A colleague sent me this interesting article by a Beatles fan who was shocked to discover that the Beatles' original mono recordings of Sgt. Pepper actually sound much better than the stereo recordings most of us know. Now, even as a Beatles fan, I was ready to write him off as one of those purists who will only play original vinyl records on vintage turntables etc., but this line caught my eye:
"...Gone was the separation of instruments in the right and left channel too, which now feels so artificial. It was artificial, since stereo was a novelty back then: Most people still listened to music in mono and stereo was the "new thing." As a result, producers overused it, just for the sake of it..."
Which leads me to think... hm... A new technological development gets overused and misused at first until its true utility is discovered... where have I heard this before? Oh yeah. Manipulating digital type. Drop shadows. Flash intros. (And some would argue that Guy Kawasaki's current blunderbuss approach to Twitter will serve as tomorrow's example). I've always associated this pattern entirely with the digital age, but I was surprised to see how far back it went.
So with every new campaign brief seemingly asking for a social media/mobile/Twitter component (I call it the "Web 2.O-dorizer") agencies are presented with an interesting challenge: are we using these new technologies in ways that provides value to our clients and their customers? Or just because we feel we should? And how do we know the difference?
One way is to look back to (more recent) history: in very early days of URL bidding in the '90s: everyone scrambled for "furniture.com" because... where else would you look for furniture online? Eventually we all remembered that "Oh yeah, it's the brand, stupid". That lesson still applies. For a consumer, a brand represents an implicit promise -- value, quality, performance, whatever - so if you're using social media or any technology in a way that feels inauthentic to your brand promise, well, you're just putting horns in one speaker and guitars in the other for the sake of it. The big difference is that your audience doesn't take 40 years to figure it out. They just move on.
Which brings us back to Guy Kawasaki and the way he's using Twitter: For me, who's valued his thoughtful and entertaining opinions for years, his lack of focus cheapens his brand. Kawasaki says he likes the 140 character limit, but really he's sending me 1400 characters a day divided into tiny random pieces. Whether you eat an entire pie in tiny little slices or all at once, it's still a whole pie. It's just not the best way to eat it.
Elliott Smith
Strategists & Planners
Comments (2)
I totally agree with you on Guy Kawasaki use of Twitter. I followed him for one day, and then I stopped. Too many tweets. But he's not the only one. I've noticed the same from some online marketing consultants and writers.
It's ironic though that Kawasaki, the man who tought us the 10/20/30 rule of powerpoints is actually flooding twitter with his words.
Posted on April 23, 2009 14:33
LOL thanks for your comment! That's so true about the Powerpoint rules, I'd forgotten about that. (As an art guy I'm definitely guilty of the "fonts too small" transgression"... ahem)
I still have Guy in my feed, but I'm considering dropping him too. For me it's not just the quantity issue, it's the fact that they're not all "his words": he just seems to forward an endless list of links and... stuff. What he seems to have lost sight of (in my opinion) is that his thinking and insights are the core of his brand, not his ability to scour the web and RT me 8 times an hour. I can get that anywhere, and do. Hopefully that will change.
Posted on April 24, 2009 08:23