I would argue that the key to using free iPhone apps as an effective brand awareness exercise, or as a way to drive physical sales, is not novelty usage.

Take for example the new app from the photography accessories company Joby, who primarily sell Gorillapods – flexible tripods for cameras. They now offer these tripods for mobile devices and with the launch of their new range they’ve made a free app to accompany these accessories. The Gorillacam app has an array of features you’d expect to pay for. It’s certainly not a one trick pony. It has a shot timer, time lapse, rapid-shot mode and a bubble level. There’s this great “press anywhere” mode too, that lets you press the touchscreen anywhere in order to take a photo. This app makes self portraits and photos with your friends really easy, something that’s virtually impossible with the standard iPhone camera app.

I can see myself using the Gorillacam app over and over again. I’ve already placed it beside my other camera apps – apps which I willingly paid for. I would have paid for the GorillaCam app too. I didn’t have to pay for it and in exchange I’ll be seeing the brandname Joby over and over again. I’ll also be constantly reminded of how if I bought a Gorillapod for my iPhone, I could fully utilize the brilliant features of this free app.

I may have initially been triggered with a desire for a sausage sandwich or a can of Coke, but with no motivation to use either app over and over again, the trigger was never reinforced again. With Gorillacam, I’ll be reminded of my interest in their products every time I happily use that free app.

Now that is an effective free, branded, iPhone app.

The stars of the movie have posted a bizarrely funny little cinemash online, mixing together the new movie with a scene from Sid and Nancy, they’ve also filmed a really cool bank heist/movie musical homage, you can listen to the entire soundtrack streaming online, and there are countless behind the scenes videos available online that you’d usually have to wait to see on the DVD release. Obviously there’s the website and a Facebook page but they’ve also been running some interesting hybrid engagement ads on Facebook and have a widget you can add to your profile. They’ve definitely been attempting to encourage elements of crowdsourcing and tapping into the viral nature of information and social networks online.

It’s not often that an online campaign stands out to me in such a way that it’s worthy of more than just a tweet. The difference between this campaign in comparison to the many others before it is how feature rich it is and it gives the sense that there is an understanding of the behaviour and motivations of the target user – i.e if you want a user to help promote your movie, your brand, whatever, you need to give them something actually worthwhile in return and they will be much more open to reciprocation.

Visitors to the website or facebook page have the option of creating an alternative movie poster using their facebook photos (or new uploads) or create a  a highly personalised custom mix tape – features of the campaign which are engaging, and create something worth sharing – they can also access all the free content on the website. They’re also just about to launch a microsite where you can create a Spotify playlist reflecting various stages of the movie romance (with the best playlist wining the creator a ticket to all the UK festivals next summer).

By facilitating an engaging user experience that produces user generated content, you increase your chances of the user reciprocating i.e allowing the application to access their Facebook profile, to promote the movie with a profile update, or auto-tweeting a link to their personal mix tape, or embedding it in a blog post or sidebar etc. I personally spent about 20 minutes creating a mixtape, and quite enjoyed the experience and end result (pity those tracks are only 30min samples though).

This is just a great example of integrated movie marketing that takes a step further than those boresome movie microsites that allow you to distort your face into a Vulcan, a Transformer, a Terminator etc. and I’m hoping to see much more creativity like this in the near future.

Have you discovered one of your favourite music artists by chance on a social networking site? How do you feel about friend requests from bands you’ve never heard of? Can you recall a really outstanding marketing approach from a music artist on a social networking site? Lots of questions and one survey which is trying to find out the answer:  Fansights 2.0

Fansights 2.0 – The Survey

To introduce myself: My name is Kathrin and like Sinéad I am a master student at IADT and right now running a survey as part of my master thesis. My survey Fansights 2.0 is about music marketing on social networking sites (e.g. MySpace, Bebo, Facebook) and the perception of these marketing techniques among music fans. I am still looking for music fans and music promoters who would be willing to take part in my survey. If you could take a few minutes to fill out the survey or pass it on to interested friends I would really appreciate it. You can also drop me a message under www.myspace.com/fansights and you will receive a copy of the results once they are published.

Thanks a mill to Sinéad for posting this and to everybody interested in my research project!

Privacy vs. Publicity in the Virtual World

Daniel Solove, author of “The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet” (available for free here) opened this discussion with various anecdotes pertaining to the negative effects of personal details being shared online, either on purpose i.e. through your personal blog, or without the person’s consent e.g. the Star Wars Kid. Coming from a background in law, Solove suggests that the only way to curtail personal details being posted online without your consent is by the threat of legal action being more heavily employed.

“Be responsible”

Solove suggests that allowing anonymity online is irresponsible as it removes any control we have over our personal data (e.g. intimate personal details being posted online without consent) and that the law can only do so much to provide protection. For example, while it may be possible for a photographer to have an unapproved photo removed from an unlicensed website, the individual in the photo has no legal standing. This is because copyright law is much more powerful than privacy law.

“Intertwined with the lives of others”

Solove described how we all have expectations of privacy and anonymity in public, despite always being exposed and how this notion of privacy is mistakenly expected online. Claiming that 50% of bloggers were under the age of 19, he described these Internet users as “Generation Google” – individuals that have had their lives chronicled online, leaving behind fragments of their past that are pervasive and destructive to their future.

Opinion

I disagree with Solove’s judgment that anonymity is irresponsible on the part of ISP’s and websites that encourage and allow it. Anonymity online has always provided Internet users with a constructive means for liberal expression and play, without the risk of social impairment. Though anonymity provides users the facility to post lies online without any apparent risk (except in a serious case where your IP address might be used against you), the power of an anonymous message is certainly not as strong as a message coming from a reputable source.

“Generation Google” is something that I myself am a part of, but it is a heavily constructed and thought out self, which is something anyone reading a blog or a social networking profile needs to consider. Using google search results as a basis for a decision on a job or college applicant is something that I would consider irresponsible, and lazy. Nothing we post online is a 100% true reflection of ourselves, imagine a youthful, boastful comment left on a friend’s social networking profile that might actually be sarcastic or part of an in-joke. It’s all about context, and if the context is unknown then the information is invalid. It is lazy to think otherwise.

Panel Discussion

Following this keynote address was a panel discussion chaired by Caroline Campbell, featuring Jim Carroll, Cormac Callanan, Niall Larkin (read his thoughts on this symposium here) and Damien “almost blogs for a living” Mulley. Daithí Mac Sithigh was also in the audience and has written up a great summary of the panel discussion.

“Whatever goes on the Internet stays on the Internet”

The most prevalent message from this one-sided discussion was that everything you do online is being used to build behavioural profiles for marketing and advertising. On Facebook (and probably other social networking websites) your actions are logged and combined with your profile information for contextual marketing and advertising. Sophisticated data mining tools are used in Gmail and other free online services. Law enforcement in the US use these data mining techniques to track down possible terrorists and it was suggested that all of these combined could lead to surveillance and stalking by commercial and non-commercial companies for negative reasons, debt-collection is an example used by a member of the audience.

Privacy in this instance is not about the actual collection of the data, it’s what happens to it afterwards. Suggestions were made that it would be preferable to have access to this profile and to be notified when your data is being accessed and by whom. However, when Mulley asked the audience “Who actually cares?” a minority raised their hands.

Opinion

In my opinion, many of the members of the panel seemed to be scaremongering the audience. It would have been a more interesting discussion if even one of the members of the panel was under 30 (correct me if I’m wrong). All of them seemed quite outraged by the idea that their personal details and behaviour online could be used to help companies make more money. I would argue that there are many positive things about this type of data mining, for example, attempts (unsuccessful so far) at contextualising advertising on websites such as Facebook.

Contextual ads make advertisements entertaining and informative. Personally, I’d rather this than being bombarded with irrelevant ads (like when I watch television). However, this does not mean that the advertising is more successful because of this. Despite the fear of behavioural profiles being sold to marketing and advertising executives, these sets of data are in no way accurate at predicting human behaviour. Behaviour changes on a daily basis and can’t be actualised using selective pieces of information we ourselves post into the likes of social networking websites. Our reactions to advertising and products can change based on far too many variables for a behavioural profile to predict.

Websites like Facebook and Google give us a service and our payment to them is our content. Without our content these websites are completely useless and no-one would be willing to pay for them. It’s naive for anyone to think that you can get something for nothing online and if you’ve nothing to hide, why be so afraid of a little data mining? How does this even affect your every day life? I would argue that it doesn’t. It’s a pity the panel were so strongly of the opinion that it was 100% negative. I do however agree that users signing up to these services might need to be informed more readily of the fact that their data might be used in this manner.

The question is – Do you care? (Take a second to Take the poll or leave a comment below).