Recently I have been reading and thinking about the obsession that technocrats have with performance and the quality of software platforms. Google with its disdain for salesmanship and obsession with functionality. Many other technical companies driven by engineers who believe that the more efficient and intuitive you make the information systems, the more people will use them. And the disregard for salesmanship, human networking and marketing. The point seems to be, “build it and they will come.” Seems like an artificial approach.

And then you have the new Toyota ad, which characterizes a young man who is worried about his parents because they each only have a few Facebook friends. He has 900 friends. And the camera cuts back and forth from the parents having a ball with real friends having real fun, and this lonely kid walking around the house worried about his parents’s social media standing. The real friends and the artificial friends.

And now comes many companies engaging in social media who judge their successes on converting people into customers and messengers, so they can sell more goods and services. Grow. Grow. Grow. They want to be “Friends” with you, and you be “Friends” with them. Consumers know that companies only want them to buy their stuff and have no intention of being real friends. Seems like artificial communication.

In a new article in MarketingProfs, Embrace Irrationality,   the author, Jeremi Karnell, spells out the difference of human-centric marketing and the focus on customers in customer-centric marketing. The difference being that human-centric marketing approaches a customer as a whole human being, not just a consumer who buys stuff. This approach realizes that people like events and experiences. They want and need love, family and friends.

Consumer-centric marketing is captured by these three phrases, according to Karnell:

1. It views people as somewhat passive participants.

2. It measures success by how much merchandise a consumer moves.

3. Rising paradoxes have led consumers to seek more meaningful relations with brands.

This past decade has taken the wind out of the sails of the “spend now and worry about it later” mentality. 9-11. The Internet bubble. The real estate bubble. And the near collapse of the financial system have all contributed to people rethinking their priorities. Home, family, relationships, and experiences have taken center stage and it looks like those priorities will stay there for awhile.

But companies are not picking up on this. In social media companies want friends and followers. And why? So they will buy stuff and grow companies. And what do consumers want? A life.

So, why don’t outdoor companies start focusing on sponsoring events that improve lives by teaching new skills. Sponsor events that bring communities together. Or, participate in events that test the endurance of people who are new-found athletes.

Recently, I have been reading many blogs in Channel Signal about men and women who have lost weight, started training, and are now into running. Their excitement on completing their first 10k literally jumps off the page. Now, if a company can be a part of that experience in an authentic way, they have a customer…for life.

Don’t sell them stuff.

Sell them on themselves.

And that’s humanity.

And that is real.

by Hannah Birch, Channel Signal Editor

Much has been said about the Web giant’s new social media suite, and the chatter is largely justified. After all, Google has been responsible for some considerable failures when it comes to ventures into the social sphere, including the Father’s Day faux pas and the spectacular flop that was Google Wave.

Recent developments could be changing that. Google+ was rolled out rather stealthily at the end of June and, as long as the user experience continues to improve, this first version is certainly a good start.

The core features of Google+, like the Stream and the notification system, will be familiar enough that Facebook users won’t sign onto the service only to be immersed by that unpleasant, “I’m-at-a-party-and-don’t-know-anyone feeling.” Google has also had the opportunity to observe, and ostensibly avoid, some of the mistakes made by Facebook.

From what I can tell, Google execs have made some very wise choices. Some of these are deceptively small, like being able to edit or delete a post from a mobile device. Being able to fix typos right from a phone is another thoughtful way to avoid embarrassment on the Web and one that Facebook is still lacking.

The interface fits in well with Google’s established aesthetic; Gmail users will notice consistencies in both the full browser and mobile versions of Google+. (An app is already available for most smartphones except Mac’s iOS devices, but it’s coming soon to these as well.) As a long-time Gmail user myself, the integration of my email into this larger social function was painless. The ample white space and sparse but effective use of color are Google hallmarks that persist in the new service.

Functionally, Google+ is intuitive enough to be inviting but innovative enough to be exciting. The Circles feature, where users can sort their contacts into groups like “family,” “friends” and “co-workers” (or custom groups named by the user), seems like a well-reasoned way to delineate spheres of sharing. This also makes Google+ contacts feel quite organized, as opposed to Facebook’s haphazard Lists system.

Sparks allows users to specify interests, then generates a content feed based on that input. The results are a bit sloppy in some cases, but the idea is interesting. For anyone out there addicted to Facebook’s “Like” button, Google+ has, appropriately, a “+1″ feature that functions the same way.

All in all, Google has gotten enough things right to make the company’s new social media hangout worth a look. And, owing largely to Google+’s integration with more “serious” services like Gmail and Google Calendar, the site has, dare I say it, a more professional and adult ambiance. Although the company has made no statement alleging competition with Facebook, it’s clear that Google+ could become a strong alternative.

Hannah Birch is our new intern at Channel Signal. I’m picky about interns because we expect much from them. Hannah and I started talking about a year ago. I liked her blog, and her vision for herself. I liked her intelligence. Most of all I liked her work ethic. Here is her first blog entry for Channel Signal, and she takes on a big subject…the collaboration of Twitter and Apple. Here’s Hannah.

A small, blue bird landed on an apple. The bird sensed an opportunity. The apple, in Cupertino, California, responded in kind. A very big deal has been struck.

Steve Jobs recently announced at the Worldwide Developers Conference that Twitter capabilities will be extensively integrated into Apple’s new mobile operating system, iOS 5, which is rumored to be debuting in the fall. (Find Twitter’s announcement here.) There are several ramifications that go along with this.

First is ease of use. Instead of logging into different apps with separate accounts, Twitter credentials will be used on a single-sign-in basis. No more “click here to create an account with us” buttons on games or logging into an email account to share an article. It will all be under one blue, streamlined umbrella.

Second is the ability to tweet from just about anywhere on the phone. Safari, photo albums, contacts, Maps, Youtube, etc. will all be outfitted with options to tweet with a single click. This will make adding attachments to a tweet much more accessible, and Twitter’s development of its own photo-sharing service will only add to this aerodynamic feature.

Third is the sheer vibrance that tweets will likely acquire. Twitter streams could soon look like something akin to Facebook due to the richness of media, although there is still an opportunity for a fresh take on sharing. And, for better or worse, more noise in your stream is almost inevitable. (Can anyone say Farmville for Twitter?)

The Apple-Twitter partnership still has a few issues to address. Security, for instance, will probably be a concern as users share more personal information. The infamous 140-character limit could be a challenge, albeit a fun one, for tweeters that have more components to add to a single tweet. And, as much as Jobs touts the widespread use of iOS, there are still other users on different operating systems and platforms that may gravitate elsewhere.

Either way, Twitter has been handed a huge seal of approval by Apple. It will be interesting to see how consumers use the new Twitter, how Facebook evolves to keep up and how consumers respond to being surrounded by flocks of chirping birds.

eMarketer reports that, “While Q3 2009 data showed e-mail on top for content-sharing, February 2010 information from social optimization platform Gigya points to Facebook as the Web’s top social sharing hub.”

Facebook continues to grow because users believe that the content is richer due to photos, video, and articles, all  being easily shared.

It is also more personal. Protected. And intuitive.

As for Twitter? The noise continues. I use it, but am frustrated, at times, with the amount of nonsense on it.

“What a beautiful sunrise!”

“Forgot how much I liked my banana nut muffin!”

“Getting ready for a jog. Ugh!”

I realize that, obviously, many people are interested in this slice of lifestyle. Just not me.

I use and like Twitter when interesting articles are posted. Or my attention is brought to a new hot topic.

However, it looks like many agree, that Facebook is less noise and more of the content that interests the “fans”.

Skittles, the candy company, is trying something different, again. When you login to the web site www.skittles.com up comes the Skittles Facebook page. 

Last night Skittles pulled the first idea, which was to have the viewer go to the Skittles Twitter Page when visiting the home page. Well, that lasted for about a day. At first, consumers inundated the site with solid and fun stories about Skittles. “My dog loves them.” ” I love the Skittles rabbit!. “I take them with me everywhere.” Stories that fueled the brand forward. 

Then the chatter turned negative. Pranksters got going on the site and it became unmanageable for the brand. Too much negative and not enough positive to shine a good light on the candy.

So, now you automatically go to the Skittle’s Facebook site. True, tighter security here and the community will police itself better.

But let’s look at what the company is really doing…going straight to the online conversation.  It’s like the company says, “you want to know something about Skittles? Here. Here’s everything being said about Skittles at this very moment. Join in.”

Interesting approach. Surpass all of the boring brand messaging about the company and just jump into the Skittle mosh-pile. Skittles put all of its brand messaging in control of the consumers.

And it backfired. How long can people talk about Skittles? It’s fresh now, but will the rapid-fire comments keep coming? I doubt it. And in a week or two when this is over and the conversation dies down, or worse turns negative, then where is the juice? 

The Twitter initiative really failed because it was not authentic. Certain consumers sniffed that out and they went on the attack. Others piled on.  In short, consumers will not play ball all day long if they think they are being used, and in my view that is what happened.  

Now if Skittles complements this new Facebook initiative with well placed, well timed authentic content, and that content fires up more conversation, well now we have something. 

What kind of content?  Producing more company sponsored YouTube videos, creating a contest in every state to find the most interesting character who loves Skittles, publishing new company green programs or sponsoring grass roots events.  And use many distribution channels; Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, etc. 

Pump content into the new media channels. Make it real. Make it fun. Make it interesting. And make it brand building. 

Consumers are still in control, but the brand is now a big authentic player in the conversation.