The Creative Wedge

Bullets on Blogging

2008-04-14T07:53:00.005-05:00

A little while ago I spoke at an online marketing conference in Mexico City. If you think public speaking is intimidating try back translating and re-translating a Spanish PowerPoint in front of 150 people on the fly... Needless to say, those were some of the longest 45 minutes of my life. At any rate, my topic was an introduction to “Blogging and Podcasting” and the possible uses of both in brand marketing. I thought it might be interesting to post some of my points on blogging as a marketing tool:

For Brands that are Actively Blogging:
• ideal place to integrate consumers into the entire marketing cycle (including initial product design)
• puts a personality or face to the message
• creates transparency for a brand
• builds added value through content for your brand’s web presence
• HIGH possibility to distribute brand truths/values here
• HIGH possibility for word of mouth through cross-blogging
• higher natural search rankings
• blogging creates conversations between:
• consumers and the brand
• consumers and other consumers (about your brand)

For Brands that are not blogging but within the blogsphere (ie: actively listening):
• one of the best ways to listen to the customer, the competition, marketing trends, marketing buzz
• get insights on opinions and preferences of consumers

Some Pointers for Branded Blogging:
• DO NOT aim to advertise
• aim to create connections and dialogues
• aim to create strong content - a draw to your brand/website
• aim to entertain and engage, be informal
• aim to have other people blogging about your brand (WOM)
• Recruit, sponsor, or reward bloggers who favor your brand - mold them into online brand ambassadors

Dealing with Roadblocks

2008-03-19T10:35:00.002-06:00

Last week was absolutely mad – no less than three projects hit major roadblocks. In this case all brand managers on client side were switched and replaced with new ones that were out of the loop on previous approvals and had their own (very different) opinions on art direction. Needless to say, after innumerable rounds of revisions we’re pretty much starting from scratch. At any rate I took this as an opportunity to get into a discussion with my executive director and a few of my account executive friends about how best to handle a problem like this, more to the point, how to handle endless rounds of revisions.

Firstly, all of them separately suggested changing up the creatives dealing with the project. Sometimes a fresh creative approach just won’t cut it. Sometimes, you need to start with a team that’s unfamiliar with the project at hand, and ideally - hasn’t seen any of the previous creative.

This actually works to highlight one of the key strengths the agency model holds against smaller and more focused digital studios. Agencies typically work in groups, with 2 or 3 creatives per group (copy, art, and possibly motion/online). Each group generally deals with 2 or 3 different accounts. So shuffling which creative team is handling a given project can be a smooth(er) operation or, at the very least, one that is possible. In comparison, smaller digital shops are generally more limited by their numbers and might not have the capacity to shuffle creatives - possibly burning out creative stamina while re-visiting the same project for the same brand over and over. I think every freelancer knows how soul destroying that process can be.

Secondly, as my ED put it, problems in the approvals process can be a symptom of a bigger issue below the surface. I would imagine this second solution would be to change the creative AND account teams, as well as getting the ED personally involved with the project – depending on the severity of the situation.

Anyway, will try to post more, but int he meantime if anyone has any other ideas, I'd love to hear them!

A Rant

2008-03-05T17:22:00.002-06:00

This past week I was asked to put together a writeup of sorts - explaining my points of view on creativity, design and advertising, and the agency model. Not trying to preach just thought it would make for an interesting post…

I think that historically, the measure of our success as advertisers lay in our ability to reach big audiences with big creative ideas. To an extent it still is. However, I see advertising evolving into something where those big ideas are used to not just reach, but entertain, communicate with, and benefit audiences. This requires being able to adapt and tell the creative idea or brand story in new forms, at many different points of the purchase path – to potentially smaller audiences. This, as far as I’m concerned, is the real ‘seismic shift’ currently changing advertising that has so many within agencies frantic.

The main part of what we do in advertising, the creative idea, is and always will be inherently present. Great creative will always entertain as it seeks to get attention for the brand. However, with every brand vying for consumer attention even great creative gets lost in the noise. As such, the stronger ad shops are looking beyond the traditional sell line in a 30 second spot or clever slogan in a full page media buy. In other words, as a result of all the clutter some of the most creatively daring advertising now involves gorilla or viral marketing, and is targeted at a very niche market. Beyond that, some of the most brilliant and effective advertising isn’t even advertising as much as it is entertainment – as in the end, nobody really wants to be marketed to, but they do want to be entertained.

But what happens after a message entertains? In my opinion, great creative doesn’t just talk about a brand, it also communicates. The difference, communication is a two way process; it’s a dialogue instead of monologue, it’s inclusion marketing instead of intrusion marketing, and it’s a big change of thinking for a creative agency. Nontheless, I think companies are increasingly looking for agencies to no longer produce creative that simply sings the praises of a brand to anyone who will listen. They’re looking for them to create dialogues with consumers that motivate and activate them to interact with a brand through feedback, social networking, and word of mouth.

Finally, I think one of the largest shifts currently happening in advertising is that it has switched from talking about the size of the media buy to reaching people along the purchase path. In other words, it doesn’t matter how many people see your ad, it’s about when they see your brand and how it can benefit them. The simple example is this; buying a camera isn’t anyone’s final interaction with that brand, taking photos, downloading, editing, and uploading or printing them is. The argument can then be, why should advertising work only in it’s traditional form in pursuing awareness or sales. It could evolve and be used to create a real added value for the user – after the purchase. For a camera purchase, it could mean downloadable widgets to help with photo editing and down/uploading, sponsored photo competitions, or branded podcasts about photography.

30 Different Varieties of the Landing Page

2008-03-04T11:59:00.001-06:00

So I found myself on the TED site recently watching a number of, ok most of, the video downloads they have of some of the remarkable presenters over the years.

One speech in particular, that of Tipping Point author Malcolm Gladwell, caught my attention. It dealt with the development of ‘varieties’ of food products, that is, the reasons why we have 30 flavours of Ketchup and the like. That reasons, as stated by Gladwell, is that we can never create one focus group verified ‘perfect’ version of a cola, or tomato sauce, or coffee – we all have our own personal tastes and preferences of what we think is ‘perfect’.

What struck me as really interesting is how easily the history of that best practice relates to online best practices today. I’m specifically thinking in the area of ‘after the click’ marketing. That idea states that a site's landing/entry page should adapt or change to the search parameters input in searching for it (or if available, a user’s cookies). So the landing page for HP laptops for example, should change based on what the user has searched for, whether it’s consumer gaming laptops, or consumer business laptops, or base priced laptops. It all comes down to being able to cater to the many different preferences and varieties of users - and that’s so much easier to do online than any other media.

Chewing Gum and the Purchase Funnel

2008-02-22T12:36:00.004-06:00

I had a good question posed to me a few days ago - which actually coincides with a pitch we’re working on here. The question was; how do you use online media to drive people down the purchase funnel of a low involvement purchase? That is to say, a low involvement or impulse buy that doesn’t have many unique attributes, lets say chewing gum, doesn’t call for many online actions to help make the purchase. Compare that to a high involvement buy, like a car or computer, in which users are almost certain to visit sites for information, comparisons, or purchases online.

Well, I think one obvious answer to that question would be some type of contest or promotion that draws people into buying a product and registering online to win something. But those have a limited longevity, a few months or so in my experience. The promotions peak due to the initial buzz created and soon after begin their slide down the steep curve towards obscurity. To be honest, I sometimes doubt the ROI on online promotions is worthwhile but that depends on a mess of stuff that’s usually (thankfully) beyond my scope.

The way I’m handling the pitch we’re working on, which is for a product that’s a similar low involvement purchase, is by focusing more on creating online interaction that is almost completely about the lifestyle around the brand rather than the product itself. Yes, we’ll be talking about the actual product… somewhere, but the majority of the site will be about getting visitors to interact with a damn funny lifestyle concept we’ve come up with.

The lifestyle brand isn’t a new idea in communications, but I don’t think it gets applied to online as much as it should. I think that more often than not, when brand managers or web developers are given the option to present a lot of information or background about their product they take it.

So, my answer on how to drive people down the funnel of this kind of buy is to look around, or beyond the brand and not at it. Develop an interesting, or funny, or ‘sticky’ interaction focused on the lifestyle of the brand that will stay with someone the next time they’re standing in line at the cashier and that impulse hits them.

The Purchase Path – Part 2

2008-02-19T17:17:00.004-06:00

One of the major problems I’ve found with that standard purchase path model I showed earlier is that it’s so linear. Seemingly as a result, post purchase behavior as something that’s traditionally the realm of simple marketing actions like warranties, help desks, call centres, or email Bacn’. As I mentioned before however, I think there is so much more potential in that one aspect of marketing that can be leveraged within online.

Anyway, I started thinking about this new model while developing an online rewards program for an instant coffee pitch. I originally looped post purchase behavior back in on the purchase process reflecting what we wanted to make happen with the website – specifically offline purchases leading to online interactions... eventually leading back to offline purchases.

I looked it again more recently from a different perspective, not focusing on purchases as much as general ‘actions’; defined as info searches, site visits, downloads, or online dialogues between brands and consumers or even between consumers themselves. All of these actions, before and after the purchase, create and make visible user interactions with the brand or product to new clients and encourage a need recognition among them. As well, post purchase interactions have the possibility of being most visible - I'm thinking in terms of the branded shareware downloads, RSS’d podcasts, or even contests I mentioned in my previous blog.

The trick for a brand in this case is creating spaces for those post purchase online interactions, and that requires thinking not about what to do to make a sale, but what to do with the customer after he or she makes a purchase.

The Purchase Path for Online - Part 1

2008-02-12T15:33:00.001-06:00

One of the textbook models of consumer buying behaviour is the purchase path. It’s one of the most straightforward explanations of the mental stages and physical interactions a potential buyer will have before making a purchase.

I recently had to do some benchmarking as part of the dozen or so projects I’m working on right now (read: my excuse for not blogging more). I based some of my research in the standard purchase path and found that there is an abundance of sites that hit just one or two points on that path and/or aren’t moving people well along it. All of them seem more than adequate in providing detailed information about the product assisting in the information search and evaluation of alternatives sections of the path. A select number of sites actually go one step further by getting customers to that purchase decision through online purchasing options.

All that makes sense if you think about it. Traditionally the internet is best used as a source of information, a place to research and compare brand features, be it cars, cruises, apartments, or sushi shaped USB keychains on eBay. However, information gathering or making the purchase are neither the first, last, or most important stages of the purchase path. Need recognition and post purchase behaviour are however, and a lot of sites fail at hitting on that. Worse, some sites treat the purchase as the final stage in the process. Why is that so bad? Well, the general consensus is that finding new consumers or clients is the costliest part of marketing, while convincing old ones to stay with your brand is quite possibly the most difficult but most rewarding.

Here’s an example of how I would try to touch on those two ultra important steps. Assuming my client is Cannon and the product is their new brand of Digital Rebel cameras. Buying a camera isn’t an end of itself, taking and sharing photos is what’s important. I would aim to build Cannon’s digital presence in such a way that makes it more valuable for the user to involve the brand in those post purchase processes. Here are two simple ideas of how to do that:

• Cannon shareware that edits, downloads, burns or uploads my photos to a website. Even those who have access to Photoshop can benefit from simplified uploading to Facebook etc.
• A regularly updated, RSS’d video podcast section on the Cannon site with shooting tips and articles ‘from the field’. Something that is current and of interest to a market wanting to shoot better, more high-end photography.

Creating valuable online interactions for customers after their purchase gets them interacting with and talking about the brand in return - talking to those who haven’t necessarily realized they want or need the product. This is where the strategy comes full circle and pays off big time in creating awareness and that sought after need recognition, be it real or perceived, among potential new buyers. With online communications having the possibility to be highly targeted and the long tail’s ability to diffuse any brand interactions or ‘discussions’ with consumers, online is the perfect place to hit these two uber-important stages of the purchase path.

Nick Hornby vs The Superbowl

2008-02-05T09:29:00.000-06:00

So one of the reasons for me not posting last week, apart from putting in 12 hour days at the office, was because last weekend I bought the book High Fidelity by Nick Hornby and have been at least partially buried in it all week. The movie version, which I also own, came out about 7 years ago and has become a cult classic. It ranks as one of my favourites. Incidentally, I also have the soundtrack on my iPod.

What does this say about me? Well, firstly I’d like to think it says that I have a finely tuned ear for good music and cult/pop culture. But sadly, I know too many people (much cooler than me) who would be right to disagree with that.

Apart from that, it’s an interesting testament to the power of fringe markets. It underlines something Godin said in Purple Cow “the mainstream doesn’t buy products, the fringes do”. Man, do they! Well, kind of. They don’t buy products, they buy brands, a big difference but my point still stands.

From my point of view, marketing a brand to a niche market becomes so much more easier online than through massive media. While massive media can give a brand message great reach it becomes very difficult to target those communications to a specific target or niche. Online and interactive has exactly the opposite problem. The reach of online communications will never be as great as that of television, but, those that you do reach will most definitely be a lot closer to your niche target.

I guess those points were really underlined for me this weekend as I was watching the Superbowl and the multi-million dollar advertising productions that accompany it.

I also began to think that in a time of worrying about a possible recession and financial problems in the year to come, how it makes so much more sense to use less expensive targeted online and digital experiences to reach those specific niche markets than those entertaining but generic multimillion dollar 30 second Superbowl spots.

Saving Starbucks - 3 Ideas

2008-01-28T19:17:00.000-06:00

In the summer of ‘07, with the launch of the iPhone, it was announced that said phone would have access to a whole slew of tech goodies at Starbucks locations. Everyone got caught up in the awesomeness that is iPhone and started talking about how this is a great move for Apple etc. Very few however, mentioned why this digital partnership has been incredibly important for Starbucks - something that seems altogether more important now as the coffee chain’s luck seems to be changing for the worse.

So, I’m looking more at the flip side of this equation; what is a coffee empire to do to lure back java culture hipsters? The way I see it, the very first thing is to focus on creating a better, more unique customer experience. Now, considering that the target for the tech culture elite (ie: iPhone users) and a well made cappuccino is exactly the same - young, fashionable, tech-savvy innovators, I would say that the route to take in would be to focus on digital in creating that experience.

To that end, partnering with Apple was a great first step, but free wi-fi web access seems like just the tip of a great idea. What’s more the coffee shop down the road probably already has it. Yes, I know there’s other things in the hopper like buying your coffee over your iPhone but I’m not too sure how many people will choose to point and click their way to a custom coffee.

So, as I passed the third Starbucks on my run this morning I began to think up a few digital based initiatives the company could do to build their customer experience and compete against any other startup with an espresso machine.

The Writers: Tap into the cult of writers that descend on Starbucks lattes like Kerouac to Benzedrine. Set up book readings by authors at certain locations, videotape them, upload them and drop them into the longtail. Even if some writers couldn’t make it to the event, they can still re-live the experience online over your branded site.

The Readers: Forget browsing the web or buying music, give me access to the entire Wall Street Journal online or let me read selected books from Amazon.com on my laptop. That’s something above and beyond what any other coffee shop can offer. Coming in on a Saturday and reading through a weekend edition of the New York Times would be a great added value to my cappuccino experience.

The Givers: One of the major sellers for Starbucks in the past year was holiday gift cards. I would real time data mine the data on these cards as much as possible - giving immediate feedback to the people working behind the register. Figure out specific details of each card user and give them equally specific benefits based on their consumer type.

For example, if someone has a high frequency of use on the card, chances are they’re a highly loyal customer. Have the barista behind the counter reward them, say, an exclusive invite to one of the above events.

Another example could be someone who regularly buys 3 or 4 cups of coffee per purchase. Chances are they’re buying for a group of co-workers or friends and it might be a good time to promote a group discount. Better yet, have the barrista give them some kind of group priority cards and then data mine those same cards to further personalize and improve the experience for the entire group!

4 Great Reverse Viral Commercials

2008-01-24T12:53:00.000-06:00

There’s an infinite amount of parodies based on TV spots circulating on the web, and if you don’t believe me type in “Geico caveman” or “Apple” in YouTube’s search bar. I wanted to look at it from the other side though. I wanted to find examples of online viral making a full (reverse) loop and becoming a produced and directed spot. Basically, I wanted to run a litmus test of sorts to see if ad agencies were paying attention to, taking away from, and selling actual web culture.

This is a big step for a "traditional" agency if you think about it, because for starters it flips the creative equation. It’s not about 6 creatives in a room brainstorming a golden egg of an idea, it’s kind of like finding one that already exists and running with it. The trick is that creatives are very fond of their own golden eggs and finding just the right egg for a client may be tough.

That said, I think this spot is one of the most logical to mesh with young web culture and one of the best executed for the target. The client, AOL, launched this campaign based on not just one but 3 online personalities – Miss. Teen South Carolina, stop harassing Britney guy, and stop tazing me guy.

Within the all’s fair attitude of American politics it’s interesting to see candidates look to viral concepts in reaching out to the younger vote. This one plays on the uber popular online spoofing of Chuck Norris.

This spot is one of my favorites. It’s a Emperador chocolate bar commercial based on a video clip that was widely popular in Latin America of ‘Edgar falling’. It basically embodies what I was getting with this search.

Finally, I wanted to post this. While not a TV spot per-se, the new video, based on the now infamous Tom Cruise Scientology video currently making the rounds, was created to promote the site Funny or Die, a ‘tube’ like startup that has some heavy hitting comedic connections, including Will Farrel. You really should watch at least most of the original first to get the humor.

Naturally, some issues do arise out of taking this approach to advertising. The finished spot has to be incredibly well timed and quickly executed as viral videos or memes very rarely even reach their 15 minutes of fame.

The other issue and the one that I think may scare most clients, usually internet luddites in their late 40’s, is the fear that only a select young target into web culture will ‘get it’. But that’s actually why I wanted to put together this list, the above spots required not just the buy in from the agency creative/accounts team but also trust on the part of the client that even if they themselves didn’t ‘get it’, their target would.

Cannibalizing Your Young

2008-01-23T14:37:00.000-06:00

I was having lunch with some business types the other day and we got to talking about the new Apple Air. Not so much the wireless capabilities or sharp design, they were business types after all, but more about the business strategy behind it.

The way I saw it the Air, placed just above the iBook in terms of speed and price will eat a lot into the sales of the latter. That is, the iBook will probably suffer a huge hit in sales from entry level users upgrading to the newer and sleeker Air, assuming that the new age wireless functionality doesn't scare them away. Planned obsolescence aside, to me this didn’t seem like such a smart move for Mac.

Enter the business types I was having lunch with. They introduced me to a concept (I should have known about before); product cannibalism. This generally implies that after it’s market life span, you eat up the sales of your product by launching a new and improved product - kind of like eating your old. In Apple’s case however we’re talking about radical cannibalism - they're eating their own successful product while it's still successful - kind of like eating your young.

So what is there to gain by eating your young? Well in Apple’s case, you eat them to stop someone else from eating them first. Given 3 to 6 more months (or less) Sony or Dell could have very easily come out with a laptop that’s cheaper, thinner, more powerful, and possibly sexier than any iBook (although I doubt that last point with Dell). Apple just beat them to the punch.

It was an interesting lunch.

Giant Monsters and Japanese Slushees

2008-01-18T13:29:00.000-06:00

Cloverfield has just come out onto the big screen and while I’m waiting for the disaster/Godzilla/Blair Witch redux to make it south of the border I’ve been reading some (very) preliminary reviews. One of the things I’ve seen being asked in forums was how much did the online viral campaign, namely the Slusho.jp site, tie into the final movie. The short answer, not very much apparently - someone wearing a Slusho shirt dies (sorry if I spoiled that for anyone).

Now maybe it’s me, but that’s a bit of a disappointment.

There’s definitely a fine line between creating a successful teaser viral and something that just tries to sell a movie - most often the public will let you know when you’ve crossed it, and it will reflect in site visits or worse you’ll get blowback from the blogsphere.

But more to the point here a teaser viral should, in my opinion, have some kind of payoff. Even if that payoff is a seemingly trivial one to the general public, those who are truly into your brand or movie will feel justified (and perhaps superior) in the extra bit of knowledge they have and the investment of time they gave to following along with the viral action.

One Cellphone Per Child?

2008-01-09T10:52:00.000-06:00

With the start of the new year the blogshpere seems to be awash with predictions, resolutions, and the next big thing lists for the year to come. I wanted to look at one, well two really, the predictions for the growth of cellphones this year and the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project.

This (finally) will be the year of the cell phone and enhanced handheld-based communications! Well, perhaps that’s a little much to believe, but if you look around you will see many a blogpost exclaiming just that. Not to mention popular podcasts such as TWiT quoting stats about developing nations adopting cellphone communications to the extent of 1 billion people jumping online through their cellphones in ’07 in India (Episode 120).

Similarly the OLPC project, an initiative to produce $100 computers for developing countries, has begun to really hit mainstream news coverage and create some buzz. Unfortunately, most of that buzz is coming from the background politics and rivalries between the OLPC founder Nicholas Negroponte and a host of other computer producers most notably Intel.

Personally, while not wanting to fault OLPC for taking a chance on a truly remarkable idea, I do want to mention my point of view on the issue. Specifically, if this is truly the year of the cellphone some developing countries, such as India, might be better served through simply dropping prices on enhanced cellphones and making them accessible to more users. Couple those phones with already existing (mostly) free software such as Google's Android, Adobe’s array of ePaper tools, and lightweight cell-optimized sites and they could avoid the issues Negroponte is having on the software side with Microsoft. Assistance in school projects, reading, and even researching through web browsing doesn't necessarily have to come in the form of a 10" laptop.

Again, don't get me wrong, I think the OLPC initiative is a great one - it's lit a fire under PC manufacturers to produce computers for the other nine-tenths of the world, but couldn't a similar fire be lit under cellphone manufacturers to achieve the same result?

The Lost Viral Campaign

2008-01-07T16:13:00.000-06:00

J.J. Abrams and crew have just launched the viral sites for the return of the Lost television series, beginning with flyoceanicair.com. Of course, true to the franchise, the sites end up creating more questions than answers. Overall though, while I'm enjoying interacting with the content, I'm a little dishartened that it's not nearly as complex as the the viral marketing/ARG that is being used to launch Cloverfield.

However, I have to hand it to Lost's team, they seem to be leading one of the only hit shows on television that completely embraces the idea of moving narrative content beyond the television. I'm not talking about simple character guides or video snippets of plot synopsis. I'm talking about full fledged character back story and development that happens entirely online. It all goes a great distance in growing the expectation of the show's return and creates additional touchpoints with the show's diehard fan base. I would love to see more shows, even if only in this genre, follow their example.

Diggnation and the Digital Spot

2008-01-07T15:04:00.000-06:00

I was watching the Diggnation podcast last week and came across this post roll spot for Intel's "It Gets Easier" campaign. It's a pretty clever spot, originally launched in summer '07 and the two things that struck me when I saw it on Diggnation were:

One. That the content of the Christopher Guest directed ad meshed so well with the humor and tech silliness that is Diggnation (which is currently hitting the tipping point in terms of mass popularity).
Two. That the placement of the spot on a podcast was an exponentially better media buy decision than hosting it on the standalone site.

Why the second point? Well, from my point of view, visiting a corporate site to simply view a spot is an unfulfilled experience - the value of the content isn't high enough to justify time invested in looking for and getting to the site (regardless of who directed the spot). Additionally, and this is my designer sensibilities coming through, the concept of this particular site seems a bit flat, as in the site was intended to simply house the spot and not build on the concept presented within it.

Don't get me wrong, personally, I love Intel's spot, it's funny, clever, and creative - I'm also a big fan of Guest. I'm thinking however that it could function better as a spot on different popular podcasts, possibly a bumper for UGC videos, or even as an enhanced banner ad directing traffic to a more engaging/information based site.

Discounts Over Design

2008-01-03T18:19:00.000-06:00

I remember a lesson taught to me in my undergrad - 90% of the graphic design out there is junk. Case in point, I bring you ice.com - which manages to score a whopping $47 million dollars in funding, make a reported $83 million in '07 web sales and still have a mind numbingly basic design. Come on guys, invest a little of that capital in the look and feel of your site - make it more unique, memorable, and make it not look like a clone of a clone of Sears.com or Amazon!

Facebook Banners Blues

2007-12-06T08:31:00.000-06:00

I heard a really interesting comment the other day from one of my colleagues in the media buy division of our agency. We were in a discussion about making Facebook banner purchases for one of our clients and he mentioned that, by his numbers, Facebook banners actually come out costing a lot more per click than ‘traditional’ banners – that is, ones on other portal type sites. What’s more, he mentioned that they get an even lower click through rate on those banners than normal. Now, that’s a scary comment considering that normally, if you hit 5% or more on your click-throughs, you’re some kind of banner ad hero.

The reason for that even lower click through rate – people not wanting to leave that page or not wanting to venture outside the Facebook domain. There are several questions this brings up for me, the most interesting being how much user involvement in web page contents could affect their peripheral interactions with banner ads. The more involved they are with a page’s contents, the lower their inclination to follow a web link out of it.
Perhaps, there is also a negative effect on banner clicks off a page where a user is logged in, where there exists a hesitation of venturing outside a secure site, or at the very least wanting to log in again. Think about it, would you follow a banner ad out of your bank account for example?

The Long Tail of Shuttle Launches

2007-12-04T09:50:00.000-06:00

One of the interesting strategic benefits of working in online is the ability to involve the long tail. Simply put, the long tail means that because things are accessible for a very, very long time online, their longevity outweighs any initial spike in popularity. The idea, in online terms is old news, having already received a lot of coverage and been applied successfully for online niche retailers. From a creative strategy point of view however, the idea of the long tail can also serve as a great way to create added value to a site and ultimately giving them a reason to come back.

I was reminded of this point yesterday, when a friend of mine passed along a link to nasa.gov, a great site his agency just launched. Among the standard things of interest on it, the one that struck me was the Nasa TV section. It struck me especially because of what I mentioned about the long tail. Here, visitors have the opportunity to watch past shuttle launches (from really cool points of view, like a booster rocket!).

The long tail here is that after the event has already happened and been shown on television, where set audience is able to view it, the experience lives on. Eventually, through the online long tail drawing many more eyes than it ever could as a television only event. That is exactly why I think adapting an event to an online long tail execution works so profoundly - it allows a visitor to re-live an experience they might not have been able to view in the first place. Coming back to added value, it could come in such forms as re-viewing NASA’s rocket launches, watching the Stardust Hotel demolition, or experiencing videos of Camp Jeep outings.

Filterers vs Relayers

2007-12-03T08:47:00.000-06:00

There are, it seems, two types of account executives in the agency world. There are those who work organizing client needs and deadlines and check them against the schedules of creative or the agency’s availability at that time - let’s call them the filterers. On the other side of the spectrum, there are those who simply pass client demands on to the creative department to execute, more often than not it’s ASAP. Let’s call them the relayers.

Now, I bring this up because as the year is coming to an end. As such year-end budgets need to be closed, both on the part of clients and agencies. What this means is that any unspent budget for the year to date needs to be spent or it gets absorbed into the company, moved around by the accountants, and generally lost forever. The end result of this is that a majority of marketing departments will be looking to use the money they have left over to launch new projects during November or December.

Now here’s where the true value of filterers and the big weakness of relayers is highlighted. The filterers will for example; work out a deal to submit just the static site design by the end of the year and program it in January. The relayers on the other hand will, for example, promise to deliver each completely developed site(s) as requested by the client, on or before December 30th. The final outcome in the latter is predictable - a weak product; rushed creativity, site design that’s not up to par, and programming that’s …messy - not to mention frayed nerves and fallouts as the creative department ends up working brutal overtime hours during the Christmas season.

Google's Pointers on Creating Web Apps.

2007-11-28T09:16:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-26T10:46:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-24T19:49:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-21T09:06:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-19T13:04:00.000-06:00

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!

2007-11-18T17:50:00.000-06:00

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.