Microblogging DOES Have a Purpose!

So there has been a lot of noise generated lately about micro-blogging sites such as Twitter, Pownce, and Jaiku. While I really like the site and use it, I have been wondering who, other than my mother, would care to read posts about what I'm doing...in real time. I also started thinking (and reading) that perhaps that's not the point.

Twitter is beginning to be used as a handy 'headlines' service - allowing you to follow your favourite opinion leaders as they post or link to articles, as well as tracking posts from your friends - sent in via SMS messages. However the underlying great idea behind Twitter is that it's a great way to post something of value (hopefully) with the minimal amount of time spent and intrusion on your day-to-day life.

Then I started thinking about the possibilities in applying the Twitter idea to a branded site. There is a laaaaarge number of companies trying to get you interacting with their site through blog posting, forum comments or other content uploads - www.nike.com/running is a good example of that. One of the issues that we often come across however is that without an incentive, such as some kind of premium to be won, site users are often reluctant to make such a large commitment in time or mental effort on a site that is branded and not really their own. That Nike site for example upon not-so-closer inspection has had the majority of its entries posted by "Running Girl" ...who is quite clearly a Nike employee.

Ironically, that main thing that makes Twitter tick is precisely what eliminates all these issues. So perhaps the solution here is to adapt a Twitter-esque strategy when trying to woo these types of interactions. Instead of asking site visitors for lengthy and involved posts or stories we can just ask to get the point form version - under 140 characters (á la Twitter) or in bullets, or something dynamically generated via selectable menus - or, if thinking about image and video - content that is simply uploaded from your cellphone.

"No, Facebook. I Don't Want to Meet Sexy College Singles, Dammit!"

A lot has been written about the unholy link being made this week between Microsoft - Facebook. I don't have the actual numbers, but Microsoft paid around $240 million for 'a minority stake' of an online entity valued somewhere around the price of Africa. Apparently, a big drive for Microsoft was wanting to control Facebook's hyper targeted banner advertising on the site outside North America (and probably getting out of the wasteland that is Live Spaces).

Now this is my question, if Facebook's banner advertising is so incredibly targeted - making use of ALL the personal data and comments I have stored on my profile, why am I seeing endless banner ads for dating services, online casinos, and other garbage I would only see in the darkest corners of silicon alley?

One reason, somewhere in my profile I've posted that I'm looking to play poker while engaging in questionable acts with 'college singles'. I haven't posted that, at least not in my Facebook profile.

The other reason, there's a relatively small amount of knowledge outside on North America about Facebook banners among media buyers. As a result, anybody outside N.A. is getting the dregs of the online advertising as no agencies outside of N.A. are jumping on the Facebook banner ad bandwagon (yet).

What is a definite is that Facebook is growing in leaps and bounds in Latin America. Following that logic through, let's say there's limited knowledge or buying of these banner ads in Latin America which have a potential audience that is huge, and a selectivity that is incredibly precise.

Summary: I'm going to be pimping the hell out of Facebook's banner ads to get all my LatAm clients on there before anyone else is.

The 3 Screens

Increasingly in client boardrooms I'm hearing the term '3 screens' being dropped. It's not a reference to the number of LCDs you can connect to your comp (giving you the screen real-estate roughly the size of the table in said boardroom). It relates to the way our generation interacts with information; through TVs, computers, and cells.

While I'm honestly not sure if this is a 'textbook marketing term' or something made up by AT&T to hawk their communications strategy, it does highlight the need to think beyond starting and ending the communications story seperately within each media. Rather, linking the mix of media to tell a sequential story, fostering a continual interaction with a customer, and leading them to a desired result. Here are some examples;

• The spot (screen 1) drives me to the in-store SMS promo (screen 2) which drives me to interacting with the website (screen 3)
• The website from which I receive a newsletter on my PDA leads me to a DVD purchase.
• The gaming network I belong to drives me a game's website where I end up downloading a custom ringtone or trailer.

As a consumer, my continual interaction with your brand does not begin and end with viewing 30 second spot or print ad (try explaining that to ad agencies sometimes) nor is it based in a standalone online presence, as defined by a flashed-out website (try explaining that to web agencies sometimes). My interaction with your brand will come from interactions (or... fleeting glimpses) from an array of sources and will be delivered on those three screens, ideally, through an unbroken, sequential stream or story.

Dial 'M' For Mangoes

Ok, so cheesy title aside, I did notice something this weekend while my girlfriend and I shopped for groceries. That being, we hadn't actually shopped for groceries in a long time - we usually phone in to have them delivered (at a charge of roughly $2 US).

Background: for those of you who don't yet know, my girlfriend and I are currently living in Mexico City (ahem, hence the profile pic). Ah, Mexico, a place where, very generally speaking, food and basic labor can be found at minimal cost.

So, let's start with the pessimist's view on all this, just because I'm feeling bummed and it's raining outside.

I was reminded of a lesson I learned a number of years ago - grocery stores hate 'grocery list people'. They loose money on them as they are less likely to succumb to the impulse buy. I am not a 'list person', my girlfriend is not a 'list person'. This fact became abundantly clear to us as we rolled our overladen cart into the checkout.

Our grocery store must loose a (produce) truckload of money by offering a home delivery service as it completely does away with that impulse (or "Oh, I forgot I needed that") purchase. It 'might' make up for its losses through the added clientele it gets from offering the service but I'm postitive no-one calls in their groceries without a list. What's more, you can't actively compare prices and products to make an informed purchase - you'll buy x brand of yoghurt because you bought it before and you know they have it.

Optimist's view: more than anything, that grocery store would benefit immensely from a functional online e-commerce presence. Setting up an Amazon.com style referral system, including purchase suggestions based on behavioral tracking or search item. Sure, it might be more comforting to actually speak with someone when making the order, but that too could be run through Voice Over IP - keeping customers on the site viewing products and hopefully making more/better informed purchases.

Good Word of Mouth and Clubbing Baby Seals

Al Gore seriously kicks ass, and I don't say that about many people over 55.

So i was reminded of Al Gore's Nobel Prise winning 'kick ass-ness' as I was reading a Newsweek article posted on msnbc.com which was an excerpted Q&A with Rajendra Pachauri (the second co-recipient of the Nobel Prize) regarding his opinion on global warming and what he thinks of the progress we're making. Pachauri is responsible those IPCC reports that put the last nails into the coffin of the 'is climate change really happening' debate. Here's a link to the article if you're interested.

Now, what's happened as a result of these two individuals and their work is damn near brilliant - and I think many NGOs and activist groups should take note.

Firstly, they have combined to keep their cause top of mind by firstly publishing attention grabbing reports, and more importantly, held on to that top of mind through Gore's constant media exposure. What can other NGO's learn from that? Well, they should learn that they have to work their butts off to take that initial impact or peak generated from (eg; a damning press release, or a movie about global warming), more importantly keep it fresh by staying in the media and keeping those aligned with their ideals talking - hopefully recruiting converts to the cause who champion the cause themselves.

That last part may be easier said than done.

Hence, I present the second thing Gore and Pachauri have done so well. Gore has made championing the cause a positive issue by putting out a positive message and not one laden with seal clubbing, heart string pulling 'feel guilty' content. Instead it's; "You're making a difference" - said with a smile at the Oscars and followed by a joke. As a result, it makes anyone feel good to champion their cause, create new converts, and in many ways help make a difference.

The Fastest Way to Have to Do a Project Twice

Here's a scenario; my creative team and I go through the brief, develop a creative strategy, and deliver concepts. All good so far. Now be it because of time constraints, scheduling conflicts, or simply distance, the creative gets sent off for approvals via email, or perhaps, left with accounts to pitch. This is the part of the project where everything goes balls up.

Why? Because without a proper explanation of contents, interaction, and most importantly creative rationale, the client becomes free to infer, (mis)interpret and make revisions however they see fit (in the second scenario, it's compounded by account directors agreeing to all their comments, naturally, as their job is to make good with the client and sell the project).

Now, I'm not blaming clients..or accounts. It's difficult enough to grasp an interactive storyboard with someone explaining it in person, nevermind trying to grasp it from static jpegs in a powerpoint. So, inevitably what follows are revisions dictated by a client who may not be 100% on track with even the general function or idea for the site. The initial time saved by not having creatives present in person, gets eaten up 3 times over in revisions and adjustments.

It's a classic example of not communicating with a client, but such an easy pitfall to get into. From my point of view, even if it means I have the project sit for days, that client presentation or even conference call will happen and will include at least one creative.

Tax the Internet, Please

All right, I admit, a request for the government to tax web usage is a pretty a-hole-ish thing to say, but let me back that up.

I'm getting the feeling that we as web designers have become entirely too dependent on video to drive our sites. Now, generally, I'm pro using video assets on a site, but I have to say I get just so damn depressed when it drives entire message of that site. Why? Well, firstly because I have to sit here for however long downloading it, which is a complete turn off. I'm no longer in the mood, no matter how sexy your site may be.

Secondly, I'm not fully sold on the idea that online is a native medium for video content. I'm not talking about the 'tube sites, or video over the internet style setups (a la: Apple TV). I'm talking about the fact that most video based sites tend to gloss over one of the webs greatest assets over the standard spot - active interaction with an engaged user. As well, creatively speaking, online provides us with so many possibilities for exploring really freakin' cool user-system-user interactions that it becomes a waste when those get minimized in favour of what amounts to another 30 second spot....dropped into a website format.

So, back to my original statement. Imagine the feds decide tomorrow to tax web bandwidth usage. Do you think site designers will still be trying to push bloated, fullscreen, video based sites down the pipe, or will we start to see lighter, interaction rich, projects developed?

The Brand's Creative Story

I remember watching Spike Jones' Adaptation a while back, and a scene stuck with me. Charlie Kaufman (Nicholas Cage) attending a writing seminar has just asked the presenter, Robert McKee, for his advice on writing a movie adaptation in which "nothing much happens". To which McKee bursts back:

"...If you can't find [drama] in life, then you, my friend, don't know crap about life. And why the FUCK are you wasting my two precious hours with your movie? I don't have any use for it. I don't have any bloody use for it."

I love this quote. Why? One; it's taken from a Spike Jones movie.

Two; it's the best way to illustrate what we (should) do in those creative brainstorming sessions, when we're coming up with concepts for online.

Every brand tells a story. The most successful brands tell the best stories; most succinctly, most consistently, and with the most drama. Call it what you will, top of mind, brand recall, mind share - that's how they get it.

This is why my team and I never, ever, concede to a standard 'landing page' (even a 'nicely' designed one) - with links to the 'product information', 'product specs', 'product benefits' etc.. Yes, as the online medium works so well for it, you will find information about the product, but we will never deliver it as such.

Why? because I never visit a corporate site for specs on a product (I have Amazon for that). I visit it to see the rest of the story, the stuff the 30 second spot or the freeway billboard didn't have time to tell me entirely. The stuff that I know your brand is 'about'. I don't want to be marketed or sold to.. I want to become emotionally involved, enlightened, and yes entertained by your brand. And you know what, if the site doesn't deliver on that, I too "don't have any bloody use for it".

The Beginning

I want to be famous. ..There, I said it. Now that I said it, I'm thinking about what I said. (which, appropriately, is how I usually function).

Ok, before you judge me a complete douchebag, let me explain what I mean. I don't want celebrity in the traditional, Hollywood, paparazzi, 'Who are you wearing?' red carpet sense. That's junk.

Hm, here's the word I was looking for: 'indispensable'. I want to be indispensable. Now, that's a little more down to earth. So what does that mean specifically, and why the hell am I publishing it online? ...on Blogger - the bastion of so many emo-kids and European backpackers?

Well, after countless hours, sometimes billable ones, huddled in front of my screen taking in as much as I possibly can on design, online marketing and promotions, and web culture from the nearly infinite points of view I've decided to add my voice to the webisphere and write about all the stuff that drives me (for a detailed list of those things see above). I am now a content generator not just a consumer. I want to be a thought leader...and dammit, if I can't be a thought leader, I'll post links to thought leaders.

Oh, and to answer the second question, I'm on Blogger because it's quick, free and comes from my love for all things Google. That said, new projects are in the works for January-ish. Watch for it, tell your friends to watch for it ..and really, truly, sincerely - send me feedback and comments.

Here we go!