Ad Man Scott

Apple’s WWDC 2012 had a few interesting introductions on Monday.  Retina display MacBook Pro and turn-by-turn directions using an Apple 3D maps program that was “built from the ground up at Apple” are all neat things I look forward to using, but one thing stood out to me and it only reiterates what investors have been saying all along. iPhone has previously fully-integrated Twitter into iOS5 and according to Apple, iPhone has taken a huge share of tweets as a result.

(Yes, that’s almost half of all photos uploaded to Twitter)

The announcement came on Monday that Facebook is going to be fully integrated into iOS6. Not only will users be able to upload photos directly from photo albums and post content from websites and apps, but now can also update a status via Siri.

Now that Apple is going to integrate Facebook into iOS6, we can only assume the same stats as Twitter will be true – that is, a large portion of status updates and photo uploads will be from the iPhone.

Make it easier to engage, more engagement will occur. That’s pretty straight-forward thinking, right?

So, who cares?

An easier interface to interact via mobile means less interaction via traditional browser. As of right now, that’s where the advertising is for Facebook. Facebook ads are not mobile. Try as they may, they couldn’t even convince investors that they could make mobile advertising profitable, which is one of the main reasons cited for their poor IPO performance last month (never mind Facebook’s grossly high valuation).  Twitter claims they have managed to solve this problem by using promoted tweets that “appear” in a user’s feed.  Last week CEO Dick Costolo said that the company’s mobile-ad revenue had exceeded ad revenue from desktop users for the first time in a single day.

I can’t help but assume that Facebook desktop interaction will drop as a result of this new iPhone integration, which could bode poorly for advertisers.

But the other side of me keeps saying that Facebook has no true competition. Other social networks satisfy a niche, however I (and others) have spent years building my online “home.” I’ve got thousands of photos, keep in touch with friends from all over the world and I don’t see myself “migrating” to a new social site unless it’s a one-click transfer kind of thing, which would never happen.

What do you think? Does Facebook need to crack the mobile code to continue to be the giant in the social space? Can they learn anything from Twitter? Will this new iOS6 integration prove to be more of a curse than a blessing?

Perhaps you’ve read this article from Adage about the London Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games and their new “crackdowns” for the olympics.  Because of the multi-billions of dollars that brands are spending (i.e. McDonalds and Coca-Cola), these brands are demanding an extreme level of exclusivity.

So this one makes sense:

• “a 35-day, one-kilometer Brand Exclusion Zone will be enforced around all Olympic venues, inside which no brands that compete with official sponsor brands can advertise.”

I get that. Fair enough. You pay a billion dollars, you get that right. But here’s where it gets ridiculous:

• “Spectators wearing competitor-branded clothing, or consuming unofficial food or drink choices, or even trying to pay with the wrong credit card, will not be welcome.”

This reminds me of the 2006 World Cup with Bavaria (an unofficial beer company). They included orange Lederhosen with its beer and encouraged fans to wear them for support. They had the beer’s logo on them, which infuriated InBev executives and FIFA officials, who made the fans remove their pants before entering the stadium. And again in 2010, when the same brewery used female models to sport the brand. You can read more on these events here.

When those stories broke, I had to ask myself: Was it more detrimental to the brand for FIFA and Budweiser to raise hell on this or in the long run was this a good PR move - setting a precedent of enforcement? At the time, I was on the fence about it.

Now, the precedent has taken an extreme turn:

• “Even social media — which most brands have long since given up trying to police — is not free from Olympic control. Twitter shut down the account of satirical activist group Space Hijackers after LOCOG complained about the use of its logo (while also claiming it did not mind the content).”

Or this one:

• “Athletes are also under strict social-media observation. They cannot upload pictures or footage, and/ or post reports about their own—or anyone else’s—performance.”

Or how about this one:

• “Technically, nobody is allowed to even post a picture or video on social media if it has been taken at an Olympic event. But whether Twitter and Facebook users around the world know or care about these restrictions remains to be seen.”

I feel as if the precedent is being taken to an extreme now. How do you police the internet and social media?

You know those pre-roll videos before movies? The ones that tell you to turn off your cell phone - I can’t imagine what the pre-roll for the Olympics opening ceremony is going to be like. Can you say mood-ruiner?

So, back to that question, is this helpful or detrimental to a brand, such as Olympics or McDonalds? I expect this social media one to not be enforced, but time will tell.