NBC Launching New Social Network

Seems NBC is launching their own social network.

I saw this small text link on the NBC.com site while looking for some info for Vaspers. It read "social networking - coming soon." So, of course, NBC will offer blogs, personal profiles, friends (or "buddies" in this instance), message boards, etc. But people really care about the shows, not the network.

And as long as they remember that, this could be a powerful move. As annoyed as I am with the onslaught of new social networks (and really, just stop. you won't be the next myspace, I promise), It really depends on where the focus is. If it's a place for people to gather and talk about Heroes, or the Office, or whatever, that does makes some sense. While I may still be more inclined to focus my time on MySpace or Facebook, it is a chance for me to get some dedicated Heroes talk from time to time.

At some point, there will need to be some aggregation. Obviously, groups on MySpace and Facebook just aren't satisfying the obvious need for interaction and segmentation on the micro level while retaining the one-stop-shop on the macro level. Unfortunately, it'll take a pretty big leap for these companies to start allowing a single home to cater to all my social networking needs. And that sucks for us. Now, can we quit with new ones? It's enough of a pain in the ass to keep up with already.

Comments

[Tim Jackson]

You're not old enough to sound that cranky already...

I doubt NBC will really let go of control or truly enable an open user experience, but I haven't looked for myself, so I can't really say anything. Still, I've yet to see somebody as large as them let go and let the community just have their way. I'm looking forward to that day... but I don't think we're there yet.

[Robert John Ed]

I'm actually all for the proliferation of new social networks. I haven't joined one of the new ones. Currently on Myspace, Facebook and LinkedIn (which I know NOTHING about, but will get around to utilizing sooner or later).

All these mousetraps and sooner or later one will be better. Which pushes on to worthwhile ideas like Twitter. We won't stop making new cars and we won't stop making new social networks. Eventually someone will break new ground with an idea and we'll be better off for it.

It's evolution AND intelligent design. Weird huh?

[vaspers the grate]

you are witnessing the upheavals and turmoil that are characteristic of revolutions.

there will be many players, entrepreneurs scrambling to launch services, tools, products, schemes (the worst of which is "monetization") and most experiments will fail miserably.

into the dot com garbage pit.

we are mostly bloggers who are morphing into New Super Bloggers, which I have prophesied for 3 years now: microblogging, networking in esoteric or public channels, multi media, each person being a portal.

[vaspers the grate]

I use Jaiku as a personal presencing stream feed aggregator, a central hub, with Twitter and del.icio.us as the content flows, with occasional unique content created in Jaiku exclusively.

Twitter/Jaiku as link archiving and whisper-transmission channel.

[vaspers the grate]

http://twitter.com/vaspers

for the Deeper Vaspers

[CK]

"In June, we're launching the NBC.com social network, allowing all of our fans to connect with each other and interact with our shows in exciting new ways. Some of the features you can expect when you join the NBC.com social network include..."

Can anyone tell me their blatant first mistake? You get a cookie (chocolate chip)cuz I'm outta books right now.

Btw, other than your on-spot "make it about the shows not the network" (though I'd go one further and say "make it about the fans/viewers" but you meant that, there is a (brilliant? too darn sensible?) way to make this work. But they won't do it. and yet they coulda done it and been PHENOMENAL.

Ok, this has turned into 2 questions (2 cookies):

The first is what's the first blatant mistake? (hint: it's obvious)

The second is...what could they have done to make this PHENOMENAL? (hint: it's obvious)

Oh..and what should they do but so totally won't (hint: every decent blog does it, does it without thinking twice and delights in so doing)?

OK, no more questions. Cuz I'm outta cookies and I'm intrigued to find out how deep Vaspers can get (since we now have the deeper Vaspers...thank goodness, he was always too shallow for me ;-).

[CK]

To clarify, here are the 3 questions (since I actually am giving away cookies as I've stated in my own corner):

"In June, we're launching the NBC.com social network, allowing all of our fans to connect with each other and interact with our shows in exciting new ways. Some of the features you can expect when you join the NBC.com social network include..."

#1: The first is what's the first blatant mistake? (hint: it's obvious)

#2: The second is...what could they have done to make this initiative PHENOMENAL? (hint: it's obvious)

#3: Oh..and what should they do but so totally won't (hint: every decent blog does it, does it without thinking twice and delights in so doing)?

[Steve Woodruff]

I'll take a stab at #1, CK. They should be asking the users what THEY want, instead of just presenting some bullet point list of stuff readily available elsewhere. This has all the feel of another corporate "production" instead of real user-centric social media.

[David Reich]

I think NBC's move is a good idea. Hopefully they will listen to feedback from users, even if they may not have asked users before they launched the site.

I'm sure they'll have to moderate comments from readers, to keep it family-friendly. I have no problem with that at all, as long as they permit open discussion that may include some negatives about shows and personalities.

I agree with you Paul; it's the shows and the personalities on NBC, rather than the network itself that draws viewers.

I have no problem with yet another site. Proliferation is just part of business -- compare it to the magazine industry. How easy is it to keep up with content of every magazine out there? Pretty hard, right? So the reader makes choices from the hundreds of titles on the newsstand.

Same thing with sites, blogs and all the other things coming at us online. We go to what interests us personally and what seems to deliver consistent content that we like and feel we can trust.

CK, I'm not going for the cookie offer till I find out if they have nuts in them. I don't like nuts.

[Cam Beck]

Paul, this is just a "gateway social network." The next thing you know, these people will start using more hardcore social networks, like MySpace, Facebook, and even blogging.

We need to stop this NOW -- for the sake of the children. ;)

I haven't worked out the details yet in my head, but I have been considering the possibility of having some common platform, protocol, or language through which all of these different networks can interact.

I doubt all companies will want to allow that kind of cross pollination of brands, but I haven't thought of another way to overcome the difficulties you describe here.

[CK]

Steve: indeed they should...and, like the cookies, you're getting really warm--BUT on question #2...take it a few steps further and you've answered #2. See, on #1, there's something before that which is blatantly wrong ("before that" being a hint). Oh, and the word "allowing" is just about as sucky a language as one can get--"Great news fans: we now ALLOW you to connect!" geez, I wasn't allowed before? With the zillions of fan and fan-fic sites? That's just an aside, btw.

David: You're the nut. Just chocolate and gooey dough in the cookies.

[Roger Anderson]

CK - no books? How does that happen - sold out? Congratulations!

Well here are my answers - let me know if I get a cookie!
#1: The first is what's the first blatant mistake? (hint: it's obvious)
Well I could be wrong but I think trust is going to be missing. Who will believe that the posts will not be manipulated to make the shows more appealing? If the Big Network owns the social network then its independence will be in question.
#2: The second is...what could they have done to make this initiative PHENOMENAL? (hint: it's obvious)
Given my answer to #1 it’s hard to see how it can be PHENOMENAL. That said. Let’s say for the sake of argument we trust the peacock to be honest with it. Let me interact while I watch the shows on my computer.
#3: Oh..and what should they do but so totally won't (hint: every decent blog does it, does it without thinking twice and delights in so doing)?
They will not allow links to go far a field from their own properties. There will probably be very little link love and free promotions.
So if this is what decent blogs do what do indecent blogs do? (This is a rhetorical question.)
I also think it fails like Curt Shilling’s blog sort of fails. There are too many voices screaming to be heard on that blog. Does anyone believe that Curt reads all of those comments? I visited a few times and got tired of reading the stupid comments made by people who know nothing about baseball. Then there were the stupid comments by the man himself!

[Steve Woodruff]

OK, maybe its so obvious that it's too easy to miss - but why isn't this announcement page by NBC a blog? The only interactivity here is some vintage 1997 message boarding. And, for that matter, why wasn't the thing announced via a social network platform?

Cam - building on your thought - what if Facebook licensed their ENTIRE platform to allow people to build branded sites - common plumbing underneath, common features throughout, but the ability to build your own "neighborhood", and to cross over and join other neighborhoods? You could have gated communities, semi-private communities, private communities, wide-open ones - that would probably be a MySpace-killer.

[Paul McEnany]

Tim- I'm cranky beyond my years :). It is nice to see them trying some new things out, though...

RJE- For sure, but social networks are a little different than most products you buy. Once you build up a social circle in a network, it's a huge pain in the ass to actually pick up and move along, even if another one may be better. MySpace is a perfect example of that. Most of its users bitch about it constantly, yet they stay, cause it's home.

Which is part of the value of building social aspects into other products, like mini does. Once you buy a mini, you're a part of the mini club. So, if you EVER buy another car, then you're not only giving up a hunk of metal, but the group that came with it.

VtG- That's an interesting analogy, but totally true. A portal really is much the same as a filter, filters are just better portals, I guess...

DR- I see your point, but I don't really see it in the same way as magazines. People really would rather get all the magazines in one place anyway, right? I think that's being proven with the proliferation of RSS. Really, it speaks to how brilliant facebook is for allowing 3rd party applications now. So, instead of going to nbc.com, wouldn't it have been better if they also integrated the service within my pre-existing sites?

Cam- Woot! I think we're on the same page. See comment above to DR. Integration time!

RA- You know, I did hear that they are allowing virtual watching parties, which I think is along the lines of what you're talking about. Basically, I can invite my friends to watch the show with me, and we can interact during it. Pretty cool! I don't understand why Joost, who is supposed to be creating social television, is already falling behind in that regard. Quite annoying.

And, CK, my dear, you're the awesomest. I think Steve hit on the answer to number one, they didn't use social tools that they are creating to gain acceptance. It does make me wonder if they're goal is to go after an entirely different crowd than we expect. As in, they give up on the geeks, cause we're all set up. That would be stupid, but you never know, I guess...

And, my answer to all three is pretty much the same. What did they not do? Integrate! What could have made this phenomenal? Integrate! What do blogs do? Integrate! Well, sort of anyway.

They should have worked much harder to integrate within our current social platforms through widgets, etc. instead of forcing us to go over there to have any of the fun. It's bullshit!

And, back to facebook, they now allow other companies to come in and build tools that are beneficial to facebook, its users, and the companies who create them. MySpace has taken the opposite approach, regularly shutting down or suing other companies (photobucket, youtube) who piggyback their platform. Either way, i'd like to see myspace, facebook and blog integration. Should have been the first thing they thought about...

Brilliant, as always, thanks for making us think!

[CK]

We’ve got our first winner! To question #3. Not only did he launch a great new blog but Roger Anderson better be chilling the milk cuz he’s got cookies coming his way—Roger please email me your address and I’ll get them out to you this week ;-).

Roger, you are right in that they SHOULD be linking left, right and center to other blogs and wikis on shows. In fact they should INVITE and ENCOURAGE anyone who runs a blog or wiki on an NBC show to submit their link and then categorize them via shows and stars (when I worked at ABC.com we categorized all by “shows and stars”). And they should prominently point to these OTHER fan-based properties.

Why? Because then those properties/fans would point to them…and the properties/fans would talk up NBC’s social network. Let’s remember those OTHER properties already have built-up readers. And, moreover, it’s the right thing to do. Their action point? Give love to people who’ve loved you. And yes, I’ll be contacting NBC with this very action point and likely an open letter to them when they do launch if they’ve overlooked this—because in not doing so it equates to them not caring about their fans. We’ll see if they listen ;-).

Question #1 is still open. HINT: look to the wording in the following paragraph and marketers, mind your branding (!) when you think about this: "In June, we're launching the NBC.com social network, allowing all of our fans to connect with each other and interact with our shows in exciting new ways. Some of the features you can expect when you join the NBC.com social network include..."

Steve is close on answering #2 from his first comment in that they should have asked the fans what THEY want. But, building on this, what could they have done to make this phenomenal? It has EVERYthing to do with their fans, should have been their core strategy, would cut their marketing costs in 1/2 and would be a terrific case study. Granted I doubt they’d ever do it. Cookies await.

And these other answers/feedback are not wrong and I agree with much...I'm just looking for a couple of answers in particular.

[John Dodds]

1) Social networks belong to everybody therefore NBC can host one but it can't be theirs.

[CK]

John is close enough to get cookies on #1. So I will be sending treats internationally after all (John's in the U.K.!). John, email me your address so I can get you your goodies.

To remind, for question #1, I asked: "what is their FIRST blatant mistake"? Oh, and I say "first" because it's first in the copy ordering of: "In June, we're launching the NBC.com social network, blah, blah..”

The blatant mistake? The Name.

It's a killer, a roadblock, a handicap right out of the gate. NBC is positioned as "network" or a "channel" to viewers and that’s firmly set in their minds. Those people that watch their properties? They say “it’s on NBC” or “turn to whatever channel is NBC because ‘The Office’ is on”. The website (NBC.com) is just a website for the network. BUT when we’re talking a “social network”? That’s an entirely different story as we’re talking an entirely new, dynamic “product” or “property”…and that needs its own UNIQUE branding.

Why? Because people don’t think TV networks when it comes to social networks. TV networks are full of shows with characters; social networks, even based on shows, are full of real people. And to call it the "NBC.com + social network" is not only boring, it’s meaningless since NBC’s “brand” is positioned as “TV network”. Oh, and using “social network” as part of the name is meaningless given “social network” is NOT a brand, “social network” is a category that is already full of established brands. Think social networks like "MySpace," "FaceBook,” “LinkedIn” or "Eons"...those are brands that mean something but all fit under the “category” of social networks.

But NBC's social network could mean something...if the brand name spoke to the fans. I see two segments going to this social-media property, (1) the die-hard fans and (2) viewers that peek in once or twice a season to see what's going on and being discussed (maybe segment #2 will check-in to see what others think is going to happen in the season finale, for instance). But if they want this to have a chance in heck they need to brand it—and brand it to their CORE audience of die-hard fans.

What would the brand name be exactly? Off the cuff, maybe something like "Devoted" or "Fanbase" (I'm just using those as examples for argument's sake, they’re not perfect copy, by any means). But we need a brand that speaks to (1) the fans and (2) a new property (as this social network is a NEW brand offering…this line extension BS won’t work). It could always have a tagline that involved “a way to socialize, brought to you by NBC”. But the NAME needs to be unique and, moreover, speak to fans NOT speak to NBC—remember, it’s the fans that make this social network tick. Consequently, it’s the fans that make NBC as a whole tick, too.

Mind your branding, peacock, and give back to your fans (for once). Remember…cookies are still up for grabs with one last question of “#2: “What could they have done to make this initiative PHENOMENAL? (hint: it's obvious)” Steve was close before and I gave a BIG hint in the last half of this last paragraph’s first sentence.

[John Dodds]

Dilemma: am I expected to blog about the cookies? ;o)

[Steve Woodruff]

Well, I'll give it one more shot, CK - I'm sure your cookies are better than Chips Ahoy available down the street! Why didn't they build some "blogger buzz" by identifying some key fan/thought leaders/bloggers, and letting them have an advance experience of the platform! Then, encourage them to write pre-launch and build some buzz (also, get some great advance feedback for pre-launch tweaking). This assumes, of course, that the platform would be user-ready ahead of time, which they should make sure of anyway before going public...

As the name, I'm not sure they'd be wise to completely dissociate from the NBC brand, but you're right; the way they announced it has not memorable identity. Perhaps something like:
YOUonNBC
would allow for a new brand that embeds the "point" of the new offering...who wouldn't want to be "on" a well-known network?

[CK]

John: Ha! Folks, John is of course having fun with me due to the "influencer campaigns" going. Email me your addy so I can send some treats across the pond.

Steve: The name can absolutely leverage NBC but it needs to be unique and not do the “social network” branding boo-boo. Paul and I talked and he thinks they have a name in store…and they might…but why are they blowing the announcement? Just launch it and do NOT tell us you’re “allowing” us to connect. Fans have been connecting even before the Web. I’ve no idea who’s minding the store over there with that copy. Oy.

You are right where I want you to be for #2 and you get cookies (!)...but let me explain how I see it (and how I'd advise it). Please email me your address so I can send cookies (yippie!). To remind, here was question #2: “What could they have done to make this initiative PHENOMENAL? (hint: it's obvious)”

You were right in saying they should have ASKED fans the offering they want (you said that upfront). Here is what I would have advised to make it phenomenal:

#1: Before it’s built: Go to the existing strong fan sites and engage the publishers of those sites BEFORE this is built. Explain what NBC wants to do and how it wants to build a unique user experience that can bring a lot of fans together. But in order to do so they need to ensure it’s what fans want. You see, a lot of fan sites are blogs NOT social networks. Very different. So NBC won’t be “competing” per se with the existing sites (which you’d be amazed at how awesome these sites are) but NBC wants to complement them. So they’re ‘complementing’ and ‘enhancing’ from the get-go.

#2: Create a FAB: Actually congregate between 5-10 of these fan-driven sites (meaning, get the publishers of these sites on board) and create a “Fan Advisory Board” (hmm, a “FAB”?) and let the fans call the shots—or at the very least, inform the direction of the social network. Then, those individuals could say “you need to integrate” (to Paul’s point), “you need a lot of link love”, etc, etc. You see the publishers of these fan-driven sites are very much in the know of what NBC needs to do. Why? Because they’re close to their own audiences already. And since these individuals are giving NBC their time, they should give back to these people in that they get to meet some stars and interview them (content for their own side), get DVDs they can raffle off at their own sides…you know, really take care of them. I’m talking fly these fan-site publishers in and really take care of them and get their feedback like crazy. Thank them, listen to them, shower them with thanks, etc. And cultivate and grow this FAB over time. The FAB should never go away. In fact every company should have a customer advisory board—and it should allot marketing budget to keep them going, and going strong.

#3: Verify Features and Functions: Also, not only will the fan sites ensure all the features are incorporated, but NBC could have encouraged these guys to ask their own loyal audience what they would want out of a social network. This ensures no stone is left unturned and that NBC is actually creating a property that serves its fans.

#4: A strong presence after it’s built: Give these individuals on the FAB a strong presence at the NBC side. Do not have them “go away” but keep them engaged. Maybe a monthly column, whatnot. What does this do? It gives them a reason to promote it to their existing audience at their blogs/sites and keeps them as a strong “voice of the fans” for NBC—and it give them something to promote on their own blogs/sites.

#5: Produce “A Making Of” Video: I would even suggest a “making of the social network”. Film some of the meetings they had discussing what features should be a part of this, etc.. Then, by way of video, share with the community-—and the world—-how NBC engaged their top fans from the get-go. It makes for an interesting case study and is very Hollywood to do a video of it. It helps other marketers and it makes the fans that helped look really, really good as then people see how they were pivotal in building the social network.

#6: Promotion (cut expenses in ½): Because these top fans sites directed so much of what NBC launched they will naturally promote it to their audiences. After all, what they’re giving their audiences are blogs/wikis/websites…so having a social network is a complement. This encourages WOM and cuts NBC’s marketing budget in half.

How is this phenomenal, ask you? It engages the core audience at the VERY beginning (before it’s built). It places the audience in charge (we can NEVER go wrong when we listen to our audience). It produces a way for this social network to complement NOT compete with existing, strong fan sites (so fans with existing audiences promote it instead of damn it). It ensures that all features/functions are covered (since they’re querying their FAB and their FAB’s audience for feature/function feedback). By giving fan-site publishers a presence over at NBC (through columns/whatnot) it continues to engage those audiences. And through the “making of” video it gives marketers a case study on lessons learned, it gives the press something to talk up and it gives the members of the FAB something to show on their side in order to promote it.

That said, I don’t believe they’re doing anything near this—and of course this is all just my professional opinion (yes, I am sometimes very wrong). But NBC should, at the very least, be reading all of what we’ve chatted here and the good feedback from you smart marketers. Paul – do you want to get in touch with NBC or do you want me to? I think it should come from you as this is a discussion thread that YOU started (thanks!). My aim is only to encourage NBC to LISTEN.
At the very least, NBC should be thanking us for giving them free advice :-).

You guys rock…and now I must get to baking ooey-gooey goodness—as let’s face it, I talk too much and my place really is in the kitchen.

[Steve Woodruff]

CK - You've obviously given this a lot of creative thought, and your ideas are great - I especially like #5 above (which, of course, assumes the previous steps). It's already going to be difficult enough to rise above the social network "noise" - the only way to accomplish it is through rabid grassroots engagement!