But as the tournament progressed, it seemed that interest in the World Cup was waning. Focus shifted more and more to the wrong things: “why do they flop when you barely touch them?”, “the vuvuzella is so annoying”, etc. It all came to a head when the United States lost to Ghana. As quickly as the enthusiasm had started, it dissipated, and the majority went back to being disinterested in soccer completely; “The New York Post” led the way with the following headline:

Shortly after that, Nike came out with a sequel to their wildly popular “Write the Future” ad. The sequel depicted young players thanking the US soccer team for various actions during their games. The video is full of comments like “thank you for playing with style, with class, for having confidence.” 24 seconds into the ad, one of the players channels most of our nations thoughts when he says “thank you for not diving.” This aspect of the game seemed to outrage and disgust many first-time viewers. While I partially agree with this, I can also see the other side of the story. Diving is part of soccer. A player has the chance to outsmart his opponent by accentuating a mistake; it’s simply part of the game.

It occurred to me that during this month-long soccer spotlight, two very important points were identified:

1) The World Cup showed that Americans are more than willing to embrace the game if their own players are on the field.

2) As a whole, our country isn’t ready to accept a “rest-of-the-world style” of play. Nike showed that conclusively.

The organization that should have been paying VERY close attention to the American response to the World Cup (and I mean taking copious notes 24/7) is the MLS. They have been struggling for years to get professional soccer to same level as the MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL. To date, they’ve had very little success. However, since it’s inception in 1993, they have been modeling their league after foreign soccer clubs (a very logical decision), going so far as to bring international sensations like David Beckham, Cuauhtémoc Blanco and Juan Pablo Ángel into the league in an effort to create some credibility. While this helped, the league’s popularity never truly took off like anticipated. I think one glaring reason is because Americans won’t respond to an imitation of a foreign club. If the 2010 World Cup and Nike have shown us anything, it’s this: Americans want their own style of play with their own players on the field. It’s the epitome of “easier said than done”, but it seems to be the current reality.

So with the sport still fresh in everyone’s minds, Major League Soccer is at a crossroads. Should they embark on a new American style of the game, one devoid of primadonnas, diving and vuvuzellas? Or should they continue to follow the proven model and wait for the rest of us to come around? It’s an interesting question that I personally can’t answer with 100% certainty. Obviously, there are very valid points on both sides. But if you were in charge of branding for Major League Soccer, in what direction would you take the league?

Unfortunately, relationships between brands and consumers don’t abide by some revolutionary new rules, it’s the same process as your first year in high school when you were getting to know all the new people in your class.  If you misrepresent yourself and aren’t authentic to the people around you, they’re going to quickly realize it and you’ll be stuck eating lunch by yourself.  What Lebron James did, in a vacuum, isn’t horrible.  As a 25 year old, he chose to go to Miami to play basketball with two of his best friends, who also happen to be two of the best players in the world.  When you start bringing context into the equation, however, the backlash makes complete sense.

This is someone who brands himself as “King James”, someone who redefined spectator to “witness”, whose last game in a Cleveland uniform ended just about as poorly as possible.  People aren’t angry that Lebron James went to Miami, they’re angry that he misrepresented himself.  There’s a feeling of betrayal, not just from Cleveland fans but from fans of the NBA in general.  Throughout his career, and especially for the past couple of weeks up until about 9:30 pm EST on Thursday, Lebron James had presented a version of himself to people that turned out to be untrue.  Creating a Twitter account is great, allowing fans to submit questions through it to be answered on an on-air special is fantastic, but if the basic foundation of your relationship is flawed then it’s all for naught.

Despite all of this, if Lebron had utilized all the avenues of communication he had established to explain his thought process in a genuine way, he’d have salvaged much of the goodwill he had accumulated over the past seven years.  Instead, his cable special came off extremely cold and he’s since done little to make amends to the people he’s offended.  His Twitter account merely links to a clip from the special on his personal website and states, “If u live your Life on other people watch, u will always miss the moment that’s put right in front of u!”  People are incredibly willing to forgive, but if you don’t give them the chance they’re certainly willing to hold a grudge as well.

Once the shine wears off of social media and it takes its place as an established piece of every business’ strategy, brands are going to have to come to terms with the fact that with unprecedented transparency comes an incredible responsibility to not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.  People expect the businesses they frequent to operate with the same responsibility and authenticity as their friends, otherwise there’s no incentive to invest the time to build a relationship.  The culture of brands is shifting and unfortunately for Lebron, the team advising him was stuck in 1995.

Let us know what you think! Have you ever seen an ad highlight social media / geolocation like this one does? Let us know in the comment section below!

The Wall (34th & 8th)

VaynerMedia’s Influence: Extending the Story

Follow the Nets on Twitter!

Like the Nets on Facebook!

Follow the Nets on Gowalla!

And if you’re in the NYC area, definitely check in!

Why had I chosen those two products over all other options? When I thought about it, I reasoned that both were pretty “standard” and widely-liked. They weren’t too strange. They were a safe bet, in my mind. But why did I have those specific connotations with both products?

The fact is that we are faced with many, many of these types of decisions every single day. From the toothpaste you use in the morning, to the socks you put on before heading out, to the food choices you make all day long, we are all constantly deciding between brands. But what goes in to these decisions? Why choose Crest over Colgate, or Hanes over Fruit of the Loom? In the end, the products aren’t all that different, yet most people have clear preferences.

Consumers make these decisions for a variety of reasons. Maybe their parents brought them up using a specific brand. Maybe they got a free sample when they turned 18 (e.g. Gillette). Or maybe the consumer was caught by a great advertisement or commercial. These are just a few examples.

–

Today, brands have an opportunity like never before to influence consumer decisions and behavior. For example, here’s a tweet from a couple of hours ago, “Someone bring me some #Snapple, #MangoMadness if possible! Pleeeaaaaase?!?!” Here’s an opportunity for Arizona Iced Tea to tweet back to the user and say, “Have you tried our Mucho Mango? Here’s a coupon code for 50% off, in case you want to give it a try: link.” Sure, maybe the user wouldn’t take advantage and that would be the end of it. On the other hand, the user might take the coupon, buy the product, and become a lifelong fan and consumer.

This was just an example, but the point is that consumer decisions don’t just have to be left up to the consumers anymore, and they shouldn’t. Brands have an opportunity like never before. Simply interacting with potential consumers via social media is incredibly powerful stuff, and is changing the way that we make decisions.

–

Question 1: If AJ had asked you to buy him a bag of chips and a non-carbonated drink, what would you have chosen and why?

Question 2: What goes into your decision-making process when choosing between brands? Has a brand’s presence on/actions via social media ever influenced a decision?

Please leave your answer in the comment section below, would love to see if there are any trends or similarities.

Can you imagine the PR staff in charge of BP’s public image? I think it’s safe to say that these people have been in a room since April 20th trying in vain to think up ways to make ruining an ecosystem, putting thousands of people out of work and killing cute marine animal after cute marine animal seem “not that bad”. To date, they have been unsuccessful (shocker, I know). The truth is there is no PR strategy in existence that a company in BP’s position could unleash to effectively fix an issue of this magnitude.

However, before this ever happened, BP should have (among many, many other things) stepped back and taken stock of how the public views them and grabbed the proverbial reigns of their own image. I don’t know about you, but when I think of a giant oil juggernaut like BP, I get a picture of corporate greed, usually followed by a clip from the movie “Wall Street”. Now, it’s fair to assume that before this disaster happened, the people in charge of BP’s branding understood that:

A) the majority of the public thinks of them as greedy oil pimps.

B) there is a chance that some catastrophy might unfold and BP will have to explain themselves to the public.

Knowing that, it’s also fair to assume that BP would have gone to work crafting their image as an environmentally conscious and lovable oil giant long before anything bad happened. Among other benefits, this would ensure that most of the public would perceive an accident as just that, an accident. Instead, everyone perceives this as a company being careless in the interest of boosting their profits. This positive public persona that BP currently wishes they possessed could have been achieved through a consistent and transparent social media campaign. What makes this even more frustrating, especially for an employee of a brand consulting firm that specializes in social media, is that they could have done this for, to quote Gary Vaynerchuk, “sweat equity”. No billboards, no commercials, just social media; Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

BP has an online presence, but they waited until the disaster was in full swing to become truly active. Furthermore, now that they’ve been forced into action, the space is so new to them that they are making some very rookie mistakes. A couple things that I noticed:

Twitter

-While their Twitter account @BP_America is super-active now, it wasn’t even close before the spill; they averaged a tweet every 10 days or so. Their lack of engagement showed in their follower numbers; on April 20, the day of the spill, BP had 2,299 followers. 17 days after that, they had 2,846 followers. Today they have 14,897 followers, all of them with a hugely negative image of the brand and undoubtedly following purely out of desire for answers. Wouldn’t now be a nice time to have a loyal follower base that interacted with you before you were a pariah?

-They have neglected to take swift action against the Twitter account @BPGlobalPR. This account is fake and has systematically made a mockery of BP. The account was created 28 days ago, and they’ve spent all their time putting out tweets like “If we have to pay $20 billion, we’re paying each claim with sweaty wads of ones and/or penny hills”. While it is funny, it is detrimental to a brand that is currently at its weakest. And the worst part: they have just under 170,000 followers.

-They never @reply anyone. I understand that there are millions of people griping about the oil spill on Twitter, but as little as 10-20 replies per day would show that BP cares about what people are saying and that they are listening.

Facebook

-Lot of the same on this platform. BP’s interaction with their Facebook fan base was embarrassingly low before the spill. For example, they had a post on November 10th, December 10th and February 18th and then nothing until May 2nd. Again, another platform that could have been populated with genuine fans of the brand.

Youtube

-As far as I can tell, BP didn’t even have a presence here until the spill. In my opinion, this is the most crucial platform for them as a company, because it allows them to show the public what they’re doing and why it’s relevant. This interaction can range from videos displaying charitable efforts to environmental conservation to safety measures and beyond. Instead, BP is hastily attempting to populate their new channel after the fact. With all of the talk surrounding BP’s lack of safety measures and disregard for the environment, it’d be quite beneficial to be able to reference a video addressing those topics published before April 20th to show that it truly was a priority for them. Furthermore, they are encouraging people to “friend BP on YouTube”, a function that doesn’t exist on the site (they meant to say “subscribe”).

Please understand that I am not suggesting that if BP had properly developed their social media presence before this happened, the public outcry would have been suppressed. There is literally no way that BP can heal their image for years to come. However, their charge into social media after a crisis has happened is akin to putting your seat-belt on after you’ve been in a car accident. Effective use of social media enables you to build relationships with people in a way that no other medium can. It’s an important lesson for all brands, both personal and consumer, to learn. Don’t wait until you need the loyalty to earn it; do it during the good times, because no one knows what tomorrow will bring.

Last Thursday, a friend of mine (and basketball nut/blogger) Peter R. Casey retweeted fellow basketball nut/blogger Lang Whitaker about a video that I was not prepared for (in a good way). “Yup, that’s going viral,” Peter commented, then retweeting Whitaker, “Here’s the YouTube link to that Nike World Cup spot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idLG6jh23yE.”

I like sports. I like viral videos (Put them together, that’s what I want! <<< Inside Joke), so I clicked on the link. 450ish views? Viral, you say? What made this video so good that Peter was determined it would go viral? It only took me 7.3 seconds to get sucked in and 30 total to realize Peter was right. This video is epic, and quite possibly the best commercial (hard to call it a commercial) I’ve ever seen. Just watch:

As of 5PM Monday, May 24th, the video had 6.85 million Youtube views. As of 8AM Tuesday, May 25th, the video has 7.65 million Youtube views. So, as predicted by Peter, the video has gone viral. Why? First, the concept is brilliant, and universal. Whether you’re a football fan or not, everyone can understand and get lost in the idea of changing the world and writing the future. Second, Nike is a massive brand. Anything they do is seen by a good amount of people. Third, the event around which the video was centered, The World Cup, is a beyond-massive brand. The World Cup is unquestionably the world’s biggest sporting event, even though we Americans would like to think it’s the SuperBowl. No other sporting event affects the world’s population as much as the World Cup. Fourth, Nike Football hired famous Hollywood director and producer Alejandro G. Iñarritu (21 Grams, Babel) to direct the commercial, and he crushed it. The cinematography & art direction is brilliant (loved the Ronaldinho Youtube touch). Finally, the cast is insanely star-studded, including appearances by world-class footballers, Cristiano Ronaldo, Didier Drogba, Wayne Rooney, Fabio Cannavaro, Ronaldinho, Landon Donovan (to name a few), as well as special guest cameos by tennis great, Roger Federer, NBA superstar, Kobe Bryant, and fictional cartoon character, Homer Simpson.

After watching the commercial (four of five times), I headed over to Nike Football’s Facebook Page to see what they were doing there. Since I hadn’t yet liked the page, I landed on a custom tab titled, “Write the Future,” and was directed to “Hit the Like Button. Watch the Future.” I did so, and proceeded to watch a ten minute video about the making of the commercial (which included the actual full-length commercial not once, but twice). Nike Football also integrated one of Facebook’s new plug-ins, the Activity Feed, into the tab. Pretty cool!

I don’t even like football, but this commercial got me amped. So much so that I tweeted about it, posted the video on my blog, shared it with the entire VaynerMedia team, and now have written a VaynerMedia blog post about it. While I still probably won’t watch that much of the World Cup, I guarantee I will watch more than I would have prior to seeing the commercial. I also know that my co-worker, John Oates (who on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of how much he likes football, is a self-professed ~5.25), just said, “I want to cry” and “I just want to keep watching it over and over again” after watching the commercial. Another coworker, Keith Holjencin, who (designed the image for this blog post and) “knows nothing about soccer,” said he was “blown away.”

The point is, the world is talking about this commercial, and this campaign is an absolute home run… or game-winning goal? It’s a fantastic concept (“Write the Future”), it was incredibly well thought-out and well-executed, and its target audience was pretty darn widespread, which couldn’t have hurt. And if I, a non football fan, feel this way about the commercial and the campaign, imagine how passionate football fans must feel (kinda like how Philadelphia hockey fans must feel about the Flyers right now). The commercial just sucks you in until the very last second.

I have so many questions. How much money did Nike spend on this campaign? How much time did it take to conceptualize, plan, and film? Who was the decision maker that said “go ahead?” I would love for Nike to release an article with all of this information, and I have a feeling I’m not alone.

What do you think about the commercial? Had you seen it before this post? Does it change your views on football? Who was the biggest winner because of the campaign? Nike? The World Cup? The game of football? What other campaigns have you seen centered around the World Cup? Would love to hear your thoughts and continue the conversation below!

In reality, if you’re at all concerned with personal branding (and I assume that you are if you’re reading this post, on this blog), you really should own “yourname”.com. For example, if your name is John Smith, you should own JohnSmith.com. If your name is Xjambo Balbado, you should own XjamboBalbado.com (or maybe just change your name!).

Even though the site isn’t nearly as robust as I would like it to be, I own “myname”.com. And I wouldn’t want SamTaggart.com to be anything other than my personal site, just like Coke wouldn’t want Coke.com to be owned Pepsi (even though that would be illegal and couldn’t happen). Why let others, possibly competitors, take control over your name?

Maybe you truly don’t care, but then maybe this post is not for you. I’m not really trying to convince you of the importance of personal branding, but if you do care, then you should own “yourname”.com.

The point is, we live our lives more and more on the Internet, where we publicly display our identities in the form of Facebook profiles (full of biographical information, photos, thoughts, etc) and Twitter accounts. But what if Facebook and Twitter disappear tomorrow? The next step is to control your identity in its purest web form, and that is through a domain name and personal website. “YourName.com” can become your home on the Internet.

Do you own “yourname”.com? If so, why did you find it important to own it? If not, why not? Have you seen a situation where a person (or company) was negatively affected because he, she, or they didn’t own “theirname.com?”

I think this rhythmic reliability I’m describing is a huge factor in the way I follow baseball. In general I feel like it is harder to enthusiastically follow something that occurs more sporadically, and the same goes for other types of content.

Even on the web, timing and reliability matter. You can’t rely on every customer or viewer to subscribe to your RSS feed or email notifications (try though you might). There will always be that stubborn class of users out there who just prefer to type in your URL at noon every day or 8 pm on Wednesdays and get new content. But if instead your new content is delivered unpredictably, that user can get lost in the shuffle.

Keep to the beat. Being reliable with your content makes a difference.

This stat got me thinking; how can this be? How is it that Lady Gaga achieved in 2 years what other “more revered” artists haven’t? Before anyone gets up-in-arms, I like Lady Gaga and I think that she is a great (read “weird”) artist that has some phenomenal songs. I have “Telephone” on my iPod and frequently whistle it in the office. That being said, I do not think that she’s up there with the Michael Jacksons, Beatles and Rolling Stones of the world. The reason I mention those artists in particular is because when I read this, I wondered how they weren’t at the top of the list, especially due to their huge bodies of work and massive cross-generational fan bases. Furthermore, I thought that Baby Boomers who had become comfortable with the Internet would have been all over the vast number of videos on YouTube starring their favorite bands. I remember how my uncle reacted when he realized there were videos on YouTube about The Doors that he had not previously seen; he lost his mind. As a result, Jim Morrison incessantly roared through his office door until he emerged several weeks later with a beard.

As I read more articles about Lady Gaga’s milestone, I noticed that many mentioned Soulja Boy’s “Crank Dat” as the most watched online video ever. TechCrunch in particular mentioned that the 2007 viral hit topped the “100 Million Views List” run by Visible Measures. Intrigued, I perused this list and was shocked by some of the stats. As the page was loading, I made peace with the fact that my “worthy music” theory may not be fully valid and that there would be several, if not many, homemade viral videos on there. But after looking through the complete list, some of the stats were shocking. Some of my favorite examples:

-Michael Jackson’s “Thriller”, arguably the most important and influential music video of all time, was topped by the trailer for the “Twilight Saga: New Moon”. MJ garnered 443,535,722 total views, but it was almost 200 million short of catching “New Moon”, who weighed in with 639,966,996 views. I guess being the highest selling artist of all-time doesn’t count for much when you’re going up against sexy vampires and werewolves.

-A preview for the video game “Modern Warfare 2″, ventriloquist Jeff Dunham’s “Achmed the Dead Terrorist” and “Charlie Bit My Finger” accounted for nearly 1 billion total views (956,637,311).

-Remember the annoying “I’m a Gummy Bear” ad that Jamster put out as a downloadable ringtone? Yeah, that ridiculous bear is the fifth most-watched video of all time.

-“The Dramatic Gopher”, the “Peanut Butter Jelly Time” Banana and “Sneezing Baby Panda” all have spots in the 100 Million Club.

-The list’s undisputed #1, Soulja Boy’s “Crank Dat”, got 722,438,268 total views. That means that (conceivably) all of America, all 307 million of us, nursing home residents and small children included, decided to “Superman that ho” at least twice.

My goal in making these points is not to tear down the accomplishments that the members of this club have achieved, and that includes the Jamster bear. My goal was to show how exponentially further an artist or brand can extend their reach if they harness social tools correctly. However, the whole gist of my point centers on the fact that quality content is key, whether that content is a movie trailer, a music video or an overly dramatic gopher. Congratulations to Lady Gaga for understanding this and making it happen in a huge way.

When the average person thinks about a Hippo the following adjectives come to mind: goofy, cute, hungry, fun.

When the average person thinks about a Shark the following adjectives come to mind: dangerous, scary, angry, viscous.

The main reason why the Hippo is seen so positively is the 1966 Milton Bradley board game “Hungry Hungry Hippos.” The Hippo is the main character in a children’s game, has names like “Lizzie,” “Henry,” “Homer,” and “Happy,” and is highlighted on the box as a colorful, goofy, and adorable animal.

The main reason why the Shark is seen so negatively is Steven Speilberg’s 1975 movie, “Jaws.” The Shark is the movie’s villain, has a name directly correlated with its sharp teeth, and is highlighted on the movie posters and DVDs as a mysterious, evil, and cruel sea monster.

Consider the following:

Fact: The hippo is extremely aggressive, unpredictable and unafraid of humans, upsetting boats sometimes without provocation and chomping the occupants with its huge canine teeth and sharp incisors.

Fact: To a shark, a surfer on a surfboard slightly resembles that of a seal or sea lion.

Fact: The hippo is responsible for more fatalities each year than a bear, a lion, or a… you guessed it, shark.

Fact: Peter Benchley, the creator of the Jaws character, spent the last few years of his life trying to dispel the myth of sharks being man-eating monsters.

Fact: According to a list of fatal, unprovoked, shark attacks in the United States, there have only been about 100 deaths in the past 150+ years.

So again I ask: What if Milton Bradley decided to create the game “Hungry Hungry Sharks” and Steven Spielberg decided to feature a Hippo in “Jaws?”

Revamped Site

Oscars.com has a nice, new look. The black, white, and red color scheme, along with the crisp feel give it a modern vibe. Add the ability to sign in with Facebook, Twitter, & MySpace, and you’re getting somewhere! The site offers a variety of features, including an exclusive web video series, behind the scenes looks at the 2010 show, as well as message boards, “Oscar tweets,” and the chance to predict this year’s various winners. By encouraging interaction, the Oscars are attempting to get more people invested in this year’s show, and hoping to convert more site visitors into television viewers.

Facebook.com/TheAcademy

The Oscars have a Facebook fan page for the first time ever, with 83,000 fans and counting. Each day, they’ve been posting status updates with videos and various calls to action, trying to get visitors excited for the show. The fact that they’ve created a Facebook page is pretty cool, but I’d like to see them doing a bit more with it. A custom Welcome tab for non-fans would have been nice, and there isn’t any engagement from the Oscars’ end, with Facebook commenters.

Live Streaming the Nominations

On February 15th, the Academy live streamed the Oscar Nominees Luncheon on Oscars.org and Facebook. More than 170,000 unique visitors watched some or all of the event. It’s a pretty cool idea to get people interested in the show a couple of weeks ahead of time. Even if people didn’t watch it, they may have heard about the idea and been intrigued by it.

iPhone App

The Oscars also released a free iPhone app, which offers users a chance to “make your Oscar® predictions.” The app comes with a complete nominees list, insider information, trailers, and more. Oscar pools are pretty common among people who watch the show, so it was a good job by the Academy to finally take advantage of that and develop this application. This feature also appears on the website for non iPhone users.

“You’ve never seen Oscar like this.”

That is the Oscars’ tagline for the 2010 show. The Academy wants to highlight everything they have and will done differently this year to make the show a spectacle like never before. There are two hosts, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin, there are ten nominees for best picture, a decision that has caused a lot of commotion. Further, the Oscars are giving viewers a more behind-the-scenes look at the show, and trying to get viewers more involved. The tagline does a good job at getting people excited.

Overall, I think the Oscars are making a good effort to revamp their show and “get with the times.” They’ve admitted that they won’t achieve all of their goals with this year’s show. One issue I have with the Academy is that they chose not to engage the younger crowd on Twitter & Facebook. They aren’t interacting with Facebook fans and they aren’t active on Twitter. It’s one thing to make changes, but by not using powerful social media tools to make people aware of them, they’re making a pretty big mistake.

What do you think about the Oscars’ makeover? Do you think they’re doing enough with social media, or could they do more? Are you more likely to watch the Oscars because of their efforts to modernize the show?