The Great Firewall of China

China is a country of high interest to me. I've traveled there twice and have been studying the language continuously for almost 8 years now. You probably don't need me to tell you that China's internet censorship is strict, as by now that's a well known fact. International information sharing websites have been trying to storm the Great Firewall of China for years, with varying degrees of success. It comes as no surprise that the Chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, is highly critical of China's censorship laws.

He claims: "China's the only government that's engaged in active, dynamic censorship. They're not shy about it"

He's right, they're not shy about it. But if you lived in China, should you care? Baidu is home-grown and controls roughly two-thirds of the Chinese search engine market. The government actively inconveniences itself to ensure Google remains relatively suppressed - all automated searches are from Baidu and has allegedly blocked Gmail in the past to prevent further access to the site. Naturally, the American head of the leading information search engine in the world, will push for looser internet  censorship, but the question remains - WHY?

We can see the benefit from Google's point of view: increased market share which allows more to be charged for advertising, but what is the benefit for China? What's in it for them? They already have Baidu instead of Google, Sina Weibo instead of Twitter and RenRen instead of Facebook. These social media platforms are effective in ensuring the need for external networks remains diluted, but is this a good thing?

Firstly, one thing must be noted. China is currently wrestling with a paradox no other country truly experiences. It is an economic powerhouse, driving forwards whilst other nations stutter and stagger. But socially it is still developing. And that's putting it lightly. Accusations of human rights infringements and unjust individual freedom restrictions can be bandied about fairly. That argument can certainly be made. But for a country striving to dominate the world's marketplace, having such a controlled internet system is completely counter-productive. Internet in China is painfully slow and many webpages just don't even load, all because of the Firewall.

China has progressed economically at such a rapid rate but they run the risk of grinding to a halt if they don't allow at least a small increase in the flow of information. Other countries, in particular it's nearest competitor India, can increase innovative practices and R+D projects because of freer information flows. How does China expect to gauge global trends, new ideas and understand how people are living on a global scale if the have the most rigid internet restrictions in the world?

The World Wide Web, that envisaged and created by Tim Berners-Lee, was made for connections. Whilst the China Wide Web features  inter-country connections, it isn't enough to compete in a world where globalisation is spreading faster than anyone can control it. It's an inevitability  primarily brought on by internet-based developments. The Chinese can continue to fight for control, or give in to the era of Web 2.0, and experience the economic benefits it is truly capable of achieving.

Should Chinese citizens care? The answer is a resounding 'yes', not just from a social viewpoint, but an economic viewpoint as well. The ability to compete on a global level is diminished when a nation is afraid of what the internet will reveal and naturally their economic struggles will inevitably trickle down to an individual level. China wants to open itself up to trade and further economic development, but is this possible when they have the most restrictive web system in the world? The answer remains to be seen. I'd love to hear from my Chinese followers on this issue and gauge their thoughts on what's currently happen and what might happen.

www.impossible.com - the future of social networks

Impossible is nothing. So says Adidas. Lily Cole, a professional model, has also adopted this viewpoint in the creation of a new website which is so much more than just that. www.impossible.com is a perfect example of a gift-buying economy in action. Goods and services are free. They are provided by people willing to offer them for free, in the hope that the favour will be reciprocated. The intention is a redistribution of 'wealth' throughout a community and a reminder of the ties and connections that can bind us together. The project has gained the support of Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, yet it's still in it's infancy. Cole and Wales talk about the project briefly in the video below. The 20 minute version is naturally more comprehensive and I'd recommend having a look at that too.

When opening impossible.com, you're presented with two options. It's frighteningly simple.

From there, you either offer your service, or request a service. For the record, I asked for someone to teach me first aid and I offered to look after children. Whilst this project is upheld by traditional ideals, it's made possible through the explosion in technology and social media. Open source software projects have been a part of engineering and science for years, but this is one of the first times we've seen a gift economy operating on a socioeconomic level, at least through social media. 

This project could soar and change the way we do business, or it could just as easily flop under the weight off to many requests and not enough offers. My wish to be taught first aid was only the 6010th wish recorded. Considering it's a global project, it illustrates that this is still in early stages of development.

Interestingly, when I offered to look after children, that was recorded as the 6011th wish, so they must group offers and requests together. 

I find impossible.com to be a bold attempt at rearranging the global marketplace from one of a barter economy to that of a gift economy. As Cole puts it: "Kindness is the currency." The simplicity of the website is truly appealing and the fact it can be linked in with 21st century social media platforms enhances its appeal. But what does it mean for the local plumber down the road, who know faces competition from someone willing to do his job for free? How many people would actually offer to fix a car, teach a language or cook a dinner for free? At the very least, this project serves to test our generosity and the viability of a gift buying economy. What is impossible for mankind? 

We're about to find out.

When marketing gets in the way of human achievement

In a bit over 24 hours from now, a skydiver will attempt to break the speed of sound with his own body as he ascends to 120,000 feet from Earth and then jumps out of a purpose built space capsule. Many of you
will think that this is awesome (which it is) and many of you will also think this has been done before (which it sort of has). In 1960, Joe Kittinger jumped from 102,800 feet, using inferior equipment and technology in comparison to what's available today. The amazing video of his jump can be seen below.




Now, many of you, particularly my lecturer, will be wondering what this has to do with digital marketing. Well, the differences between Kittinger's jump and the one being made by Felix Baumgartner tomorrow extend beyond that of height and equipment. Baumgartner's jump is being sponsored by Red Bull and will be shown live on YouTube. The live stream will also be broadcast on redbullstratos.com, Red Bull’s YouTube Channel and the mission’s Facebook page, as well as privileged partner sites. One begins to wonder whether this project was conjured up by the ever-inventive Red Bull marketing team to sit nicely alongside their staple of action sports stars and 'Gives You Wings' taglines, or whether this is actually being pushed by Baumgartner himself as he tries to push the limits of human capacity.

Is this real news or just a publicity stunt? No doubt it will explode over social media and probably feature in many mainstream news services as well. I understand partners like YouTube and Red Bull have to come on to provide funds and support, but the link between the partners seems such a tightly woven marketing concoction in that it features technology, flight and a global audience, the gloss seams to have worn off. There was something so innocent and organic about Kittinger's attempt that seems to be lacking in this instance. Even during the test run, the producers deliberately leave out Baumgartner's jump so the big moment (read: maximum publicity) is preserved for tomorrow.

 Maybe I'm too skeptical, too much of a human achievement purist (if there is such a thing). Clearly, Red Bull wasn't invented then, and sponsorship was probably hard to come by, but I feel the hold Red Bull seems to have over the action sports market takes away the shine from this event. Just a little. Is this a marketing driven stunt? Or the next frontier in human achievement?

How the internet destroyed Alan Jones

Last week, Alan Jones made some comments which the vast majority of people, including myself, found to be in very poor taste. Speaking at a Young Liberal's function in Sydney, Jones claimed 

 "The old man recently died a few weeks ago of shame. To think that he had a daughter who told lies every time she stood for parliament."

Putting aside the hateful and derogatory nature of the comments, what I'm interested most in is the after-math. In particular, the wave of anger that swept from the social community towards Alan Jones and 2GB. No quicker had the comments been revealed, #boycott2GB and #sackalanjones were trending Australia wide on Twitter. As of 3:30pm EST, the Sack Alan Jones facebook group had 6,721 likes.

As Mercedes-Benz joined a long line of sponsors pulling out of their commitment to Jones' show, the question remains: Would companies like Mercedes, make the same decision if not for the impact social media has had on the incident? I'd argue 'no', for a few reasons.

A) Perception is everything. Associations between sponsor and brand have never meant more and when the calibre of an esteemed organisation such as Mercedes is being called into question, they have to act.

B) A multiple of social media platforms is fantastic when things are going well, but in times of crisis they amplify the issue to the point where something has to give. Criticism was being leveled at Jones, 2GB and the show's sponsors from all angles. It was only a matter of time before they relented to public pressure and discontinued their financial support. In the past, newspapers and news bulletins may run with the story for a day or so, but presently, the backlash has almost trumped the incident. When news organisations start reporting on the groundswell of social media anger, then all parties concerned are in danger.

C) Clearly, the most important point in all of this is that the incident would never have made front page news if not for the advancements in portable technologies, such as recorders on phones. Yes, recording devices were present decades ago, but they weren't as compact, indistinguishable and finely tuned as they are today. Coupled with the fact that the clip can then be uploaded to YouTube for all to see, means a private setting is rarely that.

This is clearly a huge  story which shows no signs of abating, perhaps Jones will be sacked within the coming days, but at this point its only speculation. How do you think a scandal like this would be handled 30 years ago? Would this be a scandal at all? Comment and let me know!

Shazam - changing the way we watch TV

Call me naive, but up until about a week ago, I thought the only thing Shazam was good for was identifying songs and endangering road users as drivers frantically tried to 'shazam' a song on the radio before it finished (not that I've ever done this). As it turns out, it does a lot more than that, and its potential from a marketing perspective is near limitless. Shazam began teaming up with brands and media to extend the reach of advertisements  into the palm of the consumer's hand around 18 months ago, as can be seen through the clip below, which summarises the project neatly.

Now, Shazam for TV works with any show. The growth of this feature suggests it's popular with both brands and consumers alike, as there's something in it for both parties. Brands increase engagement and consumers gain information,prizes and exclusive content. 

Personally, I think this is a brilliant innovation. When Shazam started, music identification was fun and novel, but it didn't seem like a lasting idea. It was limited in it's potential, yet Shazam for TV is basically a new product altogether. The fact that I can be sitting on my couch watching sport and access exclusive stats, video and information  on my phone is something really appealing. And it also reflects the changing face of television, whereby more and more people are finding that one screen is simply not enough. 

So, where do you see Shazam heading in the next few years? Like me, do you also watch TV and use your tablet or smartphone at the same time? How could you be better engaged? I know personally I'd love more competitions, especially considering the fact there's still a sense of exclusivity, I think people would be more likely to enter and provide their details which could subsequently be of use to marketers. How do you see this playing out? I'd love to hear your opinion!

The Top 5 Reasons Google Dominates The Market

Why is Google so popular? The fact it exists in the Oxford Dictionary, as a verb, suggests it’s held in a pretty high regard. Although, grrl, gaydar and muggle are also in, so that might discredit Google's social relevance somewhat. But the figures below cannot be denied. It dominates the opposition. Here are the top 5 reasons why:

1. Simplicity - Google is easily the most user friendly search engine available. It allows new users to adapt instantly and converts them into loyal customers. The simple interface is attractive and familiar, and the rare changes they make to the word 'google' for a special occasion are almost always buzz-worthy.

2. Safety and Security - Naturally, there are different type of safety, but in terms its susceptibility to hackers or stolen personal information, it is incredibly safe. It  has a 'safe-search' filter which intends to weed out inappropriate content for kids. It isn't always successful, but neither are Bing and Yahoo's safe searches either. It's an area where search engines could clearly improve, but filtering the millions of hits they'd receive each second isn't an easy task and some are probably bound to slip through the cracks. Nevertheless, Google's brand value is so strong, it lends itself to being a website of security and safety anyway.

3. Accuracy and Relevance - Google are currently upgrading their search engine to provide more accurate results. It's an improvement to an already elite and highly critical element of the Google operations. Its algorithm is ever-evolving to give its searchers the most up-to-date, relevant results, and its one area which it possesses an advantage over its rivals 

4. Additional features - Google's quick-links to things like Maps, Gmail, Blogger and YouTube help draw interest to the homepage and create customer loyalty. On their own, these features are highly appealing and popular, but tied in with Google's search engine and reach, they create a powerful, integrated brand. Its analytics program is arguably the best of its kind - simple and easy to install. And because anybody can create code for Google Analytics, and there are some fantastic scripts and add-ons out there to improve results. The fact its free makes it that much more appealing.

5. Advertising - Google's advertising reach makes it an attractive proposition for many businesses, particularly given its advantages in control, personalisation and specificity. The fact you can only actually be charged when someone clicks through to your page often attracts new business into trying it, and having experienced some success at a relatively minor cost, they continue to purchase the advertising. 

I'm aware many other search engines possess similar qualities, but Google simply does it better. And from a personal point of view, I'm so accustomed to using it, I don't even think twice when I want to search something - I'm already 'googling' before I realise it. Searching habits are often so ingrained within users, a rival has to present a key point of difference to attract different customers, and currently there isn't one, hence Google's dominance. But that's my take on things, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. What can other search engines like Bing and Yahoo do to attract your interest? Have you found one to be better than another? Comment below and let me know!

Can Social Media Combat Political Apathy and Win Elections?

I could have easily chosen an organisation to profile this week, paired it with a fancy ad, listed some impressive sales figures and typed it up in no time at all. But I've chosen to go down a slightly different route and examine how social media is changing the way political parties and politicians engage with members of the community. This comes down to more than sales and more than profit. It is of importance to everyone, not just a select few.  With political apathy a hot topic both in Australia and internationally, there has never been a greater need for engagement, resonance and promotion. And therein lies the role of social media.

Whilst many people wouldn't feel comfortable airing their political views at a dinner party, web-based forums and pages present an entirely different context for discussion, one in which almost complete anonymity allows users to express their true opinions. NSW ALP secretary Sam Dastyari claims: 

Political parties in Australia are effectively organised around this notion of meetings.  But that's not really a model of engagement for the 21st century.  It's actually a whole generation of ideas that you don't want to miss out on. Getting people involved in politics in the 21st century may not necessarily mean formal party membership in the mode that we view party membership.

 He raises some good points, but there are also points of contention. What is social media, if not a series of mini-meetings between respondents? Besides the setting, what exactly changes? Surely it won't be too long before political parties in Australia start measuring engagement by their followers or how many conversations they're generating, rather than the outdated and archaic 'political party membership.' I don't know any of my friends that are members of a political party, nor do they wish to be. But I know many that follow a party or politician on Twitter, or read their blogs and discuss them in online forums. Does that suggest apathy? I'll let you be the judge.

Looking at it from an international context, the 2008 US election was the first to occur in the social media age, and many attributed Obama's win to his ability to engage and garner support through social media. 

The video below, whilst a bit dry, offers a fantastic insight into the Obama team's approach - the fact that they saw social media as a critical component of their campaign, not an afterthought, is something which I personally took out as a key point of difference, especially at that point in time when social media strategies hadn't developed to the level they're at today. 

In November 2008, Obama had approximately 2.5 million Facebook likes, 115,000 Twitter followers and 50,000,000 YouTube views. At the time, these figures were considered huge. As a comparison, John McCain had around 600,000 Facebook likes. 

Fast forward to the present day: Obama has approximately 27,880,000 Facebook likes, 18,754,000 Twitter followers and 215,050,000 YouTube views. Does this massive growth say more about Obama's popularity or social media's popularity? Why has one social media platform spiked in popularity more so than others?

Firstly, I think it says a lot about the phenomenal growth of Twitter as a means of conversation and engagement. I'd also argue that in 2008, YouTube was probably the most established of the three platforms, yet it still had some way to go. I think ultimately this proves the reach and effectiveness of social media, and it has changed future political campaigns forever, especially when it comes to engaging with the 'apathetic' youths of today. But I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Does present-day politics engage  you? What could political figures and parties be doing, especially digitally, to improve their brand and resonance amongst members of the community?

The Social Media Olympics - A gold medal performance? (2/2)

I'm currently in a post-Olympics lull and I've taken to filling my late night TV schedule with American talk show hosts - an odd and discerning habit. For those short few weeks, the Olympics managed to capture our attention whilst our hands captured whatever technological device was within reach. My last post was negatively skewed but an important angle to show I felt, and for the next few paragraphs I hope to present the other side to the social media story.

This mashable.com infographic beautifully represents the impact the Games had worldwide. There's a load of statistics to chew through but I personally found the following facts most interesting:

• The most talked about athletes were (in order): Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps and Tom Daley.
• The most mentioned sports were those that aren't archetypal Olympic sports - soccer and basketball.
• McDonalds had more than 3 times as many mentions as its nearest brand competitor - Coca Cola.

From these stats its clear that the athletes and brands that cut through were those that possessed star power or at least a point of difference. Bolt is the fastest man in the world, Phelps the greatest Olympian ever and Tom Daley is the national pin-up boy, as well as being a bronze medallist and someone who publicly outed a Twitter bully.

Sponsorship money is the main way to refinance the costs of staging an Olympics. Unlike many other sporting events around the world, the Olympics feature a 'clean venue' policy, which means as a viewer you'll see no advertising on any stadiums - so you're free to focus on the sport. Or at least that's the theory. As such, Olympic sponsors drive much of their value through online methods and this is where McDonalds has prospered. 

They latch on to popular events and teams, e.g. USA Basketball, and link that with a competition in their stores. They capitalise on public goodwill and Olympic spirit in order to drive Maccas-themed conversation and sales. Clever.

But moving away from the corporate side of things, the real joy is found in capturing athlete's emotions, both before and after events. Bolt - half man, half brand, dominated the social media landscape and epitomised its value to global viewers and followers. Up to the minute information, exclusive opinions and photos, it was what we all wanted in athlete engagement - convenient, authentic and unfiltered. Just as he leads the way on the track, he leads off it, and for a man that generates the vast majority of his revenue from endorsements, this is absolutely crucial. 

So, what are your thoughts? Were you as captivated by the Games just as I was? Did you find it easier and more appealing to follow because of the growth of social media savvy athletes and brands? I'd be interested to know your thoughts!

The Social Media Olympics - A gold medal performance? (1/2)

Being an avid sports fan, the Olympics always manage to capture my attention, but the huge growth in social media platforms has ensured accessing information, video, results and scores is now easier and more convenient than ever before. From a viewer's perspective, the two go hand in hand. I can sit down and watch my favourite event whilst simultaneously engaging and communicating with people all over the world. Yet from an athlete's perspective, the focus on them has never been greater, and whilst that's fantastic if they win a gold medal, it means the ramifications of an erroneous tweet have also never been greater.

Already, two athletes have been sent home from the Games after making disparaging and racist remarks on Twitter. It seems to me that the IOC is treading a fine line, aiming to both encourage Twitter and promote the Games whilst also ensuring it remains scandal free. Is that even possible? IOC spokesperson Mark Adams gave a glimpse as to what the IOC's opinion was:

"To be frank, it would be a little bit [pointless] if we said, 'No, these aren't the social media games,'" He acknowledged. "Because everyone has decided they are, anyway."

 So, he's effectively established the IOC is lacking control in this area, which isn't a surprise. The power of social media, as I eluded to in my previous post, is its lack of formal hierarchy. It is driven by the people, for the people, and the IOC in the coming weeks will probably find itself powerless to stop it again.

If an idiot wants to maliciously target British diver Tom Daley over Twitter, they can, just as they could to his face. Unless the IOC bans Twitter altogether, they have as much chance of stopping it on the streets as they do on the web. It's a sad state of affairs, but we have to start separating the method from the man. And so does the IOC.

This brings me to the issue of sponsorship and marketing - another area of the Olympics the IOC is desperately trying to restrain from 21st century realities. Under Rule 40 of the Olympic charter, athletes can't associate themselves with organisations who aren't official sponsors of the London Games. Our own Libby Trickett has been one of the first to breach the rule, with a relatively harmless re-tweet. You have to ask yourself: is the IOC's hard line stance on an issue such as this really in their best interests? It offsides athletes and reinforces its stereotype of an archaic institution clinging to outdated rules in the face of considerable social and technological change. It's also amusing that Trickett's "promotion" of small Australian company Inner Nutrition demanded action yet Usain Bolt's tweet (see below) did not, despite the fact it featured a picture of Coca-Cola's main rival, Gatorade. Is this preferential treating? In my opinion, the system is an outdated calamity and helping to pit athletes against the IOC on the path to commercial and marketing warfare. Hopefully the situation can be rectified without further embarrassment to athletes and companies alike.

Stay tuned for Part 2 coming shortly and in the meantime join in the discussion with me by commenting below.

Is social media society's great leveller?

A key feature of my first class in eMarketing was that it helped to fill in a sizable hole that represented my understanding of the technological world and how it came to be. For example, the world wide web (www) was created by Tim Berners-Lee, a man later knighted for inventing a system which could “organise, link and browse net pages.”

The concept of the web centres on linkages and interconnectedness, in a similar vein to that of social media. It’s reinvented the way we communicate, not just with each other but with whole organisations and even products. Old Spice’s campaign, in which seemingly ordinary people can interact and communicate with ‘The Old Spice Guy’, was hugely successful for several reasons, but it is this current engagement phenomenon, spurred on by social media, that is most fascinating.

At its essence, anyone can ask anyone anything and this is perhaps social media and indeed the web’s greatest appeal. By its definition, a web is a series of connections, weavings and interweavings. These facets are what defines social media - the establishment of connections with no genuine hierarchy or order. If you possess the equipment, you’re an equal. You prescribe to the same 140 character limit, or image size, or formatting options. In my opinion, the fact that everyone exists on the same digital level is one of social media’s foremost attractions. But what are your thoughts? Do hierarchies exist in the digital world just as they do in the ‘real’ world?