Casey Anthony defense team tweaked tactics in response to tweets.
A consultant for Casey Anthony’s attorneys analyzed more than 40,000 highly-charged opinions — negative and positive — on social media sites and blogs, and used them to help the defense craft their trial strategy.
Whether it worked or not is difficult to gauge, but a jury last week found Casey Anthony not guilty of murdering her 2-year-old daughter Caylee Marie.
Although a defense attorney should use everything s/he can to defend his/her client, THIS IS REALLY SCARY. Also, a great argument against cameras in the courtroom.
When someone talks about the potential of social media, they should be thinking of this. Real time focus groups, without the bias and misinfo that come with putting people under a direct microscope.
Imagine doing this for a brand, or a celebrity. Adjusting your approach in real-time based on the information available to you.
Hell, imagine doing it for yourself, with a team of people or algorithms feeding you advice based on the shifting seas of quantitatively analysed qualitative data.
There’s a lot of potential, there. Some of it, unnerving.
The Bubble and the Backend.
I had a conversation yesterday where a colleague brought up Minority Report, specifically the scene set in the Gap, when a hologram with access to Tom Cruise’s purchase habits let him know what sales might appeal to him.
I fully recognize the scene was supposed to be creepy. But, in a room of marketers, it’s also desirable.
We generally LIKE the idea of a system knowing us well enough to serve us directly. I almost always see these circumstances as mutually beneficial. But I’m cognizant of how rarely this POV translates outside of the marketing bubble, especially with the conversations I’ve been having recently regarding Facebook and the potential for integrated experiences made possible by FB Connect and now OpenGraph.
Regardless of how information is used, there’s a subset of the population who will always interpret being ‘known’ as an invasion, even if they willingly provided all of the information in question.
This makes perfect sense; I have / had a tendency to make fairly accurate logical leaps about people, and a small portion of the time, the reaction has been severely negative. What I find funny, is that the explanation of the process is what makes people uncomfortable. If you point out that I’m flustered with very specific evidence, I feel exposed. (Actually, knowing me I’m more likely to be impressed.) If you mention it without evidence, and present as an offer to help, I’m more likely to consider you a very intuitive, empathic person.
Automated systems feed to humans, at some level of the exchange. If detailed tracking and segmenting led to a salesperson suggesting you’d look great in what the database says is your favourite colour, you’re more likely to respond well than if they say ‘Our records show you like blue sweaters.’
Is this ‘authentic’? No. But it is comfortable, and reinforces your self-perception without cues that would lead you to react negatively. There’s a verisimilitude, as well - we want to believe that people are this good at understanding us, unaided.
In the marketing bubble, we get excited about the process that leads to an experience - the backend magic that creates and refines the positive response and interaction we’re chasing. Moving outside the bubble means moving mechanics to the backend - if the question becomes “Imagine if every salesperson only recommended clothes you’d like”, negative responses seem irrational.
Do business who operate with traditional loyalty cards (air miles, in-store card, etc) have this sort of dashboard? Would be interesting to compare side-by-side.
Or is the comparison nothing vs this?
If you have information like this, you should be able to leverage the hell out of your existing customer base. Genius.
