Milano, circa una settimana fa.

Un uomo di corporatura media, smalto per unghie nero, capelli neri e occhi azzurri (anzi lenti a contatto azzurre) e pizzetto lungo, molto lungo si aggira per la metropolitana. Sulla fronte, sotto pelle, un paio di corna appena accennate.



Non è l'incipit di un horror di serie C, è un'attività di marketing (o "guerrilla" marketing, se volete) con l'obiettivo di lanciare la nuova attrazione del più famoso parco di divertimenti italiano.

L'iniziativa continua poi on-line, grazie a un aggancio: l'uomo "diabolico" proietta su pavimenti e pareti della metropolitana la URL del minisito dedicato.

Questa attività, che - apparentemente - può sembrare ben organizzata, ha ricevuto diverse critiche (provate a fare una ricerca su FriendFeed con la parola "inferis.it" e ve ne accorgerete).

A livello tattico il punto debole è un fake blog con commenti probabilmente scritti da una redazione dedicata, in cui un ragazzo testimonia gli avvistamenti e dichiara di aver creato il blog proprio per parlarne.

Perché non ha funzionato? Nessun visitatore di Disneyland che abbia più di 6 anni si aspetta di vedere Topolino in carne e ossa o rimane deluso perché nella parata c'è solo un costume con una persona all'interno.

La chiave è nel "patto di veridizione": un accordo tra narratore e destinatario della comunicazione in cui si definisce cosa sia "reale" nel mondo narrato.

La veridizione è fondamentale nelle iniziative che implichino un coinvolgimento del consumatore, soprattutto se questo avviene attraverso i social media. Ciò che viene dichiarato vero all'inizio della "narrazione" o dell'attività, deve essere mantenuto per tutta l'iniziativa e non sporcato introducendo livelli di verità differenti.

“Il lettore deve sapere che quella che gli viene raccontata è una storia immaginaria, senza per questo ritenere che l’autore dica una menzogna (…).L’autore fa finta di fare un’affermazione vera. Noi accettiamo il patto finzionale e facciamo finta che quello che egli racconta sia veramente avvenuto”.

U. Eco, Sei passeggiate nei boschi narrativi, 1994

Cosa non ha funzionato quindi? Non è un problema se l'iniziativa non è vera. L'idea alla base è consistente.
Nell'iniziativa descritta non ha funzionato invece l'approccio in cui il personaggio in metropolitana viene spacciato per verosimile, portavoce di un mondo nascosto ma che potrebbe esistere. Tutto infatti è stato smontato dal fake blog, in cui si cerca di mantenere l'iniziativa su un piano reale / realistico, svelando però attraverso particolari e dettagli, la non verità dell'iniziativa.

I destinatari della comunicazione non si aspettano un rispetto assoluto della verità ad ogni costo, ma della veridizione.

In pratica, si intravede il filo che muove il burattino.

Greimas scrive che "Il discorso è il luogo fragile in cui si inscrivono e leggono la verità e la falsità, la menzogna e il segreto; [...] equilibrio più o meno stabile che proviene da un accordo implicito fra i due attanti della struttura della comunicazione. È questa tacita intesa che viene designata con il nome di contratto di veridizione".

Greimas "Del Senso II" 1983

La veridizione, quindi, come viene definita da Greimas, è fondamentale nelle iniziative di marketing e comunicazione che di basano sul consumer engagement, specialmente se questo avviene attraverso i social media.

È importante che chi collabora con i brand nella definizione e implementazione di attività sui social media sia consapevole di questo aspetto e rispetti sempre il patto di veridizione stabilito con la propria audience.

Conoscete qualche iniziativa che ha funzionato bene dal punto di vista della veridizione?
Avete esempi di attività che si sono rivelate un insuccesso a causa di problemi di veridizione?


Photo credit: Youmark.it

This post is also available in english.

Milan, almost one week ago.

A man of average build, black nail polish, black hair and ice blue eyes (or contact lenses) and a very very long goatee is wandering in the underground. On his brow, under his skin, a couple of devil horns.



This is not the opening of a cheap horror, it's a marketing activity (or (o "guerrilla" marketing, if you want) with the objective of launching a new attraction for the most famous theme park in Italy.

The activity goes on on-line, with a connection: the "diabolical" man beams a URL of the dedicated minisite on floors and walls of the underground.

The operation - that apparently can look like it's well organized - received several criticisms (try searching on FriendFeed for the word "inferis.it" and you'll find out).

On a tactical level the weak linkis a fake blog with comments probably written by a dedicated editorial staff. In these comments a boy narrates his sightings and declares he built the blog just to communicate his experience with the devilish man.

Why didn't it work? No Disneyland visitor who is more than 6 years old expects meeting Mickey Mouse as a real person. And no one remains disappointed because the parade was made of costumes with real men and women inside.

The key is in the "act of veridiction": an agreement between narrator and recipient of the communication, in with it's defined what's real inside the narrated world.

Veridiction is fundamental in initiatives that rely on consumer engagement, particularly when this happens through social media. Everything that's declared true at the beginning of the narration or activity, must be kept for the whole initiative, without degrading it by inserting different levels of truth.

“The reader must know that he's being told a story of imagination, without believing the author is telling a lie (...).The author pretends to issue a true statement. We accept the fictional act and pretend what he narrates har truly happened.”.

U. Eco, Six Walks in the Fictional Woods, 1994

What has gone wrong, then? It’s not a big deal if the initiative isn’t true. The main idea is substential.
The approach was wrong in the initiative: the character in the underground is built as if it was real or at least likely, ambassador of a hidden world that might exist. Everything is messed up by the fake blog, in which the initiative is narrated on a real or likely level, but unveiling it’s something constructed through details that make people realize the veridiction act is broken.

The addressee of any communication expect the narrator to respect veridiction, not necessarily to respect reality.

In other words, you can see the string that moves the puppet.

Greimas writes that "Narration is the frale place in which truth and falsity are built, as well as lie and secret; [...] stable or unstable balance that comes from an implicit agreement between the two actants of communication. This unexpressed understanding is called veridiction act".

Greimas "Del Senso II" 1983

Veridiction, as Greimas defines it, è is crucial in marketing and communication initiatives that rely on consumer engagement, in particular when it happens on Social Media.

It's important that those who cooperate with brands in defining and implementing activities on social media understand this aspect and respect the act of veridiction with the brand's audience.

Do you know any initiatives that worked well from a veridiction point of view?
Do you have any examples of activities that turned out being an insucces because of veridiction problems?


Photo credit: Youmark.it

Questo post è disponibile anche in italiano.

Here's the presentation I've given today at IULM University about Crowdsourcing, Social Media and Collaboration.

The event was very interesting and gathered inspiring people to join a debate about the role of crowdsourcing in communication and what's its relationship with advertising.

I've seen two inspiring case histories: Giovanna Manzi told us about Best Western experience in crowdsourcing and Mirko Lalli gave a very insightful look at Fondazione Sistema Toscana's strategy on social media focused on how they leveraged on it and on crowdsourcing to communicate and build value.

The debate has been developed by glorious representatives of a more traditional way to communicate and advertise, like Marco Lombardi (Young & Rubicam) and Paolo Iabichino (Ogilvy) who interacted with people characterized by another way to see consumer engagement, crowdsourcing and social media as an opportunity, like Alessandro Cappellotto (Zooppa), Pier Ludovico Bancale (BootB) and myself. Mirko and Giovanna brought a real insightful contribution to the debate, too, by highlighting the "client's" point of view and positive experiences with the collaboration model that relies on people to build value.

I personally had the pleasure to introduce the theme with the presentation you can see here.

The focus of the presentation is how crowdsourcing is a very big and wide topic and communication is just a little part of it. Advertising is a little part of communication and marketing. So it's important to understand that agencies can't consider crowdsourcing as a threat, as long as they're good enough to understand how to bring value to the crows by involving it.

In the presentation I go through many ways agencies can build value with the so-called "crowd" and how they can make it useful for brands.

I consider the crucial role of conversation agencies and of agencies in general that really understand how to be connected.

It's not a threat but an opportunity for brands and for agencies as well.

Thanks to everyone who was there, I had a great time and an inspiring conversation with you.

Here's the English version

And here's the Italian version

If you take a look at recent edition of CES, you see a lot of focus on television, especially on a technological point of view (amongst others: 3D TV, wireless HD standard, web TV, transparent displays).

There's much hype and attention toward television and I think it's important to take a few moments and focus on how many signs are telling us that the future of television will be social.

1. Segmentation

Social media is evolving by allowing more and more niche networks inside more mainstream networks. Think about groups in Facebook, Twitter lists or Friendfeed rooms as an example.
Isn't television doing the same by creating channels based on specific content (classical music, fishing, fantasy stories ...)? Think about satellite and cable network evolving to niche.

2. Attention span

Social media is trying to fit shor attention span evolving to a somewhat longer fruition. Think about Hulu, allowing to watch longer-than-youtube-standard episodes.
Television is trying to evolve toward microformats (see, for instance current.tv) or micro TV series (no examples will be good here because we're talking of a real local approach to this).

3. Platform

Social media is moving from standard digital devices to appliances that are nearer the television world. Think about Boxee evolving into Boxee box.
Television is moving to more social hardware, too. Think about Skype TV by Panasonic.

4. Sharing

Social media is moving towards live streaming and live commenting. Take a look at the White House streaming on Facebook, but also to services like ustream.tv or justin.tv that allow users to comment live.
Television is evolving towards live commenting of content, too. This is a Watchmen Blue Ray feature: live commenting of the show.

5. Creation

Content creation and collaboration is at the core of social media nature. Needles to mention the impact on video creation YouTube has had and how crowdsourced video is gaining relevance. (I'm talking about professionally managed and directed crowdsourced video, that brands usually develop with their consumer together with their digital and social media agencies). See Doritos "Crash the superbowl"
Television is encouraging people to build their own content by aggregting existing content (TiVo, MySky) or by producing their own. Again - see current.tv experiment.

What do you think about this signs? Do you see more? How quick are we evolving?

I was starting to write a blog post about how social media and television are heading to similar destinations, but this case history caught my attention. (Note: Short attention spans are one of the elements that mark the convergence between social media and television. I will write this post + visual soon.)

Take a look at this video to fully appreciate an experimental campaign where several media blurred together to serve a single storytelling.

The user path is pretty interesting:

• Rich media banners
• YouTube video
• Splash website (not splash pages), with customized content according to the entry point
• Outdoor Video Projections on buildings
• Flash mobs
• Twitter page
• Mobile interaction
• News

What do I like about the white rabbit experience? I love when campaigns are planned thinking about the target agendas, not focusing only on content, brand or product. The whole process starts by understanding people you want to talk to and engage, then a strategy is defined according to campaign objectives. The most beautiful thing is channels are defined only when everything else has been decided.

Great campaign. Great execution. Great example of convergence.

The SyFy White Rabbit Experience

What do you think about it? Do you have more examples for this kind of planning?