Groundswell takes down Shkreli!

In the past week or so media has been having a field day with Martin Shkreli, CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals. It all started when Shkreli decided to raise the price of Daraprim from $13 per pill to $750 per pill (that's 5,455%). Daraprim is a medication used for protozoal infections, commonly used for treatment and prevention of malaria and to treat HIV-positive individuals, as well as cancer sufferers. It has been an affordable drug on the market for 62 years. He claims they would use the profits to further research drugs that would perform "better" than Daraprim. However, HIV doctors state there is no need for a "better" drug...

As you can probably imagine (and most likely saw for yourself), this upset LOTS of people. The cost of pharmaceuticals in general is a topic that many are passionate about. This story is a perfect example of the power of the groundswell working in the most effective way. 

You see, Mr. Shkreli thought he could just hike up the price, sit back, and just enjoy his profits... because a hedge fund manager is usually strapped for cash right?

Oh Martin, Martin, Martin... welcome to the real world. 

Shkreli was quickly ripped to shreds by social media. Oh my gosh, did people love it. He became the "most hated man in America"... and this is where the humorous part comes in. 

Thanks to the genius of the internet and of internet hackers, every bit of Shkreli's embarrassing choices were made very public. This included his OKCupid profile, a reminder that he was sued for $65 million in 2014 for misusing company money, and that he tried to bribe his ex-girlfriend with $10,000 in exchange for sexual favors (you can read the NSFW details here). Heavy.com highlights some of these moments (and more!) in this article. 

Let's not forget to mention that his phone number and home address were released online! I can only imagine the calls he received! 

Shkreli's first reaction to all of this was to post Eminem lyrics to his Twitter page (which is now private) and to argue with people, call them names, and continuously defend himself. Maybe he should've taken this class, then he would know that's a big "no-no" for companies to do.

In an awesome turn of events, Shkreli later announced that he would lower the price of Daraprim, but that he would announce the new price in a few weeks (can't wait to hear that "compromise"...). As truthdig.com states, he confirmed that this decision was a result of the reaction to the price hike,  saying "there were mistakes made with respect to helping people understand why we took this action. I think that it makes sense to lower the price in response to the anger that was felt by people." 

In The Washington Post, reporter Caitlin Dewey reported on what the article headline called “The successful Internet shaming of ‘pharma bro’ Martin Shkreli.” She wrote that although online shaming is typically socially destructive, in this instance “the online mob did all the worst, most destructive things that we tell people to never do—and it worked, spectacularly, for the greater good.” 

What are your thoughts on Martin Shkreli? Did the groundswell help shape your opinion of him? Or perhaps you agree with him? I would love to hear other sides of this story!

T.Swift & The Groundswell VS Apple Music!

While first beginning our reading in Groundswell, one topic in particular stood out to me. It was regarding Digg and how the Groundswell overpowered decisions and even laws, truly an eye-opener of how powerful social media can be. 

This sparked another story in my mind. I'm sure most have heard about it. If you haven't, feel free to brush up here. Essentially, Taylor Swift forced one of the (if not the) most popular tech companies in the world to change their policy within hours. 

Apple introduced Apple Music, which is a music streaming service by Apple, Inc. It's where users can select music to stream to their device on demand. Apple began advertising its "3 month free trial" and artists, like Taylor Swift, received contracts stating they will not be paying the artist, the writers, or the producers during those 3 months. This prompted Taylor Swift to pen her late-night, open letter to Apple and post it to her Tumblr account. You can jump to the letter in it's entirety here. Her letter was to bring attention to the thousands of new artists, that can't really afford to go that long unpaid, while their work is being used. She puts it better than I could ever paraphrase it: 

"This is not about me. Thankfully I am on my fifth album and can support myself, my band, crew, and entire management team by playing live shows. This is about the new artist or band that has just released their first single and will not be paid for its success. This is about the young songwriter who just got his or her first cut and thought that the royalties from that would get them out of debt. This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs."

This is something I feel I can stand behind. It's hard to say you can't. Taylor went on to say...

" Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing. I say this with love, reverence, and admiration for everything else Apple has done. I hope that soon I can join them in the progression towards a streaming model that seems fair to those who create this music. I think this could be the platform that gets it right.
But I say to Apple with all due respect, it's not too late to change this policy and change the minds of those in the music industry who will be deeply and gravely affected by this. We don't ask you for free iPhones. Please don't ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation."

And just like that she took her stand and refused to join Apple Music until things were changed. Yes, she, without a doubt, used her place of power in the music industry to cause such a change. BUT, the Groundswell also took this and ran. Even Apple was no match for the swarms of Taylor Swift fans (and music fans in general). Within hours, Apple announced that it has changed it's policy and will now pay artists. Eddy Cue, the senior vice president of internet services and software, told Billboard "When I woke up this morning and saw what Taylor had written, it really solidified that we needed a change. And so that's why we decide we will now pay artists during the trial period." 

The reason I believe this relates to what we read in Groundswell is because if this was an unknown artist, with minimal social media followers, do you really think this would've grabbed the attention of Apple and forced them to change their ways so quickly? I, personally, doubt it. Taylor Swift has a huge fanbase. And I'm willing to bet that almost all of her fans have social media and are following and supporting her every move. You can't stop such a force. Similar to Digg's force - it can just be unstoppable. 

This story encompasses Groundswell as a whole. The definition of "groundswell" is, as Li and Bernoff state it, A Social Trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional institutions like corporations.

Even Taylor Swift chose to go through social media to get something she wanted. She is a business woman that could've easily done this privately with Apple, Inc. Instead, she chose to make this very, very public. This isn't a mistake or an under-thought decision. She is a social media and "customer service" genius. She knows how to keep her fans engaged and she knew the groundswell would help her carry her point home. 

As mentioned in the book and in class, the groundswell is evolving rapidly. Good for T.Swift for embracing this and using it effectively. AND kudos to Apple for rolling with the punches and actually joining the groundswell! 

Apple Music is now predicted to be the most popular music streaming service. As the TIME article mentions, "Apple would need to do lots of promotion to get significant numbers of users on board — die-hard Apple fans might have been good for as many as 15 million users off the bat, but not more than that. Because of Swift’s letter, millions more potential users are now aware of the service". Swift, and the groundswell, created a win-win for all involved.
"Apple gets additional marketing and promotion for the forthcoming service launching in nine days or so,"

From CNBC's Power Lunch - "They get to look like they have a soul because they actually have one. Taylor is fighting out there for what appears to be the little guy and she actually is. And it raises all the boats in the water higher."
(Sadly, Blogger will not allow me to embed the video in this link, but it is a short video worth watching!)

Social media is a powerful thing! 

Advertising on Social Media- Creepy, Genius... or Both?

I'm sure you've seen it every time you log into a social media site. The same bag your sister showed you the other day through email - right there in the middle of your Facebook news feed... but you never searched it on Facebook. In fact, it was a link to an item on a store website, sent to you through GMail, on a web browser (like Google Chrome). What does that have to do with Facebook? And why is Facebook suddenly showing the same bag, knock-off versions, and items similar? 

The answer? Cookies. 

Ok, not quite those kinds of cookies (but a nice, warm, chocolate chip cookie sounds amazing right now). A cookie is a small amount of data generated by a website and saved by your web browser. Its purpose is to remember information about you, similar to a preference file created by a software application. In other words, they're constantly saving and remembering all that you do. 

It's totally normal to believe this is creepy and want to hide away forever and never go on any website ever again....     but who are we kidding? We can't stay off of social media (let alone "normal" websites) for more than one day. So, let try to understand these not-so-yummy cookies and why they exist. 

Imagine yourself running a company. In a fantasy world, everyone would just know the products you sell and who you are and know that you're the greatest to ever exist, right? Well, this is the real world. And in the real world in 2015, you've got to find your customer, not the other way around. Now imagine you have a way to find a potential customer who recently looked at a product similar to what you sell. Let's go with hats. You sell great, fashionable hats at discount prices. This potential customer (let's call her Sam) recently googled hats and browsed some overpriced ones on a designer's website. And Sam left her Facebook logged-in at the same time. Now imagine the next time Sam scrolls through Facebook to see what her old high school friends are up to, BOOM - there's a hat that looks exactly like the one she was searching for the day before! The one she sees now is priced much more reasonably and the company is offering free shipping! Sam clicks the "checkout" button and is very pleased with her new purchase from a company she didn't even know existed.

And you just got a sale and, possibly, a returning customer. 

Cookies allow companies to consistently remind customers, or potential customers like Sam, that you exist. So, yes, I believe it is creepy to be "stalked" constantly, but in a world where we expect to be found and not have to find, it can make things much easier for both the consumer and the company. I believe this is a huge advancement for advertisement.   

What are your thoughts on these social media ads? Can it sometimes be too much? Have you ever made a purchase or decision off of an ad you saw on social media?