twopointouch

I never quote Seth Godin. I find his stuff far too happy-clappy for my comfort zone (ach- another americanism!) Yet here I am: Seth on America choosing Neil Armstrong as their ‘moon landing guy’:

NASA did what many organizations do when picking someone to act as company spokesperson. They avoided risk, played it safe and chose someone who wouldn’t make a ruckus.

What a shame.

Armstrong could have taught the world about science. He could have done work that would have won him a Nobel Peace Prize. He could have had a huge impact on his country and the world. Instead, he mostly disappeared.

Many organizations worry that if they put their clout behind an individual, he or she will gain notoriety and power and eventually double-cross the organization. So, instead, they go for bland.

Bland is a tad harsh, though I wish they’d chosen Buzz for the first man on the moon. He’s got a much cooler name. There’s another reason as well - because I continually get to tease my wife for confusing him with Buzz Lightyear on one occasion. (Buzz Lightyear apparently trained on Lanzarote’s volcanos for his moon trip).

Speaking in my capacity as a has-been journalist, bland won’t get you a headline in a magazine or newspaper. But hang on… Neither will the out-spoken fool.

No journalist is going to publish a story that says ‘Dave Colossus, mega-spokesperson for XCorp, today said they’d be curing cancer within a year using the power of social networking’. Dave Colossus (not his real name) is out of a job within a week, and the fools that did print the story, well, probably they keep their jobs in my experience.

Stick to bland, and true. And bollocks to you, Godin: I’m not sure I’ve come across a better quote in the last forty years than ‘One small step for man; one giant leap for mankind’. If that’s bland (and even if he got it wrong), it’s still pretty magical.

But I still wish it was Buzz.

Quick report from last Friday’s Fuel conference. It was a well-planned day which I thoroughly enjoyed, so well done to Ryan, Keir and the Carsonified team. It was also good to meet up again with a couple of fellow bloggers. Andrew from Imagination has written already about the attention to detail shown in the design of the delegate badges, while Vero has covered off the presentation from the lovely bearded chap from Innocent drinks.

For me, the stand-out presentation was the case study regarding the launch of Virgin America, a new internal airline for the States and part of the Virgin group. It was founded in 2004 and started flying in September 2007. How come the launch took over three years?

As the presenter, Alex Hunter (Virgin’s Head of Group Online Marketing), pointed out, you might imagine that this would be a piece of cake. Virgin is a massive international brand. The group’s Virgin Atlantic service is well-known for being good quality and reasonably priced.

Not so. In some respects, the brand’s fame worked against them. The proposed launch met with loud protests to the US Department of Transport from the existing internal carriers. Virgin was a foreign company, they argued. Allowing them to launch would directly damage US businesses. It appeared (quite rightly) that a lengthy fight would ensue.

Virgin was hamstrung in two ways during this period. They couldn’t unveil the new planes’ impressive features and specifications - for all they knew, they’d be completely out-of-date by the time they launched. Nor could they use Richard Branson as a brand ambassador - his nationality was exactly the reason for which they were facing problems from the DoT. Also, money was more of an issue than you might imagine: they had already bought the planes and empty planes are a very expensive liability.

Legal fencing, defencing, shilly-shallying and fence-sitting ensued, for months. Finally, on December 26 2006, the DoT delivered its verdict: Virgin America would not be allowed to fly. This was a black day for Alex and the company. To that date, the Department had never reversed its decision on such a matter.

So Virgin decided to take the fight to the (metaphorical) streets.

They submitted a time-lapse video of one of the planes being painted to YouTube. Over the weekend, it garnered 200,000 views and found its way to the front page of digg. It wasn’t an especially remarkable film from a technical perspective, though at that time, there was nothing like it (all their rivals have since copied the idea, apparently).

They launched a blog called Let VA Fly (now defunct), unveiling all the sophisticated new features on their planes. At this point, they felt they had nothing to lose, so they might as well. They included an online petition, and forms which would create and send a correctly worded and legally valid complaint to individual users’ representatives, senators and the Department of Transport. Technically, it was a fairly simple site, based on open source Wordpress software. But it did the job.

Perhaps because the incumbent US internal airlines are so very terrible and anything better sounded like Nirvana, perhaps because it was pitched as a classic David and Goliath story, the blog was a great success.

They decided to launch a competition to let readers name the first eight planes, then capitalised on this by specifically inviting blogosphere celebrities and idols, Stephen Colbert and Cory Doctorow, to name two (Air Colbert and Unicorn Chaser, since you asked). They created T-shirts and gave them away. They put one of their planes into the San Francisco Valentine’s parade.

Perhaps crucially, they managed to get other online communities to do much of the marketing of the site, and driving people to sign the petition and send form letters, for them. The site or posts on the site hit the front page of digg eight times. Realising that community was clearly sympathetic, they invited Kevin Rose and Alex Albrecht to film their diggnation video cast on board one of the grounded planes, driving scads of geek traffic to the site. Later paid and unpaid spots on diggnation worked equally well.

In total, 75,000 letters were sent to the authorities and 30,000 people signed the petition. It was enough. In September last year, the DoT reversed its decision and the service took off.

I had the great pleasure this evening of attending the VRMhub meeting organised by Adriana Lukas, and attended by a group of extremely clever people working to try to make it happen (and me). Tonight, Cluetrain co-author and father of the VRM project Doc Searls was in attendance. I’ll paraphrase his introduction and add a little commentary.

Right now, VRM (vendor relationship management) is an idea. It’s predicated on the perception that the relationships between people and brands/companies are terrible. They shout at us with their megaphones and we often do our best to ignore them. Most of the time, the only thing either side ever talks about is the exchange of money - “how much does it cost?” Compared to a real market, a street market, that’s an extremely impoverished relationship.

Up till now, it’s been business that has come up with ’solutions’ to marketing problems. But there are some problems that can and ought to be solved from the individual perspective, the demand side, Searls maintains.

One of the latest solutions to the problem of marketing without wasting loads of money is CRM. Companies collect loads of data about their customers and potential customers and then target their marketing efforts at segments of those groups. CRM is ‘lame and bad’, though, because it isn’t about relationships at all, but about media planning. And it can go wrong badly, Searls recounted that his Satellite TV company simply lost his account details when he last moved house - he lost the extras and perks he’d gained from being a long-standing customer.

Searls also cited the example of National Public Radio in the US, a service akin to the BBC, but dependent on voluntary contributions rather than a licence fee. So how do they get people to make contributions? Every so often they say they are going to have to close down because they haven’t got enough money. So people send in money. Then, for the rest of their lives, they get spammed by the organisation, asking for more. This is ineffective and intrusive. There’s no mechanism for listeners to act the way they want to naturally. They can’t donate money to a particular show they enjoy, for example.

There are efforts to cut out advertising and create more direct relationships. The online sale of Radiohead’s In Rainbows, for example. The trouble is that these come from the supplier side, so we potentially end up with a million different ways of dealing with organisations we want to buy things from. If the nature and technology for managing those relationships came from the customer side, then it could be uniform and cut out a lot of the inefficiencies in the system.

Searls views the VRM project as unfinished business from the Cluetrain Manifesto. The central insight there, ‘markets are conversations’, has struck many people as true and right, but the technological implementation and management of that remains frustratingly tricky.

So how does VRM work?

That remains something of a conundrum. The best bet - as far as I could make out - is that it integrates with blogs or is similar to blogging. Individuals record their preferences and the personal data that you normally need to use an ecommerce site - on their own sites (or maybe they use a third-party service or a facebook app or whatever).

Those preferences are objects on your site - I think they are probably recorded as microformats - little snippets of machine-readable code that you can post online. There are already formats like hCard that can act as an online business card. Carrying that over to record things like product details or preferences wouldn’t be terribly difficult from a technical perspective, as I understand it. So there might be a microformat that records your preference for airline seats, for example - extra legroom, window seat, not by the wing, say. You’d have that little code snippet at a unique URL and you could decide whether to allow universal access or access only for companies that you’ve decided to have a relationship with. If a company annoys you, you could cut off their access at the press of a button.

So you have got all these details and preferences recorded in your online strongbox. Then - if you want - you let Amazon or Waitrose or whoever have access to the parts of that that you chose. The consequences might be that (a) you never have to fill in online forms again; (b) companies get to submit tenders for whatever it is that you want. I need to buy a new laptop - these are my preferences - I’m letting that information out to vendors. What have you got? (c) companies have access to rich data about what their customers actually want from them.

Objections

(a) this all sounds a bit geeky - it will never catch on

Yes it is, so are blogs. And blogs have forced companies as big as Dell to completely change the way they interact with their customers. If we just do it, and it becomes a phenomenon, companies will be forced to listen. Eventually, it will become productised, the same way MySpace productised blogging.

(b) I don’t want a relationship with the people I buy things from

Doc said, “Sometimes, I don’t want a deep relationship, I just want a cup of coffee”. And that’s fine. VRM-style approaches won’t replace all other marketing by every company. However, most people spend most money on big, considered purchases like houses and cars. Our ability to properly judge those purchases will be enhanced by a VRM approach. Large B2B purchases also account for a lot of money. Regular, smaller purchases from companies like supermarkets and bookshops will also be enhanced.

(c) Hang on, I work for an advertising agency/publisher/PR Company.

Yeah. You’re screwed.

Well, not entirely. That’s not going to happen overnight and not going to happen to the whole of the marketplace. Think of VRM as having the same impact as blogging activity now and the way that will grow. We’re at the equivalent of 1999 when it comes to VRM.

(d) Where’s the money?

Good question and it’s not something we know right now. There’s a potential whole new industry called ‘needs management services’; there’s the potential for individuals being paid for access to their data; there’s the possibility to create large, targeted focus groups on the fly similar to YouGov. Basically, that 50% of the advertising budget that doesn’t work is up for grabs because VRM systems guarantee interested, relevant relationships. However, the thing now is to create the phenomenon. From the human being perspective, this better than what we have now. You will have a better life if you embrace VRM.

How to learn more?

I’m glad you asked. NMK is running a panel discussion about VRM on the evening of March 18. Do please come along. Top speakers, cheap ticket, free beers, exciting subject. What’s not to like?

[The picture came via fffffound from here and shows how VRM might work in practise. ]

Update: Had a good chat with Daryl Wilcox, and it looks like we’ve come to a sensible compromise that will allow Tim to do his job and Response Source to maintain its purity. All’s well, etc.

My staff writer at NMK - Tim Hoang - works for the PR company, Rainier, as well. That’s always something we’ve made very clear. I was (and remain I’ve calmed down now - and DW was very charming.) absolutely furious to learn that he has been banned from using the Response Source service today on account of his PR background.

For those who don’t know, Response Source allows journalists to poll PR agencies for help - "do you know any experts on mobile apps?", "got any case studies on businesses making successful use of MySpace?"; that sort of thing, in our case.

One of our key anxieties in the initial decision to employ Tim - who is a paid & taxed employee of the University of Westminster in this role - was making sure that his PR job would not infringe on his duties as a reporter for NMK. It’s an issue we’ve discussed and thought about for a long time, believe me. There are clearly opportunities for abuse, but they’re ones that Tim and I are very well-aware of and perfectly able to execute professional judgement over. Of the dozens of sources he’s used over the last two months, two were Rainier clients - to add differentiation and substance to stories, when he couldn’t find other people keen to comment. (Ironically, getting more of these other voices was one of the reasons he used Response Source). I agonised about both of them for a little while - I edit all his stories - but concluded that the extra comment had justifiable merit. In both cases, Tim informed me freely of the connection; we were transparent about the connection in the stories; and I approved it. After all, I have very little compunction about using people I’ve met in previous roles as sources: that’s what you do as a reporter.

The reason for the ban isn’t known to me in full and was not disclosed, but RS has apparently perceived a conflict of interests, in response to complaints from some other PR agency(ies).

How exactly would this work? Tim polls other PR agencies for input into a story, and that would be a problem for them for what reason? Do they think that he wouldn’t include input from competitors? So why ask the question in the first place? That he would sneak questions like ‘fancy a new agency?’ into his interviews? I think the yellow-pages might be a better source.

One more thing annoys me about this. I am the editor and publisher of NMK. Why didn’t anyone take whatever concerns they have to me, rather than a third-party? Or to my boss, the director of NMK?

F**king infantile. I will not use Response Source again while this situation continues. I have forwarded this info@dwpub.com - if anyone has a better contact, let me know.

OK. I’ve been product-pitched by PR companies as a (sort-of) journalist many times. I have been pitched as a blogger a few times.

This week’s malarkey is a new thing entirely. A teaser/blogger-outreach campaign.

On Monday I received a plain brown envelope.

It contained a blacked out memo, but the remaining words revealed something about a military operation. Ooooh! There was a little brown envelope, too. What’s inside?? Oooh a mobile phone SIM card!

Plug it into my phone immediately, of course!

Oh

Nothing.

No top secret texts.. no nothing. No credit on the pay-as-you-go SIM either.

Meanwhile, my clever assistant was all over the memo and thought enough to google the word ‘nanosuit’, one of the few remaining legible words on the memo. There’s a new game coming out today called Crysis that involves the protagonist wearing a nanosuit. It has to be them behind this, since any other mention of ‘nanosuit’ on the web is about science and that.

Next day. I’m thinking they might send me a phone to put that SIM card into! Woo hoo! Errr.. no. I get an email (once it came out of the spam bin) from a ‘top-secret’ website saying they need help with an audio file. There’s a link to a deliberately unfinished site, so you go straight into the file browser. Lots of areas are inaccessible, what with this being top-secret. I poke about a bit, as you do. Eventually, I find an mp3 file - aha - that must be it!

I download it. My computer plays that format in iTunes. It’s called ‘Crysis - final - approved’ in the title bar. It contains some audio of combat footage and some guy talking about being behind enemy lines (or something). I am not at all sure how I am supposed to help them with this. Run it through some audio filters, perhaps?

Very top secret, then.

And I am supposed to write about the launch of your game because…? It’s not about anything that this blog is supposed to be about. I know I make exceptions sometimes, but come on?

P.S. Yes, I have written about it anyway and, yes, free stuff is always welcome so long as I am allowed to be sarcastic about it. Drew reckons it’s "Very cool and slick", so maybe I’m just a grumpy bastard.

I’ve always been a bit of a sceptic about Second Life (posts passim, and I mean in its utility as a marketing vehicle for brands), and I won’t pretend otherwise despite a day of inspiration and intelligence at the Virtual Worlds Forum. Yes, I now understand a bit more about why brands have been investing in the network and am prepared to say that this is probably not quite such a terrible thing as earlier posts might have suggested. Some of the other virtual worlds such as Stardoll, Habbo, Eve and Entropia seem very interesting indeed.

On with the doom and gloom, though, and one presentation that I really enjoyed came from Marco van Veen, a manager at the Innovation & Collaboration Center at Heineken on why they said ‘no’ to Second Life.

Heineken obviously does a lot of advertising and sponsorship and isn’t remotely afraid to try out new forms such as product placement in films like Casino Royale. They could very easily imagine a Heineken bar or vending machines in SL, as could all of us - heck, why not a Heineken lake? - and obviously developers and marketing agencies kept coming to them with metaverse ideas. Initially, they had a lot of enthusiasm for the possibilities.

As they started to think through the business value of the project, though, several adverse factors dawned on them…

• They wouldn’t be the first beer brand to enter the world. The press and publicity that was showered on companies like Toyota, IBM and Starwoods when they debuted in SL wouldn’t be likely to be repeated for the third or fourth beer brand to enter.
• They found research from Market Truths (March 07 - costs $100 or L$12,500) which said that if brands fail to position themselves correctly in SL, they can expect a backlash from residents. This led the company to conduct its own research among residents. It turned out that almost half thought that the Heineken brand would not be a good fit within Second Life. Only 19% said they thought it would. Don’t ask me why that was the case - as I understand it, there was something of a backlash against all commercial brands in the world earlier this year and it may just be part of that.
• It didn’t sit very easily with the company’s CSR policy. Heineken wants to be seen as promoting the socially responsible use of alcohol. Clearly, if they made Heineken bottles and kegs available in SL, it would be reasonably likely that residents would play-act drinking to excess. What else is there to do with a keg of virtual beer? (or errm… real beer).
• Hand-in-hand with this came worries about the age of SL residents. It’s company policy at Heineken not to sponsor events where the proportion of adults is lower than 70%. Linden Labs’ own figures suggest that this is comfortably so, but the company had an alternative report created by ComScore that suggested that only 68% of SL residents are 21 or over. This made them fear that Linden’s figures were unreliable. Again, this wouldn’t sit well with their responsible drinking policy.
• Joined with this was some anxiety about litigation. It seemed a reasonable supposition that there are ambulance-chasing US lawyers sitting in SL and waiting for a beer brand to give some of their product to a minor. Such a suit could well seem newsworthy to a technophobe press keen to sniff out any suggestion of child abuse online.

Yes, I am an SL naysayer, but that’s not the only reason I found this a refreshing presentation. There’s such wide-eyed bollocks talked about virtual worlds that Heineken seem like geniuses for sensibly and thoroughly assessing the opportunity and turning it down on this occasion. As van Veen said, however, this is a very new medium, and the company has far from closed the door on a virtual existence.

Update: I’ve written two posts so far on VWF at our NMK site. One on the basics you ought to know and one on business models and possibilities. Also, this post is being discussed by listeners to the FIR podcast here.