What The Sims can teach brands about social media.

Image

Before we had Twitter and Facebook to keep us busy, we Millennials had The Sims. We spent hours building fake houses for the fake families whose lives we controlled—and sometimes destroyed—and we were constantly entertained by what this early-2000s computer game thought of how people interact.

Relationships in The Sims were basic and formulaic, following very precise logic. There were no two Sims who couldn’t be friends and it was never too late to start over with a wife you cheated on just hours ago.

Image

The Sims logic

But even if relationships in The Sims were more for novelty and entertainment than anything else, there are quite a few true-to-life social media lessons brands could learn from The Sims.

1. You have to do it.

There’s no way around it. As social animals we have to form relationships with other people. If you deprived your poor Sim of human interaction, they would cry in the corner or refuse to do what you told them because they were quite literally paralyzed by loneliness.

Don’t think your brand is any different, don’t ever think you’re above building relationships with people. Just because you have a logo doesn’t mean you have the right to hide behind it on social networks. If real, true connections are an afterthought, your brand could meet the same, bleak fate as this unfortunate Sim.

Image

2. The number of friends you have matters.

In The Sims players could be rewarded with job promotions if they had a certain number of friends. Beyond the highly basic game logic, there’s a lesson here: relationships pay off. Sure, you can have one (or even a few) great friendship, but let’s face it, when you’re talking social media, you’re talking networking, you’re talking connections. You’re talking about quantity.

The power of social media is in its reach and scale. This doesn’t mean you have to be mainstream, but you have to at least own a niche! Of course, you want strong relationships, but you want enough of them, too. Numbers matter, people. They aren’t everything, but they do make a difference.

3. Quality matters too, so do it often and do it consistently.

In The Sims it was almost impossible to maintain quality relationships with enough people to keep your brand-new job. By the time you called up your neighbor and waited the inexplicable 3 hours for them to arrive at your door, your Sim was complaining about being hungry or in serious need of some sleep before the carpool arrived for work. If they went a few days without talking, their friendship status was in danger of dropping to the “who are you?” level. It was hard work to make and keep friends, but when you made it a priority for your Sim, they were happier and better off for it.

Brands aren’t done when they get someone to “like” their page, and they’re not doing much in the way of “maintaining” a relationship when they’re just blasting senseless updates at people. Quality relationships involve hard work and serious commitment. You can’t just talk about anything, you have to talk about what matters or your relationship progress bar is going to stay flat.

Image

4. The phone’s great and all, but it’s no substitute for face-to-face communication.

The Sims offered two ways to communicate with others: over the phone or in person. Pretty simple world, right? Unsurprisingly, phone conversations didn’t give many interaction options, and barely added any friendship points to a relationship. Face-to-face talk was where it was at. In person, you could not only chat, but you could hug or flirt or joke or, hey, make out.

Image

The lesson? In-person brand experiences are best, but technology and social media can help cover your bases between in-person brand experiences, such as when someone is buying or using your product.

Brands have all these different forms of social media at their disposal to give them more moments and methods to connect with people. Every channel, every network, every community offers different ways to connect and new people to connect with. Not all kinds of content work on every social network, not all content works the same way, and not everyone in one community is the same as those in a different community.

Brands don’t need to be on every channel, and they don’t need to be the same on every channel. They just need to be relevant to wherever they’re participating and consider the context of their relationship levels with others there.

5. Think about what you’re saying or you’ll get slapped.

Don’t talk to everyone the same. Your Sim wife would get pissed when you didn’t reciprocate the affection she needed. Your Sim neighbor would slap you when you flirted with her before greeting her first. So why do brands try to sell to people who they haven’t even done the equivalent of exchanging pleasantries first?

Build a relationship, but don’t force one. Brand interactions have steps and levels to them just like Sim relationships—and real-life relationships! Treating everyone the same just doesn’t work at a certain point. Adapt and find how you fit in, or I guarantee you will get slapped.

Image

Your brand is already hijacked.

A few weeks ago there was a spree of brand hijackings happening on Twitter. First Burger King, then Jeep. And as fun as those were to watch unfold, I was left to wonder, why all the panic? Why all the commotion? Don’t brands realize that they were all hijacked years ago?

Sorry to have to break this to you, brands, but in the age of social media and open communication, you don’t have control over your brand. At most, you have special privileges in influencing it, but you’re not even in the driver’s seat anymore.

Your brand has already been hijacked. And if you’re playing in the social space, you need to realize it comes with the risk of more aggressive hijacking than you might have anticipated. I’m not saying it’s right, but I’m saying it happens. And I’m here to tell you this: As long as you know who you are, are plugged in to the chatter, and have empowered the right people, you should actually be excited to be so lucky to be the target of a high-profile hijacking.

So what happens when your brand’s Twitter account is hijacked?

First things first, realize that you didn’t do anything wrong…yet.

No one blames you for what’s happening. People aren’t giving you all this attention because you did something wrong. They’re doing it because they’re attracted to the drama, and they’re waiting to see how you’ll handle this. It’s your move.

You have a lot to think about, assuming you haven’t already thought these situations through. You have minutes to decide who you are as a brand and what you represent. Are you a funny brand? A serious brand? A brand who cares about people, or just a brand that cares about itself. This all sounds scary—unless you’ve prepared.

You have the stage and a captive audience.

Few brands are handed this chance to leave an impression of their personality on such a brightly lit stage. Don’t freak out, but your next interaction could seal your fate. Brands would pay big for this opportunity.

Brands spend so much time and money on advertising and, compared to what’s happening to you right now, it has likely produced terribly boring results. This, however, is interesting. You’re interesting enough to be the target of a hijacking! This is a million times better than what brands hope for with their advertising. It’s funny how they get scared the moment they get everything they’ve been wishing for.

When something surprising happens to brands, they kind of have to be surprising in their response.

When brands are forced to act like humans when they’re not prepared to, it’s a bit like watching a dog walk on its hind legs, hence the hundreds of thousands of consumers staring at them.

Don’t be afraid to handle surprise with surprise. Be poised, but be real. Make a positive out of what happened.

So how can your brand prevent this from ever happening in the first place? Well, you can’t. No brand can ever take enough security precautions to be sure that mistakes or attacks will never happen, so the best thing you can do is minimize the risk but be ready to rise to the occasion (and shine) if needed. Here are the big three actions you can take right now to prepare for unexpected social crises:

Empower your community manager.

Hire for heart, not (completely) for the résumé. Hire someone who knows the brand, who loves the brand. If their heart’s not in it, your brand is the one that’s going to suffer.

Be confident about who your brand is and what it represents.

This often takes sitting down and figuring out who you are. What’s your identity? What’s your mission? How are you trying to make the world a better place. This is not a conversation that requires business metrics or money talk. This is so far beyond that. This comes from the heart.

Never leave social unattended. Ever.

Sure, a lot of the time nothing happens. But when it does, it pays to be there. It pays more than you can imagine.

Remember, your brand is already highjacked. In the age of social media, you don’t control your brand.

Image source: http://www.capital.cl/cultura/galeria-los-mejores-momentos-de-los-premios-oscar-2013/

5 reasons why Google+ was DOA

I’ve been dying for the chance to use “Google+” in a sentence, so here it goes. I’ve never been a fan of Google+. And here’s why.

5. Circles

Sure, the idea that you can individually place your friends into separate circles sounds appealing, and users even say they like this feature. But then they go and try to place people in their lives into “circles,” and suddenly, they realize it isn’t convenient, it isn’t easy, and it doesn’t make much sense. People think they want options, but when they get them, they feel overwhelmed.

Google has no idea how people interact. Sure, they like to think that ideally we have “circles” of friends and that each circle is privy to only certain information. And that’s what a logical world is: ideal. But the world isn’t logical, it’s messy with emotion and irrational behavior (that we try to rationalize).

How do I decide who to put in which circles? Do my roommates get their own circle? Do I also put them in close friends? What makes someone a close friend instead of a friend?

People don’t think like this, no matter how much they want to. Google+, please get with the program.

(Besides, Facebook has had this function in lists, which no one really used anyway, even when they were revamped after the launch of Google+. Also, Facebook clearly understands social and still doesn’t insist users categorize their friends the way Google+ does.)

4. Design

Go to Facebook and what do you see? Social content. Your friend’s statuses, comments on those statuses—pictures, videos, everything. When Google+ first launched, its interface was social content competing with contextualizing elements (timestamps, level of visibility, words like “comments,” “shares,” etc.).

Sure, Facebook has these things too—social networks need these things. But Facebook has always downplayed them and let user content shine. They used color, text decoration and placement to let their contextualizing elements support content, not overshadow it. On Google+, books elements looked the same. Same font, same color, close placement. It wasn’t easy to follow, even if users couldn’t quite realize this was why they found Google+ difficult.

On the left, social content in Google+ is almost overpowered by all the nonessential contextualizing elements. On the right, Facebook uses text color, background color and placement to make social content king.

Google+ took the focus away from social and put the focus on classifying. While things have gotten better with the latest redesign, contextualizing elements are still difficult to distinguish from social content. And even worse, Google+ now uses a frame-like interface, fixing the top and left parts of the screen to the window, allowing users to scroll through only a fraction of their browser screens. I see fixed elements caving in all around me and I feel claustrophobic. I don’t like it.

3. Coolness (Hey, I can use that word.)

Myspace was a place for kids to express themselves away from authority. This was the beginning of Web 2.0 and parents had no idea that their kids were up late writing “bulletins” and sharing their interests with mostly strangers.

A big reason why Facebook was successful was because it started out being exclusive to only college students. And because people talk to others like them, it expanded to include everyone in that exclusive group very quickly.

It just so happens that these are the very groups—teens and young adults—responsible for deciding what is and isn’t cool in our culture.

They made Myspace cool, and they made Facebook cool.

Google+ started off exclusive, too…to huge geeks. And let’s face it, geeks aren’t cool. At least not in the mainstream sense of the word. (Trust, I was one.) So by the time the “cool kids” joined, all they saw were posts by their social media friends and Google employees.

Update (November 28, 2012): Google+’s phased launch also seems a poor choice in retrospect. It forced exclusivity for no reason other than to trottle membership. Myspace and Facebook would never dream of that.

2. Language

Google talks to me like I’m a robot. Which is fantastic when I’m looking for a tool to do a task, like read email or create a document. It’s not so fantastic when I’m trying to be social, a completely emotional (read: irrational) behavior.

Hey Google, I’m not a mathematical operator, I’m a person. I interact emotionally, not logically. People like things, they don’t “plus one” things. Calculators “plus one” things.

Twitter got it right with “follow.” That’s something people do. Facebook got it right with “add friend.” People add friends to their lives. Google+ thought it was doing us a favor by letting us add people “to circles,” but there is nothing social about adding your friend to a circle. If anything, it’s antisocial.

1. What’s the point?

Myspace was a place for friends, Facebook is all about making the world more open and connected, and Google+? Well, Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible, and Google+ seems to be about “new ways of sharing the right things with the right people.”

But that’s not social. That’s logic over emotion, which, again, is great for Google’s other tools. But Google+ is no Facebook killer.

And let’s be real—their only mission was to compete with Facebook. (And even if it wasn’t, that’s the perception, and perception is reality.)

To put it simply (or REALLY complex, if you’re not a geek):

What Facebook thinks my thought process is:

“Hey, this is cool! I’m totally sharing this.”

What Google thinks my thought process is:

function share(thing,people) { if(thing=”right thing”,share(thing,if(people=”right people”,people,no one)),nothing) };

Or something like that. Did I miss a parenthesis?

My Google+ advice?

If you’re a person, don’t bother with Google+. I promise you’re not missing anything. If you’re a brand, don’t bother with Google+. It just shows you only “do social media” to “do social media.”

Thoughts?