« This is Just Legitimising Spam, Laziness and Apathy
2009 is the Year of Education for Tiger Two »

Social Media without conversation isn’t social media – take heed, Nintendo.

There is an article in this morning’s NMA Magazine which discusses the latest, somewhat surprising move from games giant, Nintendo. Nintendo has decided to embark on a social media campaign, making use of space on Bebo to allow fans to view video, enter a competition or download skins, however they have disabled any ability for commentary or discussion on the page. Apparently this fits with the Nintendo global policy which bans all comments, blogs and forums on official Nintendo online material. A spokesperson said that they were more than happy for the discussion to occur elsewhere, but not on their official sites.

OK, last time I checked, the definition of social media was media which allowed the growth of community, interaction, user generated content, discussion, feedback and conversation. Am I wrong? So in actual fact, Nintendo haven’t embarked on a social media campaign at all. What they have done is comandeered another site and shifted out yet more broadcast marketing. Why bother using Bebo? Why not just put up a bog standard website (whcih is essentially what it is, only on a different platform). Oh, wait – of course, why would you bother doing that and having to build an audience when you have a ready made audience which you don’t have to work hard to get.

I find this move an arrogant one. Firstly, the expectation of most Bebo users would be that when they come across their favourite brands on their social media site of choice, they will be able to interact with them. Suddenly, one brand is saying ‘nope – we don’t care what you think, just buy our product and don’t sully up our marketing message’. If I were in that demographic, I would be pretty disappointed. Secondly, they are flying in the face of everything that makes social media work. It is almost as if they are so sure of their brand that they don’t need to bother getting engaged with their target audience. Or rather, they are happy for their target audience to organise themselves, but they don’t really see a need to facilitate that or be a part of it.

In my opinion, if you want to get involved in social media, then get involved. If you don’t, then don’t pretend that you are. Just because the audience of Nintendo are more than likely already heavily involved in social media doesn’t mean that the brand can sit back and reap the profits. In the uncertain times we are experiencing currently, can any brand really afford to behave like this? Only time will tell, but I for one would like to be given the opportunity to tell Nintendo directly that their saccharine sweet ‘bring the family together to play video games’ advertising is patronising and cliched. But I have a feeling they won’t listen. They aren’t willing to listen on Bebo, so why would they listen elsewhere?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

If you like this post, why not subscribe to our RSS Feed. Or you can visit our main website at Tiger Two or follow me on Twitter or Friendfeed

Post to Twitter

Tags: ,

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 4th, 2008 at 1:03 pm and is filed under Criticism, Social Media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • servantofchaos
    Social media means different things to different people - and while I prefer my social media to be participative, that is not the same for everyone. Seth Godin, for example, doesn't allow comments, but he is clearly an active social participant.

    This effort from Nintendo isn't stellar - but it is a first step from which I hope they learn.
  • This is a bizarre move by Nintendo. Surely the whole point of using social media is to encourage communication and interaction. Nintendo have got things completely wrong by using it as way to broadcast their advertising campaigns.
  • They are probably scared to receive some negative feedback. I'm sure they have the money to hire a moderator to approve comments.
  • I don't disagree, but let me pose a couple.

    1) is a blog without comments social media?

    2) Is Nintendo missing out on social media with sites like Penguin Club and Webkinz

    3) Isn't participation where your customers play a good entry into social media, eg. Coca-Cola in Facebook with things like Coke Tags.

    enjoyed the post and following you on Twitter.

    All the best
  • Great questions, Albert and I thank you for posing them. I am sure that we each have a perception about what social media is although there is no hard and fast rules. I am of the opinion that without the interaction then the 'social' part has been removed and it returns to just being 'media'. There is nothing wrong with that of course. Where I have the issue is when an organisation embarks on a campaign using an avowedly 'social' site, but switches off the functionality that makes it such.

    I am sure others will disagree, but in my opinion, no, a blog without comments isn't social media. It is a diary or a series of articles which are being broadcast but which aren't encouraging the social and community aspect of blogging. That's not to say there isn't a place for a blog without comments - I have seen several (although often a forum is provided instead) but I don't think it can truly encourage a community. My feeling is that as soon as you take away the ability for the audience to directly contribute, then you are back to broadcast. The fact that someone can talk about that blog elsewhere and link to it doesn't make it social, otherwise every static website on the web would then be classed as social media.

    It is interesting, as both of the sites you mention are 'social' in the respect that they allow user interaction with one another (albeit on a limited level) in a 'game style' location. Not having children, I am not entirely familiar with the sites but just looking through them I see how they offer that social side without putting children in danger of passing on personal information. I think that Nintendo could easily make use of this model and with the strength of their pre-existing characters, could probably do it very successfully. My feeling is they would do better with something like this, as the limitations of the sites may not breach their company policy on no blogs, forums etc. However, this kind of limitation would probably only work for the younger audience. If Nintendo wanted to offer a community type site for an older demographic, then I suspect it won't be very successful limiting conversation and they once again find themselves in a position where people can talk.

    Yes, participation where your customers play is an excellent entry into social media, but I do feel that in order to do so, there needs to be some adherence to the 'rules' (I use that term very loosely). The problem is, social media can bring huge benefits but with it comes risk. That risk takes the form of letting go of a measure of control to your audience. You can't control their contributions and you can't control what they are going to say. All you can do is provide guidelines and ensure that you remain involved. I get the feeling that Nintendo did want to participate and gain the benefit but they aren't willing to accept the concomitant risk that goes with that participation. As such, perhaps they aren't really ready to get involved with social media yet. The value that can come out of user contribution has been lost, and therefore so has the social part of it.

    Your questions have really given me cause to think, so thank you again for them. I'm a regular Marketing Edge podcast listener so your comments here are really appreciated.
blog comments powered by Disqus