Social Media Marketing and Transparency: The i’m Talkathon and Parker Whittle
July 14, 2008
If you're new here, and interested in the latest news and insights on social media marketing, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting Ignite Social Media.
Today is day 21 of the Microsoft i’m talkathon. The i’m talkathon is a 30 day social media marketing campaign, starring Parker Whittle, designed to raise awareness about the i’m initiative: “a Microsoft program that gives to a social cause every time you use Windows Live Messenger or Windows Live Hotmail.” (straight from the i’m talkathon page). What basically happens is that you sign up for the i’m initiative, and use a logo next to your screen name and a signature on the end of all of your emails from your Hotmail account and Microsoft gives money to the organization of your choice (out of the 10 they sponsor). You can also add badges to your social network profiles, etc. Here is a great video outlining how to use it:
On day 1 I saw an ad on Pandora about the i’m talkathon.
I was of course intrigued because most advertisers on Pandora are really plugged into social media, and I usually visit their sites. When I went to the page I read this:
I thought, “that’s a pretty great idea”. I obviously knew that it was Microsoft sponsored, but I still thought it was a great idea. One problem: there is a (alb-eight funny) disclaimer at the bottom of the page that doesn’t only say that it is Microsoft affiliated, but that Parker Whittle is an actor.
There are two sides to how people can (and very vocally do) feel about this:
1. Who cares? More people now know about the i’m initiative and that’s great!
I have to admit, I did revisit my Hotmail account and sign up. I also downloaded the newest Microsoft Messenger to my desktop and signed up. So it worked, right? That’s really the whole point is to brand Microsoft as caring, and to get people to actually use the services.
2. He’s a FAKE(!) and I feel gipped!
A lot of people commented on the blog posts their disappointment that Parker was fake. I also found some other places that people were having this conversation too. Here is a great conversation from both sides:
I totally see both sides. Here is a summary of my thoughts as I’ve had 21 days to consider this social media campaign.
- The i’m initiative is pretty cool. I love when companies donate money without asking the consumer to give anything for it. Both services are free, and it is pretty simple to sign up for the initiative.
- It’s only appropriate that they do a social media campaign to promote this initiative. And they used great social media outlets. On the homepage of the i’m talkathon, they link to a Flickr account, a Facebook fan page, a Twitter user, a MySpace account, a YouTube channel, and a LinkedIn account. All of these are great outlets for what they are doing- except the LinkedIn profile. (LinkedIn is a professional network, not a network that you would use for a 30 day campaign.)
- The actor playing Parker Whittle is memorable and the other actors are pretty funny. Their videos are cute and I see their attempt at just getting people to watch without pushing the initiative the entire time.
- I LOVE LOVE LOVE their interviews with the people from the organizations. They make the site feel more real and they highlight what the initiative is supposed to anyways: the charities.
- I commend Microsoft for leaving commenting on the blog unregulated. That is a scary thing to do, but it is so important.
- You can’t really talk to Parker. There is no commenting back, etc. In fact, for trying to “get a bunch of people talking for 30 days” in an effort to see how much Microsoft will shell out, he’s not really talking a whole lot himself. At first, his blog posts were sparse and his tweet updates were almost non-existent. I wish that Microsoft would have recruited real people to post comments, real pictures to Flickr, substance-filled tweets, etc. Since day 1 that has improved, and now his blog has much more substance, but if that was all you were doing for 30 days we all know there would be ALOT more there. (At first glance I couldn’t even find his screen name and I wrote him a Tweet and never got a response.)
- His Flickr page is pretty lame. His tweets, not so good. And some of the videos are just korny.
So the question remains, is this attempt at transparency successful? Or to become more effective would it require authenticity of Parker being a real person? While this campaign shows great examples of social media, over the past 21 days, other people have felt resistance towards this technique. If Microsoft had chosen to use a real person or a group of real people instead of an actor and staged videos, would they have achieved a better response? I am glad, however, that I now know about the i’m initiative. 
p.s. I’d love to hear your views on the i’m Talkathon and Parker Whittle! Leave me a comment!
Comments
4 Responses to “Social Media Marketing and Transparency: The i’m Talkathon and Parker Whittle”
Got something to say?
BUT this isn’t ’sponsored’ by Microsoft.
This is ‘manufactured’.
Example: Cadell Evans is a hardcore cyclist who would likely try to get it together to compete in the Tour de France no matter what, but Silence & Sagem see it as mutually beneficial for them to fund his participation in return for advertising opportunities.
Whereas: Parker Whittle doesn’t exist, his stated intentions and activities don’t exist, his empty rhetoric about ‘The Man’ is blatant hypocrisy, and McCann ad agency have spent $5M Microsoft dollars on product placement, in addition to their own personal profiteering off this internet equivalent of Brady Fever.
It’s kind of whacky that you ‘totally see both sides’, when about 60% of your ‘I feel gipped’ quote is actually ‘I don’t feel gipped’.
but thanks for the link
typingisnotactivism’s last blog post..Dinner talks with cannibal.
@typingisnotactivism Thanks for commenting on the post. I understand that Microsoft could have given the money they spent on the campaign to the initiative instead of spending it on advertising, but few companies (if any) operate like that. I don’t think that their intentions are completely cold-hearted and with the intent of “making” money. I think they also hope that more people will learn about the initiative and use it. All corporations spend money on this type of branding. My point is that at least this is branding of a good cause. Most corporations that run programs like this require that the consumer purchase something, and that only a “portion of the profits” goes towards a good cause. People don’t have to pay to use Microsoft’s Hotmail or Messenger accounts, but Microsoft really is giving some money to organizations for their doing so.
However, I meant for my analysis to be seen only from how transparency can operate in a social media marketing campaign, and not a review of Microsoft’s ethics or intentions.
i get your point, (cue the obvious…) BUT
even though Microsoft’s free Hotmail etc. used to not be Micosoft’s. When they weren’t, they were much better functionally, much easier to log in, and less loaded with - let’s face it - crap nobody wants or needs. Microsoft so stuffed up Hotmail that they pretty much tried to buy Yahoo! to get a fresh start on an established email provider. Anybody thinking that Yahoo! now is a step-up from Hotmail pre-Microsoft obviously isn’t paying attention. Like Microsoft.
On the crux of what you’re saying about transparency in social media marketing - I don’t see it. The majority of commenters at the Talkathon have missed the disclaimer because it’s down the bottom in fine, faint (i think) print. Do we need more fake people? Do we need to validate more ways for ad agencies to penetrate people’s defences (yes, that’s a deliberately loaded verb, as it relates to what these companies are really doing to people).
Sure, the cause of donating to charities is good BUT this is a given. Microsoft wouldn’t publicize their relationship with, for example, poorly paid overworked factory staff in China or $3 an hour call centre staff in India because it wouldn’t do their image any good. Many, many companies sponsor or associate themselves with or advertise their relationships with obviously good things like children’s charities, cancer care, reading initiatives, etc. At best, this is because their executives actually have conscience and would like to use at least some of their wealth for good. At worst, they are cynical exercises in p.r. camouflage.
Mega-Corps don’t need any applause for fiddling around the edges. Nor do their ad agencies. It’s the humanistic equivalent of greenwash, and does about as much real good for the stated causes. imho.
typingisnotactivism’s last blog post..Dinner talks with cannibal.
Parker Whittle aka Da P-Whitt is a swell guy. He was even gracious enough to spend one day of his talkathon on our website (his philanthropy knows no bounds) - check it out LOL!
Parker Whittle, i’m Initiative evangelist
thanks lol!
Catsandbeer.com’s last blog post..Guest Blogger: Parker Whittle From The Microsoft i’m Initiative!