Digital Activism trumps Depression

Digital activism is a ‘nice’ phrase to refer to activists, and those who wish to fight "tyranny and oppression" (Heymont  1982), being able to do so, on a much more united and grater scale since the creation of web2.0.

However digital activism allows for individuals who may have previously not been interested in a topic/issue enough to actually get up and actively protest or participate in a situations resolution, now can, and do, with the click of a button or the completion of a survey. Which to some, such as Morozov (2011), would condescendingly refer to as ‘slacktivism’ in the book: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom: The Net Delusion.

However in my opinion whether it’s via a click of a button on Facebook or by energising an entire wave of digital activists to click on the button, if the internet can allow someone’s voice to be heard that previously couldn’t, it is a step toward fighting for something that we believe in, something that in this country is becoming increasingly scarce (Drew 2011). However this is not the case in Jordan. “The Jordanian Youth Movement used Facebook to organize the protest camp” (Bird 2011) prior the Government inflicted violence occurred. "Internet contributes to a form of 'ironic activism,' meaning that the practices that underlie certain forms of Internet-enabled NGO activity also reproduce neoliberal, market-driven approaches to dealing with social problems" (Wilson and Hayhurst  2009), that without the right direction, results in negative consequences.

Many suggest that the Tuition Fee Student protests in London (2010) wouldn’t have become as violent, if digital activism on social networking sites wasn’t occurring. This form of digital activism ‘gone wrong’ was named the “Riot Network”, prompting over 26,000 students to sign up to a Facebook page calling for a coordinated walk-out. It also enabled University students to coordinate and discuss police movements and direct anger toward police (Camber  et al 2010).  

The internet is utilised because of its position as the most frequently used interactive media platform, ranked "as the most-used channel at work and second after television at home, according to OPA's 'A Day in the Life: An Ethnographic Study of Media Consumption'" (Wood 2006). It is used by multiple target audiences. Its infrastructure can support numerous participants and situations, and the internet’s reach can potentially be global. But with digital activism, it isn’t necessarily an explicit choice to use the internet, it, in many situations, grows ‘naturally’ or ‘organically’ (Brodock 2010).

“Facebook and Twitter are the two most high profile social media tools being used for digital activism” (MacManus 2011) and are perfect examples of how digital activism can grow organically. I suggest this because Facebook allows people to interact with others from across the globe who find topics of interest they have in common, both positive and negative. If people from all over the world have a problem with something and they all unite on Facebook, and start talking about the issue, it provides them with a circumstance.

From this circumstance all of the people, from all over the world, will discuss what it is they think should be done about the negative issue they all have in common, and whether or not to take action, deciphering the goals they wish to achieve e.g. the Jordan loyalists stated on Facebook that: “We will not move an inch from here until our demands are met” (al-Khawaldeh 2011).

This is where it becomes active!

The group would then try and think of a strategy to implement and attempt to achieve their goals whilst looking at the big picture. In order for anyone to be able to achieve anything globally, nationally or locally they must implement tactics that will insight emphasis and conviction, draw in participants and unite them.

Most issues that arise when referring to digital activism are looking for change, whether it’s political, social or religious change. However it’s commonly suggested that “most digital activism campaigns are failures” (Joyce 2011) which explains why many people have “grown increasingly sceptical of numerous digital activism campaigns that attempt to change the world through Facebook and Twitter” (Morozov 2009), “In fact, the phrase “digital activism” is not even the consensus term for the use of digital technology in campaigning” as stated by Mary Joyce (2010) in her book: Digital Activism Decoded: The New Mechanics of Change.

And with the term digital activism being thrown around so lightly and only anecdotes and case studies being provided, how are we supposed to know what is successful. How are we as consumers supposed to know what is correct and incorrect in relation to an appropriate framework for a digital activist campaign, let alone reasons to be digitally active?

“Since most digital activism campaigns are bound to suffer from the problem of diffusion of responsibility” (Morozov 2009) how can we see through facts and figures and get to the SMART goals that were originally set by the majority consensus?

Well when looking at how all of this can effect or be applied to marketing communications, it could be suggested that the Smirnoff Nightlife Exchange project was a form of digital activism. I suggest this because it was a digitally active campaign that was looking to impact on the social lives of club goers across the globe. It used the social networking platform Facebook which allowed people from all over the world to campaign for their country, and county, to experience another cultures nightlife. I myself participated in the campaign, and together with thousands of others, have secured the oppertunity to have Miami’s nightlife come to Southampton, my home town.

So is it safe to say that ‘Digital activism’ no longer has to be as depressing as it is described e.g. being used to over through tyrants and dictators. Well I do hope not. What do you think?

Cookies don’t crumble, they collect!

On watchdog the other night many consumers were appalled when watchdog, “using the Freedom of Information Act,... discovered that the DVLA sold nearly 1.1 million names and addresses to private parking companies last year” (Rizi 2011). Well if they think that is bad they do not want to know what is going on whilst they are online!

Internet Privacy isn’t real. If internet privacy was real Cookies wouldn’t exist, Digital Advertising Agencies wouldn’t exist, many shops and organisations that started online wouldn’t exist e.g. Amazon.co.uk.

I know it all sounds a bit dramatic, but it’s true. The only way that you can buy something online, or sometimes even browse a website, being “tricked into giving away our personal information” (ScienceDaily 2009)... So no privacy there. The only way advertising can make money online is if they know where someone is and how frequently their advert is being seen or clicked on e.g. (CPC) Cost per Click or Cookies. In all fairness advertising is all over the internet, so no privacy there either.  

This type of information is being mined as you read this blog, information that you could only make private if you kept web browsing as a thought. However we, as a race, seem to find it necessary to send, almost vomit, all manner of information into the internet constantly via numerous different communication platforms such as: Blogger, Facebook, Flicker, Foursquare, LinkedIn, My Space, Newsgrounds, Twitter, YouTube etc.

The information that we are voluntarily giving away is very private and in some cases, as seen in the video below, unwarranted and very personal. Many consumers seem to be blissfully unaware of exactly how and what happens to their information once enter is pushed, the mouse is clicked or a purchase is made and that you do not have to upload something onto YouTube inorder for someone else to be able to view it.

As you can see in the video, consumers know that they are sharing personal consumer information with the world on a site such as YouTube, in this case about a passion for the, World of Warcraft PC Game, another online platform that requires a lot of personal information being ‘given’ to the internet post purchase but prior to actually being able to play the game e.g. Credit card details, address etc. And with there being over “12,000,000” (Mrs.katie evans 2010) players, that is a lot of private information being whimsically exchanged for entertainment.

A massive “41% of consumers are unaware of any of the different types of cookies” such as 1st Party, 3rd Party, Flash / Local Storage and only “20% delete or clear their browser’s cookies once a month or less” (Butner 2011). Consumers are not aware of the fact “they are being tracked” (Bilstad and Enright 2011) or ‘stalked’ from webpage to webpage, every word on Facebook analysed by companies such as Radian6 who’s technology culls “brand mentions from data streams including public Facebook user status updates, Page updates and wall posts” (Constine 2011), and every purchase on every website quantified and recorded by cookies, companies and companies with cookies, all explained perfectly by the video below.

However as an Advertising practitioner the groundbreaking technical advances that I have been speaking about above as scary privacy invaders are going to make my job in the future a lot easier. Data mining for advertisers is one of the most rapidly prominent methods of targeting and profiling consumers.

Privacy for advertisers and consumers is in fact, although blatantly a well hidden one, a bad thing when it comes to data mining. Advertisers need information from consumers to be able to do their jobs with as much precision and insight as possible (Perner 2010). Advertisers want companies, such as PayPal, to have consumer’s private information, if it will facilitate the ease of the advertised products purchase. Advertisers want to know where consumers are and if they are single or not so that they can advertise products accordingly.

It could also be suggested that we as Advertisers are helping the consumer by ensuring that they are having a pleasant time on the internet, in the sense that they don’t have to look very hard for something they like, or if they go back to a website looking for a product, it shouldn’t be too far away, we even go as far as suggesting other ‘wonderful’ products that a consumer might like, “producing special content targeted to specific users” (Bilstad and Enright 2011). It sounds brilliant to me.

Privacy may be an issue, but if privacy was ‘in’, it would be an injury to all marketing communications, not just Advertising. But as we all know Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerburg suggests privacy is no longer a social norm. What do you think?

SEO isn’t ever going to go!

Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) is a brilliant and very useful tool for the majority of organisations. It is the process whereby an organisation such as SEO Consult outlines a strategy that will give a company “prominence for key terms on search engines such as Google, Yahoo! and Bing, whilst being transparent enough to accommodate” the organisations individual voice.

However Adwords is a direct route to Google, the “most popular search engine in the world”

(Laycock) and is therefore the most useful tool for getting your organisation into the eyes of the consumer. According to McGaffin, Adwords and SEO aren’t all that organisations need to do to have their organisation or brand name readily accessible to a consumer and that “many companies have an under-used resource that could generate hundreds if not thousands of quality links”. McGaffin goes on to suggest that this resource was “public relations”. And in a sense, however much I may wish to deny it as a loyal advertising practitioner, he is right. Yes you do need SEO, but without anything to be optimised what’s the point?

Organisations can pay for PPC, CPM, as well as the “site-targeted advertising for text, banner, and rich-media ads” (Gaffer), but without a ‘digital buzz’ surrounding your product/orgnisation/brand, without relationships between organisations (B2B) which I touch upon in my blog B2B Mobile Marketing – What’s next?, and more importantly within the digital age, without relationships with consumers (B2C) that are interested in, or have a lifestyle (according to cookies) that would accommodate similar products, you are only scratching the surface of the digital landscape.

It’s all very well suggesting that ensuring a websites content allows for Adwords to optimise the most relevant information, however if there is no substantial information or ‘buzz’ consumers will not be able to obtain the information which they require to truly gain a feel for a brand and engage in a the decision making process (DMP) as suggested by Jeffrey M. Stibel, Brown University.

I think that SEO is brilliant. However all components of digital availability mentioned above must work in conjunction... an amalgamation of various digital strategies, including social networking, that allow for truly ‘organic’ growth of information that consumers are able to find easily without being tied up into the frustrating mess that is search engine spamming or Spamdexing (Eaxbytes). An annoyance to all consumers, don’t you think?

Brands are everywhere: Product Placement

. 

Definitions of Product Placement

·         BusinessDictionary.com: Product placement is “an advertising technique used by companies to subtly promote their products through a non-traditional advertising technique, usually through appearances in film, television, or other media”.

·         Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: Product placement is “when a company advertises a product by supplying it for use in films or television programs”.

·         MediaDictionary.com: Product placement is “a form of marketing in which a branded product is prominently featured in something such as a film or television show.”

·         Ofcom: “Product placement is when a company pays a TV channel or a program-maker to include its products or brands in a program”.

Product Placement (PP) is something that I have been interested, concerned and intrigued with for an extensive period of time, prior to my arrival at university, and long before the Nestlé SA's Dolce Gusto coffee maker appeared on ITV PLC's "This Morning'" television show! Which you can see in the video below, humorously pointed out by The Telegraph.

TV product placement makes a typically English debut

In this example it is clear that BusinessDictionary.com has got it correct in suggesting that PP is the subtle promotion of products which was so slight that it has been suggested by Barnett, The Telegraphs Digital Media Editor, that the “Marketing chiefs at Nescafe surely will be praying that This Morning’s producers encourage their presenters to cast even a cursory glance at the white Dolce Gusto”.

I believe that this particularly subtle example of PP in UK television was done in order to coax the masses of the United Kingdom into believing that this is how product placement will continue to be, and that it will not become garish and blatant, thus lulling them into a false sense of advertising security. But that is just what I am thinking, how about you?

Well I’m afraid, and sorry to be the first advertising practitioner to cast the first stone, but if we continue along the trail of thought that the UK is always 2 years behind the USA and that “Britain and America governments read from the same page” (Apollo) then it is only going to be 2 years until the clip you see below, becomes a regular occurrence in Coronation Street, Hollyoaks or any other of your favorite TV programs, providing that they abide by Ofcoms PP rules and regulations.

And going back to the comment that British and American governments read from the same page – I do hope not because you can see what page the American government is reading from... One that seemingly wanted the president of the Unite States of American (at the time George Bush) to do a bit of product placement for Dell.

PP is also happening in films that are aimed at the children of the UK. I only mention this because Ofcom have made it seem as if the new legislation in the UK isn’t going to harm or reach children e.g. “Products cannot be placed in… children’s programmes”.

But what is the point in this legislation if PP is already occurring in one of the most exciting and current blockbusters, that is ultimately aimed at children e.g. Transformers.

Transformers has been ‘transformed’ (pardon the pun) into a vehicle for PP. The PP was so frequent and obvious within this film that it has even been suggested that Transformers was “Not a film” but a “commercial!” for numerous different brands (vdrinker08). See if you can notice them (leave a comment and see if you noticed them all).

So taking Transformers as a foundation example, isn’t Columbia Pictures blockbuster ‘the social network’ an entire film dedicated to the product placement of Facebook? Is it not completely and utterly advertising the pants out of the Facebook brand?

From the front cover, the name of the film, and the entire storyline, the social network is definitely “a form of marketing in which a branded product is prominently featured in something such as a film” (MediaDictionary.com) even if it is indirect, thus making it an example of PP that  “will cost Mark Zuckerberg more than $100M” (Tyrrell).

PP is even being used for techniques of digital communication and digital advertising as you will be able to see in my previous blog ‘QR Codes to the Rescue!’ and the QR Codes CSI moment.

If PP is so common and has been seeping and peeping into our everyday lives, for a long period of time, and generally goes unnoticed, and more often than not unchallenged, why is it that we are uncomfortable for PP to occur during our (DDI)‘Daily Digital Interactions’?

Well trust me (or don’t) if people knew the truth they would be twice as more ‘uncomfortable’ with Digital PP. So I thought I might assist with that. Sorry!

Did you know that companies such as Marathon Ventures “can place a product, virtually any size, in almost any location”, they “could place one product in a first-run telecast, a second product when that program is rerun, and a third product when the show goes into syndication, and another product when it goes on cable,” says Brenner, the president of Marathon Ventures, in: ‘Product Placement goes digital, gets lucrative’. The process is called (DBI) digital brand integration and it is the newest form of PP.

Ultimately the only advertising worth its salt is that which; arrives to its audience via the correct media vehicle, at the correct time, in the right way for the given product. PP and particularly DBI do this in many ways. It embodies all of the ideas around the ‘celebrated celebrity’ (celebrity endorsement), ethos advertising, credibility, trend setting, consumer appropriation, appropriate media, proliferation and fragmentation of audiences and their viewing times, and provides them in one costly, but potentially very effective advertising package, don’t you think?

And with that my concern is heightened, but will fall on deaf ears, my interested is stronger than it has ever been, which I cannot see declining in the near future (especially with the new UK PP legislation) and my intrigue, similar but not exactly the same as my interest, has grown in the sense that I want to know where it all ends, but that discussion is for another blog.

I’ll have a think!