  |
Analog Lessons in Usability: KramerNovember 25th, 2006 by Narendra |
Well, this might be more of a business lesson, but here goes. Entertainment news this week included the unfortunate news of Michael Richards’ (aka Kramer) deplorably racist tirade at a comedy club.
After the shock from watching it settled in, my initial reaction was that I don’t think that I would be able to watch any more episodes of Seinfeld. The next day I heard sports radio show host Jim Rome carve up (gratuitous Thanksgiving reference) Richards and Rome’s conclusion: he isn’t planning on watching Seinfeld either and can’t fathom how anyone else could either.
Extrapolate and your realize that one slip up can have a very substantial impact on a very trusted brand and franchise. Years after the show’s end, Richards’ bit is going to cost millions of dollars.
Brands are difficult to build and easily tainted. One of the refreshing things about the Web2.0 movement is a committment to the customer. It is a reaction to the rampant user abuses of the late nineties from companies desperate to “monetize.” Combine that with a wholesale neglect of the end consumer by large monoliths (think airlines, customer support from portals, and never-ending phone menus) and we are seeing the ability for small companies to build trusted brands in short order.
Is there a lesson here? Yes, respect your customer and think twice before you engage them or make use of their data in any way that you wouldn’t approve if it were your data. One slip up and your company could be the next Gator, errrrr…Claria.
Tags: usability, seinfeld, kramer, michaelrichards, gator, claria, web2.0, brands, branding
30 Boxes!
November 27th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Alternatively, you might decide to be a rational human being — and realize that Michael Richards’ reprehensible escapade had absolutely nothing to do with Seinfeld.
You might also come to the conclusion that it’s old news and he has suffered enough already through the massive media coverage alone.
This has nothing to do with branding or Web 2.0, and you are a deeply disturbed individual for exploiting such an unfortunate event for your own self-indulgent purposes.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Chris, our perceptions of brands are often purely emotional and not grounded in rational thought. Using words like “deeply disturbed” and “exploiting” seems a bit harsh (and dare I say, not rational) . This is a major news story and once a week we are trying to look up and offer some commentary on our blog. This is very much a branding (and PR) issue and we are simply tying it into experiences for small startups and businesses online today.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
I think it’s perfectly rational to link the actions of Michael Richards to our memories of Kramer. Every time I see Kramer burst through Jerry’s door I’ll probably think about it, and for some people that might be enough to not want to watch the show anymore.
I’m not sure why you think it’s inappropriate for the 30b guys to use their blog to discuss things other than web 2.0. Any idea how many times the TechCrunch guys have been heckled about a post not being Web 2.0? Do they care? No.
As for branding, as Narendra said, it is very much a branding issue — everything those four actors do affects the Seinfeld brand. And with Jerry on the stump for the Season Seven DVD, this is very bad timing.
December 1st, 2006 at 4:58 pm
After Michael J. Fox’s political ad for embryonic stem cell research, I heard people that had opposing views say that they would no longer be fans of the Back to the Future movies. And I realized that that statement was one of the most ridiculous conclusions I have ever heard of. The movies were created by writers, directors, producers, videographers, etc… They aren’t the property of Michael J. Fox. He’s a freaking actor.
Now, how about if an actor gets into an accident and kills someone drunk driving? Or if they get into a fist fight while coked up and break someone’s nose? A nun’s nose. It is unfortunate that our public can’t distinguish between a character and an actor. And a body of work independently of the faces of the actors. People make mistakes. Some people are not very nice. Some people we really hate. That doesn’t change the value of a project they were involved in.
Sure, it IS a branding problem. People need to understand that they can still love Seinfield and Kramer without loving Michael Richards. Don’t like Michael Richards? Don’t go to his comedy shows. But to diminish the results of so many minds by backward thinking, that’s shameful.