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.

The Private Parts.

Pictures play a large part in making the Internet what it is: a visual spectrum with images of all kinds for anyone to enjoy. Every search engine has a feature that can explore postings on the Web for anything uploaded by online users. Results are neatly displayed, with links to their original pages, and the experience is becoming easier with every day that passes.

An issue that's existed with every aspect of the Internet, however, is that of security/privacy. High-profile brands run the risk of being impersonated without knowing. Big money-earning companies may be hacked, as well, just as Bank of America has in the past. Social sites like Facebook often come under fire for the accessibility of content posted by users. What about image sharing sites like Flickr?

Flickr Bug Exposes Private Photos

Recently the photo-sharing site had some issues regarding users' private pictures not actually being private. While not every user was wronged by this bug, those that were received an oddly frustrating treatment as reparations. Every public photo submitted by affected users was turned private, regardless of how the user wanted them to be.

On one hand, users are highly inconvenienced (albeit for a short time) by having to go out and select specific pictures to be set to a specific privacy setting. The service is free, but so are other social sites. Messing up with privacy settings is an easy way to lose a lot of traffic, but messing up the cleanup process afterward is an easy way to garner some poor ratings from lost consumers. You don't really see Facebook or Twitter doing much besides temporarily going out of service, leaving everyone inconvenienced at once, instead of temporarily dropping the ball for a select few.

On the other hand, this type of reaction can be attributed to how this generation of Internet users is. Everything needs to be free and as quick or convenient as possible. Some third party may just need to step in and remind everyone involved that they should try providing a better service if they'd like to complain about it.

Flickr doesn't necessarily need to worry about losing all the traffic on its site; with platforms like Instagram gaining in popularity, it's getting easier than ever to upload pictures in a more social manner. However, with more people flocking to online photo services, it would do nothing but help them if they could learn from their mistakes with this most recent bug and provide better service to their current users.

Quora moves beyond questions.

In recent years, many sources of knowledge have emerged to respond to the wild curiosities of the millennials. Wikipedia, though seen as unreliable, has the widest public variety of information available free of charge. While anyone can edit the pages, that leaves them open to being supercharged with specific information from experts anywhere. Information posted without sources is usually taken down soon after it is put up.

Another recognizable name from the past few years is ChaCha, a service that responds to specific questions that users submit via both Internet and text messaging. Using it is free, with the exception of advertisements that fill the time between question and answer. For a generation so used to instant gratification for any matter, this was a short-lived revelation.

Then there's Quora. Currently sitting at 36th on the list of top free reference apps in the iTunes App Store after more than a year since its initial release (September 29th, 2011), it's clear users are satisfied with the way it works. The New York Times even named it one of the next multi-billion dollar startups.

So what gives?

Internet users want more than just information these days. They want interaction. Quora uses the quality resources it has in its great writing talent to appease the curiosity of users. It would only make sense for them to incorporate something very common: blogs.

Quora's Introduction of Blogs

There is slight concern over whether or not the addition of blogging will dilute the effectiveness the company has with its most important service: answering questions.

I'd like to attempt to answer that question, though. Quite simply, it won't. Internet users are smart enough to separate content based on its purpose. They know that a blog won't fulfill their wondering mind as much as the direct questioning they already planned on doing. However, if there is time to read at all, users will enjoy the material presented to them.

With most of their traffic being questions about personal interests, Quora has a strong advantage in how they can structure their blogs. It isn't hard to track how often information on different subjects is requested. It will be easier for them to create material that users will enjoy without requesting for it to actually be written about. Though they don't have a way to directly monetize their blogging platform yet, Quora might have just set themselves apart from most of their competition, while finding new competitors at the same time.