Google+ Gets Glamour-ous.

Google+ often draws much criticism for not having as much activity as other social networks, like Facebook and Twitter. I have seen it referred to as a ghost town, where people may create accounts that they quickly abandon because of a lack of appeal. One feature on Google+, though, that really stands out is the opportunity for users to initiate "hangouts".

Glamour Hangouts on Google+

Glamour Magazine, a fashion publication, has launched a series of scheduled hangouts with any of its followers over the next month. Any of these hangouts will give them a chance to showcase products that may be partnered with them, some of the expertise of their staff, or even just further gauge the interests of their readers and followers. At a time when print media is supposedly on the decline, this is a great way for them to increase consumer interest in the service they are offering.

When I first read the headline of the article linked above, my mind immediately jumped to the conclusion that Glamour and Google would be charging users for the ability to participate in these hangouts. As different as that is, that in itself could be considered newsworthy and a little innovative. While the ability to start a hangout with anyone is free on Google+, presenting these specific opportunities as premiums would have elevated the brand to a prestige not previously explored.

Instead, Glamour still finds themselves the first movers in an area that could prove to be quite lucrative. Product placement has been increasing in both quantity and quality over the past few years, especially since television commercials are no longer viewed as much as they used to be. Display advertising, the online equivalent of print ads, has very low relative success, as well. Much of it is ignored, since it may not appeal to the Internet user that is seeing it.

For those involved in these hangouts, though, the relevancy of what is being presented can not be questioned at all. If a Google+ user is interested, they will participate, so there would be no waste in promotional coverage. Glamour has everything to gain, though, since their followers and readers will either come to trust their expertise even more or invest in the products that are being presented to them.

It will be interesting to see how other brands might try to explore product placement via social interactions in the future. Google+ hangouts present the most interactive opportunity that could be available to a company right now, and the effectiveness of a brand with actual products to promote, as opposed to partnered brands, could vary based on consumers' reactions.

A Sign of the Times.

I've talked plenty about newspapers and print media and their struggles in competing with digitization. Many are still far behind in the transition to online publication, but the New York Times and Prudential teamed up to produce an interactive advertisement that certainly sparks some interest in the media legend.

NYT Interactivity

The idea of the ad on Prudential's end was to promote their products that help to sustain life longevity. Readers could see what was considered front page-worthy on the day they were born, thus showing how much things have changed since that day. In all the time I've spent on the Internet in my life, I don't think I have seen an advertisement work so effectively for both the advertising brand and its host. It encourages interest in both the New York Times and Prudential, and it does so without controversy.

Both brands are established already in their respective fields, but the awareness helps them both in ways that are tough to duplicate.

With many print media sources trying to find a way to move online, an advertising spot like this would encourage readers of the New York Times to visit their site again. Higher traffic will bring more readers, at least numerically, and also increase the opportunity to profit from ad revenue.

Prudential, on the other hand, promotes themselves through the successful execution of their advertisement. They successfully designed a piece of integrated marketing that addresses the interests of the viewership of another company, while also promoting the ideas of themselves at the same time. It's tough to do, but all in all, it's a great approach to a very modern marketing environment.

Cheap Feats.

A few days ago, a post on Reddit attracted much attention. This specific post was the picture of a receipt from Olive Garden, supposedly the result of a family being comped by the restaurant for their recent woes. The daughter autonomously told the waiter that her grandpa's house had just burned down, and Olive Garden made sure their meal for the night was free.

Brandjacking

Much can be said for brands that truly treat their customers right. However, many were skeptical that this picture was the product of a hoax. Comments on the Reddit thread speculated that the picture was fake, the company hired the poster for publicity, or even that they set up the situation in the store. Many Internet-users happen to be quite cynical, so it's no surprise that there were many doubts about the situation.

Whether or not it is true that Olive Garden is at fault here wouldn't be known unless someone admitted wrongdoing. Simply denying involvement, even if true, does little to curb the doubts of the opposing side of any situation. The real topic worth discussing, though, is how could this "brandjacking" tactic be utilized more effectively, if at all.

Internet users despise corporate sponsorship in their websites. They don't like clutter by itself, but when it is being advertised at them against their will, they see it as wrong. However, many companies might find that a lot of their target markets frequent free sites like Reddit, Imgur, and other social sharing sites. At this point in time, though, it doesn't seem like any certain company has figured out how to effectively navigate these waters.

The problem with companies on these sites is that they stick out very easily when they try direct advertising. So let's pretend for a second that the Olive Garden incident was, indeed, staged. What did they do wrong? What could they have done better?

For starters, the message portrayed in the story is fantastic. It's selfless and considerate, and the average person can always appreciate that. However, when posed as a setup, it seems like the company is toying with the emotions of everyone, belittling the woes that could actually be a reality for someone else. It comes off as manipulative and a little evil. Once this is pointed out, the fight to correct this train of thought is an uphill battle in a very downhill-type environment.

If a company was to actually try and use this approach of marketing, which seems very guerrilla in nature to me, they would need to establish a reputation on whichever site they were utilizing. Reddit and Imgur show how long users have held membership with their sites, and often what they comment or post, so other users can evaluate the authenticity of the user based off of that information alone. They would need to use this otherwise-established account for a one-time stunt that could draw much attention to wherever they see fit. Nothing too outrageous, though, or else users won't believe what they see.

The online community is often a difficult crowd to reach with marketing materials, but this Olive Garden controversy is a good example of a company that, by accident, may or may not have gotten closer to figuring it out.

Google Glass, Revisited.

Google is one of a few companies that has both the capabilities and the resources to adapt to the rapidly changing landscape of technology. With first-mover advantages leading innovators to net huge profits for their creativity and timeliness, research and development teams are constantly trying to find that cutting edge that will set their brand apart from everyone else.

A few weeks ago, I posted about the potential of Google's new product development, Project Glass. It could, and still can, disrupt the entire advertising industry. Here's the link.

Breaking through the advertising Glass ceiling.

The online giant has posed a new challenge, though. With the online market functioning so heavily off of consumer feedback and communication, Google has asked those interested in the project to tell all about what they would do if they had a model of Glass. A revamped video that, once again, highlights the many uses of the product can be found on multiple YouTube channels online, and it was just released this morning.

On their website (Google Glass) this video follows up a plethora of information regarding the new product, its many color offerings, and a contest.

Google has become so confident in Project Glass that they have implemented this contest to see just what potential users would do with it. Using the hashtag "#ifihadglass" on Twitter and Google+ and explaining just what you would do enters you into a contest just to be able to buy an early model of Glass for $1500+ and try it out. That doesn't include taxes or the cost of flying out to one of three large American cities to actually pick it up.

Let's first address the fact that this may be the best $1500 opportunity to ever be available to the general public. As a college student, I have maybe that much money collectively from both my savings and my checking accounts. I would spend all of it to acquire a pair of these bad boys.

With that in mind, the luxurious price tag they've slapped on it can only do them well. It generates interest in the product, and, in the worst-case scenario, they would have to lower prices to facilitate demand for a product that is already generating a ridiculous amount of buzz online.

A multi-billion dollar company doesn't have as much as the average company trying to roll out a groundbreaking product, but it seems as if Google won't have any problem with Glass.

Owning the Internet.

Gartner, Inc. defines the Internet of Things (IoT) as "a concept that describes how the Internet will expand as physical items such as consumer devices and physical assets are connected to the Internet." The general definition of IoT is always expanding, since technology is always expanding. Everyday, companies become more familiar with mobile and some of the newer services offered to Internet users.

An avenue not normally considered buzz-worthy around this time of year is the digital world. Marketing departments typically pursue the most popular option: the Super Bowl.

The Value of a $4 Million Super Bowl Ad

Research from the Digiday article linked above shows that the price of a standard 30-second article could buy much more in the digital world. The hefty tag of $4,000,000 could buy prolonged exposure on Twitter, Hulu, and many other websites. With so many of today's consumers being active Internet users, this advertising provides vital exposure to brands that want to be more productive online.

Not every company tries to make a big splash during the most-viewed athletic event in the nation. Those that do are thrust into the spotlight, hoping to pull off something that will stick in viewers' heads long-term. Chrysler's "Halftime in America" commercial last year, with Clint Eastwood narrating the return of a once-failing automobile manufacturer, stimulated quite a bit of buzz around the brand. Volkswagen usually has memorable spots, ranging from a domesticated dog trying to chase one of their cars instead of a mailman to a little boy trying to emulate Darth Vader by using The Force.

Chrysler's commercial from last year lasted 2 minutes and 1 second, much longer than the standard timeslot mentioned earlier. The ad cost Chrysler an estimated $14 million, an amount that could essentially take over all of the available ad space in the relevant digital world for at least a few days.

So what's the big deal?

It's already been established that the modern consumer spends a fair amount of time online. While not every social media user or online shopper is looking to purchase a car, there are ways to put even just a small fraction of that sum of money to use effectively.

Above all else, the objective of whatever is done should be to make your actions relevant. If a company tries throwing their slogan around the Twittersphere or Tumblr, most users will write it off instantly. Even normal consumers don't want to feel like they're being sold to. It usually comes off as condescending and a little degrading. A short hashtag or current idea that would encourage responses from any Internet user could be considered most effective. The company itself may try to sell its image through the use of whichever approach they decide to use, but it's important to let the online community do the rest.

A preemptive approach to pursuing the online market is by listening to whatever research is available. If 35% of your customers are active Twitter users, but only 12% use Instagram, it'd be wise to stray away from focusing on broadening your presence on the latter.

Some companies become too aggressive when using a new online campaign. On highly-frequented sites like ESPN and YouTube, there might be ads that rollover and start playing videos or displaying extra content, even if the user accidentally scrolled over the area for as little as a second. This is a very passive form of harassment. People enjoy the Internet because of all of the freedoms it allows, and having an idea or image forced upon you in that way is just uncomfortable.

The last important aspect to remember when initiating a high-dollar online campaign is that you have to have something to say. If you are just trying to increase brand recognition, there are definitely ways to do that. Word-of-mouth communication spreads fastest online, so having a short and simple message that can really halt the short attention spans of today's savvy consumers is vital to moving any kind of product.

If you're going to own the Internet for any extended period of time, you might as well make sure people remember it.

Breaking through the advertising Glass ceiling.

Many of us have seen the video of Google's Project Glass. For those that haven't, here it is.

Pretty nifty. It takes everything we ever wanted in a smart phone and condensed them into a techie-hipster style pair of glasses. While it isn't available for purchase yet, it will be. The folks at Google are both smart enough and wealthy enough to make sure a cool product like this is ready for production before the buzz around it wears out.

But what comes next? Mass production of a concept like this?

The idea of interactive holograms isn't new by any means, but it is a much more realistic idea now. Pattie Maes revealed at a TED Talk some technology that provides user-friendly interface for operating a phone system from just around your neck. A few years from now, bigger companies like Google could make even bigger strides in developing the technology that just may challenge the tangibility of space.

How Google Glass Could Change Advertising

With innovation comes opportunity. Mashable did a brief write-up about the possibilities created by the introduction of Google's Project Glass. While noting that Project Glass coordinators won't be having any of companies trying to advertise on their experimental platform, writer Todd Wasserman points out that the web browser wasn't supposed to initially be a breakthrough for advertising.

Is it just a matter of time? One could argue either way.

On one hand, consumers often hesitate to consistently use products that try to manipulate or sell their brand to them. Twitter faced a decent uproar recently due to their adding banner ads to the top of users' home screens, something many users found aesthetically displeasing. Sure enough, the site fixed the problem and all was well.

On the other hand, the technology giant with a brand big enough to draw more advertising revenue than most companies can even dream of should hardly scoff at the opportunity to capitalize on that very fact. Partnerships are nice to have. Google may not need any partners, but in an economy as down as ours is expected to be in the near future, their partnering with smaller firms and companies could mean more for the rest of us than for them.

With programs like AdWords and Analytics, Google has done plenty to foray outside of the search engine label that has so limited sites like Bing and Yahoo!. They know the appeal for companies of advertising on large platforms, as Project Glass projects to be.

So until those techie-hipster glasses finally come out, the rest of us will publicly sweat the debate regarding whether Google will choose to protect the purity of their flashy eyewear or promote the very processes that have made them so much money from the start.

Commence freaking out.