clean feel of it or the usefulness? What about user-generated homepages based on predetermined areas of interest? (A homepage with the top articles from Sports, World and Arts, for example.)
Many already have RSS readers or dynamic bookmarks to access the content they want while avoiding the ads and nonsense that typically comes with. Now The New York Times can manage (read: inject ads into) their own “feed.” The idea is already nearing ubiquitous so it’s boring but I still like it.
With improvements, and with varying versions for different applications, this could be big step away from a print-oriented business model (Front page, See [page], top content). Considering newspapers have had to resort to putting ads on the front page and above the fold, it’s about time.
To their credit, The New York Times has consistently been ahead of the curve with online projects. They opened up their online archives awhile back when they disabled pay accounts and they’ve put their fingers into quite a few social media pots.
One can only hope that their being early-adopters will help. They’ll need to attract enough readers to compensate for their current, too-perishable audience that’s discontinuing subscriptions because they’re grandchildren have started emailing them photos.
Update from previous post: Some have said, in so many words, “who cares?” to the TOS change within Facebook. Understandable. My point was they’ve made another of many mistakes. Their failure to notify users, their post-wreckage band-aide post, their arrogant grab of content and their complete defiance of the data portability flag they’ve wrapped themselves in is what’s outrageous. Not them doing it in the first place.
From a company so melodramatically moronic, it should have been expected. Zuckerberg and Co. have essentially told us to chill out, that they won’t use our content how we wouldn’t want, and we should trust them. When someone asks me to trust them (especially after proving themselves untrustworthy), I don’t.
(unwarranted) recap of (unattended) MIMA event »
Thursday, January 22nd, 2009
Last night I met up with some folk at Shaw’s for their homestyle ronnies. They were delicious, as always but they kept me from the Digital Reputation Management event. Thanks to Ustream and the posting of the recorded event, I was able to “attend.”
Basically, three representatives from early adopting companies talked about how they’re using social media to manage their company’s public image. The commentary is thoughtful and in-depth. If you’re at all interested in using SM to boost your company’s involvement, take a look (it’s over an hour, you’ll need some time; embedded below).
This, obviously, is not a discussion of how SM can boost sales or involvement. It’s not about how having a Twitter account will make you viral or how web 2.0 jolts your ROI. There’s no mention of a call-to-action. (Either is Facebook Connect. Let me pause for your disappointed sighs.)
Steve Bendt (Best Buy, Social Media Activist) brought up Spy (try it out; kind of fun), there was talk of Google Alerts and some examples of how they’ve used Twitter and the ilk to improve and monitor their image. (Lela Phommasouvanh and Tammy Lee Stanoch (of Delta, formerly Northwest) rounded out the three.)
I’m intrigued by some of the mentioned ideas and entertained by how far my office has to come. How do you explain to old-media-centric higher-ups that there’s a new way of doing things when you’ve only been around a few years? (Get fired and go somewhere more amiable to same ideas?)
The video: