i found this interesting post in another thread

people.tribe.net/mike_c/bl...992a57f106

"New Tribe is It!" Sat, January 21, 2006 - 3:48 PM

Yes there are some big changes in tribe.

Tribe has changed it's format to something that is in some ways not only ugly but worse than ugly, giving the participant a vanilla so inhumanly cruel on 'human' eyes that the eye cannot remain on the page long enough to recognize a difference between ugliness and beauty.

Why would they do this? For answers, look at what happened to coca cola following the change in formula.

The classic coke merchandising 'event' was essentially a version of the bait and switch reworked, a sort of bait and switch . . . and "switch" again.

In the classic bait and switch, a mark is lured in with the promise of getting something for an ideal price only to have it changed to something else once there. Timeshares and Fitness Clubs often work this sort of gambit along with those mailers saying 'come pick up your prize' that were so prevalent in the 80's.

In Coca-Cola's case, Coke in a 'bonehead' move switched it's formula to sweeten it as a response to Pepsi's taste-test ad campaign. The end result of this was a product so terrible that it caused unanimous revulsion, revulsion to a point where the mark is not only perfectly happy with the original product that they were previously overlooking, but clamoring to the point of threatening activism and boycotts. Given the period of protest and consumer loss, Coke's return to the original formula . . . essentially made the old thing 'new' again . . . but with important amendments.

'Coca Cola', no longer being sold as 'New Coke' or simply 'Coke'. As a result of the **failure**, 'Coca Cola' becomes 'Classic Coke' and the consumers express gratitude not only for having the old coke back; the consumer is empowered by the fact that their 'taste' and their grass roots campagn made a difference.

As a sort of marketing guy myself, I can almost grin and think of the brilliance of such a campaign if it were applied to Tribe.

Think about it. 'Coke' actually got free ads for new 'Classic Coke' from the scandal and the newness of the marketing campaign made Pepsi have to scramble for damage control and up their ad output to compensate for the shift in the cola war. Furthermore, the marketing formula (or marketing scam) could never be used again because it would immediatly get recognized as a scam and a manipulation of the consumer base.

As an end result, Pepsi was fucked both coming and going: the ads for 'new coke', the backlash and the return to 'classic coke' being like what Reagan's Star Wars program did for the Russian Military even if they were throwing the money into junk. Throwing money into ads makes the competitors compete . . . but Pepsi's staying the course was ineffective at drawing the press.

Bad decision making by Coca-Cola actually created the press, the bad jokes on late night talk shows transformed into constant TV time. The backlash actually became the 'free' advertising that won the day for Coca-Cola, with the end result forcing Pepsi to shift to youth marketing as a result of the damage.

Tribe might be doing the same thing and they would be pretty cagey if this were so. In this case, it would be to hide the new formula already in existence. After all, the repression of community flagging and the new TOU phrasing *were* already a major change to the formula of Tribe. To take away from the more adult arguments on censorship, Tribe has changed the format to something that in blinding the eye would camoflague the content. Perfect!

Then they will switch it back and all the dumb comments about successful 'beta' testing will go by the wayside and tribe will have their old tribe back with a new found solidarity within the 'classic' formula of community flagging and perpetual license.

But then I looked again, really looked at the layout, and thought as a marketer. Then listened a while to the comments being posted by designers . . . and my smile turned upside down.

Soon I knew from looking at the format that this was not about pleasing the old tribe consumers at all. It actually isn't even about bringing in new people to post entries on threads. In fact, there will be no switch back to the old product at all because Elliot the designer didn't actually fuck it up. Elliot was simply following the orders given by a philosophical shift in management.

In the old tribe format, you could insert ads into the threads and they would basically be ignored because the format was so bordered and sectioned out. Even without 'Mozilla', the average person could screen out the ads because they were blocks that were distinctive enough from the content of the threads. The design drew the eye to the threads because the old format made that content a priority.

The **new** tribe format has no lines to draw the attention of the eye because it was specifically designed that way. The text is small and runs the entire length of the page because it 'is' hard to see. If your eye follows the line of text from one entire expanse of white to the other, you end up finding the only lines on the page, which are the 'ads'. The actual 'pain' of the white screen is to draw the eye to all parts of it for a relief, for any darker fields and since the color of the text blends in with the white . . . the eye is once again drawn to where there are lines and color, the only place being the 'ads'. Amount of clickthru from one step to another again exposes the viewer to more 'ads'.

Essentially what you are seeing is a captive market strategy tested to it's limit. Tribe relies on participation from it's members and the exhilirating feeling that such exhibitionism creates. In this new format, Tribe is dimming the lights down on the exhibitionism of the text (you the members) by brightening everything up to a torturous level and removing all contrast. Everything as a result is now exhibited equally -- except for the ads.

The market is still participatory and as such, will bring in a new audience to post and watch the response but here is where the dividing line will be between old tribe members and new ones.

New tribe members will hook up and buy because they have no other choice. This is the prototype for 'all' new chat room formats because it is a 'smart' way to sell ads and clickthroughs. Expect similar changes across the board from Friendster to Orkut as a result.

Old tribe members will learn from this experience and their protests and these threads (including this one) that participation doesn't necessarily mean making a difference or getting to the truth at the heart of an argument. Their participation will still be there but it will drop off. Resistance will become more evenly toned, and the brightness of the thoughts expressed will be dimmed not only in color and contrast; but in taste and philosophy.

The gambit is this . . . if there are more looks at the ads then the strategy wins. If there are less looks due to customers eyes rebelling against the design, then it will fail. Less looks are actually incorporated into the model and probably was the only thing gauged during the beta test.

In this case, less logins probably equaled the same number of looks at the ads so Tribe Inc proceeded with the change (despite 90% disapproval from members)

Again, this is not to detract from the arguments against the wording of the new TOU or community flagging. The changes were not made with the participant in threads or the audience in mind. The only reason the changes were made was to sell more ads.

So in conclusion, yes the new format of tribe sucks and it sucks for all the design flaws listed above. But to clarify beyond just insult to the designers, it's the reasoning behind the change that sucks beyond all measure.
Sat, January 21, 2006 - 3:48 PM - permalink - 0 Comments