It’s a group blog for us to talk about all sorts of social media, digital marketing and public relations stuff from the point of view of four Gen Y bloggers in our first job doing digital in one agency or another.
Think of it as four blogs in one! Do check us out and give us feedback!
As I connect with friends who are new entrants to the workforce, I find that an increasing number of them come back feeling work should be “more than this” and feeling anywhere between annoyed to outright fed up with processes that should have been extinct right around the time of the dinosaurs.
I look at these friends and see people who were student leaders in school, excellent team mates who I’ve worked well with at one point or another and real go-getters, so why the seeming disconnect?
Perhaps we’ve been trained to think, to learn how to be decision makers and knowledge workers. But when we question processes/actions that could be done in cheaper, faster or smarter ways, they’re thrown under the “we’ve always done it this way” bus.
We seem used to solving problems within days when we could make the decisions, but now problems could take months to solve, new initiatives months to be approved, depending on how many hoops your corporation makes you jump through.
In a world where you can reach anyone via LinkedIn and we’re taught to connect to CEOs and build those relationships, these hoops seem counter-intuitive.
It seems Generation Y feels like they graduate from school and get hired by employers who do not know what to do with us and instead slap on “tried and tested” methods of management and work processes that bury Gen Y with what they perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be meaningless work, instead of harnessing the crazy amount of energy they possess and unleash it on conquering the world (or some similar corporate goal). Are the unique talents really being maximised? Or are they being utilised the way they always have been utilised before?
It seems they graduate and look at people in the company who have worked for a few years and are settling into “just get by” mode, and can see themselves transforming into those drones in a few years.
Can we change a world that is resistant to change?
Is this the “sense of entitlement” that people claim Generation Y have? Or is it a sign that the workforce is fundamentally broken and needs to be fixed?
The reason is simple: it comes down to demographics.
Last week I was casually looking at the profiles of people who joined Facebook while they were in school, and those who joined Facebook while they were already in the workforce, and one main difference struck me. Keep in mind that this is by no means a scientific method of “research” but casual observation. Remember that Facebook was started out as a social network for college students to share stuff like timetables, and for those of us who started it while in school, it may well have been used for those purposes and connecting with people in the same classes.
The Big Observation
I realise the people who were in school/are currently in school, tend to have much more friends on Facebook than those who were part of the workforce when Facebook appeared. I’m not sure if this is surprising to anyone, but to me, while the number of friends in itself doesn’t necessary say anything explicitly, it does suggest a number of implications:
1) We’re used to this mode of communication
Some days I realise I don’t have someone’s phone number with me, but we’re friends on Facebook. So I whip out my iPhone, log into the Facebook mobile application and I can send them a message and expect a reply back pretty quickly. And not all messages are created equal. The tone and context of a Facebook message is different from that of an SMS or an email, bringing a certain level of flexibility to communications. I think Gen Y will learn to leverage this mode of communication more and more in the future.
2) We’re used to being searched
We know that employers and colleagues screen us on Facebook. We know how to blend our personal and online profiles to get across who we really are on our Facebook profiles. This may differ from people who aren’t used to sharing information about themselves or pictures of their family. I think this enhances our ability to connect and build relationships and networks.
3) We’re used to adding “friends”.
It’s not at all uncommon to attend an event one night and be tagged in a Facebook photo the next day and become friends soon after. The old definition of “friend” becomes looser all the time and these loose links may actually turn out to be the most valuable of all, so there’s a lower barrier to adding these aquaintances. (Caveat: it doesn’t work when you’re obviously a pushy marketer out to collect friends rather than build relationships)
In addition to these three points, obviously with time, more people we know will get on Facebook from friends to family to co-workers to business partners to casual connections online, and that will only enhance the network effect and that will be a big factor in keeping Facebook “sticky” because people simply won’t switch to another social networking site unless most of their network does too. And when “most of their network” translates to easily 500 friends, it’s no easy task to induce a switch.
So why two years?
Simple, that’s the time it would have taken for all the people who joined Facebook in the first few years of its’ existence, to have graduated out of school and enter the workforce and start using it as a real social connector and virtual rolodex. I’m pretty sure this will lead to reversals of decisions to unblock Facebook and perhaps really solidify the wave for social media marketing via social networking channels by people who understand them the most.
This of course is my possibly skewed view. What do you think? Do we use Facebook any differently than people even slightly older than us? Is there a greater propensity for us to connect or is it a level playing field? The comments are yours.
It’s all over Twitter but I picked this up via Dan York’s blog: a YouTube video by a band, Sons of Maxwell, singing the song “United Breaks Guitars” which in two days has just under 15,000 views, just over 4,000 ratings (with an average of 5 stars), over 1,000 comments and plenty, plenty, of bad press.
Seriously, wouldn’t it just have been easier (and cheaper) to pay for and replace the guitar? Hell, buy the whole band new guitars and maybe it might have been a positive music video?
Again let’s put that in perspective. 15,000 views at about 4 minutes each (the duration of the music video) = how much time spent on negative brand association? Buying up the equivalent amount of 30 second spots won’t save you. And nothing United Airlines does will prevent this video from being viewed again and again for many years to come either.
I bet many companies fear this happening to them.
Stop.
Mistakes are going to happen. It’s about solving them the first time and solving them right. Not about ignoring them and letting them blow up in your face.
Late upload (all my fault) but here is the 6th episode of The GennY Podcast once again with Dorothy and myself talking about things that that happened at Ad:Tech 2009, and our observations.
The show notes:
00:00 – Starting off “live” from Ad:Tech
00:24 – A slight comparison of Ad:Tech 2008 and Ad:Tech 2009 and trends we’ve noticed
00:51 – First trend: The audience still seems to be semi to largely clueless!
01:51 – Is there a trend of inertia of companies not wanting to get their feet wet?
02:52 – Second trend: The idea of strategy vs tools. Shouldn’t this be common sense?
03:20 – There really needs to be a bigger strategy than “collecting followers”
03:32 – Should marketing move up from the tactical level to the strategic level?
04:52 – There should be a budget shift from expensive TVCs that no one is watching, especially when numerous presentations show data that TV isn’t as powerful as it used to be
05:45 – If your digital initiatives aren’t working for you, prove that your traditional media initiatives are
06:36 – Maybe the truth hurts? The blind faith of buying an ad makes you feel better?
07:22 – So how do you deal with intangibles? Maybe you can’t have it both ways?
07:49 – Maybe online interactions have a different angle. Maybe it’s not about sales. Maybe it can be used for feedback?
08:12 – Are advertisers just conning themselves? What does 4.5 million eyeballs even mean?
09:00 – Dorothy sighs in utter exasperation. You’re doing this to her advertisers! You!
09:08 – Maybe we’re just in a stage where we don’t know what the different numbers mean
10:50 – How is employing one person to take care of your social media presence a more expensive investment than producing and buying a TV ad?
11:08 – In the future, advertising should be come “invisible” and woven in
11:52 – There seems to be a universal Generation Y culture
13:27 – Maybe they just want to reach more people, but as Seth Godin says, the world has shifted from the “how many” to the “who”
14:32 – Hopefully we’ll have the rest of the crew back soon and we’re trying to make this regular!
00:00 – Yin starts us off – introductions all round
00:36 – The tumbleweed crosses the alamo
01:17 – What do we expect of brands if they are involved in social media?
01:28 – Brian’s expectations are low, he just wants someone to talk to him
03:06 – If brands decide to be online, then they owe it to the customer to interact with them
04:10 – The minimum expectation is at least and acknowledgement or a reply, even if the concern or question isn’t immediately answered.
05:23 – Maybe sometimes brands shouldn’t be on social media?
06:12 – Yin suggests there’s a difference between big brands and smaller brands in terms of the scale of reaching out and interacting with customers
07:01 – Yinqi says with the resources that big brands have, she feels they should experiment more
07:29 – Brian mentions the flip side, which is that big brands have more to lose in terms of reputation online, despite the relative ease to get involved
09:17 – Brian clanks his beer bottle against the table leg for effect, before saying that brands don’t own brands, customers own brands
10:53 – Daryl brings up the local example of Starhub on Twitter and whether it opens up the opportunity to solve minor issues
11:54 – Brian brings up the reverse of that to announce anticipation of minor issues in advance so that at least consumers know
13:08 – Kris says one to one relationships aren’t always possible, especially with many consumers
16:13 – The issue really is about being painfully aware that your actions online (if you choose to be online) is broadcast to everyone
16:54 – The customer is now empowered to keep brands in check
20:59 – Yin wonders why brands still repeat mistakes, despite many opportunities for them to learn
22:04 – The tools are of equal access to everyone, it’s how your choose to wield the tools
22:24 – Brian says “nerfed”
22:56 – Daryl has the expectation (realistic or not) that brands should know the general “rules” of the platform they choose to engage consumers in
23:58 – What about companes’ expectations of consumers?
26:41 – Maybe companies need to make it clear what to expect from their online engagements
27:00 – Brian tells his Zappos story as an example of positive engagement
29:20 – Yin calls for feedback and questions and more interaction!
If you’d like us to talk about anything and hear Gen Y’s perspective, leave a comment and we’ll definitely record it if it’s within our collective sphere of knowledge.
This is a quick overview of Day One of Youth Connect! which I had the privilege of attending and being a panelist at today, and I had a really good time.
For the first time in a long time, I could listen to people who actually knew their stuff go up there and tell us about their social media efforts, demonstrate some form of ROI, and hold up under scrutiny. I admit I was all ready to roll my eyes in cynicism when a speaker went up and said he was well-versed in digital marketing with an advertising agency, but then he actually knew what he was talking about. Very different from some speakers who just talk a lot, but don’t really say anything.
So my highlight was really speaking at the youth panel with four other people from the other universities, and I have to give Graham Perkins (@grayperks)props for really revving up the crowd even though it was the last session of the day. It was by far the most interactive session I’ve had the chance to speak at, and I think the smaller size of the conference helped people get used to one another and ask questions.
One thing that I “feel” intuitively at this conference, is that people understand more about social media than they did a year ago. The types of questions I had to answer a year ago and the types of questions I had to answer today, were quite different, and basic knowledge of what Facebook is, what Twitter is, what iPhones can do, can be pretty much be assumed, which makes a lot of difference when you’re trying to answer questions without leaving anyone behind.
As always, my favourite topic of newspapers came up again (which I will blog about soon), and I did have to answer one question about the effectiveness of advertising, and whether youth actually notice them. The room gave a slightly audible gasp when I told them Gen Y is pretty much trained to “ignore” interruptive marketing and advertising, but I think it’s not an exaggeration to say that.
When one other attendee asked if anyone of the five of us saw a physical ad (print, tv, outdoor) and went online to do research on that product or service based on the ad, the answer was a resounding no. So there you have it.
Lots of other stuff I want to talk about, a few great case studies that I really enjoyed listening to, I hope to blog them soon. It’s going to be Youth Connect! Week on the blog this week, but I think you’ll enjoy reading about it.
I will say this about the organisers: It’s not a big event, but I think they brought in great speakers. Companies who paid money to attend this (especially in this recession), should be very satisfied with the value they got out of it.
If you’ve been following me on Twitter or Plurk, you may have gathered hints about a podcast coming your way.
Well, it’s here! It’s called Genny (pronounced Jenny – you have Krisandro to thank for the name) and the deal behind the podcast is that we decided to just get a handful of people from Generation Y in Singapore, and just really talk about what’s going on. Sometimes it’ll be about social media, sometimes it won’t be.
First, let me introduce the people in this podcast:
GennY Episode 1 Team
Krisandro, myself, Dorothy, Yin and Yinqi make up the people behind this episode, but it’s a revolving team and the voices will change from time to time, depending on who’s available to record the show. (Big thanks to Ingrid for putting together the graphic!)
As our first episode goes, this is pretty raw because we just sat in a room and talked into a laptop (Anyone wants to sponsor us proper podcast equipment?), but I hope you enjoy it anyway. It can only get better.
The show notes:
00:00 – Krisandro starts us off – introductions all round
00:53 – The topic: How is Gen Y different in the work force?
01:28 – Will Gen Y mindset change during the recession?
02:26 – Gen Y has no qualms with changing jobs, even in a recession
03:39 – Perhaps Gen Y feels there isn’t enough recognition at work
05:08 – Did the media influence Gen Y’s outlook on life?
07:56 – How is Gen Y different outside the workspace in peer-to-peer interactions?
09:57 – How does online interaction affect offline interaction?
10:51 – Krisandro claims he’s 19
11:01 – Are there different norms that apply online and offline?
11:58 – Maybe it’s easier for us to verify if people are weirdos online
15:10 – Blooper!
Please check out the podcast here and give us your feedback! If you’d like us to cover a certain topic, just drop a message in the comments. Thanks for your support!
I’ve been volunteering at my secondary school scout troop with a few of my friends since 2005 and among “management”, we’re the most junior, the rest being school teachers. The difficulty that plagued us forever was that we were very scattered. Some were in school (and within that group, different schools), some teachers, some working adults. As a result, with the exception of physical meetings, it was very hard for us to share information that required decisions to be made.
The one singular thing that got on my nerves the most, was how documents (and meeting minutes in particular) were continuously sent via email. Some people had multiple email addresses, when the documents were updated people frequently referred to different versions thus creating a lot of confusion.
Thus in April, 2008, our wiki was born, primarily to deal with the issues of documents. A file dump, if you will.
I had to sell the idea upwards, but luckily there was little to no resistance to it. The problem though, only one other person and myself were actually using it.
Fast forward to 2009 and now we have a full-blown “Project E” (that stands for electronic) team, with the mission to fully digitise everything within the unit where possible. It’s a great feeling to see the team (most of whom are 18 or 19) embracing the tools and really realising that it is a hugely beneficial alternative to anything we’ve used before.
So we’re having proper meetings now to work out the kinks. How should the pages be used? Are we going to develop a template for our “project” pages?
And the biggest question of all: How do we get everyone – not just the Project E team – to really use this as an organisational tool?
It’s interesting to see how the wiki has developed from a file dump to an actual tool. Just having one practical usage has led to further exploration and incremental usage.
I’m going to keep blogging about this story as it progresses. Right now we’re trying to get everyone from the Gen Y segment on it, next stop, the “older” segment (aka the teachers). I can’t wait to see if it will happen.
One very valid rebuttal from the comments (and indeed, one that Diane Tucker alludes to in her post) is that mainstream newspapers need to be around to publish news online in the first place, in order for us to be pointed to them. Additionally, the advantage of the papers is the depth and analysis that can theoretically be reaped, which can offset the speed of online news.
All good in theory, but I still have an issue. Yesterday there were two people who were talking about how they were interviewed by mainstream media, and how what they said were either taken out of context or edited in such a way that their original points weren’t made in the original manner.
First of all, let me say, I get it. That’s their job. No one wants to read about a “fine and dandy” newspaper piece. If that’s the tone of the article, somehow it’s in the journalists’ interest to try their best to switch things around and make it more “newsworthy”.
But here’s the thing: As more and more of these instances happen, and more and more of the people interviewed use the internet as their “channel” to get their side of the story out, how much beating will journalists (and by extension, newspapers) credibility take?
How long will it be before all of us being interviewed bring along a Flip cam to record the entire interview, and then repost that online as raw footage to capture the essence of what was said, and use it as a comparative study with the shadow of that essence that journalists twist it into? It is already so easy to create original content and post it up online, and can only get easier as technology improves. Will this have to be the new way of “fact checking” the media?
How many of us, who will be communicating with the media in five, ten, fifteen years, will have unpleasant instances with journalists, combined with the rise of digital media and distribution (yes, it will happen), and begin to avoid the journalists whenever possible?
How many journalists will continue to, for the sake of a “story”, mold their “angle” at the expense of a good, professional relationship with the person at the other end of the interview?
How long before this we see a “blacklist” of journalists guilty of consistently shaping a story to suit their angle, and use that as a warning system to other communication professionals a la Chris Anderson’s PR blacklist?
Of course, I don’t write this post saying everyone in journalism acts this way. As with every profession, there will be the irresponsible and the responsible. Fortunately (or unfortunately, for journalists), that industry is one that is under scrutiny right now, and such acts are not as easy to get away with.
I’ve had great newspaper articles in which I was quoted as a source, and I would not hesitate to help when such a relationship is built on trust, but the more I hear about people being disappointed about how journalists have twisted their words, the more I feel wary about journalists I don’t know.
It’s not about control of the message anymore. In a few years, when it’ll be easy enough to set up a [Company X] channel, it might not even be about reach anymore. The temptation of bypassing mainstream media channels can only grow, and how responsibly or irresponsibly the mainstream media “gatekeepers” act, may well be a determining factor on how big or small that temptation is.
