Iran and Social Content. Tread carefully.

I usually don't talk about politics or philosophy on this blog, but as the Iranian situation is now intersecting with technology, I wanted to share some thoughts...

As Iranian leadership continues to shut down communication with the outside world by banning foreign journalists and blocking certain web channels, we here in the U.S. are applauding the power that social media is giving to Iranian protesters in terms of sharing their voice with the rest of the world. Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc are being filled with peepholes into people's lives and struggles and it's obvious that the majority of Americans and our media support these actions.

Let me be clear, I support the freedom of speech and I support what the protesters are doing. But I do wan't to offer a reality check:

The power that social media now wields in Iran to help act on the behalf of what is "right and good" as we percieve it, can just as easily be used for the opposite.

"Evil doers" are going to figure something out. They're going to figure out that they can't block this wave of information anymore. So the only option they are going to have is to fight fire with fire and stage their own information to pull the will of the crowd towards what they want to happen. Let's pretend for a second that the Iranian opposition leader Mousavi was in fact "evil." That once his green wearing supporters somehow managed to get him into power, that he would commit worse crimes against his people and the world than Ahmadinejad. AGAIN NOT SAYING THIS IS THE CASE, JUST CREATING A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION. If such a thing were to take place it would be a very scary reality wouldn't it? It would mean there was an entity thatl was able to stir up the power of the masses, to flood twitter, to turn our avatars green, and to make us collectively bring something horrible into the world.

My point? We need to step back and be more critical than ever. Social media has the power to sway the hearts and minds of people around the world. This time it's for a cause you believe in, but next time it may not be.

Reverse Engineering. Taking Apart a Behavior, Building an Insight

Progressive marketers are far beyond the point of realizing their foothold in the space of consumer communication is slipping. Every day, the role of creating, distributing, and learning falls more under the control of the consumer, which also means the tools for which they choose to take these actions are being created to cater to them, and not to us (marketers). Because of this reality, the task that marketers are now facing is finding the root of consumer behavior. A task which is very necessary in order to be able to reintegrate themselves into forums which not only were they not intended to be in, but in many cases, purposely pushed out of.

“Reverse engineering is the process of discovering the technological principles of a device, object or system through analysis of its structure, function and operation. It often involves taking apart and analyzing its workings in detail to be used in maintenance or to try to make a new device or program that does the same thing without copying anything from the original. (Wikipedia)”

In other words, when an engineer is asked to dissect a new technology in order to rebuild it (without any instructions) they are doing so because the end goal is to be able to recreate a product or experience that they were not originally intended to be a part of.

Applying this to the current digital landscape, we are seeing the same needs from marketers. Most of those tools were never built with the role of the advertiser in mind and this presents a great challenge to that group. How does a brand balance the original function of a communication tool while trying to become an active member of it? This is where the concept of “reverse engineering” can come into play.

Dissect a group of people’s core need for participating in a certain experience (digital or otherwise) and you’ll have a clearer understanding of (and yes, sometimes IF) you can become a part of it.

Looking at YouTube as an example:

1) Consumer Need: The ability to share themselves with potentially millions of others through site and sound.

2) Consumer Behavior: Millions of people are uploading their thoughts, talents, and parodies onto a video sharing network. Even more millions of people are watching those videos (the majority of which are user generated, not professional).

3) Why is this behavior occurring?: YouTube made video distribution easier (on a mass scale) than ever before. It didn’t require hosting a server or website, or being isolated to sending your large files across flaky channels. From a content consumer perspective, YouTube and sites like it offer the depth and variety that professional producers simply cannot match. The quality (for now) of the content is obviously not comparable but consumers are willing to look past it because the content is original, very controllable, and often more personal.

4) Augment Behavior to include Brand: In the case of YouTube, countless brands have tried to leverage this video distribution tool to spread their own content to millions. To have it go “viral.” But perhaps the best use of this network was not for a brand to spread its own content, but help consumers share their own. After all, the initial consumer need identified above was the desire for consumers to share themselves with the masses. Wouldn’t it make more sense to empower them in continuing this behavior rather than competing against them? If successful, this takes the process full circle and makes the brand-infused behavior become part of the original consumer need.

What is a success? When a brand can improve or change a consumer’s behavior so it still satisfies their initial needs. What is a MAJOR success? When a brand can radically change consumer behavior in a way that makes it virtually inseparable from the consumer’s perceived need.

Fans of Apple don’t buy new versions of iPods/iPhones because the device they currently own is no longer capable of playing music. Apple revised the need so that people associated their desire for portable music with the need for the experience to be easy, integrated, and most importantly for Apple, very reliant on their brand.

The above example, while something most brands will never be able to equally replicate, is something that shows how the concept of reverse engineering behaviors can help them strengthen the relationship between themselves and their consumers who are spending more time in a place that brands don’t yet fit into. Successfully being able to enhance a consumer’s experience turns the people you’re advertising to, into people advertising for you. And when a brand can best disassemble why consumers are engaging in a certain type of behavior from an emotional, educational, social level, they will also be equipped to build the insights needed to compliment those experiences and strengthen the bond between brand and consumers as they reconfigure the experience to include themselves.

Birds and the Mules of the Web

Do you go to CNN to get your news, or do you have an RSS feed? Do you use email to forward your thoughts and interests to large groups or do you use Twitter? Although I hate to use absolutes or generalize, it is fair to say that the majority of the online audience can be grouped into two main categories:

Mules: Heavy in number and somewhat stubborn. They like to go the same places because they are reliable and easy. These are the folks who are now getting comfortable with YouTube and/or Wikipedia. They have found large and excellent resources for content and they know they can always go back to get it again.

Birds: Jump from place to place. The venues these people frequent aren’t as heavily trafficked and the mules of the internet either can’t, don’t want to, or don’t know how to reach the branches of the many web 2.0 properties. These entities offer what consumers seek, but with innovative packaging or specific attributes which exceed what the majority of the internet audience is used to seeing.

I’m not going to use this post to talk about what demographics comprise the Mules and Birds. Those are statistics that are ever changing around a space which is very blurred. The purpose of this post is to understand that there are two distinct groups that have two distinct types of behavior which need to be catered to in specific ways.

With the recent explosion in “social media” many sites which have largely catered to Mules have started implementing social functionality to mimic the abilities of other start-up like media providers. While there’s nothing wrong with such changes, those mule loving sites need to understand that they shouldn’t assume those functions will be a hit. The Birds will of course visit those sites and appreciate those functions, but the vast majority of visitors will be there because of the content and not because of the content + the added tools.

In my mind, the reason the stodgier older sites are expanding their social functionality is because they knows the Birds are the most vocal online. And they want those Birds to talk about how innovative the established online brands are with their design changes. But the key obstacle is that Birds are kind of like indie rock fans. Once the band gets played on MTV or the local top 40 station, it’s not cool anymore. It’s wonderful that you can now Digg stories on CNN money but bloggers aren’t going to talk about it. They have been exhibiting these kinds of behaviors for a long time (in the time frame of the internet) and that isn’t news to them.

On the flip side, when supplying content or tools for the Birds. Providers need to remember not to try and duplicate the quality and mass resources of the Mule feeders. A site like Blinkx, which leverages a great piece of video search technology isn’t going to take the place of a site like Youtube. DIGG isn’t going to the take the place of Google Search (yet) as a default resource even for the Birds. The key for online brands serving the Birds is to cherish each and every one of their users because they are fewer in number albeit more influential. These online brands need to constantly be changing and evolving while they are serving the Birds. Eventually, the branches of web 2.0 that stick around will become thick. The Birds will fly away to another tree, but hopefully (for the online brand) the mainstream audience (the Mules) will take their place.