how facebook ads are expanding gender use.

i think i'm actually an advocate of the above ad. minus the "fail" part.

courtesy of failblog.org

i have advertising thoughts.

so, after having the luck to engage in an interesting conversation with Ian Schafer, a very smart man, yesterday via Twitter, i decided to delve deeper into the advertising thoughts i initially considered in "huge tracks of land."

i asked what he thought of socialvibe and its implications, after reading something written in Adweek (wish i knew what it was, the link is gone now). he felt skeptical because it gives incentives for a given behavior, but felt that the fact socialvibe benefited charities may even it out. i replied that i liked it because it enabled users to choose what their profiles support, giving street cred to the ads.

he argued this would be problematic if all users were allowed to select their own advertising, because some advertisers wouldn't be selected, and users would inevitably support 'prom king' brands. which, naturally, has a lot of merit. because it's true.

but, nevertheless, the concept i'm talking about would only apply to a user's specific profile--not the apps page, or the main page, or 'common areas' owned by more than one person (ie, events or groups). in that way, less popular folks could still get the word out on the same platform, while making advertising more relevant on personal spaces. agreeing in theory, examples he offered were like nascar or skate decks.

i then asked him if he thought incentive was a bad thing to offer users, since it is the users who bring value (data) to the networks. after all, if the users weren't valuable, advertisers wouldn't be up in arms trying to sort out how to reach them effectively, and there wouldn't be such a bid on Facebook's ownership. and guess what? kids are starting to realize this. i wish i had the Facebook link, but kids were responding saying they wanted money for their data being used. i was floored.

in comparison to giving up cash flow, what's wrong with perk compensation for choice advertisements? ian replied saying that, "playing devil's advocate, isn't using a service for free compensation enough for seeing ads?" initially, i say, yes, by far it's compensation enough, even on a place like Twitter, where i'm not giving out a lot of data value. but on Facebook or Myspace? it seems the perfect way to solve the ad-relevance problem.

+ let users choose the ads their profile page sponsors.
[on social media sites in which the users offer up a lot of personal information, like Facebook and Myspace]
- give them the option of using socialvibe in its place.
[so that if they should want, they can donate to charity through their ads. not all users will opt for this, though, since i doubt socialvibe could host the multitude of sponsors kids will want, and i doubt those multitude of sponsors all want to donate to charity.]
+ use the socialvibe method for incentives
[each day the ad is up, you get 1 Entry. on a given day, there are drawings for incentives that support the user's chosen sponsor. IE, a $20 gift certificate to PacSun for those whose ads are for PacSun. this promotes brand value at the same time as not too much monetary loss. this also fosters elitism and competition, which also adds brand value.]
+ in this way, social space advertising becomes relevant
[if the ad reflects my friend's interests, i'm going to be equally as interested in his or her brand choices as their music choices. we show our sponsors on our tee shirts, from brands to clothing companies to coca cola; showing our preferences on our profiles will only add to this level of sharing. in fact, limiting the amount of sponsors a profile can have will become necessary, likely only 1-3. this increases response rate to advertisements. it also makes users feel like a worthwhile part of the cycle, rather than having ads be something purely ignored.]

these are my current advertising thoughts with regards to social media networks.
i'm already a walking advertisement. i'm supporting my socialvibe charity as i type this in my TWLOHA shirt while wearing matching MAC eyemakeup. why not capitalize on these tendencies and harness them to make advertising more useful without being more intrusive?

huge... tracks of land. yeah.

can i get another "duh" and "i was right" in this corner? kthanx.

adrants picked up a piece on SocialVibe which--guess what? makes social networking ads more relevant by appealing to peoples' ACTUAL interests.

effin' novel, i tell you. bloody hell. finally. "huge tracks of land" aside, awesome way to advertise, and even better that it's linked to charities. that gets a huge KUDOS from Riot. in fact, i'm going to go implement it. so there.

next step? have user-chosen ads REPLACE non-chosen ad placement on user-interfaced social media sites like Facebook, Myspace.

Yeas & Nays: III

the site, adgoodness, re: party art Power Plant
Riot saith: YEA!
despite the following comment on the adgoodness post (where you can also see the other 2 in this campaign) -- Although it’s pretty lame photography, and the models them selves are not that interesting. Nor is the scene all that believable in the case of the third one.. It’s a good concept. 3/5 not so much on the execution though. -- i like this campaign. i don't think the photography is particularly 'lame.' it reminds me of a campaign i did for the Museum of Modern Art. as in--trying to make the prospect of a museum not boring to anyone who doesn't already go. making the museum into the party is, i counter, a clever idea. especially when modern and contemporary art lends itself to some wacky and interesting pieces. not to mention, it ties into the fact that they're actually hosting a party, which doubles on its usefulness. kind of like that "go metro. miss traffic" ad.

the site, brandweek, re: targeted ads
Riot saith: DUH!
haven't i been saying this for, oh, say... ever? yes, i think so. "These users want, and welcome, information about new products, savings and other offers, and they're clearly stating that if the ads were more targeted and relevant, it would be worthwhile to them," said Jere Doyle, CEO of Prospectiv. no shit sherlock. we need studies for this? i shouldn't talk. i know it takes a lot to convince people who don't already see that. but i feel like i'm seeing a lot of things quoted, referenced, and studied lately that make me go "DUH!?" isn't that a GIVEN? i'm going to start keeping track of things that make me go "duh" rather than make me say "huh!" am i alone in this feeling? or do people just need validation on the obvious?

the site, greg verdino, re: 'generation v'
Riot saith: NAY!
don't get me wrong. it's truly not all bad. like greg points out, some of my peers don't know what Twitter is. me, i've never used, or wanted to use, Second Life. i don't podcast, even if i know what it is. but to claim that "the generational distinctions break down" online is an unfair and, i believe, flawed generalization. i'm all about connecting human experiences, but you need to understand that each human has a distinct experience they bring to the table. my values are radically different than the generation before me, and no amount of Facebook Chat is going to rectify that. not to mention, HOW each generation comes to the "virtual generation" is different. how and why we interact with it is often different. how we think about it, craft ourselves, to why, and why--all of these are different. my little brother's reason for using Myspace is not my aunt's reason for using Myspace. it's simply not. i think that to fall prey to this idea as a new "generation merger" is a product of living too long in the social media state of the internet bubble. treating each personae, even if a person has multiple personae, different from a marketing standpoint does have merit. i'm just saying that not everything is that easy, and i do believe digital natives--whether or not they podcast as well as a 35 year old--do come to the virtual table for different reasons, values, and views. technographics is a better answer, to me, than "generation v." i find the umbrella term dangerous.

men... are not idiots?

AdAge gets down on those who dis dad.

and yes, i agree. my dad is awesome. and no, he does not resemble homer simpson or peter griffin. but my dad is one of my best friends, along with my mom (hi mom!).

i am not refuting the fact that "Bashing Fathers and Husbands Isn't the Right Way for Marketers to Sell Products" but there has been women (mother/girlfriend/wife/etc) bashing for WAY longer.

[and you, AdAge, you are LUCKY that it is 5:09 PM because i swear a RANT will come from me one day, misters who say girls are more privileged now than men. my ARSE. PS >> great way to defend your point, as in, not at all. defensive much?]

i'm not saying that makes it alright, but what i am saying is, advertising is becoming an equal-opportunity offender just as we all become more and more sensitive.

my serious questions to you all:
are we getting too sensitive the more we are hyper-targeted?
whatever happened to desensitization through the media, or does that not apply here?



...man, i do talk a lot about the "humanizing" of gender lately, don't i.