A key feature of the campaign’s website – http://www.helptheoversharers.com - has a ”Best of” Twitter feed that streams some classics: “My arm is itchy,” “Cleaning the kitchen,” and “New shower gel – hooray!”

Amazing: “hurray” is just the utterance I was planning – too bad P&G got to it first.

So anyway, the website offers tips for recovering oversharers, a plug-in that allows you to “shame a friend with just one click” (very popular, I’m sure) and even an interactive video into which you can drop some of your favorite inane comments.  And you can buy a t-shirt with a dopey tweet on it.  Of your choice.

The site is accompanied by a utility on Facebook that Pringles’ 3 million fans (and anyone else who feels like it) can download and use to label boring Facebook updates.

To me, the campaign feels a wee bit derivative of Burger King’s 2009 ”Whopper Sacrifice Challenge,” which offered a free Whopper to anyone willing to unfriend 10 people on Facebook. That campaign was semi-criticized for being an “anti-social” social campaign – a page that Pringles appears to have torn out of the fast fooder’s playbook. And there have been a number of other brands – like Nestle and Skittles – that have leveraged the riskiness and “nowness” of featuring a live Twitter feed in their promotions.

But so far, this has been a conversation focused on techniques and tools – a plug-in, a feed, interactive videos and custom t-shirts.  I love tools just as much as the next marketer, but… what does the Oversharers campaign have to do with Pringles’ persona and the ultimate goal of selling more product? 

If there’s a second phase of this campaign that ties the downside of oversharing online to oversharing your Pringles (because you want to eat them all yourself?), P&G better get moving. It seems like that’d make sense… but I’m guessing and this connection isn’t made at the moment.

So from a business point of view, I don’t get it.  You’re the Pringles brand manager: what consumer insight led to this campaign? What are you trying to communicate? What differentiation would motivate trial, or make an existing Pringles eater feel good about the brand?

Don’t “overshare” social media tools because they’re cool.  It’s tempting – and I recommend social media experimentation all the time – but all of the standard rules of branding, communications and marketing (and revenue and market share and shelf space) apply.

I had to smile when Q’s president scrambled to make sure that marketers (with money) didn’t interpret the results in a negative way: Q calls the “disconnect” a “huge opportunity” for marketers and says that brands need to catch up to the needs of women online. 

If I were an agency relying on clients, I’d say the same thing!

But what if that’s not true? What if the social media frenzy that’s been whipped up among advertisers is…  overhyped?  What if we find out that women love discovering new ideas and interacting with new people and new communities, but the commercial promise in these interactions isn’t there? What if online engagement doesn’t lead to sales?  What if talking just leads to… talking?

I’m going to watch for new news and information about how women are interacting with social media because – if Facebook and LinkedIn and Twitter and all the other social sites do not turn out to be a brand bonanza for advertisers, we could see a major reset in expectations, involvement and, most importantly, dollars.

One of today’s interesting tweety tidbits is a quite lengthy email that Rupert Murdoch – sorry, I meant the Deputy Managing Editor at The Wall Street Journal – recently sent to employees outlining “do’s” and “don’ts” for employees on Twitter or otherwise engaged on the “social Web.”

It’s sort of a doozy.

Don’t ”friend” confidential sources, don’t criticize colleagues, and my favorite (verbatim): “Don’t engage in any impolite dialogue with those who may challenge your work — no matter how rude or provocative they may seem.”

Employees may cite (but not push) their own reporting and – well, that seems to be pretty much all they can do.  And even that rule, as you can see, comes with a murky qualification.

Some of the restrictions make perfect sense, such as not detailing how an article was edited.  Others are ripe for wrongful discharge lawsuits, such as the “don’t” that says you mustn’t recruit family or friends to promote your work.

In most instances, this particular restriction would be nearly impossible to dissect and prove.  If I retweet comments from a former colleague who then talks up my work, did I solicit that positive feedback?  And, I’m sorry:  if my mom claims that I’m just the cleverest person ever ever ever, there’s nothing I can do about it.

So I was thinking that the whole thing seemed very 1984… until I spotted a blog post detailing real tweets that some knuckleheads have posted on Twitter.  A sample (with all grammar errors intact):
- “I just got to work (Oracle) and I am doing as little as possible”
- “Huh, with my boss on twitter, maaaybe I should take down that sexy picture of her… but her reaction will be priceless!”
- “hate my job!! i want to tell my bosses how dumb they are and how meaningless this job is, then quit, and be happy!”
- “Workin… This job sucks worse then [sic] the economy!”

The title of this blog post? “TwitterFired: The Top Ten Tweets to Get You Fired.”

Huh.  Maybe The Wall Street Journal Twitter police knows what it’s doing.

Facebook recently felt the wrath of both its own members and privacy experts (again)after my beloved Consumerist published an article pointed out that recent changes to the company’s Terms of Service meant that the company would own a member’s personal information “forever,” even after a member deletes her account.

That didn’t go down too well with anyone so the company reverted to its prior TOS this week, saying that it would come out with a new version at some time in the future, written in “language that everyone can understand.”

Interesting.  It seems to me that Facebook’s problem is that we all understood the new Terms a little too clearly.

On a separate but related note, Silicon Alley Insider’s Business Insider graciously points out that – if we’re all going to start reading every website’s TOS – we might start with Google, Verizon, YouTube and AOL AIM.  This article is accompanied by a photo of a guy wearing a tin foil hat on his head while at his computer. 

I have no comeback for that.
Google YouTube Facebook Silicon_Alley_Insider Consumerist Eric Yaverbaum

That sound you hear turns out to be the Facebook Police.

I recently twittered about Burger King’s viral campaign to get Facebook members to “unfriend” people in exchange for a free Whopper.  In one week, over 82,000 people accessed the app via www.whoppersacrifice.com and unfriended nearly 234,000 friends!  If the marketer had been McDonald’s – my favorite – I have to admit that I’d look hard at my so-called ”friends” in exchange for an Extra Value Meal #2…

In any case, it’s good that Americans are so addicted to fast food because Facebook shut down a key part of the app: that being the notification that the unfriended get when they’re thrown overboard for a burger.  That was the sweet way  the campaign spread:  I may be just one person, but if I unfriend 10 folks, then all 11 of us get served (sorry) the Whopper message.   After Facebook’s reaction, Burger King pulled the campaign.

It turns out that Facebook’s privacy policy prohibits a member from receiving any kind of notification if he is unfriended.  Who knew?  I can understand my friend Eric Yaverbaum‘s (Bubbletweet) reaction to the actions of the “Facebook police,” but I actually think this is sort of a nice, tiny piece of etiquette in the otherwise turgid sea of the Web:  I may not invite you to my parties anymore, but I don’t have to send you a notice telling you so.

Eric_Yaverbaum Bubbletweet Whopper_Sacrifice Facebook

You can see the tremendous shift here, particular toward the use of cell phones (and – my opinion – the increasing pressure on phone and cable companies to deliver well-priced digital/cellular phone services packages):

Resource Interactive points out the particular impact of this shift on how Millenials shop and “pre-shop” with their friends.  Coupled with an addiction to MySpace, Facebook and other platforms that bring people together, technology has made it simple for friends to get advice from each other (a “communal” blessing, if you will) before making a purchase.  “The actual shopping activity in the store… becomes a social activity for them,” says Mila Goodman, the shop’s director of experience strategy.

All of this means that retailers have an opportunity to build brand awareness and loyalty by making it easy and fun to shop “together” using mobile phones and other devices.  Among the many reasons that Beacon didn’t work for Facebook is that it didn’t draw me into my friends’ thought process and experience around purchasing something; the site simply reported that my friend had done so.  No fun.

Outdoor, magazine, online and even TV advertising could feature a barcode or some other tag that a person could photograph and send to friends; that tag arrives with information about the product and maybe a special offer.  It should be easy to download a tiny piece of code and send it along.  And when you get someone all the way into your store?  Wow:  make it count.  Give away ringtones, wallpapers (Chanel wallpaper, girls?), sign-ups for special store events and discounts…   I think all stores/retailers should eventually make it simple to email high-res product photos that come along with just a bit of sales and promotional info.

If you had the opportunity to get target customers talking about you on their cell phones with every individual ad viewing or store visit, what would you do?

Millenials

2007 saw folks pushing The Facebook Marketing Bible, conference segments and endless articles on the wisdom of marketers hawking their wares on Facebook.  A lot of this stuff is still around, but the climate appears to be changing.

In a recent survey of CMOs, over half indicated a very low level of interest in including Facebook in their current plans.  A third said they have no interest at all.

Epsilon commissioned the survey, and I do agree with the company’s CMO, Steve Cone, that marketers aren’t interested in “teenagers sharing photographs with one another.”  However, I think the fact that that is the case – or even the perception – is a failing that smacks of lost opportunity.

33% of Facebook’s 33 million users are over 26 years of age, and 13% are 35 or older.  That’s nothing to sneeze at.  But are there any particular areas on Facebook that might be attractive or particularly relevant for an older audience?  Nope.  And more importantly, Facebook’s efforts to target advertising by age and other characteristics have failed to gain traction.  At this very moment, there are 3 ads on my profile page:  one for an HP something (dvt5 anyone?) powered by Intel Centrino2 Processor Technology, another for “faith-based universities” and one asking if I want to get an MBA.

Let’s just say that 0 out of 3 of these ads are relevant to me personally.  Based on my zip code and self-reported educational data, at least two of them shouldn’t be there at all.  As a marketer looking to spend precious dollars wisely, this sends me a strong message that Facebook is not the place to do so.

Facebook needs to figure out target marketing quick and take its show on the road to marketers interested in reaching grown-ups.  

Enter Unilever and their ad agency, Bartle Bogle Hegarty who chose Kodiak, Alaska for its harsh physical conditions and promptly set up a storefront where they began giving away free bottles of a new Vaseline lotion, Clinical Therapy.   From there, Vaseline representatives began asking visitors to pass the word and subsequent visitors had to name the townsperson who had referred them.  In other words, they went hunting for a key influencer:  a “tipping point person” whose advice people heeded and who could influence others to try a new product. 

This is the way they found Petal Ruch, who tried the lotion when she read that the company was giving away samples.

Once she did, the company claims that she passed the product along to 1,000 town residents in only two weeks.  The company set up a special website, www.prescribethenation.com, where visitors could see individuals who have tried the lotion and how many people they passed it on to.  Unilever also spent several days filming documentary-like footage for the ad campaign, and site visitors can watch videos of each person talking about why they like the product.

This is an outstanding word-of-mouth effort that I hope wins some awards.  The effort itself could not have been that expensive (no doubt the filming was the most costly element, not the consumer/storefront piece) and, most importantly, Unilever built a “social network” from the inside out: by finding a passionate advocate first, rather than building the network and hoping someone will pop out of it.

Unilever     Bartle Bogle Hegarty     Vaseline Clinical Therapy     Kodiak    

I did think, however, that the notion of “influencer marketing” was interesting in this context.  As with a coming post on how Vaseline built a social network around one key person who helped spread the word about a new product, influencer marketing would mean crafting a message based on how many people you reach in your life and around which issues or topics you may have the greatest influence.

Say I have 350 “friends” on Facebook, 250 of whom are part of the “New York” network.  I might get served an ad for a local New York service, the value of which could increase for me based on the number of individuals to whom I send the offer.  Or maybe I have 100+ female friends, all over the age of 50: an audience that consumerreports.org is interested in targeting for paid site subscriptions.  The site might not only promote specifically to me, but could offer me a free 6-month subscription for referring 15 friends (with verified email addresses).  These are examples of how the ”influencer” idea might be used on an “outbound” basis – that’s me communicating outwardly to individuals in my network. 

Targeting could be used to equal effect on an “inbound” basis:  if a Facebook member regularly posts a lot of positive messages about Barack Obama on his profile to which many people regularly comment, the campaign might want to reach out to that person and ask him to host a house party (particularly if the influencer lives in a zip code that is underpenetrated).

We’ll see if marketers start experimenting with overt “influencer” messaging on social network sites.  It holds promise.

social networks     Facebook     MySpace     influencer marketing

What’s a virtual gift?  It’s an image of something (a birthday cake, a beer, a rose, a bottle of champagne) that you can send to a fellow Facebooker for his or her birthday, new job or… just because.  The image is then posted to the recipient’s Facebook profile, and the gift giver can specify whether her name and message are visible to the public or only to the recipient.

Lightspeed Venture Partners is now estimating that 10% of Facebook’s revenue ($35 million) comes from the sale of these virtual gifts.  In assessing what seems to sell the best, Lightspeed says that holiday-themed gifts are a bonanza in November and December and account for 40% of the year’s sales.  They have also observed that 80% of all sales are made off the first visible page of gifts.

I suppose none of this should be a huge surprise:

• At a price of $1 for something that is delivered instantly, it’s a nice ADD-like way to wish someone a happy birthday, or an even easier way to suck up to someone you’ve neglected.

• Holidays – big pain.  Very few people have the time or energy to send (real) cards anymore.  And, frankly, after factoring in the cost of a good card and the stamp, $1 isn’t too bad.

• We ride in herds.  Wisdom of crowds, and all that.  If it’s not on the first result page of Google – or on the first page of Facebook virtual gifts – forget it.

$35 million for tiny images that cost Facebook essentially zero is impressive.  I believe I’ve given Facebook $20-30 myself for the privilege of sending little blue robots and flowers now and then.

Facebook   Virtual gift