I Am Now a Blockbuster Spokesperson…

Remember my post about Facebook fan-sumerism and my questions about how those would be monetized? Social Ads have now started to pop-up in Facebook’s user newsfeeds and they are showing a strange mash-up of your friends’ face with corporate advertising messages. By becoming a fan of Blockbuster in Facebook, I’m now officially an advertising icon for the company for all my friends to see.

Blockbuster Social Ad Facebook Fan

I’m not sure it works. Where’s the WIFM (what’s in it for me) for fans? Do you a get coupons, rebates, free rentals? Did I agree somewhere to allow use of my “likeness”? Social Media is all about trusted recommendations and this does not feel like it. Maybe if I was allowed to write the advertising message…

(thanks to Perry for the screen capture)

16 thoughts on “I Am Now a Blockbuster Spokesperson…

  1. Sebastian,

    Are you really a fan of Blockbuster, or have you signed up te receive messages from them?

    The seems like it’s prime for a potential backlash.

    But, if you ARE a fan of blockbuster, then they’re better in my eyes.

    This happened without your knowledge? Not good.

  2. Sebastian,

    Are you really a fan of Blockbuster, or have you signed up te receive messages from them?

    The seems like it’s prime for a potential backlash.

    But, if you ARE a fan of blockbuster, then they’re better in my eyes.

    This happened without your knowledge? Not good.

  3. It’s definitely a real step over the line (pattern behavior for FB), but I think the concept could be refined to be (very) effective. It’s an atomized model of affinity marketing.

    The FB model seems to be 1) step WAY over the line, 2) listen for backlash, then 3) adjust back if the flaming gets out of control. They end up typically over the “original line” and get farther than if the timidly incremented themselves. I think it’s actually pretty darn clever. Annoying, but clever.

  4. It’s definitely a real step over the line (pattern behavior for FB), but I think the concept could be refined to be (very) effective. It’s an atomized model of affinity marketing.

    The FB model seems to be 1) step WAY over the line, 2) listen for backlash, then 3) adjust back if the flaming gets out of control. They end up typically over the “original line” and get farther than if the timidly incremented themselves. I think it’s actually pretty darn clever. Annoying, but clever.

  5. Annoying and not clever.I’ll never allow a company to use my own image without express permission.This is WAY over the line.

    We aren’t talking about backlash, I guess, but about destroying trust, which actually is the real currency in a Social Network…

  6. Annoying and not clever.I’ll never allow a company to use my own image without express permission.This is WAY over the line.

    We aren’t talking about backlash, I guess, but about destroying trust, which actually is the real currency in a Social Network…

  7. Martin, you miscontrue my comment – I agree it’s completely annoying and inappropriate. My clever comment was in reference to the pattern I see emerging at FaceBook in general. In order for them to win, urgently, they need to push the envelope on new ad product models. I think the model of stepping “meaningfully” over the line and then back gets them more forward motion. Bloggers and online press are a fraction of the consumer, and they provide an interesting immediate feedback test model for FaceBook. The mass audience barely notices the things we flame about, and FaceBook reacts swiftly when they see problems. I see them using the blogsphere as a testing vehicle, with little real risk on the overall trust of the mass market.

    Facebook has some risk of imploding over these moves, but if it does not step ahead aggressively on their ad value proposition, it runs a huge risk on business value. So, the “business man” in me thinks it’s clever, the consumer in me finds it annoying.

    Hope that clarifies…

  8. Martin, you miscontrue my comment – I agree it’s completely annoying and inappropriate. My clever comment was in reference to the pattern I see emerging at FaceBook in general. In order for them to win, urgently, they need to push the envelope on new ad product models. I think the model of stepping “meaningfully” over the line and then back gets them more forward motion. Bloggers and online press are a fraction of the consumer, and they provide an interesting immediate feedback test model for FaceBook. The mass audience barely notices the things we flame about, and FaceBook reacts swiftly when they see problems. I see them using the blogsphere as a testing vehicle, with little real risk on the overall trust of the mass market.

    Facebook has some risk of imploding over these moves, but if it does not step ahead aggressively on their ad value proposition, it runs a huge risk on business value. So, the “business man” in me thinks it’s clever, the consumer in me finds it annoying.

    Hope that clarifies…

  9. Perry, Sebastien, I must say I have to agree with your clever insight. Really, this make sense, busnesswise.

    However, IMHO, that said, this is way too much I can bare. And my comment might have been more of an echo of my grief than an answer to your comments.

    I do think there isn’t any “line” to cross, as this “line” is socially constructed among social partners: as we all know, playing with socially acceptable limits (aka the “line”) do affect our perception of this very limits.

    With due respect to your point of view, I tend to see those “experimentation” as another attempt from businesses to modify social behavior for the benefits of the market.

    But, as per your comment, we tend to see these experimentations as done, let’s find an image, in close-circuit (Facebook is still confidential, worldwise). Facebook is in fact a kind of social lab for testing future behaviors in large scale: as Social Network won’t fade away, so what is going on here would affect what will happend tomorrow, I guess.

    We still struggle with inital Internet concepts that today still have impacts (anonymous email, “information want to be free”, etc) despite consensus againts them all (well, depends with whom you talk too, in fact).

    Anyway, thank you for the clarifications and hope mine are clear enough…

  10. Perry, Sebastien, I must say I have to agree with your clever insight. Really, this make sense, busnesswise.

    However, IMHO, that said, this is way too much I can bare. And my comment might have been more of an echo of my grief than an answer to your comments.

    I do think there isn’t any “line” to cross, as this “line” is socially constructed among social partners: as we all know, playing with socially acceptable limits (aka the “line”) do affect our perception of this very limits.

    With due respect to your point of view, I tend to see those “experimentation” as another attempt from businesses to modify social behavior for the benefits of the market.

    But, as per your comment, we tend to see these experimentations as done, let’s find an image, in close-circuit (Facebook is still confidential, worldwise). Facebook is in fact a kind of social lab for testing future behaviors in large scale: as Social Network won’t fade away, so what is going on here would affect what will happend tomorrow, I guess.

    We still struggle with inital Internet concepts that today still have impacts (anonymous email, “information want to be free”, etc) despite consensus againts them all (well, depends with whom you talk too, in fact).

    Anyway, thank you for the clarifications and hope mine are clear enough…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s