Summit Fever

I finally got round to watching Us Now recently. Apart from making Ed Milliband look a bit of a tit, it hit on something that I've been particularly interested in for a while now; the problem of good ol' home-baked user generated content (USC).

It seems that on the whole, USC is generally viewed by marketeers and internet users as a ‘good thing’. Now, my guess is that this is down to four key reasons: first are the libertarian principles underpinning much of the development of the internet; second are the pleasing connotations of democracy; and thirdly, marketers, advertisers and producers predelictions for slotting it into almost every media project.

Fourthly, and most importantly, USC picks up on an element unique to t’internet: interactivity. You put something out there on the web and it’s almost expected that some part of it you’ll be able to comment on, post a picture or upload a video. Interactivity has understandably been a fundemental byaw to the internet from it's inception and as a result it's become one of the main features that internet marketing uses to define itself.

Fine, but why do we are restrict USC to these same old categories? Indeed, we are starting to see the effectiveness and welcome for these USC 1.0 wane:

Now Jeremy Paxman’s gripe with his producer is not unreasonable; a news outlet like Newsnight is a specialist programme that you expect to be well written and researched, i.e. trustworthy. This trust is the show's most valuable asset, (arguably this trustworthiness is the most valuable asset for the whole of the BBC). USC is notoriously inconsistent, for every insightful comment there is another from somebody painfully dumb.

Obviously if, like Newsnight, your brand or product relies on trust putting inconsistent and potentially damaging USC into your output is risking the foundations of the shows success. Newsnights producer exhibited a classic example of the urge to adopt technology for the sake of it. A sort of summit-fever for media professionals.

An arguably more sophisticated form of USC is now well established in the form of social media, and this is reflected in brands eagerness to adopt it. Cue, branded Facebook pages and brand twittering (does anybody apart from people who work in advertising and self promoting celebs actually use twitter?).

A few brands have done well out of this: Dell, Wispa and Apple come off the top of my head. Two technology companies (an industry that has traditionally enjoyed a huge DIY audience straining at the leash to interact with manufacturers) and a well loved chocolate bar (that just so happened to capture the nostalgia of the main generation of social media users). But many brands are just chucking up social media apps because their marketing directors son spends all day on Bebo.

My point is this: the adoption of USC should first of all not be considered necessary, but viewed with respect to the rest of the branding efforts. Once the informed decision has been made to use USC it has got to viewed as a concept not as a tool. I.e. In what way can people interact with our brand/digital presence rather than where does the forum or profile pages go.

There are plenty of websites (and brands) out there that employ USC in more creative ways (Last.fm, Nike ID, Vimeo etc...). Once USC is viewed as a concept rather than a tool, it opens up tremendous opportunities that I'm looking forward to investigating. So yeah.