Ever since Crispin Porter + Bogusky launched their new website, they have gotten a lot of positive feedback from the blogs and twittersphere. Their move away from the branded portfolio and to a social aggregation has been praised as a step in the right direction.
kaseymarcum: Impressive! -- Crispin Porter + Bogusky's new site that puts social media ahead of their work
MattFiedler: Out with traditional websites, in with social media terminals
But I struggle with whether or not these are actual compliments. Do we want agency and brand websites to be "social media terminals"? Is CP+B losing something by doing it this way? And to be honest, is it really as social as it seems?
Craig Ritchie, a strategist at Organic Toronto, had this take:
This "digital uhm... fishing net," as Alex Bogusky describes it in his "candid" video, doesn't allow for any context or brand definition. Some are saying this move is good for all of us. "No matter what you think of it, just be glad they did it. It's one step toward making a lot of what several of us have been pushing for a whole lot easier," says Paul Isakson. But there's no move here.
As "the social web" becomes just "the web," brands will need to, yes, monitor and engage with all channels and not take themselves so seriously. But, there's no brand if everything anyone says about your company becomes your brand promise. You don't need a "uhm... fishing net," you need a big ol' crab boat, and a good crew that's in it for the long haul.
I agree with Craig's assessment. But my real problem is that the new CP+B site doesn't live up to the promise of being social. It should be about conversation, not aggregation.
The site pulls in bits and pieces of what people are saying from the social web, but doesn't actually allow people to comment or engage in dialogue on their site. Sure, they can tweet, and it's unfiltered, but it's also disconnected and not very meaningful. It's a lot of noise for noise sake, and it certainly doesn't show how CP+B is part of that conversation. Instead, it feels a lot more like they are spying on the party, rather than hosting it.
Marta Strickland
Craig Ritchie
in
reviews, the social net
|
Permalink
| Comments (3)
| TrackBacks (1)
|
Strategists & Planners
Comments (3)
Gotta agree with you here. Regardless of how CP+B want to spin this, its still the same old approach of broadcasting gussied up as "social". And in one simple sentence, you nail it:
"It's also disconnected and not very meaningful."
Keep at it, CP+B. Maybe some day, you'll stop buying your own hype and realize that meaning actually does matter when it comes to relationships with consumers.
Posted on July 8, 2009 12:45
If CP+B wants to lead the way, we ought to consider what happens when everyone follows. If everyone becomes an aggregator, what is there to aggregate? One might consider that leaders lead down their own paths; they don't map the paths of others.
Posted on July 13, 2009 18:36
hi there.
I agree with "It's a lot of noise for noise sake, and it certainly doesn't show how CP+B is part of that conversation."
It is an ok first step, However there is little or no value to the end user who is interested in learning. Especially those who dont get the social web and may not be influenced by a brand mention from twitter.
Aggregating mentions from the social web into a branded experience is a great way to bring it all home. However for it to be successful someone needs to take the time to curate the content and make it meaningful. If CP+B was truly interested in conversation they would have designed an experience where others could comment on what has been said.
BTW.. i have followed your blog for several years. Always enjoy the content.
Dirk
@dirkmshaw
Posted on July 16, 2009 05:35