A Social (media) Experiment - When Brands Take a Stand

So I realize that, once again, I'm about to veer into territory that will possibly upset some.  To be clear, I am not going to try to change anyone's mind. I am going to try and focus here just on the facts, and offer a smidge of opinion.

As many of you who view your social media posts more than twice a day will likely be aware, yesterday was Black Out Tuesday.  Essentially a day where many posted all black photos in support of the protests currently taking place across the US.  And it is important to be clear, supporting peoples right to protest does not de facto equate to supporting riots and vandalism, just as supporting the police does not necessarily mean supporting police misconduct.  These things are not mutually exclusive.

And as it happens, a few watch brands threw in their support and posted images in support of this growing movement.  Bell & Ross, IWC and Timex were the big ones that I noticed.  And for the record, I applaud these brands for their stance.  Yes, they took a stand, they made a VERY public statement, and then...

Well, that is when the haters came out en masse.

Now, I am old enough and wise enough to know that you are about as likely to change someone's mind in a social media exchange as you are to find a cure for cancer in one afternoon in a middle school lab... but wouldn't it be great if you could ; )

Comments started with "Stick to Watches"  and degenerated from there.  

Now regardless of which side of the current divide you find yourself, I want to posit a simple question -

If you are of the belief that a brand or company should not comment on anything social, political, delicate (i.e. Watch Brands can have their opinion, but they should keep it to themselves), do you not find it ironic that you feel so compelled to post negative commentary about it?  In other words, what is it that is really upsetting you? I would posit that it is entirely possible that in some instances, some of these angry people posting aren't really concerned about the brand taking a stand in general, but rather about what that particular social statement is.  

In my consulting work I have learned that there is a very fine line between trying to do what's right and upsetting someone.  As I often say, we can all agree that puppies are good and cancer is bad, and heaven help the poor "Cancer Puppies".  But it creates a challenge for any company to try and be socially responsible.

What I took away from this social media experiment was that there is still a very, very deep divide in the US.  I also discovered that there are a lot of white males based in Eastern European countries who are apparently deeply concerned that America is being torn apart by brands making a social statement...

I would like to think that maybe, just maybe what motivated some of these brands to take a stand is all a bit more simple, and far less sinister than some people want to make it.

In the US, right now, there is a growing movement.  Young and old, male and female, and pretty much any race you can name are coming together in these protests across the country.  They are hoping for change.  And for those who are happy with things just as they are?  I get it, change is scary.  While you might not agree with it, while it might make you uncomfortable, you can't really deny it is a real movement any more than you can deny that the earth is round and gravity exists.  And curious to relate?  Brands are not merely office buildings and factories.  Brands are made up of people.  

Regardless of where you stand on this, I wish you all peace.

Write Like You Mean It

Love letters are written, not tweeted.  Resolutions are drafted, not instant messaged.  And as Charles Foster Kane (as played by Orson Welles) tried to underscore before he was himself corrupted - a declaration of principles is writ large, without fear or favor -

We live in some pretty crazy times, and the fast pace and access to instant communication has probably made all of us lazier than we should be.  We favor speed over content, immediacy over thoughtfulness.  That is also true in a lot of our communication tools.  And that is why I am so glad that Opus Mechan is still making pens by hand, one at a time.

Courtesy of Opus Mechan

This is the Musician in Northern Lights 3 from Opus Mechan in Michigan.

Courtesy of Opus Mechan

Words are easy.  Finding the right ones, and using them wisely?  How often have we all said or tweeted or instant messaged something that we truly regretted in hindsight?  That is something we all need to work on.  And as you look for that perfect tool to express yourself, I will be strongly considering one of these to draft my future articles.

Pick your words with care, use them to inform, not to harm or hurt.  Build a bridge with your ideas.

Peace.

Who Does The Influencer Really Influence?

The price of influence (or more specifically to watch brand marketing departments), influencers is a constant topic of conversation and debate. Do clicks, swipes, likes and shares really translate to sales conversions?

I was recently forwarded a story about an Instagrammer who boasts over 2 million followers, who tried to launch a clothing brand, and unfortunately did not succeed.

You can find the story here -
Instagrammer with 2 million followers...

That's not such an unusual story, even before the time of COVID-19. It takes a bit of pluck to start your own company/business, and a lot of them don't make it. Remember 3thirty3 watch fans? But what is particularly intriguing in this particular situation is that with more than 2 million followers, she was unable to shift (if the article is correct) a total of 36 t-shirts...

Oh, which reminds me -

SUPPORT Tempus Fugit AND BUY A SHIRT!

https://www.customink.com/fundraising/help-support-tempus-fugit-on-our-tenth-anniversary

See what I did there ; )

Now on the one hand, you can say that this influencer is not as popular or "influential" as might be believed based on her number of followers. It is true that a lot of this could be down to what they referred to in The Wire as - "Juking the Stats". Essentially manipulating the numbers so they look better than they really are. In social media where success or failure is based on head counts, there are the real numbers, and the "not-so-real" numbers. Click farms still do exist, random people (by that I mean, your last name doesn't start with Kardashian) seldom magically acquire such a large number of followers without a wee bit of "magic pixie dust" being sprinkled out there. So it's safe to say that "real numbers" may not always match the reported or tracked number of followers.

And in a world where a brand can send a press release to an online watch magazine and receive back a rate sheet with prices based on what level of coverage and praise the watch brand is seeking, it is safe to say that everyone seems to be working on an angle. 

Because if you can't trust the press...
Well, to (loosely) quote Baltimore Sun City Editor Gus Haynes as portrayed by Clark Jackson in the seminal Baltimore based series, The Wire -

Courtesy of The Wire

"That's Some Shameful Shit".

Another inconvenient truth that this highlights, selling stuff - clothes, watches, or widgets is not as easy it might seem.

So this is the crux of the challenge in this rapidly evolving media world that we live in. Does influence truly equal sales? Big brands have SEVERAL people on their payrolls who operate their social media platforms. There is a very clear reason why you will frequently find the "Follow us on (insert your favorite social media platform here)". And clearly it is the brand's belief that while they can "maintain" a certain presence of followers themselves, the follower has to have already "found" the brand in the first place. The hope is that the influencer will then introduce them to millions of other people.

Okay, fair enough. But the reality becomes realer when the influencer is suddenly the brand/ company. And like any good pyramid scheme, you are now dependent upon OTHERS to promote and like, share and potentially press coins of silver into your palm.

Influence is great, but for would-be influencer cum entrepreneur? Sales are what makes Sammy Run.

Summer Repeat - The Social Contract of Social Media

This first ran about three years ago.  Since that time it has become crystal clear to me and others that there is less and less of such a thing as a free press when it comes to watches.  How do I know this?  In addition to this, and my day job as a social worker, I also represent a handful of brands in North America.  In this role I am often reaching out to my colleagues in the Fourth and Fifth Estate, and more often than not, it becomes readily evident that unless some sort of an "accommodation" can be reached, they are not going to cover it.  This is particularly striking when I consider the way that some of these folks used to bemoan the fact that they couldn't get any ad money.  Suddenly they are sending replies like - "oh, sorry, we won't be covering this one".  This is code for - "I know that this brand has no budget and you will not be sending me any cash, so I guess we'll see each other at BaselWorld".  One of the larger outlets ran a piece bemoaning the rise of the "influencer" and how unfair it was that the influencer (not the honest, fair-minded watch reporter writing about the unfairness of the influencer getting a piece of his pie) would insist on coin of the realm in exchange for coverage.  And curious to relate?  When I sent over a press release to this "honest broker" of horological news, their business manager sent me a rate sheet.  No other reply except, essentially, PAY ME BITCH!  And this was the type of money that isn't usually negotiated without the aid of a loaded pistol ; )

In fairness to the "fair haired" weasels out there, it takes two parties to make a corrupt system.  The blogger/writer/influencer that has their hand in the brands pockets, and the brand who willingly hands over the money, then cries "we're a small brand and don't have any advertising money" when approached for honest, above board advertising from people who are ready to cover them without a fee. So just how honest could the coverage really be that you are being hose-fed from the big outlets?


So let's re-heat this one -

Shamelessly borrowed from the world-wide info web

The Social Contract of Social Media 
This post has been on the shelf for nearly a year, but it seems time to air it out.

For most of us who write about watches in the digital arena, we don't do it for money.  True enough, our blogs might have advertising - such as this one, but by and large that is where it begins and ends.

Blogs, and blogs that have evolved into online magazines started out life as an alternative to magazines that more often than not were constrained by the need to drive advertising revenue.  It opened up a whole new world where people would tune in with the hopes of getting some viewpoints and opinions that were not fueled and channeled directly through the marketing arm of Richemont, LVMH or the SWATCH Group.  And perhaps more importantly, it did not cost the reader anything.  It was free to read, and you didn't have to drive to a book store or news stand.

But then another interesting thing started to happen -
The number of people checking out these alternative watch sites began to far outstrip the number of magazine readers.  And suddenly real analytics were possible!  And even more suddenly what had been a vehicle to promote a decidedly niche product to a clearly more niche market became a mechanism to subvert the role of independent writer and pump favorable content directly in front of this now much larger audience via an electronic delivery system.  In other words, payola arrived in the watch world.

For those of you not familiar, here is a definition from our friends at Urban Dictionary -

payola

Bribery made to a dj in exchange for promotion of an album or single. Derived from the words 'pay' (give money to) and 'victrola' (a record player).You'd need to offer some serious payola to get your song played.

And that opened up a whole new paradigm.  Wonder how an online magazine or blog with multiple writers can afford to provide salaries and benefits for so many people, with no visible ads?  Ever wonder why a brand that has never seen the light of day on that blog suddenly makes multiple appearances?  

And then things took an even darker turn.  The way things are supposed to work for a brand is:

1.  You draft a press release regarding a new brand or product

2.  You spend time and/or money putting together a list of blogs, magazines, etc.

3.  You send it out and, for the most part, the blogs will run it.

Now a quick peek behind the curtain - 

The way that it should work is that the blogger will review what they receive, and if it interests them and they feel it will interest their readers, they will run it.  In some instances, if there are personal or professional differences/ conflicts, etc., with the brand,  then the blogger might not run the release.  In addition, if the blogger has managed to alienate the brand through their writing, then it is entirely possible that the brand's pr/marketing team will pull a Donald Trump and refuse to communicate with them or send them press updates.  This is to be expected and I would say, fair enough.

Now it seems that with the owners of several of the blogs, "horological interest" is measured in terms of payment.  And to be clear by payment I do not mean advertising agreements, a watch received in barter for advertising or marketing or even simple good will.   I mean just what I am saying - payment required and received in exchange for coverage.

So what has now become standard for some of these outlets is that a rate sheet is sent to the brand manager or pr representative, not unlike a take out food menu:  

• To do a review  of your watch will cost you X.
• To announce your new brand will cost you Y.
• To REALLY pump your watch or brand will cost you Z.

Simply put, a fair amount of what you read in some of the bigger blogs and online magazines has been bought and paid for.

Now again, in fairness, if a brand supports a blog or online magazine with advertising, it is not unreasonable to expect coverage - in fact I believe that there is an implied social contract between the blog and the brand that requires a certain amount of coverage. 

Moreover, many bloggers do contract work for brands.  But that is a very separate matter that precludes "air time" on their blog or online magazine beyond the normal coverage.

But, and it's a big but, when a blog or online magazine requires payment in exchange for any sort of coverage, well then it is no longer what can even remotely be thought of as fair and impartial.  

Because there is another contract that is more than merely implied.  It is the social contract with the writer and the reader.

Ethics and Social Media

So no long preamble.  Straight to the question:

Do you feel that it is ethical for one watch brand to identify another watch company's social media posts and comment on them with part of the message being a request for THE OTHER watch company's followers to come and visit their site?

I ask because this happened recently on Instagram, and Watch company X's response was something along the lines that they were true watch fans and felt that other watch fans would appreciate learning about their brand. 

Again, so that the idea here is clear and easy to understand:

1.  Watch company Y is mentioned favorably on Instagram.
2.  Watch company X "likes" the post and then posts a comment essentially encouraging anyone who will read the comments on the post about company Y to visit their site (company X).


Is this an ethical way to conduct social media?