I don’t watch American Idol. I’ll readily admit that it’s a timely concept that hopefully can breathe life into the moribund music industry. But growing up in a family of performers with a house full of “voice students in training” taught me to run from sounds that hurt my ears. But what caught my attention here wasn’t the talent, or lack thereof, but the fact that contestant Sanjaya has become the unwitting hero of an anti-AmIdol movement. The “social” part of “social media” has been gamed. Again.
Home grown site Vote For The Worst has decided that American Idol is bad, that contestants are misled, and that winners are picked early. All potentially true …. I really don’t know …. but not the point of this note. Contestant Sanjaya, according to many, has survived thus far apparently due solely to his lack of talent, courtesy of the above website, which hopes to skew the results for its own reasons. We’ve come to understand that Howard Stern, the paragon of taste in 21st Century America, has endorsed the site. Simon Cowell, who needs little introduction from me, apparently has threatened to quit the show if Sanjaya wins the contest.
Any time we offer ourselves up to the masses …. especially in this age of anonymity coupled with low barriers to participation …. we take the risk that those with dubious motives will manipulate the system purely for the sake of manipulating the system. The Z List experiment on Squidoo illustrates this point pretty well.
Recent discussions on anonymity have been flying thick around the blogosphere, particularly in Kathy Sierra’s well reported situation, so I won’t reiterate those facts here as others have done a good job before me. Needless to say, she has my sympathies and support. American Idol’s problems pale in comparison to the severity in this case, but I find that both strike the same nerve.
In response to these types of persistent problems, many have begun calling for a code of conduct for the blogosphere. This isn’t the problem, in my opinion. People who would adhere to such a code of behavior aren’t the people making trouble. Anonymity, low involvement and low barriers to participate are the most tangible problems.
* * *
Key Takeaways:
> Putting your faith in the hands of an anonymous group of unseen people with high speed connections, no dog in your hunt and time on their hands may not always give you what you want. This is probably why self-policing boards are successful and why Sanjaya is now a household word.
> If a disaffected consumer …. or, heaven forbid, a competitor …. gets a hold of an online promotion, research project, or open forum upon which we are planning to make concrete business decisions, we’re going to end up in a bad place. Let’s take this into consideration up front. The old days of mall intercepts and focus groups dealt with this problem very effectively; the internet, for all its speed and convenience, isn’t as airtight as eye to eye contact when it comes to getting unadulterated feedback.
> Simon shouldn’t quit. But he should think carefully about how to change the voting process on American Idol. If we were in Simon’s place, we’d be smart to do the same.
* * *
It’s not that we can’t trust our customers anymore — these we can probably trust because they care about the results. Complete strangers and Howard Stern fans, on the other hand, might not be the brand stewards we hoped they’d be. Perhaps it all comes down to the personal involvement of your audience.
If the downside of social media is represented by lurkers looking to maliciously drag your project off into the weeds, then it stands to reason that the upside should be the cultivation of highly motivated, passionate and involved communities. How we nurture these communities and what checks and balances we place upon them deserve more attention as we build our next generation plans.
Tags: American_Idol, Kathy_Sierra, Sanjaya, Simon_Cowell, social_media, Stephen_Denny, Z_list
Interesting post, Stephen. But I don’t think this is a downside to social media. It’s one of the beautiful things about it. Their is a mass of people out there whose voices are being heard. They are spending their time and money to make a mockery of something that they believe needs to be made a mockery of. They are the haters. Don’t hate them because they are doing something that we don;t agree with. In other words, if the masses are dragging your project off into the weeds – maybe that’s where it’s supposed to be.
You have to admit, it’s adding to the drama of this show and I’m sure Fox doesn’t mind that we’re wasting our time talking about it here.
Around here, we always say that we want people to love your brand, or hate it. There should be no in-between. The fact that people are interacting with the AI brand – positively or negatively – is fantastic. Everyone’s voice is heard. When it comes down to the final two and Sanjaya wins, then maybe it’s time AI ends it. There are obviously a group of people who think that its time is up. And maybe for good reason. At least they have a way to express it.
Spike: interesting to get your take on this.
Here’s the analogy I’d use to frame up the problem: if I were the Chairman of the Republican (or Democratic) Party, I’d make sure that only my party’s registered voters were voting in my primaries. The reason is that I want my voters to choose the candidate that they want — not the candidate that someone else thinks they have the best chance to defeat.
If voters in complete anonymity are using vastly different voting criteria — one wants the best and the other wants the worst for their own malicious purposes — then the results aren’t indicative of anything.
If Sanjaya were being voted in because he’s got great hair, or because he’s the new incarnation of Elvis, or because he’s Indian, and the judges all prefer classically trained tenors from the Met, so be it. That isn’t what’s happening. This feels much more like vandalism.
I’m all for letting the market speak, as long as they’re answering the same question at the same time.
Stephen, I’m not convinced Sanjaya is really still around because of Vote for the Worst. I think the “social media” aspect of the story has been overplayed.
A couple of seasons back, another really mediocre teen hearththrob (this one cleancut and redheaded, like Richie Cunningham) stuck around for a painfully long time. I think it’s an inherent drawback to the American Idol model: it’s popular among young people, and those young people are the most likely to have a cell phone and send a vote via text message. And guys like Sanjaya are in the sweet spot of what those voters want.
So we usually get 4 or 5 extremely painful performances, during which the designated teen heartthrob looks increasingly embarrassed every time the voters keep him around. Finally the field of contestants is narrowed, and voters coalesce around talented contestants, and the heartthrob gets voted off. I think it will happen to Sanjaya, too.
If it doesn’t happen, then we’ll know Vote for the Worst had an influence.
Spike makes a great point. In the end it will be the people who decide who wins American Idol (and if your brand survives).
If enough people can be swayed by Howard Stern or a web site to vote Sanjaya the American Idol then that is a message that should be listened to by the producers. The same holds true in US politics and with our own brands. It is different beliefs that generate passion for and against something. For me I would rather have 10 clients who are passionate about my services and talk about it then 50 who could care less.
One side note: I do watch American Idol and I love the idea of kids getting an opportunity to follow their dreams. I am no connoisseur of vocals but I know what I like and there are several contestants that are already professional enough to be touring and creating albums. In the end Idol is a performing contest not a singing contest and the same thing applies to brands. People buy the whole package.
I was recently having my hair cut and was talking to the hair dresser about idol. Two young ladies were there when I mentioned how bad I thought Sanjaya was and I could not understand why he was not voted off. They said: “Oh no. He is so cute. We love him.” So his votes are not all from disgruntled Howard Stern listeners.
This is a great post, SD, and you raise some interesting points. But like Spike, I’m not sure these examples underscore a “down side.”
In my view, this strength is its weakness, and vice versa. And as for “Fanjaya,” well… it’s great theater, isn’t it?
Glad you posted this, Stephen. I’m sure it was not intended as a political comment, but it’s a good reminder that political and social worldview colors perception and perspective. In other words, what one considers vandalism (perhaps because of a conservative bent) another considers a cool guerrilla tactic – an iconoclastic strike at the weak point of an establishment… idol/icon.
After throwing my bias into the first line of my note – not being a watcher of the show — I truly hope its a question of “Fanjaya” and not Howard Stern. The Vote for the Worst element is what I’d describe as e-vandalism. If the fans love him, that’s great.
Stephen,
I have stayed out of this conversation because I wanted to read what others had to say. It’s unfortunate that Idol became the focus because I think your last paragraph should be the topic of conversation:
“If the downside of social media is represented by lurkers looking to maliciously drag your project off into the weeds, then it stands to reason that the upside should be the cultivation of highly motivated, passionate and involved communities. How we nurture these communities and what checks and balances we place upon them deserve more attention as we build our next generation plans.”
When we build those plans, we must understand that a downside can exist and that maliciousness is a possibility. I don’t know the solution but I do recognize the problem and our challenge to deal with it.
Lewis:
I think you comment is the right springboard for moving forward.
If we believe the vandalism to be real, then we can put some creativity into how we limit its spread.
Stephen, I love the reaction I get when I respond to people who ask: ‘How are you?’ and I respond: ‘Opinions vary’.
Really, when you think about it, opinions do.
Let’s face facts, statistically speaking, one half (a full 50 percent) of everyone you meet, will either like you, or dislike you. It’s either one way, or the other.
Of course, there are the varying shades of grey too, where some folks will gradually slide down the scale and eventually hit the ‘I absolutely despise you’, but that is usually balanced by the folks who grow to absolutely love you, and everything in between.
There is always an a-hole in every crowd. Everyone has to suffer their fool. The moral implications do not really matter in the grand scheme of things as its not up to me to judge the judgements of others, I can only have opinions, and opinions DO vary.
As for free speech, I compare it to swinging one’s arms. Everyone is free to swing their arms as high and as wide as he or she wishes, but your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins. I will retain the right to my opinion about your arm swinging, and frankly could care less what your opinion about my opinion is. I would, however, enjoy debating differring opinions. Let the chips fall where they may.