Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I think marketing and agency people spend more time online theorizing about new models and bitching about old ones than just getting on with doing great new work. It makes for entertaining bickering and commentary, but for the most part, I think that there are some common mistaken assumptions in the arguments that prevent a lot of these discussions from being very helpful.

There is a difference between traditional agency business models becoming obsolete and traditional creativity becoming irrelevant. Just because the product of traditional agencies has been, for the most part, television and other "creative" that was produced by writers and art directors, and just because that kind of creative output is not the only thing required today, it doesn't mean that there is little need for the craft skills of writers and art directors.

Of COURSE, it will only be one part of the puzzle, but to conflate a declining business model with the irrelevance of the craft skills that are a part of that business is superficial. The business model on which traditional agencies are built needs to be torn down and rebuilt, and in the process of doing so (assuming that this will actually take place) smart, curious creative people will find a role in the future marketing landscape. I think a lot of agencies know this, but legacy, old processes and business models prevent a lot of meaningful change.

But another reason why I think throwing out a term like "Digital Creativity" is quite shallow is that in the ecosystem of all the different things a brand requires (utility, content, community, entertainment and so on), the craft skills found in a traditional agency play a part. Plus, many creative people in traditional agencies do play nice in the sandbox with other creative types. It is an ignorant myth to suggest otherwise.

The truth is, there isn't going to be a single model for the future of marketing. There are likely going to be a lot of different models and specializations, with varying degrees of diverse teams comprised of technologists, designers, strategists and, maybe even writers and art directors. In my opinion, it is a wee bit presumptous to suggest otherwise. The digital creative future is still to be decided, and with it the role of storytelling for that matter.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Over the weekend, I was thinking that it would be pretty cool if restaurants and bars had buttons or switches or something for customers to "Like" the place, or check in to Facebook Places or Foursquare. Sort of like that Bakers Tweet device, or the pizza delivery thing that Crispin had done a couple of years ago.

Then I came across this today.

An interesting installation on a University campus that prompts students to check in on Facebook Places, and spread the word about the University. Sort of garish and loud, it is different, but far from the same thing.

"We're encouraging students to check in, so when they do, it'll show up in their news feed and maybe their friends still in high school will see it over and over again," the university's marketing director told AdAge

I think there is a lot of potential to bring something more tangible and tactile to the check in experience. How much more effective would it be to do the check in and tell your friends through a real interaction? (Please keep your answer to yourself if you are a location awareness hater!).

Maybe it has already been done somewhere? I remember when I was at the customs counter in Shanghai, China earlier this year there was a feedback box right on the officer's counter, with three buttons to register your feedback. That was pretty cool, very easy to punch in an opinion after you have been grilled by security.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

There is a great article in today's Ad Age that challenges creatives to ask for help. The author, Kevin Roddy is Chief Creative Officer of the awesome BBH, and he makes a very convincing case for the argument that, given the complexity of contemporary marketing, creative folks need to get off the high horse and solicit help. Technology and media are just too complicated

But when it comes to creativity today -- a new world that encompasses everything from iAds to augmented reality -- it's a whole different ballgame.

So far, so good. Hooray for this enlightened approach that acknowledges that the writer and art director as the unit of creative output needs to evolve and expand to include different skills and expertise. A lot has been written about this, we all seem to agree on this point. But there is one sentence in the article that made me pause, and question whether the advice offered really goes far enough.

As creative directors it is still, ultimately, our responsibility. We are, like it or not, better qualified to judge and direct great creative work, of any kind, than anybody else

Better qualified? Why? How can we accept a blanket term like creative work to account for everything possible today that goes beyond words and pictures (to quote Faris)? Does one Creative Director today possibly have the ability to judge and direct creative work of any kind? Is that even possible?

I fail to see how a Creative Director of an advertising agency with the experience of dealing with a very specific kind of creative output is best qualified to judge and direct the many different forms of creative output that brands today demand. This includes content, of course, but also the explosion in possibilities with brand utility, services and products. This has been discussed elsewhere, I know. The reason I bring it up here is because the rest of the article was so dead on that if you blinked, you might have missed this very simple yet fundamental assumption that persists in advertising agencies regarding the qualification of Creative Directors in the landscape today.

Much better, I think to commit all the way and imagine what true creative collaboration looks like today. Yes, I know that too many cooks in the kitchen is a recipe for disaster, and that the kind of co ordination and collaboration required today remains elusive. But that should hardly pardon us from asking the tough questions, and calling in to question the most basic assumptions on which the industry is based. My hunch is that this particular assumption is probably the one most deeply embedded in the fabric and culture of advertising agencies. It is taken for granted, and the toughest to truly challenge and change.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I have been thinking about Facebook Places over the past couple of days. Though I have yet to try it since it has not been made available in Canada, I am interested to see how it differs from Foursquare. Or, more accurately, how I will use it differently, how brands might use it differently and how it might co exist with Foursquare.

In my mind, I find it useful to view location based services and what they offer through two distinct lenses. The first is, of course, the lens of PEOPLE that use these services. The second is the PLACES themselves, the actual locations in which we check in. Sure, it is an obvious distinction, but here is how I see some of the implications when we think of these two lenses as they apply to what is happening NOW versus what has happened in the past, or THEN. In other words, how do these services play out in how they deliver value right now, in real time, and how does that differ from how value accrues over time? And how is that different for people and places?

Here is my rudimentary chart

I. Places, Now

This is the data that is made available in real time about what is currently popping at a given location. It is the basic role of Foursquare, as far as Places are concerned; animating the present. How many people are right here, right now at this place? Think of, say, a bar or club, and in many ways this is pretty obvious, people have been doing it with text messages or by telephone for ages. I know that as a DJ this is a behaviour that we saw evolve through the medieval ages (the 1990s, as people would rifle off text messages to their friends upon walking in the club to let them know if the party was happening.

Of course, the present is most definitely vital to location based services, but it is far from everything. Making use of the real time information that is being provided is a huge benefit for places, especially commercial places, but it is different than the long term breadth and depth of information and data that location services can provided. More on that below, but Yelp is just one starting point as an example.

2. Places, Then

I think of this as the layers of meaning attached to locations over time. Yes, much of this can be, and is, commercial in nature. Things like loyalty programs, CRM type stuff. Huge for business. But I think it is quite telling that the example used by one of the Facebook developers when Places was launched was of a beach that you were at, and discovered that this was the place where your parents had their first kiss. How sweet!

This hints at the long term project and goal that transcends the present, commercial or otherwise, and is the beginning of an underlying digital archive of information and meaning attached to physical locations, or places. I should say, it is a beginning, instead of the beginning. There is a lot of interesting work being done by the folks at Bing Maps, for instance, to develop rich layers of meaning on city maps. But given the sheer size of Facebook, this project can take off in a very natural, mass way, by making it part of the regular social stuff we share with friends.

So, in contrast to Foursquares game mechanic driven focus on what is going on now, I think Places strength will be in building meaning over time for locations. This is a lofty goal, but as long as the behaviour of checking in becomes adopted and second nature, it will happen given the sheer size of Facebook. Here is how Augie Ray from Forrester put it,

Soon, the local restaurant or hiking trail may have as rich a personality as do the people on Facebook, not because everyone has visited but because your friends have.  And in the end, isn’t that what we really care about?  Not who is mayor of our local coffee shop, but what our friends did, said, and liked when they were there before us

3. People, Now

When Foursquare launched, it was described as one part social city guide, one part mobile friend finder. For users, the mobile friend finder is exactly the benefit of real time location data. Knowing that your buddies are drinking at the bar around the corner from where you are right now is compelling, and at its best, this is where Foursquare and the other services shine. It is why unlocking badges is such an important engine to the game. And though you are encouraged to leave tips or reviews for your friends or others about places, it really is one of the lesser used functions. The focus is on the now, the game and collecting badges. Indeed, the whole idea of the resetting leaderboard underscores the inherent temporal logic of Foursquare.

4. People, Then

This is where Facebook has the biggest opportunity. The goal is to make checking in and the social relevance of location on par with the many other social behaviours and interactions we already share on Facebook, like tagging each other in pictures or posting on each others wall.

This is from the Facebook Places page

If you're already using Places, it's like you checked in yourself without having to do a thing. If you're not using Places yet, it's just like being mentioned in a status update

Putting the check in in the wider context of social behaviours we are already familiar with will be a huge accomplishment if they can pull it off, and if we actually adopt it as users, because we will have the potential of seeing a lot of rich meaning emerge over time for how we relate with places in the real world. This can be incredibly relevant to our friends and network.

Part of this relevance will be in the now, so that we know where are friends are in real time, but in contrast to Foursquare, that relevance will also grow and emerge over time as it is woven in to the fabric of our social behaviours. Or, as the clever Facebook put it, the where joins with the who, what, when. Smart.

Thinking back to that first kiss on the beach example provided by the Facebook developer, it is worth noting that he intended it to show how Places will be meaningful twenty years down the road, as we develop the shared social history of location awareness with our friends and network.

With respect to brands and commercial applications, I think that Facebook might have got it right this time around. Instead of jamming an intrusive and strange interaction down our throat, like Beacon, it is banking on first socializing the check in among users so that it becomes second nature. I suspect that they are purposely waiting to roll out commercial applications because job one is to acclimatize Facebook users to using location features and discovering the many ways that they can deliver value, over time, in ways that go beyond just collecting loyalty points or a free latte.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Superb presentation exploring the #9 media axiom listed on the sidebar of this blog, Streams are replacing pages. Flow is replacing publishing.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Just finished reading Bounce, a great book on the science of success. The author explores all sorts of hidden or underappreciated contributing factors to success, challenging the notion that some people are just born with IT. Among other things, this includes the Gladwellian 10,000 hours of practice idea, along with a range of cognitive behaviour type stuff to do with motivation and perserverance. One of the most fascinating sections looks at the social dimension of motivation. How simple shared connections trigger remarkable behaviours.

In sports, this can be seen in the surge of successful South Korean golfers following the success of Se Ri Pak (though it took the equivalent of 10,000 hours in years to start seeing the results! Same holds for the high rankings of Russian tennis players in the WTA.

But even more amazing was a Yale University study in which they gave a group of students a math test. Half the students were told the story of a yale professor who shared a birth date with the students. The other half of the class was given the same motivational story, BUT did not share a birth date with the professor. remarkably, the motivation level of the students was vastly greater in the first group. They spent 65 percent longer on the math problem, and reported significantly more positive attitudes toward math and greater optimism about their abililties. The shared connection of a birthday was enough to motivate them. Or, as the author puts it, "suddenly it was US doing this, as opposed to ME doing it.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The Web is Dead article has caused quite a stir over the last couple of days. Here is a very well articulated argument for the belief that it is, in fact, not dying, and that old media and old technology is not replaced by new media or new technology. Instead, they evolve and morph and co exist (see Rule #8. Though the author is referring to technology in general, the very same applies to media, digital or otherwise.

I love the distinction here between a tidy timeline of progress as opposed to the messiness of technology in use.

An obsession with 'innovation' leads to a tidy timeline of progress, focusing on iconic machines, but an investigation of 'technology in use' reveals that some 'things' appear, disappear, and reappear...

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

My Twitter feed provides me with a lot of smarts and inspiration. Here are some gems from the past week.

@iTweetArt  Creativity is thinking up new things. Innovation is doing new things. ~ Theodore Levitt

@iaintait So Facebook is 'doing' Foursquare and Spotify. Why don't they just put the Internet inside Facebook and be done with it? Oh, wait...

@adverblog The future of digital is less digital

@ToddCB RT: "We don't have interactive strategists, you can't plan a strategy if you don't understand interactive" @mrhowell

@gagnier RT @danroth: RT @garyturner: 50% of Apple revenues come from products that didn't exist 3 yrs ago.

Particularly like the nod to the blurring of digital and analog by @adverblog, and the astounding statistic regarding Apple revenues. Wow.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I like this thought from Jonah Perreti, CEO of Buzzfeed, on what you need to do, and who have to appeal to in order for your content to spread. 

“the web is ruled by maniacs,” and content is more likely to go viral if “it helps people fully express their personality disorders.” Couch potatoes don’t rule the web, he says — “crazy people do

It has to be slightly odd and a little insane to appeal to that critical audience of afternoon office workers who are key to spreading content online. Less about quality, and more about what the content says about the person sharing it (original, strange, crazy ;)  

here is the link to the interview with Mathew Ingram. 

http://gigaom.com/2010/08/13/lessons-in-how-to-go-viral-use-the-bored-at-work-network/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OmMalik+%28GigaOM%29

Permalink | Leave a comment  »