Hashtag-a-Palooza

Television is starting to embrace Twitter. Hallelujah! But not everyone is doing it right.

For a lot of us, talking on Twitter while we watch TV isn’t new. We’ve been talking on Twitter about televised events for years now. The 2008 US Presidential elections, sporting events, season finales, and more were all discussed among fans online using Twitter and hashtags. Then it started happening not just for major events, but for regular episodes of shows. We used to gather around our TVs in person to experience and discuss television shows together. Now we do it via Twitter and hashtags. And what’s perhaps most interesting is the mainstreaming of hashtags. In the examples that have below, nobody is going out of their way to explain what hashtags are or to specify that they are for Twitter. Consumers are just expected to know, and most of them do. Given how slow mass media can be to embrace technology (how long was it before people stopped v e r y  s l o w l y pronouncing the http://www. in a URL on TV?), this is a major moment.

So while talking on Twitter while we watch isn’t new… what *is* new is that the networks and shows themselves are starting to embrace and even instigate it themselves.

Doing it Right: MSNBC, Fox, Logo, TNT

Rachel Maddow from MSNBC is on Twitter. Her show and staff have several accounts that they update. Conversations about the show while it’s airing (and sometimes for hours after) happen at #Maddow. So when the show was putting together their iPad app… what’s the next step? A “watch party” function, of course. You can tweet directly from the Rachel Maddow Show app. You can also read the tweets made from the app, tweets from the “All Stars” (TRMS staff and frequent/notable guests), and all tweets with the #Maddow hashtag. They’ve taken what was an organic third party experience and found a way to make it not only easy and convenient for their fans, but to bring it under their own branding.

Content on the left, conversation on the right.

It hangs there, all spooky-like. Must be from the other universe.

But even when shows embrace what fans have created, well… fans keep on creating. One example of this is the show Rizzoli & Isles on TNT. (Wow, you are really getting to know a lot about my TV watching habits, huh? Sorry about that.) If you’re not familiar… go immediately and watch all of Season 1 and the first two episodes of Season 2. Notice anything? Like maybe how the two lead actresses — Angie Harmon (Jane Rizzoli) and Sasha Alexander (Maura Isles) are… well… close? Like, really close? Like, your gaydar is WHOOP WHOOP WHOOPing like crazy… close? Well, you’re not the only one who noticed. The lesbians, we went mad insane for this show (which besides featuring two beautiful and kick-ass ladies, is actually a really good mystery/crime show) in a way that we haven’t since Xena. So when the new season of Rizzoli & Isles started up this summer, just having #RizzoliandIsles was not enough. The wonderfully brilliant and hilarious Dorothy Snarker from AfterEllen decided we needed a more… specialized hashtag for all the lesbian sub-text and discussion about the show. So she created #Gayzzoli, and it’s a very lively conversation each week. The stars and people who do social media for the show know about it, and while they don’t participate, they also don’t interfere. Which is just the right thing to do.

Ms. Snarker might be a complete genius.

Doing it Wrong: Lifetime and Project Runway

So all of those are great examples of TV embracing fans and Twitter discussion. But can you take it too far? I saw one example last week that just made me cringe. And that’s the new season of Project Runway on Lifetime.

But first, a short lesson in hashtags. The value of a hashtag is that it organizes content from many different sources but about the same thing in one place. So, logically, you’d want everyone to be using the same hashtag in order to create a conversation that is active, rapidly updating, and has as high of a usage spike as you can get. You want to centralize your efforts on one hashtag and drive all your efforts toward a single goal.

And that is not what Project Runway has chosen to do. Instead of pushing #projectrunway or even something as bad as #projectrunwayS9 (for “season 9″), they created an individual hashtag for each of their 20 designers and promoted all 20 hashtags on the show. Which, to me, is just way too much diversification. They are in essence creating 20 smaller conversations instead of one big conversation. They are dividing their audience into silos instead of bringing them all together to talk about the show. They are making it about the individual contestants, not about the show.

And the format of the hashtag is awful, too. Hashtags should be short and easy. They should be accurate and representative of the subject and nothing more. So using the format #pr9<designer name> is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Project Runway is not commonly abbreviated PR, so they are basically taking all the value out of their brand name by doing so in their hashtag. I get that the 9 is for season 9, but honestly I couldn’t have told you this was season 9 if you asked, and I’ve been watching every episode since the very first one. Even to a pretty big fan, that means nothing to me. And we already discussed that each designer has their name in their own hashtag. #PR9Becky (for example) is just a horrible hashtag (but I think the designer is cool, despite the fact that I keep accidentally calling her Betsy Ross instead of Becky Ross. (Get it? Because she sews? Oh never mind.))

Hey #pr9becky, can you sew me a flag dress?

They are using it as a way to use Twitter for “fan favorite” voting, which is a cool idea. But they missed a huge issue with the conversational aspect of Twitter in doing so. It’s probably too late to change it this season, and while I applaud their effort to embrace Twitter and hashtags, I hope they adjust their strategy next time.

All in all, I’m looking forward to seeing what the fall season brings with Twitter and hashtags and online viewing parties (oh my!).

Acts of Lust, or Acts of Exploitation?

I got back from Comic Con last night. I’ve been meaning to go for years, and this was the first chance I’ve had to go. I was there with the SEGA community team, covering all the action for our fans who couldn’t attend. We had a booth in the show, next to other gaming booths. EA’s booth was a few down from us. I didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary the dozen or so times that I walked by the booth. With that many people in such a small space, it was practically impossible to see anything. So it was only when I got to the San Diego airport last night that I read about EA’s “Sin to Win” Comic-Con promotion of Dante’s Inferno.

(I know. I work for a competitor to EA, so it might seem like I’m just slagging on them because of that. I assure you, that’s not the case. )

EA has already apologized for the contest, and provided a bit of explanation. I think this is an unfortunate case of having a decent idea, but having a completely insensitive, sexist, ham-handed execution.

Let’s start with the core idea. According to EA’s apology/explanation, they are designating each month until the game launch with a different “sin” theme for the month. July is “lust”. To enter the contest, you need to take a photo of yourself with one of the “booth babes” from the EA booth. You submit that photo, and EA picks one winner to have a night on the town with VIP treatment. From a marketing standpoint, I can see what they were aiming for with this. It gets people to visit their booth, to create content they can use later, it’s interactive, and they get to giveaway a prize that’s going to be desirable to most, if not all, entrants. But as usual, the devil (pun intended) is in the details. Or in this case, the choice of words and phrases.

To enter the “Sin to Win” contest, participants are encouraged to “commit acts of lust” by taking photos with a “booth babe”. (The graphic says “us or any booth babe” but unless the EA staff is wearing bikinis in their booth — something I’m certain I didn’t see — the implication here is clear.) Then you “prove it” by submitting your photo. One winner gets “a sinful night with two hot girls” and “a chest full of booty”.

Like I said, I can see the core idea here. But it’s hard for me to believe that nobody thought this was inappropriate enough to stop it before it happened. They are encouraging their  fans to sexually harass the people they’ve hired to work their booth. If someone thought of it and didn’t say it — that’s a problem. If someone thought of it and said it, nobody listened — and that’s a bigger problem. If nobody thought of it — that’s the biggest problem at all. I know (and have written about before) women in the gaming industry, and how sexist it can be. I wish the line was never crossed, but it’s nice to see some fairly mainstream outrage over this issue. Maybe some good can come out of these unfortunate incidents — to shine the light on, and change, how women are treated in gaming.

Besides the sexist overtones here, there are also heteronormative overtones. They’re assuming that their audience is not only male, but straight males. They’re probably right, but a contest like this is extremely alienating to anyone who is not in that straight male demographic. Not that gays (or straight women) can’t appreciate a pretty lady (just like I appreciate a cute boy), but “acts of lust” is farther than anyone really wants to take it with someone that’s not of their preferred gender.

I understand the pressure to market games well, and to try to give your audience what they want. But it’s so easy to get carried away in that without stopping to think about what you’re actually saying, doing, and encouraging. I hope we all stop and think a little bit more.

Tips for Building Brand Communities

As the discipline of community building and community management continues to grow, several specializations are starting to emerge — brand communities, company-internal communities, and communities of practice just to name a few. I’ve been building brand communities for over 10 years. Mostly in the entertainment industry, but I’ve done some work with non-profits and packaged goods companies, too. I’ve been on both the vendor side and the client side. I’ve helped build lots of communities, and I’ve seen things that work and things that don’t work.

Guy Kawasaki recently posted 10 tips for building brand communities from Dave Balter, CEO of BzzAgent. I thought they were good, but I have a few elaborations and extras of my own to toss in.

Focus on your customer’s needs. Major brands have realized they can aggregate hundreds of thousands—even millions—of customers, but real engagement and meaningful interaction are still unattained goals. Focus on answering the question, “Why would consumers form a community around our brand?” rather than “How many people can we sign up?”

I absolutely agree with this one. There are some companies and industries that community will naturally form around. Gaming is certainly one — television shows and television channels are another. Companies in this industry don’t have to work very hard to get lots of people to come to a brand-oriented community. But it’s often the companies that don’t have to work hard for the people that forget they still need to do something with the people once they get there. Think like a member of your community and create tools, features, and interactions that a fan would be really excited about. 

Foster many-to-many relationships. A brand community is not a one-to-many relationship—that’s brand autocracy. People need to interact with each other and not simply “the brand” if you want to create a successful brand community. Therefore, build peer-to-peer communication into your structure.

Agreed. People come to communities to form relationships with other people who are into the same things they are. If they just wanted to learn what you have to say about your brand, they’d read your website. American Idol fans don’t just want information about the show and the contestants, they want to talk about the performances and predict who is going to get the most votes. They want to connect with each other.

Think local. Brand communities are not just for companies or products with huge budgets. It’s just as valuable for your local favorite ice cream shop or funky costume store to create a vibrant community as it is for a major brand. You never know: with a successful brand community, you may become a major brand. Isn’t that the goal?

Local brands, unless they have a cult following in a major metropolitan area, are going to have a harder time than most because their reach is limited. But that certainly doesn’t mean that it’s impossible. It also doesn’t mean that they need to create their own communities. For example, there’s a local ice cream shop in San Francisco that I love, called Bi-Rite Creamery. Their ice cream is organic, locally made, and totally yummy. (Try the honey lavender, if you get a chance.) They often have a line around the block, especially on nice summer days. They have over 1500 reviews on Yelp and great word of mouth. Community can be formed around local brands, but they probably won’t do it in the same way, or use the same tools as bigger companies.

Don’t create “more.” Massive amounts of information is being created about your brand and distributed across the web everyday. Rather than spend time asking people to create more content, make it easy for people to enjoy and engage with the stuff that already exists.

I agree, but not entirely. Sometimes, enabling and encouraging the community to create content is absolutely the right thing to do. It just depends on your brand, product, community and goals. But I do agree that making it easy for people to find and discuss content that already exists is a good idea. 

Foster peer celebrity. Whether your brand community is for Oscar Mayer or Lego, advocates love it when others recognize their expertise, experiences, and passion. Find ways to cheer members who give a little extra. And nix the anonymity – if someone’s a true advocate, they’ll want to be known for it.

Your brand probably already has advocates. But even if you don’t, you can build them. Make them moderators, single them out on your blog, ask them to lead a discussion, or ask them to create content. I would also note that “ditch the anonymity” doesn’t necessarily mean “have them use their real name”. Many people who are used to being in communities are happy to be known by their username. 

Say “hey.” Advocates want to know you’re doing more than just silently observing them or commercializing the relationship with coupons. Instead share “insider” information and offer a preview of what new products are being developed.

Absolutely. If the surge of businesses doing well on Twitter has taught us anything it is this. Users crave interactivity with their favorite brands. So often, when I’m following back people from the Sega Twitter account, people tweet about how excited they are to have us following them. And that’s before I’ve returned a reply saying hello. 

Let your advocates advocate. The only way to inspire your best advocates is to let them work their magic without interference except in issues of ethics and legality. Your advocates are not pawns—they are your partners, so treat them that way.

Agreed, you can’t treat advocates like they are your minions. If you do, they will stop being inspired to advocate your brand, and they’ll use their community power against you. It’s a lose-lose.

Don’t merely moderate. Creating advocacy is more than providing a place for consumers to congregate. If your primary job is deleting “f-bombs” and ‘keeping things clean’ you won’t inspire advocacy. Don’t be afraid to get deep into the dialogue.

This is so important. It may be the most important point here. Community managers and content moderators are NOT the same thing. I’m not saying that moderators and moderation is not important — it absolutely is. But your community manager needs to be in your community, leading discussions and creating relationships in the community. People can form attachment and loyalty to brands, but they don’t form relationships with brands. They form relationships with people at those brands. And community is all about relationships. 

Keep it simple. Just because you can add a feature, doesn’t mean you should. Centralize on enhancing single most important reason people keep coming back. Offering the hodgepodge of polls-messageboards-blogpost-videoplaylist-statusfeeds-avatars can lead to brand – and advocate – schizophrenia.

I agree that you shouldn’t use tools you don’t need. but I don’t think that there’s any one tool that can meet the needs of most communities. Not every community needs a message board, a blog, or a wiki. It varies so much with the companies, the products, and the goals. I just don’t think everyone can centralize on one tool. But adding something just because it’s the newest, hottest thing isn’t always right either.

Observe the 1-9-90 rule. This new rule, pioneered by Josh Bernoff and Charlene Li in their seminal book Groundswell, is quickly becoming a standard: 1% of your population will create content, 9% will comment or engage with it, and 90% will just browse. Voyeurs rule the online world, so keep this in mind.

This rule is becoming a standard for good reason. Voyeurs will rule, but you can’t focus on them to the exclusion of the 9 or 90. Just because 90% are read-only doesn’t mean that 90% of your effort should be focused on them. That 1% is incredibly critical — without them, the other 99% don’t have anything to engage with or read. You have to put more than 1% of your effort into finding, retaining and nurturing them. They are the backbone of your community. 

As this blog continues on, I hope to provide many of my own tips about starting and sustaining brand communities. I’m happy to address situations or questions directly. If you have specific topics you’d like to hear about, or situations you’d like tips on, please leave them in the comments.

Tags: brand

City of Heroes: The Intersection of Gaming and User Generated Content

Photo Credit: dreizehn28

I haven’t spent too long in the gaming world, but one thing I learned right away is this: everyone thinks they could design a better game. Practically every time a trailer or game gets released, someone makes a comment about how they would have done something different/better. I suppose it’s just human nature.

So it seems pretty natural that a company would allow users to create their own levels in games. They can make, tweak, and play their own levels to their hearts content. It’s a happy marriage of gaming and user generated content. Right? Well, don’t get out the rice and bubbles just yet.

According to boingboing and Elder Game, users aren’t designing complicated, creative levels. They’re designing incredibly easy levels to get themselves lots of rewards as quickly as possible. 

 When City of Heroes released its user-created mission generator, it was mere hours before highly exploitative missions existed. Players quickly found the way to min-max the system, and started making quests that gave huge rewards for little effort. These are by far the most popular missions. Actually, from what I can tell, they are nearly the only missions that get used. Aside from a few “developer’s favorite” quests, it’s very hard to find the “fun but not exploitative” missions, because they get rated poorly by users and disappear into the miasma of mediocrity.

This was not what the designers hoped for. Somehow they had convinced themselves that the number of exploiters would be relatively low — certainly not the vast majority of the users. But they were wrong, and now they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. They feel they must counteract these abusive quests, “for the sake of balance”. But how? Well the first step is to ban people who make cheaty content. But what’s cheaty? Do they explicitly list every possible exploit condition? What if they miss one? Nah, then the problem would start all over again. Instead, how about if they just issue blanket threats that they’ll ban missions that seem “exploitative”, without actually explaining what is and isn’t “exploitative”? They went with the latter.

Even with the mis-judgment about the type of levels that would be created, there’s another lesson here that’s applicable to everyone creating a space for user generated content. And that’s rules. Call them rules, standards, guidelines, or whatever else you like — setting the expectations for the user at the beginning of the content engagement is crucial.

Even if the developers only thought that a few people would design exploitative levels, having rules in place at the start that laid out what was acceptable and what was not would have eliminated a lot of hassle. Of course, some exploitative content would have been created anyway, but it could have been dealt with quickly, effectively, and consistently. The middle of a crisis is no time to be thinking about your guidelines and rules of engagement.

Setting the ground rules from the start is good for your users, good for your community managers, good for your moderators, and good for your community as a whole. We want to believe that people will always behave appropriately, but any community manager can tell you that that’s a pipe dream. Don’t wait until the crisis happens in your community. Get your rules in order now.

Tags: community, crisis, game, rules, standards