This ad by BBH illustrates how Audi’s early concept cars, which were often deemed too futuristic for their time, have now evolved into some of the most beautiful designs on the road, much like the story of the “Ugly Duckling”.
Utilizing black & white (at first) and a lovely little tune, it’s a simple story with a simple message that puts the spotlight on both the brand and the car.
I recently called one of my close high school friends about planning a trip to visit him in Boston. We haven’t been great about keeping in touch over the last few months, but we still have a rough idea of what the other is doing, owing, of course, to Facebook. For better (and for worse), it’s easier than ever to keep up with the lives of your friends and family.
…or is it?
As we chatted I inquired about how things in Boston are, to which he asked if I had “seen all of [his] recent pics on Facebook”.
After thinking about it for a second, I realized that I hadn’t. In fact, I couldn’t recall seeing any of his photos, or any other activity of his on my Newsfeed in some time. When I checked out his Timeline to see what he was talking about, I first saw posts and events that I had somehow overlooked from the last few weeks, which led to posts that I had missed over the last few months.
How could I have missed so much of his life?
The answer is hidden in one of the many Facebook updates that has gone relatively unnoticed. When Facebook began publishing “Top Stories” on users’ newsfeeds by default (as opposed to simply all recent activity in chronological order), it – i.e. the algorithm that this feature relies on – was evidently making decisions about what is important and/or relevant to each user. That doesn’t just mean reordering though, it means selecting, and by extension, omitting. Facebook, in all its wisdom and with its treasure trove of social graph data, has taken it upon itself to decide whose updates I most care to see and essentially, who among my 1,000+ Facebook friends I want to be a part of my closest network.
Alas! Facebook had algorithm’d at least one good friend out in favor of others, and I’m sorry to say that they got it utterly wrong.
You may find yourself wondering whether “soap game” is even a type of game that one can possess. Yes, it is, and it’s being almost universally neglected.
Over the last several months, I’ve noticed that nearly every restaurant, retail boutique, hotel (public areas) etc. that I’ve visited that positions itself as luxury or high-end has failed to extend that desired brand-image to their restrooms.
Nine times out of ten, the WCs of the aforementioned establishments will be stocked with run-of-the-mill drug-store soap, rough paper-towels, and a noticeable lack of moisturizer.
If your business strives to exude luxury, with well-trained staff, a notable interior designer and/or architect, and high-end clientele, why would you suddenly be inconsistent when it comes to bathroom amenities?
This may seem like a nit-picky diatribe on something that most people view as inconsequential, but it’s about more than that – it’s about the image that your brand puts forth, and making sure that image is reflected in everything you do, particularly the little things.
If you’re compromising on the soap, what else are you neglecting that could aversely affect your brand image?
I just broke up with Siri. She wasn’t right for me, as she told me countless times.
Her incessant (but lovable) sass aside, I was getting very little utility from her while she sucked away my data and battery. All take and no give. Perhaps my expectations were too high, but when I heard “personal assistant,” I expected her to add ease and efficiency to my day. Instead, most of my queries were misunderstood, forcing me to either attempt to speak phonetically or give up and use the touchpad (which was often times more efficient anyways).
Our time together wasn’t all bad. The Wolfram Alpha integration is good for some basic fact checking, though it is limited to what’s in their database. She can also be helpful if you’re in search of an escort or a place to hide a body. And I’ll concede that while I rarely drive, the hands-free texting may be of use to those who do (if she understands you.)
But in short, I think Siri was a rushed Beta whose profile benefitted from Apple’s phenomenal marketing, but the product as-is leaves much to be desired.
Digital agency R/GA is having some fun this Valentine’s Day with a Twitter campaign called #OfficeCupid. The premise is fairly simple:
Before seeing it in action, I wasn’t quite sure how I felt about the idea. But now that they’ve been running it for a few hours, I think it’s brilliant.
This could’ve headed south quickly if the tweets were clichéd, cheesy (in a bad way), or boring, outcomes that are not entirely out of the question on today of all days. But the tweets have surprisingly been cute, funny, and at times cheesy (but in a good way), giving the agency a chance to flex their copywriting muscle a bit.
It’s also a fun way for the agency to be relevant on this holiday, hopefully earn some free media, and most importantly, to help build their corporate brand, something that a lot of service-based companies (such as advertising agencies) don’t spend enough time doing.
I’m a big fan.
PS – On the other end of the spectrum, you have this: eggmcmuffinecard.com, where you can send that special someone in your life a McDonalds Egg McMuffin E-Card.
Seriously, who is leading McDonalds’ digital strategy these days? Because they seem to be missing the mark on all fronts (remember their social media debacle from a few weeks ago?)
Yesterday, I spent some time catching up on the Super Bowl commercials because I missed them on Sunday.
Wait, I actively chose to watch advertisements?
Shocking, I know. Distrust of (and a general desire to avoid) advertisements is an idea as universally subscribed to as that of the world being round. DVRs, downloadable content (both legal and illegal) and the rise of streaming content on the internet not only affords one the convenience of watching what they want, when they want, but also saves them from the often unbearably-long commercial breaks that can eat up as much as 30% of a show’s time block. But even with legal streaming services such as Hulu, which offers much of its newer content for free and shows viewers only 1-2 commercials per break, viewers still take to illegal downloading, in part to avoid commercials. We just aren’t the biggest fans of them…
…Until Super Bowl Sunday hits. Then everyone seems to care – A LOT. Those of us who are more marketing minded naturally care about attributes such as ROI and brand recall, but the general public is just as into it, making the ads as much an event as the game itself. What is it about the Super Bowl that makes people suddenly care about ads, and even seek them out before and after they air? Part of it is the hype that marketers create, yes, but I think there’s also a hope that these ads, on this one day of the year, will transcend the mundanity of the typical ad.
Can marketers shift the perception of advertising to something that consumers start to value? I think so – they can start by creating ads that connect with the viewer and that are smart, honest, true to the brand, and free of gimmicks – but it won’t be easy. Here’s to 2012.
I’ve decided to throw my hat in the ring of the Facebook Timeline debate. Having been an early adopter of Facebook’s latest major change, I wanted to give myself a chance to properly digest all that it has to offer in an effort to give a less knee-jerk reaction, but my opinion after a month of use is the same as my initial one – it sucks.
The purpose of Facebook as a whole, and the underlying theme for this radical shift, is and should be to enhance user experience while increasing peoples’ engagement with the many features of the network (such as the new apps). Timeline hurts both.
Dubbed “Timeline” for the supposed ease with which users can revisit one’s entire Facebook life, the new dual-panel profile page appears to hint at some effort to employ design sensibility to profiles, but instead just presents posts in a poorly organized and hard to follow manner. Looking at the demo photos for Timeline, Facebook seemed to think that people would be interacting with a lot more of their new apps (such as Spotify and Netflix) than they are in practice, and that the new Timeline format would do a better job of organizing all of these new interactions. Instead, users appear to be using Facebook more or less the same way they were before the apps, and most users’ Timelines are simply filled wall-posts as before, just with a far less-friendly UI.
The UX begins to crumble when I attempt to scroll to the most current activity on a friend’s page, and am immediately obstructed by a cover photo, often not of the user themselves. I understand the desire to show off one’s creative side with a cover photo of something that is both aesthetically pleasing and representative of that person’s personality – and we know that this is all the rage given the success of Tumblr and Pinterest – but the sheer size of it restricts me from more seamlessly accessing any content on a friend’s page. It necessitates that I scroll down to see any meaningful amount of information. This coupled with the unintuitive pattern in which posts are displayed (alternating posts between the left side of the split-screen profile and the right side) makes browsing a Timeline more like navigating a maze.
General outcry is to be expected with any Facebook change (remember the introduction of the newsfeed?), but after a month, Timeline still isn’t doing it for me. I am now significantly less likely to scroll through posts on a friend’s profile, which kind of goes against the entire idea of the Timeline, doesn’t it?
You may be forgiven for thinking that the quote above is about SOPA, but it’s clear that Hollywood/old media isn’t the only group that simply doesn’t get the internet.
The quote is from an NYT article from earlier this week entitled “Online Shoppers are Rooting for the Little Guy,” which essentially describes a struggle between smaller online retailers, many of whom originally were, and still are, physical brick-and-mortar retailers too, and giant online retailers like Amazon.com.
More specifically, the quote is from Mike Stewart, a small-business owner whose sporting goods store in Chattanooga (and subsequently online as well), Feather & Fly, was forced to close after 8 years due to online competition:
Online, he found, “there’s no way I could compete against a big-box type store that could have massive inventories or cut deals to get better rates,” he said.
“We did have good customer loyalty here,” said Mr. Stewart, as he boxed up the inventory left over after his going-out-of-business sale, “but the Internet is a killer.”
While I am sorry for Mr. Stewart’s loss, blaming the internet is not only fairly ignorant, but it’s an easy scapegoat. As is framing large online retailers such as Amazon as bullies and placing the blame on them.
The internet didn’t “kill” anyone’s business. Rather, a failure to update one’s business model in the face of technological innovations did. What may have worked in your small store in Chattanooga isn’t necessarily going to work online, and one needs to find ways to compete with the big boys (and gals) of online retail in ways other than price if they wish to succeed.
The tech world has been inundated with discussion surrounding the meteoric rise of industry giants (Facebook, Apple, Google, LinkedIn etc) and more palpably what all is in store for the future. This discussion, however, has only in part been about the companies. More accurately, we eat, tweet, and breathe the Stars (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/160/tech-wars-2012-amazon-apple-google-facebook). You know the names well by now – Zuckerburg, Jobs, Hoffman, Dorsey.
There seems to be a trend wherein the entrepreneur, and in many of these cases the founder-turned-CEO, has taken hold of the company, product, marketing, and overall vision. Such top to bottom control hasn’t been seen since Michael Jordan owned and starred for the Washington Wizards. My desire for the NBA to return aside, I don’t think it should be taken for granted that these individuals have transcended entrepreneurship into corporate leadership. The distinction here should be noted, admired, and only very cautiously emulated.
Google’s Larry Page and Sergei Brin gave way to Eric Schmidt to helm the company in its most formative and high growth years. Steve Jobs was removed from Apple due to a corporate struggle with Steve Sculley. The relationships and comebacks for both of these, while extraordinary, should not be taken as the norm but rather exceptions to the rule. A successful entrepreneur doesn’t automatically equal a successful CEO. More entrepreneurs should recognize this, and the ego of running all parts of the show should be set aside to give the company the best chance of forging forward.
There is no loss or failure in finding people that help do certain things better than you. The entrepreneur shouldn’t be concerned with stardom, but rather the success of their company. At some point the project has to grow up and you have to give it some freedom – allow it to be more independent – much like parents have to do with their children.
Seth Godin posted his thoughts yesterday on the need to move beyond simply measuring impressions and instead focus on more meaningful things such as how one’s advertising and marketing efforts affect the perception of the brand and/or whether it leads to more meaningful and long-term interaction than a one-time click or purchase. He posits that these will lead to an end-goal of a relationship of permission:
Both perception and interaction lead to permission. Permission to deliver anticipated, personal and relevant messages over time. Permission to tell a story. Permission to earn attention on an ongoing basis.
I couldn’t agree more with Seth. The problem is, perception and interaction are much harder to measure than impressions, clicks, and purchases. By no means is that a suitable excuse to not strive for these things, and don’t get me wrong – one certainly should – but it makes it considerably more difficult to sell to a client, a higher-up, or someone in a different department who still thinks of ROI in the conventional and more easily measurable terms that they’ve grown comfortable with. That said, I’d argue that success often hinges upon being able to venture outside of one’s comfort zone and take risks when necessary, so it might be a good idea to surround yourself with people who are willing to do so.
