We’ll set aside for a second the fact that I showed up at Portland’s Pioneer Square at 11pm based on highly dubious reports of a surprise Dave Chappelle show at midnight, and that I waited packed in with 4000 drunk and high morons (but not you, you’re terrific) for 2 hours, and that I left at 12:45am only to get a text at 12:55am that he’d finally shown up. We’ll put all that aside for now to focus on this: I would do it again in a second.
A lot of people will point to last night as a triumph of social media, or of Twitter, or Facebook. And they’ll be wrong. Last night was a triumph and a stark reminder of the power of brand. Any one can get on Twitter and pitch their product or give away iPhones, but how many brands could tell a hand full of individuals about an event and have 4000 people show up, at mid-night, and then when you’re an hour late, and no one can ever hear you, still view it as a success?
So next time you’re in a meeting talking about your ‘consumers’ and ‘targets’ and ‘units moved’, consider the power of ‘fans.’ Are you treating your customers like they’re fans? Do you ask yourself “Is this tweet actually interesting?” or “Is this a great experience?” or “Am I making this website to actually benefit my customer?” Being on Twitter or Facebook or anything like that doesn’t mean that you now relate to your customers. Relating to your customers comes from just that: relating to you customers, as humans, not cash machines. There is no short cut. There is no technology solution.
Trevor Warren said on Twitter
“Right now 1000s of social marketers are licking their chops wondering how to recreate the #Chappelle event for some new juice shop.”
I’m sure he’s right, and this is the sad part of all this. The burn this event had through Twitter and Facebook had nothing to with ‘social media marketing’ and everything to do with a passionate core of fans and a brand that has created great experiences for years. There is literally nothing you can do on Twitter to make 4000 people show up at midnight for your event. There is no advertising in the world that will fix a broken experience. What you can do is start today asking “Is this is a great experience for my customer? Will this make them a crazy, ravenous fan?”
+5 awesomeness points. refreshing perspective.
plus an additional +2 for telling me that I am terrific.
M
Jesus – 7 point!? Day == Made.
Are these like airline points? Can I trade them in for things?
It would seem to me that this happening is almost the power of ‘anti-brand’.
I believe Twitter works well because it makes all posts seem personalized. A message just for you. Limit the communication to 140 characters and a ‘Direct Message’ function and even Oprah seems more like a friend than a brand. Facebook is similar….but not as direct.
The idea that everyone sees Chappelle as a “friend” already through their TV and relating to his humor, mixed with the illusion of closeness created by social media…and you have an event like this.
This IS a “technology short cut”. Twitter DID “make this happen”. It is a triumph of social media? Eh…maybe. ‘Brand’ isn’t JUST what happened here. 4000 people wouldn’t have gathered without Twitter (and Facebook)…period.
Yes, it was cool that it was Dave Chappelle, but any band or celebrity could have done the same thing.
And that power through social media IS the real story. For better or worse.
Hey Chris – Im not sure I agree here. Let me start by saying that I think the web is something fundamentally different from any from any other form media. I’ve written pretty extensively about how I think the web really destroys most of the dynamics marketing and branding have been built on. Thats the basic premiss of my writing the last couple months. So, I would be the last person to discount the role of the web and the technology that makes it up.
That said – at the end of the day, the exact thing that makes the web so powerful is that’s controlled and owned by people, not brands. No brand or agency has had even the slightest success gaming it. So while Twitter certainly played a big role tactically in getting 4000 people organized, without the motivation of Chappelle, without a history of him providing truly great experiences, there is no event. If I, for example, sent out a tweet that said “Everyone meet at Pioneer Square at midnight” I would have a hard time even getting my fiancée to show up. Or, taking it back to brands, it would be hard to deny that 4000 people might show up at midnight to see Steve Jobs show off the next Apple product. If Sanyo calls that event, they’ll be talking to themselves.
So while I agree, technology is an amazing facilitator, I stand by my assertion that you can’t “technology” your way out of a bad experience.
Justin, I think you’re right on this one, but to dismiss the Twitter and Facebook factor of this event doesn’t gel with my experience.
How did YOU hear about it?
Where did you post your doubts?
And what made you go?
I wholeheartedly agree that it is the Brand of Dave Chappelle that brought the people out in droves…and maybe that was why they started dancing naked on top of Starbucks, but I digress.
The event would simply not have worked, or had even a tenth of the “i wonder if this is real” aspect to it if 4 or 5 people ran around town telling people that Dave was going to show. It would have been the “I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy….” level of truth.
Granted, that was what it really was, but the fact that the message was passed between my “friends” added the extra bit of validity that i needed to convince me that this might actually happen.
Not on the same scale, but if, say, Jamba Juice started Twittering that they were giving away free large blackberry dream surprise smoothies at Pioneer Square, don’t you think a few hundred people would go check it out?
It’s the power and authenticity of the Brand, coupled with the technology, that made the event a success.
And, I too, would do it again.
“The event would simply not have worked, or had even a tenth of the “i wonder if this is real” aspect to it if 4 or 5 people ran around town telling people that Dave was going to show.”
Exactly my point…
And on a slightly different note…It bugs me that you keep calling Dave Chappelle a ‘brand’. I love everything the guy does…but a ‘brand’? I know the word ‘brand’ has become some sort of magic word for success in business…but…yuck. He seems like a nice guy and I enjoy his work…but I’m not a consumer buying into a lifestyle.
I’d like to think one of the reasons all those people gathered to see Chappelle is because he isn’t Coke, Fox or Starbucks. With or without the dancing nudes.
Brandon – Thanks for the comment. Im not discounting the role of technology, sorry if it came off that way, Im simply saying that while it would have been very hard for Chappelle to get 4000 people without technology, it would have been impossible for a brand no one likes. The reason I bring it up is well put by Trevor Warrens tweet: How many brands have attempted with replicate the tactics of another successful brand without taking into account the underlying rationale that made the second brand successful in the first place. A great example of this is the Blackberry Storm. It has all the parts of the the iPhone but it fails because it is nothing but a shell, a facsimile of a fulfilling experience. The opposite is true of something like a Sidekick, which by all accounts is years behind every other smart phone, but continues to provide the exact experience its fans want: an inexpensive, efficient texting and IM device.
So, as I said in my previous reply, my purpose with this post isn’t to knock technology but rather to point out that without having a clear strategy that is based on a genuine desire to provide a great experience for your customer, all the technology in the world wont help you. On the other hand, if you have what Chappelle has, a rabid and well cared for fan base, technology, and the web specifically, can be amazingly empowering. It means that he doesn’t need a network, it means he can upset the system, and actually get closer to his fans and provide an even better experience. But there is no short cut, there is no getting around the first part of creating the rabid base.
Chris – I hope my response to Brandon suffices for the first part of your comment. Let me know if not.
As for the second part, I suppose it’s a matter of semantics, but for me, a brand is a lot more than a name or a “magic word for success.” It’s the totality of any persons experience with you, or your company. And I do think people have brands. I agree with your last paragraph entirely, I too love Chappelle because he isn’t Coke or Fox, but for me, that’s his brand. Chappelle is the guy who turned down 55 million to do his own thing. I went to the square precisely because showing up for a free show at midnight is totally something he would do. It’s his brand. But between you and I, if the term “brand” is off-putting, that’s fine. We can call it his personality. In the context of this blog though, it’s still important to me because I want people who read it to see that there is a lesson to be learned by what happened last night, and it’s a lesson that businesses can’t ignore.
In talking about the power of a great brand being the draw that could only ignite a social web powderkeg like this, here’s my observation/.02:
As a comedy moment, celebrity appearance, Chapelle brand event, social media stunt, or whatever you want to call it….it looks like it kind of sucked. There was no payoff, other than the shared feeling of commitment/passion from the disorganized mob. I know it was free and supposed to be low-key.
I agree it would have been a completely different vibe if this were a neatly organized, permitted, Verizon presents, in association with Red Bull energy drink, midnight underground street comedy special taping for Comedy Central.
But surely there’s some ground between a hyper-produced spectacle, and the post-midnight Pioneer Square mumble. For you as a Chapelle fan, how was this satisfying, and not a waste of your time?
As a keen observer of social media, it did result in a great post so I guess there’s that (I wish it were cross-posted to social cache too).
I suppose if I asked twitter I would get 4,000 different responses to ‘how was this actually good?’
I think for sure there is some middle ground, probably lots of different and interesting middle grounds, but I also think that would have been a different event.
For me, what made this so amazing wasn’t the absolute quality of the actual “show” but rather that someone like Chappelle would do an un-permitted show, advertised only via word of mouth in the first place. When I was sitting at home at 10:30 thinking “What are the chances?” the answer for me and many other people was “well, it’s unlikely, but if any one was going to do this, it would be Dave Chappelle.” I love the idea that he walked in, holding his battery powered amp, and just sat there and talked to everyone, as a human being. This is what made it high quality to me. It’s as close to hanging out with Dave Chappelle as Im going to get. I think this is Chappelle’s brand, so in that way, I call it a success all the way around.
Oh, and as for social-cache, I would never have my writing appear in that rag.
So….you didn’t see him?
No, no I did not. But thanks for making me remember.