GaryStockman.net

When I run in the morning I listen to Morning Edition on National Public Radio.

And today I heard something that literally stopped me in my tracks.

During a report about three new TV networks targeting millennials, the executive vice president at one of them – REVOLT TV – said this: “We haven’t done any marketing and we have a successful social media platform.”

I spent the rest of my run trying to tease apart this statement. I wondered:

1. Has marketing become such a dirty word that it puts off people – especially millennials – to the point where no one wants to admit that what they’re doing really is marketing?
2. Do today’s digital natives regard what they do via social media as inherently more authentic than traditional marketing (it is), so much so that it shouldn’t be considered marketing at all?
3. Today most ad agencies and PR firms routinely incorporate social media strategies into their programming for clients. How surprised would they be to hear that social media engagement isn’t marketing?

I’m certain by now that my bias is coming through. Marketing today is about finding authentic ways to engage audiences, using the channels that matter to them. That means a successful social media program is marketing.

REVOLT TV launches at 8 p.m. ET today and already has 44,000+ followers on Twitter, 33,333 subscribers to their YouTube channel and what looks to be a very active page on Facebook.

REVOLT TV should be proud to have earned this level of engagement without, apparently, any paid advertising support. But they shouldn’t be any less proud to call it marketing.

In medieval times it was court jesters – ostensibly placed in their role for the king’s amusement – who pointed a finger at the absurdities of the day.  The “fools” were the truth-tellers.

Today comedians like Jon Stewart are our modern-day court jesters – ready to skewer people and companies who are being hypocritical, convoluted, bureaucratic or just plain silly.  (I first talked about this a while back, while moderating a panel on corporate communications at South by Southwest.)

Last week we saw another example of humor being used to raise important truths.

Appearing on Conan, the great Louis C.K. talked about the negative impact that smart phones are having on society.

He started with a riff on why he won’t get his kids smart phones and ended with Bruce Springsteen and the meaning of life.

On not getting smart phones for his kids, C.K. invoked Nancy Reagan: Just say no.

“I don’t care what you want,” he tells his kids, noting “I’m not there to make them happy.”

C.K.’s philosophy is “I’m not raising – the children.  I’m raising the grown-ups that they’re going to be.”

As for the meaning of life, C.K. believes that “underneath everything in your life there’s that thing, that empty – forever empty [feeling],” and that we humans turn to texting as a way to avoid this sad fact and the dread that comes with it.

His advice?  Embrace the sadness.

He told about driving along when Bruce Springsteen’s “Jungleland” – a song loaded with pathos and sad-sounding reverb – came on the radio.

“I started to get that sad feeling and I was going to reach for the phone and I said, ‘You know what, just don’t,’” he recalled.  “Just be sad.”

Two reasons to love Louis C.K.  First, he’s a comedian – a jester – who can appear on a show like Conan and get the audience to think seriously about some pretty heavy stuff: the role of technology in our lives, loneliness and sadness.  Not many people can do that.

Second, he’s clearly Springsteen fan.

We know we need to pay attention to an issue when our jesters start talking about it.  Can it be that we’ve finally reached that tipping point with smart phones?  Watch C.K., have a laugh, and decide for yourself.

One of the great things about technology is its ability to gather data and employ the resulting knowledge to create a better user experience.

When Amazon pioneered PWL (“people who like …”), it was a revelation. Suddenly, the collective knowledge and experiences of a community could open doors to new things we didn’t even know were there. Sometimes the suggestions were a little off, but that was OK.

Over time many of us have come to depend on these recommendation engines.

I buy a lot of car parts for a Mustang restoration. Not sure which gasket fits that timing chain cover? No problem. The recommendation engine has my back.

But two recent emails show that as great as today’s recommendation algorithms are, it’s still easy for the technology to over-reach.

The first email, from eBay Fashion, arrived in my in-box with a bold promise. Subject line: “Stylish picks just for you!”  Headline: “Cool stuff we think you’ll like.”

The second, from Brooks Brothers, went even further. Subject line: “Carefully curated and personally selected for you.” Curated? Personally selected? That’s exciting, especially from a brand like Brooks Brothers.

But here’s a warning to those seeking to enhance customer experience through personalization: Be careful. Very careful.

It’s one thing to suggest a new book or an auto accessory. It’s something else to declare that your “stylish picks just for me” include a plaid shirt (eBay) or banana-yellow shorts (Brooks Brothers).

The problem comes when algorithms use objective data to predict something that’s inherently subjective. My unique sense of fashion has been reduced to a formula? Actually, in my case that is possible; I am no clothes horse. But that’s not true for many people, particularly those for whom fashion matters a lot.

Nor can algorithms determine what’s “cool.” Cool is ultimately subjective and highly variable, and declaring any one item of clothing cool is likely to alienate as many people as it attracts.

The eBay email got me wondering how the algorithm decided what I’d like in the first place. A little over a year ago, eBay bought Hunch, whose Taste Graph is designed to produce insights about consumers as well as recommendations on things they might like.

If Hunch is indeed powering eBay offers like the one I received, it didn’t strike out completely. I like the Timberland jacket and the Oakley sunglasses. But that plaid shirt? Please.

How Twitter is Making Television the “Second Screen”

This morning the Financial Times broke the news that Twitter has signed a blockbuster deal with Starcom MediaVest Group, one of the world’s largest media buying firms. The arrangement will give SMG’s clients – companies like P&G, Walmart and Coke — preferred ad slots, access to research and a jump on new products.

The news is a logical next step for Twitter, and it’s an acknowledgement of the incredible power of social media to involve us in shared experience.

Now when we watch TV, we are all sitting together on a virtual couch.

• During last fall’s presidential election, it was Twitter that pointed us urgently toward Fox News, just in time to see and talk about Karl Rove’s infamous meltdown.
• When the lights went out at the Super Bowl, we again turned to Twitter. First to learn exactly what was happening from thousands Tweeting inside the Superdome. Then to amuse each other with jokes and memes during the 34-minute delay.
• But Twitter really showed its stuff during snarkfest award shows like the Golden Globes and the Oscars. Why? Because when you’re sitting on a real couch, your witty put-downs and astute observations have an audience of just a few. But thanks to Twitter, guests on your virtual couch number in the thousands, and they applaud your wit by Favoriting and Retweeting your cleverest comments.

Interviewed about the SMG deal, Twitter’s president of global revenue, Adam Bain, told the FT: “We think that the industry has been focused in the wrong area, which was making a decision between Twitter and TV. That’s not what we believe. Twitter is a bridge.”

Short-term, Twitter is indeed a bridge – one that is making live television newly relevant for a generation that had been busily cutting its ties to broadcast and cable.

Longer-term, however, this raises an important question (one that involves, admittedly, a mixed metaphor): Between TV and Twitter, which is the tail, and which is the dog?

We all know about “second screens,” defined as additional devices that allow a television audience to interact with the content they’re consuming. But is the primary screen the one that sits passively on a wall, or is it the one you hold in your hand and actively engage with 20 hours a day?

Last summer, a Google survey showed that in a typical day, 77 percent of viewers used another device at the same time they watched TV. Put in more realistic terms: Three-quarters of us happen to have the television on at the same time we’re staring at our smart phones or tablets.

Traditionalists and insiders may never admit that TV is the second screen. But the SMG deal demonstrates a growing realization that cooperation is better than competition.

Today’s announcement is just the beginning. The advent of the virtual couch won’t be limited to Twitter. All the popular social media gathering places – from Facebook to YouTube and beyond – offer possibilities for connecting audiences with programming, and with each other.

Television remains a resilient and creative medium with lots of life left. As it gets over its hurt feelings at being labeled a “second screen” and embraces those that are becoming primary, it still will help create new and engaging forms of entertainment and information-sharing.