AdJoke

The Attention War

2012-01-23T16:20:00.000-05:00

I recently finished The War for Late Night; a detailedaccount of the Jay Leno and Conan O’Brian late-night saga that consumed NBC (and anyone interested in late night)for the better part of a year. While the story has many fascinating parts, oneof the points that I found interesting was the importance of the Tonight Showtime slot.

Broadcast at 11:30PM for decades, the Tonight Show was asteady part in a troubled NBC line-up. Despite being one of the four powerfulnetworks, NBC is essentially run by their affiliate and regional networks. These local broadcasters have a lot ofsway and can decide which programming to air. They also all have 11PM newsbroadcasts that then feed viewers into the Tonight Show at 11:30.

Why is this important?

Because when NBC gave Conan the Tonight Show, they also gaveJay Leno a new show at 10PM on NBC. The result of that decision wascatastrophic for the affiliates. Leno bombed in the 10-11 slot and, as aresult, ratings for their local news broadcasts went off a cliff. Bad ratings resultin less ad dollars being fed into affiliate budgets. Less money, results inangry partners and a massive headache for NBC. Most people know the result –Leno goes back to 11:30, NBC tries to get Conan to 12:05 and chaos ensues.

This chaos was all because of the lead in shows and the timeslots. While Conan played well at a later hour to a niche audience, whenhe was brought forward things were different. Ratings dropped and he struggledbetween NBC execs and who said ‘make your showappeal to a broader target’ vs. those who wanted him to ‘continue to focus on his base of Conan fans’.

Today, many would argue, everything has changed. Timebecomes less important with PVR’s, the Internet and ‘view-whenever-you-want’ powerresults in users having the ability to watch what they want, when they want. It’sthe strength of content that draws a following, not just when it is broadcast.

This isn’t to say that TV viewing is declining because itisn’t – it’s increasing. So is our time spent in front of screens of all kinds –from mobile to PC, digital display to the traditional TV.

Enter the new YouTube. Fresh from a new site redesign, the platform also announced that they were investing $100 million for content creators to develop original programming for the site. Google asked a variety of professional creators to pitch their channel ideas for a chance to get some funding to make it happen. Top brands like Comedy Central, Demand Media and Lady GaGa have entered the mix and are creating new shows just for YouTube.

In a superb analysis for the New Yorker, John Seabrook writes about the team behind YouTube's transition and their desire to make programming more and more niche - to focus on passionate groups of users who want very specific types of content vs. mass programming that may have mass appeal, but comes at a high failure cost if it doesn't. Led by Robert Kyncl, team YouTube is focused on creating original content to drive up viewer numbers through the platform and - ultimately - drive advertising dollars from the traditional networks to the platform.

In his 2011 Entertainment Keynote at CES, Kyncl outlines his detailed strategy for YouTube over the next few years. By 2020, he believes that all channels on TV will be viewed over the internet (stat from CES 2011). Think about that. What was once a closed system, run by four networks, is rapidly becoming a platform that anyone will be able to broadcast to and reach an audience. Couple that stat with the reality that almost all TV's will be internet enabled in the near future and you can see that viewing over the digital space will quickly become the norm. So much so that Kycel believes that by 2015, 90% of all internet traffic will be for online video.

YouTube is positioned well to take over this space, however there is work to be done. Currently, the average time spent on the site per day is roughly 15 minutes per user. Contrast that with US TV viewing which is in the 4-5 hour average per day and you can see that there is work to be done.

This brings me back to the importance of time.

Despite the ability to watch what I want, when I want, there are still certain realities that I live with - I can't watch 2 hours of TV at work from my computer, I only go to YouTube to watch short clips (currently) and the shows that I really want to watch are normally ones that have been created by the likes of HBO, NBC and other major networks. Why? Because they are quality productions, are well written and have top talent.

Beyond that, the live nature of TV is still it's most compelling proposition. Shared, cultural events like X-Factor in the UK or the Super Bowl in the USA are always top rated broadcasts that most people feel they need to watch so that they can have something relevant to contribute at the water cooler the next day. YouTube is starting to get into this space with live streams and I suspect that they will make a play for more event-based content in the near future to start creating habits among niche viewers.

In the coming months, there are going to be new channels, YouTube shows and events. I'm excited to see which of these creators builds their own following and bypasses the traditional ways of becoming a show business success. I just hope I have enough time to watch them...after all, it is NFL playoff season.

Wide vs. Deep

2012-01-08T11:12:00.001-05:00

A few months ago, I finished Nicolas Carr's The Shallows; a novel about how our brains have changed with the emergence of the internet and many new technologies. Essentially, Carr argues that our minds have shifted from being able to concentrate on one topic (go deep into a book / thought / argument) to being able to work across a series of topics but not concentrate on a specific one (wide range of surface-level knowledge). Through a series of examples, Carr makes this point over and over - we are wide thinkers now, not deep ones.

With 2012 now here and the world coming up with thousands of different resolutions, this wide vs. deep thought got me thinking about my own behavior. As a planner who loves digital, I find that I have a continual need to try every service, social network, application and experience that comes across from my Twitter stream, Zite feed, RSS feed or colleague who has found something worth sending a mass email about. In the ongoing rush to 'stay ahead of the game' and never be caught out in a meeting not hearing or using a specific type of technology, I'm always signing up, starting a profile and checking out the latest things. I really enjoy doing this but it takes up a lot of time and, in all honesty, 90% of these services don't really add much to my work life, let alone my own. This exploration takes a lot of time as well, most notably because the justification to try a new service usually comes at the expense of thinking more about a specific topic.

Recent example:

In one of my usual Sunday Starbucks work sessions trying to write a presentation, I take a 5-minute break to check Twitter. An hour and a half later, I have an Empire Avenue account and I'm reading everything Scoble has to say about it. How many times have I used Empire Avenue since? None (although I do get the weekly emails telling me that my 'share' price continues to look like RIM's).

When I look at my own digital life and the specific areas that I want to spend more time on, it is equally as fragmented. There is all the personal stuff (email, Facebook, Google, Calendar, etc) and all the content stuff (blog, Tumblr, book review site, film reviews, etc) and everything just seems - well - shallow. Hence the lack of AdJoke posting during 2011 - while work is busy, my 'digital time' has been fragmented more than ever in 2011 and my deeper level desires have been surprised.

So for 2012 I'm going to focus on a few deep areas vs. start 100 things that never really take off. The list is currently being prioritized but it should be pretty simple - Ads. Books. Films. Nothing to 'announce' as of yet but it's coming. A few new projects. A few things 'killed'. All in all, a priority to get out of the shallow-end in 2012.

Breaking through our Filter Bubbles

2011-10-04T16:46:00.006-04:00

For the last month, Fox News has been my default landing page. To those that know me, this may come as a surprise - especially for a Daily Show, Guardian, latte-sipping person like myself. And especially as someone who truly hates Bill O'Reilly.

I made this change for a problem that I've noticed in the last year - my internet life is lived within a pre-defined, personalized bubble. The systems that I use to view content - from Facebook to Google, Twitter to The Globe and Mail - have been customized to my previous click behaviors and changed based on links I find most interesting. In an Amazon 'if you like this, you'll like that' way, my streams have become so personalized that I'm predictable. If I could really see who 'my' algorithm thought I was, it would probably be as simple as my current Twitter description.

This phenomenon is not restricted to me and it is not new.

In the novel The Big Sort, Bill Bishop provides an in depth analysis into the physical redistribution that has been occurring in the US for the last 30 years. Because mobility is much easier, people are choosing to live in communities with people like themselves. Democrats want to live with other Democrates, and the same goes for Republicans. A look at constituency Presidential data shows that the swings are getting larger every year, not smaller. This physical distribution has meant that America is divided and that each side cannot relate to the other - someone who voted for Obama can't understand why another would vote for Palin and vice-versa.

Like these bubble-communities, the same process is occurs everyday on the web. Every site tries to tailor itself to each users - their interests, their past histories and the actions that help them learn a bit more about what content they should be serving.

Google is the dominant example here. Before 2009, search results were relatively consistent for most users in a specific region. Today, they are almost individualized based on over 200 'signals' that Google tracks - your IP address, history, location and browser, among others.

Eli Pariser, author of The Filter Bubble, shows these large discrepancies in an excellent TED talk. His novel is an excellent - and scary - look at the effects of personalization on individual users and what could happen as these bubbles grow stronger over time.

Consider this - not only do a few corporations control mass amounts of user specific information (Google search, Gmail, Plus along with Facebook, Amazon and Apple), but other data companies actively scrape users when they are on these sites and then sell their information back to 3rd party networks. Ever noticed that certain sites follow you around the web through banner ads after you've visited? This isn't a coincidence.

The problem with personalization is that it's really attractive - I get shown content that I know I will like, everyday. I find a few topics that I think are interesting (Apple News, Ads, etc) and I self-program to hear more and more about them. Pariser describes this in relation to TV:

'In TV network circles, there's a name for the passive way with Americans make most of those viewing decisions: the theory of least objectionable programming. Researching TV viewers' behaviour in the 1970's pay-per-vie innovator Paul Klein noticed that people quit channel surfing far more quickly than one might suspect. During most of those thirty-six hours a week, the theory suggests, we're not looking for a program in particular. We're just looking to be unobjectionably entertained.'

I believe that this theory is consistent with web content consumption today. We find something we like and continue down the rabbit hole:

'Your identity shapes your media,' continues Parison, 'and your media then shapes what you believe and what you care about. You click on a link, which signals an interest in something, which means your more likely to see articles about that topic in the future, which in turn prime the topic for you. You become trapped in a you loop, and if your identity is misrepresented, strange patterns begin to emerge, like reverb from an amplifier.'

There are many issues with our bubbles and I think that the largest one is that what most users find interesting isn’t what is culturally important. Year after year, the most searched terms are usually celebrities and the most popular articles on sites like the Huffington post are random ‘fail’ videos or 100 Bikini photo slide shows. While this might be interesting content, it’s the junk food of content, not the healthy stuff (to steal another Pariser analogy).

So how to we break out of this stream?

For me, it was the act of reading the opposite source from one news site. It’s helped but it is only the beginning. In the coming weeks, I’ll be thinking about ways in which we can proactively broaden our streams to ensure that we have a mix of ‘junk’ content but also important bits as well. To ensure that we don't lose people with differing perspectives from our social streams – but that these different voices are equal to those with the links that we click on.

In any event, I highly recommend picking up The Big Sort and The Filter Bubble – especially for the digital evangelists out there.

Google+ is here. What now?

2011-07-18T10:01:00.003-04:00

We have recently published a deck on some of our thoughts using Google+ over the first three weeks. It's meant to be a thought starter and overview of how the service could evolve in the coming months and what marketers and brands should think about.

Written by myself and Damien Le Castrec. We'd love your feedback!

Google+ is here. What now?

View more presentations from Publicis Modem UK

The Dark Side of Social

2011-07-17T17:20:00.002-04:00

A series of services, like uSocial, are now selling fans, followers and views on the cheap. They prey on users and brands who are looking to build a base quickly and don’t really understand that social media is about engaging actual people, not random – and likely fake - accounts.

Brands know that they should focus on user engagement instead of how many ‘Likes’, followers or views their social community has. However, total membership is the metric that most people seem to think about first. Anyone who has ever said, ‘We just launched a Facebook page’ knows that the follow up question is always, ‘Cool. How many ‘Likes’ are you at?’ No matter what platform the brand is using, the Like/Follower/View count is the first stat that users and marketers think about.

That being said, the proposition of gaining 250,000 ‘highly targeted’ Facebook fans or 25,000 Twitter followers in a matter of days is an interesting one, especially when you consider the cost. Here are a few of the offers currently listed on uSocial:

250,000 Facebook Fans for $8,997.30 (and plans to get up to 20 million Facebook fans…quotes only available by direct contact)

100,000 Twitter followers for $3,479 in 365 days (get 25K in 90 days for a measly $869.75)

100,000 YouTube views costs $653.60 and takes between 150-200 days to deliver

These prices seem to good to be true (and they are). When you consider that many brands use the $1/fan metric through traditional Facebook advertising, you can see why some are jumping at prices less than $0.04/fan.

The problem, that anyone who has actually built a community knows, is that social media doesn’t work this way. Unlike link farms of the early 2000s that were more of a ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’ set up, people don’t just follow, view or ‘Like’ specific accounts at random (even if they are being paid $0.04 for it). Accounts need to give people a proposition that shows users why they are worth following. They need to continually provide content that matches this proposition and keeps users interested, active and engaged over time.

But there is a reason these services exist – because people use them. And I suspect that many ‘social media experts’ who are struggling to find ways to be credible, due to lack of actual brand experience, figure that boosting their follower count for a couple hundred dollars is the best way to jump to the top of the 'guru' heap.

Just remember that the next time someone talks about how successful their social community is in terms of Likes, followers or views, there might be a simple answer – they were bought. Not earned.

Facebook Ads + Your Friends = Better Performance

2011-05-22T16:47:00.002-04:00

Article first published as Facebook Ads + Your Friends = Better Performance on Technorati.

If you've ever advertised on Facebook before, you have probably been impressed with the ability to target users based on their age, location, interests and relationship status. Unlike many traditional display campaigns, Facebook lets you hyper-target and focus your ads on the people you want to most.

The challenge that many advertisers have seen to this point, though, is that Facebook ads have typically performed exactly like normal display units - they have low click through rates and are not driving the metrics that many advertisers hope for.

Recently, Facebook re-launched the Sponsored Story ad units. These seven units allow advertisers to leverage user actions (i.e. checking into a Starbucks) and target their ad to the friends of that user (i.e. Show that 'Sam has just checked into Starbucks' under a Starbucks execution).

Early testing of these units by a series of ad networks have shown a 46% increase in CTR and an 18% lower cost per fan. These metrics are certainly positive for advertisers, however they should have been expected. Why?

People who use Facebook do so for a simple reason - they want to connect with their friends and see what they've been up to. Our attention is drawn to the Stream and we all scan through the real-time stories, photo uploads, status updates and check ins that are happening within our network. In the past, Facebook has simply placed ad units beside the Stream or jammed them into the stream as a separate update. But if you had the choice to click on a random ad or a link that one of your friends had posted, which would you choose? Friends will always be more engaging than ads.

And Facebook knows this. The key for the site is to move closer to a world where friend updates and brands are more closely associated with one another. The site will always keep a 'users-first' mindset, but the Sponsored Stories are a way for Facebook to show advertisers that they are serious about improving performance.

Advertisers are excited about the early results from Sponsored stories. Attaching themselves to real content makes engagement more likely. The challenge for Facebook is that many users may not want to have their updates repackaged and sold to brands without their knowledge or consent.

Does Your Tweeting Need a Buffer?

2011-05-10T04:38:00.003-04:00

Article first published as Does Your Tweeting Need A Buffer? on Technorati.

Have you heard about Buffer? Buffer is an application that makes tweeting easier. If you’ve used apps like CoTweet or Hootsuite, you’re used to publishing services that allow you to schedule Tweets to be posted on different days and at different times.

Buffer is different, though, in a few important ways. For starters, it gives users a Chrome extension (or Firefox bookmark add on) that allows users to save links that the find while surfing to Tweet then or at a later time. As a browser who views hundreds of pages in a week, I like the idea of simplifying my tweeting process and not having to open Twitter to post a link.

The second is that the tweets are randomly scheduled so that your followers don’t get overly annoyed with your super-sharing. When you install Buffer, it sets four random times and then allocates your Tweets over them. Users can set them and tailor them as they wish.

And the third is a smaller feature that suggests Tweets that you might want to post. The engine currently populates your stream with inspirational quotes from the likes of Steve Jobs.

There are also nice options to add multiple accounts, some good analytics and Bit.ly incorporation. In my first 24 hours using the application, it’s been incredibly simple, intuitive and helpful.

Joel Gascoigne, one of the founders, took a few minutes to answer five of my questions about Buffer after using it for 24 hours. Here are his responses:

In 140 characters or less, why should a Twitter user start using Buffer?
'With Buffer, you can Tweet more without annoying your followers. Add great content you find to Buffer and we share it on an ideal schedule.'

Buffer makes it incredibly easy to store, schedule and share Tweets and unlike other publishing platforms (CoTweet as an example), the scheduling has been taken care of with random times to Tweet. Are these times based on data that you've collected (i.e. optimized based on best time to Tweet) or simply random?
'Our current times are based on data we've researched, with an element of our own experiences. What matters most to us is to leave our users in control. We therefore keep it is super simple for them to go ahead and adjust the timing to their needs.'

Suggest a Tweet is an interesting feature. Right now it currently provides the user with great quotes. How do you see this evolving in the future?
'We're delighted that many people are finding the quotes interesting and are Tweeting them. What we are really excited about is that these suggestions are now submitted by our users. So it is a crowdsourced project, and has been a great way to involve our community. We plan to push this further and build more tools for our community to help us shape the product.'

Describe the thinking behind your Pro and Premium accounts. For example, you can have multiple team members. Can these members be categorized and given different publishing privileges?
'The main reason people upgrade is for extra Tweets in their Buffer, or for the ability to manage multiple Twitter accounts. Additionally, they can allow team members to help them keep the Buffer topped up. Currently we've kept it simple, but there is definitely potential for different publishing privileges and ways to measure the impact each team member has had on the quality and quantity of Tweets published.'

Global brands are setting up Twitter streams en mass and experimenting with a slew of publishing platforms. Why should community managers and marketers consider using Buffer for their accounts? Are any brands using the service right now?
'We aim to be more than just a tool, and we're always delighted to talk to brands and help them succeed with their efforts on Twitter. We have many community managers using Buffer as a tool in their arsenal to manage Twitter. One community manager said the reason she chose is that Buffer is "The human way to schedule tweets to your community. My new favorite tool for myself and my clients." We have a number of medium sized brands using Buffer and we're reaching more brands each and every day.'

The potential for the twitter suggestion feature for brands is huge. Like Twitter promoted tweets, Buffer could allow brands to insert specific suggestions or links so that users can find content and Tweets to talk about when they're stuck.

Simply put, Buffer is worth a download. Test it out and tweet easier.

Marketing for Payday

2011-04-28T09:56:00.008-04:00

I just read an interesting comment this week from the CEO of Wallmart, Mike Duke. According to Duke, “Purchases are really dropping off by the end of the month even more than last year.” What he's referring to here is that Wallmart shoppers often are paid at the beginning of the month and stock up on goods then. As a result, Wallmart is able to track the impact of sales that happen immediately after payday and they've seen that sales, as a whole, have consistently declined near the back half of a month.

This might seem like an obvious point - people spend more immediately after they've been paid - but it's one that I suspect is being ignored by many marketers. Time based ad serving is something that a number of companies have been experimenting with over the last few years.

The most memorable one that I've seen was for Wendy's on ESPN. From 12-2PM on Friday's, the company bought a home-page takeover and filled it with product shots of Spicy Chickens and Baconaters. Why was the perfect? Because most people who are at work at that time (at least in Canada), had a big night out and are incredibly hung over. Rationally, they want a greasy lunch to feel better. Emotionally, they want to spoil themselves for making it through another work week. Every Friday (for the 4-8 weeks the ad ran), I couldn't stop thinking about going to Wendy's. Was it because of the well-timed ads? Maybe.

But back to payday timing.

Most payrolls work on cycles. Bi-weekly or once a month. We can predict these cycles and can target based on them. A well served ad on pay day has a chance of impacting and driving sale more than one at the end of the month.

So when does your target get paid? And what will they splurge on right after the deposit goes into their account?

Expectation + Experience = Value in Digital

2011-04-16T09:49:00.005-04:00

What is 'value to the user' and how would you define it?

It's something that a lot of digital people talk about but few have actually explored a full definition of what 'value' is. The most common way that I hear value defined is in rational, economic terms - value is the rational exchange of something (money typically) for a product. I pay $5 for a video rental on iTunes because then I get to watch the movie that I missed in the theaters.

Yet that example doesn't capture the whole 'value' of that transaction - the film that I watch helps me get into social conversations that might be happening about that film. It gives me the opportunity to participate, to show that I'm interested in the same things and too relate. Said another way, it helps to shape my social identity (albeit in a small way) and that value exchange is part of the choice as to why I'm willing to part with $5.

So how to we define value when it comes to a 'digital' experience like a website, Facebook page or mobile application? I think that Suzan Boztepe's paper, 'User Value: Competing Theories and Models' provides an excellent framework to assess value in the digital world. After reading through it, I think the process for understanding digital value can be broadly categorized in a three part framework:

Pre-Experience Expectations: any digital experience, just like any pre-product purchase, comes with a pre-existing set of expectations. Take an application. Before you tried out Angry Birds, you probably heard about it from a friend or one of the thousands of tech media sites that is obsessed with it. You heard that it was addictive, simple to learn and the top game for the iPhone. So you decide to try it out. You go to the App Store. You find Angry Birds and see a few screenshots. You read a few of the reviews. After seeing that they align with your friends (and everything else you've read), you decide to download the app. Before you've even played it once, you expect it to be simple, fun and addictive. This creates a value-expectation that needs to be considered prior to playing. As you've probably guessed, we can apply these pre-experience expectations to anything - a website (how do you find it in the first place? What did the banners say? The search terms? The Meta?), a Facebook page (what friends joined, why did they become a part of it? Etc).

The Experience Itself: So now you've got Angry Birds. And you start to play. It only takes a minute to figure out the rules, the different types of birds and before you know it, everything you've heard about the game you are actually experiencing. It's fun. It's simple and your friends, and the reviews, are right. It's a winner. The value of the game (to this point) is that it gives you a break and lets you have some fun. It's emotional and, of course, through game dynamics helps to take you on a journey that keeps you engaged for the long term. If you think about it, shopping on Amazon.com is similar. You go there because you know that it has the biggest selection of products on the web but once you arrive, you not only find exactly what you were looking for but get additional value (through reviews, low pricing and 'if you like this, you'll like that') recommendations that the experience as a whole has long term value. Services like Open Table or Kayak offer similar benefits. Factual utility turns into positive emotional responses. (I think that this is the most important part of the value creation process and I'm sure that most website designers / agency creatives would agree with me).

Post-Experience (and returns): At some point, you have to stop playing Angry Birds. You go back to work, the Tube ride ends and you have to get back to real life for a few hours. Eventually you return and keep playing. And you do this, again and again, until (at least for me), you find a new shiny app that dominated your attention for a few weeks. Like the movie rental example, my post-Angry Birds experience translates into value because I can tell people about how I enjoy the game, I can relate to those who have been playing for longer than I have (finally) and I can recommend / talk about it to people who haven't played before (for an early adopter, this part of the value equation is likely the most powerful).

Looking at digital value as a 3 part equation (pre, during and post experience) helps to focus strategies on the key moments that create it. I think that too often we focus on the experience itself vs. how the pre-experience expectations are set or the post experience results. We all want people to only spend time on our sites or in our apps but the reality is it doesn't work like that.

Value can be temporary (a great YouTube clip) or long term (a continual return to your Facebook news stream) but in order to create it, you have to first understand what type of value you are looking to develop. More specifically, value could be utility (quality, conveniences), social significance (identity, prestige) and emotional (fun, nostalgic). What type of value are you hoping people get out of what you've made?

Finding a niche

2011-04-12T15:57:00.002-04:00

I had an interesting discussion today with one of our search experts. It started with some personal advice about a new website I'm starting (more to come). I wanted to be sure that I had every SEO fundamental in place and soon realized that I needed to reconsider the domain to ensure that it was search friendly in places other than Canada.

The discussion quickly evolved to affiliate programs and the power of them for someone with a bit of knowledge about search. I recently joined the Amazon Affiliate program and was very impressed with the simplicity of the process - simply sign in, find links, insert them into your site and if someone makes a purchase from your site (as a referral), you get a percentage of the revenue (in this case 4% with an upward moving scale based on sales). It's incredibly simple to implement and if you're site starts to gain any amount of traffic, the money can (albeit slowly) start to flow in.

But how do you find the right terms? And how do you decide what categories to focus on?

I started from a content-creator perspective. I had an idea about a new blog and worked from the content-type out. Many search experts, though, start from the keyword out. Using the Google Keyword tool, they look for 'attractive terms' (3-14K monthly searches) and then try to buy the .com domain for that term. Once it's purchased they join a relevant set of affiliate's programs, create a site with a few dozen pages and wait for the clicks to come in.

Chances are you've been to a link-baiting site before. It typically looks awful, is full of Google ads and doesn't answer your search query. Link baiting, like email scams, is a game of numbers. Get enough volume and any user will respond. If the volumes are high enough, those responses can generate real cash from affiliates.

The problem is, the quality of the experience is poor. And, as a result, the web gets polluted. Especially with public companies like Demand Media generating mass volumes of content specifically designed to answer medium volume search queries.

But still, what interested me is starting the content generation process from the pre-existing demand vs the passion of creation. For those people, the content is a means to an end - an answer that leads to a referral. For content creators, it is the attraction and the desire to be heard, to create something that people will - eventually - want to search for.

The key is to remember that the web is a spectrum. From one search query to thousands of blog posts, success not only depends on the quality of content produced but also the demand for it once it has been published. Using free tools (like the Google Keyword Tool) help to understand pre-existing demand for a content type is a great step for any content creator looking to find their niche.

Mapping Engagement in the Home

2011-03-13T18:23:00.002-04:00

Deb Roy, an MIT researcher, recently gave a fantastic TED talk about his sons speech development. Roy installed video cameras in every room of his house and recorded - for over five and a half years - every movement, word and step his son took. During his TED talk, he shows how his son goes from 'Gaga' to 'Water' over the course of a year. Take a quick watch here:

What I found most interesting about this talk, though, was how the system mapped television content to the discussions that happened in the living room. In one excellent scene, we see how some normal TV shows - Jersey Shore, an NBA game, Grey's Anatomy, etc - not only drive the conversations that occur in the physical space but also influence the words that a child learns. While this might not seem surprising, the technology used to map this insight truly is.

We all know that popular shows drive conversations not only in the home, but at work the next day, in the pubs and other spaces we visit. Watching Roy actually map these conversations - from the medium to the physical space - allows us to actually see the engagement rates, by program, over the course of 5 years.

If we all had Roy's camera system, media companies could finally find a new metric and kill the GRP.

In digital, you can do almost anything. Don't.

2011-02-23T16:08:00.004-05:00

There are limitless opportunities in the digital world. From creating a new Facebook experience to improving organic search rankings, developing an Android application to testing out the latest social game theories, for many brands - anything is possible.

In the 'old days' (i.e. 2 years ago), organisations with separate teams would create, test and trial new tactics across the digital space. If you think about the rise of the web in the late 90's, this started with experimenting with websites (which were mostly recreations of corporate brochures) and rapidly grew into microsites, bespoke email marketing programs and display banners for little campaigns. Then came Search, the social web and now a plethora of new options - location-based services, payment solutions, gaming partnerships, the works.

For marketers, the digital world isn't getting better with time - it's becoming more confusing. Right when you start to understand microsites (and why not to create them), the next 'hot' trend emerges. Once you do a well-thought out test, another smarter, faster, cheaper and better technology has emerged.

Part of this confusion is because of the pace of innovation. Things improve, fast. Brands like Google and Facebook evolve and give us better opportunities to engage a select group of people. Formats change. Pages get updated. And we have to adapt.

But the other part of the confusion is because of us. Every agency, specialist and consultant can talk about a 'forgotten' area of the digital space. Doing a great job with campaign creative but not thinking about search strategy? Implemented conversation monitoring but not game theory? Created a Facebook page but not a YouTube channel? And on.

There is always something more. Always a new trend to chase. But the basics are what matter first. And, most often, they are overlooked. More and more, I think we need to focus on the fundamentals of digital. The building blocks of a user experience along the journey we are hoping to take them on.

How to people find your experience? Why would they spend more than 2 seconds there and not hit the back button or close the tab? What content would they want to share? Why would they opt-in?

Digital planning is like being an architect. Someone who knows the basics of all the tools required to create something great. Someone who puts together a strong foundation, based on a blueprint, that specific experts can build from over time.

Materials change. Techniques come and go. Technology evolves.

But before you get caught up with the most recent Mashable post, make sure the fundamentals are in place.

This is what great advertising looks like

2011-02-14T16:25:00.004-05:00

I know I'm about 4 months behind on this campaign but it just started airing in the UK (I think). Disney, inspired by a great video (posted below), has created a series of TV spots that showcase kids being told by their parents that they are going to Disney Land (World / Paris, etc). The campaign, called Let the Memories Begin, features real families and their home footage of their Disney experience.

What I love about this campaign is that it's built off a great, simple insight: if you've been to Disney World, you have a great memory of it. And if you're a parent, there is no better way to feel like the best Dad in the world than by taking your kids to Disney.

The campaign seems to have started with a video on YouTube (below):

I'd bet that the second the client / agency saw this video, they knew they had a campaign. It would have been easy to simply air this spot (which they did), but they also made a YouTube channel the heart of the campaign.

The channel itself is very low key but the idea is simple: upload your Disney memories and kid reactions and they could be in the next spot.

I don't have kids but I went to Disney as one and hadn't thought about it in a long time until I watched this spot:

Yes, it's sentimental. Yes, it's cheesy. And yes, it doesn't push the digital envelope with innovative ways to engage an audience. But if you see this and you've been to Disney and have kids, you're thinking about going there. I guarantee it.

Remove Friction, Add Value

2011-01-31T16:06:00.004-05:00

Recently I read a great piece in GQ called The Viral Me by Devon Freeman. The article takes a look at a non-digital obsessed journalists quest into social media - from Facebook to Blippy, Twitter to Quora - it's a great look at what drives people to use these services. More importantly, it looks at the powerful VC's and incubators who take ideas from smart, young, enterpenuers and turn them into massive companies.

Brian Pokorny, an angel-investor, is interviewed in the later part of the article and discusses how he evaluates 'social' companies. The core of his thinking is about services that reduce 'Friction' to as low as possible (in other words, make the service as easy to use as possible and it will scale quickly - resulting in viral growh and potentially major revenues). Freeman describes it as:

'Friction is what you don't want. Friction is what keeps people from signing up for your site or downloading your app. Because it's too expensive, because it's too embarrassing, because it's too difficult, because it's difficult at all. The Internet has been working to reduce friction. To make everything easier to use, easier to sign up for, easier to navigate, cheap, free, freer than free. In a perfect world, there'd be friction if someone didn't sign up for your thingy. Again, FB has it right: It's frictive to not have an FB account; just ask anyone who has to explain six times a day why he doesn't have one.'

When you think about different types of friction on the web, there are many - it takes time to register a profile, to validate an email address, to go through steps. But beyond that, it takes time to think of a photo to upload to Facebook or even a 140 character Tweet to write. That seems almost insane (that a Tweet would be considered Friction) but it is. That's why sites like DailyBooth are on the rise (more on this below).

When you think about this idea, it makes complete sense. The more friction (or steps) that you make me go through, the less chance you have of making me complete the journey. When you apply this to a site journey or Facebook application, you quickly see that every click results in a drop off - somewhere between 10-20% depending on the user ask. Applied to 'rich' experiences that ask the users to click 8-12 times and you've got a fraction of the people who made it to the landing page in the first place (which is a fraction of those who you might have been running ads against). This friction counts and hurts many of the brand experiences out there.

The second theory of Brian's is a perfect additon to Friction - with any experience, the user must get more out of it than they put in. So simple.

But think about it applied to photo-upload contests (as one, frequently-used example). We ask users to go through the app, register, think of a photo that applies to the theme of the contest, upload and then beg for votes. If they're lucky, they will look at the other photo's that users have uploaded and be entertained. But in reality, they won't. They'll just canvass votes or - more commonly - forget about the experience.

Reducing friction and adding value are buzzwords of the digital world. But just because everyone talks about them doesn't mean that they are actually being applied to experiences.

As an aside, I've started using a few sites mentioned in the article, specifically:

Dailybooth: One of the easiest experiences I've had. Create a profile, take a picture of yourself. Upload. People comment. Repeat. Hugely popular among mobile users. It's like a mix of Flickr and Twitter but easier to use than both.
Blippy: It was scary to give my iTunes password, Gmail and Credit Details, but I'm intersted to see how live, social tracking of my purchases changes my behaviour. I figure I'll either delete the account in a few days or be obsessed for the year.

Test them out if you've got a sec.

Oh the irony

2011-01-24T16:42:00.003-05:00

Want to go to the 'cutting edge of tech innovation?' Head to CES. Here's something interesting though. Among the LG's, Samsung's, RIM's and Motorola's, you'll find the gaming section. And in the gaming section, you'll find this:

That's right. A gaming chair. Also known as a 'stay single' chair. Functions include:

2 CD racks (seriously?)
2 can holders (for your pops most likely as 12 year olds can rarely find someone to buy beer)
Guitar Hero Guitar Strap on the back
Game pouch
Various pouches to store additional items (HDMI cables, why not?! Drumsticks? Of Course?!)

CES has thousands of people walk though it. You play with every gadget imaginable. Things that haven't hit the market and won't for months. But any vendor can get into CES - even ones who sew pockets to an Ikea chair and fill them with XBox games. Amazing.

11 Stats from CES

2011-01-19T16:48:00.006-05:00

Remember all the posts I promised about CES right when I got there? I know, I lied. I'm sorry. Just a whirlwind. Here, though, are a few stats that I heard at the various sessions and booths at the conference (sorry, can't remember the names of most people):

Samsung's Application Store has over 105 million downloads (from VP Innovation at Samsung on a panel) This shocked me. With the emergence of Smart TV's, the proliferation of applications will continue to grow.
Habbo Hotel has 9 million active monthly teens on the site and over 200 million registered characters (Head of Habbo New Biz)
GameStop, the largest bricks and mortar game retailer in the world, CEO said that 50% of their game revenue in 2010 was for PS2 games - a system that hasn't been made in several years (a reminder for all of us on the innovation curve that it takes a lot of time for the early majority to adopt new technologies)
Netflix video streaming accounts for 20% of all streaming in the US (CNet)
The average American TV viewer watches over 34 hours of TV a week (Zander, CBS)
To that end, the average US TV viewer spends over 150 hours a month watching TV and only 3 hours a month on online video (Mindshare)
There are over 60 million PlayStation Network users (Sony)
Production costs for a Hollywood-quality TV drama are approximately $2 million per hour episode (Zander, CBS speaking about TV quality vs. web)
98% of all rich media ads are created in Flash (Adobe)
80 different tablets were 'launched' at CES (launched in quotations as only a small percentage of these will actually make it to the market)
iTunes is the 2nd most popular application on Windows (unverified)

And one of my favourite quotes from the show from a guy in the audience at one of the sessions:

'There is no such thing as an unassailable technology position. The giants fall. Winners never stay.'

Interactive Display

2011-01-17T09:57:00.002-05:00

Loving this. So simple but cool. Nice to see someone use smart technology in a way that is easy for people to enjoy and doesn't ask them to change their behaviour!

Thanks to Alix for the link.

Interactive Display Window Concept from Gustaf Engström on Vimeo.

CES - Pre Show

2011-01-06T08:54:00.001-05:00

Happy New Year everyone.

I'm currently in Vegas attending CES 2011. The early reviews from the media day yesterday have all focused on convergence of technologies - from your TV to your car, everything will continue to be connected for the future. It seems like we've been hearing about convergence for a long time now and I'm interested to see how brands continue the story during the show.

Major areas that I've already noticed gaining coverage include:

1. 3D everything - every brand has launched something that is 3D, whether its a TV, camcorder or camera. This continues to be a major focus area for the show and all manufacturers are battling for the best, thinnest, clearest and most advanced 3D experience. While I think that 3D from a tech standpoint is cool, it's the content providers who need to start creating in the new tech. Only then will 3D become mass (and many people have a huge issue with the glasses, it seems)

2. Internet TV - from Google TV to Sony to LG, truly web-enabled TV's will become the standard this year. For me, the multitasking aspect of the experience will be critical. I currently watch TV with a iPad and laptop going in the living room. I need multiple screens and wouldn't ant one experience (ie. Watching Inception) to be hurt by another (Twitter notification in the screen).

3. Mobile - again, no surprise. 4G is getting a lot of press and so are the plethora of new tablets that are launching. This space is the most interesting to me because the mobile is by far the most important device that most people will have.

If you'd like me to check out any specific products or brands while I'm here or want me to ask any questions, please leave any in the comment section.

In any event, it should be an interesting show and I'll try to post regular updates.

Possibility is easy, Execution isn't

2010-12-15T17:05:00.003-05:00

Over the last few weeks, I've read Kevin Kelly's masterpiece, What Technology Wants. If you are at all interested in technology, the future, our past and where everything could be going, you've got to read this work. It's filled with enough insight to warrant a new blog (which I'm thinking about doing) but for now, I wanted to focus on one thought in it.

One of the early chapters deals with the idea that innovation is inevitable - there are examples throughout history that the same discoveries - the lightbulb, the camera, the telephone - were discovered independently by multiple inventors in the same time period. During this chapter, Kelly shows the Inverted Pyramid of Invention which polymath and serial inventor Danny Hillis describes in detail:

"There might be tens of thousands of people who conceive the possibility of the same invention at the same time. But less than one in ten of them imagines how it might be done. OF these who see how to do it, only one in ten will actually think through the practical details and specific solutions. Of these, only one in ten will actually get the design to work for very long. And finally, usually only one of all those many thousands with the idea will get the invention to stick in the culture."

When I read this example, I couldn't help but think of the agency creative process - starting with high level concepts (anything is possible!), selling the high level idea and then starting to work through the core details (well, not anything...), working through feedback towards a prototype (is this even doable?), banging out a half-functioning execution (at least we got it done!), launching and hoping that a mass of people will accept it (..they didn't, but it's not our fault!). And restarting the process again.

Those in digital know that execution is just as important as the creative concept itself. Anyone can think of the possibility of an aggregated content site that magically tailors content to any users desires without them asking anything, but few - other than Google - can actually build, execute and launch it.

More and more, a focus on finding the people who can generate an idea of how it works, outline the details required, build a prototype and enable adoption has become more critical.

Because most agencies are great at the 'Thought of Possibility'. We are creative, at the highest level, and can imagine great experiences. But moving down one level (let alone four) is a massive challenge - and one that if we don't answer, will leave us confined to the corners of a pub where we host nightly 'what if we did this?' conversations that quickly lead nowhere.

This isn't to suggest that creativity is not important. To quote Kelly in a later (unrelated but still relevant) passage:

'And because we cannot image it [a life without technology], it will never happen, because nothing has ever been created without being imagined first.'

Imagination is vital. It creates possibilities and ideas. But a possibility is not a prototype.

What do you think? How could we get better at taking a great possibility and distilling it through the Pyramid of Invention?

The Power of Imprinting: 80,300 Minutes

2010-12-01T17:59:00.005-05:00

A few weeks ago, I finished Dan Ariely's excellent book Predictibly Irrational. A number of ideas and posts will come from this great book but one that jumped out at me was the idea of imprinting.

The wikipedia definition of imprinting is as follows:

'Imprinting is the term used in psychology and ethology to describe any kind of phase-sensitive learning (learning occurring at a particular age or a particular life stage) that is rapid and apparently independent of the consequences of behaviour. It was first used to describe situations in which an animal or person learns the characteristics of some stimulus, which is therefore said to be "imprinted" onto the subject.'

The way that Ariely describes this is through a very simple example - going to Starbucks for the first time.

For many people (myself included), going to Starbucks 4-6 times a week is a routine. But why is this the case?

To be honest, I don't remember the first time I went into a Starbucks and I don't remember what I ordered. But I do know that when I first when into the coffee shop, my rational thought pattern when something like this:

A. I'm thirsty for a coffee (or something)
B. This place is right on the corner
C. I know people who love it here
D. I'll try it out even though it seems over priced
E. If I don't like it, I'll stop going.

Trying out Starbucks - at that moment - wasn't a big deal to me. It was a one-off. But immediately after that experience, I now had an imprinted version of Starbucks (an expectation) that then led to a routine that has cost me thousands of dollars and lasted for year over 8 years. It was an experience that made me feel good (warm cup/good taste), comfortable (quick break before the day really starts) and prepared for success (start the day well and it will be a good one). That first experience led to a chain of events that not only changed my daily behavior (from no coffee each morning to 'must have or else')

Extend this concept to the web. The first time I created a Facebook profile I viewed it as a test. A friend of mine was raving about the site and said that I needed to try it. After resisting for a few weeks I thought, 'I'll give it a shot for an hour or two'. That was on December 15th, 2006 (the first day when I uploaded a profile picture).

It's been almost 4 years since then and I can't remember a day where I haven't checked the site - either for work or personal - on my computer or mobile. Like Starbucks, I start my day with it - run through brand pages I'm a part of and, of course, check through the News Feed to see what my 590 friends have been up to.

The average user spends about 55 minutes on the site based on recent Facebook data. Consider that number in relation to the 1,460 days I've spent since I registered my profile. Some days I'll only spend a few minutes, others (due to work) I might spend a few hours. But let's take 55 minutes as the average and multiply it across 4 years.

80,300 minutes. Looking at that staggering number another way, that's over 55 days solid on Facebook since I joined (3.8% of my time over the last four years has been dedicated to creeping photo's and updating streams on Facebook).

Whether or not it's been 'worth it' is a topic for another post but the important thing, for me, is going back to December 15th, 2006. Opening the computer, searching for Facebook and starting a profile in less than a minute.

Just like Starbucks, that first experience led to a fundamental change in my behaviour - and something that took less than a minute to start, has taken over 55 days of my time since.

The next time you think about 'just trying something' once, remember that it might not be easy to stop after that first experience has been imprinted on your mind.

Pure Advertising from Dior

2010-11-28T16:07:00.004-05:00

Being a guy who lives for digital advertising, I've found myself in rooms wishing that big TV budgets were being spent on other things - strong social campaigns, digital out of home ideas that create a big impact, excellent (long term) site experiences that can be built on over time - you know, the usual list of stuff.

Sometimes when I watch a TV spot or campaign, I wonder how much it cost and how that money could have been spent elsewhere. The dollars (or pounds) get added up in my head and I (mostly foolishly) wonder what the ROI on a specific spot would be.

I've got to say, though, that in the world of digital and clients who want less TV and more platforms, tests and experiences, perfume advertising remains one of the purist in terms of old-school thinking: big, expensive films that focus on weird, emotional little vinnietes and stories. Most leave the viewer with a 'WTF?' expression on their face.

In the UK during the holiday's, literally every break contains 2-3 30 second spots featuring international stars. The one that really caught me is for Dior featuring Jude Law. After some searching, I found out that the 30 was actually a cut-down from a 4-minute film that was directed by Guy Richie. It's something out of the mid-80's; extremely well-shot, weird, great track (Muse) and some shots that you don't forget. Check it out here:

I've watched it 3 times and I still can't say whether I even like it. It is so over the top, so expensive, so ridiculous that it's almost, well, awesome. I've never considered buying a perfume product before but if it makes me feel half as good as Jude Law driving at 5am through the streets of Paris, I might need to get to the nearest John Lewis as soon as possible.

Could I have bought this as a client? I don't know. Especially considering the price was probably well over 3 million pounds to get this crew together for a few days. But sometimes we have to remember where this industry came from - emotional, strange, short ideas that make you notice and consider a product you'd never heard of before.

What do you think? Brutal or great?

CBS Chris Henry Thanksgiving Story

2010-11-27T12:59:00.003-05:00

Because I'm now over in London, I pretty much miss the traditional American Thanksgiving Thursday that features 3 NFL games. One of my favorite parts of that day is the stories that get told about the NFL teams, the broadcaster crews and the people who are most interested in the game.

The top story - by far - that day was one that CBS put together about Chris Henry. Henry, only 26, passed away last year during the season and his team, the Cincinnati Bengals, as well as the NFL was struck by the tragedy for the remainder of the season.

CBS put together a story about Henry's mother and the legacy that he's left behind. If you don't tear up while watching this, there's something wrong with you:

What I love about this piece isn't just that it's a great story - it's that it is told in a superb way. Although follows a typical narrative, it's incredibly personal and uses the medium perfectly. It is also, to me, the definition of great content: the minute after you see it, you can't help but share it.

Apps - In Our Own Words

2010-11-24T16:58:00.003-05:00

I recently came across a great script that the developer of Instapaper wrote in his spare time that highlights some great insights about how we rate apps. The script was designed to crawl through the US Apple App store for the top 100 applications for every category and compile the most common words from the 1-star and 5-star reviews.

Here is the list of the most common reviews from the 5-star group:

Awesome, worth, thanks, amazing, simple, perfect, price, everything, ever, must, ipod, before, found, store, never, recommend, done, take, always, touch

And here is the list from the 1-star group:

Waste, money, crashes, tried, useless, nothing, paid, open, deleted, downloaded, didn't, says, stupid, anything, actually, account, bought, apple, already

What jumped out at me when I first read this list was that positive reviews really confirmed a lot of the terms that you commonly associate with strong digital experiences - simple, awesome, always, perfect. Applications that are associated with those words have been carefully crafted and thought through. They haven't been rushed to market and they aren't just extensions of something that already exists - they are unique to the device, to the system and to the expectations of the user.

On the flip side, apps that got the worst reviews were summarized in the language of disappointment - waste, useless, stupid, crashes.

Breaking through in the application market is just as (if not more) difficult as doing so on a site. When I consider my own application usage on my iPad / iPhone, if the application isn't awesome or simple within the first five minutes, I'm done. Research into application usage reflects that I'm not alone. Most apps are deleted within the first 30 days of their download. People try them, get bored, and move on.

The interesting insight about applications, though, is that we can rate all of them in the same place where they are downloaded. Imagine if the same was possible for every brand website that's ever existed? I suspect we'd see a lot of the same words associated to the 1-star reviews that we get on apps. If only we had a place to put them.

YouTube Ad of the Year - Embrace Life

2010-11-19T08:33:00.001-05:00

Many of you have probably already seen this spot before, but it has just won a new award from YouTube - Ad of the Year. As the winner, YouTube provides the brand with a one-day takeover of the site to 'air' the spot (with about $75K US). Check out the spot here and be sure to let us know what you think of the work.

The Elephant in the Room

2010-11-16T17:08:00.002-05:00

The promise of organic growth as a part of any social media initiative is something that's very appealing. The simple belief that 'if you build it, they will come' is an idea that has been around long before the dawn of social media. In fact, early websites followed this logic: spend enough on something special, and people will find their way to it. Create something - no matter how good - and most people will at least take a second to check it out (even though they might never return).

Over the last few years, brands, agencies and marketers have learned the hard way. The number of orphan Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, YouTube channels and Blogs speaks volumes about the failed strategies and focus that many have had over the years. Despite the fact that the pages were likely started with good intentions, something about them didn't seem to connect - or so we thought. Months after they didn't acheive a following, they'd be evaluated (mostly on the 'quality' of the content) and new ideas would be hatched.

But here is the problem. It's just simply about the content of the page or the 'engagement strategy'. It's not just about the apps, promotions and customer service outlets.

It's about this - do people actually know it exists?

Or more to the point - did you save any investment for, you know, advertising?

It's easy in the above-the-line world. We have reference points. Spend 80-90% of your budget on buying the media and the rest of it on producing it. Getting airtime on top TV networks is expensive. Shooting spots from a production standpoint are expensive as well, but minimal in comparrision to the actual cost of airing them.

And here lies the digital issue. Getting your ideas published doesn't really cost anything. If you want to launch a page, a blog or a site quickly, you can get it up in an hour or two. As the site becomes more complex and the requirements get larger, costs go up. But again, actually getting a domain and putting it out on the world-wide-web isn't an expensive process - especially when you compare launching that to TV spot.

Media, as a result, becomes an after-thought. Contact the 'hyper-influencers'. Do some outreach. The advices mounts - and it's not wrong, it's just missing a critical component - media.

Believe me, I love social and I'm a big advocate of earned media. But countless studies have shown that paid media leads to a greater share of earned. That the idea of something just 'going viral' without a smart seeding strategy or big TV buy just isn't accurate anymore - there is just to much content out there.

Sure, some of it gets through and we see it (and then share it). But most of the stuff that's not supported in some way, goes nowhere.

The next time you're discussing your social initiative, site or application, just remember that if you do end up actually building it, they won't come unless they know about it

The Future of News...

2010-11-09T15:19:00.002-05:00

Over the last few weeks, I've been thinking a lot about how the shift in the newspaper industry also mimics the shift in the traditional ad industry. There is a long post brewing on this topic in the coming weeks but to help show you what inspired it, I wanted to link to this article by James Fallows called How To Save The News.

If you work in a creative industry, especially media, this is a must-read. It's a good look at how Google is trying to help the industry that it up-ended and keep news alive (in some form). It's longer than most content you'd read on the web but it's worth it and I think you'll find it has some excellent reference points to anyone working at an ad agency.

More to come...

Is this the Worst Commercial of All-Time?

2010-10-24T18:09:00.002-04:00

I think that this commercial, which is on-air literally every break during NFL Sunday on Sky, may be the worst TV spot ever made. If anyone knows anything about this spot - the Agency, the Creatives, the Production Company - please let me know so we can publicly shame them.

Don't think this is the worst? Let's get this conversation going. Send some links in the comments and we'll get a top 5 worst-all time list made up.

Believe in what you do

2010-10-19T17:33:00.002-04:00

You've got to hand it to Steve Jobs - he believes in everything that Apple makes and he knows, exactly, what he wants his company to be. He designs in a closed way - his rules, his products. He doesn't crowdsource his ideas or his campaigns and I highly doubt that he listening to conversations in the space to try and guess what people want from him.

He knows. And he's passionate.

Yesterday, on a quarterly call with investors, he went on a 5 minute rant about why Apple is the OS of choice vs. Android. I've got to say that I love the passion here and that he makes a ton of great points. While I still believe that their is validity in the 'open vs. closed' argument, you cannot argue for a second that Apple makes products that just work. No trouble. No problems.

Here is the rant:

Passion. Conviction. Vision. Would you defend what you to this extent?

Storify: The Future of Content Curation

2010-10-17T18:22:00.003-04:00

Over the last few months, I've been exploring a number of content curation services. Many are in the early Alpha stages and it's been tough to get access but one that I've been really impressed with so far is Storify.

As anyone in digital knows, the amount of content that is being created on a daily basis is immense. Billions of bits of content created on a daily basis which makes the amount of information to sift through impossible. In a way, our stories are now made out of disparate bits of information - Tweets, Videos, Flickr shots, Status Updates, etc - and the only way we consolidate them is when we tie them together in our minds as we view them (or someone creates a list for us and posts it on Digg).

Storify is hoping to change all that. Created by a former AP editor, the site allows users to create stories by pulling related-content together into one stream. Think of the stories as large articles with the different content bits actually embedded within them. For the iPad users out there, it's sort of like creating your own flipboard channel.

I've been using the service for a few days and have been pretty empressed. It's easier to pull the content together than a blog post would be and more comprehensive than simply linking to a post or video that you like.

I've created a Storify link that I've embedded in this post about Bill O'Reilly on the View. It took about 5 minutes to create and, to be an extreme nerd, was pretty fun. Here it is:

What do you think? Do you think you could get used to curating and consuming content in the way that Storify provides it?

Lexus: Most Advanced Driving Simulator in the World

2010-10-14T06:30:00.001-04:00

I love it when companies don't just talk about how innovative they are, but they actually prove it. We've seen this from BMW and IBM and many others, but this Lexus demo video is pretty impressive. What do you think?

Google Instant just made SEM more important

2010-10-13T10:05:00.003-04:00

Watch this video (again if you've seen it) or just go to Google and start to search. With the addition of instant I've noticed how much more my eye is drawn to the top paid search result.

The clamshell predictive text box literally pulls your eye directly down to the first result.

Brands time to own that top spot - if you haven't already.

A Good, Creative Minute

2010-10-06T18:39:00.002-04:00

Bars & Tones from André Chocron on Vimeo.

Simple stuff. But pretty cool what you can do with a couple tones and bars.

McCain Fries: Same Brand, Different Country

2010-09-27T17:30:00.002-04:00

McCain recently launched a new campaign in the UK. I've got to say that when I first saw this spot I thought it was for a camera / printer / photo brand. I was pretty surprised that this was from McCain (especially considering that I'm used to their Canadian ads). The re-watch factor isn't that bad and it's starting to grow on me. Thoughts?

Burn

2010-09-25T18:37:00.001-04:00

Some nice, creative work from Publicis Mojo...for Coke:

Expectations have Changed

2010-09-25T05:11:00.003-04:00

A few hours ago, TechCrunch posted this video that one of their readers had sent in. The boy in it is four. He's mastered the basic functions of the iPad and if you think this is the only kid in the world who can operate the tablet, you're wrong. Most can.

No more mouse. No more clunky, challenging operating systems. This little guy is being raised with the expectation that every screen can be touched and interacted with.

Clay Shirky tells a great story at the close of Cognitive Surplus about a friends daughter. The friend is watching a DVD with his daughter on the couch. At one point, she stands up and walks over to the TV. The goes behind the TV and looks at the cords. Then she walks in front and starts looking around the boarder of the TV. She's looking for something but her Dad isn't sure what. So he asks, 'What are you looking for?'

And she simply turns, looks at him and replies, "The Mouse".

Could this kid operate your experience? Or even understand the basics of it?

Proof

2010-09-22T15:40:00.002-04:00

One of the areas that I've been thinking a lot about lately is how clients, brands and marketers really know if the people giving them digital advice, knowledge, experiences and ideas are, well, credible.

We all use best in class cases to help show clients (and ourselves) strategies that have been successful. And most digital people know the top examples off by heart:

Looking for a great integrated example? How about Nike Run?
Co-creation idea? myStarbucks idea.
Wicked example of a series of videos going viral across a series of social spaces? Old Spice.
Global promotion with a content series and big promotion? Bud House.
Sweet look at how Google and brands can use HTML5? Arcade Fire experience.
Alternate Reality Game? Remember Dark Knight?
Charitable tie in with a brand that choose social media over the Super Bowl (for a year, at least) - Pepsi Refresh
Customer service program that uses social? Twelpforce
Smart example of a simple banner? Pringles

As a planner, I obsess over examples. In fact, reading the trades and seeing what other people are doing (and learning from their successes and failures) is something that, believe it or not, a lot of people fail to do.

But digital strategy, although easily explained via examples, goes beyond case studies of other (mostly global, large scale) examples.

Evaluating the cases in your own arsenal, based on the work that you've directed, can be humbling. For every Old Spice video there are 1,000 others with less than a couple hundred views. For every crowdsourcing success, there are hundreds of other (well-built, well-planned) experiences that nobody knows about.

Examples help us learn and plan. But until you've launched and failed (or, in the lucky event, succeeded), their just that - examples.

This mentality, I think, helps to explain why many social 'experts' focus on their own numbers.

'I have 80,000 followers, therefore, I know a thing or two about Twitter. Trust me.'

That's fair enough. But I don't think many clients have asked Kim to help them with their social strategies or turned to Brooke and asked her about how to optimise their content streams. (beyond the product placement here and there).

I joke - but do concede that large followings do show something. That you have a large number of followers. And that something about your stream has attracted them. Nice work.

But when you throw away external examples and personal ones and look at the ones that you've helped real brands / clients / agencies with, how do things shape up? It's OK to fail (it's really the only way to learn) but don't repeat the same mistake(s) over...especially with the same people.

Want to show someone that you can help others succeed in digital? Prove it.

LG Portugal: Let's make a short film...

2010-09-11T15:53:00.003-04:00

Some of the latest work from LG Portugal. I really like how more and more brands are starting to realise that the way to 'solve' communications challenges is to create content that - wait for it - people are actually interested in. It's nice to see LG create a strong video that is on brand with a good (and uplifting) story. Thoughts?

Is the web really dead?

2010-09-05T12:46:00.003-04:00

In the last two weeks, both Wired and The Economist have run cover stories about the web (as we currently know it) being dead. The old web, as both articles suggest, consisted of users visiting sites directly and interacting with them via their computer (and later mobile).

Currently, though, there is a growing behaviour that shows that many users are more interested in simple, intuitive applications over sites and endless searching. Think about it. If you are an Apple user (either via an iPod, iPhone, iPad or iTunes), you are willing to pay a small premium to access the content that you want right now.

This seemed to start with the $0.99 song. I remember when I was young surfing Napster for hours downloading as much (illegal) music as I could. It was exciting because it was free and the site had almost everything I could ever want. But when some of the tracks downloaded, they weren't what I wanted or the quality was bad. Sometimes the download would just stop (a user turned off their computer) or I'd be placed in a queue that never seemed to move.

Thinking back on this - it was a hassle. I'd get home from school and literally start crawling the web (via Metacrawler in those days) looking for new albums.

Now when I get home, I go to a closed, seemingly safe network called iTunes and access almost any content I want. Even though it costs me money every time I do it, I'm willing to pay it. It's convenient, immediate and high quality.

In this experience - a download on iTunes - I don't use the 'old web'. I go straight to a desktop (or mobile) application, find what I want and download and then watch it from my TV. I still use the web, but I don't go to a website; this experience essentially defines the current debate on the future of the web.

Think about the services that you actually use on a regular basis - Twitter (through an application like Tweet Deck or Twitter mobile), Google Maps (via an application on your BlackBerry), FlipBook, Instapaper, Foursquare - all experiences that start from an application. Sure, the infrastructure that they are using is still the web. But the way into them for a user is different.

As a brand, the challenge of connecting via the old web (and the new) continues to be daunting. Advertising within Apps (via networks like iAd) are emerging and will grow in the coming years but are still relatively untested.

There are no clear conclusions but as a die-hard web guy, the app economy is the one I spend my spare time searching on. I look for great experiences and to be honest, a great experience can't be contained to a site anymore.

What do you think? Is the web dead?

Memes - an infographic

2010-08-27T09:37:00.001-04:00

Via: Online University

The Real World 'Like'

2010-08-17T05:10:00.001-04:00

Loving this idea from Publicis Isreal.

55,000 hours of Warcraft

2010-07-31T10:40:00.003-04:00

We've done a lot of posts about the popularity of gaming over the last decade. The video game industry has been bigger (from a revenue standpoint) than Hollywood for a few years now. Teen boys are most likely to be addicted gamers and have been known to play for hours on end.

This video came out a few weeks ago about a kid who played World of Warcraft for almost 5 years straight. The video is him deleting his profile, and every charter, virtual good and item that he gained during that period. It's well done and quickly went viral.

The game mentality is something that is extremely interesting - specifically around levels. Getting to the 'next level' breaks down your task into smaller chunks. You focus on one task, accomplish it and then move onto the next one (almost like episodes of a TV series). Where games get addictive is the quest for the next task, the next accomplishment and the next character. It's a form of storytelling that is extremely interesting, and addictive.

I remember as a kid playing Final Fantasy 6. At that time, the game kept track of the amount of time that a user spent. When, one day, I read that I'd spent 220 hours playing, I figured that it was about time I went outside. Not many games (as far as I can tell) actually put trackers in like this one - like Casino's with window's, if you know how long you've been playing, you might not care about getting to the next level.

Link here to the story.

IBM Watson - Prove your innovation

2010-07-29T07:45:00.002-04:00

Not a long preamble on this one. Just a cool concept with some great tech.

Would you pay to use Facebook?

2010-07-26T17:08:00.004-04:00

I was reading a recent study on Mashable about research that was done into Twitter. It turns out that zero percent of people in the survey would be willing to actually pay for the service. Is this surprising?

To be honest, I'm not sure.

Over the last few weeks, I've been thinking a lot about the number of 'layers' in my own digital life. For example, every morning I wake up and open 6 tabs in about 3 seconds in Chrome - Gmail, Hotmail, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google Reader. I then go through the tabs checking messages and what has happened - responding when I need to.

Then - and only then - I hit the normal information sites - news mostly (NY Times, HuffPo, Globe, BBC) and read any article that catches my eye.

And, of course, on the way to work I check my BlackBerry, continue reading on my iPad and check in when I'm extremely bored on Foursqure.

Question is, do I really need all of this stuff? And what would I actually pay to use these services?

Let's start with the ones I'm already on the fence with - Foursquare is out because I don't really care where people are and being the Mayor of my own house isn't cool. I also hate the Twitter feed integration and think that my stream would be a lot more interesting if people linked to content they liked vs. the Starbucks that they just entered.

If I had to pay for email, I'd ditch the Hotmail account. It was my first and I've had it for about 12 years but I could easily switch everything over to Gmail and be happy (although I do like keeping hotmail around for Spam related requests / new site tests).

So now we're down to four - Gmail, Reader, Facebook and Twitter.

To be honest, Twitter and my Reader do - somewhat - serve the same purpose. I use them both to curate the links that I get and to keep me updated. In a head to head battle, Reader loses to Twitter on this one - less functionality and ability to connect (no..I don't count Google Buzz as an advantage here)

Now, I realise that Gmail vs. Facebook vs. Twitter isn't really a fair comparison. Especially because on Facebook you can do so much more than the other two combined (ie. play games, post multiple types of content, send private messages, etc).

I love Gmail but have a work account so that could suffice (although I do like the idea of private emails). But for the sake of the post, Gmail is out.

That leaves the two hottest social networks right now. So what's my choice?

It would have to be Facebook. More content, better friends and less desire to continually post whatever it is I'm doing at the moment.

But if Facebook charged me, would I pay to use it?

I don't think so.

Let's take a best case scenario. A one-time annual fee for usage. Maybe $12 a year. I'd consider paying this if it meant no more targeted ads, strict privacy controls and limited application access to my data. But to just keep using the same old services? I don't think so.

The point is that in the age of free, what would you actually pay to continue to use? And if you wouldn't pay for a service, do you really need it?

Think about it another way. How much is your time worth? With the average Facebook user spending 30 minutes a day with the site, that's 210 minutes a week (3.5 hours). If you're on minimum wage at about $7/hour, you're spending about $25 a week to hang on the site.

Is it worth it?

Fat Dove Guy: Old Spice Response Video

2010-07-22T07:41:00.003-04:00

One of the beautiful things about the digital world is that the playing field is level. It is just as easy (if not easier) for consumers to broadcast themselves, and create conversations around brands.

This video response below to the Old Spice guy may or may not be sponsored content - I hope it is not for a few reasons:

1)If this is a consumer participating on his own I'm curious to see how Old Spice responds. The reason that I am curious is that a "brand" entering into a conversation of this nature with a consumer participating on their own could be a mine field even for the geniuses at Weiden & Kennedy. Why? Because the consumer doesn't have the brand restrictions or reputation to uphold. The consumer is only constrained by their own personal morals, values and character. They could, in my opinion, cross lines that the brand may not - which in a battle of wits is possibly an upper-hand that allows the consumer (and their brand of choice) to be victorious.

2) I perceive Dove as a leader and Old Spice as a challenger in the body wash category. If Dove put the time and effort into facing Old Spice head-on then that automatically positions Old Spice as a category leader in the eyes of anyone who sees this response.

Found on The Curious Brain (still one of my favourite sites to visit).

Civic or Communal value: What does your campaign deliver?

2010-07-20T09:16:00.003-04:00

I think we all know that marketing has changed. It is not about the message anymore but it is about the value you bring.

An interesting TED talk by Clay Shirky discusses how the world is creating value with our cognitive surplus, and this value comes in one of two forms; civic or communal.

Now that you have seen the video how will you utilize your next campaign to benefit from this cognitive surplus? How will you design your campaign to provide intrinsic motivation to benefit from the generosity of your community? And finally, will you design your campaign to create communal value (Doritos) or civic value (Pepsi refresh)?

Ads can't save bad brands

2010-07-04T06:07:00.005-04:00

I went to see the play Enron last night in London. To be honest, I wasn't a huge fan of the show but one scene really stuck with me. As the second act started, they played this Enron TV spot:

For those of you who remember, Enron was the company that set records. The most well-known being the largest bankruptcy in the history of the US. Thousands of workers were laid off, lost all their stock and were essentially ruined by a tight group of senior management who developed new 'products' that cheated the financial system.

What interested me most, though, wasn't the scandal or the corruption. But the ad.

To be honest, the spot reminded me a lot of Apple's iconic Think Different. It's well-written and has a montage featuring normal people and brilliant ones. When I watched it last night for the first time, I tried to put myself in the shoes of someone watching this in 2000.

If you were just graduating from a top US school, looking for work and saw this spot, you'd probably consider Enron. You'd want to know more and (based on their successful financial earnings at the time), you'd probably want to work there and get a ton of stock options.

It's ads like these that get people into these brands. Nobody really knew how flawed Enron was - the agency that made this spot certainty didn't - but the ads helped keep the brand afloat. It was the idea that they were successful that kept the brand alive for so long. Not just the fake earnings sheets or the profit reports, but the belief that everyone involved with the company couldn't do any wrong.

We all want strong brands. Just remember that ads can't save bad companies. In fact, they can protect them. But only for so long...

2010-06-30T07:43:00.003-04:00

I found this classified ad on AdRants this morning. It was found on Craiglist for a Dove photo shoot.

DOVE "REAL WOMEN" PRINT CASTING JUNE 28-30, 2010 in NYC
ABSOLUTELY NO ACTRESSES / MODELS OR REALITY SHOW PARTICIPANTS or ANY ONE CARRYING A HEADSHOT!!!!
REAL WOMEN ONLY!
LOOKING FOR 3-4 REAL WOMEN for a DOVE PRINT CAMPAIGN!

AGES 35-45, CAUCASIAN, HISPANIC, AFRICAN AMERICAN, & ASIAN!

SHOOT: SUNDAY, JULY 18 in NYC! MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR THE SHOOT!
RATE: $500 for Shoot date & if selected for Ad Campaign (running 2011) you will be paid $4000!
USAGE: 3 years unlimited print & web usage in N. America Only

YOU WILL BE PHOTOGRAPHED FOR THE CAMPAIGN IN A TOWEL!
BEAUTIFUL ARMS AND LEGS AND FACE WILL BE SHOWN!
MUST HAVE FLAWLESS SKIN, NO TATTOOS OR SCARS!
Well groomed and clean...Nice Bodies..NATURALLY, FIT Not too Curvy Not too Athletic.

Great Sparkling Personalities. Beautiful Smiles! A DOVE GIRL!!!
STYLISH AND COOL!
Beautiful HAIR & SKIN is a MUST!!!

PLEASE SUBMIT SNAPSHOTS of FACE & BODY ASAP & WE WILL CALL YOU IN FOR A CASTING NEXT WEEK 6/28-6/30 in NYC!
urbanproddovecasting@gmail.com

AdRants rightfully blasts it for being off brand and horribly written but I want to blast it for something else.

Why are they using Craiglist to find the lucky few for their photo shoot? They have a community of over 150,000 on Facebook alone . Why not reward your fans by giving them the opportunity? I checked and the ad wasn't posted on any of the corporate looking pages. This approach would be found in any Marketing 101 for the digital age book and probably in the first couple chapters.

How does a brand like Dove miss this? How does an organization that has done some great work, shown innovation in both their product development, messaging and approach to building relationships with consumers miss this?

BAS gets the reaper

2010-06-29T15:35:00.001-04:00

The grim reaper is low on cash and back doing cameos. This one I like.

What if BPGlobalPR was created by a BP competitor?

2010-06-21T13:51:00.004-04:00

If you haven't followed the @BPGlobalPR Twitter account yet, you're missing what might be one of the most talked about Twitter streams on the planet right now. The account, created by a private citizen who likes to be called 'Leroy Stick', consists of dark, humorous tweets that use the oil spill tragedy and shed the worst possible light on the company responsible for it.

In recent weeks, many PR groups have been debating how BP should handle this fake account. The company recently asked Leroy to add that the account was a 'fake' in the bio (which he did) but has not made any further moves to have the account removed (it currently has over 150K followers and Tweets quite regularly).

As a brand digital guy, I've been thinking a lot about what I would do if I were working for BP right now. I think that their strategy is OK - removing the account (or trying to do so) would keep the story going, add more followers and encourage many more fake accounts to sprout out of the woodwork. Placing to much of a focus on the account, getting legal involved to shut down something that is already popular and placing more of an emphasis on the account is only cause for more trouble. BP also needs to keep acknowledging that this fake, popular Twitter account isn't the problem - the Oil Spill is. All their efforts - business and communications - should be dedicated to solving that problem, not this minor one.

But then I got to thinking. What if I worked for Shell or Exxon or another large, competitor? What if a competitor created this account?

For starters, it would be extremely deceptive and dangerous for one to do so (could you imaging it being uncovered that this was the case?). But when you think about it, this sort of 'brand highjacking' by competitors becomes more possible in the world of social media. Unverified accounts, temporary email addresses and a bit of promotion and you've got an untraceable (relatively) account that can cause trouble if it gains steam.

It takes issues management to a whole new level. Is your competitor struggling? Is there a hot topic that is starting to gain traction among your target group? Why not start an account to help fuel the fire against a competitor? It would be like Advil creating a bunch of 'fake Mom' accounts during the Motrin disaster a few years ago.

I realize that it takes time for a fake account to create an impact. And BPGlobalPR has spawned a ton of spin off accounts that have little to no followers. But as a competitor of BP, aren't you quietly smiling at the PR coming off of this Twitter account? (not at the Oil-spill related as it's hard to smile about the worst environmental disaster in US History)

It's a strange thought but this type of brand-hijacking has been done before. If you visit artist forums or communities, you see it all the time. Don't believe me? It's the primary reason why Trend Reznor left social media after blazing the trail.

Fake accounts exist everywhere. Anyone can by a URL with your brand in it and it's hard to get it removed without adding fuel to the fire. Social brand hijacking is going to become more frequent. Do you have the team and policies in place to deal with it? Or are you one of the brands that is (secretly) a part of it?

IBM Seer Wimbledon App (Update)

2010-06-21T06:06:00.001-04:00

It's nice to see IBM continuing to create relevant applications around their major events. Once the application is installed on a handset, they can follow up with the user as often as they like (even when the 2-week event is complete). Great stuff.

Timely, entertaining and product-centric. Nice one, Lego.

2010-06-16T12:05:00.004-04:00

When brands think about how to be relevant for their consumers, they typically look inward and think about the core product benefit that would be most meaningful to their target.

Not Lego.

The formula? Product + Timely Event (World Cup) + Dramatic Event = Viral video rooted in your brand. Love this:

(Specifically relevant for the pain felt by every English Football fan right now...)

An ad from Microsoft that isn't awful? Weird.

2010-06-15T16:56:00.001-04:00

A tactical ad but so true. It's not often you see good advertising from Microsoft these days but the message here is a good one. The sheer amount of data that we share online is staggering. And it doesn't take $500 American to make us do so. Mostly we just want to creep on someones photo's so we create a Facebook profile.

Hi Marketers it is the future calling

2010-06-10T14:01:00.003-04:00

If you and your agencies are still relying on TV to get the message out you have in my best pulled out of my ass estimate 2 years to get your shit together. Why because changes in technology are going to make your campaign even less effective then it is today. If you rely on interrupting your consumers favourite shows to get your message across versus creating content that your consumer wants to watch, engage with or learn from you and your brand message will soon disappear.

For the sake of post-length I will skip over all of the talk about how in 10 years an entire generation going to be the 24-34 year olds that are used to turning to the web for entertainment first and TV second or lower. Add to this that TV itself is changing as the web has rocked the boat of content creation and put control, creation and choice in the hands of the consumer not the big networks.

Goodbye Cable box. Hello Google TV (as soon as I can get my hands on it).

When a banner ad isn't just a banner ad

2010-06-07T14:23:00.001-04:00

Genius.

UNIQLO LUCKY SWITCH from HN on Vimeo.

The Chat Roulette Killer

2010-06-01T17:51:00.002-04:00

Warning: Some slightly gory stuff for a new campaign.

What do you think?

Being creative makes life more fun

2010-05-30T21:48:00.003-04:00

Genius. Pure Genius captured with my iPhone in Downtown Toronto earlier this week.

Do you think about sound?

2010-05-30T19:53:00.003-04:00

If you don't think about sound you should. It impacts productivity, sales, mood, your health and more.

It can also define a brand. What is the sound within your retail locations, your advertisements, your on-hold message and how does it all work together to create a positive and healthy world of sound.

Stanley Cup Finals

2010-05-28T17:11:00.002-04:00

If you aren't Canadian you might not get goosebumps like I just did - but watch anyway.

Go Hawks.

The Glee Effect

2010-05-27T17:26:00.006-04:00

For all the talk about TV being dead, it still has a huge influence over our behavior. When we see something we like on TV, we surf for it, try to find more of it and broaden the experience we just had.

Here's a recent example of this effect:

Glee, a popular American TV series (one that I am forced to watch with my girlfriend...right), is a show based about an American Glee club that sings 4-5 popular songs each show. Essentially, it's a musical sitcom to songs that we all know by artists that people love - think Madonna, Aerosmith, etc.

So what happens when a new Glee episode airs in the US? The world searches for the songs on Google.

Take the May 18th episode 'Dream On' as an example. One of the major songs in the show? 'Dream on' by Aerosmith. Let's look at Google Trends for Search for 'Dream on aerosmith' and see what happened on May 18th:

Searches rose almost 300% on one day. And it wasn't just because that was the best song on the episode. Here's the results for 'I dreamed a dream' (from Les Miserables):

You might be thinking that this was just a popular episode (it was, Neil Patrick Harris was in it, how could it not have been sweet?), so let's look at one more example from an old episode that happened early in Season 1.

The episode, called 'Mash-Up' aired on October 21, 2009 and featured the one-hit-wonder 'Thong Song' by Sisqo. Here is the result:

Again, a huge rise in searches the day the episode aired. (and I'm not sure what that second bump was but Vietnam was coming up so I'm assuming someone sang it on their version of X-Factor)

Clearly the behavior exists among a large group of people. We see content that we like and we jump to our laptops to get more of it.

So here is my question. Is anyone searching for more after they see your TV campaign? If you can't notice a change in search trends, your campaign isn't working.

Skittles: Tube Sock

2010-05-27T07:58:00.002-04:00

I love the risk taking that lies within the marketing department of skittles. I also love how they are able to capitalize on other trends or pop culture phenomenon in a way that doesn't come across as copying or contrived.

Betty White put old people back on the map as being funny and entertaining to youth like no one else had since Grandpa Simpson rose from a supporting cast member to front and centre in the early 2000's. While Betty White's putting old people back on the cool map handing out awards for MTV, starring on SNL and posing on magazine covers Skittles comes out with this.

Nice work.

Social media success starts with asking the right question

2010-05-22T11:49:00.005-04:00

For the last five years, I've done a lot of work with brands and clients in social media. From podcasts to blogs, Facebook to Foursquare, social platforms have been - and continue to be - the hot topic for brands across the globe.

About two years ago, many brands entered what I would call the test period - they took a small percentage of a campaign budget - say 5-10% - and asked their agency, media company or PR group to brainstorm a few 'extension ideas' to 'bring the campaign to life' on a site like Facebook. The agency thought a bit about it, pitched some ideas (usually a FB page and a few ads, an application and definitely a promotion) and for a moment - a few months - progressive brands were heralded as the ones who tried something new. The ones who connected with their target via these 'new' mediums and - we were told by countless social experts at the 200 conferences they attend every year - the results were amazing, fantastic and mind blowing!!!

So more brands entered the space. More brand pages were launched. More promotions that involved voting for something, uploading a photo or sharing with your friends. And for awhile, everyone was pretty happy. (if I had to put a year on it, I'd say this was during the back-half of 2008 in North America).

But then the test period ended. The results came in and beyond the number of fans, amount of photo's uploaded, page views and general metrics, few people really knew how to make sense of social. Was it working? Did it actually help the brand attributes? Did it move sales? There are plenty examples of brands that do this and each platform highlights a ton of them in their sales presentations (which, for some reason, tend to highlight Hollywood movie releases in almost every one, Adidias, Nike, Starbucks or Apple). Yet most clients (and to be honest, agencies) still felt that the whole picture wasn't there.

And most of us still feel this way.

That's where the questions start. Unlike in 2008 when the question was, 'should we be using a bit of our budget to test social?' the question is now 'who should be managing social among our agency partners?'

This - inevitably - leads to a more fundamental question that some (but not all) brands are asking themselves: 'Who should be managing social within my company?'

For brands that have a couple hundred people, are concentrated within one country or region and sell a specific set of products, this answer can come a bit easier. But for the ones with a global presence, ones with thousands of brand managers across multiple regions, languages and locations, it's a lot harder. This effort is made tougher by the fact that some brand managers may have embraced social during the 'test phase' but others are just getting started. Some have already seen success and failure while others are still asking what a 'ReTweet' is.

To often, it seems that brands look outward for the solution. Give social to the PR group because they manage our brand reputation. Or give it to the digital agency because they do our sites. Or give it to the media group because they buy media and have a 'social expert' who seemed smart.

But the real question starts from inside. And, in some organisations, simply asking it can lead to trouble.

The product team, marketing group, customer services, tech and everyone else within the organisation wants (and needs) a say. But they are mostly isolated form one another except for the Christmas parties and all-staff meetings. They've got their own objectives, bonus schemes and priorities. Success for one group in social means nothing to another.

And that's the challenge. Unlike the early days of the web where organisations could slice up digital based on their pre-existing structure (marketing makes the banners and campaign sites, customer services has a 'live web chat' on our corporate site, PR sends the press releases out over the web, and we all keep doing what we're doing), social is more ubiquitous and forces these groups to come together - even if they don't want to.

The brands that have internally come together and had conversations about structuring, social metrics that they all align towards and have set the goals that they want to use the space for are the ones who are succeeding. They can then look at their agency roster and divvy up the priorities to their specialists and set sub-targets based on their individual objectives and priorities.

But the brands who haven't continue to be fragmented. They might have a social hit but they have many failures and their social strategy doesn't go much further than 'we should run an ad on Facebook for that'. The result is hundreds of tests but few long term platforms. Dozens of community pages but no engagement strategies.

Before you think about which agency should 'run' social and the millions of different social tools and campaigns that you want to launch, ask the question about how your organization is structured for social success. If it's not, get help. There are groups, brands and (of course) agencies who can help educate your organisation on what structures they have seen currently working vs. the ones that don't.

The help is there. But in order to get it, you've got to ask the right question.

I Have An Idea Portfolio Night 8: Advertising is Calling

2010-05-20T10:59:00.003-04:00

I remember doing sponsorship sales for Portfolio Night in Canada 2 when it was only in Toronto & Vancouver - now look at it. Well done Ignacio and team.

Oh the humour: Darth Vader for TomTom

2010-05-19T14:13:00.001-04:00

"You should have seen his face when I told him I was his father"....priceless.

Great stuff from TomTom.

I love this guy...

2010-05-17T10:43:00.002-04:00

Funniest American commercial actor? I think so. Playstation...keep up the good (hilarious work). Thanks to Jason via Facebook for the original link.

Lawtons Ad Experiment

2010-05-14T09:30:00.004-04:00

Lawtons is a drug store in Atlantic Canada and they have partnered with Atlantic Business Magazine to offer the Great Ad Experiment. Simply put 6 agencies submitted creative, people are voting and the winning campaign is run.

Interesting approach as Lawtons is getting 2 campaigns out of 1 but unfortunately the campaigns are only being rated based on print ads, not a whole campaign or the strategy that brings all touchpoints together to deliver on the campaign objective. Honestly I thought we were well past the world of thinking a print ad alone can achieve brand success. Regardless that is how it is going down.

The agency I work at (Extreme Group) is ad #1. Click on the embedded viewer below (view fullscreen), then visit this link and vote for us :)

http://www.abmonline.ca/great-experiment/

I thought this was a joke

2010-05-13T18:46:00.001-04:00

Watch this: No arms, no legs, no worries

2010-05-11T16:10:00.002-04:00

Samsung: 3D LED TV

2010-05-05T17:53:00.001-04:00

I thought you needed glasses to see this? Product over-promise in the ads? Or am I wrong?

Discussing the dynamics of regional advertising in the context of national campaigns

2010-05-05T17:40:00.003-04:00

Next week in Toronto following The Canadian Newspaper Conference I will be participating in a discussion of sorts with a group of Publishers, Media Directors and Ad Agency types.

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the dynamics of regional advertising in the context of national campaigns.

I'm interested to hear the view points of the group that includes a lot of VP's, Presidents and I expect a group from a much different demographic then I.

I don't think this will skew my viewpoint much on the discussion topic as I won't be thinking of a specific media, more the needs of my clients but it will impact my view as to how Newspapers can play a role in answering these needs. I'll let you know if it gets to that point.

In the meantime how about you share with me your thoughts on the dynamics of regional advertising within a national campaign from your experience (client or agency). If they are good you can count on me sharing them - and stating they came from my blog which will instantly make me hated as us bloggers have stolen so much money from Newspapers :)

I look forward to your comments.

John Lewis - 'Woman'

2010-05-03T18:03:00.003-04:00

I'm really enjoying this spot from Adam & Eve for John Lewis. For those of you not reading from the UK, John Lewis is a traditional British retailer that has done some great work over the past few years.

I write a lot about great storytelling here on AdJoke and I think this is another prime example of how a simple idea, well executed can create work that you want to share with others. I didn't have any perception of John Lewis (other than passing them on the high street) but I can't help but know that the next time I walk by one, I'll consider stopping in.

Thanks to adliterate for the link.

G-Speak - Minority Report is now here...

2010-04-28T07:19:00.003-04:00

I've been doing a bit of work lately with touch and Surface systems and really hope that we can start to see this Minority-report-style tech hit the market in an accessible way. When the first systems hit (think mall event instillations or conference centers), it's going to be very tough to ignore.

g-speak overview 1828121108 from john underkoffler on Vimeo.

One. Dramatic. 5 Year-old.

2010-04-27T11:17:00.003-04:00

Cinestud 2010 Trailer from Chris Christodoulou on Vimeo.

Nice spot. Although I can see some groups and associations getting pretty upset with this in the coming weeks. Found via copyranter.

Stella Artois: Up There

2010-04-27T10:03:00.002-04:00

Up There from Mekanism on Vimeo.

Found on The Curious Brain.

Creative Inspiration (5 Links)

2010-04-26T16:28:00.004-04:00

It's been awhile since I've posted. I've really missed it but have been a bit slammed on the work front. But I do have good news. I've been checking out all the latest awards sites and have 5 links that you've got to check out (these are all from the Webby's but there are a ton of good repositories out there).

So here are my favorite five (in no particular order):

Banners that actually are useful (vs. ones that you never see / wish were never there) - from VISA
Lonely Planet and Surface come together to create one helluva book experience
The Economist shows people where great ideas come from (from great people)
Nike Japan uses some cool technology to launch their flagship store
NFB Canada tells water stories in a way you've never seen (shout out to a former creative colleague)

Have you checked out any awards lately? What's your favorite?

No Challenge is too big

2010-04-24T12:39:00.002-04:00

Some clients get it. They see the challenge and opportunity, then give their agency the time and money to make it happen.

Shower together: Axe

2010-04-21T08:21:00.001-04:00

In the words of my colleague Mike B., "It's great. Purpose without leaving the realm of the brand."

I agree.

Thanks Martin for sharing.

Drambuie: The Greatest Golfer You've never heard of. Moe Norman

2010-04-16T14:51:00.004-04:00

This is phenomenal. I love brands that understand how to tell an intriguing story and through telling that story they elevate their brand, capture consumer attention and in this case deliver a product focused message.

Why does this work for me? What do most bartenders do better than mix drinks? Tell stories. They could have taken some douchey metrosexual bartender at a Vegas club or high-end London bar and had him tell us all that we should try this drink because he thinks its cool. Instead they took a bartender we've all met at one point and gave us a reason to listen to him.

Well done. Drambuie has never caught my attention before but today they own my conversations.

Thanks to Brooksy at Design Axiom for sharing.

In case you missed it the sub is $2.99

2010-04-13T19:24:00.001-04:00

Even price focused ads can be fun. Laser Knifes, Fireworks & Flames.

Old Spice continues to have fun

2010-04-10T09:09:00.004-04:00

Loving the latest TV work from Old Spice. It's fun, over-the-top, ridiculous and hilarious all at the same time. Plus, Old Spice made a ton of different versions which will probably air on YouTube and in specific regions in the States. If you've got a PVR, you're not going to fast forward through this stuff (at least the first time). The re-watch factor is amazing.

Here is the first one I came across:

And my favorite:

You can check out more of the versions here and here. What do you think?

The King Steals McDonalds recipe

2010-04-09T13:54:00.003-04:00

Now this ad is unique. They come right out and say we are basically copying our biggest competition. It instantly puts their product in the consideration set for any fans of the McDonalds product and adds some personality.

Thanks to Mr. Millett for sharing.

Nissan Toy Car

2010-04-08T13:53:00.001-04:00

This ad is pure fun. Great stuff.

Tiger & Earl: The rebuilding begins

2010-04-07T19:43:00.002-04:00

I don't know what will be more talked about this weekend - Tigers Play or this video. I can already see the arguments as to why it is good, bad or ugly. For me the question isn't about whether this is right or wrong but how did they get to this spot?

Was there someone sitting at W+K listening to audio, watching footage salivating every day about the opportunity to find this gem? Was this an outtake from one of my favourite TV spots of all time (Never)? Or did Tiger offer it up?

I have always been interested to find out how involved in his campaigns Tiger gets as the TV spots are in a lot of cases more about his brand than Nike. Nike benefits from being a part of the story, building the drama, the character and the legend that is Tiger.

We'll just have to wait and see what he does this weekend and what Nike's next move is.

BlendTec Continues its viral dominance

2010-04-07T18:22:00.001-04:00

No surprise but this video is at 3.2 Million views in less than 2 days.

Absolut entertainment

2010-04-05T09:10:00.004-04:00

I'm sure some of you have seen this already, but it's a new piece of branded entertainment directed by Spike Jonez. It's about 15 minutes but well worth it. Is this an ad? I don't think so...but it's entertaining, that's for sure.

Thoughts?

It's one thing to say that your brand is cool...

2010-03-28T15:25:00.003-04:00

...and quite another to actually communicate it. No headlines, explanations or special offers. Just an attitude and a perspective. If you don't get it, Adidas doesn't really care...they're not for everyone...(the new work from London...)

The Decision Paradox

2010-03-24T16:45:00.004-04:00

Lately, I've been reading a lot about the effects of the abundance of choice on consumers. With the internet offering limitless choice - from different blogs to any product you imagine to any type of niche community you could want to be a part of or create - we've all got a lot more choices to make.

Technology (ie. the internet) was supposed to make things easier. Email is faster (and cheaper) than a phone call, some would argue. Smartphones allow you to answer your Email even when you're on the go. Digital PVR's allow you to watch TV when you want. RSS readers let you aggregate all your favorite stuff in one place.

We think that more choice equals more opportunity.

The problem? There is to much of it. And our 'free time' is fixed. We can try to squeeze more into it, but there will always be only 24 hours in a day.

The truth is, studies have shown that more choice leads to paralisis - or what some call 'The Decision Paradox' (popularized by Barry Schwartz in his book 'The Paradox of Choice"). The famous example often cited in marketing books occured in a grocery store.

Here is the example from Schwartz book: Researches set up a small table with 24 different jars of jam on it. They offered consumers the ability to try any jam they wanted. Consumers then had the option to purchase any of the jams if they liked what they had (and they could try as many options as they wanted) and get one dollar off on the purchase. Weeks later, the researchers returned and set up the same table in the same place. The difference? They only provided 6 different types of jams. Consumers could then try, and buy, if they liked one of them.

The results were telling: “Thirty per cent of the people exposed to the smaller amount of jams actually bought a jar; only three per cent of those exposed to the large array of jams did so.”

The examples go on. From mutual funds to different types of iced tea, Schwartz references a variety of examples that you can't ignore. I'd recommend watching his 2006 TED talk to check out more on this topic.

In digital, and in all communications, we each have a ton of choice. The number of sites that 'aggregate' content are in the millions. I can connect with friends on dozens of platforms and technologies. I can read, write, comment or share anything I want. I have a ton of choices to make on how I use my time.

Deciding how to make these choices doesn't necessarily mean sitting down and truly evaluating every one I have. I don't have time and you don't either. So I fall into patterns, I make choices that are easy and I make ones that are enjoyable and (hopefully) beneficial in the long term.

As a brand communicating, I don't want you to try to do everything. I don't want you to create a site that aggregates every type of content imaginable and let's me find something that's relevant to me. I want you to guess and focus on something that is relevant to you and hopefully a segment of your consumers.

True, you will get people who don't care. But if you give them a simple choice to make, they might actually stick with your communication experience. If you tell them that you do everything and all you have to do is find it, I'm gone.

To end on a quote from Schwartz:

"The more options there are, the easier it is to regret the one you've made".

Samsung: Own the angles

2010-03-23T13:55:00.002-04:00

This video is just pure fun while showcasing product benefits. I also love the randomness of monsters in March.

I think that by making it relevant to the social media space it will see success being shared there. Everyone can relate.

Red Cross: Old Man

2010-03-22T08:44:00.002-04:00

There is something nice about this spot for the Red Cross. I can see a lot of potential in the idea and what they are trying to say but the execution is a little off. I want more emotion, I want something to make me feel more than I do. Is it the song, is it the editing or is it just me?

Red Cross "Old Man" from Sam (Patrick Samama) on Vimeo.

Found on The Curious Brain.

Yup this is all kinds of awesome

2010-03-19T08:30:00.001-04:00

My favourite parts are:

1. Glasses at the start
2. Picture of Jack Tretton, CEO of Sony at 35 seconds
3. The wii boxing motions he makes
4. The gun sound effects
5. The muffins at the end - I thought you ate all your food through straws?

Mercedes and Josh - I am

2010-03-18T17:43:00.003-04:00

Just watched this new spot from Mercedes. I have to say that, as a whole, automotive advertising get's me down. It tends to be all the same - little story, 15 seconds of the car and then a push to the website with the relevant, 'new age' car configurator. Some automotive brands have done amazing work (see Honda as a reference) but most are just bland, boring copies of each other.

I can't really remember a Mercedes campaign that I've enjoyed but something about Josh Brolin and a well shot, well-written script is resonating with me.

An older spot but one from the same campaign I find interesting as well - shot from the perspective of the car. Something you rarely see these days. It's also anti-advertising which I think is quite interesting (and delightfully post-modern).

What do you think?

DK should change their name to Xerox

2010-03-18T09:50:00.002-04:00

So this is currently one of the most viewed videos on the internet... to bad it is a complete rip off of the one below. I hope DK (UK) is ashamed.

Lost Generation was created a couple years ago in early 2008.

In an industry that prides itself on our ability to be creative it is sad that we continually find examples of blatant rip-offs. At the same time I truly believe that clients are also to blame as they are the ones still buying this crap.

Let's make a pact:

Agencies will promise to be more creative and original.

Marketers will promise to be better informed and closer to pulse of the industry so they can call bullshit on their (soon to be former) agency when regurgitated crap is presented.

Microsoft Pivot [Data Part 2]

2010-03-15T18:14:00.003-04:00

Lauren recently sent me a link to a new product from Microsoft Live Labs called Pivot. Pivot is a new application that allows users to sort through huge sets of data (called 'collections'). The data could be anything - from every donation made on Kiva to the relationship between one football player to another.

The brilliance behind this application is that it makes finding connections between huge sets of data accessible to anyone. You don't need to be an expert in statistics to see patterns provided by Pivot.

I think that the data examples provided in the video below are interesting, however I think that the real application will come when you input your social graph into an application like this. Imagine being able to view your holistic connections to everyone on Facebook beyond the first friend? Or track the people you talk to most, creep on most frequently or try to avoid?

From a brand perspective, the connections gained from this could provide valuable insight. Imagine uploading the Brand Tag data set and finding the connections that consumer have to various brands based on their perceptions.

All in all, just another example of the new types of creativity that are going to shape communications (and everything else) in the coming years.

Just Good Stuff

2010-03-15T17:48:00.002-04:00

An old ad but a good one. Goes along with some of my recent posts about great storytelling. If you've read the blog for awhile, you know that I'm a sucker for Nike and most stuff that comes out of W&K.

Let's make better work. And remember stuff that is actually good.

This is the future of creativity

2010-03-14T19:00:00.002-04:00

The Economist recently published a special report on data. If you haven't noticed, it's everywhere. Smart brands are using this data to create better experiences for their customers, optimize work flow and make their organizations more efficient.

Creativity is no longer simply about one big idea to catch someone's attention and shift their perceptions about a product or service. Creativity is about using massive amounts of raw data and turning it into an experience that is relevant, authentic and personal for the user.

I'm going to be writing more on this subject in the weeks to come but if you want to see what's around the corner, you need to read this report and watch this talk (from the creator of the Internet) as soon as possible.

SEO - The Ugly Stepchild

2010-03-14T14:18:00.004-04:00

For the last number of weeks, I've been doing a lot of SEO work for a client. Unlike experience design or creative development, SEO is a process that is incredibly granular, time-consuming and rigorous. It contains many aspects - from choosing what keywords to optimize your site with to understand the competitive set against each term - and each one changes every day.

The other challenge with it is that it's only half in our control (sort of like the rest of advertising). Except it's not just the consumer we have to worry about engaging, it's the search engine as well.

Studying the Google algorithm - although tedious - has been extremely rewarding. Anyone can talk about the basics of SEO (you know, the three sentences that usually contain the words content, headings, copy and links) but few people in agencies actually acknowledge that it is critical to the creative process.

We spend so much time designing experiences and ads / video's / apps that drive or distribute them. Most of our tactics - if not all - cost a ton of money to implement (whether on the media or the production side).

The great thing about SEO is that once the basics are in place, users find you. Sure, you have to update and stay vigilant among your competitors to ensure your ranking stays high but it's worth it when you don't have to pay for a huge percentage of your site.

I know it feels strange asking about keyword optimization in a meeting with creatives but if they're not thinking about it, you've got to be.

To start on the basics of SEO, check out this page and this great site.

Pure Black Sunshine

2010-03-12T11:51:00.003-05:00

I have been meaning to share this recently launched site from Extreme Group for a while. It is a very interesting and unique approach to selling coffee online.

Check out the video then drop by PureBlackSunshine.com

Black Sunshine Coffee from Matt Hubbard on Vimeo.

You need to "Think" about banner ads

2010-03-06T18:19:00.005-05:00

In the online space a strong creative idea can be greatly impacted by poor consideration of the website, technographics, and the online behaviour of the visitor.

My example is this banner ad for Toyota (also seen above) as created by Saatchi & Saatchi Toronto.

As you will see it does have some element of cool and yes it will cause the pattern interruption that most online advertisers are looking for but in my mind it fails because the ad does not work within the site, nor does it consider the user behaviour or their needs.

This is a 100% brand centric experience (if you can call it that) and not a consumer centric experience.

So lets breakdown the mistakes.

1. Consider screen resolutions and the visible area: I have viewed the exact page on Canada.com on my 13" MacBook and 15" MacBook Pro using Safari & Firefox (first screen shot). The viewable area of this page cuts off the screen directly underneath the bigbox. Great! you think. Not at all. The value of the page is hidden and with the animation of this banner heading in the reverse direction that users move within a website they are ensuring that fewer people have an opportunity to see the ad.

2. Consider the user: Why would anyone go to Canada.com? They are their to view news, information and learn. They have arrived with curiosity or a specific need, problem or goal. This is not a site where users will spend much time on level 2 landing page. They are trying to get the level 3 where the find the actual stories. All of this information is quite a ways down the page. With a scroll of 90 pixels our user will loose any opportunity to view the actual ad. It takes about 10 seconds to get the digging man into the leaderboard. Trust me the user has long ago left the page or scrolled down to see the content.
3. Consider the functionality of the page: I never have and never will allow any piece of online advertising I touch to interfere with the navigation. This ad I imagine would render the navigation useless as it moves through that section of the site - not something that in my opinion positively impact the users experience or perception of the brand.

So basically we have a "cool idea" that through it's execution has ensured that as few people as possible actually have a chance to see it, is created in a way that negatively impacts user experience and renders the navigation useless. In the end I give it a 7 for the idea. 3 for the execution

Comfort

2010-03-06T07:18:00.000-05:00

Really like this idea...that is all.

Found via adgoodness.

The Spectrum of UXD

2010-03-03T22:10:00.003-05:00

I like it. Spent a good 20 minutes looking at this tonight. That is all I have to say about that.

Great Storytelling

2010-03-03T16:43:00.002-05:00

Look - All I want is a sweet story from a brand that actually is creative vs. boring and useless. If you aren't creating content that people wouldn't want to watch outside the walls of your marketing meeting room, start over.

What is this strange content I'm talking about? Start here. Short, amateur films. Raw, great stuff.

Facts About Projection from Studiocanoe on Vimeo.

As you start to evaluate your next campaign, I hope you think about what the story behind it is. What are you actually trying to get people to think and do? I love digital and I love all the channels that we can us to engage people with. But sometimes, all we want is a little escape. And a little (fun) story from a brand.