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.

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?’

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.