February 2010 Archive

The object of participation is to have a face-to-face interaction with a totally random stranger from somewhere around the world via webcam. Strangers can chat by typing into a large, IM style box which displays the usernames “you” and “stranger.” The “next” button offers a safe-haven of constant forward momentum. Either user can click on to the next random stranger at any time; simultaneously giving everyone involved the freedom to act however they want and the power to never become irritated or bored. (Yes, you will be nexted. Yes, it hurts sometimes.) Chatroulette has no login, thus you are not held hostage to any sort of accountability for your actions. No accountability + the thought of being “nexted”= internet pandemonium. People are compelled to be as entertaining as possible, which includes dancing, costumes, stupid human tricks, offering mystic readings, engaging in a game, or just being naked.
We spend so much time organizing the internet, keeping all of our social platforms neat and tidy with the right information, the right people, and the ability to view and take part of almost every interaction. Participating in Chatroulette means surrendering any hope of precision. On the one hand, Chatroulette is like a slightly addictive and sometimes unnerving sociological jungle; on the other hand, each interaction is like having a major part in a surreptitious happening. The experience as of now is often peppered with unwarned close-ups of the male anatomy, which begs the question: Will Chatroulette ever become organized, or would organization kill the attraction?
I think as long as there is no login, a.k.a. no accountability, Chatroulette can become structured into categories without losing its allure or integrity. Even if only two categories were created: “Nudity” and “Not Nudity,” user-ship would broaden as those too timid to risk glimpsing hairy-man-horrors would have no fear. However, think of the possibility of entering a Chatroulette channel based on things you like. Categories could be broad: Biology, Literature, Photography, Australia; specific: Canadian Haiku Lovers, LGBT Hockey Players, People Interested in Aldous Huxley, or anywhere in between. Interaction time and actual conversation would certainly increase, as the current average interaction lasts about 3 seconds, but is the incentive for Chatroulette real conversation, or is it that you have no idea what you are going to get?

Last night the Dalai Lama took one giant leap into the internet age and joined Twitter (@DalaiLama). 24 hours later, his account has ballooned to 58,700+ followers, as Tweeters eagerly sought wisdom from His Holiness via SMS.

But does the Dalai Lama really need a Twitter account? Does it make sense for him to join? It’s too soon to tell if the Dalai Lama’s jump into the twitter fray will help extend the Dalai Lama brand…or help with his world peace effort.

So as news begin to pour in on any incremental updates on the Dalai Lama’s Twitter account and tweets, here are some potential hurdles to consider:

• People are expecting the voice of His Holiness to carry through in the tweets. Of course, it is unrealistic that the Dalai Lama himself would take the time to craft messages—nor should he. He has very important things to do. But his face is in the Twitter profile and his followers will want him to tweet.
• Following the Dalai Lama is like having a spiritual guru on speed dial. The Office of His Holiness will most likely be bombarded with DMs and @replies all wishing the Dalai Lama well, and potentially asking for “fortune cookie” tweets (140 characters of wisdom, advice, and prayer).
• The Dalai Lama is considered an “enemy rebel” to the Chinese government. And as stories of Chinese-based hacks on U.S companies flood in, it’s not hard to imagine Chinese hackers (or at least a pimple-faced computer whiz in the U.S.) attempt to shut down his twitter account.

With all these potential hurdles, does it make sense for the Dalai Lama to have a Twitter account? Is it practical?

With the social media news storm centered around Google Buzz and now Microsoft Outlook, it looks like 2010 will be the year of Integration.  Both platforms are quickly trying to one-up competitors to develop a “social media hub” by integrating popular social networks into one neat package.

It’s not surprising, Integration of social networks, or what Yan Shikhvarger , VP of RFI , calls commoditization means that social networks can lure users in with timesucking features and apps from other popular social networks.

Social media is the great equalizer. Thanks to social networks, blogs and forums the consumers finally have a way to “stick it” to companies that they’ve received poor services or defective products from. The “little guy” is not so little when his complaint can pass along virally to millions online, threatening to sink multi-million dollar marketing campaigns or tarnishing a brand name beyond recovery.

This is hardly news. We’ve already seen empowered consumers embarrass established brands with a single comment or video. And the latest brand to feel the wrath of a customer’s scorn is Southwest Airlines. This weekend, cult-icon filmmaker Kevin Smith sent a series of tweets to his followers claiming that Southwest Airlines kicked him off a flight for being “too fat”. Southwest Airlines’ response to Kevin Smith’s tweets was predictable, as the airline profusely apologized for any inconvenience and insured its Twitter followers that this would never happen again.

However, I can’t shake off this lingering thought of how consumers who know they can bring about a brand’s destruction via social media, will abuse the medium and ultimately raise their expectations of customer satisfaction to unrealistic levels.

It may be the case that like children learning they can get what they want from their parents by crying louder, consumers have found a way to get “great service” by threatening to “brand bash” online.