How Social Media Turned a Brand Into a Revolution
Feb 27th
As protesters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square faced off against government forces, they were prepared with this Facebook lesson from supporters in Tunisia: “Advice to the youth of Egypt: Put vinegar or onion under your scarf for tear gas.”
This exchange (as reported by the New York Times) was part of a remarkable two-year social media collaboration that began with bloggers calling for labor strikes and resulted in an energetic youth movement that is toppling dictators.
And I can’t help but wonder in a very public way, was I wrong?
Just a few months ago, I declared in “Is Social Media Creating a Generation of Cowards?” that I agreed with Malcom Gladwell’s now famous contention that “the revolution will not be tweeted.” He compared the heroic activism of the Civil Rights Movement to the “slacktivism” of today’s Facebook culture where involvement ends at “liking” a page. He boldly stated — and I agreed — that the weak connections and lack of organizational structure on the social web was unlikely to enable radical social change.
Was I wrong?
Yes, I was. I had completely missed a big idea that had nothing to do with organizational dynamics: Social media can be used to build and ignite a brand — even when the product is a political revolution! In fact, marketing has played an extremely important role in the shifting Arab political landscape.
Like the rest of the world, I was fascinated by the courage and discipline of the youth movement in Tunisia, Egypt and beyond. I’ve read as much as I could consume and although I do not have the benefit of a first-hand experience with the situation, I think that without question, social media enabled the movement, united protesters, and kept the revolutionaries one step ahead of the government counter-measures.
If you have any doubt about the courage displayed by the protesters or the critical role of Facebook and Twitter, click on the image above and watch a short video about the “Facebook Flat” in Cairo.
A branded revolution
While the protesters relied on classic tactics of nonviolent resistance, they also owe their success to marketing savvy borrowed from Silicon Valley.
The mastermind of the movement was Wael Ghonim, a 31-year-old Google marketing executive. Inspired by bloggers such as Ahmed Maher, Ghonim had little experience in politics but an intense dislike for the abusive Egyptian police. While the underground revolution had actually been fomenting since 2005, it needed a business perspective to get off the ground.
“I worked in marketing,” he said. “And I knew that if you build a brand you can get people to trust the brand.”
The marketer’s first campaign was a Facebook group called We Are All Khalid Said, after a young Egyptian who was beaten to death by police.
Ghonim filled the site with video clips and newspaper articles about police violence. He repeatedly hammered home a simple and memorable brand message: “This is your country.”
Engaging the “customers”
He eventually attracted hundreds of thousands of followers to the site and the “brand” actively engaged with them. For example, when organizers planned a “day of silence” in the Cairo streets, he polled users on what color shirts they should all wear — black or white. Finally, after the Tunisian revolution on Jan. 14, Ghonim used the Facebook site to mobilize support for a public protest. He asked for a pledge from 50,000 followers to turn out in protest. More than 100,000 signed up.
“I have never seen a revolution that was pre-announced before,” he said. Or, another way to look at it: He was launching the brand.
When a protest started to become a movement, best practices were shared via Facebook from counterparts in Tunisia and Serbia. Young Egyptian and Tunisian activists brainstormed on the use of technology to evade surveillance, commiserated about torture and traded practical tips on how to stand up to rubber bullets and organize barricades … primarily over social media platforms like the April 6 Movement Facebook page and Twitter.
On February 1, 2011 (the day the Internet was turned back on), Egypt gained 100,000 new Facebook users.
Al-Jazeera, a news channel with an agenda, added drama and emotion to the brand by broadcasting heroic stories and swelling theme songs. The revolution became an ongoing music video.
Entering new markets
Like all popular brands, this is already reaching into new markets like Libya. Where could it go next to reach new customers? This entry from the Youth Movement Facebook page may provide a clue:
So that’s the story of how I was wrong … and so is Gladwell because he missed this point, too. We were both looking at historical events and organizational dynamics, not realizing that the new social media business models can be applied to a wide variety of human activities, even something as unlikely and startling as toppling a dictatorship.
I realize my characterization of this revolution as a “brand” is unorthodox and I don’t want to come across as disrespectful in any way. I would never diminish the truly heroic personal efforts and sacrifices made in the face of real danger.
But I also think it’s important to recognize these new communication and societal dynamics and how social media will be used in ways we could never imagine. Truly, the revolution is just beginning. For all of us.
Lead illustration: This photo of Cairo’s Tahrir Square was taken by Tara Todras of the Associated Press and appeared in online version of the the New York Times
Social media was the engine for America’s Tea Party “revolution”
Nov 2nd
It’s Election Day here in the United States and we appear to be on the brink of a significant social change. Fueled by outrage over the financial meltdown, economic stimulus attempts, government bailouts, and the election of Barack Obama, The Tea Party Movement is upending incumbents in the name of fiscal conservatism.
Many are pointing to the role of social media channels in spreading this movement. Did social media create the Tea Paryt Movement, and if so, does this prove that the social web CAN enable dramatic social change?
Today, just two years after a sweeping Democratic victory, the tea-party movement is poised to redraw the landscape again. Nurtured by online networking, it helped disparate activists across the nation link up and already push aside high-profile incumbent leaders in multiple states this year.
A thorough history of the Tea Party Movement in The Wall Street Journal is peppered with references to the use of social media in building a national movement. Let’s start with a brief summary of how social media played a role in these sweeping changes:
Blogs
The genesis of the Tea Party Movement may have been a blog by Stacy Mott, a stay-at-home mother fed up with the government’s economic policies. Enraged by the government bail-outs, she started a blog for conservative women called “Smart Girl Politics” and launched a social networking site at the same time. This and other conservative blogs were catalysts for live rallies. The content caught the attention of influential blogger and political commentator Michelle Malkin who started to write about the rallies. After a dramatic online television rant calling for a modern-day Tea Party movement by CNBC Commentator Rick Santelli, the Smart Girl blog went viral. Hundreds of other blogs popped up, creating a grassroots cry for change.
Social networking
Facebook pages started springing up locally and then nationally, uniting disparate activities. The movement initially had no budget, so Facebook served as the central directory for the party’s activities. Within a year there 2,000 Tea Party-related Facebook pages. Eventually one of the founders created a website and social networking site called The Tea Party Patriots.
Many believe the first seeds of the movement were planted on a list of top conservatives on Twitter, dubbed #tcot” for short. This list spawned other lists and within weeks #tcot grew from 25 names to 1,500. Twitter was used to unite disparate voices and organize conference calls, town hall meetings and rallies.
Wikis
As the movement grew, organizers established wikis to provide protest advice and organizing techniques.
Fueled by these social platforms, general disenchantment coalesced into a cause, and in just a few months the movement enjoyed a stunning victory when Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts won Senator Ted Kennedy’s long-time Democratic Senate seat.
The social media revolution?
Undoubtedly social networking unified an idea among disparate interest groups with no organization and no budget. Does this amazing success discredit the much-discussed Malcom Gladwell article claiming that the weak links and lack of hierarchy could not promote such dramatic social change?
Yes and no. If you look carefully at the brief history of the Tea Party Movement, it may actually SUPPORT Gladwell’s contention.
The WSJ article shows the initial loose organizations created on social networks were eventually dismantled by in-fighting, controversy and hurt feelings. Once the euphoria of the initial change began to wear off, the social networks could not sustain the change and even the early pioneers united by blogs and Facebook became bitter and divided. Relationships among the loosely-based coalition deteriorated so quickly members began suing each other.
The real catalyst came from coverage by the traditional media. News programs on the Fox Network and articles in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal fueled interest in rallies. Live conference calls to organize the initiative seemed to be the linchpin between chaos and unity. Town Hall meetings and live rallies kept the momentum alive. Embarrassing content, like a racist photo-shopped images of the president, quickly went viral on the social web and actually created more divisiveness among the members.
The other important point was that Gladwell was addressing revolutionary change that requires risk to personal safety. Voting for the Tea Party Movement in the privacy of a voting booth carries the same risk as clicking a “like” button on Facebook so this is not exactly a test case for his theory.
In any event, there is no doubt that the Tea Party Movement could not have coalesced with this speed and forcefulness without social media. What are your thoughts on this Social Media Political Revolution?
Is social media creating a generation of cowards?
Oct 10th
I’ve been asked about my perspective on Malcom Gladwell’s article, “Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted.” My take on it may surprise you … and provide uncomfortable reading if you are a parent or social media junkie.
Social media and leadership
Mr. Gladwell is a master storyteller, but usually starts with the history of fire to make his point so I will summarize his premise:
Social media will not be the agent of social change that many say it will be because it is built on a network of weakly-connected links and lacks a central leadership structure. He compares the passive changes built on social networks with the risky and courageous acts needed to confront racism in the U.S. in the 1960s.
His article prompted quite a backlash, including a lengthy article on Mashable with illustrations of social good created through the web.
Perhaps I am the only blogger around who agrees with Mr. Gladwell. And, in fact, I will take the story even a step further. Not only do I think the social web is incapable of enabling significant social revolution, it is probably conditioning young people out of the leadership and communication skills they need to lead — or follow — any change at all that requires personal risk.
The end of human social skills?
Here’s a small illustration of what I mean.
Recently a teen-aged girl I know met a new guy and started dating. He came over to her house, dropped off a CD she wanted to borrow and then left the house five minutes later to go home and have a Facebook conversation with her into the morning hours. They dated for a short time and when he broke up with her (over Facebook-induced jealousy) it was via cellphone. Not talking — texting. She said he preferred to argue this way because the delay in response while text-messaging afforded him the opportunity to think of a snide remark. When his Facebook relationship status changed to “single,” a whole new round of nasty claims and counter-claims were levied — to the world, on status updates.
Here is a young couple using technology to avoid the small amount of personal courage it takes to even have a phone call. The loss of an ability to communicate or even relate to humans in a face-to-face environment is not a mere observation but the subject of a growing body of research.
Susan Greenfield, professor of synaptic pharmacology at the University of Oxford, said we are “enthusiastically embracing the erosion of our identity” through social networking sites. She said children using these sites can lose sight of where their personalities finish and the outside world begins.
She further claimed that sense of identity is being eroded by “fast-paced, instant screen reactions,” so that the next generation will define themselves by the responses of others instead of their own self-worth.
The neuroscientist even testified before Parliament that “Social network sites risk infantalizing the mid-21st century mind, leaving it characterized by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathize and a shaky sense of identity.”
In other words, we may be creating a generation of insecure cowards.
The toxic childhood
Greenfield referred to one subject as saying they had 900 friends, and the fact “that you can’t see or hear other people makes it easier to reveal yourself in a way that you might not be comfortable with. You become less conscious of the individuals involved (including yourself), less inhibited, less embarrassed and less concerned about how you will be evaluated.”
Educational psychologist Jane Healy believes children should be kept away from computer games until they are seven. Most games only trigger the ‘flight or fight’ region of the brain, rather than the vital areas responsible for reasoning.
Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood, writes about “screen saturation” eroding basic social skills. “We are seeing children’s brain development damaged because they don’t engage in the activity they have engaged in for millennia.”
Greenfield warned: “It is hard to see how living this way on a daily basis will not result in brains, or rather minds, different from those of previous generations. We know that the human brain is exquisitely sensitive to the outside world.”
Generation Farmville
Hopefully, we will always have individuals willing to lead. But will we raise a generation of children courageous enough to follow? Courageous enough to risk criticism, risk a reputation — or even a life — in the name of truly revolutionary change?
Dramatic social change — like Gladwell’s example of confronting racism — takes leading and motivating followers to make a real sacrifice. Can this still happen in the Farmville Generation?
Social media strategies businesses should learn from politicians
Jun 2nd
Guest blogger and political pundit Jenci Spradlin reveals why business should take a marketing lesson from the politicians:
Maybe it’s because I’m a political junkie and spend most of my time discussing politics on the social web, but I think the business world would do well to try to translate lessons from politics into strategy.
1) Capture passion. What is politics really about any way? Capturing the passion people have to tell their story and connecting with people who can possibly influence their lives. Politics brings out the tribal feelings engendered by sharing something larger than yourself with like-minded individuals.
There are people who get passionate about a brand, but by far politics wins the passion prize, particularly with the stakes so high. Successful campaigns tap into that passion … whether in politics or business.
2) Use the right tools for the right message. Let’s think about how politicians use the social web and how it might relate to business, too. I used to do a lot of political blogging, but I have practically abandoned it due to the more immediate nature of Twitter and Facebook. Blogging by a politician might be a good way to convey a detailed overview of some complex policy matter, but in terms of engagement with voters, it is like putting an op-ed in the newspaper versus going door to door talking directly to voters. Probably the same with businesses?
3) Go meet the people. Another analogy is that politicians have to go where their constituents are. If they are on Twitter or Facebook, that is where they must go and be as comfortable engaging directly as they would in person. Politicians are still trying to figure out the right mix in terms of direct engagement versus broadcasting and not all of them do this well. If you want to look at some people really doing this right, look at common-cause issues such as the Teaparty Movement.
4) Show genuine interest. There is no one issue that brings people to the political table, and businesses should think like that too. Businesses would do well to not limit themselves or their brand to one specific area, but again, allow their “raving fans” to intertwine the brand within their lives, and allow real people working on behalf of the brand to engage directly as people, and not as a generic brand account. Even if the person isn’t identified by name, it is easy to tell when the company takes a larger interest in its customers beyond “buy what I am selling.”
5) The authenticity issue. And then there is that all-important authenticity issue. There are plenty of politicians who do embrace Twitter, and certainly there are those who have staff members do it on their behalf. I find that the more local you get, the more likely you are to have the individual do their own posts. That might be something for businesses to consider to. The closer you get to the rubber meeting the road, the more real you better be!
6) Get personal. Here’s something that makes politicians seem authentic on the social web: Real life “stuff.” People like to make fun of the “what-I-had-for-lunch” posts, but I find those to be an invaluable way to connect in a non-threatening way (assuming they post some meat with their meat!) Some of the greatest connections I have made with people have started through the “what I’m eating” post. We all have to eat – whether you are a famous politician, a stay-at-home mom, or a CEO.
In the same manner, there are plenty of brands / businesses who are being told to jump into social media because “everyone is doing it.” It seems scary to them and something that should be handed off to an outside firm to manage. So they do and some PR intern is handed the job of posing as the brand/business online. This is just the same as the politician who abdicates their use of social media to a staffer. For me, whether it is a brand or a politician, I am not interested in carrying on a conversation with a ventriloquist’s dummy. The insanity is that they honestly think that we won’t know the difference; that we won’t see the arm of staffers stuck up under their collective shirts.
Heck, as long as it’s real, it would even be OK to tweet about meat. : )
Jenci Spradlin is a wonderful political blogger at http://moderatelymarvelous.wordpress.com/ She can also be found on twitter at @jencitn
Y882S4FUAW4W
Subscribe
Welcome to {grow}
You’re in marketing for one reason: Grow.
Grow your company, reputation, customers, impact, profits. Grow yourself. This is a community that will help. It will stretch your mind, connect you to fascinating people, and provide some fun along the way. I am so glad you’re here.
-Mark SchaeferFollow Mark
Groups We Believe In
