Seems I’ve spent the past week a split personality. On the one side I’ve been promoting the living daylights out of the ego-free, breath-of-fresh-air that is Susan Boyle. And on the other? I’ve been balking over Ashton Kutcher’s Twitter-powered popularity contest that smacks of nothing but super-sized ego. (No, I really don’t want fries with that.)
If you’ve not yet heard of the “Twitter Challenge” thrown down by Kutcher against CNN, which he has marketed online, offline and on an interstate near you, then you might want to take a minute and watch this video:
Through a slew of videos, articles and press appearances in the days following Kutcher’s above announcement, he refined his message to explain that “this promotion was not really about him”. Nope! It was to prove that the power of one voice can be as big–or, um, bigger–than one big ol’ media company. But that’s not the kicker. This plight-to-shift-power-to-the people was waged against the very media outlet who has been the veritable leader in embracing social media. For years.
Well before Kutcher had a twitter account, CNN produced the groundbreaking CNN/YouTube Debates giving we little guys not only a voice but making us the defacto directors of all questions asked of the candidates (I covered that program here and here). Moreover, they encourage ‘iReporters’ to post their user-generated videos right to the CNN site, keep current Twitter accounts, send daily prizes to readers who come up with the best title for their blog entries and create social media promotions that aren’t only novel, but truly useful. So Kutcher picked a friendly fight with an enemy who has been empowering the little guy all the while.
No matter, CNN was happy to play in the publicity stunt and share the spotlight, and it must have been a nice break from 24/7 economic doom and gloom coverage. And since Ted Turner lives in the city where Kutcher will shortly be filming his next blockbuster, yet another promo that Kutcher plugged repeatedly in his videos!, it makes one wonder if his agenda is wrought not solely from personal conviction so much as geographical convenience. I was relieved, however, to see that both sides agreed to include a charity component quickly after announcing the smackdown, as a social cause was not mentioned at the outset.
Alas, when he reached his millionth follower, Kutcher declared it “YOUR victory!” explaining “This was all you guys, because I can’t follow myself.” So, um, if he could follow himself I guess victory would be his alone? I still don’t understand that sound bite. Heck, I still can’t understand how this promotion wasn’t all about him… oh right, because he said it was about you, you and you x a million.
But here’s the thing: None of the above opinion matters. (Not even a little bit.)
Hey, I’m no sheep, but I’m no fool either. My personal views have no place in judging the efficacy of this promotion. They’re just that, my opinions. What matters is the market’s response. As a professional, I have to take a big step back, in this case more like a country mile, and assess the program objectively. Anything else would be myopic on my part. And hands-down, this promotion was a master’s stroke by all involved. I’d also be lying if I said that the lessons–some new matched with many old–were nothing short of fascinating to witness.
So on that note, let’s review what all we’ve learned through a very noisy week on the Twitter front:
New tools reflect age-old behavior.
AdAge reporter Simon Dumenco stated it best–and I highly suggest this read–but, in a nutshell, while we have a lot of new tools in our marketing mix we also have age-old behaviors at play. As Dumenco illuminates: “Either way, Ash [Ashton Kutcher] and Brit [Britney Spears] are evidence that something rather retro is happening to the social-networking realm. The most successful Twitterers and the most-friended users of Facebook with really active news feeds are reverting to a rather pre-Web 2.0 paradigm: broadcasting. The Few speaking to The Many.”
Messaging is mission-critical in moving the masses.
The “man against machine” premise is powerful; always has been. Harken back to the famous ‘1984-inspired’ Apple Superbowl Commercial and this “rising up against the man” still resonates today. Even when stacking the facts, not the spin, CNN has done more for the evolution of social media than any celebrity, or major news outlet heretofore. And while Ashton’s Challenge does not a movement make–a movement changes social, political, cultural or economic orders–because it was positioned as such, it excited people to get behind it to attain the goal.
Democracies, ironically, still hail to Kings.
As part of the promotion Oprah took the plunge into Twitter on her show last Friday. Before firing off her first tweet she hailed social media’s democratization of content to the audience. And then in introducing Kutcher she declared him “The King of Twitter.” Technically, a democracy means a clean break from anything resembling a monarchy (most especially kings). Nonetheless, after seeing tons of “Kutcher’s the King of Twitter Now!!!” tweets proves that many people, even on the world’s “most democratized” of media platforms, still fancy a King. Yep, irony indeed runs deep.
Promotions favor all persons and platforms involved.
The challenge paid publicity dividends galore to Camp Kutcher, Team Oprah and CNN. But, above all, Twitter emerged the true winner. Now, sharing the promotional wealth has always been the benefit of co-promotions, that’s nothing new. But in this new age, the platform (Twitter) is as much a star as the stars themselves.
People are like sheep– and so it follows, that tweeple can be sheeple.
Much as I deplore group think mentalities (and actions), this is actually good news for marketers that can land a likable spokesperson, the right message and lots of press–because people, like sheep, will follow solely because you tell them to and because they see others doing so. Don’t believe me? Here’s the litmus test: if people truly believed in the value of Ashton’s voice on twitter they would have been following him well before the major media blitz. Don’t get me wrong, scores of people did follow him before, just not as many as were following CNN. Or Britney Spears. 
All told, watching the herd of humanity flock to Kutcher, and then watching many regret their sheepish ways, was for me, the most intriguing aspect of this experiment. No, I wasn’t a sheep as I never followed Ashton before or during the competition– and, due to the challenge I unfollowed CNN, but I’m mindful that I was never the target audience.
There is no one way right way to tweet (or employ any social media tools).
I’m an avid supporter that social media gives us choice not only in which tools we leverage, but in how we use them. Do I advise my clients and colleagues to use them ethically and with a sharp focus on their audience, not them? Absolutely. Do I think there exist best practices with these tools? Yup. But one need not follow to be followed (Kutcher follows under 100), nor does one have to subscribe to the same tools and play by the same rules as others as they are case-specific for each entity and every endeavor.
New media needs old media to succeed– and vice/versa.
I’ve never been one to cry “Traditional media will whither and die now that we have social media!” I find that notion patently absurd. While Kutcher’s Web videos spread like wildfire, had it not been for his publicity appearances on broadcast TV and the “Follow Ashton” billboards across the nation, the promotion would not have gained nearly as much attention. Thus, an integration of media was, is and will always be key.
And the other takeaway for marketers is that new media needs old media in order to migrate to mainstream status and for maximum impact with their audiences. But that’s not the whole story. Old media also needs new media in order to evolve and stay competitive (and many times to stay relevant).
There you have it, marketers. When all is said, done and tweeted, we needn’t like a particular promotion, to learn from it. Now it’s your turn, tell me which lessons I missed or messed up… because we’ve always been about empowering all voices and viewpoints here.
PS: The one Susan Boyle video blows all of Kutcher’s videos out of the water. Want proof? She’s racked up over 20 40 million views. Within one week. What’s more? She didn’t have to plead or plaster a singular billboard, and I’d argue she’s even started a movement. How’s about them apples, King Kutcher?
Related posts:
- Social Media Success 201: Forget About Your Brand, Get a Personality
- Do You Know the Social Media ‘Rules’?
- Broadcasting with ‘Social’ Media
- Social Media Won’t Work if You Aren’t Social
- Your Social Media Strategy Starts with Monitoring
Tags: Ashton Kutcher, CNN, Twitter, Twitter Challenge
What an excellent post! You hit this so hard and so well. This is a MUST read for anyone who wants to know that the true essence of Twitter is all about. Check you egos at the door, we are all the same, we all are experts. That is why I love Twitter. It is the true human equalizer.
This has been THE most excellent commentary on the Ashton/Oprah/Twitter subject that I have read. I too find all this fascinating to watch unfold…maybe even a little amusing when I see the videos, the commentary, the tweets, the unfollows, the “advantagists”, the “panic-ers”, etc…but just like you stated in so many words above ~ it’s just opinion and everyone’s got one.
I am now going to promote your post as the one “in my opinion” that is the most clear summary of what we just witnessed.
We as Americans tend to be King makers despite our democratic roots. We worship at the altar of celebrity for better or worse.
The key for those of us who haven’t drunk the celebrity Kool Aid? Monitor it but don’t overtly buy into it. Can’t really do much else…
Sooooo good. This guy used his advantage and acted like he was grass roots. Susan Boyle should give him a reality check. But as you said, people like us weren’t the target, so do they really care?
You said all I wanted to say and more. Thanks!
Thanks all, glad you enjoyed the lessons (and letting me rant a bit, too!). I just found this post by Mack Collier who also examines the promotion but gives predictions as well, worth a read, too: http://moblogsmoproblems.blogspot.com/2009/04/how-oprah-and-ashton-have-forever.html
The biggest fear I have is that this is going to revert companies back to using social media as a broadcast medium. I think most companies WANT to use social media to broadcast (since that’s what most are more comfortable doing), but for years we have been trying to tell them to instead think of social media as COMMUNICATION tools.
Then Ashton and Oprah swoop in and get a million or so followers in a few days/weeks, and suddenly companies could be thinking that if the broadcasting model works for celebs, why not them as well?!?
Oh well. I guess the good news is, this just gives smart companies that are using social media for the right reason any even bigger lead over broadcasting competitors.
Thoughtful post. I watched the story unfold on Twitter and on TV and thought to myself “I’d never follow either of them on Twitter”. Don’t follow Oprah either.
I think that there is a disconnect where people read more into the power of celebrity than there really is. Context remains very important.
So, you don’t think this whole thing was a ploy by @Ev and the team to drive up both user numbers and awareness ahead of discussions with Google?
@Gavin: Hmmm, neat idea. I think the stunt was promoted by shared parties… (see the point before sheeple). And Kutcher was lead Ego, I mean spokesperson.
But I’m not sure if it originated with Kutcher or by all parties, wouldn’t be surprised by anything–so you may well be right. And if you are, I’d sure love to see the look on the sheeps faces if it does come to pass that it was 100% contrived (vs. the movement they’ve signed-up for). But would they stop following him if that were the case? Some, but not most I bet.
1st: most excellent post. IMO, this smelled of a combined marketing effort from day 1, but like you say–it’s how the market responded that counts.
2nd: regarding Susan Boyle, but doncha know that she made ashton and demi cry? And they made her the queen of the week? Just food for thought.
CK, you might not like it, but I’m your sheep.
Really happy to see you arround here again. Yes, you just might be the queen of MProfs. 
I like Mack’s comment here, yet it’s again one of those idealistic. Unfortenatly, CK is totally right. People are sheeps and most of them PREFER to be. Majority of people don’t want to think too much and communicate with a company too much.
Yes, “social media” (I hate this phrase since it’s totally not correct) can get you a lot of information about the market (hey, you can talk directly to the customer) and in some cases make you a star. Yet these are still just cases. The main play hasn’t changed.
I always like to get back to 90’s when many were predicting stores to vanish due to internet stores. Why would someone bother going to the store when they have all they need on 1 click? Because we’re sheeps.
I’m with Gavin. Even if this move could mean: market twitter as a marketing vehicle to launch, say, a movie. Revenue can come a pay per performance model: a cpf (cost per follower).
Solid post. Well done. I firmly believe in the concept that social media is a tool. Mastering social media only means you’ve mastered another tool in an arsenal of many.
What you seem to have omitted from this otherwise intelligent expose is the fact that Ashton Kutcher’s challenge to reach 1million followers included the fact that he then DONATED $100,000 to Malaria No More. This was not, in my assessment, an ego race but one for a good cause that ultimately served to promote Twitter and no particular individuals.
@Aly: Thanks, I included the charitable component at the end of the 5th para–mentioned how I was relieved to see a charitable component included (as it wasn’t in the initial video and I was glad when I heard the interview w/Ted Turner’s daughter on having it be a part). I will admit that it would have been even better had it been a promotion that got 1 million followers for malaria no more… but that’s my personal take and, objectively, the promo was a smash and helpful to money/awareness/relief efforts of the charity (which is at: http://www.malarianomore.org/)
On that note, a charity push that’s also been happening this month and I’ve been following & promoting–as they’ve let everyone watch their progress through daily web videos–is through http://www.charitywater.org, another very worthy organization that dug wells (for clean drinking water)in Ethiopia this month from their “Twestival” efforts. Check it out!
What this also proves, CK, is something you and I have been railing against for a good year or so:
Most people don’t have “personal brands”
Most people don’t want to “create relevant content”
Most people don’t want to “add value”
Most people don’t want to “share insights”
All they want to do is hang around and gawk at celebrities.
It’s that simple. Tor read the Twitterati, there were 3 billion social media experts in the making, all just waiting to jump on to Twitter, write blogs and have a go at it.
This might actually get them to realize that they are but a segment of the greater population
Agree though that everyone benefitted from this: Oprah, Ashton, Demi, CNN, Ev, Biz, even Britney and Shaq.
Oh, and as Aly pointed out, the Malaria No More people too.
@TC: thanks. yep, they helped promote Susan Boyle… as did zillions of ppl, tweeters, bloggers, media. Such an astonishing story and blitz to watch unfold
@Dusan: Great to hear from you pal. No queen here–too many queens get beheaded anyhow (eek!). Yes, it’s hard to swallow that the majority do act like sheep (no fan of groupthink am I) but, objectively, marketers have leveraged it and it works. Like I wrote, while I didn’t personally like this promotion, I’d be myopic to not see its success–and the lessons have been fascinating to watch from my front-row seat on twitter. Funny how new media is confirming age-old lessons, eh?
CK – Just saw this very thoughtful, thought-out, and thought-provoking post. Thanks!
You mention that a company would need a good (charismatic/famous) spokesperson to draw implementable lessons from these recent events and I think that this points to the triumph of personality (or cult there-of) over brand on the social media front.
In other words, Andy Warhol could make hay with Twitter, but Campbell’s Soup can’t, knowumsayin’?
Also, to your point of new media needing old media, etc., Marshall McLuhan said that the primary content of any new medium are old/aging media. Television combined film, radio, and, print media; the computer contains all (transmittable) media (ie, sculpture is hard to get across on the web). Yes, to Mack’s point, this means that the interweb CAN be used to broadcast, just like the media it has absorbed, but there is a MORE to the interweb – which is where its true promise and potential lie.
Very interesting observation about the democratization of media leading back to the old star system. We assume that centers of influence will deteriorate in a world in which everyone can publish, but the Kutcher story as well as the flurry of publicity over Opera’s entrance to the Twittersphere, would indicate otherwise. I also like your reality check on the value of mainstream media, which will always have a place in popularizing grassroots phenomena. It is not an either/or proposition, but rather a rebalancing of influence.
The twitter phenomenon is quite amazing when you think about how many people see what a single person writes. It becomes a very powerful tool, we’re always hungry for more! I am stunned by how powerful some websites became lately. Great observation in the article, it’s all very good food for though!