What Apple can get away with that most others can’t…
December 11, 2009
Photography Source: C-Monster
Earlier this month, I put together this pretty extensive feature with Bobby Hundreds that spoke about not only his most recent collaboration with DeLorean (yeh, the Back to the Future car) but also other aspects of our cultural landscape. As I practiced my greatest skill, the tangent, our conversation fell onto social media and the likes of Twitter. But it slowly unraveled over a series of relevant chronological events outlined for the most part below:
Sort of tying into the whole notion of globalization, how do you view those who are slow to adopt the latest in Internet brand presence, do you feel it’s a big detriment to development? Do you genuinely find new social media platforms beneficial like Twitter and the like?
It depends! For the majority of brands and businesses out there, you’re in the dinosaur ages if you haven’t dedicated a significant amount of attention towards your internet presence. BUT it’s certainly not for everyone. With some brands, any proactive internet exposure goes against the very fabric of their ideology. Yet, they still make the mistake of sparking up a blog or Twitter profile because they assume it’s what they’re supposed to do, although the forced nature is detrimental to their overall branding development. Follow the natural course of your brand.
For us, the open platform has always made sense, because it’s the core of our branding strategy. The very notion of The Hundreds was to be on the same level as our customers, and be as open as possible about our process and day-to-day. Logically, the blog and eventual online interaction plugged into that equation. So yes, our customer is looking for a The Hundreds Twitter page, and for Ben and I to be a finger-click away. And ultimately, it enhances their overall understanding of our brand, and reinforces our DNA.
I’ve had my Twitter account open for a couple years now, and tried to shut it down a few months ago. It’s such a gross exercise in narcissism, I didn’t see any benefit to my personal life. But when I looked at our webstats, I realized that the vast amount of traffic to our site now comes via our Twitter accounts. So now I update mine regularly with bad jokes and quips (anything to NOT talk about my personal life or product news), although it’s more for business purposes.
After that, I saw this article on CrunchGear which highlighted some of the current companies doing well and not doing so well in the social media landscape. Among those listed was Apple, see excerpt below:
Apple
Whoa there, calm down. Read first, then flame if you must. The standard “I’m typing this on a mac” preamble applies. Plus, the fact is that whether or not Apple gets or does the blogosphere, their current strategy is working. But my point isn’t that they aren’t successful or suck at PR, just that they’re not utilizing the new media well. And of course, they don’t really need to — the new media pretty much use themselves without Apple’s help. But here’s the thing: despite writing thousands of words on Apple products, sometimes good, sometimes bad, I’ve never heard from them. Not in a comment, not in an email — nothing. Oh, we’ve got someone to talk to if we need to RSVP for a press conference or whatnot, but that’s not the same thing. The fact that I can write a mean-spirited dismissal of iFrame and not hear a word from Apple means they don’t get it or don’t care enough, and either way it’s not a good thing.
Apple is good at doing what I mentioned above: letting the product sell itself. But they don’t engage the community. They don’t need to comment on rumors or address every little thing, but when it’s shown that thousands of Apple laptops have faulty video cards, I think it’s in their interest to go around doing a little damage control.
From there... Bobby Hundreds re-visited things on a recent blog post which reinforced his belief that Twitter and various social media platforms weren't the next logical stop for all brands... cue his comments and the subsequent article on MSNBC (which goes against CrunchGear's arguments).
THE EXAMPLE.
In my Hypebeast interview last week, I mentioned how current online-based marketing trends aren’t necessarily blanket truth for all brands and companies. Just because everyone else is blogging and Tweeting, doesn’t make it the obvious solution for your particular project. MSNBC posted an article this morning delineating exactly that, through one of the most iconic brands of our generation: Apple. Steve Jobs doesn’t Tweet, Facebook, blog, or interact, yet they’re still the benchmark. Eugene asked me why we won’t open up the blog to Comments. And they kinda get into that within this article as well. Thought you might like it.
Ok so there you go, congratulations if you've made it this far, you've managed to get through 700-some odd words based on the Word count stat at the bottom of this WordPress window haha. An admirable feat in this day in age.
I still personally feel as though for the majority of brands out there, social media is still key. It has a lot of potential at its core and I'm not talking about just posting a bit.ly link of some new shit you did and ignoring the rest of what's around you (actually... the Hypebeast Twitter is a bit like that but it's more an issue of time). It's not so much a matter of if I should do this and get onto social media, it's more like when I should do this. In a few years, the likes of Twitter/Facebook will be no different than owning an email address. Apple has had the ability to stay away from this realm of open communication (maybe coupled with its brand philosophy) cause the work and branding was done many years ago. Let's face it, Apple's number one goal is to sell electronics and by and large they are successful (although I still won't buy Apple cause I think it's over-priced). Prior to the days of social media, through clever tactics and great product design they managed to captivate a massive audience. While this is commendable, this has given them a late pass to do things others don't have the luxury of doing. As I see it, the greater your brand, the greater leverage you have when entering or delaying entry into expansion into different new mediums and platforms. If an established high-fashion house decided to not enter an online presence, would they suffer, for sure but they would be far from extinct.
Now this isn't a knock on behalf of The Hundreds, but comparing them to Apple is much much different. The Hundreds is a much much much smaller operation than Apple and I think should realize we're at communication crossroads for better or worse. Maybe I'll look back and be all wrong about this but I can't see anything letting up. I can't see Twitter/Facebook and all that stuff falling the wayside in the next few years especially given the potential business ramifications involved. Once you toss money into the equation, you know people will start giving a shit.
I'm still an advocate for building things through relationships which I feel social media offers. Time and time again, you hear people say this (and many) industry is about relationships. It doesn't matter who you are, for the most part some sort of a positive relationship is beneficial for both parties. On another note and perhaps most important cause there's no going back is the fact that Apple's rise occurred in a time where organic growth (such a fucking cliche word that I over-use way too much) was much easier to achieve. Why? Cause you didn't have the Internet cramming all this instantaneous shit down your throat, Live Feeds included. I think that you simply have to adapt and why not get onto things when its in its infancy where you can make mistakes like everybody who's all relatively new to the same things? Things change and what was once organic growth 5-10 years ago has simply taken on a new context you can't overlook.
The Internet now allows for the dissemination of information so much more quickly that often times it gets re-appropriated on the wrong note. These platforms help you set the record straight as well as help define your brand. I think it's definitely possible to strengthen your brand through more active communications. I don't care what you say, offering a lifestyle as part of the package helps your brand out. If you can keep people interested on more than one front in your brand, you're doing yourself a favor.
As you can read from Bobby Hundreds' excerpt, his thoughts are pretty clear what he feels are the proper procedures for social media and brands. Obviously we have slightly conflicting views but that's cool. But much like Apple, The Hundreds does have the ability to not worry so much about their "Internet Rating" since regardless of whether they Tweet or not, there will be that grip of kids lining up at that next release. The Hundreds are definitely among the new(er) crop of successful brands that were helped by timing and the fact they got their shit right with how to properly use a blog to their advantage, something new brands can't really do much about cause the landscape is that much tougher these days. But if you didn't know, Twitter is the new WordPress ha. It's all relative, established brands with set identities and good followings can afford to be slower to adopt something. But if you're shit out of luck in that department, enter other tools to get you out there, Twitter and Facebook included.
Is this shit seemingly all too calculated? I don't know maybe I am looking too much into things like I often do. Probably a few typos, grammatical errors in there...
The problem that brands like the Hundreds will face by becoming so personally involved in social networking is that they will find trouble in setting themselves up for longevity. When you look at Apple, they may not be actively involved in social networking and of course they would not want to be, there is no need to be involved because much of their publicity is user generated. The brand itself will continue without such involvement because all they have to do is drop the pebble, the ripples will form on its own.When people think of the Hundreds they immediately associate the brand with Bobby and Ben, there is a constant need to keep the brand alive through updating the blog and keeping fans informed through social media. The bigger question is whether such brands will continue to survive after the founders decide they no longer wish to pour fuel to the flame.
Wow, you really put some time and thought into this article. We actually discuss topics like this amongst ourselves a lot when we have our meetings and I definitely agree with everything you wrote. Good to see others share the same perspective.
Hey Bill/Phil, thanks for the comments.
Bill: That's an interesting angle I never really considered. I haven't really thought about how a figure head works into the equation and to what effect they have on the overall popularity of a brand. If Steve Jobs/Steve Ballmer/Karl Lagerfeld all left their current ultra-visible roles but were replaced by somebody who ultimately understood the brand and assumed the role of figurehead, would the impact (over time) be inconsequential? There is a time of integration and transition but I think that a companies success doesn't lie on the shoulders of one person entirely. But maybe I'm getting too far away from the argument that dependence on social media isn't a good thing.
Mosy recently, we'll see how things go with Margiela officially gone from MMM, but it's not like he was ever that invovled with the press anyways.
The dependence upon social media is immediately a scary situation. Brand responsibility immediately is to secure quality product or service initially. Now with the emergence of what figures like Michael Jordan and Jay-Z have created within the marketplace and marketshare, it opens up a newer view where the brand is often overshadowed by a person and people associate the products greatness with a figure. This is a plus and a minus. You take a figure like Jay-Z whom I admire immensely owns a brand, but has always been a wearer of other niche brands so one consumer flows to what he wears, another to what he endorses and owns. My point in that is from a social media aspect, it allows followers or supporters of a brand to feel like they are growing up with brand especially new brands like The Hundreds. Social media (if responsive) can mean that much more to an individual but it can backfire as well because within my brand, I can't reply to everybody on alll of my channels but I try! Those left out can get a sour taste in their mouth and then end up putting out negative energy in response to the slight...we typically call these people Stans. Great read tho! I appreciate the angle you took and the grown man approach to the research and points of view..really made me reconsider how i do my thing!!
Very great article Eugene. Really enjoyed reading this as these are the same questions and related things we discuss all the time. I personally see the upside and think that social media is an important key to future growth. It's crazy to see how the world has changed and I can't even imagine what the future holds. I often see many corporate companies, people just in our parents age look at social media and are clueless. New companies entering a new generation, I think if they don't tap in with what's going on especially with how fast everything is moving, they are going to be slower and left behind.
i think that when it comes to social media, authenticity plays a large part in the decision of whether or not to use it. small, growing, new companies like The Hundreds can effectively use tools like Twitter, etc. because it's believable that Bobby and Ben are actively running the show day in and day out. if they aren't, then who is? now if steve jobs were to start using Twitter, open up a public facebook page, etc. i'm sure millions would flock to it and hang on his every word/update. but the reality is that steve jobs does not twitter, so does it make sense for apple the company to have a twitter account and utilize other social media platforms? consumers are not that stupid, they'll know its just some hack sitting behind a desk whose sole purpose is to churn out tweets and status updates and the authenticity just won't be there. apple and companies like it could still use social media for things like firmware update announcements, sales, inventory updates, etc., but not in the same way that it is employed by The Hundreds, which is to provide that behind-the-scenes, personal get-to-know-you touch.
the argument made in the CrunchGear article is more about customer service in my opinion, and less about social media. sure, it would be helpful for apple to say hey sorry about the faulty laptop cards, but in the end they can still successfully engage their user community without the "personal touch" that social media supposedly provides. it's called the old school 1-800 customer service hotline, or the Genius Bar where you can talk to an actual human being in person. also, i feel that its inaccurate to say that apple does not utilize new media well. if the author thinks that apple is not plugged into what people are saying in the blogosphere, twitter, facebook, etc. about its products, then he's pretty naive. companies pay advertising firms huge sums of money to keep tabs on this kind of thing, in some cases they simply choose to keep the conversation one-sided.
I agree with Bobby that social media is not for everyone, and additionally i feel that in some cases its value in building a company/brand is actually over emphasized. in the end, your work/product has to speak for itself and stand on its own two feet. if Greedy Genius churned out shoes that fell apart after one wear, it wouldn't matter how many times Brandon got on the Twitter/blog horn to apologize. Companies like Apple are too busy working their asses off to improve their products and bring new ones to market to waste their time and money on addressing every little comment/snafu. In fact, as a consumer, I would view such activity as a sign of weakness and bad quality. apple is where it is at today because of its engineering and product development, not because of blogs or its I'm a Mac ads.
i guess all i'm trying to say is that all companies regardless of size/age have to respect and understand social media in order to survive these days, but in the end let's not forget about the underlying importance of continually putting out solid product, whether it's tshirts, shoes, or even editorial. if you look back at the surprise iphone price drop back in 2007, that incident could only have been mollified so much by apologies and explanations made over twitter, etc. many iphone users should have been eternally PISSED about it, but i'll bet you that the vast majority got over it and continue their loyalty to Apple products. why? because apple makes good shit time and time again.
These blogs needed to get sorted so that they break up paragraphs properly haha.
While I don't doubt the authenticity card, I think that very much so branding doesn't necessarily rest on the backs of a personality per say. While Steve Jobs is the frontman of Apple, I still think that as we've all agreed upon, Apple's strengths lie in good product. There is an intangible aspect that represents what is so dope about Apple and it's this intangible aspect, that is the personality, the approach, the way of thinking, this is what I feel can be accurately conveyed through Social Media through the right understanding aka somebody that represents Apple's philosophy but doesn't have to be Steve Jobs. Although I must admit my initial argument does have flaws... I can't expect somebody like Sears or Target to put together a truly impactful social media presence beyond what you touched upon Scott (with something going beyond generic store/product/customer service updates). Social media's ability to do damage control is perhaps a better asset after re-assessing things and hearing your thoughts... good looks Scott, you brought some good points to the table.