Abandoning Twitter: Businesses and Bots

The chaos at Twitter following Elon Musk's acquisition has settled down.  Millions of people have left the platform, but hundreds of millions are still there, including countless businesses and organizations. 

They may not be spending money to advertise there, but they are still using Twitter posts to promote themselves, their products, and their causes.

Why?

Why they had to Redesign the Enterprise...Again

Spoilers below!

Note: This post was written before the reuniting of CBS and Paramount.  This article reflects the considerations in effect when the Discovery version of Enterprise was created.

-------------

The Star Trek Discovery season finale appeared on CBS All Access last night, and the cliffhanger was an unexpected appearance of the original USS Enterprise, NCC-1701 (no bloody A, B, C, D, E, or anything else, as Scotty might say).

Careful examination reveals that this is yet another "re-imagining" of the classic starship.  So why couldn't they just use the design from the "Kelvan Universe" in the most recent movies?  That would be logical, wouldn't it?

The answer is that if they had, they'd probably get sued.

The problem is that movie Star Trek and television Star Trek are no longer controlled by the same corporations.  CBS and Viacom (which owns Paramount) were once part of the same corporation, but over a decade ago they were split into two separate publicly-traded corporations (now there is talk of them recombining).

The result required years of negotiations over who owns Star Trek, which is why we didn't see new Star Trek for years.

Viacom/Paramount controls the rights to the Star Trek movies, whereas CBS controls the rights to television Star Trek.  When to comes to making NEW Star Trek, they're not allowed to draw significant content from each other.  They have to go back to the source material that THEY control.

All previous redesigns of the NCC-1701 Enterprise were in the movies.  The only appearance of a Constitution Class Starship in television Trek since The Original Series was the USS Defiant, seen in Star Trek Enterprise, which was a faithful CGI reproduction of the original design.

So given the decision to redesign the Enterprise, CBS HAD to create an Enterprise that was not directly linked to any of the movie incarnations of the ship. Of course, they COULD have made this Enterprise also a faithful reproduction, but...

My guess is that merchandising considerations led to the redesign.  We now have (or will have next season) yet another version of the Enterprise to make into plastic model kits, Hallmark ornaments, etc. 

Oh by the way, Pocket Books, which publishes all the Star Trek novels, is owned by CBS. Last year they negotiated a deal with Viacom/Paramount to also public Star Trek books based in the J.J. Abrams Kelvan Universe, but I do not know when any actual Kelvan Universe books may be released.

Separating the two companies resulted in Byzantine complications for Star Trek.  Merging them again would probably be highly beneficial for Star Trek, if they could decide which production team takes over.

For the record, what is different in the redesign?

• The struts attaching the nacelles are different.
• The shape of the rear landing bay is changed
• The nacelles, themselves, are different - the original did not have those lighted side panels
• The exterior lighting is different   
• The ship's markings in some areas are different
• The impulse engines at the rear of the saucer are different

There are probably plenty of other things that we will see when we get a plastic model kit or Hallmark ornament...or more video from next season.

No More "Like and Share" - Maybe

Facebook's new policy about keeping "Engagement Bait" out of the newsfeed is intended to eliminate posts with "like and share this post" calls to action.  But liking and sharing is part of the engagement that marketers really want.

So what do they do?

First, let's take a step back and analyze why "like and share this post" has been so common.  There are three things to consider:

1.  Some marketers do superficial planning and all they want is good numbers.  Liking and sharing does cause more people to see a post, although they may not be the best people, i.e. the ideal prospective customers or key stakeholders of the business/organization making the original post. 

2.  Facebook has also been downgrading the ability of a post to spread via organic sharing and liking.  Facebook is a business and they are incentivizing marketers to spend money to deliver their posts (which are really advertising messages) to constituents who are selected by various categories and interests. 

3.  Persuasion theory says that we get people to do big things by first getting them to do little things that build towards the big thing.  Liking and sharing our posts demonstrates support, and repeated small demonstrations of such support set the stage for larger acts of support, like buying our product or voting for our candidate.  So, getting people to like and share has a strategic role.

So how do we respond to the new Facebook rules?

Marketing communications is about brand persuasion, and brand persuasion requires engagement -- a two-way interactive relationship between our business/organization and our customers/constituents.

So, we still want people to like and share, but we'll have to use more creative language.  Language like "pass this along" and "tell us what you think" are likely to become more common.  And marketers will need to monitor their insights (statistical reports from Facebook) about performance of messages containing various calls to action, to see which work best.

But the reality is that as social media matures, it is going to cost more money to use it for marketing.

Up to now, the costs have been relatively hidden -- the staff time for people to create posts and maintain the page, and the costs to develop customized content, like graphics, photography, and video.

More and more, organizations are going to need to use paid reach to get their messages to the people they want to reach. A small business may be able to do this with only $15 or $20 a post, a handful of times a month, reaching a few thousand people. Bigger businesses, of course, will need more money to reach the hundreds of thousands or millions of people they need.

So, strategic planning, including budgeting, is a new reality of Social Media Marketing.

"Deconstructing" Star Trek Discovery

There’s been a lot of talk about Star Trek Discovery, but I haven’t seen anybody yet really analyze the story.  Ergo, here is my “deconstruction” of the first two episodes.

First let me say that in 1990s, when The Next Generation was on the air, it was common for fans to go onto the message board and work through many fine details and nuances of the episodes.  As I said, I do not see that level of analysis as often today, which is why I am providing this example.

Many of my comments could come across as negative, or as complaints, but that it not what they are. They are observations concerning the many decisions made by the writers and producers. They are what they are, because Discovery is a completed work of art, which is unfolding week-by-week.  So I am looking at what the writers and producers did, how they did it, and why they did it.

There ARE spoilers below, for episodes 1 and 2.

About the Plot

T’Kuvma is a cult leader, having gathered together outcasts and those marginalized by Klingon society. He found his father’s crashed ship, repaired it, and has fixated on the Federation as the enemy of the Klingon people.

“They are coming. They will coil around us.  And take all that we are,” he says.

So, he lures the USS Shenzhou, NCC 1227, to the fringe of Federation space and provokes a conflict.  It is Stardate 1207.3, or May 11, 2256 on Earth.

Specifically, T’Kuvma ignites a huge beacon, both in visible light and subspace signals, that attracts representatives of the 24 “houses” of Klingon society.  He cites legendary Klingon leader Kahless, and essentially says, “Make Klingon great again.”  

Battle results between Klingon and Starfleet ships.  T’Kuvma is killed, and it is asserted in the episodes that killing him makes him a martyr that the Klingon people will rally around, setting the stage for the war storyline in the remainder of the series.

The main character of Discovery is Michael Burnham. This black female first officer of the Shenzhou was raised by Spock’s father after her parents were killed in a Klingon raid.  This is a little confusing because the episodes also establish that virtually nobody has heard from the Klingons in a century.  Maybe it will be clarified in future episodes.

Michael displays some Vulcan traits if employing logic and analysis, but emotions also influence her.  She is the one who actually kills T’Kuvma after he kills her captain, Philippa Georgiou.  Therefore, it is Michael who triggers the entire war, because she allows her emotions to overrule her logic, exacting revenge for her captain’s death.  Saving her captain and crew is more important to her than Starfleet’s principals, which appears to be a remarkably emotional reaction, for one trained by Vulcans.  

Apparently, they have never heard of setting phasers on stun.

Michael gets in big trouble, is court martialed, and sentenced to life in prison.


The Klingons

One of the biggest continuity issues is that Klingons in this era did not have head bumps. 

In Star Trek Enterprise, the Klingon people were infected with a deadly virus, and the cure removed their head bumps.  They only got them back after The Original Series.  This was done in Enterprise to rationalize why Klingons in The Original Series had no head bumps, but before and after, they did.

The Klingons in Discovery would not be as threatening and exotic, if they conformed to established continuity.  This is a question of design esthetics over rigid continuity, but it is one of the things long-term fans will grumble about.  

The assertions about “coming in peace” or firing on first contact were not persuasive to me.  If you fire on a Klingon, the Klingon will fire back.  I do not see that as leading to respect from the Klingons. Klingons respect honorable behavior, like the Enterprise-C defending innocent Klingon civilians from the Romulan raid.  Firing first and asking questions later would not fit Klingon ideas of honor, I believe.

A threat display MIGHT have impressed the Klingons. However, in a threat display, you would fire your weapons in different directions, not at the people you want to impress.  What Michael was advocating, firing first, would just make them mad and ready to defend their own honor against an unreasonable attack.  

Honor IS important to the current generation of Klingons. At one point, T’Kuvma talks about honor, but the other Klingons say he has not earned it. It is interesting that we see flashback scenes that show he had been bullied as a child, which appears to have been part of his stimulus to restore honor, as he saw it, to the entire Klingon people. 

The Klingon cloaking device is also troubling. It is a one-off technology developed by T’Kuvma, so I HOPE we will NOT see Klingon cloaking technology later in the in this series.  It is well established that the Klingons eventually obtain cloaking technology from the Romulans, a dozen years in the future after Discovery.


The Shenzhou

The Shenzhou, of course, is named after the current real-life Chinese manned spacecraft.  

The bridge of the Shenzhou is huge – much larger than a Galaxy Class bridge decades later.  I don’t mind the modern set design not being anything like the Pike/Kirk Enterprise, but to me the various workstations seem spread out too for effective teamwork and collaboration.

By the way, the bridge is on the bottom of the saucer, with real windows, or at least transparent view screens.  

The assertion that the Shenzhou has no shuttle maneuverable enough to navigate the accretion ring is a plot device. Going fast and dodging stuff is hard, but provides dramatic footage.  Going slow makes it not so hard to dodge stuff, but is more boring, even though a shuttle would give more protection from radiation, because it has shields.  

In addition, why didn’t Philippa move Shenzhou closer when they knew Michael was in critical condition?  Yes, there was some debris, but they have shields, and in one wide-angle scene, they were clearly well away from the debris, where they were parked.  It is a standard law of radio that if you cut the distance in half, you quadruple the signal strength between two locations.  They didn’t do this, again, to heighten the suspense.

It will be interesting to radio folks, like me, that a Shenzhou graphic shown while Michael is missing near the Klingon Ship says the transmitters are using 100 watts with an antenna length of 8 meters, but radiated power is a whopping 12,599 watts. In the radio business, we call that a lot of “gain.” 

Nevertheless, why are they using faster-than-light Subspace Radio (subspace frequency 1142) to talk to a ship that is within viewing range, at the most a light second or so away?  Plain old VHF or HF radio would have solved many of their problems. 


The Other Ships

Several Federation starship names had cool associations.  The T'Plana-Hath is named after a Vulcan philosopher mentioned in Spock’s testing at the beginning of The Voyage Home.  The Yeager is named for legendary test pilot Chuck Yeager.  The Ride is presumably for the astronaut Sally Ride.  Many people seem to think that the Edison was named for the inventor, but I think it was for the long-lost Balthazar Edison, a character in the third JJ Trek movie.  The Europa, NCC 1648, is a reference to either Europe, or the moon that may harbor life (and by Michael’s time, they will know whether Europa has life).

By the way, all the ships zapping at once does not make sense.  Surely they came from different distances.  Why would some fly extra fast and some unusually slow so they all arrived POP at the same time. It is a dramatic visual, evoking the new Battlestar Galactica fleet arrivals or departures, but not very likely in the Star Trek universe, where even decades in the future the Enterprise is often the “only ship in the quadrant.”


The Uniforms

I also don’t mind that the uniforms don’t look like Pike/Kirk Enterprise uniforms, again because of modern design expectations.  The uniform side panels appear to reflect position - gold for command, silver for science, and I think maybe bronze for positions like navigation and helm.  If you look closely, they are made of a mesh of very tiny Starfleet insignia.  The Starfleet insignia on the chest also has different colors to reflect divisions, and that is where the rank insignia pips are in this incarnation of Trek.  The space suit helmet liner also had Starfleet insignia fabric. Note that the admiral’s insignia is different and does not have pips.

Yes, I know that in this era, every starship has a different insignia, and what I call the Starfleet insignia is really only assigned to the Enterprise.  But I do like the visual continuity that its consistent use provides.  


Professionalism in Starfleet

The entire first officer nerve pinching the captain, mutinying, and then the captain pulling a phaser on the first officer doesn’t really work very well.  It is part of the set-up of Michael is a disgraced convict, about to be pulled into risky events, but it isn’t how Starfleet officers behave in MY Star Trek universe.  

Nobody in Starfleet would imagine themselves getting away with this.  Spock didn’t even imagine himself getting away with hijacking the Enterprise to Talos IV, although his plan allowed him to not get caught for longer.


The Galactic Vicinity

We’re told that the Andorian colony at Gamma Hydra is six light years away. Gamma Hydra is where the Enterprise was going in the Kobyashoi Maru exercise. This means that the double star setting of these two episodes is near the location of the future Klingon neutral zone. Gamma Hydra is also mentioned in passing in other past Trek episodes.

Really, the whole basis for the conflict in Discovery is a bit strained. 

“This is Federation space.  Retreat is not an option.”  Who says its Federation space?  

It’s an uninhabited binary system with stars still forming.  There is no indigenous species. The implication is that the Federation just out-and-out annexed it by fiat. 

I was also troubled by the Sarek-Michael telepathic conversation while they were 1,000 light years apart. Sarek says that part of his Katra is in her, which of the Vulcan consciousness.  Basically, Michael is apparently like one of Voldemort’s horcruxes?  

Oh, and 1,000 light years away, Sarek already knew that there was a “new star in the sky” after only a few minutes?  That is not a reference to invisible subspace signals, but rather to light, which would take, oh, 1,000 years to get to him.


Formula Plot Elements

There were several elements of this story that draw on common screen writing formulae that you see all over the place, if you know what to look for.  

Formula scenes include the opening scenes that set the tone of the story, the catalyst that changes everything, the main character making a choice that defines the “journey,” The Dark Night of the Soul in which the main character struggles with hopelessness (the brig scene), and others.

I can see many of these elements in episodes 1 and 2.  Of course, the story continues for 11 more episodes, so they may be stretched out, or we may see the formula being repeated time after time in the subsections of the story.

However...formula plot elements are not automatically bad.  Because they contain elements of familiarity, the audience relates to them easily, making it easy to engage with the story.  (For more information on a very widely-used formula, see this link.)    


Final Thoughts

There are plenty of additional things from these two episodes that could be mentioned.  But I think I have given an example of productions such as Discovery working on many levels, and having many factors that affect them.

Discovery plays fast and loose with certain points of Star Trek continuity.  The richly developed world defined by this continuity is what appeals to many long-term fans. Bit I think my many examples show that in every case where Discovery deviates, it is for a practical “works better for the audience” reason, and as I have shows here, the audience they are catering to is the newer fans they hope to attract, not the entrenched long-term fans.

First Reaction: Star Trek Discovery

Star Trek Discovery offers some things for long-term fans, but really is Trek for a new generation, and I don't mean that figuratively.  

It is designed to match the experiences and viewing habits of younger people, who are considerably different from the older, veteran fans.

(Spoilers three paragraphs below this point.)

Before we go any further, we need to accept that this new incarnation of Star Trek exists to make money. It is not a "service" for fans. It is not a reward for the long wait since the last "new" Trek episode, May 13, 2005.  

It was created to be a profit center.

Let me say it another way: The ONLY reason that CBS decided to make Star Trek Discovery is the likelihood of return on investment and profitability. 

The problem is that while Trek has been a cash cow for the studios over the years, the spendable income in the United States today resides in the younger demographics, such as 18-49.  So, to succeed, the new series must appeal to them, as the current generation of "customers."

So we [spoilers] get a 13-episode story arc about war with the Klingons, with the main character being a court-martialed and jailed Starfleet officer who apparently becomes central to the outcome of the war.

To the veteran fans, Star Trek has done extended war stories before, in Deep Space Nine and Enterprise. We have even had main characters convicted and sent to prison. So this comes off feeling like a retread of things past.  

But the younger fans have been weaned on a diet of Game of Thrones, and endless similar Dystopian story lines. Their frame of reference in fiction is anti-heroes and, more generally, unlikable people doing unethical things to each other.

The producers had a huge challenge to a) create something that could legitimately be called Star Trek, but also b) create something that would feel familiar, and therefore appeal to the generation that made Game of Thrones, The Hunger Games, Divergent, and Twilight hits 

So we have a disgraced Starfleet Officer who gets pulled into the cauldron of wartime events, in a context that is generally based on past Star Trek -- the Federation, Klingons and Vulcans, generally familiar weaponry and technology, and other side allusions and terminology that are derived from past Trek.

The point I made about familiarity is very important. Familiar situations are easy for viewers to relate to.  That is why all starship bridges look roughly the same, across Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica (both of them), Star Wars, GalaxyQuest, Forbidden Planet, etc.  That is why cthe chains of command on starships are always more or less the same.  Commanders always have chairs.  It is familiarity factor.

The characters also tend to be familiar -- the captain, the first officer, the engineer. In general terms, we know what they are going to do before they do it, because it is all familiar.

Therefore, our stories don't need to explain all of that.  We can just move ahead to the elements of the story that are unique to us.  It is these innovations, or things that are different from all the other stories, that are seen as being "creative."

For Discovery, it is not what is familiar to the old folks who don't spend as much money.  It is the younger 18-49 year old demographic that has the money to spend on Trek stuff, and on the things the advertisers want them to buy.

But these things are not the only way that Star Trek Discovery is customized to the younger folks.

Did you notice that there was no To be continued at the end of the episodes?  They just stopped, and the next episodes pick up at the same place.  That is the binge watching dynamic. Yes, the new episodes will come out week-by-week, but CBS clearly expects the long-term revenue to be from binge watchers.

About 9.6 million people watched the premiere episode on the broadcast CBS network. That doesn't sound bad, but the adults 18-49 rating/share was a 1.9/7, which is only decent, not fantastic. CBSAllAccess had a record number of sign-ups, but we have no information about the demographics, i.e. the ages of people paying to see Discovery up-front.

So I am sorry to say that many of the long-term Star Trek fans may not be as interested in Discovery.  But the series is not made for them.  It is made for people young enough that previous Trek was before their time.

Because new fans means new merchandising, new streaming revenue, and highly desirable audiences for advertiser commercials.  Plus some of those folks may be intrigued to check out the older Trek series and merchandise as well, thus refreshing that demand, also.

What I'm Looking for in Star Trek Discovery

I have largely been avoiding the studio/network hype about the new Star Trek series. But I have very clear ideas about what I am looking for, and what don't want to see.

Let me preface my comments by saying that I watched the very first broadcast of Star Trek in the United States in 1966.  I have seen every Star Trek episode and movie, and read quite a few of the books.

I know first hand WHY Star Trek became so popular in the 1960s and 70s -- its unique spirit of hope for a positive future, coming in a time characterized by summer-long race riots in major cities, a military draft sending young men off to die in what was widely considered to be a unjust war, and of course the country trearing itself apart over Watergate. This social context is mostly lost on young people watching the old episodes today.

In many ways, Star Trek functions as a modern myth.  It is a story told time-after-time, with variations each time. But the underlying message of hope, ethics, diversity, and professional behavior always remains (at least when Trek is done well).  These are the things that will determine how much I like what I see in "DSC."

So here are seven things I want, or do not want, in the new Star Trek series when it premiers this coming Sunday:

1.  I want to see professional officers treating each other with respect, even when under duress. The recent avalanche across the media of unlikable characters doing unethical things to each other leaves me totally uninterested.  It is called "Dystopian" storytelling, because it represents the opposite of the "Utopian" ideal society.  It is lazy storytelling and does not belong in Star Trek, in my opinion.

2.  I don't care if the starships and sets don't perfectly fit the feel of being a decade before the Original Series Enterprise. Because Discovery is basically "retelling the myth" the producers are allowed to employ modern production design, in my opinion.  But I will like when there are resonances.

3.  I want thoughtful, nuanced scripts that have subtle layers of meaning, and do not depend on unlikely coincidences to advance the plot. One of the things that long-term fans want most, I think, is solid stories that aren't filled with plot holes.  this is why many are unhappy withe ht J.J. Abrams movies - the plot holes.

4.  Oh, and bad guys need to make sense. Too often in all the media, bad guys are bad just for the sake of being bad. On the other hand, Khan was such a powerful and popular villain because we COULD clearly understand the circumstances that led him to hate Kirk.  I like nuanced antagonists with motivation that makes sense.

5.  On a related note, Klingons have been done to death in Trek.  Given that we have them yet again, I do not want them to be cardboard.  Theirs is a rich culture with both positive and negative things in its history. I hope they come cross as more than aggressive jerks.

6. When they do reference characters from The Original Series, like Sarek or Harry Mudd, I want them to feel like the same characters, even though they are played by different actors.  Don't "reimagine" them.

7.  I must say that the highly detailed continuity of Star Trek appeals to me. I do not mind DSC filling in gaps, but I really don't want the producers contradicting something that is well established in on-screen Trek, just for expediency.  All science fiction includes world building. This world of Star Trek is already rich and complex. I want DSC to work within it.

So there you have it -- what I am looking for in the new incarnation of Star Trek. I understand that I am too old be in the target demographic CBS is looking for with this new series.  But that doesn't mean that I am not entitled to evaluate how closely the network is supporting the long-term "brand identify" of Star Trek.

Five strategies to get the most from your online marketing

I have worked and taught in the field of media all my life, so I know the important role that advertising plays in providing the profitability which allows content that serves the public.

But online advertising often isn't accomplishing what it should.

This article makes a couple of important points, showing that online advertising is far from a mature industry, and often does not accomplish the goals of the advertiser.

Procter & Gamble cut more than $100 million in digital marketing spending in the June quarter but there was little impact on its business, proving that their digital ads were largely ineffective. 

The two most common complaints about digital advertising are that 1) advertisers are paying for ads that are viewed and clicked on by bots, not humans; and 2) ads are placed by thousands of automated “ad exchanges” that are out of control of the advertiser on sites and pages that don’t match the advertiser’s products.

I have been teaching for almost 20 years that the Internet should be seen in terms of the relationships it facilitates, not in terms of the technology.  I am fully convinced that the Internet, websites, and social media can be used to foster beneficial relationships between businesses/organizations and their customers/constituents.  But I am not convinced that display advertising, inserted into websites and social media feeds, is the way to do it.

It is relatively easy to create an ad and then pay one of these ad exchanges to place the add in various sites and feeds THEY choose, based on the demographic information YOU specify. They later tell you how many users saw or clicked on the advertisement.  As the article explains, there is great potential for the advertiser to be deceived about effectiveness, due to automated click bots, or the ad exchange putting the ads in bogus (or shall we say suboptimal) locations.

So how SHOULD businesses and organizations use social media and the Internet to promote their brand?

Here are my five strategies to get the most value out of your online marketing communications:

1.  You have to engage in TWO-WAY interaction with your audience

Give them content that is relevant to their interests and when they respond, respond BACK to them to show them you are listening.  This takes time, planning, and smarts.

The social media, itself, may be free, but the bigger your organization is, the more people hours and budget it takes to plan and create the content, to listen around the clock, and to make replies and help solve problems, all while perfectly aligning with your brand image and brand promise.

This process doesn't work via one-way advertising.

2.  Use strong CONTENT MARKETING 

People respond positively when the messages they receive are relevant to them. Messages that are not relevant get ignored, and frequent irrelevant messages may result in unfollowing.  This is why businesses and organizations need to REALLY understand their customers -- who and where they are, their interests, and why they are or should be interested in what WE have to offer.

The highly-relevant content we create may be posted right in our social media feeds. It might be in a blog or other format that is linked to from our social media.  But is also needs to be well-optimized for search engines, because the specific topic of the one particular content piece may be what allows someone to find us and decide to like/follow us.

This content will surely include text, but also video, graphics, and photography custom-produced for your social media posts.

3.  Time of day you post is really important

Post your content at a time when YOUR people are most likely to be reading, so your content does not scroll down and get lost in the clutter.  Some platforms may TELL you when your people are on.  If not, you can experiment with posts in different day parts.

4.  Call to Action

Every post should be crafted to stimulate some kind of action, even as simple as liking the post.

In persuasion theory, the way to get people to do BIG things is to first get them to agree to little things, and to then lead them along, step-by-step, toward the bigger things. These little things, as simple as liking or sharing, gets their thinking aligned the way you want, so when the bigger need or opportunity arises, they are pre-disposed to take the important action steps you want.

So EVERY content post should include some form of call to action.

5.  Seek both frequency and reach

For decades, the dual emphases for advertising have been frequency and reach.

Reach means you DO want to get your message to as many people as possible, to help find prospects, i.e. people with whom you are not in contact.  Your goal in online reach should be to get people to like/follow your feeds, or otherwise make initial contact.

But for building and strengthening the relationship between you and your constituents, the frequency of interaction is vital. The more positive contacts your audience has with you, the more likely they are to buy (or do whatever the action goals of your organization are), and this is driven by the frequency of contacts.

Of course, don't overwhelm them with 147 posts a day.  Find the daily or weekly frequency that is right for you and them.

The balance between frequency and reach may be different for different businesses/organizations, but remember that they do different things and your online marketing content should never be only one or the other.

Reach is making initial contact.  Freqency is about cementing the relationship.


Final Thoughts

Lots of people think that if they USE social media, they will automatically be effective at marketing via social media.  Not really true.

There are many dimensions that must be accounted for and planned in social media marketing that go way beyond being a user.

I'll be teaching an online course on social media marketing in the spring semester through my school, Wayne State College. It will be regular tuition, but anyone anywhere can enroll, in a degree program or not, for undergraduate or graduate credit.

If you're interested, let me know.  Registration will be in October.

 

The Psychology of Colors

I tell my marketing communication students that every detail of the communication between a business or organization and its constituents must reinforce the fundamental positioning and brand promise of the organization. This includes the colors used in visual communication.

My friend and former student Rhea tweeted a link to the infographic at the bottom of this page, reminding me of a design course I previously taught in which we addressed the meaning conveyed by colors.  It shows why businesses select the colors used in their logos and marketing materials VERY carefully.

Take oil company logos, for example.  Many of them make strong use of red to signalled power, energy, and boldness. Blue represents trust and loyalty, and the white stands for cleanliness and purity.  Gulf's orange represents nature, confidence, and innovation. These colors support the image the company want to project, or at least did in years past, when the logos were created.



But British Petroleum uses green, signalling health, nature, and prosperity, with shades of yellow for optimism and happiness, and white for cleanliness and purity.

See also how the symbolism of these colors reflects how BP wants to be seen today? NOT as polluting and reaping windfall profits but rather as safe, clean, and worthwhile?

Colors are a powerful tool for conveying meaning in visual communications.  They are "subtext," or meaning below the surface, and connotations.  But the meaning is still there, serving the desired brand image of the company.

(The colors and meanings in the infographic are for Western culture.  In Eastern, culture, there are some differences.)

Next time you look at a favorite company's logo, check to see what meaning the color(s) convey.

The original post is at: 

https://iconicfox.com.au/2017/07/27/colour-in-branding-infographic/

It's not really about statues and flags

Charlottesville, and all of the other hot buttons about white supremacy, is about the symbolism, not about statues and flags.

It is all about the symbolism, and this means that it is not a stark "one or the other" of whether we can or cannot have statues and flags commemorating the confederacy.

It is highly complex and nuanced, and it is all about injustice and discrimination, committed to preserve social and political power.

Flying the confederate flag over state capitol buildings (and other places) has a symbolism of glorifying and endorsing the confederate cause of continuing slavery, which was highly unjust. This is true, even when that glorification is not the intent.

Does that mean we forget what the flag looked like? Of course not. But we have to understand the complexities that go with the pro-slavery cause it represented.

We remember Robert E. Lee as an effective general. There are positive and negative things about him. In giving loyalty to the state of Virginia over his vows to the national government, he exhibited a form of patriotism, but also supported the unjust political and social regime that was grounded in slavery. Is it appropriate to honor him on public property, without recognition of this complexity, and things that were NOT honorable about him?

I know people in the South today who feel that states should have the right to nullify all federal laws and regulations they do not like. For them, the confederacy is an uncompleted project that they would be happy to get back to, not in terms of another war, and not to return slavery, but in terms of transforming the federal government to eliminate the ability to impose rules on states and local government.  Remember that the emancipation was an imposed rule that the local whites mostly did not like.

The current national debate is about a movement that strategically uses intimidation, fear, and also politics to repress people who are not like themselves. It is deeply motivated by fear of becoming a minority and having to abide by the majority rule of others, not like themselves. There is nothing admirable about this movement.

But the debate also resides in today's hyper-sophisticated techniques of persuasion and brand marketing. The "brand" is what our target audience thinks about our company, product, or cause, based on all of the messages they have received about us.

So what is the brand of white supremacy?  What do they promise followers? How do they "tell their story"?

Their promise is to preserve white privilege.  And they personalize it.  All of these other non-white groups are harming you and you will be better off without them, they tell followers.

To a huge majority of the people, this brand is unethical, unjust, and confederate flags and statues symbolize this injustice.  But the white supremacy brand appeals powerfully to a certain small minority, based on their backgrounds and world-views.  To them, the symbolism of removing flags and statues is the growing threat of losing their power and provilege.

Counter-protests may change laws and official policies, but they are not likely to change the minds of those who have bought in to the white supremacist cause. Removing statues and flags that commemorate and glorify the unjust confederate cause also will not change their minds, and in fact will like make these guys even madder.

So what do we do about the statues and flags?

I think that this mission of remembering the complexities and nuances of history, particularly the negative parts of our history, is the role for museums, not for public property displays that lack explanation and context. So, move these things to museums, or put companion interpretive displays in the parks, or maybe even companion statues that tell the other side of the story.

Do a better job of teaching the underlying pro-slavery social and economic dynamics of 19th century American slavery in our history classes.

Our society has long-neglected addressing the underlying white supremacy driving many political agendas.  Just like a politician works to define the "brand" of the opposing candidate, the overwhelming majority needs to continually define the negatives of the brand of white supremacy.

Star Trek Discovery

Star Trek Discovery premiers next month and I have largely been avoiding the growing hype from CBS.  But I will be interested to see how they fit this series in to established Trek continuity and the overall Star Trek "brand."

This series is acknowledged to be set a decade before The Original Series.  Way back in the early stages of production development, Brian Fuller said it revolves around an event that has been mentioned, but not seen on screen.  I have been wondering what that event is.

There have been indications that Discovery is set in the context of a cold war between the Federation and the Klingons. There have been allusions in previous Trek to conflict between the Klingons and Starfleet in the years before Kirk and Spock on the Enterprise.

The inconclusive Battle of Donatu IV would have taken place around ten years before Discovery (mentioned in The Trouble with Tribbles).

Kirk once mentioned having seen what Klingons do to occupied planets - organizing slave labor camps, eliminating all freedoms, confiscating goods, and taking hostages (Errand of Mercy).

Kirk was in his early 30s in The Original Series, making him barely out of Starfleet Academy ten years earlier, or maybe even still a cadet.  Of course, his reference to having seen what Klingons do does not necessarily mean he was on the scene in person.

So, that's about all we know about the Klingons a decade before The Original Series.

Somewhere in there was also the Battle of Axenar. It would be an interesting choice to incorporate this battle, given that one of the semi-copyright infringed fan productions purports to tell the story of Axenar.  I don't think it is definitive that the Klingons were involved, but they may have been.

And of course, the "decade before The Original Series" time frame puts it right at, or just after, the Enterprise's first visit to Talos IV (as seen in the Cage and The Menagerie).

It is also interesting that one of the main characters is apparently Spock's adoptive sister, although he may have moved out of the household of Amanda and Sarek by the time she came along.  Of course, Spock went for at least 20 years without mentioning a half brother (Sybok) so we can't assume that he would have mentioned an adopted sister.

I have a great dislike for the dystopian stories that are so common today, which I have described as "unlikable people doing unethical things to each other."  This cold war storyline COULD go that direction, but I hope it doesn't.   I hope that when they say they are being faithful to the vision of Gene Roddenberry about characters being professional and respecting each other, they are telling the truth and not just making empty claims.

What's this blog really about?

August is when school starts again for me, and the end of July seems like a reasonable time to reflect on the status and goals of my blog.

As it turns out, I have been making a lot of posts about politics recently, but that is not my MAIN intent with this blog.  My intent is to post as an observer -- of life and culture and things that interest me.

Five Myths about Higher Education

©  2014 Michael Marek

Reading this article made think about myths about how education works.

Here are five myths that too many people believe about education, and particularly higher education.

The Bots are Taking Over

The news has been going around this week that millions of Donald Trump's Twitter followers are fake -- automated "bot" accounts that are not real people.

Not all bots are bad, but they can easily be used to falsify interactivity in social media.  How do bots work?

You Can't Play Music in Podcasts

Podcasts are programs intended to be downloaded and listened to off-line.  They are growing in popularity, but the general public, and some podcast producers, don't understand why it is illegal play music in a podcast.  

Trumps Brand

By definition, a "brand' is what customers think about a product, service, or person. A "brand promise" is what you WANT your customers to believe.  So what is Donald Trump's political brand and how much value does it have?