Google's Pointers on Creating Web Apps.

Here’s a link to a great primer on creating web apps for social networks provided by the good people at Google. In truth, I tagged it in my del.icio.us bookmarks about two weeks ago and promptly forgot about it. While all the points made are are great, I think two of the strongest points related to initial planning and strategy are expose friend activity and drive communication.

One of the keys to creating a social app is showing what related friends are doing with the application - persuading users to interact or connect through the app. Some examples, taken directly from my own Facebook account:
• posting high scores and rankings (Jetman/Vampires)
• random quizzes and opinions (Flixster Movies or random trivia)
• Facebook groups - and the shared comments posted on them
• links to outside social networks such as Flickr, Twitter, or RSS blogs

Happy reading.

Soft Selling and Facebook Apps

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who’s worked with me knows that I’m a huge advocate of the soft sell for online communications. That is, creating a branded site that doesn’t really sell anything beyond a lifestyle or relevant value added content. I love creating experiences that involve purely emotional benefits for the users - and don’t simply hard sell product benefits. From my perspective, working in the emotional soft sell is one of the basics of moving a brand into the web 2.0 or USG environment.

This is exactly what is so surprising about so many of the heavily branded Facebook apps I’m seeing lately coming out from larger agencies. It strikes me as odd that some of these leading agencies, ones which create some of the best and most emotionally charged advertising, can’t move that same emotion into something other than a 30 second spot or print ad. What’s the result? Well clearly the majority of Facebook users, me included, wouldn’t invite friends to use an app that’s an overt product promotion. As such, the entire idea of creating an online opt-in based promotion, such as a Facebook app, is made null when so few actually opt in.

I would love to see more successful online projects based in emotional benefits around a brand, not a brand’s selling message itself. I would love to see more Facebook apps like the Simpsonize Me promotion for Burger King. True, it wasn’t an actual Faceboook app, but enough people put the final generated images as their Facebook profiles I think it qualifies. It played squarely with the fun and goofiness that is Burger King, without ever trying to sell you on upsizing your combo next time you visit. In other words, the chain sacrificed some of the hard sell message, not pushing their burgers, but in return people actually used the app. Which from my point of view, is what counts.

A Brief Post Mortem on Being Brief

Last week I was part of a pitch for a website to a client with a lot of potential. I took and presented our creative concept, and came back with a lesson in the importance of brevity. The lesson came from what I thought was a hiccup in our presentation. We extensively covered our agency background, online marketing, and a comprehensive site architecture of the proposed site – all before getting to the creative concept.

I might be taking a very ad agency point of view in this, but seriously, sell the concept first and sort the details later. A well researched creative concept is the reason to exist for an agency, and it doesn’t sell well to a dead crowd, as in, one that’s been numbed by sixty plus PowerPoint slides. It’s kind of like doing stand up to an empty club – only with no rim shots and less booze in your system. Secondly, most execs who aren’t in it (ie: web geeks like me) aren’t looking for a lecture about the finer points of online marketing – that’s why they came to us in the first place. Finally, most execs will only give you 30 to 40 minutes and if you don’t have the big reveal by then, they’re gone (often literally) and you’re in trouble.

Now, don’t get me wrong, stats, brand insights, and market strategy play an invaluable role in leading up to the creative concept but after 10 - 15 slides, it’s covered. Need more info? Here’s the appendix. Same with technical details like site architecture. Show the general breadth and depth of the site in a slide, after the creative, and done. Stick the rest of that in the appendix too.

In the end selling a new media project, I find, almost always hinges on selling the creative concept. I’ve never heard a client say “The concept didn’t wow us, but we’ll sign because you understand viral marketing”. And selling the creative concept has as much to do with showmanship a la Sigfried and Roy as it does explaining the marketing that went into it. And damn it, Sigfried and Roy is hard to make happen after a 40 minute lecture.

Confessing My Love for Digg

One of my most frequently visited sites must be Digg.com – in the few seconds I spend skimming the headlines of user submitted content I can get caught up with breaking industry news, gadget gossip, newest viral video, and of course, the occasional anti-Republican slam. The site’s unique idea of user submitted content has been documented pretty much everywhere of note. Where I can still see a untapped potential for Digg, or sites similar to it, is to break out of the tech sphere, something that site hasn’t really done yet. Perhaps Digg is already too branded as tech culture or 20something to make that move though.

What would happen however, if the Wall Street Journal took steps on creating something akin to user submitted/voted content on their own site? Imagine a section of the WSJ.com devoted to user submitted content; links to stock insights, info on accounts on the move, and market trends. Further, they could allow open access to those sections of their site in lieu of making all their content free. Ultimately, a move like that could move user submitted content creation/aggregation outside the realm of tech culture - not to mention to adding a great value added feature for WSJ.com readers. The newspaper has already partnered with Digg to provide open access to any stories linked through and posted on Digg – it’s perhaps the first step in the right direction for both.

Google Android

So John C. Dvorak has already written off Google’s Android as a failure - “smart phones have never gone anywhere” (Cranky Geeks, #89), but who really listens to his rants anyway.

The problems with smart phones to date, iPhone included, comes down to them running on proprietary software - which doesn't really play nice when trying to use 3rd party applications. Freeware apps are half the reason people buy smart phones in the first place! Now, I probably wouldn’t leave a social network like Facebook if new 3rd party apps were to be developed for Hi5 or Orkut, (sorry open social), but I would probably buy a different cell phone - despite what Dvorak says.

I’d also put the educated opinions of people like Seth Godin up against those of Dvorak any day. In fact, I’ll go with the Godin reference and bring up what he mentions about helping something go viral, specifically; make it easy to sample, make it easy to share. From my point of view, Google is hitting on exactly that by setting up Android. Opening their OS to programmers means that consumers will easily be able to install, use and share any of the apps created - hopefully making the apps themselves go viral (which ideally pushes sales of Android equipped phones). Well, at least for me anyway.

Hulu’s a success, now bring back my shows!

Bear with me, as we’re a little behind on syndication in Mexico I just started watching NBCs The Black Donnellys...only to find out it had been cancelled after about 4 episodes. At the same time, my girlfriend and I started watching Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip ...only to find out it was cancelled after the first season. Sometimes I hate the midwest housewives who basically set television ratings. Enter Hulu.com.

Currently, the majority of the blogsphere is busy eating their words in their doomsday predictions for NBC/Newscorp’s joint venture Hulu – an online video service where users can download shows from the two networks. Apparently the service, in terms of usability and functionality, works fine. Well done networks, welcome to 2004.

While, I can’t claim to know the exact future plans for Hulu, it seems to me that the site’s key differentiator isn’t downloading the shows you watch on television, any tube site can do that. Downloading new shows you can’t watch on television, on the other hand, could very well be. What greater way to lure users to a new service than by creating unique value added content, and in this case studios as content producers are in the envied position to do just this.

Here’s a reason to believe; niches. The cancelled and unaired episodes of The Black Donnellys apparently ranked second in downloads from the site, behind ‘Heroes’ (which in my opinion is just pure hype). What does that mean? Well for starters, unlike television online successes comes from niche markets, like the ones watching the Donnellys. That’s not necessarily groundbreaking. What could be groundbreaking is if networks applied that insight to create unique, high quality content specifically for online – targeted at the niches, not the masses represented by midwestern housewives. Personally, I would gladly pay to watch a new season of either the Donnellys or Studio 60 online, it beats the hell out of watching CSI reruns.

Gambling on the Creative Pitch

From a creative’s point of view I can say I like the pitch process, from a managerial point of view I can say that sometimes it’s about as messy and stressful as playing poker in a lowlit back room with the mob. At least with the mob you know ahead of time that your odds in that game are generally set to 0.

I’m not the only person to see things this way, as posted in these articles from Adweek and the chief strategist from Critical Mass both flogging the creative pitch process.

I’ve personally lost track of the number of pitches that we’ve done here, it seems that every few weeks we’re working on landing another new client. Again, as a creative I like that, it changes the scene a little and gets me to try new things with new brands and products, and of course grows our business. It becomes a real pain however, when after all the effort invested by a creative team everything is at the mercy of such an arbitrary decision process.

One of the ways my team and I has managed to avoid some of the time sucking pitfalls mentioned in these articles (ie: creating elaborate creative strategies and code ready art - spec) is simply by proposing key visuals with written explanations for background. The key visuals help the client understand how the look and feel of the site will link with their brand communications, while not committing us to any specific functionality, menu structure, or even site architecture. The written stuff explains the online strategy and planned builds, such as games and downloads, 2nd tier contents, or linked offline/online promotions.

The trick with this approach, in my opinion, is that it should be used when a client is asking for a pitch involving an integrated marketing approach - involving different promotions channels (think 360). Otherwise, if they’re only looking for a microsite to link with a promotion, it might seem as if the creative team under-delivered by only explaining the site contents. It’s a bit of a fine line to walk but if done well it doesn’t burn out the creative team, or burn through budgets.

Viral Marketing Gone Wrong

Those who know me, know I’m a huge proponent of brands giving as much freedom as possible to users during viral campaigns. However, a recent eConference I was involved in highlighted some cases studies that to me stand out as brilliant examples of what not to do. I took the liberty of posting some up.

Chevy Tahoe | Release commercial footage of the Chevy Tahoe clips online in hopes of stirring up viral commercials. Extremely vocal and environmentally aware online communities had their own ideas however.

Sony | A blogger began posting videos of himself rapping in an attempt to convince his parents to buy him a PSP. This went over horribly when it was found out that the blogger was a fake - a false identity created by Zapatoni - Sony’s online agency. Many lessons to be learned here, most importantly; companies disguised as real personalities to sell a product is very, very bad.

The site is down, but here’s video showing the general reaction from the online community. And one of the original posted videos.


Ford Ka | Maybe this is less about planning for viral and more about the power of online consumers. This commercial was aired and later taken down due to protests from animal rights groups…only to resurface again online.(Warning - a bit graphic if you’re a cat lover).

Apple | Maybe this was just bad a bad script or casting, but the general consensus online was that ‘Ellen’ in this Apple commercial was not exactly studying in her room the night her computer crashed - note to parents, that’s not incense you’re smelling. Ok, maybe this didn’t really hurt the company, but I think it should still be on the list.

The 509 Error

Last week I read a brief article about the launch of Hulu.com; NBC and Newscorp’s first serious entrance into online video – kind of like a legal YouTube for their shows and content.

Within a week of launch the site had crashed, which was dubbed in the article as a ‘right of passage’ for a website. The comment made me laugh but has merit - flood a server with enough traffic to a single site and it will surely go down.

After reading the article I began thinking about the amount of sheer traffic you would need to a site to have it crash. As such, I decided that building a site that goes on to hit the "509 Bandwidth Limit Exceeded" error now sits in my list of unofficial professional goals.

McDonald's in Mexico

I guess I should start this by making a guilty admission – last week I ate at McDonalds. After nearly 3 years of not having bought a single artery clogging, grease burger from the place I caved in – I honestly had no options and 10 minutes to grab anything to eat. Come to think of it, the last time I ate at McDonalds was for the same reason, we were stuck on an American highway that seemed sponsored by the red, white, and yellow clown chain.

Yes, this post is a little outside my norm, but the heck with it.

I’m currently working in Mexico City, which, as far as fast food chains go doesn’t mean much actually. I can order exactly what I could in Toronto, New York, or any random American highway, I would just be asking for it by its odd spanglish name; Quiero un McPollo por favor.

It wasn’t exactly groundbreaking to me that chains have consistency in their menus even in emerging nations like Mexico. What was a surprise to me, was that my McPollo was brought in a cerca 1988, earth killing, non-biodegradable Styrofoam container. “Aren’t these things dead already?’’ I asked myself. You know, like CFCs, or Freon, or Celine Dion. Well apparently with all three, in Canada, yes. Here in Mexico, where the laws and public shame hasn’t created enough pressure, no.

Now, I’m not what you call a politically active environmentalist. I do my part though; I sort my garbage, I turn off the lights, I take busses or I drive my 4 cylinder car – although that last one is mostly due to finances than eco-friendliness. But what pissed me off the most about McDonald’s packaging was that the company is splashing environmentalist green all over that red, white and yellow in Canada and simultaneously is SO overtly giving two sh!#s about it in Mexico, or countries where public opinion of their environmental practices hasn’t bottomed out yet. I mean, I’m not naive, you kind of expect them to cut corners behind the scenes in places like here, but still using the styro boxes is so overt, so blatantly off-putting for a customer (like me) that it negates anything positive that promotions can do, not to mention it's just so damn stupid ecologically.

I guess for now that the reek wafting from McDonald’s deep fryers is only outdone by the one coming from their corporate practices in countries like Mexico. Here’s hoping that in another 3 years or so when I’m forced through their doors again things might be different.

Creating Users - Feel Free to Disagree

I wanted to post an article I recently wrote and give everyone an opportunity to comment and put in some feedback on it if they wanted. Look forward to any replies, agreements, disagreements, or hate mail I may receive! Here's the article:

Creating Users: The art of keeping visitors on your site

I’m a runner. That’s a fact that I’m rather proud of, thank you very much. Lately during my runs the conversations with my running buddies and I have often come back to one of my friend’s new Nike+, a cool gadget that links with his iPod. This is how I found myself browsing through Nike’s recently updated running website (www.nike.com/running), which in turn started me thinking about how my team and I develop a web site’s creative strategy and about the strength of use cases in this development.

Now, if you know what a use case is and you’re not an interactive system architect, great! For the rest of us, a use case is one of the nifty techniques usable to determine why a customer, in this case a user, is going to come to your site. Specifically, use cases are tasks that we define a user will accomplish when coming to our interactive system or site. The classic example of a use case is someone using an ATM; a customer taking out money is one use case, another customer checking their balance is another use case, and one more depositing money is yet another. A little bland so far but, use cases become really interesting when moved out of the context of systems architecture and into creative strategy as they help us come up with innovative reasons for that user to visit our site.

A clear understanding of the target market and the USP of the product means that from the very beginning of a site build we know generally why the users or customers are coming to the website and how we will build interactions for them. However, as my team and I push to create added value, better interactions, and stronger creative, we often pitch unusual use cases in our creative brainstorming sessions. In short, we develop alternate ‘what if’ scenarios catering to different types of users (or use cases) and giving them different reasons for coming and keep coming back to the site. This is why I really like the Nike running site.

The people behind the Nike site knew their users might initially come to it searching for running shoes, clothing, or in my case, info on the Nike+ but they also understood the common interests of runners, the importance of running buddies, and their training regimens. Based on that knowledge they created smarter use cases, in other words better reasons for users to visit the site, which led to better content and value for site visitors. One click from the landing page is the “Training” section. Here I can read posts, get involved with interesting challenges, view interviews and finally, link my Nike+ to the site to rate my performance against other runners – something that is invaluable to a runner, because really, we all want to be better than the guy who we’re competing against.

In the end, the added value of a website will always be the factor that sets it apart from another site that provides simple product-benefit contents. Proposing different use cases, in addition to understanding the target acutely and listening to feedback from clients and brand strategists, can be a great tool in creating this added value. Ultimately this method works to create that incentive for someone to continue interacting with your site and as such, making it stand out from the rest. After all, like in running, we want to be better than the guy who we’re competing against.

Beware the Vague Brief

I really can't count the number of times I've had a brief passed to me that isn't worth being used as kindling for a campfire. Apologies if that sounds strong, but I feel I've had more than my fair share of half-assed briefs passed by my desk!

In my opinion, any brief gets put into the 'kindling' category when it can't offer me anything that I (acting as a consumer) don't already know. What does that mean? Well, is a there a unique selling proposition, brand strategy, or communications objective stated? Yes? Great. Can I as a consumer already gauge what it is? If so, it kinda fails doesn't it - it tells me nothing new, it gives me no insights about the brand.

Simply stating the online marketing objectives for a brand are to "increase awareness online" or act as an "aid in marketing actions" would tell me as a creative, nothing. What are the marketing actions? How can I link my site with them and use them to drive people to the site (or vise versa)? Why do we want to increase online awareness? In what way - awareness of physical benefits, a buy-in with the emotional aspects of the brand, or something else entirely?

All creative work begins with a brief - I generally won't start a project without one, unless it's someone I like working with (yes I play favorites) or already I know the brand. This type of stance is well known in the industry, as such, there are two types of briefs:

Useful Briefs: providing strategic insights into a brand giving the creative team something to work from or;
"Cover My-Ass Because We're on a Timeline" Briefs: something that acts as a way for whomever passed the brief to say - 'Well, we passed you a brief on Tuesday the 10th and expect the project 3 weeks from that point"

Guess which one I have in front of me now.