On July 18th, 2008 I embarked on a social media experiment: The Embodiment and Anthropomorphication of a Public Space. This three week experiment had some ups and downs, garnered a bit of attention, and prompted a new type of tweeting. Here's a bit of backstory...
Photo by Michael C. W. Murphy
Snuggled tight in the center of Philadelphia is Rittenhouse Square. It's a public park, one city block in size and is easily the most visited of the city's green spaces.
On a recent visit, I started paying attention to the large percentage of people by themselves. While some of these park dwellers were just passing through, a large percentage were reading, eating, or playing music solo. Thinking about this made the park seem less of a hub for community... Instead it started to feel transient; filled yet empty.
As usual, I was about to Twitter [?] my location... I wanted to write that I was @rittenhouse, but realized this profile didn't exist. Quickly the pieces seemed to fall into place.
After a few brief discussions with some close friends over the parameters of this project, I set up the Rittenhouse Twitter. And sent out my first few messages:
Photo Credit: Philebrity.comAfter following a few locals, my numbers started to grow. Within the first week nearly 300 people started following and interacting with "Ritt."
Concerned with the limited scope Twitter might be able to attract considering how new it is, I set up a Facebook page for the park. This too took off very quickly, and attracted many users not on twitter. Thanks to the social graph, the page continues to grow, with nearly 20 new members each day. 
Analytics of New Fans to the Rittenhouse Facebook Page
Setting Goals
One primary goal was to fight that adage shared by grandmothers all over... the internet (and technology) isolates and separates. So, step one was to see how this sort of technology, combined with the brand recognition of Rittenhouse Square could help to bring people together. First, I asked people to fill "me" with photos. Even with the limited number of people at that time, I found that there were roughly 25 photos uploaded to the Facebook page, a fairly high participation rate I think given the infancy of this project.
Next, and perhaps more difficult: I wanted to actually bring people together. I figured one of the most efficient ways to do this was through a gathering in the park. A potluck seemed to be a great way to do so. So, I set the date and started to tweet. It was time to push hard to try and garner more attention.
The Media
Shortly after my first tweet, Philadelphia's satirical news blog
Philebrity picked up the
story. Soon after I was contacted by the Philadelphia Inquirer who too wrote about this experiment, publishing a
story in the Sunday Inquirer. Major boosts in participation was seen around the release of these articles.
The Potluck
Photo Credit: J Tannenwald from FlickrAfter tweeting about the event for a while, the day finally came for the potluck. When it was all said and done, there were around 15 people that showed up for the event, which was described in a follow up
article by Philebrity.
The number of people that attended translates to approximately 1 in every 30 followers / fans. And while I would have loved 100% participation, I'm quite happy with the outcome given the project was only two weeks old and creepily anonymous.
In Conclusion / What's Next
Overall I think that the Rittenhouse Facebook / Twitter experiment went well. Given the scope, time, and money ($0) it attracted a good amount of attention, and hopefully made some feel more connected.
To me, this just goes to show that when when you converse rather than just broadcast, and when your service is interesting or valuable to your audience, they will participate. Sure, we only tapped into a TINY percentage of those in the park, but there's still room for growth, and as we've discussed... participation is on the rise! So, who knows where this will be next year.
What's next for @rittenhouse? Well, being anonymous was always a concern with this project. I'm all for transparency on the net, but no one wants to know there's a short guy in the Mickey Mouse suit. So, I worked to keep my involvement fairly hush hush, accordingly I'll be passing the account over to a new anonymous author in the next few days as I desperately want to go back to just being @danieldelaney. Interested? Let me know. Variations on a Theme
It's been great to see how the community embraced the Rittenhouse twitter. But what's even more exciting is to see how others are using this service to embody and draw attention to new places. Since twittering I saw a @southphilly, @clarkpark, and @philachinatown spring up, plus a number of local businesses have used (or were using) it such as @natmechanics and @pumpkinmarket.
So, what do you think? How could you make this project better? What should the future hold for @rittenhouse and what do you think about this new type of anthropomorphic micro-blogging? Also, have a public space that you love? Why not try and give it an online persona! If you're successful, tell us how and why!
-Ritt
Annie Heckenberger (@anniemal) a Philadelphia based social media strategist and all around awesome gal, suggested I post a bit about some key learnings which came from this experiment. So, here goes:
Key Learnings
Anonymity
The topic of anonymity was something I really had trouble with when starting this project, and of course became even more difficult when people from the Philadelphia Inquirer expressed interest in publishing an article about the project. The question at hand: Should the person behind the park be anonymous or transparent?While I'm a huge supporter of transparency in social media, it's important not to forget about context and audience for this project. I feel that stating the person behind an effort like this should have been transparent from the start is wrong. It goes without saying that anyone with half a brain understands that it's actually not a park sending out SMS messages, but did that keep people from participating? Survey says... No! In fact, I believe that the anonymity was the main reason people engaged with the park! As I mentioned in the main post, no one wants to go to Disney and watch Mickey Mouse putting on the costume, regardless of the fact that we know someone is behind the mask. So, with this project, it WAS the anonymity that created the allure and encouraged people to engage. And while there was a small percentage of people who chose not to engage, I feel that the reason for that came down to control issue... People want what they can't, want to know what they don't.
Was this Successful?
Well, you can't please all of the people all of the time. But personally, I'm excited by the ~1000 people that actively engaged, conversed, and spread word of Rittenhouse on Twitter & Facebook. Did it gain some negative attention? Sure did! As mentioned above, one of my favorite blogs
Philebrity dug into the project a bit saying that the potluck was awkward. And... as a result... more followers! The day that article came out, a heap of new people started engaging. So, of course Philebrity would rip into it, if they didn't rip into things, they wouldn't have readers! Duh.
So, in my view, this was a complete win! I'm SO THANKFUL to the hundreds of people who engaged like children waiting up for Santa, and played pretend with me. It was a really great time!
What's next for @Rittenhouse?
Well, as I mentioned in the first post, the main goal for the project was to build community... something it successfully did, and has continued to accrue. One suggestion was to pass it along to the Rittenhouse Row group for their use, another thought was to pass it along to an anonymous *tweeter.*
Again, this is something I'll have to explore. By passing along access to the Rittenhouse Row Group the intent, tonality, and community might change drastically! As history shows, people truly enjoyed engaging with the park as if it were real; able to answer. I've already disheartened a number of people by reveling myself, passing it along to a group with different intent seems like more of a violation! It'd be like passing along a mailing list for different intent.
But I think it's best to leave that up to the people. I encourage you to discuss whether you'd enjoy having the mystery of your anthropomorphic park or instead having it go to a wonderful group, knowing that the tonality and intent might change.
Thank you so much!
Again, I need to send a big THANK YOU to everyone who helped make this project a success! Thanks for playing pretend for a while. :) Hopefully, we can reengage again soon.
Monday, August 11, 2008 at 01:29PM ;)
Photo Credit: Philebrity.comAfter following a few locals, my numbers started to grow. Within the first week nearly 300 people started following and interacting with "Ritt." ;)
Analytics of New Fans to the Rittenhouse Facebook Page
Daniel Delaney
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Source: Rittenhouse Square Blog
Reader Comments (10)
I actually rather enjoyed not knowing who was under the grass so to speak. It made it interesting to think about who is watching you while you go about your normal day just enjoying a sunny spot in the park for one reason or another. Will @Ritt twitter about how hot I looked, or mistake me for a homeless person because I woke up late? I hope you continue to maintain the persona even if you are out now :)
Hey, pass some @rittenhouse followers to http://twitter.com/clarkpark
Hi Daniel: In this case study, you should really include a section on "key learnings" which includes positive *and* negative feedback that your experiment generated (including the Philebrity piece, which was negative) as a direct result of nondisclosure (of your identity) and lack of transparency, two critical components to a successful social media campaign. What's disappointing in your experiment is that you had an opportunity to generate/create something positive in the community but your lack of best practices and transparency stripped this effort of any and all credibility. And as we hear time and time again from the social media community, credibility (with content) is king. And now what will become of Rittenhouse? Did you create community as an "experiment" just to abandon it after 3 weeks? Or, will you pass it on the Rittenhouse Row group, people dedicated to cultivating growth in the community, and show them how to use the twitter account to enhance their efforts for the area? I hope you'll use your powers for good;)
Rittenhouse Square is bigger than one city block, it's more like 4 City blocks. I am saddened by your disclosure, it's the worse thing since finding out about Santa Claus, but not as bad as finding out that John Edwards thinks with his dick.
Aww. I'm sorry to hear you're passing the torch, I really enjoyed your voice as Rittenhouse. Kudos to you for a well-done online social experiment.
Maryann
You may also want to read this blog entry, about someone "assuming" the identity of Exxon on Twitter, http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2008/08/01/how-janet-fooled-the-twittersphere-shes-the-voice-of-exxon-mobil/. Legal ramifications have yet to surface.
Disclosure, I created twitter.com/clarkpark in response to @rittenhouse I have been a patron of Clark Park since 1982 and merely want to share some of the great things through text, picture and soon video. No affiliation with any group.
Interesting experiment, Dan. There's a rich tradition of anthropomorphism in architecture (and by extension, urban space). One of the more dramatic examples is the Alhambra in Granada, Spain -- many of the calligraphic inscriptions on the surfaces of the palace are actually written from the voice of the architecture itself, as if the building was speaking to us.
The body has always been a symbolic structure for architecture, as well, whether Vitruvian man as proscribing ideal proportions for dimensional relationships, or the crucified body of Christ as plan for the Catholic church. Outside of the West, certain tribes in Africa construct homes with features specifically identified with parts of the body, depending on their functional and symbolic nature. Situated technology and your own social media experiments as Rittenhouse Square present another dimension in the projection of our own humanity onto architectural and urban spaces.
What I would like to see addressed next in a project like this is the political dimension of public space (and social relationships, for that matter). I'd also like to see you deal a bit more critically with notions of "participation" and "community." As a high profile public space in Philadelphia, Rittenhouse is a charged space. Consider the recent complaints by neighbors regarding homeless individuals' use of the park, or the temporary ban last summer of performing music. When you crack open the public space nut, you find a lot that needs unpacking.
Very good points Jeremy! Thanks for the comment.
I agree that I would have enjoyed exploring those topics. You're spot on in saying the park is a charged space. It's something I don't think I understood until I was entangled in the project, and is the issue which made 'focus' so difficult.
I feel there were some disconnects between the chosen medium and audience regarding potential for pressing debate... though there were a few moments when conversation occurred. Overall, I don't think my original tonality stimulated the type of engagement you or I might have liked. Of course, this provides incentive for a new iteration; a variation on the idea, which I hope someone runs with.
Hey, thanks for using my picture and not sourcing it!