the art of conversation

Exploring Y-space

We set up an experimental Generation-Y online community, made up of 16-18 year olds. It's been running for six weeks of its intended 3 months, so it's half time and time to take stock, have some oranges and a bit of team talk. Incidentally, it's called Y-space (Do you see what we've done there?)

We've had some successes and some, um, learnings. We've had successful live online discussions, detailed responses to who they are, what they're into and what their hopes are for the future.

On the learnings side, some Y-Spacers are far more dedicated than others. We've been experimenting with how to increase response rates by making changes to the content and trying to make it feel more of a community than a panel.

We also realise that cash incentives don't necessarily lead to participation. So maybe more important than a financial incentive is to feel involved in something, to feel part of a community, to feel that they are influencing or contributing to the worlds of marketing, brands and media.

We've had surprises too. We thought this generation would be more 2.0 and techno-savvy than they are, like little Matrix-style-Neos leading the digital revolution from their touch screens and web cams. Instead, we're re-evaluating their abilities as both online and offline socialites, phatic communicators, active in the digital world as long as it is accessible and simple.

One thing is clear, however. When it came to a live chat recently the one subject which got them going was to debate the relative merits of MySpace and Facebook. These are people who have grown up with the internet as an interactive, socially-enabling medium. So if politicians and legislators want to influence the Y-generation, they should match this mentality and use their websites and blogs as two-way communication tools rather than as transmitters of information.

We're halfway through our trial and keen to build on our emerging community of Generation-Y-ers. A working hypothesis is that we are looking at a generation of "glue kids": maybe light on techno-savviness yet highly capable of pulling different kinds of people together.

Interested in any feedback, any experiences people have had setting up or participating in online communities?

Simon

Twitter for all or just for the Twitterati?

Twitter has been described both as 'the online equivalent of popping bubble wrap' and a 'megaphone for the planet' as it grows at an explosive rate. Following recent celebrity endorsement from Stephen Fry and Jonathon Ross, a sea of articles have done much to promote it. Like the glory days of MySpace and FriendsReunited, it would seem that lots of people are venturing into 'Twitterland'.

Whilst Twitter is growing popularity is indisputable, we've been wondering whether it will be for the 'Twitterati', digital lovers alone or will the wider masses take to tweeting with equal frequency?

Current membership numbers are estimated at 6 million globally - far less than Facebook's 175 million users - so it is popular enough to get people tweeting and talking about tweeting and going to  Twestivals. For the social media enthusiasts it offers opportunities to get real-time contact, insight into the lives of the rich and the famous; the opportunity to make contacts that may otherwise be difficult face-to-face; airing of opinions; ideas; up-to-date news and so on.

But, having tried Twitter on and off over recent months, I am usually left with a feeling of overkill given the time required to participate and the high frequency of tweets. It is useful for the odd message where conventional means fail; otherwise, I'm happy enough knowing about it, observing from the outside.

And Twitter has its limitations. Tweets are limited to 140 characters; there are no pictures or videos to upload into memorable albums; no groups to set up; no games to play; and it requires regular participation to get meaning from it. So will the 'non-twitterati' have time or desire to regularly participate beyond the current buzz? It's reasonable to suggest that Twitter may have to develop more  applications if it wants to broaden its appeal and encourage regular participation.

Of course, now that some $35m investment has been secured, maybe Twitter will develop as FB did, which itself started out as fairly single-minded and non graphic. Or maybe it will stay true to its origins and continue to evolve as a complementary platform to FB.

My hunch is that 'Twitter' will continue to be the rage for social media enthusiasts. For the 'non-twitterati', regular participation on one social network may be enough, so don't expect a mass migration to Twitterland, unless there are more applications waiting in the wings...

Simon

A reason to smile (in the short run)

T-Mobile must be smiling. It seems their latest ad has caught a wave ... or helped create one.

Last Friday, a Facebooker named 'Crazzy Eve' organised a flash mob to replicate T-Mobile's latest advert which overran Liverpool street station. Apparently, the station had to be shut for 90 minutes with a few arrests made for minor offences (and nobody expected this Spanish Inquisition from Radio 5LIVE).

If you are looking for evidence for the short-term effectiveness of advertising, this is a good start. That is, if you believe it has NOT been sneakily supported by T-Mobile, Saatchi & Saatchi or used by Crazzy Eve and his Facebook group 'The Crazy Rave Group' for an easy PR stunt. Call us cynical or old fashioned (thank you), but if it WAS started by someone with connections with T-Mobile or any of their agencies, they’d be sure to cover up their tracks. So maybe we will only learn the truth when Richard pens his memoirs.

So if it was a spontaneous event, it shows T-Mobile are communicating the proposition of ‘sharing’ effectively; building brand relationships and understanding their target market, whilst allowing them to participate - rather than simply engage - with the brand.

But what about the long term? What happens if/when more advertisers continue to jump on the stunt/entertainment bandwagon? Isn’t ‘sharing’ more a by-product of live entertainment rather than an ownable T-Mobile brand property?

To distinguish between competitors in the long run, surely distinctive, long-term strategy is needed (as Dominic argues) – difficult if everyone gets swept up in similar advertising styles.

Where this looks to be a hit in the short term (and is T-Mobile about the short-term?) and is an intriguing example of art-imitating-life-imitating-art, doesn't it also underline the importance of thinking and planning for the long-term?

Simon