Red Bricks Media’s News Blog

By Lauren Quan, Associate Marketing Manager

Facebook reached me via word-of-mouth, far before I had even heard of word-of-mouth and buzz marketing. I was a college sophomore, perusing my friend’s AIM profile, which included a link to the site.

Back in that day there were no applications, games, or even photos to overwhelm me. The sleek blue and white interface was a welcome change from the brief fling I had with Friendster. It was clean, uncluttered, and blissfully ad-free.

When I started working in the digital space, I was surprised by marketers’ growing obsession with Facebook and inability to understand it. What was there to understand? Growing up in an atmosphere where everyone was always online and everyone constantly updated their AIM away messages to show their whereabouts when not online, Facebook made sense as a way to keep track of friends while multi-tasking, AIMing, doing homework, and so on. Because the sign-up process required a valid college/.edu email address, people tended to use their real first and last names. There was a level of transparency and honesty lacking from the dead Friendster and perv-producing MySpace.

At its heart, Facebook was pretty much a virtual, interactive yearbook that helped people stay in touch with college friends. I still check it once a day and prefer it to the vastly overcluttered MySpace or the glorified address book Linked In.

I’m not the only one who checks these social networks daily. According to a recent Forrester report, 80% of young adults and 30% of adults are using social networking sites. These numbers keep growing, as the site averages more than 20 million unique viewers per month.

These large figures have not gone unknown to advertisers. Facebook’s high volume of targeted, engaged web users is a marketer’s dream, and it’s no longer an ad-free zone. Advertisers have enjoyed success with Facebook advertising by creating branded groups and allowing users to become fans. Maybelline, for example, has created a group to promote its cosmetics. BMW is also in the Facebook loop.

Is all hope lost if brands are not entertainment or retail-focused? Not at all. Companies like Ernst and Young have created recruiting Facebook groups, with people assigned to actively respond to questions and give feedback to potential job-seekers. Obviously, such a page would draw fresh college grads in search of a first job. This network has more than 20,000 users.

Overall, companies just need to be aware of the target audience and dream up campaigns that really add value for the users and allow them to engage with the brand. For example, in a recent campaign we ran for THQ, our buzz team crafted an alternate reality game to promote the company’s new first-person shooter, Frontlines: Fuel of War. After signing up at an interactive microsite, users were plunged into a scavenger hunt that had them reading blogs, discovering secret YouTube channels, befriending characters on Facebook, and more, in their quest to uncover the secrets of the world of Frontlines: Fuel of War.

Another way to engage the audience is with widgets. Good widgets should be fun, interactive and useful to the audience. For samples of successful widgets, one need look no further than this online dating widget or the popular Scrabulous widget. People who may not have ever touched the vintage board game edition of Scrabble are flocking in droves to play it online against complete strangers.

Regardless of whether marketers choose to go the widget/application route, the group route, or take a different route altogether, they need to follow the rules of good social media advertising. They need to understand the audience, engage with the community, be completely open and transparent, and above all, remain active and constantly engaged. It’s important to encourage open conversation and feedback, both positive and negative. One need look no further than the failure of flogs to see that trying to trick your audience just won’t work.

Facebook will never again be the ad-free, adult-free, and exclusive social networking platform it was when I first joined. However, I still want to use it to keep in touch with my friends and engage in lighthearted virtual interactions with them. With constant new innovations, (such as the news feed and open application platform, to name a few), Facebook keeps me engaged as other social networks scramble to keep up. If Facebook and advertisers continue to innovate and evolve while not bombarding users with ad spam (a la MySpace) then even legacy users such as myself will continue to visit for years to come.

by Jacob Morgan, Search Strategist

Recently, the folks at Pandemic Labs asked me to write a guest article on social media. The article (with minor changes) can be found below.

On a call with Seth Godin, I asked him where he sees the future of social media growth and how we can stop spammers. He responded that social media will continue to segment, and that there is no way to stop the spammers.

As marketers and spammers (although they are not the same, their objectives are similar, and sometimes marketers inadvertently become spammers) continue to penetrate the social media marketing platforms, we are going to notice that social media platforms will begin to segment. In fact, the trend is already quite apparent.

Consider the following segmented platforms:

• Flickr allows people to share pictures
• Craigslist allows people to buy/sell apartments
• LinkedIn allows business professionals to connect
• MySpace allows friends to connect
• Guru Del Vino allows people to share their wine preferences
• ignighter helps people interested in group dating

The reality is that eventually there will be a platform to cater to virtually every marketing niche. Another example is the recent launch of Google Health, a platform that allows users to create online health profiles, find doctors, and even download medical records.

With the “verticalization” of social media platforms (and eventually search), how is a marketer or spammer going to survive? Well, there are two sides of the coin.

1) With the sheer number of vertical platforms and their continued growth, there is just NO WAY that marketers and spammers are going to be able to keep up. There are tens of thousands of platforms, with many more appearing each day, and for every 100 platforms that are created, only 1 will survive. Sure, a marketer or a spammer can focus all of their efforts on the large sites such as Facebook or Myspace, but eventually when the “verticalization” kicks in, the amount of targeted advertising and marketing will be reduced drastically. So a marketer or a spammer is left with little choice but to target as many social platforms as they can, and they are becoming increasing efficient at doing so.

2) With the sheer number of platforms and their continued growth, it is becoming increasingly EASY for spammers and marketers to reach their desired audience. If I am a marketer or spammer, I can focus on specific social media platforms that are catered to my exact target market, piece of cake.

Essentially a marketer or a spammer has 2 choices: go after as many verticals as they can and hope that some of those verticals yield results, OR, focus on the target verticals and ignore the rest. The problem is that marketers and spammers pursue both avenues. There are those that try to target all the platforms, and there are those who try to target specific platforms. The point is that there is no way to prevent marketers or spammers from penetrating social media platforms. It doesn’t matter what side the coin lands on - it’s a trick coin and the marketers always win.

The coin was flipped and is in the air, call it…

This article is cross-posted from Jacob’s blog.

by Jacob Morgan, Search Strategist

The Commander-in-Chief we elect in November 2008 has some giant shoes to fill. We demand someone with vision, values, ideas, charisma and drive. We need someone who is part economist, part diplomat, part statesperson and part CEO…and a little SEM expertise won’t hurt either.

We analyzed several of the Democratic and Republican candidate sites, and determined that the front-runners (based on SEM and conversion practices) were Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Ron Paul.

Ron Paul’s site is aesthetically pleasing in its choice of colors and use of new media. The call-to-action, “Donate!” is highly visible and recent donors’ names are listed beneath the donation total. Contributors are not only rewarded by having their name displayed but the donation total changes once the donation has been made. This sort of interactivity connects the donor to the campaign.

Other pluses include easy-to-use navigation, access to Ron Paul’s YouTube video assets and a block of CTAs (calls to action) that are easy to understand: “Sign up for emails,” “Get involved,” “Spread the word,” “Register to vote.” The only problem is they, and other key messages are buried below the fold.

Hillary Clinton’s site is well-executed, as nearly all the important copy can be read without scrolling. Key content appears above the fold, easy-to-read CTAs like “Make Calls,” “Build Our Base,” and “Join Team Hillary” have little icons that just beg to be clicked. Video and Blog links are prominent and the main navigation is clean and easy to use. Overall, her site is optimized to increase conversion (obtain contributions). On the home page alone, there are three “Contribute” CTAs.

On the semantic front, consider the difference between the words “Donate” and “Contribute.” The latter requires a greater commitment and involvement than the former. We’re pretty sure that a team of staffers sat in a room for at least an hour debating this very topic.

The Clinton site also takes advantage of online user communities (MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, etc.) by providing links on the main site, and listings on the community sites. In the last election, many candidates were ill-equipped to answer to the blogs and forums that shaped the perceptions of younger voters. However, this crop of candidates has been savvy enough to add that type of expertise to their ranks.

We have to say that when we were deciding which Democratic candidate to select, we assumed that we would prefer Obama’s site. After all, he is the “voice of the American youth.” However, his landing page asks for an email address and zip code right off the bat. Depending on how sensitive the audience is, this can be perceived as “rude.” You do have the option of skipping the sign-in in order to go directly to the site. But once there, we only found one CTA to “donate.” Where the Obama site really excels is in its connection to new media: Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, BlackPlanet, Flickr, LinkedIn, and Obama Mobile, but even so these links were well below the fold.

As we move on to the John McCain website, you’ll note that there’s an uncanny resemblance to Hillary Clinton’s site. The home page is “short and sweet” with much of the content above-the-fold—strong CTAs, rich media and a high degree of interactivity make this a successful conversion site.

All of the candidates would benefit from some heuristics testing. On the McCain home page, CHARLIE CRIST jumps out at you, when the candidate would be better served by having one or more CTAs take the spotlight.

Extra points go to Team McCain for creating a blog and McCainspace, where you can create your own website dedicated to John McCain. However, his web team has not leveraged web 2.0 assets—there are no links to all of his online communities.

We’re glad to see that the presidential candidates are starting to make good use of the participation architecture of web 2.0 and interactive media to help market themselves. Now, we’ll see whose internet strategy bears fruit come November 2008!

by Ben Kou, Account Manager

Whether you’re an Armageddon scholar or not, you can’t help but notice that the price of gas keeps climbing, Vladimir Putin is sending submarines to claim the North Pole, and China is slowly kicking America’s butt economically. Throw in some radical Middle Eastern terrorist groups and it’s not completely absurd to imagine all these elements fomenting another world war over the most precious resource on the planet – oil.

In fact, such a scenario is so easy to imagine that THQ built their latest first-person shooter, Frontlines: Fuel of War, on this exact premise. It’s the Red Star Alliance (China, Russia and a handful of former Soviet States) against the Western Alliance (read – US, England, and Europe) in another war to end all wars.

What does Red Bricks Media have to do with all this? In order to build interest in advance of the official release of Frontlines: Fuel of War, THQ contracted Red Bricks Media to concept, design and manage an alternate reality game allowing players to experience the frontlines of tomorrow, today.

After signing up to play at http://www.exeoinc.com, players become involved in an online search to uncover just how another world war could come to fruition. After reading blogs, discovering secret YouTube channels, befriending characters on Facebook and phoning in covert rescue missions, players discover the who, what, where and when in the world of Frontlines: Fuel of War.

“We wanted people to interact with real online channels like Facebook, Flickr and Google search in order to feel like all this is really happening, that there is a real Exeo Incorporated out there developing futuristic weapons and peak oil research and selling it to the highest bidder,” related Red Bricks Media CEO, Ed Kim.

Red Bricks Media upped the reality factor by using paid search as the backbone of the campaign. “You might be searching for real world news, say things like ‘North Pole oil reserve’ and you would come across one of Exeo Incorporated’s ads and click on it thinking it was real. Almost immediately, you become aware that something’s not right,” noted Media Director Andrew Leinicke. “It’s all just part of the game.”

Even fictitious characters in the Frontlines: Fuel of War game get in on the action. War journalist Wayne Andrews has his own blog on Wordpress (www.wayneandrews.wordpress.com) which describes his mysterious disappearance after discovering a secret Exeo Incorporated facility in the deserts of Iraq.

“I kind of feel like Orson Welles reading War of the Worlds over the radio,” said copywriter Peter Vaughan. “I hope people don’t get too freaked out by all this, but at the same time I think we all wanted to create a concept that would raise some eyebrows.”

To get in on the Countdown to War action, visit http://www.exeoinc.com – but remember, it’s only a game.

by Bain Smith, Lead Copywriter

Eight months ago the creative team at Red Bricks Media performed an experiment: we wanted to see if we could create a viral video on YouTube. There were a few videos that inspired us:

* OK Go: Here it Goes Again
* Teaspoon Slide Guitar
* My Hands are Bananas
* Tea Partay

It’s easy to see why each of these videos is viral, because they all contain one or more “viral” elements: humor, uniqueness, strangeness, and of course, undeniable talent in the form of musicianship, synchronized dancing, singing, and a well-written script.

So how does one get viral on YouTube without incredible talent, high production value, a great idea, lots of practice, or many thousands of dollars?

Red Bricks Media did it, in a modestly successful way, by creating:
* a catchy, impossible-to-avoid video title
* tags that cast a wide net for content seekers
* arguably controversial (taboo) content
* a video featuring an animal

The headline/title? Dog Attacks Polar Bear.
The tags? Rottweiler, Dog Attack, Polar Bear.
The content? Our own beloved Massimo, demolishing a one-foot high, paper-mache polar bear.

See it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1CBXGp9s9Y

What were our measurements for success? They were modest: 100 views a day, and at least 100 comments, over the course of a year.

The results?
143,000+ views in 250 days = ~570 views a day, and 144 comments so far. Success!

We don’t deny—especially considering the recent indictment of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick for dogfighting—that the video can be construed as controversial or taboo, and perhaps this is the main contributor to its viral nature.

In our opinion, however, and being semantic professionals, we believe the most important viral feature of the video is the video title. People are tempted to watch the video because it says, “Dog Attacks Polar Bear”, and they want to see if the video delivers on what the headline promises, because obviously the headline creates a sensational, titillating idea that YouTubers just can’t help but watch. Apparently, people really do want to see a real dog attack a real polar bear.

Addressing the very opinionated comment section and any outlying concerns from our readers, I can only say this: Massimo is the most loving dog you can ever hope to encounter, which is more than I can say for the rabid population of YouTube, whose comments reveal a dark side of anonymous internet chatter.

If any readers still doubt Mossimo’s loving nature, come by the office anytime. He’s definitely got some love for you.