You may or may not have heard about Empire Avenue, a social game modeled on the stock market. Basically, you set up a profile, connect it to your social channels, and the more you engage on the social web, the more “eaves” (currency) you earn. There’s a little more to it than that, but that’s the jist. It has also been described as a real-time way to measure digital influence (which is pretty interesting).
Of course loads of individuals jumped on board (myself included) to check it out. As one might expect, folks with significant social profiles (lots of channels, lots of followers, lots of content) quickly saw their share price rise and hey, buying shares in someone was a nice social gesture – a vote of confidence, if you will.
Monday I checked in after several weeks of not really engaging on the platform in quite a while. I started to notice something. Quite a number of brands had jumped on EA, some of them publicly traded companies – with actual, real stock prices. You know, the kind set by the real world – the kind that actually matter to people. In essence, those real-world valuations (the ones on which a penny or two loss on can translate into a decline of hundreds of millions of dollars in market capitalization) were tied to pretend stock prices being set by a bunch of social media geeks playing a game.
So that made me uncomfortable. I had a conversation with an industry colleague about it, and he said “Well, it’s hardly a very significant platform!” And this is true – no more than a few hundred people seem to be online at any given time. Not exactly facebook. But of course that begs the question, WHY ARE YOU THERE IF IT DOESN’T MATTER?
But I digress. Looking into my inbox, I came across something that turned discomfort into disbelief. I had a communication from one of the brands on Empire Avenue, explaining that while there had been a run on their stock price, they were firmly committed to turning thing around and delivering shareholder value!
I swear, I just about fell off my chair. “Who on Earth,” I wondered, “Would expose a publicly traded company to the risk of having a real share price compared to a fake one? Putting them in the position of having to message shareholders on why everything was ok – with their pretend share price?” (Nevermind the inevitable prayer, “Please-don’t-do-a-news-story-about-how-our-fake-share-price-plummeted-last-week!!”)
To me this is a governance and a commonsense (which we know is not all that common) issue. Just because it’s social doesn’t mean you get to ignore your responsibility to your real shareholders, exposing them to unnecessary risk. Deciding where, when and how your brand engages online is a strategic decision that should not be taken lightly.
Let me know if you think I’m making a mountain out of a molehill.
No, I don’t think it’s a mountain out of a molehill at all. Perception *is* reality and this is playing with fire. I wonder why EA is not monitoring their sandbox.
I do find myself thinking of the 1983 movie “WarGames.”
Maggie —
Thanks much for your post . . . raises an excellent point and question. In reality, Empire Avenue has little to do with the stock market function, and so much more to do with, as they say, investment of social capital — uber-networking at a fun, frenetic pace . . . I say that as someone who picks stocks half the day, everyday . . . that’s just my way of adding value, along with consistent participation in the facebook groups that are making new career opportunities possible.
For a brand, I think they first need to understand the social implIcations of being on EAv; BMW was a fantastic example. Rocketed from the start, but mismanaged their EAv activity, and have since flatlined around 100e for 2 weeks . . . which, with 5 million page fans, is not as strong as it could be with some portfolio guidance, as well as education on how to properly employ EAv as a brand.
Because it is still a smaller, more intimate environment, there is plenty of flexibility ( I think ) as to how brands could be represented on EAv . . . perhaps not like a common stock, per se. At present, too, the Indexes hold little weight, and the business / brand side should be as separate as profiles and pages on FB.
I see your point about shareholder confusion, and the ridiculous need to address holders of (for now) worthless shares. I think there should be an opportunity to eventually turn eaves into rewards / discounts on various products and services to create a customer loyalty continuum across all of their marketing platforms — the more a shareholder/customer engages with that brand’s facebook page, for example, the more a share price will rise, which benefits the EAvers. Same holds true for Twitter, YouTube . . . because Empire Avenue is a driver of social networks, it also serves as a social media education tool — to increase your price, you must increase/maintain a high level of interaction in all networks — and the more time you spend ( and engage ) with a brand, the greater the loyalty.
Rob Nielsen (e)HOST
You may have a point, however, I think that as someone who runs a social media company, you would understand that most people do not own shares in a publicly traded company. Only the wealthy or wannabe wealthy can afford to participate in the market. On the other hand, social media, home to customers for these publicly traded companies, can now find themselves with ownership in the company. Fake you say? They now have influence, ownership, and the ability to be involved in decisions. I’m shocked to read your perspective on this, especially considering one of your clients (Ford) has joined the EAV community in a big way. Your perspective baffles me, to be honest! You might want to do some more research on – eeeek – social media’s place in today’s world.
Hey Tim, thanks for the comment! I’d like to make a few points of clarification:
1. Being the CEO of a social media company does not qualify me to make statements on what percentage of the population own real stocks (and that’s not really the point)
2. While Ford was a client for many years, we have not advised them in over 18 months
3. Your rationale for why Empire Avenue is a good place for companies to be is *exactly* why I think it’s a terrible idea. Most companies have enough on their plates dealing with real shareholders and media, adding the complexity of a “virtual” (since “pretend” seems to offend) share price/shareholders/marketplace/media mix is absolute insanity and of dubious value.
And rather than an admonishment about “social media’s place in the world”, some schooling on reality is in order here.