TomBomb.Com

The Bubble Generation Consumer: Easy to Find, Impossible to Reach

The Bubble Generation's young, connected consumers will have a hard time going "off the grid."  When you consider the array of ways they will be tracked, and trailed, followed and found, the future will require a new tolerance for propinquity (or a new definition of personal privacy).  Between GPS tags, the ubiquity of public cameras, the mobility of mail and always-on phone services, it will soon be impossible to break away for an untethered, unmolested moment.  The funny thing is, BubbleGen consumers like it that way.

Yes, your new customer rolls with an entourage, real and virtual, likes to know where his buddies are at all times, and loves to share her little everyday moments (including shopping moments) with friends.  To help them, a spate of new companies is coming on line with technology to foster instant communication and coordination.  The most interesting of these services include 3Jam, Dodgeball, Jyngle, Loopt, Moblabber and Pinger.

The common denominator among these technologies is mobile connectivity.  That means, your MySpace page in your palm, instant messaging on the fly, finding your friends in a crowd.  But these tools of permitted exchange also filter out unwanted interruptions from advertisers and others.  That means, the emerging customer base will be simple to pin point, difficult to pin down--unless your product or service--song or style--is endorsed by those inside the circle.    

Since TV, print and web ads don't work, what's a marketer to do?  One way into the inner sanctum is to create an experience that involves your customers and their friends.  Scion has been doing this well.  The company engages prospective buyer at concerts and festivals, and its Scion Sessions events bring hip hop shows and film festivals to the demographic target. 

Another path is to turn your product into a "friend."  Herbal Essences hair care products has infiltrated social networking sites like MySpace and YouTube with its "clubs," where customers can declare their affinity for the brand and share ideas.  The brand has also created conversations on teen discussion boards, like Aimgirl and Veggieboard. 

However, marketers choose to engage the BubbleGen customer, it is important not to confuse their accessibility with their interest.  Finding them is easy.  Selling to them is another matter.

One last thing: I have one word for you. No, not plastics.  Privacy.  With pervasive, unblinking eyes increasingly watching our every move, privacy will be like sex in the future.  Even BubbleGenners will on occasion find their social capital depleted and will want to buy a little alone time.  Catering to privacy will be a big business someday.

Piczo, Commonroom, asmallworld, Wallop: Inviting New Spaces or the Onset of Social Media Fatigue?

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about the Duke University study revealing that average Americans only have two real friends in their lives.  You’d never know it from the way social networking sites are sprouting up all over.  Following upon the trolling-for-friends models at MySpace, Facebook, Friendster, Bebo, Xanga and Hi5, come the new wave of by-invitation-only sites, like Piczo, Commonroom, asmallworld, and the recent Microsoft spin-off, Wallop.  This doesn’t include the professional networking sites, like LinkedIn, Ecademy, and Ryze, or the tied-to-physical community sites like Backfence, i-neighbors, upcoming and meetup.  There’s even dogster and catster, for pet lovers.

Look, don’t get me wrong, I believe social networks are clearly a powerful new force in our world.  They help like-minded people find each other, connect and communicate.   And yes, they will play an important role in the future of shopping.  Heck, it's better than bowling alone.  But, how many look-alike communities can the market bear? Who the hell has the time to fill out that many profiles (or think of that many passwords)? Who can keep track of all those contact lists, photo albums--that many friends?   The answer is no one can.  Not in a sustained way.

No, in order to survive going forward, community sites need to brutally sharpen their focus, and bring their differences into full relief. The winners will inspire genuine enfranchisement, involvement--citizenship.  The losers will become digital ghost towns.  And, maybe the new focus is not on raw membership numbers. Quality, not quantity might make the difference.  An exclusive site of 500 millionaires surely might be more attractive to some advertisers than a grab bag of one million students.  So the challenge ahead is to summon the courage to specialize, and not be everything to everyone. Otherwise, expect to see some social media fatigue and burnout set in.

In that case, I propose something completely different.  I call it myownpond.com.  Myownpond will be a place where you can retreat, far from the madding crowd and, like Henry David Thoreau, sit and think and be alone.  A brief, welcome respite from the noise, clamor and demand for your attention.  No slide shows, no instant messages, no videos, no cute widgets.  A little Zen garden, a haiku or two, the sound of one hand clapping.  Minimal graphics, maybe none.  Perhaps a couple of small ads.  Text only. Small print. What a concept, huh?  Say it with me now: a table for one please!

Is YouTube One Half of the next Excite@Home?

By Mark Whitty

I hate to be a buzz killer, but I’m becoming alarmed by the behavior of some Web 2.0 high fliers.  They are going about business with apparently little awareness for the mistakes of their predecessors.  And, you know the old saw: those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 

I know what I ‘m talking about.  I had the dubious distinction of heading up its advertising agency when Excite@Home so colorfully imploded (I’m still picking shrapnel out of my hindquarters from that one). 

In late 1999, my agency was brought in to help communicate the power of the newly merged companies, @Home and Excite, to advertisers and to solidify the brand internally and externally. It was billed as a "new media network for the 21st century." The idea--and remember that ideas didn't have to be very sound at the peak of the Web bubble--was that the wizards in Redwood City, Calif., would be able to combine Excite's content with At Home's high-speed delivery to create the dominant broadband destination on the web. Sure, looks like magical thinking today, but at the time anything seemed possible.  From the first day on the account I sensed a looming meltdown, but there wasn’t much I could do to cool the red hot reactor.  Management was unfocused and unsure.  I even had one senior executive tell me he was "brand agnostic."  Apparently he was profit agnostic also.  But, the market was exuberant.  The investors were exuberant.  The valuations were exorbitant.  It is starting to look like deja vu @ all over again. 

My key lessons from the Excite@Home debacle?  First, make sure you can deliver on the brand promise.  As an outside marketing gun, there isn't much I can do to make real that which is patently unreal.  Some piglets simply do not look good in lipstick.  Excite@home built a great story upon a false premise.  Universal bandwidth to the curbside is still not around the corner.  More than a few entrepreneurs are drinking enough of their own Kool-Aid to be pulled over on a Paris Hilton, at least in this state, anyway. 

Second, question everything.  If you're on the management team--and even if you're not--don't be afraid to ask your colleagues the tough questions.   That is where management really blundered.  Precisely when something sounds really logical and even sexy, is just the time to probe further.  Maybe video blogs are a fad, not a new life form.  Maybe people will run out of friends to enlist.  Has anyone ever liked to watch other people's home movies? 

Third, slow down.  In its frenzy to form itself out of the primordial ooze, Excite@Home was a mad house.  Things moved so quickly, executives came and went so frequently, that my team never got a straight story.  Too many companies suffer from speed sickness.  Better to methodically build value before racing for the exits. 

I am not saying that the YouTube story is precisely the same, nor do I suspect that the team there can’t learn from the mistakes of their forebears, but we now know for sure that an inflated sense of worth and an indefensible technology are two dangerous ingredients in companies looking for a home. 

In the World of Social Media, when does Marketing Cross the Line to become 'Marnipulation?'

Sure, I believe consumers ultimately vote with their eyeballs, but Tom Foremski raises a scary thought today about the cynical side of marketing via social media.  His specific reference is to the work of Buzzlogic, a social network analytics and marketing communications platform developer.  In other words, a company that lets you manage your entire online arsenal to influence your marketplace. 

In truth, the work of Buzzlogic is that which we marketers have been doing forever, although perhaps in less elegant ways.  All of us look to justify the ROI on all we do, track cause and effect and prove results.  Today, in the world of social media networks, it is possible to influence the influencers in all manner of creative ways. 

Mitch Ratcliffe, one of the scary-bright guys behind Buzzlogic put it well in a May post:

Influence, then, is the topic-specific ability to shape the conversational market and decisions made based on participation in social networks. It is the result of a person or organization ingesting all the raw material, from information to other links, and shaping postings that have enduring impact on the market or issue under discussion.

That means connecting all the dots on all the touch points to more forcefully shape a consumer's worldview and buying decisions.

As I asserted here last week, more so than its predecessors, the Bubble Generation looks to alpha consumers for cues.  The question is, where and under what circumstances do alpha consumers get their cues?  Is it possible to disproportionately manipulate influencers?  You bet.  Celebrities, for example, are bought or borrowed every week in the Hollywood press.  Could this power lead to nefarious outcomes?  Sure.  Will consumers catch on, adapt and reject manipulation?  I believe so.  Just as social media is the new consumer platform, I contend that trust is the new money.  In the end, if you have won trust, you have influence.  If you abuse the trust, no manner of marketing integration or marnipulation will get you anywhere--but "black-eyeballed."  Now, if this same commonsense would only apply to politics...

Mark Hurd now has an Extraordinary Opportunity to let HP be HP again

On my first day at Hewlett-Packard I was given a copy of The HP Way--the world according to David Packard.  Schmaltzy, sure.  But at least the guy knew what he stood for-and what we wouldn't stand for.  Unfortunately, the slightly loopy, relatively happy company described in the book didn't exist anymore.

Joining HP after the Compaq merger was to enter a house divided.  Even three years later, employees routinely identified themselves along un-assimilated lines.  Proud ex-Compaqers never hesitated to tell you who they were.  Divided loyalties contributed to an unspoken tension in the ranks--not a good, creative tension either.  And it was no secret that the wounds of the merger were still roiling in the Boardroom.  No, by the start of 2005, HP had become more a confederation than a corporation.

And then Carly fell. 

I remember when Carly Fiorina's portrait was removed from the Hanover lobby.  It was reminiscent of Saddam's statue being pulled down in Baghdad.  Like a metastasizing cell, the already-balkanized company further divided.  One can only imagine the strife in the Boardroom. 

The interregnum period before Mark Hurd's arrival was largely about repudiating Carly.  Executives generally fell into two camps: those who openly distanced themselves from her world view, and those who remained silent.  I was too new to stand in either place, so I just listened.

The skulduggery in the Boardroom was, of course, a direct consequence of these uneasy times and mixed loyalties.  So frustrated had some directors become during Carly's tenure, that they had taken to employing tactics which Dave would never have tolerated.  That's where the leaks stemmed from--frustration.  But, like Skyline Boulevard in February, that became a slippery slope.  Now, in an ironic, okay perverse, sense, the spygate controversy may allow HP to rediscover its past glory.

Mark Hurd has an opportunity to use this crisis as a cathartic inflection point.  Sure, he whiffed on his first at bat on Friday, but he still has a chance to turn things around.  This crisis has happened to the company collectively.  It has many old timers shaking their heads.  But it also has many newbies shaking their heads.  And that is a good sign.  The once-divided company is now united by a common crisis.  If Hurd plays his cards well, he can rally HPers in a way that hasn't happened in years.  If he takes full responsibility for his part in this bonehead saga, if he summons the HP elders to help heal the old wounds (going back to the aforementioned Merger), if he sets world-class expectations for a new environment of civility and trust and transparency, he might be able to set HP apart again as a great place to work, innovate and spend a career.  But now is the time for bold strokes, not fine print.  Hurd must put the big wheels in motion for cultural revolution before he testifies to Congress.  If he hasn't summoned the best of the HP spirit by then, if he hasn't by then put a punctuation mark on this Keystone Cops misadventure, the company well may float on into a protracted season of malaise and emotional confusion.

GM, Dell and Nike: Why the Bubble Generation Won't Buy From You

Last night I attended a panel discussion smartly moderated by marketing maestro Guy Kawasaki.  On the dais were six representatives of the Bubble Generation--young connected consumers between the ages of 18 and 24 who represent both your best business opportunity and your worst nightmare.  I came away with some pretty grim epiphanies.

First, BubbleGen consumers will be harder to reach than any prior generation since the invention of language.  Second, they have taken technology to new places faster than traditional marketers (read:you) can cope.  Third, they don't need the old intermediaries to establish their tastes and preferences. 

Here are my interpretations:

• The don't watch a lot TV or employ much traditional media;
• They don't tolerate commercials, and don't have to;
• They are very mobile;
• They are social and private at the same time; and
• They reject overly slick (inauthentic) content and messages.

In short, they don't use the media we use (at least in the same way), they don't want to be interrupted, they don't stay still long enough to engage, they don't want their space invaded and they are turned off by highly packaged pitches.

What are some of the secrets to the way your new consumers do work?

1. Instead of search and sell, they are into "discovery;"
2. They rely more on "alpha consumers" for their buying cues--people they admire, celebrities;
3. They want active interaction, not passive purchasing;
4. They have set boundaries outside of which your pitch is a violation; and
5. All they hear is noise--so quiet down.

What can you do to reach this lucrative emerging market?

1. They are into sharing.  Referral is a form of sharing.
2. They can be reached by "work of mouth," so actively campaign
3. Tap into their social capital fund, be a friend.

GM, Dell and Nike: The Bubble Generation doesn't want to buy from you.  But if they discover you on their own terms, they may invite you into their lives.

YouTube Is Now TheirTube

On the way to market, this little piggy got lost.

The speculation about who should/could/would acquire YouTube has been ripe for weeks. NewsCorp, NBC and Yahoo appear to top the list.  In the meantime, and with each passing day, YouTube seems to be taking active steps to alienate the core constituencies—the musicians, hipsters and edglings--that made it such a phenomenon.  We are witnessing the big sell-out before the big sell-off.

Perhaps believing itself in a life-or-death soapbox derby with Microsoft, the once-edgy upstart has of late become radically vanilla.  Recent deals with NBC, Warner Music Group and others do solve some of its worrisome copyright issues, and do advance a media-based revenue model. But yesterday’s announced "battle of the bands" with Good Morning America and Cingular ring tones well may have been the black socks to match the Bermuda shorts. 

By going so pathetically mainstream, YouTube is pissing away its street cred with the very people who gave it value.

After all, YouTube is not about technology or even video-sharing.  Like any good brand, YouTube is an idea, wrapped in a community, swathed in a culture. 

Any one of its suitors could replicate the technology in a heartbeat.  YouTube’s only appeal is its culture, community and its central idea: you. 

The lesson: temper the impulse to please everyone, stick with them that got you there, take your love base to the finish line.  Abandoning your base makes you not only vulnerable, it makes you less valuable in the long run.

Even worse for YouTube, going AM radio is the biggest favor they could have done for Microsoft.  They relinquished their edge, lost their danger.  Now, it’s only a matter of time.  In fact, Microsoft might as well buy YouTube and quietly roll it into Soapbox.

Where do the rebels, artists and malcontents go from here?  My money is on revver.

YouTube, you should have stayed YouTrue.

How Google Lost Its Virginity

Corporate culture--the core of a brand--is a funny, fragile thing. 

Once upon a time, Google was an extraordinary company.  A great product and great people drawing from a wellspring of integrity and principle.  The first tenet of their mission statement was, "Do No Evil."  It was that quirky uber-statement that defined the company culture and inspired employees to use the Internet to change the world.  But after last week, Google is just an ordinary company doing whatever it takes to make a buck.

Last week's announcement that Google had hired the lobbyist firm DCI Group, got little fanfare, but may one day be seen as a turning point in the company's young history.  How can hiring one vendor mark an inflection point?  Because, this is no ordinary vendor.  DCI, is a notorious group of political spooks responsible for some of the slimiest campaign tactics in modern history.  DCI does the Beltway dirty work for the NRA, Big Tobacco, Big Oil and--gasp--Microsoft.  If the Devil has representation in the Capital City, it is DCI.  Renown for their astroturfing--building phony grassroots movements to support unsavory causes--they were the firm that produced the infamous fake Al Gore Youtube video on behalf of the oil industry.  Also, from Newsvine:

The company operates a news and opinion website called Tech Central Station, which is sponsored by companies including Exxon, General Motors and McDonald’s. The website takes a highly skeptical view of climate change, and is openly anti-Gore.

Regardless of your politics, am I the only person uncomfortable with having DCI behind the firewall at Google?  The willingness of DCI Group to manipulate online news and social media is the antithesis of the Google philosophy.  And that signals a real change in Mountain View.  Now hold on cowboy, you say, might this not be merely the work of over-eager government relations-types?  No way.  Knowing the MO at Google, this decision goes all the way to the politburo.  This was a conscious corporate decision to pay protection money to politicians.

Yes, Google has lost its virginity.  And, if the company is not careful, it may find itself one day working the back alleys of DC and Wall Street as just another old corporate whore.

HP: Dunn and Dumber

An afternoon update to the unfolding saga...

From the Associated Press:

(Carly) Fiorina's quest to identify the media's sources triggered the chain of events that has ensnarled the company in criminal and congressional probes.

Picking up where Fiorina left off, HP Chairwoman Patricia Dunn renewed the investigation into the company's board earlier this year after the publication of another story containing information she thought should have remained confidential.

Instead of serving in the United States Senate, Fiorina well may be serving in the Northern California Women's Facility.

HP and The Era of the See-Through Corporation

When “Marlboro Man” ad model Wayne McLaren died of lung cancer in July 1992, it marked the beginning of the end of the protective force field surrounding Big Tobacco.  Similarly, the very public demise of Hewlett-Packard Chairwoman Patricia Dunn may signal the fall of the wall of voodoo surrounding Corporate Fortress America.  Welcome to the era of the See-Through Corporation.

You cannot totally blame Dunn for HP’s PR debacle.  She was, after all, just doing her job.  Sure, employing Homeland Security-like spy tactics to flush out a few corporate leaksters was extreme, and seems so, well, un-HP.  But, rather than simply blame Dunn, blame the environment.  Managing material corporate disclosures today has become a fixation, because failure to do so is subject to criminal penalties.  Imagine if Dunn and company sat idly by as insiders unevenly shared corporate information to the market. Would the Board not be in violation of its fiduciary duties?  Would their inaction not be seen as complicity or incompetence?  Does anyone know for sure?  Dunn erred on the side of caution in trying to source the leaks.  Set aside the questionable acts by the outside firm she hired, Security Outsourcing Solutions (tactics reflective of just hard it is to conceal anything these days), and Dunn might have been applauded for her diligence.

My requisite tour of duty at HP (as with military service for Israelis, all Silicon Valley executives have to work at HP at least once during a career) coincided with the “pretexting” scandal.  I was among the dozen or so executives in the room who welcomed Mark Hurd to HP the day he got his badge and met the media beast.  My colleagues there were (and are) good people, talented people, dedicated people.  But in the days and weeks following Carly Fiorina’s ousting, a siege mentality had set in.  The paranoia was palpable.  In a large company (150,000 employees) with HP’s peculiar culture (everyone is permitted a vocal opinion on everything) leaks are inevitable.  Closing down the leaks was more than the work of control freaks, it was seen as a corporate duty under the restrictions on “selective disclosure” set by Congress. Leaks equal a sloppy company.  Leaks hurt shareholders.  Therefore, leaks must be plugged. At HP as elsewhere under Regulation FD, closing the holes became a moral pursuit.  And a Fool’s Errand.

In the Age of Information Ubiquity, expecting total information control is addled thinking.  With blogs, vlogs, message boards, and a plethora of email choices, all companies are sieves.  This new see-through reality has to be built into company strategy.

Besides, managing unwanted disclosures is not the same as ensuring transparency.  In fact it can be the opposite.  Just as airlines unions have leveraged the Federal crackdown on terror to reduce their employees’ workloads (read: put the airbrakes on customer service), so too have some in Corporate America manipulated Sarbanes-Oxley and SEC rules to close ranks on the free flow of untoward market information.  Instead of more transparent, some corporations have become more opaque and secretive as they invoke reporting rules in clamping down on negative news. 

My advice to my fellow executives, is to make transparency a brand and cultural asset.  Embrace the light, embrace openness.  What is the alternative?  In today’s competitive environment, if you move slower than the speed of information, you’re roadkill anyway.