Filed under: 1 | Tags: facebook, twitter, social media, supermodelme, singapore
…or both?
Look carefully, boys. These girls don’t just want to be the next supermodels, they’re also your next ’social media experts’.
When I received an invite to the launch party for SUPERMODELME I was about to dismiss it as another Singaporean fashion event I couldn’t go to, but it turns out this is no ordinary reality TV show.
Sure, it’s another cliche concept; put 10 hot girls together in a house with the shared dream of being a supermodel and watch the inevitable catfights and gratuitous fashion shoots. But here’s what’s different…
For one thing, it’s not on TV. The show will air online twice a week (starting June 16), with a constant interactive platform for viewers to talk to contestants and each other. Each of the models already has a Youtube video and a Twitter account, with rumours that the girls will be compared on how many followers they can attract. I think my vote goes with @fiona_smm – she seems to be ruling Twitter tactics so far.
++ no fights with broadcasting producers or competing for prime spots
++ the best models need to be good at interacting with people and doing promotions
** just waiting for them to figure out twitpic and photoblogging…
The much-hyped development is the use of ‘Hyperspot’, which will allow viewers to click on the videos to find out everything from who did the models’ hair to the price of their shoes.
+- another nail in the coffin for TV advertising?
++ extra value for advertisers in finding out the products with the most clicks as well as resulting sales (it’s like having pay per view AND pay per click!)
Of course, another bonus is that an online show is accessible to everyone, and with contestants coming from across the world it looks like they’re hoping to pick up a global audience. The winner is touted to become Asia’s ‘next hottest face’ and with Singapore being a popular testing ground for models it wouldn’t be surprising to see them go beyond that.
It also goes without saying that they’re on Facebook and Twitter.
Combine this withVIP access levels on their website and exclusive parties (which will most likely be covered online shortly after) and you have a very luxe, slick social media model.
Then again, this isn’t the first super-concept by Refinery Media’s Karen Seah…another of her brainchilds (brainchildren??) supperclub ‘Trybe’ at Mimolette uses Facebook groups to determine their guestlist. The catch? It’s secret, and you can only get an invite once you have friended their doorbitch account.
++ why refuse people at the door when you can check out their fb profile first?
SUPERMODELME might just fill the hole in my procrastination left by the Gossip Girl break.
– hello failing exams…
Filed under: 1 | Tags: facebook, LinkedIn, messenger, Myspace, social networking, twitter
With enough media mentions to make Apple jealous, social networking’s belle of the ball Twitter has been recruiting new users left and right who want to know, what makes Twitter so different?
That same question is still being asked by existing users in the hope that it’ll help them figure out what the next big thing in social networking will be.
But social networking ain’t just social networking. There’s different types of interaction…
Facebook, Messenger programs – they’re like having a party with your friends in a pub. Though you get a few friends of friends and the occasional random seeking attention, by and large you can keep things to just the people you know.
LinkedIn, chat rooms, message boards – they’re like a networking event. A few familiar faces but mostly you’re there to meet people who are interested in the same things as you.
But Twitter…Twitter is the equivalent of busking. There’s a lot of strangers going past; some will stop, others will just walk on by.
The thing is, you keep talking no matter how many people are listening. Except Twitter has given you the ability to listen to a lot of buskers at the same time. Everyone becomes a busker. There’s a race to get the most people watching. But what really matters at the end of the day is how many you’ve influenced enough to give you mone– I mean, attention.
[Attention, money; they become comparable in this case because everyone's got limited amounts, some are more willing or able to give them than others.]
Can we use this to predict what the next form of socialising will be? No. If it were that logical, it would probably be out there by now – and if I had the answer I wouldn’t be telling you. 
But it DOES tell us a few things about how long Twitter will last.
You stay at a party longer because the people you know are there. You stay at a networking event because you’ve met interesting people or want to meet more. But a busker will stay for the money, the adoring eyes and the opportunity to make friends with a couple of people after the show.
For those not following the metaphor – retention for Twitter will most likely only require keeping a tipping point in the number of total users as opposed to having a tipping point within every user interest group or clique. That means, once users have an established crowd they’re likely to stay. Conversely, it also means there’s less pressure for them to stay if they have a smaller crowd because they’re not losing contact with friends.
On a side note, the beginnings of relationships that are built on Twitter need to go into another medium before they start to mean anything. Maybe that’s something for the next social networking site to consider…
If Twitter were a tabloid…this is what it might look like 
Nothing like a healthy dose of self-deprecation.
We’re finally getting some research into social media, hooray! Some more scientific than others.
First up, these tips on how to get followers on Twitter really made me realise how fixated we get on followers. Not the size of our impact, but how many followers we have.
How many times have you received Facebook friend requests from people you know but don’t talk to? Or from people you don’t know at all? It’s as if there’s a competition for the number of friends you have (one cousin has over 3000, and counting).
So how do you get Twitter followers? Always Be Linking. To random stuff people will click on. Repeat yourself. Follow people even if you don’t know them and aren’t interested in them. As many as possible. Attach yourself to popular people. Repeat yourself.
Sound like a familiar strategy?
Sounds a little bit like spam to me…
Speaking of spam, and size – check out this research paper from UCSD about the response rate for spam.
They’ve done a study on how many spam emails actually get read and how many actually lead to sales/computer infections. How? They actually extracted data from three existing spam bots running with a Storm worm.
The results are interesting. For your everyday ‘pharmaceutical’ (read: ‘give her a BIG surprise’) spam:
- about 350 million emails were sent over 19 days
- 76% were not delivered/blocked
- 10,000 people visited the site promoted
- only 28 actually made a purchase
That’s a conversion rate of 0.0000081%. (Yet it still apparently remains profitable enough…)
So, spam is not the way to go. Great example of HIGH AWARENESS, low influence.
Filed under: 1 | Tags: broadcast, impersonations, MLC, online advertising, twitter
Yes, I should be revising or sleeping, but I’m curious about a couple of things…
- How does Twitter make money? DOES it make money?
- Can you sue for online impersonation, say, the kevinrudd account on Twitter (not kevinruddpm)
- I saw an ad just before about an interactive feature which is meant to be on the MLC website. Something about joining their panel of experts for discussing…stuff. Um. Want to know more about this one!
A lot of people are talking about politicians on Twitter and whether they should be using it to just broadcast or actually interact and address issues that come up. Now one of my favourite clubs has jumped on the bandwagon and I’m wondering where they should draw the line…
I think there are a few possible levels of involvement on Twitter, from lowest to highest:
- Broadcast – you just write your own updates
- Listen – you write your own updates and follow others passively
- Respond – you write updates and also reply to @ twitters
- Interact – you write, respond and create @ responses to others’ tweets
- Engage – you write to provoke responses and actively interact, creating…conversation.
As a politician you don’t really have time to engage. In fact, if you’re engaging all the time then I’d start wondering if you’re really doing anything with my taxes at all.
Most people are saying that politicians can acceptably draw the line at Responding.
However, the club that’s just joined Twitter currently looks like it’s just stopping at Broadcasting.
Is that okay? Can they just stop at giving us information? How far can they go towards engaging?
[Edit: Just found the Darth Vader Twitter - hilarious enough to get away with Broadcast any day.]
Filed under: 1 | Tags: 140, David Ogilvy, impersonations, Mad Men, twitter
Name katherineliew
Location Australia
Web http://katherinel…
Bio Like Ogilvy, believes in long copy.
@David_Ogilvy When you added me, I was confused. Aren’t you dead? (Sorry.) Twitter profile info is limited, so if I hadn’t known it couldn’t be you I might have believed it was. But now I see…you’re part of an elaborate ring of Twitter accounts mostly made up of characters from ‘Mad Men’, the AMC TV show. Fan-based or sneaky advertising strategy, I wonder? Well if you’re run by AMC, then the litigation and account closure of some main characters was a clever touch. Makes you realize how easy it is to impersonate on Twitter. Whether this is good advertising, good UGC or potential brand hijacking, I can now say Ogilvy is following me…
about time to watch TV from AMC
