Unearthing one golden pixel at a time
Marketers have been speculating about which day of the week is the best day to tweet. As Twitteropia continues to swell, getting a tweet across is becoming increasingly difficult in this rapidly evolving environment. That’s why I created this chart. It shows with pinpoint accuracy which day of the week is best for Twiterring, as well as time of day. NOTE: times are Eastern Standard Time. Results in different time zones will not vary.
It occurred to me this morning that we are all designers.
Take getting dressed, for example. There’s function (let’s hope) and form. We have to wear clothes because society – and our natural tendency to cover up – says so. But what we wear depends on our taste. We design our bodies with clothes to say something about ourselves. How we comb our hair. Make breakfast. The way we drive. Some of us take great care while others don’t even bother. It just is. Which leads to my point: we are all designers.
Design is an inevitable by-product of our daily routine; some of us – including me – help it emerge as beautifully + as efficiently as possible.
There was a time when being social was about people getting together over anything from cocktails to Sunday mass. Today, the word “Social” conjures up an entirely different meaning. For Gen X to Z, we think Facebook, MySpace or Twitter.
For boomers it might be the Saturday night ritual of dinner and a movie. For folks like my mom, “Social” means a game of cards, scones and tea with her mates. That’s social. Old school.
However, I’m seeing poeple in their seventies hopping onto Facebook to see what they’re children are doing or networking with friends about the next bocci tournament.
Indeed the web, and the amazing applications that come with it, has accentuated the proliferation of being social.
To this end I find it amazing that when advertisers think “Social” they think of the web first, yet when they think “Marketing” most think of TV first, web second. How old school is that?
I’ve been a big fan of Shreddies all my life. Simple. Tasty. “Good-good whole wheat Shreddies”. They communicated these characteristics to Canadians for 68 years. Then along comes a campaign that makes me look at Shreddies in a whole new light. That’s the intent at least.
This campaign created by Ogilvy Toronto is interesting for a couple of reasons.
1. After seeing the ad on TV, I knew I was slightly cajoled into believing Shreddies was new. After watching this footage, I fail to understand why a marketer would show how cosnumers behave in focus groups. I appreciate the humor, but it leaves a slight taste of disgust in my mouth. I actually feel bad for these people, especially since Ogilvy’s blog is aimed squarely at the ad community.
2. If a product has nothing new about it, does it make sense to create something new just for the sake of creating something new? Why would Shreddies spend millions on a message the dupes consumers? Why not spend that money educating consumers about the benefits of wheat? The history of Shreddies? A donation to wheat farmers in Alberta or Saskatchewan? Wouldn’t that be money better spent?
Yesterday I tweeted about Coca Cola’s new corporate blog Coca Cola Conversations. I was deeply impressed by the notion of a company like Coke having a blog open to the public. Then I discovered the House Rules, which went like this:
We want you to leave comments and ask us questions on this blog. However, we will review all comments before they go live, and will not post any that are inappropriate or offensive. We will only post comments that relate to the subjects covered by this blog, and may need to edit some of the comments from time to time. Please understand that comments posted to this site do not represent the opinions of the Company.
After reading my tweet, Luis Vieira over at Think Lola sent me an email, which went like this:
I really don’t think there’s anything wrong with moderating comments – sure in an ideal world you wouldn’t and I strongly believe that online communities once they reach a certain size and critical mass can quite effectively police themselves. When a blog is starting out, especially one as visible as this one, it will attract its fair share of cranks right out of the gate before the more thoughtful and sober amongst us (the majority) start to make their presence felt.
Leaving the comments unmoderated would likely open them up to unforeseen liabilities and almost act as a challenge to unscrupulous individuals. Just because it’s a big bad brand ie: Coke, Nike, McDonalds it seems everyone taunts them to get all new-agey web 2.0.
People forget that these are business that contribute significantly to the economies they touch, they employee large swaths of the population, sponsor cultural events, and donate huge amounts of money to what most people would consider good causes. Of course there’s always the flip side of this – after all slagging the Big Bad Brands has been in vogue since oh…. at least 1998
My take on Coke’s House Rules is very simple: it’s like communism.
When I visited Budapest during the iron curtain days, friends and family told me what “it” was like. “It” meant pretty much everything that centred around the censorship that comes with communism. “You can’t say this… can’t say that. You could to jail if someone heard you.”
What you read in the newspapers or saw on the state run TV (there were 2 channels to choose from) wasn’t necessarily the truth: it’s what they wanted you to hear.
This is still happening in many countries unfortunately.
I lived in Budapest for 3 years after the curtain came down. “It” was still engrained in most of the people I met; the fear of someone over hearing what you really wanted to say. I remember going to underground (literally) pubs where the young aristocrats, many of them in advertising, would gather to speak their minds. At times it was like being in the Factory with Andy Warhol et al, but it was always a place where censorship did not exist. People spoke freely and listened freely. It was totally open. No rules.
Perhaps I’m being too literal here, but for a blog to have House Rules goes against the whole reason of listening and conversing.
It shows that a company/brand is not confident in what they are doing, which leads me to ask “Why did they even bother creating a blog?” To play the part? “Look at me… I’m all web 2.0. Ain’t I great?”
They’re doing it on their terms to benefit themselves. No one else.
The other day I started thinking about where ad people rank on the Morale Ladder.
I’ve heard from numerous sources that we’re comfortably snug between crack dealers, prostitutes and litigators. I don’t know which one appeals to me more. For the last 15 years I’ve been writing copy for ads, architecting ads, selling ads, you get the idea.
I spent 3 years in Europe learning how to write ads. I spent 2 years at the first true digital agency in Toronto (Modem Media… wurd up!) learning how to architect ads and write for ads in the online space. Good times.
As I get older I can’t help but think it’s time I started doing something bigger. Something better.
A few years ago I considered quitting advertising all together to become a fire fighter. Seriously. My wife had to talk me out of it. I wanted to help people more than save a life. OK, the calendar thing is cool but I just wanted to help people.
When I architect sites for my clients, I want to help the consumer more than I want to help my client. Naturally, happy consumers help clients in so many ways. Sometimes I want to tell consumers “Stay Away from This”
Then along comes the “un-agency” trend.
Idris Mootree, Online Spin, Jon Campbell… they’re all talking about it. David Armano summed it all up for me:
“If some agencies don’t fix their culture problems—they may find themselves with talent who look the part but don’t actually play it.”
Now is the time for innovation and helping people first.
Today I announced my resignation from Capital C. The immediate goal is to rekindle my consultancy practice with a focus on experience planning and social media. The blogosphere has guided me in my decision, and I know they will be there for inspiration and consultation.
BTW – Drop me a line if you know anyone looking for a planner. I’m officially for hire.
If you ever wanted to know what goes into designing a shoe at NIKE, this is a must see.
This a story about Tinker Hadfield, the man who designed shoes like the Air Max. Originally trained as an architect, he was hired by NIKE in 1981 to design their corporate headquarters.
Four and a half years later he was designing shoes.
From the inspiration to the criticism he faced as a designer, this video inspired me as an information designer to push the limits. I hope it does the same for you.
I’m starting to see more and more sites using the scroll wheel to enhance the user experience by offering more than just scrolling. For example, Suit Supply, an online merchant for men’s suits, uses the same scroll wheel feature as Google Maps: Zoom In and Out. A great feature when you want to get a closer look at the suit material and details.
Toshiba built a gorgeous site to let users browse elements of the site with the scroll wheel. The site is all about creating an emotional connection with products consumers may not necessarily understand. It dimensionalizes them in a way that connects interaction with a very unexpected outcome.
I would like to create an archive of sites that use the scroll wheel for more than just scrolling. If you happen to see any, please post them here.
Cheers.
This is in response to a post by Cam Beck over at Marketing Profs. In it, Mr. Beck states that no amount of “brand engagement” is going to make people think more about a brand. Here’s my response:
While I agree that a company’s brand isn’t as important to its audience as it is to the company, I strongly disagree that no amount of “brand engagement” is going to make people think more about a brand.
Let’s start from within.
Did you know, for example, that companies like SAS in North Carolina offer sports facilities, subsidized child-care, early schooling and a primary health-care centre, free to staff. The latter is increasingly being studied by other firms as they struggle to contain the growth of health-care costs. In fact, when Google was planning the Goolplex, they went to SAS for inspiration.
What does this mean?
SAS’s turnover rate is approx. 4% a year, compared with 20% in the software industry as a whole. If that’s not keeping your staff engaged, then what is?
Now let’s look on the outside.
Apple keeps their consumers engaged with products that continue to push our creativity. From the start, when Apple Computers made a PC that was simple to use, their focus was always on the end user: how can we make a better PC? How can we make a person better at being creative? Then Apple Computers made different computers at faster rates and newer designs, things people wanted to display in their homes and/or offices as works of art.
I remember an old employer buying a first generation iMac for the front reception desk so that when clients arrived, they saw it. No one else in the office had one. I call that brand engagement.
Then Apple made the iPod and iTunes. Enough said.
Then came the retail experience, launched at a time when all the “experts” said Steve was crazy to think of going bricks and mortar. That it would never succeed. Guess what?
20% of Apple revunue comes from their retail outlets.
Then came the iPhone. Do I need to say anything else?
What’s interesting to note is how Apple dropped the word computers from their name. They no longer consider themselves a computer brand; they’re an experience brand that continues to engage consumers with more design at more touchpoints.
If that’s not brand engagement then sign me up for fire fighter school because clearly, I’m not getting it.
When it’s time to pop the big question, many marketers wonder where their ad dollars are best spent.
TV used to be, and still is in many markets, the first thing that comes to mind. But as reach and frequency and models of CPM continue to diminish, the savvy marketers are wondering how to keep their consumers engaged.
Yesterday I asked my colleagues what engagement meant to them. The response was overwhelming. My goal is to use these insights to help create what I’m calling The Marketer’s Engagement Diamond.
Here’s what they had to say:
I’m getting married
Getting involved with something
It’s a function I’m attending
As a consumer it means how long I stay interested in an item and/or product.
Personally, from a consumer POV, I would define it as a relationship of sorts – loving what a brand does; loving what effect it has on your life and lifestyle; putting your stamp of approval on a particular brand; communication (or at least the perception that I COULD communicate) and listening to what I’m saying; continuous innovation to better suit my needs; added value for my loyalties.
As a consumer it means to get inside my head and ‘get me’. It means being really connected to me emotionally and intellectually.
A brand can engage me when I realize they have connected with me their first.
Then, it’s up to the brand to be creative in how they will surprise, delight and entertain me.
Committed, invested interest
To me it means that I’m involved.
Means marriage to me… I think we should try to be funnier. Humor is the only things that really engages me in advertising.
Engagement to me means I move from passive observer to active involvement.
2 way communication… somehow the customer interacts with you directly… an actual conversation… exchange of contact information / method is assumed
It can be as simple as taking customer input (usually a complaint) and turning it into a special experience that converts them from a consumer of your goods to loyal advocates. Something any organization can do starting now.
Engagement is interest, motivation to follow up on what the brand is doing; level of trust; advocacy.
Connecting with me in a way that inspires me to respond – physically (thru purchase), emotionally (thru equity in brand – could be positive or neg)
Engagement. Super involved, like a relationship.
The point where it is hard to back out of the purchase. (Or Marriage.)
