Coke Fiends and Content Strategy

The Coca-Cola Company has unleashed a new type of soda fountain into the world. They've put some online marketing muscle to work to promote it. But is it enough?

My wife is an unapologetic Diet Coke enthusiast. When she breathlessly told me about a new sort of soda fountain at the local Dairy Queen, I was curious.

What could make a soda fountain new? Isn’t it just soda? Coke, Diet Coke, Sprite, and maybe lemonade and root beer?

I was in for a surprise, as this was no ordinary soda machine. This was a Coca Cola Freestyle machine.

The Coca Cola Freestyle soda fountain

Warren Buffett, Freestylin'

This thing is kind of a big deal. Most soda machines offer 8-10 choices. That is it. I’ve seen some convenience store fountains with more exotic options, like a shot of cherry flavor. Beyond that, the soda fountain world has been fairly static for decades.

This soda fountain changes all of that.

With a footprint smaller than a regular soda fountain, this one boasts not only a touchscreen, but a MIND-BLOWING array of options. Over 100, in fact.

Thirsty patrons touch the screen to choose a brand (Coke, Sprite, etc.) and then choose an optional flavor. Brilliant. Did I mention that there are over ONE HUNDRED OPTIONS?

How has the Coke Freestyle machine been marketed?

Well, there is a sign in the window at the DQ. And another at the cash register. But what is happening online?

They have a slim microsite set up, primarily to point people to these three things:

They've set up a Twitter account, @ccfreestyle:

• Listening for terms like "drink machine" "100+" etc. in addition to the brand names
• @ replying to mentions of those terms, asking "What did you like?"
• Getting little to no response (I've been there. It can be tough.)

They've also established a Facebook page.

• Running a "Fan of the Week" contest
• Offering lots of "What's your favorite?" questions
• Allowing users to post images in a largely unfettered fashion (not going to link to that one)

They have apps for Android and iOS.

• Primary function: a memory game mimicking the Freestyle's touchscreen
• Also includes a Freestyle machine locator map, via GPS
• Game-ified badge rewards for high scores and use of the Freestyle locator
• Apps can link to users' Twitter and Facebook account to share scores/badges

Looks nice. Game play? Check. Direct interaction? Check. But, I can't help but feel that they've stopped a bit short.

Coke fiends and their friends

Many real-world Coke fans are more than enthusiastic. Fiendish, even. They already devote status updates to the brand. I've seen more than one person add it to their social network bio. With this level of devotion, a does a considerable opportunity await? YES.

The Freestyle machine begs for deeper engagement. It already has a touchscreen and an OS, for Pete's sake. Just think of the possibilities. A couple of examples:

• Challenge drinkers to try all 100+ choices, track progress and share
• Award badges for different achievements, share them via Twitter and Facebook
• All Coke flavors tried
• All sodas in orange flavor tried
• Number of different machines visited
• "Mayorship" of machines (to borrow from Foursquare)
• Facilitate the invitation of friends for competition
• Issue QR codes from the machine send status updates via the app to Twitter and Facebook ("Drinking a Pibb Zero from @ccfreestyle.")
• Create a Freestyle Re-mix: make-your-own mix of sodas, name it, and submit it

These things go one step beyond brands interacting directly with the consumer. They allow people to have a conversation facilitated, originated, and/or augmented by the brand that bridges the gap between the real world and the online world.

B2C interaction is VERY important. But, the brand-facilitated consumer-to-consumer interaction is more organic. It's happening between one brand advocate and other potential brand advocates.

Cue the QR code

Bridging the gap between online and offline

Tosca Fasso, Content Strategist at Razorfish, recently wrote a blog post about the blurring of online and offline worlds. She writes:

"Publishers are creating linkage points between offline and online media to build an ecosystem of opportunities for audiences to connect with their brands."

There is a major shift happening. It's already having a significant impact on content creators and those tasked with content governance.

The technology now exists to make these online/offline connections in a swipe or two on a mobile device. How does that fit within the core strategy and business goals, if at all? How can these advances be shared across department lines? Shared across other spaces? How can they be best put to use?

Ms. Fasso continues with this in her closing paragraph, detailing the impact this has on content strategy:

"It’s time to start thinking about handoff opportunities, places where our work can pass the baton. Done right, these integrated efforts can help build optimal experiences for users while helping brands meet users where they are..."

Coke has built some of the foundation for bridging the gap between online and offline worlds with the Freestyle soda fountain. They are engaging people on Twitter and Facebook. They've got social-graph connected apps with game layers and rewards.

By further fostering that online/offline connection, Coke could enjoy even greater brand loyalty and engagement.

Not all brands can do this. Not all brands have 100+ of anything worth sharing. And not all brands have Coca-Cola's brand recognition.

As any wise content strategist will tell you, it is not about the tactics. It's about the approach. Tackle those content strategy and social strategy projects with an eye on bringing real-world experiences to the now-ubiquitous social graphs. You'll be even closer to fulfilling those core business goals.

Or one step closer to the Borg. Either way...

Compelling Content: Irresistibly Shareable vs. Content Farms

Does it pay to produce content that values craft, careful research, and proper grammar?  Do people want content so irresistibly compelling that it must be shared? Two pieces this week out of the "New York Times" shed some light on this issue.

The first, titled "Plentiful Content, So Cheap," says that content farms like Demand Media are capitalizing upon a near-loophole-like situation of content creation by low-paid writers.  Demand Media discovers "needs" by parsing popular search requests and publishes 20,000 articles each week.  Writers are paid $15-$20 for each article, and editors about $3.50 each for proofing and vetting.  The texts are produced to rank them high in the world of SEO.

The articles produced on one content farm, eHow.com, show a definite flaw in this type of content strategy. A search on that site for clogged drain reveals articles titled "How to Clean a Clogged Drain Pipe," "How to Open Clogged Drains," "How to Open a Clogged Drain Full of Water," and "How to Clear a Clogged Drain Easily," among others.  This reveals a strategy of "more is better."  An overabundance of similar/duplicative content will lead to confusion and, ultimately, a poor user experience.

Christine Anameier wrote about the end product of content farms on the Brain Traffic blog in a post titled "Sorting through the digital debris."  She sums the situation up well:

"If the whole idea behind the site is “We know all sorts of stuff about everything,” beware. (Except for Wikipedia, which has enough critical mass to make its own rules much the way Amazon does.)...The content farms have learned to game the system, and dubious content is clogging up the works."

The second "New York Times" article, titled "Will You Be E-Mailing This Column? It’s Awesome," points out a different kind of content phenomenon.  University of Pennsylvania researchers have been poring over the email-to-a-friend data from the "Times" itself, and have uncovered some interesting trends.  Long-ish articles are popular (a surprise, there) as are articles about science (a surprise, too).  Positive articles outnumber the negative ones.  It appears that senders are not just trying to impress their friends with their acumen, but rather "seeking emotional communion," according to one of the researchers, Dr. Jonah Berger.

The difference is between the content featured in the two articles is not How-To guides versus canonical works, but rather a matter of intent. Quality versus quantity.  Spartan, functional content has been around for ages.  Lots of it.  So has the top-notch, compelling content.  The new ingredient is the manipulation and overloading of the system in order to have content of a lesser quality supersede the real thing where it matters most: in search results.

What became apparent to me immediately was that these are two very different kinds of content.  The stories topping the shared-with-a-friend lists in the "Times" are examples of content that affects people on a different level.

Content must be created and presented in a way that will meet goals and objectives, rather than simply filling quotas, bloating site content holdings, and search engine placements.  A content farm might teach you four ways of how to remove that wookie from your shower drain, but it will not inspire and fill you with awe, let alone meet a true need.

(image: "Field with farm equipment in the distance" via Flickr / Library of Congress (no known copyright restrictions))

090909 was a time machine

Three items happened in the past week that made me think that I stepped out of a time machine rather than the bus.

1. The Beatles had their albums reissued on CD
2. The iPod Nano update included a FM radio
3. The Chevy Volt electric car will now include a hitch so that it can be pulled by horses

OK, one of those things is silly. The other two are just bewildering.

The Beatles catalog of albums was reissued on 090909. [Yes, clever, Revolution No. 9]. This is of interest, from my perspective, for two reasons.

First: In the late 1980s, the Fab Four's albums were all issued on CD, just like all of the other rock giants - Elvis, the Stones, etc. And there was mixed response. That was fairly early in the world of the CD; people were starting to get the hang of properly mastering for the medium. Prior to that, things were mixed and mastered with LP or cassettes in mind, leaving the CDs sounding thin compared to the old LPs everyone was used to hearing.

The record companies and artists [or their estates] realized this, and reissued the entire catalog of other major selling artists once again, twice, or even three or four times over. While working in a record store in college, I witnessed on a few occasions complete reissues of all of the albums of both Miles Davis and KISS [to mention a couple of disparate examples]. Add a bonus track, add a new set of liner notes, better the sound, and you have money in the wallet. Easy peasy. Not so with the Beatles.

The Liverpool Lads had to wait for quite some time before the catalog was given a more just edition. The audiophiles and Beatlemaniacs will be buying these, and folks that missed them the first time around, but there is another group that will not. THE KIDS.

We have talked about it here in the past, and album sales reinforce this time and again. Kids consume tons of music. Kids aren't lining up for CDs anymore. Kids will, however, buy the video game that features those songs. Smart move with the Rock Band thing.

Even Apple is feeling the heat when it comes to the decline in music sales. In a bid to remain relevant, they announced, also on 090909, that the iPod Nano would now include an FM tuner. I thought it was a nice feature on the Zune, when it rolled out. I am sure it was a selling point for the seven or eight people that bought Zunes. But for the newest iPod? Seems a little late for the party.

Paid Content ran a piece about this very situation, citing a Forrester study.


I am well aware that the user base for the iPod Nano is larger than non-CD-buying teens, but Apple is a company that has staked its claim on the cutting edge.

All of this leaves me as bewildered as if Chevrolet would have actually put a horse hitch on the Volt.

The Beatles catalog should have been reissued properly years ago. And the iPod should have included an FM tuner from the start. The question remains -- why now?
.

The games we play

While watching a movie on the USA Network yesterday, I was pelted with appeals to visit the USA website; this is normal. What they were promoting is less common, but becoming more so.

USA has a section on their website, launched last year, that invites viewers to create avatars and play games based on the USA programs and characters.

My pal Brad does this kind of development for Cartoon Network. With the younger demographic, the Cartoon Network was smart to pursue this some time ago. The games there are not exclusively tied to the content on the cable network, giving the game creators and network execs more room to experiment. The same is true of the offerings on the USA site.

The casual gaming world is one that we will see more of in the near future. A logical extension of the website, these brand-reinforcing exercises promote another tie between the viewer and the network. They are relatively simple, based in the Flash world, making them easily compatible across platform & browser.

As media outlets strive for brand loyalty amongst the consumer base, they are wise to consider offering their wares to the people to be consumed how, when, and where they want. That will not be enough. Just as extras on DVDs have become a selling point, so too will ancillary offerings from content creators. Behind the scenes material, extra material, and related not-of-the-primary-format material will all be of interest to the people.