if you don't sell it to me, i want it more.

isn't that how it always goes? the hard to get.

this post by AdScam got me thinking, especially in light of how i want all brands to stop txting, or never txt, me.

"That's why ultimately the big social networks will fail, because they will lose their exclusivity."

i agree with that. even in my earlier posts i talked about how i dislike facebook and how myspace is losing me. forget about the other ones--i'm not on them.

so again: it's about understanding your target in the sms process.
the more you stalk me, the creepier you are, and the less i want to give you my money. the phrase "social media" has become to the ad biz what "diversity" is to colleges: hunted after, faked for, and very rarely actualized.
--and guess what? stalkers are sketchy on both 'campuses.'

so i gave this exclusivity some thought. because really, we all want to secretly be that indie kid (even if you hate indie) because he knows what's up before everyone else does. he's heard of that band you've never heard of. there's an elitism to that. being one of the first gmail subscribers had that feel--back when you had to be invited in. this is our club. do you have the password?

also, i think it's easy to understand that sms branding works best when it's not in-your-face. interaction is the key to (gasp) interactive medias. not just throwing up a title page and hoping for some stellar recall. because of these two thoughts--subtlety and exclusivity--i do think there's a way for savvy brands to harness social networking.

because after all, who wants to be second best?
why are brands placing ads on facebook? running campaigns in friend groups?

show me a relevant brand. then show me their relevant, well done social network. social networks become brands, anyway. why not the inverse? why not the secret?

hide it from us. we'll find it.

No comments: