What’s Wrong With Pinterest?

I suddenly realized I’m not a thirty-something woman from the midwest.

I first heard about Pinterest only a few weeks ago. Apparently it’s the latest fad in social media. But what the hell is it? I wondered. I went to the site and saw a massive array of gorgeous photos of stuff that looked a bit too upper-class for my taste.

“It’s a pinboard!” I was told. Now, pinboard was a brand new word to me. Yes, I’m 40, and I got all this way without ever hearing about pinboards. Now here’s Pinterest, supposed to be this big public ‘pinboard’, and not only was I totally in the dark about the site, but the idea it was based on.

I asked my wife. “You know, it’s a board you pin stuff to, like the one in the kitchen,” she said. She meant the corkboard where we stuck calendars and notices from the public school.

But a pinboard is apparently not a thing; It’s a concept. Maybe like a scrapbook? I wondered. ”That’s where you put pictures and souvenirs,” she said. ”Of stuff you’ve done.”

So she didn’t know either. Neither did the next several people I asked. It was dawning on me that we here on the east coast may have no idea what a pinboard, the very concept that Pinterest is based on, actually is.

Maybe it’s a class thing? You just have to be in a certain income bracket? Or maybe it’s an age thing? Or a taste thing? A regional thing?

Anyway, a pinboard is a place where you put up pictures of stuff you really want. The idea is that if you affirm your desires every day, they will come true.

Gag me.

Basically, to even know what a pinboard is, you have to watch Oprah or Martha Stewart (Actually, being from the east coast, I wonder if Martha even knew). To have ever used a pinboard, you have to be a thirty-something woman from the midwest. Maybe they do these in the South, too, I don’t know.

What I do know is: TO REALLY BE A HUGE SOCIAL MEDIA SENSATION FOR THE LONG TERM, YOU HAVE TO APPEAL TO CYNICAL PEOPLE WITH DARK SENSES OF HUMOR AND LITTLE HOPE FOR THE FUTURE.

And that’s what’s wrong with Pinterest. To be a fan, you have to be a person who believes, really BELIEVES that dreams can come true if you just pin them to a wall somewhere and share them.

What's Wrong With Pinterest?I don’t know about you, dear reader, but in my experience, the best way to assure that something will never happen is to want it really bad. The last thing I ever want to do is tell people about my hopes and dreams, so I can be mocked years later after they never happened. “Still have the picture of that sailboat, Tom? Heh heh.”

Shut up.

So my Pinterest site is full of photos of stuff I’ve done, and things I already have, as well as some really ham-handed attempts at inspirational messages. I suck at that. I’m basically using it as a scoreboard, not a pinboard. This is why I didn’t get it at first. This is also why my pictures are terrible compared to the gorgeous cover shots offered by merchants for thirty-something Oprah-watching women from the midwest to share and pin to their own boards.

I’m sorry, I just can’t see guys posting pics of cars they want or golf vacations they’d love to take on Pinterest. I also can’t imagine young urban types posting shots of zombie video games, black t-shirts, and music that isn’t Yanni. The minute Pinterest goes that way, the party will be over, the way it was when your mom joined Facebook.

So kids, hurry over to Pinterest to wreck it for mom. Payback, I guess?

UPDATE: I hope folks see my attempt at humor here. A recent post of mine to Pinterest has garnered 25 repins, so maybe I’m figuring it out after all. Now where can I get a DVD of Oprah seasons 1,2 & 3!

Which Social Platform is for you? A Neat Flowchart

So now that you’ve used MySpace, Friendster, Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Foursquare, Google+, Yahoo! Groups, LinkedIn, and about a thousand other social sites you’ll never remember, it’s time to make the prognosis: Some of these platforms won’t be here in a few years. Of those that do, they will attract the users who have best figured them out.

For learning to use one of these sites, it’s not really a matter of how, since they’re all pretty easy. They may have their own set of normal practices, and you may look like a terminal noob if you don’t adhere to them, but how much you care about that is driven by your own practices. You either think and act like Google+ or you don’t. If you do, you’ll focus your efforts on that site. If you don’t, you’ll drift away.

Within the next year, I think the shakeout will begin in earnest. When the dust clears, we won’t all be using every tool in a way that is ravenous toward some and pathetic toward others. I’d make the soft drink metaphor but it’s been done.

So it’s time to lay down the cards. Which is best for you?

Which Social Platform is for you?

The New York Times Email Mistake: Can It Happen To You?

By now you probably know about the New York Times’ little email error on Wednesday, December 27. But if you don’t, here’s the nutshell: The Times sent a ‘Cancellation’ email to 8.6 million people, presumably every single one of their online email subscribers. The email was meant only for those who actually subscribe to the paper’s home delivery service.

First the Times claimed it was spam, then blamed their email service provider Epsilon, and finally fessed up; The Times did it themselves.

As I’m sure we’re all wondering: How exactly did it happen? And how can you avoid it? Only people at the Times know for sure, but it’s possible, in fact easy, to guess. In fact, it’s a worthwhile exercise, because it may help you to avoid copying their mistake.

Let’s consider what we know:

  • The email itself is of the ‘transactional’ variety, designed to be sent to people who canceled their subscription recently, supposedly about 300 people, not 8.6 million.
  • It is very likely that the emails were triggered to send immediately after some change in the database, like an upload of canceled subscribers. This may have been automated or transferred as a .CSV or some other kind of data file compiled by the circulation department.
  • It is likely that the Times uploaded, updated or moved their entire subscriber database, changing the field that is used to trigger the cancel emails, which is how 8.6 million people would wind up in the ‘Canceled’ category.
  • If the database driving the auto-trigger is part of a web analytics platform or the site’s backend, it could have been altered by another department doing something that was considered purely technical and unrelated. This could mean the marketing and circulation departments had nothing to do with this. The database update was made by people whose primary focus is elsewhere, and whom are not familiar with the email system.
  • Or, it is possible that someone in the marketing or circulation department was playing with the database, maybe ‘cleaning up’ fields, without considering the consequences.
  • Finally, while it’s interesting to imagine that someone pressed the wrong button somewhere. It may have been an automatic change triggered a long time ago, when somebody set a transactional mailing to run for a very long time, like 24 months, before expiring and throwing the emails into the regular queue.

What doesn’t seem likely is that someone manually set up the ‘Cancellation’ email and selected the entire database by accident. I’d like to think the people at the Times are beyond that.

The bottom line:

Today’s most advanced email systems have a lot of moving parts, including triggers and filters, database connections, hundreds of fields, countless segments, dynamic content, differing browser compatibility, myriad admin levels, and multiple departments with people of varied experience. How many marketers have made manual uploads, global field changes, or set up automated systems and made a few compromises?

It isn’t just a matter of testing the content and using a browser with your email platform (though these measures help). You have to run all the scenarios. You have to think about the worst case outcome before uploading a file, integrating a database, eliminating or merging a field, or setting up a trigger.

Somebody within the New York Times is being called onto the carpet, where the explanation may be too technical and complex for the bosses to understand. That somebody, who may or may not even be at fault, is headed for the door. Don’t be that person.

Email is an extremely powerful communications tool. And remember, with great power…

Crossposted at The Net Atlantic Email Marketing Blog

Deconstructing the #McDStories blunder: What could they have done?

mcdonalds #mcdstories social media failYou know how a lot of teary downer movies come out in January, in an effort to capture the mantle of “Best Movie of the Year” before anyone else? On January 18, it seems the McDonalds chain used that approach in their attempt to win the award for “Biggest Social Media Blunder of 2012″ with the #McDStories hashtag.

Why do social media marketing ideas sometimes fail so grotesquely? Sometimes the idea is truly idiotic, or malformed, or naive. #McDStories is different. It actually seemed like a good idea for a well-known brand like McDonalds, which trades on convenience, cost, speed and a chipper all-American wholesomeness. The problem is that McDonalds is well-known to different people for different reasons.

Creating a hashtag is like naming a child. You’d like him to get through kindergarten without being tormented because of his name. But you’ll never know if the name you give him at birth will be considered wierd by the other kids, or so popular that he sinks into a sea of Coreys or Parkers. If an infamous criminal or Hollywood star arises with the same name, you can’t control that. So you choose a name and bear it. That’s what McDonalds did.

So what was the mistake?

In using the #McDStories hashtag, their first few posts were about the people who provide the restaurant chain with raw materials, such as farmers. The genesis of their error resides here, because it led Twitter users to align the campaign with where McDonalds gets their food, not the family-friendly sappiness the brand offers to the public.

No doubt McDonalds was hoping that the campaign would morph into people posting about the time they took the kids’ soccer team out for burgers, held a birthday party, found a much-needed rest stop on a long trip, or shared moments after a fun day out. In other words, they needed parents; People like me, who actually have stories like this but have no time to tweet about it. Why? Because we have kids.

So they reached a different audience instead; Socially plugged-in, cynical, humorous young adults without kids, who do have time to tweet about an unethical brand they abandoned long ago and don’t believe in.

Could it have been avoided?

It actually could have been, if McDonalds used their legendary brand awareness acumen to appeal to their traditional audience with a broader campaign. In other words, soften the ground with radio, television, and parent-oriented websites, infusing the hashtag with the kind of stories they want their audience to tell, and invite them to use it on social media platforms. McDonalds is not grassroots, and can never be. Even parents like me see it as a necessary evil. It can not drive a social campaign that is not top down. Period.

Here’s the worst part: This social campaign was clearly attempted without any such strategy, and #McDStories backfired, so there’s that. But this is really a tragic double-fail. Here’s why: the notion of using real customer stories to strengthen McDonalds’ community relations, a very powerful idea that is well-aligned with their brand, is now dead. Not just the hashtag; but any stories at all.

There is one silver lining: Clearly, McDonalds has learned that it should never, ever, remind people that its food once ever existed as chickens, beef steers, or potatos.

My Current Obsession: Mountaineering Books

Above the Clouds by Anatoli BoukreevFor some reason (maybe a long summer of hiking mountains with the kids), I’ve been reading book after book about and by mountaineers. It turns out there are hardly any books about the White Mountains, except for guidebooks, history books and one exceptional collection of harrowing tales called Not Without Peril by Nicholas Howe.

So I’ve been spending a lot of time in the library picking out books that are mostly about the Himalaya. Believe me, I will never set foot in the mountains of Asia, so I’m reading these mainly in disappointment that there’s hardly anything to read about the mountains I am familiar with.

But I’m becoming fascinated not only with the stories and the peaks, but in the personal dynamic between the mountaineers themselves and the people who support them. The factions and arguments that surround these guys (and they are mainly guys) are worthy of any soap opera about Kardashians:

There’s Dead Lucky by Lincoln Hall, who was rescued after a night out on Everest, but only after another climber, David Sharp, was left for dead a week earlier, causing an international wildfire of online accusation that did not go unnoticed in base camp.

There are several books about K2 in 2008, which killed several climbers in a series of overnight avalanches, causing a rash of heroism from the climbers and second-guessing from their aficionados around the world.

Some rise above the fray, like elite mountaineer Ed Viesturs, who in No Shortcut to the Top covers his own life and his successful climbs of all fourteen 8,000 meter peaks without oxygen. He also explains why he considers it dangerous not to use oxygen when working as a guide.

The 1996 Everest disaster is covered in numerous books, and Into Thin Air by Jon Krakauer is only one of them. As a journalist, he is partly blamed for the event itself, in speculation that his very presence on the mountain caused the leaders of the two largest expeditions to test their luck further than their normal sensibility would have allowed them. He also blames climber Anatoli Boukreev, for guiding without oxygen, thus speeding up his own trip, leaving the summit and reaching camp IV before nearly everyone, including his clients. Yet, Boukreev is the only one in camp who is able to go out into the blizzard later to rescue others.

Of course, Boukreev has his own book, The Climb, covering his own side of the Everest disaster. I am currently reading Above The Clouds, a collection of Boukreev’s diaries from his numerous ascents, postumously published in 2001 (he died in a Christmas Day avalanche on Annapurna in 1997). This book opens with forewords and introductions by his defenders, scratching raw the disagreements that seem to be a lot more plentiful than oxygen on the high peaks, and perhaps always have been.

So here I am, fifteen years later, catching up on these events and finding myself unable to avoid passing judgment on these people, despite the fact that I would rather be reading stories about the Whites.

If only somebody would write a book about an epic adventure in the Pemigewasset wilderness, or a traverse of the southern Presidentials after a hurricane tore through the forest. How about a book with a collection of tales that end with prime rib at the Common Man or a burger at the Red Parka, or getting turned around by the maitre’d at the Mount Washington Hotel because you looked like you just crawled out of the backcountry (which you did).

I’d read all of them. Maybe that’s why I’m so looking forward to reading UP by Patricia Ellis Herr, about hiking New Hampshire’s 4,000 foot peaks with her five-year-old daughter. It will be available in April 2012.

Then I can return all these Everest books and start reading about peaks I can actually visit myself.

The New SEO: Social Sharing and Sentiment Matter More Than Ever

The New SEO: Social Sharing and Sentiment MatterBy now you’ve heard of Google+, right?

When Google announced its very own social platform earlier in 2011, the theories abounded: First, there was “It’s a competitor to Facebook and Twitter.”

Nope.

Then we heard “It’s for the geeks who use all of Google’s unique applications.”

Not quite, unless Google really wants to hang its future on all three of those folks.

Finally, “It’s a way to gather activity data that can be used to drive search.”

Now we’re talking. Google realized that SEO has changed severely because of social activity, and it happened while they were sitting around tweaking their obsolete code.

Okay, maybe that’s a bit harsh. After all, Google’s algorithm includes user behavior data. The company pioneered true organic search technology, and is still the standard setter that every webmaster strives to please. Content-based SEO strategies have long been a thing of the past, thanks to Google.

But there’s no doubt that Google noticed that more and more web activity was based on social sharing, and the associated data was owned by others. Google had your IP address and pretty detailed click data, but Facebook had your name, favorite rock bands, activities, brands, and list of friends, among other items, much of it volunteered. The segmented advertising power this provides is staggering, and Google didn’t have any of it.

Can you say “Writing on the wall?”

In January 2011, Facebook was valued by investor Goldman Sachs at around $50B. Many wondered how the hell a startup with a bunch of pointless time-wasting apps led by a megalomaniac geek could be worth anything like that. For some of us in marketing, it was easy to understand. It was the data.

For the folks at Google, who know marketing better than just about anyone, it was a drop-dead cinch: Get Google+ out there, and quick.

So now here it is: The New SEO. You want inbound links? Social platforms give you an endless supply of them, should you be able to sway crowds to your cause. Which platforms should you use, you ask? How about “As many as humanly possible?”

Are you producing a ton of content on your website and blog but not getting it out there using social tools? Keywords alone won’t cut it anymore. You need activity, so use your content to create buzz.

Are you getting buzz, but it’s not all positive? Such is life, but you need to be online and ready with a social fire drill strategy. And you need to be thick-skinned but able to tread lightly in the social realm.

It’s the customer’s world, you just live in it.

Google will be the search engine of choice for some time to come, so we’re all settled in for a long winter’s night with their rules, but if you’re sitting around waiting for content keywords to work their magic, you’re old school.

We’re long past the “Why should my company get social?” discussion by now, anyway. If your dead-in-the-water SEO strategy isn’t impetus enough, nothing is.

The Tom Bishop Fan Club – Yes, I’m Serious!

Featured

The Tom Bishop Fan Club on FacebookIf you really, and I mean really have nothing better to do today, please join The Tom Bishop Fan Club on Facebook! This is where I will share stuff about hiking with the kids, training for the marathon, and Team Playworks. You can post stuff there too. It’s the new home of fun!

Plus, sign up for the MyLeftOne Newsletter! It’s like a little ray of sunshine in your inbox.

What #OWS Teaches Us About Branding

What #OWS Teaches Us About BrandingIrony. That’s what it is.

By that I mean the questions that are being asked of those who support the Occupy Wall Street movement (as I do). We are asked “What is your message?” “What are your ideas?” “What are your demands?” “What is Occupy Wall Street about?”

The implication is clear: #OWS does not have a mission statement or a vision, and therefore cannot be legitimate. That’s irony.

The irony is that the Occupy movement already has a mission that runs so deep, it can’t be put into words. It has what many giant corporations spend decades building. It has the intangible brand value that Coca-Cola, Apple, Google, McDonald’s and yes, Citibank strive to cultivate and maintain. Those brands aren’t only about cool designs, tasty food and low prices, they’re about people who share beliefs and want to be part of a community.

“We are the 99%.” Madison Avenue couldn’t have said it better.

Occupy Wall Street is being mocked by those who own, run, and shill for big brands, but #OWS is what all brands want to be.

Another staggering irony is that this initiative was created pretty much out of whole cloth by a Canadian magazine, Adbusters, that built its organization in the opposition of giant corporate brands. If you’ve never seen (or even heard of) the magazine, it commonly runs articles about things going on in the globalized corporate world that you’ll never read in the mainstream press, interspersed with mocked full-page advertisements from big companies with scribblings such as “The CEO of this company has 14 houses.” or “This company’s products killed 4,300 people in South America last year.”

It’s truly counterculture. And now its mission has become mainstream. That alone should scare the bejeesus out of America’s corporate leaders. That people are flocking to the movement, and that it is growing around the world, are the reasons corporate and government leaders are pulling out all the stops to shut #OWS down.

Great brands are dangerous. How many corporate marketing executives in second-tier companies ask “Why can’t we be Starbucks?” or “What is it people love about Ikea?” over and over? How many clients of brand B gripe that so many of their friends prefer brand A and its ‘obviously’ sub-par products? It’s brand envy. Everybody wants to be the hip new thing. Everybody wants to capture lightning in a bottle. Everybody wants to be part of something huge.

That is what drives the Occupy movement right now. It has a powerful brand message; “Change The Way Things Are”. So many companies aspire to make their audience feel like part of something that changes the world. The #OWS phenomenon is destined to actually do that. It makes Apple’s groundbreaking 1984 ad look like a lame, pretentious approximation of a real movement.

The irony.

Facebook Wants You To Try Google+

Facebook Wants You To Try Google+Is there any other explanation?

Just in the past month or so, Facebook rolled out new features such as Subscriptions, granular sharing, and the mini feed on the right. They have also eliminated items like the Top News/Recent News selector and Add Link (you could just include it in your status update for awhile now). None of these changes are very intrusive, but they range from annoying to inconsequential.

This morning, many sat down to see their Facebook page changed pretty drastically. The News Feed Top/Recent selector (which was obnoxious when it was first introduced) is gone. In its place is their Top Stories feature. Now Facebook will simply deliver the feed depending on how often you visit or log in. (And everybody logs out when they leave Facebook, right? Right? Otherwise you get status-jacked by your so-called ‘friends’.)

Another new change/annoyance is the loss of the Profile link at the top. You now see your name instead. ‘Home’ really means ‘News Feed’. (As with Twitter, I think these names are a little backwards from what they should be. ‘Home’ and ‘Profile’ should mean the same thing, your profile, while the Feed should have a link called ‘Feed’ or ‘Stream’ or something like that.)

It’s Just Business

By now, we are used to this. It is the nature of Facebook to annoy its users from time to time with these changes. However, lately they’ve been coming fast and furious, and it’s obvious that Google+ is seen as a real threat by the folks at Facebook.

But are these rapid-fire changes a mistake? Now that Google+ has dropped the rope, Facebook’s behavior may cause more users to check out Google+ sooner.

I’m sure developers are impressed with how quickly Facebook has been able to make radical changes, and you have to be impressed if you’re a business and operations geek as well. But users don’t care about the meta, they care about the experience. And the Facebook experience is getting a little ragged.

What Would You Do?

Taken as a whole, it just seems that Facebook wants its users to try Google+. With the new granular selections and subscription features, they are training users for Google+ and pissing people off at the same time.

Perhaps Facebook took a page from their own domination of MySpace. MySpace did not change to try to match Facebook’s features, and found itself serving a niche audience. Facebook’s leadership saw the writing on the wall, and moved to copy Google+’s feature set more closely. Was it a smart move? Or will they wind up simply as a sub-par version of Google+?

We’ll see. For my money, I think Facebook is a very new and clever way to deliver content that is not only selected by the user, but also organically generated by the user’s friends. Facebook should continue to focus on their strength: a complex online process that drives relevant material and advertising to active market participants.

But if Facebook wants to try to be Google+, I’ll bet Google couldn’t be happier.