22 May
0Comments

Music, Film, TV: How social media changed the entertainment experience

Posted by Valve Interactive in The Flow

Social media is more than a digital water cooler for TV and movies. The global conversation that takes place around events and the experiences people share based on what they watch teaches us about consumer preferences. More importantly, their activity influences behavior. Behavior counts for everything. Studying it is just the beginning of course. In order to understand and eventually steer behavior, we must translate activity into insights and in turn, translate insights into actionable strategies and programs.

The Hollywood Reporter recently published an exclusive poll about social media led by market research firm Penn Schoen Berland. As the report opens, THR notes, “There’s a sea change afoot in how Americans discover and consume entertainment.”

According to the study, 88% of respondents view social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook as a new form of entertainment.

Hours Spent Each Week Doing Online Activities

Social networking and listening to music top the activities for Generation-C and each is greater than the time spent watching full-length movies or television shows on a weekly basis.

- 8 Hours: Visiting social networking sites.
- 8 Hours: Listening to music
- 7 Hours: Watching full-length television shows.
- 4 Hours: Watching full-length movies.
- 4 Hours: Watching video clips (e.g. YouTube)
- 4 Hours: Instant messaging

How Social Networking Impacts Entertainment Choices

The report found that 79% of connected television viewers visit Facebook while watching TV.

Pollster Jon Penn notes, “Social media is the connective tissue that enables consumers to multitask during their entertainment experiences by connecting with others and sharing their opinions.”

Additionally, 83% surf the web while viewing TV and 41% tweet about the show they’re watching.

When we look at the psychology of engagement, this next stat becomes a bit more revealing. Of those who post about TV shows, 76% do so live and 51% do so to feel connected to others who might also be watching.

Comedies, Reality TV Put Social in Social Media

Social networking is in its own right a reality show made for the web. It is its own form of entertainment. And, as the study found, an overwhelming majority of people agree. When we look at the types of programs viewers are most likely to post about while watching TV, Comedy, Reality TV, Sports and News take the top four spots.

Types of shows people are most likely to post about while watching TV:
56%: Comedy
46%: Reality TV
38%: Sports
26%: Cable News

Social Media on the Silver Screen

Digital Influence is often misunderstood, but it is potent. Influence is causing effect or changing behavior. Here, we can see that those who Tweet about movies actually influence the behavior of those who follow them.

One out of three connected consumers saw a movie in a theater because of something they read on a social network.

The report found that horror and other younger-skewing film genres benefit most from social networking. For example, more than 6% of respondents saw Paranormal Activity 3 because of social networking activity. One can assume based on psychological studies, that this form of social commerce is driven by either #FOMO (fear of missing out) or social proof.

Social Networking in Theaters…Really?

Prior to watching any movie in theaters nowadays, viewers must sit through a short spot that reminds them not to use their phones during the theater. Aside from the ringing adding unnecessary distractions to other theatergoers, the bright white screen is also disruptive as it tends to light up an otherwise dark room.

However, social networking is not limited to at-home movie watching. 55% of moviegoers have texted during a movie. Film moguls and theater owners should take note: The poll also found that an overwhelming majority of 18-to-34-year-olds believe using social networks such as Facebook and Twitter while watching a movie in a theater would actually add to their experience. Nearly half would be interested in going to theaters that allowed texting and web surfing.

Penn added, “Millennials want their public moviegoing experience to replicate their own private media experiences.”

The same can’t be said for all consumers though as 75% of respondents said that using a mobile phone would take away from the experience.

Additionally 24% and 21% have posted about what they’re watching in theaters on Facebook and Twitter respectively.

Social Media Multitasking ≠ Distraction

Gen-C is often falsely diagnosed with a thin attention span. Yet in reality, Gen-C focuses on all that’s important to them many times at the same time. They’re just wired differently and rather than challenge it or try to debunk its value, our energy should instead focus on understanding how multitasking adds to the experience.

When asked what other activities are performed while social networking, watching programs on TV was by far the most popular at 66% followed by watching movies on TV at 50%. Interestingly, 11% stated that they watch a movie in a theater while networking.

So, what are viewers saying while multitasking between networking and watching TV. It’s a bit of give and take as 67% will listen to or read what others have to say and 33% will most likely express their own opinions or thoughts.

Social Media Impact on TV Viewing Choices

How can social media drive tune-in? That’s often one of the top questions on the mind of TV marketers. As of now, serendipity certainly plays a role in contributing to tune-in. Three out of 10 people watched a TV show because of something they read or saw on a social network.

Social Media Spawns a New Genre of Critics

In the age of social media, viewers have become participants in real-time experiences. And many, are also becoming critics simply what they say and share online. Social network activity certainly influences behavior, but to what extent requires greater study.

The study found that 72% of respondents post about movies on social networks after watching a film. We can assume that those expressions are rooted in opinion and we can also hypothesis that these shared opinions in some way affect the impression of those who see them. At the same time, 20% post before and 8% post during a viewing.

This Just In…

News no longer breaks, it Tweets. Those who run social activity streams all day will tell you that they learn about news on Twitter first which then drives them to a online or broadcast news source to learn more. But, 31% and 28% of respondents reported that their main source for breaking news is cable news stations news web sites respectively.

I wonder about that data point however as it’s not clear if it is the primary source or the main source. The fact that the study found that social networks make up 19% of their breaking news source provides some clarity, but I still question the source of the flashpoint.

Social Media is Music to My Ears

It’s not just TV shows or movies that benefit from social media. All forms of entertainment lend to peer-to-peer behavioral influence. THR found that musicians also benefit from social media with 70% of respondents listening to music by an artist based on what a friend posted on a social networking site.

For those who saw or read about my interview with Billy Corgan of The Smashing Pumpkins at SXSW, certainly heard how he believes fans must step up their support for the artists that they love. And, sharing what you’re listening to is certainly one way to contribute, whether it’s through frictionless sharing apps such as Spotify or stated support by Tweeting, Facebooking or blogging support.

Social Media Tests Positive for Influence

Based on the work of Robert Cialdini, I analyzed six universal heuristics and the role they play in consumer decision making in social commerce. Referred to as “thinslicing,” consumers tend to ignore most information available and instead ‘slice off’ a few relevant information or behavioral cues that are often social to make intuitive decisions.

The THR study surfaced that more than half of respondents (56%) believe that social networks play an important role in making entertainment-related decisions. Across every genre of entertainment, respondents felt that positive posts held greater influence over their decisions than those that are negative.

Specifically, 82% are influenced in the music they listen to; 76% in the TV shows they watch; 75% in the movies they choose to see; and 74% in the video games they play.

Facebook vs. Twitter

I often refer to Twitter, Facebook and activity stream apps as new attention dashboards. THR asked respondents which networks they used and how. The answers help in how we better understand what’s of interest to consumers.

Of all respondents, 98% are Facbook and 56% are Twitter members. In terms of daily visits, 9 out of 10 visit Facebook and 1 of 2 visit Twitter every day.

When asked about who and what they follow, participants shared the following…

Companies/Brands:
Facebook = 49%
Twitter = 37%

TV Shows:
Facebook = 49%
Twitter = 30%

Movies
Facebook = 43%
Twitter = 25%

Actors/Actresses
Facebook = 32%
Twitter = 41%

Reality TV Stars
Facebook = 16%
Twitter = 23%

Journalists/Reports
Facebook = 9%
Twitter = 15%

I find it interesting that consumers connect more with brands, movies, or shows on Facebook whereas Twitter is the preferred choice for connecting with people. Marketers should take note in how people form fandoms and communities, where and how.

The State of Movie Marketing

Considering the behavior of Gen-C as well as all other consumers, marketers can’t rule out any form of promotion or engagement without understanding the balance and how each contribute to consumerism.

The study found that even through social networking is playing a significant role in movie watching and shared experiences, traditional marketing is still king in how consumers make moviegoing decisions. Trailers and previews are the biggest influence for movie choices at 40%, which can include a variety of sources for where that trailer is viewed (theater, TV, website, Youtube, etc.) TV ads still play a large role in decision making at 20%. Real world word of mouth is also a important source of the selection process at 18%. Only 9% of respondents said that comments or reviews on social networks influenced decisions.

You are Now the Architect of a Multi-Screen Experience

Processing this data is one thing. Interpreting its impact on your strategy for programming, marketing, and engagement is up to you. What’s clear is that what we think about social media, entertainment, and influence and how consumers are behaving can only teach us about how to be more engaging, entertaining, and how to create and steer experiences that matter to consumers and producers. So what’s your second and third screen experience? Have you defined it? If not, this is the time to develop an engaging multi-screen experience because it’s already happening with or without your design.

Image Credit: ShutterstockVia Brian Solis: http://www.briansolis.com

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
21 January
0Comments

How SOM Plans To Build NYC A (Better) Silicon Valley

Posted by Craig Cameron in The Flow

Late last year, Cornell University and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology won a hotly anticipated contest to build a graduate science and engineering campus on a sleepy island just east of Manhattan. It was widely hailed as an unlikely triumph–cooler, techier Stanford had been the front-runner–brought off by an ambitious mix of cash promises, strategic partnerships, and vigorous alumni support.

But perhaps nothing was more ambitious than the universities’ preliminary design concept by the architecture mega-firm SOM. Developed in tandem with Field Operations (the landscape architects of the insanely successful High Line), SOM’s scheme would feature a smattering of big metallic structures that zig-zag down Roosevelt Island, weaving into and around a rambling, verdant landscape. It’d transform part of the island–which has variously hosted a quarantine, an insane asylum, and a prison, but now has a bunch of residential buildings–into a lush, low-carbon high-tech haven, one that sounds more like an 11-acre eco-resort than a place for geeks to toil away in the science lab.

Now there are questions over whether Cornell will plow ahead with SOM’s plans. As Julie Iovine reported in The Architect’s Newspaper, rumor has it that Cornell is under pressure to hire a Cornell architect for the job. University officials haven’t confirmed the rumor, but they’ve also been vague about SOM’s role in the project moving forward. An SOM spokeswoman clarifies: “What we were hired for was the RFP the city’s request for proposal and the master plan, which is underway,” Elizabeth Kubany tells Co.Design. “What happens with the individual buildings is not clear.”

Whatever the final result–the campus won’t be built until 2017–the proposal merits a closer look because it shows what a technology incubator can look like in the 21st century and how it can both satisfy its own insular needs and appeal to those of us who aren’t plotting the next revolution in mobile tech.

SOM’s plan has three distinguishing features: a net-zero goal for the academic architecture; flexible buildings that the universities buzzily call academic “hubs”; and half a million square feet of publicly accessible space.

Hubs
The hubs would be divided not by academic discipline but by interest (mobile tech, for instance). They would feature big, sprawling floor plans that’d allow for the sort of free-flowing exchange of ideas that has become a hallmark of the tech world.

Net-zero Academic Campus
Net-zero energy would be achieved by sipping power from a 150,000-square-foot photovoltaic array (the largest in NYC, the architects say) and geothermal wells. It would also draw on passive heating and cooling strategies. “The zig-zagging layouts have to do with harvesting daylight and mitigating heat gain,” SOM partner Roger Duffy says. A caveat: The net-zero goal would be confined to the campus’s academic architecture. That’s because, as SOM’s Colin Koop explains, PVs aren’t efficient enough to generate adequate energy for proposed housing units and a hotel. Those structures would earn LEED Silver certification.

Public Space
“It wasn’t in the RFP,” Duffy says. “But Cornell perceived themselves as an underdog and wanted to differentiate themselves, so one of the big things was public space.” Squeezing in half a million square feet, though–around the hubs’ outsized floorplates and on an island that’s just 800 feet at its widest point–would be no small feat. So SOM decided to feed the landscape directly into the buildings: “The open space is both at ground level and wraps up and over several stories of the base of the campus,” Koop says. “There’s more or less a continuous two-story base of the campus that you can walk up and across; you can enter buildings at multiple levels. It’s about the integration of public spaces and academic spaces, and trying to create as much public space as possible.” And with landscape architecture by Field Operations, you know it’d be good.

 

Click to view larger

“These three distinguishing characteristics–the hubs, the net zero energy, and the public nature of the project–come together in a way that suggests that this is a unique position Cornell is putting out there in the world,” Duffy says. “Their aspirations are very high. They want to create the right atmosphere that will influence new businesses. Our plan is a manifestation of what they want. And what they really want is a 21st-century version of Silicon Valley.”

The question now is whether that 21st-century version of Silicon Valley will at all resemble the gleaming renderings we see today. “We expect the broad principles of the design to be maintained because Cornell/Technion believe in them and because they have been made public,” SOM’s spokeswoman says. “But, this a conceptual design, so some evolution is probably inevitable. The design will continue to develop as the project progresses.”

Images courtesy of SOM

Via Fast Co Design: http://www.fastcodesign.com

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
11 February
0Comments

Starbucks CEO Invests in Groupon, Joins Board of Directors

Posted by Valve Interactive in The Flow

Starbucks Chairman, President and CEO Howard Schultz is joining Groupon‘s board of directors Thursday.

This news is predicated on Schultz’ venture capital firm’s investment in Groupon. Maveron LLC, a firm with offices in Seattle and San Francisco, has given Groupon an undisclosed amount of funding.

Groupon recently closed a colossal $950 million Series D from Andreessen Horowitz, Battery Ventures, DST, Greylock Partners, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Maverick Capital, Silver Lake and Technology Crossover Ventures.

Considering Starbucks’s focus on social media marketing and Groupon’s focus on large, national brands, the relationship makes sense.

In fact, we recently named Starbucks one of the top five brands that use social media particularly well. The company’s Foursquare experiments in consumer rewards have yielded interesting case studies in a still-young space, and the brand’s participation in social media has shown unquestionable return on investment.

Groupon founder and CEO Andrew Mason said in a release, “As CEO of one of the world’s most iconic brands, Howard is an invaluable addition to the Groupon board. His experience in building the culture and business of Starbucks and his relentless focus on innovation to improve customer experiences brings a unique combination of skills to our Board of Directors.”

Via Mashable: http://www.mashable.com

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
29 December
1Comment

Improve Your Influence

Posted by Valve Interactive in The Flow

Statistics Matter

The term “influence” doesn’t mean a lot, and yet, it seems to be the holy grail for online social media people. Marketers coming to the fold worry quite a deal about reaching the influencers. The dogma, such as it is, says that anybody can be an influencer. Only, you and I know that we all feel like a nobody sometimes, and that we’re not all influential about the same things.

For instance, I trusted Mark Horvath to share good advice on the cameras he uses for his projects, and that’s why I bought my Canon Vixia HF S200: because Mark said It was a good one. Mark was/is much more influential to my choice than someone with 200,000 followers on Twitter (or similar). He certainly has more influence to me than most ads, because I know Mark’s a real guy that I know and have met.

Klout says this about my influence:

Klout Score

When I look for analysis, I get this:

  • Chris Brogan has built a very large and engaged network through high quality, trustworthy content.
  • Chris Brogan is very likely to have any message amplified and acted upon.
  • Chris Brogan is constantly engaged by very influential people.
  • Chris Brogan creates quality content that engages a very large audience on a level very few can achieve.

But what does that all mean? Or a better question: Can we improve our influence? Here are some thoughts.

It Starts With a Solid Platform

I should be clear. I never set out to be influential. I set out to be helpful. That word, “helpful,” turns out to be ONE way out of several to be influential. Rich people often get to be influential, because money gives people improved reach, and improved options for decision-making. Because I didn’t have a ton of money, I ended up finding ways to be helpful instead. And I put that helpfulness right out there to be seen on my website, my home base. Over and over, I gave more than anyone I knew, and I gave away my “secrets,” so that you could do it, too. But it wouldn’t matter one bit without the next step.

The next step of influence is awareness.

Get Seen

I joke with Steve Garfield all the time about his awesome book, Get Seen. I ask him, “How do you get seen?” And Steve answers, “Be there.”

That’s the secret. Be there. I had accounts on every social network early. (I’m in the first 11K to join Twitter.) And when I got there, I connected, communicated, and offered help. But we’ll get back to that. First? I was there. And I was active. And I was not just active, but I shared the spotlight.

I did the same thing in real space. I’m one of the rare social media types who’s actually met several thousand of the people he’s connected with online. And I’ve met quite the mix of influential people and up-and-comers. (Know where the real gain comes from? Spend time with the up-and-comers.)

So, I started with a platform, and then I showed up everywhere I could afford (and sometimes not afford) to go. But what did I do once I got there?

Share the Spotlight

One thing that helps one become influential is to work on helping others rise up. The more people you can support and help, the more people who will remember where they got that help, and who will extend some level of your influence, whether or not they choose to do so. I promote others far more often than I ever talk about my own accomplishments. Why? Because you didn’t come here to learn about me. You came here to improve your own efforts. I share as much as I can about other people, so that you understand what will give you the best chance to improve.

Sometimes, I talk about people like Tony Robbins, who I think has given us lots to learn. I talk about Tom Peters, a mentor of mine for decades, who continues to really light my mind up with new ideas, and as I tell him at every opportunity I get, who continues to get me in trouble, all these many years later.

Other times, I talk about aGlenda Watson Hyatt, who is helping bloggers and businesses figure out accessibility and helping them grow a market segment that we all are missing our chance to help. I point out Suzanne Vara, who is one of the most loyal, most energized, most dedicated person I’ve met. To me, there’s great value in what Glenda and Suzanne show you, and I’d rather you get to know them better.

Sharing the spotlight in this way, though, improves your influence. How? It shows people (you!) what I value, and it suggests that I’ll be quick to point you out when someone else needs what you offer.

Working The Numbers of Influence

I work really hard to get my RSS subscribers. I ask for more whenever I can. I also ask people to subscribe to my newsletter. I don’t work as hard on getting followers on Twitter. Instead, I work really hard on being relevant and useful and funny and quirky and worthwhile. I work on promoting other people and sharing what they’ve found. Why? Because I think that’s how to get numbers there. (Want more Twitter followers? Get More Twitter Followers today!)

I look at my stats via Google Analytics, via PostRank, via HootSuite, and from other sources, to see what works for me, what doesn’t. I work those numbers. I don’t just let them show up magically. I’m not using HubSpot on this site, but in future projects, that might be another way for me to improve my numbers and measurement, as well.

Influence Isn’t Handed Over

No one passes out influence. Yes, sometimes, someone very influential will tap you and you can benefit from this, but that’s rare. No one came and tapped my shoulder. And yet, I did something with each and every opportunity I was handed.

When I worked with Jeff Pulver, I worked hard to help his efforts, and I also did what I could to meet the people he put in front of me. I listened hard to his every lesson, and I learned from observing the kinds of people he spent his time with, who he gave his attention to, and where he put emphasis. Every step of the way, I gained influence.

Before Jeff, I worked on influence by learning things. Christopher S. Penn and I figured out how to run PodCamp, and we learned from that how to build networked relationships with important people in the podcasting and new media space.

After Jeff, I learned how to leverage every new opportunity I got into a chance to help someone else, a chance to promote someone else, and/or an opportunity to grow my business. Never once did someone hand me more influence. I earned it.

That’s the Silver Lining To This All

Don’t work on your Klout score. Work on understanding influence. Don’t work on how many followers you have, except insofar as you worry about how to feed them useful information that will grow your reach.

Do work on learning how to be most helpful to those in your segment of the universe that are growing. Do work on putting more resources in the hands of people who need to grow. Do work on never missing an opportunity to take a privilege and to extend it into something more than what you started with. And say thank-you a thousand times more than you are today.

And that, friends, is some of what I know about influence.

You?

Chris Brogan is an eleven year veteran of social media using both web and mobile technologies to build digital relationships for businesses, organizations, and individuals.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
25 March
0Comments

admissions

Posted by admin in The Flow

A recent eSchool News headline: Are unions blocking school reform? A provocative title – but I think the wrong question.

We always look for silver bullets and scapegoats – movies like the one referenced in the article (Waiting for Superman) can be the worst offenders – Scapegoat it’s very easy to present one side of an argument. Superman names unions and teachers as the scapegoats, and evaluating (and paying) teachers based on student test scores as the silver bullet.

We are also cause-fiends, as with Michael Moore films, people jump on the bandwagon, believing that in a mere 102 minutes a film-maker can objectively and thoroughly explain education in America, clearly show who’s good and who’s bad, and in this case, lay the blame on unions and teachers. Seems naïve and inflammatory to me.

Unions do have problems – they’ve been around for decades, but working conditions, salaries, etc. for teachers haven’t substantively improved. In fact, one might argue that teachers are worse off today than they were three or four (maybe less?) decades ago. Worse, the quality of graduating students (the work product of schools) has also declined. Change is needed, but is it all the teachers’ and unions’ fault? I don’t think so.

If I were Randi Weingarten (president of the American Federation of Teachers), I’d consider an altogether different strategy. I would admit that unions are part of the problem, but they’re not the whole problem. I’d start every speech with “AFT’s mission is to work ourselves out of existence within ten years. Unions exist because management didn’t care enough for the workers – we want to work with governments and administrators in this country to create schools where teachers no longer need the protection of their union, where there is joy and learning in schools, and all students graduate prepared for their next step in life. We aspire to work ourselves out of existence.”

She can change the basis of her union from one that opposes management to one that enables it. ChurchillTo get management to put their sacred cows (moronic standards, standardized testing, 13,000+ districts, poor pay, etc.) on the table, she must put everything (tenure, open to change, quality teachers, etc.) on the table as well. She could quell the issue of ulterior motives (prevent innovation, expand membership dues, increase political power) by taking the high road – her goal should genuinely be to admit that we (including unions and teachers) have problems, that our previous approach hasn’t worked, and if we work together on specific change that leads to sustainably improving student outcomes at scale, good things will come (for students, schools, teachers and yes, even the union).

I am convinced that there is no such thing as a public school teacher in America that chose this profession for the money. They all came because they were called – it is/was in their hearts and their stomachs. It may have waned over time, but the intention was good. I believe we vilify teachers because they’re an easy and convenient target, and because as with anything, it’s easy to find bad teachers among the more than three million teachers in America.

Going back to the opening paragraph, the right question is – do we really want better? If yes, (and I’m not sure I believe we really do), then let’s stop spending tons of money NOT changing things. Let’s start spending less money more effectively to create something worthy of our children and their future.

Unlike the vaunted but ultimately limp recent healthcare summit, Secretary Duncan‘s would-be education summit should include unions, administrators, superintendents, teachers, students, politicians, etc., and it should only have one objective (one they can’t leave the room without accomplishing – a cage match as it were) – unanimous agreement on the goal [note singular] for education in America. Subsequent summits will decide how we get there, but the first step is knowing what success looks like, and that all stakeholders have unequivocally signed up.

We can then challenge the administrators and unions to take a clean slate approach to design great school system(s) that meet that goal. There are many exemplars – High Tech High and Seattle Girls’ School Teaching tolerancecome to mind right away, but there are others. There is no disputing the quality of their graduates, but what strikes me is how exacting both are about hiring, ensuring flexibility, trust and open-mindedness (of the students and teachers alike). Note that despite public school salaries, they have hundreds of applicants for each open position. Hmmm…

It begins with a great leader who has the fortitude to remain true to his and her (respectively) convictions. I wrote about how “he” creates a public a week ago. But how do we do this at scale? We know it is rare (if not impossible) to have a great organization remain great with a poor leader.

Sadly, the public school principals that I’ve met are little more than operations bitches for the district. Unlike Larry and Marja, they have zero latitude to be real leaders. This means that as much as they might have innovative ideas, creative approaches to management, a desire to give their teachers the room to be great, etc., they’re shackled. Going back to Weingarten, I imagine her teachers would be much happier and more effective if their bosses (principals) were leaders like Larry and Marja, and all of them shared a common goal and were empowered to achieve it. Why is it not possible to trust well-vetted and qualified leaders to do what’s right?

Education is a system – it has many components, including districts, administrators, teachers, students, parents, unions, publishers, sates, the feds, etc. Today there is way too much overlap among the players, too much oversight over mundane issues, and enough internal mistrust to create an impossible situation. The approach I suggested for the AFT could easily apply to all the other stakeholders. But until there is a common definition of success, and until every part of the system is held accountable for achieving it, we won’t get anywhere.

In the end, we should not vilify any one part of the system – we should instead agree to a clear goal for education, and admit that the system as its currently defined doesn’t work for broad public school education. Admissions are the first step..

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to RSS

Valve Interactive
An online marketing and design agency in Portland Oregon