Mack:

Would you make a distinction between appearing in an online community and genuinely being a part of it?

I think it's too easy to be (or appear to be) a gate-crasher. For example, on audioasylum.com, a forum for audiophiles, I've seen too many naive marketers get slammed for shilling their products. The marketers who've been more successful demonstrated their bona fides first by making non-product related contributions to the discussions. Only after they've established their presence in multiple sessions of give and take do they drop a reference to their businesses, usually in an oblique, "by the way" kind of manner.

To Jonathan's point...less is so often more. I see that same tendency with some authors on the MarketingProfs site (and before MProfs...ClickZ), who try to insert into their pieces tons of links back to their own site/products (or -- worse! -- affiliate links), or who shill outright, and then cap it off with a bloated bio: "...Simon LeGree is the most AWESOME branding guy who measures more results by 9 AM than you'll *ever* get, loser!" Or whatever. You get the point.

In those situations, the most successful "marketers" really aren't "marketing" at all...they're sharing what they know and participating, and in doing so position themselves far more strongly as a voice of authority or a trusted source.

Jonathan you make an excellent point, you need to JOIN the community. Members of the community will be able to tell if you are there just to try to sell them something, or if you want to participate.

Let's go back to the example of Phil Angelides' MySpace page. The main reason why it will work for him is because most of his opponents aren't on MySpace. Now if Arnold joins MySpace(I couldn't find a page for him), and starts writing his own blog every day, and answering every email from members, then suddenly Angelides becomes the gate crasher, unless he is willing to join the community as Arnold will have done.

The bottom line is, the community is smarter than any single marketer. We can't fool them, and shouldn't try. And the huge advantage to joining the community is that as we become a part of the community, their wants and needs become ours. We understand the community, and share their wants and needs.

A classic example is what Hugh MacLeod of Gaping Void did with Stormhoek wine. He marketed it to bloggers. By selling it? Nope, he gave bloggers a free bottle, with no strings attached. Since Hugh was a blogger himself, he understood the viral nature of the blogosphere, and he knew that this promotion would get bloggers talking about Stormhoek, and it did. So much so that Stormhoek's sales doubled in less than 12 months.

That's the power of joining the community that you market to.

"To Jonathan's point...less is so often more. I see that same tendency with some authors on the MarketingProfs site (and before MProfs...ClickZ), who try to insert into their pieces tons of links back to their own site/products (or -- worse! -- affiliate links), or who shill outright, and then cap it off with a bloated bio: "...Simon LeGree is the most AWESOME branding guy who measures more results by 9 AM than you'll *ever* get, loser!" Or whatever. You get the point."

I see a lot of bloggers that do this too. They will leave a comment, and all it will be is 'Wow great point, I just blogged about this same thing: http://imjustheretoshillmyblog.blogspot.com/pimping_your_blog_to_A-listers.

Bloggers can tell the difference between someone that wants to join the conversation, and someone that wants to get in a free link to their blog.

Right. Bloggers can tell. Editors can tell. And ultimately, the audience can tell.

It's a bit of a dance. I don't begrudge anyone a link to their blog (or web site, or latest book on Amazon, or whatever...) if they've added value by contributing to or furthering the conversation.

But those who don't add value are just using the platform and burning relationships and pretty much making sure that they NEVER get invited back!

Mack,

1200 MySpace friends has not as far as the reports I've seen resulted in more donations or email sign-ups. That's what you need to win an election.

Eric

Plus, of course voter turn out!!

Eric

"1200 MySpace friends has not as far as the reports I've seen resulted in more donations or email sign-ups. That's what you need to win an election."

I think we need to remember the community here, these are teenage and twentysomething voters. I don't think this crowd is going to be big on donations for any candidate, I certainly wasn't at that age!

The average MySpace user now spends over 2 hours there PER SESSION. That's a HUGE chunk of their lives that's spent on MySpace. Angelides has joined this space, and he's connecting with his voters while his opponents appear to be continuing to use traditional methods to market themselves to this same group.

Angelides has gotten a big leg-up on reaching his voters in THEIR place, an online world where the average session length is over 2 hours.

That's huge. We can debate exactly how successful Angelides' MySpace page will be in his campaign efforts, but I don't think we can contest the fact that his move to join the MySpace community WILL help him reach young voters.

Ah...yes...well, I don't believe political candidates belong on MySpace. I asked my son, who is an avid MySpace user and he said,

"Nice, now me and my friends are going to have to find a new MySpace."

Then I asked him about the 1200 friends. He replied that some people are just friend collectors and that they don't care who they friend as long as it looks like they are popular (and they will comment positively about the person or band 'friending' them).

I'm very wary of politicians, advertisers and other such 'cultural tourists'. They are actually damaging the potential of future relationship building by posing as something they are not: caring.

Every time we receive a spam message. Every time we get a message from someone wanting to 'friend' us who isn't really a friend. Every time we figure out a relationship is forged just to sell us something. Every time the actual end product/service/etc falls short of what was promised...

...we trust a little less.

I don't think that Angelides is a good marketer. I think he is an opportunist. Hell, that may be good marketing to some.

I think it's time all of us marketing types start really thinking about what we are doing to the future. Think of it like being good to the environment. It may not seem to mean a damn in the here, right now, but someday, we will all pay for the abuse.

"I'm very wary of politicians, advertisers and other such 'cultural tourists'. They are actually damaging the potential of future relationship building by posing as something they are not: caring.

Every time we receive a spam message. Every time we get a message from someone wanting to 'friend' us who isn't really a friend. Every time we figure out a relationship is forged just to sell us something. Every time the actual end product/service/etc falls short of what was promised...

...we trust a little less."

Is it possible for most of us to trust politicans less than we already do? ;)

"I don't think that Angelides is a good marketer. I think he is an opportunist. Hell, that may be good marketing to some."

Well if you take 5 candidates and only 1 of them is on MySpace, or blogging, then I think that one candidate is doing a better job of attempting to reach his voters than his competitors are.

I think it's smart marketing. Angelides doesn't come to their MySpace pages, they choose to come to his. Is Angelides sending out a ton of friend requests to members living in California? I'm sure he is, but all they have to do is deny the request, and that's the end of their involvement with Angelides.

You mention caring. Is Angelides taking the time to answer every message he gets through MySpace? I don't know, but he should be. His blog looks pretty canned, so he could definitely improve it.

Again, I think the main point is that Angelides is attempting to reach young voters in a way that most, if not all, of his opponents are missing. These young voters are more saavy than we give them credit for, if Angelides is there just to maintain a prescence on MySpace, and he doesn't want to engage with the community, then they won't respond.

I think what will be telling is what happens next. What if Arnold comes to MySpace and writes his own blog, and answers every email? That ups the ante for everyone, all the candidates have to get more involved with the MySpace community, and they might actually reach the point....shudder....where they begin to UNDERSTAND these young voters.

I think you see this as a way for politicians to exploit the popularity of MySpace for their own good. You very well may be right, but I see this as eventually leading to politicans communicating more effectively with their voters. More effective communication has to lead to a greater understanding by both parties.

I can't see how that's a bad thing. Then again I've been accused of being too trusting before. ;)

Mack,

High school kids don't vote and he has not one an election yet, so lets wait and see how successful MySpace is.

I for one think it won't work and I don't recommend it for the campaigns that I buy media for. I don't think Mit is the right place for political marketing; however, Facebook would be more appropriate as would LinkedIn or MeetUp.

MySpace is not needed to open a communication with their voters. If Arnold wanted to, he could have his own blog and answer emails. MySpace is not a silver bullet for what ails politicians.

Eric

"High school kids don't vote and he has not one an election yet, so lets wait and see how successful MySpace is.

I for one think it won't work and I don't recommend it for the campaigns that I buy media for."

Let's use a hypothetical then: If there are 4 candidates for governor of California, and Angelides is the only one that chooses to create and update a MySpace page, do you think this move would help or hurt his chances of winning the votes from MySpace users?

"MySpace is not needed to open a communication with their voters. If Arnold wanted to, he could have his own blog and answer emails. MySpace is not a silver bullet for what ails politicians."

Ah but there's a crucial difference between a MySpace page, and a stand-alone blog: The MySpace page is where the young voters are. With Arnold's blog, the young voters will have to go to HIS space to 'talk' to him. When Angelides joined MySpace, he was coming to the voter's space.

And again, my point wasn't so much that Angelides had created an incredible MySpace page, but rather that he had created a page at all. The page looks to be very plain, and the blog looks canned. It could VERY easily be greatly improved upon.

But at the end of the day, MySpace is 'where the kids are', so if we want to reach them, we have to come to them and find a way to engage them in THEIR space on THEIR terms.

I agree that MySpace isn't the only way to reach these young voters. But if a candidate is actually interested in communicating with his voters, and understanding them, then yes, joining MySpace could definitely help.

I'm with Mack on this one.

Indeed, as Tara says, Angelides is an opportunist, but who can blame him? His campaign is making an effort to make himself more accessible, and that's saying an awful lot for a politician.

As a publicist and marketer, I appreciate this for what it is. It's a story. And not just on MySpace or Marketingprofs.

The fact that Angelides is on MySpace is the only reason that a disaffected Canuck like me ever bothered to learn his name. And I don't think I'm the only one.

Eric, I can't imagine ever hiring you to market any of my products.

For starters, "he has not one an election yet"??? "One"??? C'mon dude. It's "won." It's hard to take the rest of your argument seriously on an intellectual level when you can't even properly write a simple three-letter word.

Aside from that, high school students that are 18 years old (or will be by election time) can and do vote, often with more fervor than some of us oldies. From 18 to 30 is the time in a person's life when they are usually the most politically aware as well as the most likely to be swayed passionately to a political cause. Coincidentally, 18 to 30 is also the same average age of the typical Myspace user. I'd say it's definitely a good move on his part.

That you'd even say something about high schoolers proves that you don't understand the demographics of Myspace, as there are a large chunk of members aged 21 and over.

Myspace has proven to be a very potent marketing tool, especially for musicians. It's been a godsend for indie bands and even major labels are catching on. You have shows like American Idol that are setting up multiple myspace accounts, because they get it too. Motion picture companies have also recently joined the wave, setting up Myspace pages for their releases. So why shouldn't it work for politicians? And even if it's not going to win the election, it's at least one more piece of the puzzle, and a candidate would be crazy not to take advantage of a huge (and FREE) marketing tool.

I don't why you figure Facebook would be better, since access to it is limited only to people who are actually enrolled in a school (or alumni, I suppose.) Whereas Myspace is open for all.

Unfortunately it just seems that you dismiss Myspace because you don't understand it. Rather, you just cling to the old dinosaurs and stick to what you know, which will one day prove to be your undoing as a marketer. I wouldn't hire you if I were running for dogcatcher.

By the way, Mack, excellent post.

Well said J.D.

Interesting how politics--even when it's tangentially an issue--can escalate discussion into argument. Everyone in this thread has made some very good points... but, to be honest, I don't understand why it needs to get personal and derogatory ("C'mon dude. It's "won." It's hard to take the rest of your argument seriously on an intellectual level when you can't even properly write a simple three-letter word.") That's an anti-intellectual approach in itself. I'm certain the writer himself has misspelled a word now and then--yet I'm also sure he takes his intellectual prowess seriously... Anyway, my point is that insulting someone will not convince him that he's wrong--nor will it convince others to support the insulter's position. I'm just sayin'.

"Interesting how politics--even when it's tangentially an issue--can escalate discussion into argument."

You may be right, at first I was thinking 'wow seems everyone has a strong opinion yay or nay on MySpace', but your explanation that it's more about politics is probably more accurate.

Mack, Eric & your posses...

First, I love the discussion. In my view it's always a good thing to have your thinking challenged. You are both (as we say in Boston) wicked smaht guys...and your words have framed the MySpace/political issue in a whole new sense.

That being said, I'm glad this isn't a barroom -- because I'd be *this close* to calling the bouncer over...

Anyway -- it seems that individuals fall into one of two camps:

1. Love MySpace; think it has tons of potential/influence. Anyone who doesn't agree is a Luddite. Or worse: unhip.

2. Don't Get MySpace; think it's a bunch of kids and don't respect its so-called influence. Anyone who doesn't agree doesn't matter anyway, because they have no money or influence. Heck, they likely don't even have a driver's license.

Maybe there's a third group:

3. Jury still out on MySpace....

...but THOSE people aren't passionate enough to comment! SHEESH!

JD,

Yes I made an error regarding one versus won, but then so did you

"I don't why you figure Facebook would be better"

Small boxes are hard to type in sometimes, no? :-)

Regarding the rest of the comments, yes I believe MySpace works for a certain set of products as you pointed out correctly. I think celebrating it as a cure for all types of products is a little early don't you think? Facebook is more interesting because of the strict rules around who can enter it - PEOPLE OF VOTING AGE!!!Testing out something for free is fine, as long as you have the time to do it.

Eric

I think you're spot-on, Ann. And to be fair, Eric is exactly right, there's no guarantee that joining MySpace will help a candidate. In fact, if the move isn't executed properly, it can easily hurt their chances.

My original point wasn't so much about MySpace, it was about the value for marketers of JOINING the community that they market to. When we connect with our communities, and begin to communicate with them and UNDERSTAND them, tben we can better serve their needs. And as we join their community, our wants and needs will gradually become their's, since we will be a part of the same community that they are.

This was more my point rather than a public hearing on the effectiveness of MySpace as a political marketing tool. But then again, that's my fault for using a hot-button example, I guess.

I'm hearing the echoes of the past here.

"Make us a website? Nah, this internet thing is a passing fad."

"Blogging? It'll never last."

"Cell phones? Why would anyone want a phone with them all the time?"

"Seinfeld? Nobody would ever watch a show like that."

Do you really want to be that person in five years? Especially when Myspace is essentially a free marketing tool to make as bad or as good as you want it to be?