Bajde.net

Posted by: Domen Bajde | October 7, 2009

Nobody’s Tubemonkey: Users stand up to WMG

Warner Music Group (WMG) was the first company to strike a revenue sharing deal with Youtube. The deal (put simply) included WMG getting a share of Youtube advertising revenue in return for allowing the copyrighted content to be published on Youtube either in the form of “original” WMG content (music videos, etc.) or in the form of user generated videos using WMG content (for example a video o your mom snoring with Madonna’s “Bedtime story” playing background).

The deal granted the users the freedom (though not absolute) to use WMG material in their videos. Nice, but who cares, right? Well, the story got interesting two years later when WMG decided to ask for more money and Youtube refused.

Users’ videos containing WMG stuff either got muted or pulled down. You could image the users were not to happy with that. A host of user rants and comments ensued, some quite feisty!

The WMG saga is an interesting example of how online communities engage with copyright restrictions. To make things even more interesting, last week WMG decided to once again join forces with Youtube. Some users are just happy that they can use WMG music again, others are more apprehensive. That shouldn’t come as a surprise. Among other things, the WMG incident shows how online communities largely depend on corporate whims and interests, even in cases where copyrights restrictions do not apply (say, fair use). Plus, it forces us to acknowledge a host of questions related to ownership of user-generated content, models of revenue sharing, systems of copyright enforcement, user activism, etc.

Just watch the video, and you’ll se what I mean. ((parental guidance advised))

A playlist of user responses containing 90+ videos is also available on Youtube.

Learning in the brave new world

Two things happened in the last 24 hours that made me think about my profession (teaching) a bit differently. I shared a brief conversation with an elderly neighbor in our elevator. He asked me about my job and our school (just being polite, I guess) and offered a brief story of how the university worked in his days (my estimate: 50 years ago). In passing he mentioned that when his school started to enroll older students with working experience, the younger inexperienced students could compete with them. Today it’s mostly the other way around!

I put it down to:

1. THE RELEVANT SOCIAL CAPITAL. Younger students are better at playing “the university game”, because they generally have more contacts to share information with (lecture notes, past exams, cheating on tests, etc.) and are better equipped to tackle the system (have little to loose, have fewer limitations, etc.)

2. THE TRANSFORMATION IN KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE. For most of the managers the work has become so unpredictable and varied that there is no single set of precipices and concepts to draw from anymore. Hence they know a lot and learn a lot from their experiences, but their knowledge often doesn’t translate into our “university language”.

The second thing was reading Grant’s post on the future of Universities. In his vision, the university continues to produce knowledge (research and writing) and perhaps also certify it (marking, handing out degrees), but due to technological developments isn’t needed anymore to distribute knowledge. People can learn individually and can learn more promiscuously (from various sources, without the filtering of a single professor).

The proposed move toward a more open and less institutionalized knowledge distribution and subsequently toward a more individualized and self-conducted learning has interesting implications. A more open system of knowledge distribution will likely lead toward a more open system of knowledge production, motivating the masses of experienced managers to find ways to “package” and share their knowledge. The line between learning and teaching becomes increasingly blurred (as it should). Much of the energy that now goes into figuring out and cracking the relatively stable “university game” will be reverted to tackling the chaos of open learning.

On the flip side, we need to start thinking of the university more as a network than a place. In fact, the future university will need to be both: a place (taking advantage of direct contact, social activities, etc.) and a network (finding its role in the info-networks of tomorrow).

2 Comments

Posted in education | Tags: teaching in the future, technology and learning, university game

Posted by: Domen Bajde | May 29, 2009

How DIRTY tricks help sell soap

Watch the ad below and try not to cry and try not to get inspired. If you’re up for it you can read my thoughts on this fascinating campaign by Unilever (also recently discussed in Brandweek) and the “culture of dirt” it relates to. It could well be that this post itself is dirty. What can I say? It’s a dirty world.

HERE’S WHAT I THINK ABOUT IT

According to Mary Douglas dirt is relative (that is cultural), Dirt is about misplacement – when something gets where it wasn’t supposed to be it becomes dirt. Each culture has its own ideas on where things belong – aka what is dirty. Fresh socks are not dirty in itself, but if you put them into a bowl of soup… Yuck! That’s definitely dirty.

How about people? Are people dirty? Sure! We’re dirty all the time, since (at least where I come from) we have long decided that sweat, mud, zits, etc. don’t belong on our bodies (women have a head start here as they can easily continue this list with various body hair issues). It’s a “Western” obsession to keep things and people clean at all cost. And costs it does! Think of all the products we buy to clean stuff. Their producers did their best to convince us that dirt is bad and that they can get things cleaner, or better yet, the cleanest.

Which brings me to Brandweek’s article on Unilever’s successful campaign for ____ (insert your regional name of their one-and-the-same detergent: Persil, Skip, Surf, Omo). After years of teaching us how dirt is bad and emphasizing the “getting dirt out of” your clothes (and life in general) Unilever reversed the story. Dirt is Good! (that’s actually their official slogan) We need dirt! Dirt brings happiness!

Guess who’s dirty now? Children who don’t get dirty are! Why, they’re not children at all. They’re robots who always stay inside (playing games and watching TV) and clean. They can’t really learn how to become people if they don’t go outside and get dirty. Parents, you don’t want that, do you? So let them out. Let them get dirty. It’s OK. It’s good! Just buy ___ (I know. I’m supposed to do the writing for you, but it’s not my fault if they sell the same product under different names. This is a simple blog. I have no idea where you come from.) and all will be well.

In marketing terms, it’s a simple story of a company deciding not to talk about it’s products directly (we’re all sick of “chemists” explaining the fascinating science of detergents and “mothers” testifying to the many qualities of X). Instead they chose to address the “meaning of life” type of stuff. You know, the really important stuff. The brand is there, but not in-your-face there. The success they’ve had (I’m talking increased market share here) suggests that engagement in important topics pays off. WARNING! It works because it actually has to do with the product and because we’ve all been “cultured” (by previous campaigns) to think of cleaning products and dirt in specific ways. Aah, the power of marketing…

2 Comments

Posted in advertising, consumer culture | Tags: child robot, culture of dirt, dirt is good ad, dirty marketing tricks, marketing meaning of life, Mary Douglas dirt, robochild, Unilever advertising campaign, Unilever dirt is good

Posted by: Domen Bajde | May 6, 2009

Ethics in Marketing Part III.

I’ve previously written about what ethics is and how we often respond to it in an unproductive way. In this post, I want to outline what I feel are the crucial drivers of marketing ethics today and the areas where these initiatives are most likely to be found.

There are three major reasons what ethics become a “topic” in marketing. Let’s call them three pressure points. Companies are thinking more of social responsibility (I see this a the aggregate manifestation of ethics at the level of the corporation) and ethical behavior of their managers (that would be ethics at the individual level) because:
1. They are put under increasing pressure from the investors and shareholders
2. They are put under increasing pressure from the non-profit sector (NGOs)
3. They are put under increasing pressure from consumers

And with the recent economic downturn and broader cultural crisis the pressure just keeps mounting. For point 1. and 2. visit and surf the endless pages of coporate-hostile NGOs (for example click here, here, here, there,…) or review the statistics on SR investing. It’s point three that interests me most.

First, consumers are interesting because they’ve recently acquired additional opportunities to engage in criticism and spread information (Wikileaks is a great example). Second, the line between consumer and citizen has become very hazy as today’s individuals vote with their wallets (think boycotting, donations, etc.) and put more trust in their power as spenders (as opposed to voters). As a result, politics and ethics have become a noticeable element in consumer behavior. Some companies owe part of their success to these trends (think Bodyshop, Ben&Jerry’s, Edun, etc.), others have experienced the pains of pissing off consumers with unethical conduct (think Pepsi, Nike, Esso, etc.).

In the current economic/political system it’s the consumer that essentially tips the balance. If there is no interest in ethical issues, no support for the good, no punishment for the bad, ethics remain an empty phrase. It is when consumer experience the joy of ethics that ethical marketing can truly come about. By joy, I am referring to the “feel good” and “feel proud” involved in doing the right thing and… well, also in messing with those who keep doing the wrong things. It’s marketing’s role to facilitate both types of ethical joy.

1 Comment

Posted in social | Tags: consumers and ethics, ethics, joy of ethics, marketing ethics, NGOs, pressure, pressure points, socially responsible investing

Posted by: Domen Bajde | April 11, 2009

The missing link

TorrentFreak reports about a surprising turn of events in the French “piracy war”:

Last week, the French Parliament passed a new law requiring Internet service providers to cut off Internet access for persistent copyright offenders. Since the parliament voted in favor of the law, everyone – including the most fanatical critics – believed that it would easily pass through Senate and the National Assembly today – but it didn’t.

Nicolas Sarkozy, a stark supporter of the law, was quoted saying that the law is “a decisive moment for the future of a civilised internet“ which will eventually succeed because it is a solution agreed upon by the authors, the studios and the internet providers. I don’t share the president’s confidence nor his enthusiasm about the law. I hate to be the one to… well, in honesty, I love to be the one to spoil the party. One side is missing here. Copyright is not a domain of studios, authors and distributors alone. Copyright mostly has to do with users – the ones who might actually make “copies” and use the works protected by copyright.

But as things stand, the policy makers address the “piracy issue” precisely with the mindset expressed by Sarkozy. If it’s “a war on piracy” then there is little chance of inviting the “enemies” to the policy-maker’s table. The online “pirates” are generally not even given the respect of being an enemy of war. They are approached as uncivilized terrorists (who oppose to Sarkozy’s “civilized internet”). And, of course, we do not negotiate with terrorists.

As a consumer researcher interested in consumer culture my aim is to correct this imbalance. Together with my colleagues we have embarked on a journey of exploring the user’s side of story. Yes, we are sleeping with the enemy. In fact, most of us are the enemy. You will hear much more about our efforts on this blog in the weeks to come.

2 Comments

Posted in consumer culture, copyright & piracy | Tags: consumer culture, online piracy research, piracy, sarkozy on piracy, war on piracy

Posted by: Domen Bajde | April 7, 2009

Ethics in Marketing Part II

I’ve recently blogged on Ethics, trying to shed some light on how I (and several others) see Ethics and morality. I’ve also narrowed it down to our relation to “others”. This relation can be framed reactively (I am accountable for the harm I cause to others) and pro-actively (I want to benefit others). How does this relate to Marketing and today’s consumer society?

The very essence of marketing philosophy relies on “connecting” with the company’s primary “other”: the customer. Empathy (feeling and understanding others) is perhaps the core trait of a good marketer. Unfortunately, empathy (understand) doesn’t equal sympathy (care for).

There are many obstacles to ethics and sympathy. I will not recycle the popular capitalism-is-making-us-bad argument here, nor will I provide a comprehensive list of endless factors that inhibit ethics. Instead I will focus on how our basic relation to ethics and kindness has become quite problematic. Phillips and Taylor wrote a wonderful book on this topic (“On kindness“). They claim that today’s image of kindness is quite bad, as it is often perceived as a sign of weakness or naivety. They believe that is because we are no longer to think of kindness as something natural and simple. We have substituted the joy of simple kindness to others with the notion of magical kindness: the kind (no pun intended) that is saintly and world transforming. With saintly I mean that we only give credit to kindness if it is completely detached from our own interest (it must be 100% altruistic). With world-transforming I mean that we only value kindness if it is effective in solving problems rather than merely alleviating them.

Let me give you an example. Let’s say I donate 10€ to charity. Today this act is very likely to be received with suspicion: Did he do it just to show off? 10€ means nothing to him anyway, etc. It is also very likely to be met with derogation: What will 10€ do anyhow? The charities will probably spend it on tipping a waiter in a five star hotel where they stay during their “missions”? The donation will just create more dependence, it won’t eradicate hunger, etc.

Magical kindness all over. And when our actions can’t meet these extreme standards we cannot but feel that it doesn’t make any sense or that it’s just too hard. Phillips and Taylor argue that we need to return to normal, simple kindness. The kind (no pun intended) that makes us feel happy without being ashamed, the kind that helps without asking if it will solve the world altogether.

Companies often fall into the trap of magical kindness as well. They focus on ethics as a magical project that will utterly transform the image of the company and the ways in which customers relate to it. They reach for the stars and trip over. Their initiatives seem so fake and far fetched. How about starting with the small stuff? The way we treat people within our company (employees, guests, etc.), and the way we open to those around us. I’m not talking about putting the ideal of kindness into our mission statements. Quite the contrary! I’m talking about living it, because it feels good to be good to others, because it makes us feel more at ease with our roles and work, because it invigorates us and makes us more creative. That’s not a campaign for magical kindness, that’s life.

I have no final solution here, nor am I trying to trash the existing efforts of companies. I am merely pointing out what I believe is a crucial obstacle to ethical marketing: the way we think of ethic. Next time, I will focus on incentives that challenge us to think more and differently about ethics and morality in marketing. I will also provide a short overview of what falls into the “Ethics in marketing” category.

1 Comment

Posted in social | Tags: ethics campaign, ethics in marketing, magical kindness, morality and marketing, obstacles to marketing ethics, on kindness, phillips and taylor

Posted by: Domen Bajde | April 1, 2009

Second chances – Ethics in Marketing Part I.

Posted by: Domen Bajde | March 19, 2009

Bad news is good news (For those who control it)

Judging from the news people are selling these days, people love negative news. Disaster, pain, suffering, vice an corruption reign supreme in news shows across the globe. Not only do we like it dark, we like it simple and one-sided.

For PR experts this is both bad and good news. It’s bad because news people are on the hunt for dirt. It’s good because it is easier to manipulate the public if the reporting is one-sided.

As you might have guessed already, there is a reason for my rambling. Recently, I came across a news story (if you can call it that) about a male celebrity appearing in a court hearing after being accused of pestering a young girl in a dance club.

To keep it short, the reporter interviewed the celebrity (not the girl), who denied it all. They also added some words of support from another celeb, who was not a witness, but was nonetheless sure the girl made it all up. The report concluded that the girl was evidently just seeking media attention. After all she is a young struggling singer herself.

Here’s why this type of journalism really gets to me. The celebs PR calls a news conference, loudly announcing the trial and making sure that everybody sees it their way. The girl never talked to the media before or after the hearing. And yet SHE is accused of obsessing with media attention.

The report stated that she filed the suit against our beloved celeb, which (if you look into it) is not true. The suit has been filled by the authorities, because the girl was “stupid” enough to reveal he attacker to the ER doctor who treated her injuries.

To top it off, the reporter also insensitively revealed the girls name. Picture this. She is an alleged victim of assault, who wants to keep things quiet (as most of the women attacked by men unfortunately do). Yet, they publicly reveal her name and accuse her of seeking media attention. She is accused of “doing it for the money” despite the fact that she didn’t file a civil suit, nor did she attempt to settle prior to the hearing.

She might be telling the truth, or she might be lying. But one thing is for sure. In this crazy news world, she is doomed if she speaks up or if she is quiet. If she tries to explain, she gets crucified for seeking fame. If she is silent the celeb’s PR owns the story and the truth.

The PR strategy applied here is simple. You can turn a negative story into a positive one if instead of hiding it you take charge and control it. When caught with your pants down, don’t hide your face or try to run away. Smile for the cameras and give a speech on how you never could say no to a fellow human being in need.

2 Comments

Posted in social | Tags: assault, celebrity, marketing, media, News, PR, truth, victim

Posted by: Domen Bajde | February 9, 2009

No laughing business

Jay Leno (America’s 2009 favorite TV personality) has two jobs. He’s a show host and a salesman. First off, I’m not American and I don’t watch US talk shows often. I was, however, watching Leno a couple of days ago and I was stunned by how strongly his show smells (stinks?) of advertising.

For those of you who don’t know it, it’s a classic combination of stand-up comedy, a couple of short talks with celebrities, some music and funny clips. The usual. But there’s more to it. There’s a segment called Amazon worst sellers. Where the host shows a series of Amazon bestselling products (DVDs, books, toys, etc.) and then some parody products that would be “worst-sellers”. It’s quite watchable (for the most part), but it’s also a quasi Amazon commercial.

Next, there was a talk with Penelope Cruz, which (as usual) was in reality nothing more than ad for her upcoming movie. The talk was followed by a live music performance introduced by showing the new CD the song comes from.

To make things complete, there was a final segment that talked about Superbowl. Not about football. About the SB ads. The whole segment was devoted to a winning ad for Doritos (ironically advertised by Leno himself two decades ago).

This is not a moral outburst. It’s just an observation. I was writing about research on ad breaks a few weeks ago. Leno got me questioning the division between ad and TV show. The dilemma is not new (it’s happening all over), but the degree of execution is still amazing. This show was practically an ad. It was about ads, it was because of ads. In some weird manner: it all ads.

1 Comment

Posted in advertising, consumer culture | Tags: advertising, Amazon, Leno, marketing, product placement, talk show

Posted by: Domen Bajde | January 31, 2009

Bajde.net

Nobody’s Tubemonkey: Users stand up to WMG

Learning in the brave new world

How DIRTY tricks help sell soap

Ethics in Marketing Part III.

The missing link

Ethics in Marketing Part II

Second chances – Ethics in Marketing Part I.

Bad news is good news (For those who control it)

No laughing business

The movie storm

Categories

Recent Posts

Blog

Subscribe

CC

ISSN 1855-5675

Blogroll

Archives