Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Faris
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 weeks ago
in Hong Kong CID on Punk Planning
What the hell? This IS INSANE> what do you need Charles - we'll sort it.
FX
FX
1 reply
charlesfrith
Hello Bro. I could use a bit of spreadable action and Sam is coordinating the financial airlift. Today I'm on internet cafe time. Really appreciate your offer so @samismail is CFO although a word in the Embassy's ear would be splendid and a firm get lost from Hong Kong CID so I can give up on my passports ever returning. Peace mate.
4 months ago
in uncensored rambles on rosie siman
the future of mankind? eeeeeeeeppppppp how do we know?
but yes. social media is an increasingly unhelpful term. i prefer the radical decentralisation of the economics of cultural production.
;)
but yes. social media is an increasingly unhelpful term. i prefer the radical decentralisation of the economics of cultural production.
;)
1 reply
rosiesiman
right- well, we don't really *know* anything about the future; we can only make educated guesses.
but the way mike defines social media - as an evolution of all media as we know it - the socially enhanced experience of this communication (books to film to the internet) in the context of various networks& relationships... i think it's hard to deny that's in our future :)
but the way mike defines social media - as an evolution of all media as we know it - the socially enhanced experience of this communication (books to film to the internet) in the context of various networks& relationships... i think it's hard to deny that's in our future :)
4 months ago
in uncensored rambles on rosie siman
i saw these dudes doing live prints of these guns - awesome/
1 reply
rosiesiman
what?! so cool! slash not fair! ; )
5 months ago
in Learning to speak human on We Are Social
“When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”
anyway.
being 'social' is about trying to understand the non-commercial motivations that drive people to do stuff and talk about things and build relationships and that.
which is a problem for companies because they have commercial motivations and are attempting to leverage social ones to drive commercial interests.
that said, the right to speak and get a reply is now demanded - so cluetrain style companies need to cater to this, understand they don't get to control other conversations like they can control what goes in their own, and realise that if they want people to talk about them they should do things that are worth talking about.
and remember to be nice.
FX
anyway.
being 'social' is about trying to understand the non-commercial motivations that drive people to do stuff and talk about things and build relationships and that.
which is a problem for companies because they have commercial motivations and are attempting to leverage social ones to drive commercial interests.
that said, the right to speak and get a reply is now demanded - so cluetrain style companies need to cater to this, understand they don't get to control other conversations like they can control what goes in their own, and realise that if they want people to talk about them they should do things that are worth talking about.
and remember to be nice.
FX
1 reply
mediaczar
Agree with the way you frame the conflict: yes -- to do better marketing we need to understand "social" motivations, and that what we and our clients do often seems antithetical to these. Let's put that to one side.
That the "right to speak and get a reply is now demanded" seems more problematic to me. The word "now" for example: I grew up watching consumer watchdog and right-to-reply programmes (boring as they were.) Customer complaints departments (now called "customer relations" with any luck) have existed for as long as mass-produced brands [no evidence supplied].
We all know that people haven't just started complaining or sending in suggestions or calling up and asking for stuff. So why do we pretend that this is the case? I'd suggest that it's because -- until now it hasn't really been seen a marketing issue. It's been an operational thing -- now it's a brand thing.
Why? Well -- because the complaints are much more public, for one thing. Because they pile up on Amazon reviews, or smart customer activists have better tools at their disposal than they did (iPod nano flaw/Kryptonite.)
But also because in the past people complained to the retailer (who gave them a new widget, or a voucher, or a refund or whatever.) Because circumstances are beginning (for a variety of reasons) to kill off the relationship between retailer and customer.
Because the web meant that all the brands we work for suddenly developed a public face. At first they thought it was going to give them a competitive advantage, or reduce overhead on their call centres -- only much later did they realize it was a new overhead. I recall, in the very late nineties, a client asking us if we could please stop his customers from emailing his company.
Ultimately I agree with you Faris -- if brands want people to talk about them they should do something worth talking about. What worries me though is that this something should really be embedded within the product or service they sell -- and not something as peripheral as their marketing activities.
This in turn puts a massive strain on the relationship with their agencies. In the long term, I think everyone in this comment stream has an idea of where we should end up. In the short term, circumstances are such that it's remarkably hard to innovate. As a result we focus on what we can achieve -- cosmetic activities like making campaigns famous, or creating value-add services -- without really addressing the issues that make it so hard for big-brand owning clients to "get it."
Does this mean that we're contributing to the very problem we're trying to solve? I hope not. I hope that we're involved in a constant evolutionary process where little by little we help the brands that want to change direction do so and set an example for the others.
That the "right to speak and get a reply is now demanded" seems more problematic to me. The word "now" for example: I grew up watching consumer watchdog and right-to-reply programmes (boring as they were.) Customer complaints departments (now called "customer relations" with any luck) have existed for as long as mass-produced brands [no evidence supplied].
We all know that people haven't just started complaining or sending in suggestions or calling up and asking for stuff. So why do we pretend that this is the case? I'd suggest that it's because -- until now it hasn't really been seen a marketing issue. It's been an operational thing -- now it's a brand thing.
Why? Well -- because the complaints are much more public, for one thing. Because they pile up on Amazon reviews, or smart customer activists have better tools at their disposal than they did (iPod nano flaw/Kryptonite.)
But also because in the past people complained to the retailer (who gave them a new widget, or a voucher, or a refund or whatever.) Because circumstances are beginning (for a variety of reasons) to kill off the relationship between retailer and customer.
Because the web meant that all the brands we work for suddenly developed a public face. At first they thought it was going to give them a competitive advantage, or reduce overhead on their call centres -- only much later did they realize it was a new overhead. I recall, in the very late nineties, a client asking us if we could please stop his customers from emailing his company.
Ultimately I agree with you Faris -- if brands want people to talk about them they should do something worth talking about. What worries me though is that this something should really be embedded within the product or service they sell -- and not something as peripheral as their marketing activities.
This in turn puts a massive strain on the relationship with their agencies. In the long term, I think everyone in this comment stream has an idea of where we should end up. In the short term, circumstances are such that it's remarkably hard to innovate. As a result we focus on what we can achieve -- cosmetic activities like making campaigns famous, or creating value-add services -- without really addressing the issues that make it so hard for big-brand owning clients to "get it."
Does this mean that we're contributing to the very problem we're trying to solve? I hope not. I hope that we're involved in a constant evolutionary process where little by little we help the brands that want to change direction do so and set an example for the others.
