McCain Fries: Same Brand, Different Country

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

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

Expectations have Changed

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

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...

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?

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

Via: Online University

The Real World 'Like'

Loving this idea from Publicis Isreal.

55,000 hours of Warcraft

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

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

Would you pay to use Facebook?

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

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?

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

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...

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

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

What if BPGlobalPR was created by a BP competitor?

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)

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.

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.

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

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

Genius.

UNIQLO LUCKY SWITCH from HN on Vimeo.

The Chat Roulette Killer

Warning: Some slightly gory stuff for a new campaign.

What do you think?

Being creative makes life more fun

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

Do you think about sound?

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.