<br /><a href="http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&#038;vid=243216f7-9941-4f48-a2d0-2065e06a47b5&#038;src=SLPl:embed::uuids&#038;fg=sharenoembed" target="_new"title="Facebook Friends Now Fueling Faster Decisions on Bing">Video: Facebook Friends Now Fueling Faster Decisions on Bing</a>

Check it out - Has Facebook Got a Deal For You

South By Southwest keynote by Seth Prieratsch

It was hard to take this guy serious at the beginning because he is one of those super smart 20 somethings who dropped out of college and came on stage wearing red sunglasses.

But after listening to him for 10 minutes I knew that what he was speaking about was the next “big” thing.

Seth first spoke about grades in school and his theory boiled down to making learning and grades a game. Why not gain experience points instead of grades in school? He feels that grades fail as rewards and schools should focus on the positive end goal and you shouldn’t be able to loose in school.

Game layer thinking acts on individual motivation. What makes you check in on foursquare? How many of you out there are terrified about loosing your mayorship?

Gap tried to leverage the game layer by giving away 10,000 pairs of jeans by encouraging people to check-in via Facebook places. But the game failed. People didn’t keep checking in after they received their free jeans.

Group buying services should consider leveling up: good, better, best. Change one time group buyers into regulars. Why not provide higher rewards each time someone visits. How many of your have used a Groupon and not gone back?

Groupon is an example of communal game play – “we need X number of more people to buy” so you share it and there is a countdown. Because of this, 95% of groupons tip before 8:00am. Groupon leverages customer acquisition & game mechanics – free lunch + communal gameplay + countdown.

Location-based-services(LBS)need to figure out “if i’m talking about a place or going to a place, is that location based?” LBS are not mainstream…yet, but they will be once they crack the game layer.

The black card by American Express is a great example of the game layer. Everyone wants the black card. People want status.. i.e you want to level up with Amex. “I want the black one”

So next time you are thinking of cracking a marketing problem, think about your problem and see how you can fix it with game mechanics.

@jaredroy

The now ubiquitous “Like” button let’s Facebook friends share their preferences for things they find and enjoy online. Now Google has created a very similar social system called +1.

In an article for the Wall Street Journal, Amir Efrati writes that Google views Facebook as a major competitor in online advertising and one of the aims of its social-networking efforts is to obtain similar data about users, rather than continuing to rely on information about them that is inferred from their Web searches.

The new +1 system takes over after Google’s previous social site, Buzz, flopped due in a large part to the backlash that resulted when it made email address books visible to other people.

Like Facebook’s button, a +1 button will soon appear beside links in Google search results.By clicking the +1 button, people who have created a Google profile (very similar to Facebook profiles) will be able to recommend links to people in their Google network. For example, if someone in your Google network searches for “best restaurants in Minneapolis”, any results you’ve +1′d (yes, Google is trying to make this a verb), will be visible to them with your name attached. Conversely, any +1s they place will be seen by you during your searches. Paid ads can also be +1′d, as may non-paid organic ads in the near future. In addition, publishers will also soon be able to make their websites +1able.

People that don’t have a Google profile will also be able to click the +1 button, but their recommendations will be anonymous.

A Google social network will be made up of people in your Gmail & Google Talk chat list, people in your “My Contacts” group in Google Contacts and people you follow in Google Reader or Google Buzz. In the future, networks will also include people connected via non-Google services, such as Twitter, Flickr or Quora.

Unlike Facebook, however, which is a closed system, +1 also lets you see the number of recommendations from everyone, not just your friends.

For the time being, +1 popularity will not affect search rankings although pluses will be counted as one of the metrics Google eventually uses to determine organic rankings. When this happens, will marketers be able to game the system by running “check +1 to enter” promotions? It seems that Google frowns on this sort of thing, but it’s unclear whether the company expressly forbids it.

We may also see efforts to solicit +1s as we now do with Likes, e.g., “+1 us on Google and receive this benefit.” Unscrupulous companies could even pay vast roomfuls of people in third world countries pennies to +1 their ads/sites.

Which begs the question, does having more people plus something make it better? Or is it the opposite; does being better make something more likely to be plussed by more people?

Indeed, with the rise of content farms, some people have called for a -1 button to tell Google that a particular search result is extremely irrelevant or not useful and shouldn’t be included at all. Others contend that it’s impossible to know if a link is good until after you open it, and at that point who cares enough to go back and give that search result a recommendation?

Still others question the “social” aspect of the system. People log in to Facebook specifically for the social interaction, but that’s not why someone goes to Gmail or Google. Google computers provide information based on what’s statistically relevant. By contrast, Facebook highlights subjective information that people have handpicked as interesting.

According to Danny Sullivan, a leading expert on Google and a blogger at SearchEngineLand Google is trying to have the best of both worlds.

“It’s a killer combination if you put them both together, and I think that’s where Google’s big challenge will be in all of this,” Sullivan continues. “They don’t still seem to get the whole social aspect of things. They don’t have any expertise in building these hugely successful social products. Facebook does.”

Still, as the most popular search engine in the world with earnings of $30 billion a year, Google has enormous resources to work with which is a huge plus in their favor. If I were Mr. Zuckerberg, I wouldn’t get too comfortable.

Another “controversial” twitter story showed up in our streams today. This time, a Marc Jacobs intern decided to rant about how the CEO is a tyrant and working for him is miserable. The intern proceeded to tweet that he/she understands that this could have been  a lethal personal branding move, yet does not care because he/she plans to never return to that particular city and it was the last day on the job.

All in all, the tweets got deleted, it was considered to be on brand with Marc Jacobs and  in the end, hardly a disaster. Like the Chyrsler scandal, which was public pandaemonium and the Red Cross debacle, which ended up working out well for the brand, this Marc Jacobs twitter meltdown is one of many more to come that may or may not be a big deal.

Read “twitter meltdown” story here.

hashtag #brandjo

Hared to believe it’s been 11 years since The Cluetrain Manifesto, and we’re still doing the same panel. And we’re still trying to teach big companies and ad agencies how to communicate like humans, how to listen, and how to use transparency as a messaging tactic. Brand Journalism is a way to take those decade-old ideas and incorporate them into actual campaigns (we know, we’ve done it). The first step is to teach agencies and clients to think like publishers instead of marketers–it’s not a new idea, but it’s one that is rarely executed well. In this panel, Brand Journalism pioneers will share some of the secrets, successes, and obstacles of their award-winning campaigns.

An editorial approach to brand building. Do we need to start thinking like a publisher?

Audio of session

Presenters

Bob Garfield, Bob Garfield LLC

Brian Clark, Partner/CEO, GMD Studios

David Eastman

Kyle Monson, Editor, JWT

Shiv Singh, Mktg, PepsiCo

So what does this mean? The short description is taking an editorial approach to brand building. If you are in branding its not a choice anymore, it’s imperative to look at how you are approaching branding.

An example of brand as a journalist is mormon.org. They have turned their brand over to church members to tell their stories and they are not doing any editing of the stories.

Today’s consumers are more interested in speaking to your employees instead of those who write your mission statement. Think really hard about this. Are you ready to turn your brand over to your employees and consumers?

The Chrysler social media issue was brought up in this session and the panel made some good points. Their thoughts were that the Chrysler mistake was not having an employee tweeting. Brands should not outsource trust building. With an organization as big as Chrysler, why are they outsourcing their brand building and journalism to a social media agency and a 20 y/o running the Twitter account? Your journalists should be part of your organization, not outsourced. Do you outsource trust-building? AdAge’s Garfield: “Chrysler Tweet shows conflict between nature of social media and control freakdom of brands.” PR stands for public relations, why fire someone for saying something the public can actually relate to?

People like to bring up how many followers they have on Twitter and how many Likes they have on Facebook. What they need to realize is that its not the numbers, it’s about the engagement metrics.

Advertising goals = recognition and awareness. Social media goals = credibility and trust. Where do they meet for brands? How do we add value to a consumer’s life? Think about these questions when you putting together strategy. Branding magic happens when brand values and consumer values align.

@jaredroy

I first heard @peterkim speak in 2009 at Web 2.0 in San Francisco. The session was titled “Why Social Media Marketing Fails – and How To Fix It.” Ever since then I’ve been following him on Twitter @peterkim and his blog, Being Peter Kim.

Make me laugh, make me famous or pull at my heart strings are the keys to social media engagement. This brought me to a quote that I discovered yesterday by Mitch Lieberman in his post titled The Perception Gap in Social —

Brands: “Social media is cool, let’s interact!” Real people: “Wait, we just wanted product info & discounts.”

Brand really need to dig deep to engage with consumers. You can’t just engage on your time-frame and terms.

Social ads driving to “likes” on your Facebook are the gateway drug. You may have to actually advertise to get someone to “like” your Facebook page. Once you have earned that “like”, then it is your responsibility to make them laugh, famous or pull at their heart strings. If you are just driving those ads to your wall, you are already behind. Create a custom landing tab that speaks to the consumer. You can create custom tabs with an iFrame application.

Peter’s 4 myths of social media include:
1) Fail fast – I’m not sure where you work, but if I fail a client fast, I might as well fail myself out of a job. Fail fast means not having a clear strategy or no strategy. If I’m going to fail fast it should be in the planning stages before it makes it to a clients strategy. A great example of failing fast is Motrin Moms or Chrysler’s social media agency.
2) Focus On People, Not Technology – Focus on people, process and technology, don’t just focus on people.
3) People Are In Control – Consumers are not in control. Marketers have more control then we let on. We buy media and create and provide the content for consumers to react to. A great example of this is the TV series Jericho. It was pulled off the air and a few select viewers went nutts. Because of all this backlash, CBS brought it back and the viewership wasn’t there and they pulled it.
4) Brands Don’t Need a Facebook Strategy – Facebook has over 600M users, and it valued at almost $80 Billion. You probably should have a facebook strategy. Every day I have clients telling me they need to be on Facebook. I always push back and ask “why and what are your objectives”. A Facebook strategy should follow awareness>>engagement>>conversion.

I’ll leave you with this
lamestream media = mainstream media

Sometimes I forget that I live in a marketing bubble. This response to my location based services post brought an interesting perspective from a non-marketing friend of mine over at SoulRevolution. I especially liked her quote on relaxing on the beach. There is a line that doesn’t need to be crossed with location services, but what is that line? It’s different for everyone….she gave me permission to repost her response.

Hey Jared,
This post struck such a chord with me I had to respond, however, not being in the professional marketing world at all, I wasn’t sure that it would be appropriate to stir the pot online. So, I am just sending to you – I’d be curious to know your thoughts on my comments. Hope this finds you well! -Tracy

Given the make-up of the session’s panel, I am not surprised by the definition of “location-based services.” However, I think that the folks (such as those on the panel) who make the money have inappropriately usurped the word “meaning” here.

A more accurate definition would probably be “You’re putting out signals, and you want to be rewarded with pleasure or the avoidance of discomfort.”

Most people in our society, unfortunately, think that they “need” this type of “meaning” because it is how they live their lives, which is, of course, a losing battle strategy in the war to win happiness and fulfillment in life.
I would argue that if people were really honest, “meaning” would be defined as something like “happiness and fulfillment in life.”

I like that you used the word “relevancy” (and maybe they did too in the session). That rings more true. Although, I would add that at some point there must be diminishing returns on the “in-your-face” marketing. I mean, when does this just become a virtual version of a beach full of people relaxing, but unable to enjoy themselves (or conduct their lives) because with every motion they are harangued by peddlers of goods or services. People telling me what I “need” via mobile devices is not relevance to me, but manipulation.

On the other hand, mobile devices ARE extraordinary tools. And when consciously used, can be of great service and convenience. I love to use the “Around Me” app. I like knowing that when I am somewhere and, for example, need to find a gas station, I can access the “collective information” (not “collective intelligence”) to find one.
I also like the group-buying services when offered to me as a daily option that I can just delete or open and consider.

I think just because we can, does not mean we should move further on this continuum toward real-time location-based marketing. Our culture already gives us enough opportunities to avoid thinking for and understanding ourselves.

Tracy Sides

SXSW: By the numbers from CNN on Vimeo.