Two things, this past week, caught my eye. The first, was a great article from The Economist, titled, “The message is the medium.” Take the time to read the article, in its entirety. It’s definitely worth your time. But, since we all now, everyone seems to be TL;DR, these days, this is the one graphic you need to remember:
After years of hockey stick-like growth, we’re seeing SMS, flattening, and ultimately, declining. This doesn’t mean that messaging is declining. WhatsApp, iMessage, Facebook Messenger…and yes, even snapchat, are exploding in growth and eating SMS for breakfast.
The 2nd thing that caught my eye was this article from AdWeek, that outlined YouTube “star”, Michelle Phan’s plans to launch her own content/influencer network, called Icon. Michelle’s growth came from YouTube. Without YouTube, you could very well argue, many of us wouldn’t even know who Michelle Phan, was. But, to be loyal, in this space, is to miss out…or, as Michelle, stated:
“I’m platform agnostic,” Phan said. “I’ve been platform agnostic ever since I went online. I’m not saying I’m jumping ship (from YouTube). Platforms—they come and go, but storytelling is forever.”
Well, first, she states the obvious, that she’s not leaving YouTube. Difficult to leave the golden goose, eh? But, what’s really important is what she says about platforms. Platforms, indeed come and go. 20 years ago, it was AOL. 15 years ago, you had things like GeoCities. Nearly 10 years ago, Newscorp, purchased MySpace for $580M…only to be sold 5 years later for…$35M.
Strategies can’t be platform dependent. Building your strategy on top of a platform is like building a house on quicksand. It just doesn’t work. Don’t take my word for it, ask Zynga or DataSift. This isn’t to say that a platform shouldn’t be part of your strategy. For example, your consumer connection strategy, might indicate a need to understand, “Hopes, Wishes and Dreams.” That might mean, Pinterest, is a critical part of bringing that strategy to fruition. But, while you’re riding the Pinterest wave, you need to be keeping an eye out for the next wave, and more importantly, the right moment to move on to the next wave.
As exciting and initially lucrative as it can be to invest in a specific platform, your strategy, needs to take into account an understanding of your business, your customer and the macro-level environment. As, Brodie, told Rene in Mallrats, “Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, “the Whale,” they only beat Vancouver once, maybe twice in a lifetime.” Today, platforms, come and go. And instead of Hartford (the underdog) succeeding only once, maybe twice in a lifetime, it’s more likely that the underdog, we weren’t paying attention to, becomes the leader. Platforms are quicksand. Be careful where you step.
I was on Tinder, for a week. Yes, I’m married. Don’t worry, it was an approved experiment. Let me take a half-step back. Every month I pick 1 new social platform to experiment with. In the past that’s lead to a month with Vine, EyeEm, SnapChat and others. The month I spend with a platform is designed to:
Make me smarter and more knowledgable about the platform
Help me understand the customer experience for the platform and what, if anything, we can glean from it to enhance our digital, mobile and social products and capabilities
Enable me to speak intelligently about the marketing opportunities for the organization. I’ve always felt that it rings a bit hollow to offer a perspective on an opportunity, without actually being someone who’s actually used the platform…not just read Mashable’s writeup about it.
With that in mind, I recently connected with a sales rep from IAC. Now, you might be scratching your head about IAC. They’re the holding company organization that owns Match.com, OKCupid.com and yes, Tinder. IAC is no small fish and from an advertising reach standpoint, they’ve proven to have a very sustainable digital advertising/marketing business. So when someone from IAC said, there’s some amazing things we could do together, including some future opportunities on Tinder.
Far be it for me to say that there’s no marketing opportunity for our organization and Tinder. Up until a week ago, I wasn’t a Tinder user. Up until a week ago, I never downloaded the app or saw someone else use it, live. Screen grabs, write ups and jokes on late night TV was everything I knew about Tinder.
Before I explain what I learned and what I think, let me first explain the ground rules I had for using Tinder:
I Swiped right for everyone. Everyone.
Ok, technically, not everyone, because if I saw someone was related to someone I knew, I swiped left. I didn’t want to get into explaining this experiment/trial to a friend.
I was 100% focused on the advertising and marketing opportunities. I didn’t read bios, I didn’t look at picture sets, etc. I just focused on the potential marketing opportunities.
If there was a match, I didn’t message a user, nor did I respond to anyone’s messages to me. I wasn’t hear to find a “date”, I was here to understand the marketing opportunities.
So with that out of the way, here’s a marketer’s point of view about Tinder.
It will have an ongoing, but limited user base. If you believe that people date multiple people, then date 1 person, then get engaged, then get married, Tinder plays in the dating part of the lifecycle. As people mature out of dating to just dating 1 person, Tinder will loses active users, but those users will always be backfilled by new user entering the dating lifecycle. This could be people new to dating or people who have exited a relationship are back at step 1 of the dating lifecycle.
Dating sites are usually manual entry driven. That leads to inaccurate data. Tinder is built on the best, richest, most accurate data set ever, in the history of marketing: Facebook. As a marketer, I’d feel better about targeting ads on Tinder than I would on Match.com.
Being a mobile only platform is also intriguing because it brings in location based data for the purposes of marketing. This would allow us to be more contextually relevant than relying on user entered location info.
Tinder’s entire customer experience is genius. It’s a fantastic game. Swipe. Swipe. Swipe. It’s fun. The layering of push notifications keeps you coming back in. Notifications make sense, in this case. Someone swiped you back. Someone sent a message. These are both things that stoke the flames of our natural curiosity and keep us using the app. I’m sure their daily active user rate is off the charts. If my goal is frequency of messaging, Tinder’s model is intriguing.
Scale and frequency are great. Most companies want to make sure that they’re marketing is on brand and it’s reaching the right users (demographics, psychographics, etc.). For most companies, then, Tinder is probably a fantastic option. But, I believe you need to go a little deeper; you need context. Just as it would be somewhat insensitive for Kleenex to run Facebook ads targeted at people who recently changed their relationship status from married to divorced, does an advertiser really want to be “talking” to people while they’re having personal conversations and looking for Mr./Mrs. right, even as joked about, it’s Mr./Mrs. “right now”? I’m not sure and I’m sure for some companies, the answer is yes.
The user experience that Tinder created is fun. I know I already mentioned that, but let me talk about it from a different angle. The experience is so intuitive and smart, that it won’t be long before see it adopted across an entire host of categories. For example, imagine Tinder’s interface leverage for recipes or if Netflix were to adopt it rather than their current method for building out a customer profile. The 1 button sign up, combined the simple aspect of swiping, is brilliant. I think we’ll see it become a widely adopted model, just as the the “pull to refresh” interface has been copied by just about everyone.
Taking my marketer hat off for a second, I have to say, Tinder is equal parts the future and a sad state of the world. The game mechanics make “dating” fun. If I were in the dating market, I could completely understand the appeal. It’s simple to join. Simple to participate. Simple to stay informed. But, it does reduce us all to a headshot.
Maybe that’s reality and Tinder, like the Matrix, is showing us what reality, truly is. That as much as we talk about looks not mattering, and beauty being more than skin deep, the reality is we’re all visual people and a headshot is in fact the bast way to find compatibility.
I sure hope that’s not the case. I’d like to believe that dating is still about the butterflies we get from a voice, a moment, a single touch, a look, a whisper and of course the grand gesture.
With Tinder, everything is instant. As a marketer, that’s exciting. As a hopeless romantic, I want to believe that finding a match, goes beyond a swipe and is more along the lines of what Pablo Neruda once wrote
By the way, you won’t find me on Tinder anymore. I deleted my account (surprisingly easy) and the app.
You will find no shortage of lists that outline the Top Content Marketing Challenges. From team size to budget and from the lack of tools to the lack of process; everyone has at least one challenge. There’s nothing wrong with these lists. They’re a great start to understanding the challenges being faced by organizations large and small.
That said, I’d encourage you to dig beyond the top 10 lists. When I think about the biggest challenge facing marketers today, in content, it’s much more ambiguous and complex, than the need for a tool to manage content. To me, the biggest challenge is the lack of agreement on what “quality” means. I’m serious. In most organizations there’s a process to generate quality content. It often starts with research, which leads to an insight, that becomes the foundation for a brief, which enables a team/company to develop creative that’s high quality. Simple enough, right? Except, that quality, in traditional marketing channels is generally determined by a combination of research (Eg focus groups, copy testing) and a checklist that governs the usage of colors, fonts, logos, photography, tone and more. In digital/social channels, the checklist still exists, but it’s rare that digital/social creative is placed in front of focus groups.
While, the checklist approach to quality ensures that content is on “brand” it doesn’t mean it’s high quality. The focus groups and copy testing are designed to help predict performance, but clearly, if that research was devoid of flaws, no agencies would ever be fired and everyone would hit their forecasted numbers. The truth is that great content is both art and science. Despite hundreds of years of advertising history, nailing the right blend between art and science, has gotten more difficult, not easier. The number of ad formats, marketing channels and means for consuming content, have contributed to making this tougher for marketers.
In theory, no one wants low quality content. Ask a room of marketers if they want high quality or low quality content and you won’t find a single brave person who raises their hand for low quality content. Think about it, just term “low quality”, sounds bad. When most people think of high quality, they think of high-resolution images that are shot (not stock). They think of a perfectly edited/retouched photo – after all, clearly a crack in a baked cake never happens, unless of course you’re a real person. High quality means professionally produced. It also means expensive. Quality, as you can see, conjures up a lot of thoughts and feelings.
When we think about evaluating marketing initiatives, we often want a defined objective or KPI. But, when one of the KPIs is, “produce high quality content”, we have a challenge, because the definition of quality is often completely ambiguous and arbitrary.
As an example, let’s review the following, widely considered, successful content marketing efforts.
We have to start with the obligatory Oreo, Dunk In The Dark, tweet. If you’re reading this at a conference, drink!
The genesis of the tweet has been covered to death. I won’t rehash that information, but I do want to call out the following:
The image used, was a reused and recycled image; something that had been used by Oreo earlier in the year.
It’s overly compressed – you can see the JPG artifacts from over compression
It was produced in roughly 15 minutes, but if you look at the Cannes Lion submission form and apply a general billable rate to each role, it took $2,000+ to create this recycled image. If you needed 4 tweets like that per day for 365 days a year, you need a $3M a year budget for just twitter content.
I think the most important nugget is #1; it was a recycled image. Blasphemy! Having worked at agencies for 11 years and with them for another 6, I can tell you the idea of recycling a creative asset is usually a no-go. Creative team members never want to do the same thing…even when it clearly works. We don’t really have an on the record anecdote from Modelez, but it’s widely accepted that the Dunk In The Dark tweet was a quality piece of content that was very successful. With Oreo out of the way, let’s talk about Samsung’s efforts during the Oscars. With more than 3.4M retweets of the original image taken by Bradley Cooper, this out of focus (gasp!) photo from a cell phone broke the record for the most retweets ever.
With that type of scale, this had to be a piece of quality content. After-all, if it wasn’t quality, it wouldn’t have been retweeted so many times, right? By, all measures of scale, an out of focus, fuzzy, low detail image bested the White House’s hi-resolution and historic photo. Many people think this was a cheap photo. It was anything but. without Samsung’s $20M + sponsorship of the Oscars, it’s likely that photo never happens. Thus, if you thought $2K for Oreo’s tweet was expensive, there’s no doubt, the “Ellen Selfie” was more than 100X the cost of the Dunk In The Dark tweet. By, the way, I also think it’s fascinating to understand the impact that distribution played in driving the 3.4M retweets. This chart does a great job of showing that despite Brad Pitts, bigger start power, Ellen, herself generated 2.5X more retweets.
Moving away from scale and virality as benchmarks for success, let’s look at interest. Interest leads to intent and intent leads to purchase, right? That’s the model, just about every marketer coming out of school, has been taught. Red Bull’s Stratos project, that had Felix Baumgartner jumping from just outside the Earth’s atmosphere, into the desert in New Mexico.
The jump was historic. It broke all sorts of records and became must see content. As we know, must see content, is high quality content (I mean, there’s a reason people watch The Bachelor and Michael Bay movies). At the time, the Stratos project, broke the record for concurrent youTube streams; with nearly 8M people viewing the jump, in real time. Impressive, right? What I like more is that they turned that stunt, into an ongoing campaign. Footage from the jump was integrated into commercials, end caps, packaging, print ads and more. As someone who worked on BMW Films, the re-usage of the content impresses me more than anything. The more often ways you reuse the same footage, the more efficient that investment into the original piece of content, becomes.
Now, if there’s one thing we all know, it’s that what consumers say, really matters. Last Super Bowl, people, just like you and me, crowned the Budweiser ad that featured a dog and a horse, the best Super Bowl commercial of the bunch.
If you don’t think these polls matter, check out the story about Career Builder essentially firing its agency because their Super Bowl ad, wasn’t voted the best. Yes, I’m serious. If consumers love it and love it enough to vote it the best, it must be high quality, right?
Now, for me, I like to go a bit old school. With no internet, no mobile, no tablet, no streaming and still with the majority of people having black and white televisions, the first moon landing was seen by more than 500M people.
Think about that for a second. There were more people who tuned in to watch grainy footage on their black and white televisions, without the internet, than there were people who watched Felix Jump and retweeted the “Ellen Selfie” and shared the “Dunk In The Dark” image and watched Budweisers’ Puppy Love commercial.
We walked through a lot of examples of “quality” content. Hopefully, what you’ve taken away is that it’s really difficult to determine what quality, really means. Quality is unfortunately, quite subjective. There are people who believe Just Bieber is an amazing musical talent. The millions of records/songs sold would seem to justify that. To his fans, he makes quality music. To me, he is a blight on the music industry. I like Michael Bay movies. Some people don’t. There are even people who think Nickelback makes quality music. You can find out which of your friends on Facbeook like Nickelback and unfriend them, by clicking on this link. You’re welcome.
At Walgreens, we don’t have it all figured out. From the many conversations I’ve had with my peers, across the industry and the globe, I don’t think anyone has it mastered. For me, that’s part of the fun and the excitement. It’s why I love the role I’m in and the company I work for. While we haven’t cracked the code 100%, there are a few elements, that I think are important:
Have a clear definition of quality. Every company needs their own approach and “formula.”
Protect the customer experience. Every piece of content, even gasp! content that’s designed to sell (I know, I know, crazy…) should eliminate friction in the actions you’re asking the customer/user to do.
When creating content, take into account 3 things: Your Brand (the content needs to be on brand), Your Customer (it needs to be relatable to your audience), The Platform Context (content that works great in Facebook, doesn’t necessarily work well, in twitter and etc.).
It’s early days in some respects. In others, as the moon landing shows us, the challenges quality compelling content has been around for a long time. Can you imagine how difficult it must have been to link up a feed from the moon to people’s living rooms in 1969?
Set your bar high and be clear in what you’re willing to accept as quality content. Remember, a perfectly perfect circle, that’s the right color, with the right logo, with the right font, isn’t necessarily quality…even though it checks all the boxes.
Ok, I lied. Well, technically, I didn’t lie per se. Sure, there’s nothing in this blog about Tim Cook, Apple or twitter. But, I didn’t lie. I just played by the wide open and loose rules of today’s publishers. See, what I did, was I link-baited you. You saw that salacious headline, “13 reasons Tim Cook Just Bought Twitter” and you clicked. If I had been selling ad-impressions on my site, I’d have just made a fortune.
Admittedly, you’re irritated. You expected to find an article outlining why Apple decided to buy twitter, instead, 1.5 paragraphs later, you’re still reading my lecture. You should be irritated.
Tonight, I was a bit irritated too, so, I got a bit cheeky on twitter and started generating semi on topic/semi off topic headlines that were completely made up. For example:
The 36 flavors of ice cream that are just like Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp.
The number of people who tweeted me back asking for the link or thinking I’d forgotten the link was staggering. We have been conditioned to look for headlines/tweets like this…so we can click on them.
When the news first broke about Facebook’s acquisition of WhatsApp, I rolled my eyes and I debated avoiding social media for the next few days. But, I didn’t Being plugged in to social is part of the job and the responsibility that comes from leading an organization’s social marketing efforts. Why did I want avoid? Simple, I’ve seen this news cycle before. The announcement comes out and we end up with hundreds of posts that seem an inch away from the Tyson Zone. They all follow the same formula:
The + X (a number) + Y (a noun) + Z (the actual news) + A (preposition) + (simple phrase)
For example The 18 Ways Facebook’s Acquisition of WhatsApp Is a game changer. At this point, I’m half sure publishers have simply written a script that generates these headlines. After all if Len Kendall can do it as a side project, it stands to reason a large publisher could do it too.
So, yes, I got a bit cheeky, had some fun, but also learned a lot. For example, I’m not the only marketer who’s self-aware enough to realize that:
We have become conditioned to expect headlines like this
We know it’s a problem
This approach to “reporting” the news could very well be called link baiting. An interesting headline rarely is paid off by the actual content contained in the article. The headline is salacious, which of course gets you to click. This bothers me. It’s always bothered me. But, now that I also have the responsibility of our Walgreens enterprise content strategy, it don’t just irritate me, it really concerns me. Let me break this down…at the end of the day branded content can only live in 3 places:
Our owned real-estate: For example our website or opted-in eMails. In this case, we need to think about how we use a variety of paid and organic approaches to drive people to those locations.
Distributed on another platform (e.g. twitter) organically: In this situation, we’d be recognizing that you might not want to leave the experience you’re currently in, but you still want content from us.
On another publisher’s site: Because buzzwords are king, let’s call this content “native.” If it’s native content, in essence we’re paying to have our content embedded on another publisher’s site. The upside here is rather than trying to drive someone from where they already are to my site, I can “engage” them where they already are.
Bucket 1 has been around since the early 90s. Be it web-rings (yes I said web-rings) or the earliest form of display ads (remember the 120×90?) companies have been “buying” ads across the web to drive people to their sites.
Bucket 2 isn’t quite new, but, it’s not quite a mature space. Brands are still figuring out how to balance the value of building a base of followers on someone else’s platform, for the purposes of marketing to them. Yes, I said marketing. I didn’t say engaging, which, let’s be honest, is simply a more polite way of saying, marketing.
Bucket 3, though, well that’s an interesting one. You can call it “native” or any other name, but it’s still an ad. I won’t get into the merits of native ads vs. traditional display ads, here. It’s a subject I’ll tackle at a later date. With native ads the publisher is selling traffic. They’re ultimately claiming, hey, we get X millions of eyeballs to our site, thus your reach is some % of X. Simple enough, right? After all, that’s really not too different than bucket 1. We’ve been buying ad inventory on CPM models for years. In those CPM models, an advertiser chooses to advertise on that publisher’s site, because they reach X millions of eyeballs.
The big inherent difference though between bucket 1 and bucket 3 is that bucket 1 created and built during a time when portals (e.g. Yahoo, MSN) were the starting point and people browsed for content. There was a certain assumed intent. In bucket 3, when you’re essentially advertising inside the stream, the intent is debatable. Publishers are selling reach in the form of impressions, which come from clicks. Well, if I were a publisher, I’d publish outrageous headlines, just like the one that brought you here. It’s smart economics after all. As the publisher, I craft the slightly misleading, slightly on topic headline, you click, I claim your traffic, I then aggregate all the people who clicked on the link and I tell advertisers, see look how much traffic we have.
But, doesn’t it beg the question, is it really quality traffic? And that’s the rub. I applaud Facebook for taking steps to change the newsfeed algorithm so that link-baiting sites, like Upworthy were de-prioritized. Shouldn’t the headline match the actual content on the page? Jack Marshall at DigiDay recently covered this topic, in superb fashion.
We have become conditioned to look for links that fit the: The + X (a number) + Y (a noun) + Z (the actual news) + A (preposition) + (simple phrase) formula. We can’t help but click. And doing that, allows the problem to continue.
As someone focusing on an enterprise content strategy for a beloved, large and progressive organization, I’m concerned and I’m pausing. I’m tending to scrutinize the numbers publishers are providing. I have to ask myself, how much of that traffic is actually legit and how much of it was manufactured through link-baiting headlines. The difference for some marketers could millions of dollars wasted on empty clicks and impressions.
But, see, that’s something a brand cares about. That’s something the advertiser would care about. There’s little incentive for publishers to change and the associations that should be providing leadership, like the IAB, don’t even have brand-side representation. That’s quite a conundrum and I have a feeling it’s going to change. As content strategies become ever more important for organizations, there will be many others who are asking the same questions I am. I hope that has a ripple effect and we see other platforms like Twitter start to de-prioritize content that’s clearly link-bait.
How can we expect our leadership to us seriously, when we, as an industry, perpetuate such debatably unscrupulous behavior? That’s not a sexy headline, but it’s something you should think about.
I love iMedia Summit. It’s on my must attend list, every year. Great locations, great content and great people, make for a valuable experience.
At this year’s summit, it was clear we’re getting closer and closer to dropping “digital” from titles and org structures. We are on the precipice of people across all industries accepting, it’s less about digital marketing and more about marketing in a digital world.
As I connected with marketers across a wide range of industries, there were 3 familiar themes that could not be ignored.
Talent: The conversation about digital talent has evolved. At one of my 1st summits, nearly 10 years ago, the conversation was about getting funding to hire someone…anyone…who could be that digital subject matter expert. While we’re definitely past those days, talent remains a thorn. Today though, it’s a thorn because we need new recruitment models to find the right talent, we need a better talent investment plan to retain talent and we need a better plan for creating leaders in organizations who have a deep and wide grasp of digital.
Content: It’s king, right? Every marketer I talked with identified different challenges in dealing with content. The most consistent pain points were how to produce enough content in a financially viable way, how to safely source and share content (legal and Pinterest apparently are still not good friends) and how to distribute content the right way. With respect to distribution, this is a battle waiting of happen in a very epic way. The old model that classical marketers still adopt where your cost to create content should not be greater than 15% of the media but, is dead and doesn’t apply to digital and social content. You will spend more than $100k to create enough quality content to support a $1M ad but across twitter and facebook. In digital, unlike TV, distribution is cheap, but the content is expensive.
New Operating Models: What should you be doing internally? What should your agency’s role be? When do you bring social in-house…and do you bring it all in-house? We need new models and approaches to building internal capabilities and for setting our partners up for success. This will require our partners to pivot quicker than they ever have before. They will need new offerings, new types of talent and different pricing approaches. We are in a sea of disruption that’s not going to calm down any time soon.
This year’s iMedia summit reaffirmed some thoughts I had and offered new perspective to think about as I lead our Social Media and Content efforts for Walgreens. It’s also fair to say, iMedia once again reminds me of why I’ve stayed in digital for 16 years…the pace of change isn’t for the weak and it’s bloody good fun to try and keep up.
21 real-time marketing Super Bowl prop bets http://bit.ly/1by8jpZ
On Sunday, most of America will tune in to watch the Super Bowl. I’ll be one of them. A smaller group, will be watching the “2nd” screen just as much as their TV, to see what advertisers do during the Super Bowl. Arik Hanson has put together a very funny list of prop bets that outline some of the seemingly preposterous, but potentially likely actions by brands on Sunday. You’ll chuckle.
The Death Of Expertise http://bit.ly/1by8CRJ
This is a long read. I’m just warning you. But, it’s also a great read. In an always on and always connected world, are we losing the reason to learn and retain knowledge? This author seems to think so. I think he’s on to something. How many times have you been in a situation where someone asks you a relative basic question and you offer the response of “just google it.” I’m guilty. Is that behavior contributing to a slow down in the development of critical thinking skills, which negates the ability to create expertise? Grab a cup of coffee and read this thoughtful post.
Millennials Not That Into ‘Things’ and That Goes for Cars Too http://bit.ly/1by9965
Solid short read. If given the choice between renting/leasing or buying, millennials would choose the former. That behavior goes across things big (cars) and small (phones). Perhaps this behavior and mindset is why marriage rates and home ownership rates are on the decline with this demographic. As a marketer, you need to rethink the value of the carrot you put in front of these consumers. Experiences will be viewed as more valuable, than tangible items.
TV Remains the Reigning Champ, but Display Internet Ads are the MVPs of 3Q http://bit.ly/1by9FAY
Lots of great data in the latest report on Nielsen, covering media spending habits. Nearly 60% of budgets go to TV, with only 5% going towards digital. On one hand, shocking. On the other hand, not really; old habits die hard. Keep in mind that massive gap is even AFTER digital investment increased nearly 33% year of year.
13 Things You’re Not Outsourcing (But Totally Should) http://bit.ly/1bybm1m
Loved this post. A great mix of things you could be outsourcing at work and things you could be outsourcing in your personal life. My personal favorite on the list was “waiting.” Totally agree with how much of a life suck waiting can be.
There Is a Digital Talent Gap http://bit.ly/1dzixMq
Such a solid article from Adweek on the challenges that exist in finding strong digital talent. As an organization, your goal should be to get an unfair share of a limited pool of strong digital talent. In basic economics principles, there’s a significant amount of demand and a limited amount of supply. Get your talent locked up now…if you have it.
Brain-Train to Fight Brain Drain http://on.recode.net/1dzjjcu
I just signed up for Lumosity. I’m only a week in. I was on the fence. Not 100% sure it will/would work. After reading this outstanding review of Lumosity by the ReCode team, I’m even more excited. Check it out, you might become a convert.
Can Performance Be Quantified? Wearable Tech In The Office http://bit.ly/1dighXq
The quantified lives trend is more than just tracking your steps and sleep patterns. Companies are turning to wearable tech devices to start tracking and improving the performance of employees. I love this idea and think it’s here to stay. We already see it in sports, where we want athletes to performa at their best so that the org is maximizing their investment. Big data for the little guy is FitBit, now we’re going to seeing Big Data ABOUT the Little Guy, for Companies.
2014 – The Embolden Years: Change agents lead the way for digital transformation http://bit.ly/1dikoTh
Your must read of the week in my opinion. Digital is primed for a breakout role and a seat at the adult table in organizations. Finally, we’re at a point where we aren’t questioning the need for digital. We are still questioning the role and value of it at an organization. Each org is different, but one thing’s for sure, digital change agents are going to lead large organizational transformations. Having been in this role before, it’s not easy…it’s complicated.
‘Anchorman 2′ box office: What happened? http://lat.ms/1diorPz
Full disclosure, I don’t get Will Ferrell’s humor. I don’t find him talented. I walked out of the first Anchorman and demanded a refund. For a campaign that had all the stunts and a lot of buzz, the sales just haven’t been there. The LA Times does a outstanding job breaking it all done. Remember folks, buzz doesn’t always equal sales.
Amazon Confirms That the Giant Amazon Box From Reddit Is Real http://on.recode.net/1aHKhbL
I love this. I love this for so many reasons. Bezos often says something to the effect, he’s in the business of delivering anything to anyone, anywhere in the world. I love that. As part of a lengthy marketing campaign with Nissan, Amazon just delivered a new Nissan Versa to someone. While it may take years for car buying to become a core competency of Amazon, these types of initiatives create energy around Bezos’ lofty aspirations. It’s a classic example of understanding that sometimes you’re not going to get a big immediate return on investment from an initiative, but there’s still many great reasons to invest in the initiative.
inMarket Rolls Out iBeacons To 200 Safeway, Giant Eagle Grocery Stores To Reach Shoppers When It Matters http://tcrn.ch/1aHKH1Q
So, yeah, mobile, it’s going to be big. If you don’t have someone at your organization who’s focused 100% of the time on mobile, you’re missing out. Mobile can’t be 5% of everyone’s job. The minute that happens, it slips thru the cracks. Apple’s iBeacon product was a smart extension. We’re going to see these types of platforms become commonplace in 3 years. Instead of just 10% of stores as a test, we’ll see NFC styled platforms in nearly 100% of locations. The only bummer from this announcement is the lack of creativity. The first thing retailers want to do with iBeacon is………..deliver coupons! C’mon it’s 2014, we’re better than that, aren’t we?
A closer look at Belkin’s Crock-Pot WeMo Slow Cooker (hands-on) http://engt.co/1aHL1O9
As a slow cooker aficionado, I’m excited by this. As a marketer, it’s yet another example that the “internet of things” is here and it’s not going anywhere, any time soon. Look at your home, look in your car, look at everything on your commute to work. If it could be connected to the internet, it will be. That’s why, to me, it’s not about digital marketing. It’s about marketing in a digital world. That’s a subtle, but very important nuance.
If a tweet worked once, send it again — and other lessons from The New York Times’ social media desk http://bit.ly/1iUDiED
Probably the best post I came across in the past week. There’s too much to cover in a brief snippet here, but the team at Nieman Labs did a great job of breaking down what the New York Times learned this past year, in social media. There’s basic stuff, that seems so obvious, but it’s also things we forget about too often. Definitely find time to read this one.
Six Things Every CMO Should Be Watching This Year http://onforb.es/1iUEE1X
I like David Armano. We don’t always see eye to eye, but I like how his brain is wired. This article on Forbes from David does a nice job of painting a picture of things CMOs need to think about in 2014. I’d make some adjustments to the list. For example I’d combine his buckets for “Ephemeral Media” and “The Responsive Brand” into a larger bucket called the Content Conundrum. Every CMO is going to grapple with how to create enough content across a wide variety of networks, platforms and locations to make an impact…without breaking the bank. The mix of content providers and partners needed to deliver on this, will be like nothing we’ve ever seen before.
Trends come in all shapes and sizes. The digital space moves so fast that we forget a trend doesn’t just mean something emerging. Something can be both mass and a trend. Trends are important, but it’s not always easy to understand what’s a trend a what’s a fad. That challenge often paralyzes organizations from determining what’s worth investing in and what you should pass on.
I’ve generally tried to use a Trendscape model to help organizations understand what trends are already here and well adopted and which are far out. The Trendscape model has proved invaluable. At the heart, a Trendscape tries to look at 2 spectrums and bring them into alignment:
The awareness of something
The adoption of that something
Trends that have high awareness and high adoption are generally here to stay, are in a mature business environment and have a clear line between leaders and bottom feeders. On the opposite end of that spectrum you have low awareness and low adoption. Just because it’s low, doesn’t mean it’s not important or not poised for breakout growth. Remember the first smartphones?
Here’s a current Digital Trendscape to use for both 2014 planning and for inspiration.
Ring 1: These are trends that are generally well understood and have been adopted by a global consumer marketplace. Great examples of this would be eMail and search. From Shanghai to Omaha the usage and application of eMail and search is mature. We have several competitors, multiple uses, robust analytics and it’s generally easily applied into financial models.
Ring 2: These are the trends with high awareness, high acceptance and solid adoption. The big trend for I’m thinking a lot about is the “expression of me.” From Pinterest which helps us express of wants and hopes to Instagram which enables us to create envy from our followers to twitter, which gives us all a voice, we’re seeing all ages and demographics leap to platforms that enable personal expression. The problem with this trend ring is how fragmented and diverse the landscape is. As trend rings become more mature we end up with less players, not more.
Ring 3: Many organizations struggle with Ring 3 trends because they mistake the maturity of the trend collection for the collection being stagnant and devoid of change or disruption. Here’s a great example; take mobile. It’s not like mobile came out of nowhere to be the juggernaut it is today. And now that’s it here, most organizations will talk about mobile in 2 broad buckets: muli-screen usage (often at the expense of TV) and content snacking. Great, so the simple approach to grapple with this trend would be to integrate calls to action in your commercials that ask people to talk out their phones and create more content designed for mobile. This misses the trend. The real trend is the always connected consumer who has fear of missing out (aka FOMO) and is therefore almost always tethered directly to their phone. The phone isn’t a phone; it’s something personal and an extension of them.
Ring 4: In this bucket we have trends that are well understood, but not well adopted. For example, the concept of quantified lives, or as I often say, big data for the little guy, has emerged. Devices like the Nest thermostat, Automatic (tracks your car driving habits) and the Jawbone UP are becoming more and more understood. When your parents can understand the concept of these devices and your parents are asking if they should get one and you already have one, you know you’re in Ring 4. When your grandparents start asking about them, then you’re in ring 2
Ring 5: These are things that are clearly the tip of the spear, adopted by the most digitally fit and may have zero sticking power. Yes, you read that right, these might never evolve into a Ring 1 trend. Organizations that can spot a Ring 5 trend as one that will become a Ring 1 trend, are the ones who stay ahead and set the space. Most organizations, especially those in the CPG vertical, are gun-shy about investing in this area. They generally take the “fast-follower” or “wait and see” approach, which of course leaves them flat footed when a trend quickly moves from Ring 5 to Ring 1. In this ring you have something like the concept of “disposable content.” Think SnapChat. While SnapChat itself may implode (I tend to think it will), the trend of consumers wanting to take back their privacy and being concerned about their content getting into the wrong hands, is starting to stick.
In today’s very digital world, macro cultural trends have the ability to impact behaviors in every category. My favorite example of this are the restaurants who now encourage you to take out your phone and Instagram/share photos of the food. By understanding the “expression of me” trend they’re connecting with consumers and patrons better than before.
Every organization should have a Trendscape. Your organization might only need 3 rings or it might need 7. There’s no right answer to the number of rings. The single biggest piece of advice I could offer you though would be to think about trends as cultural, not category specific. Too often we only look at category trends, which in my opinion, limits our field of view.
Google And Audi Likely To Announce Infotainment Partnership At CES http://onforb.es/1bCvNcD
I’ve been saying it for nearly 2 years, but the future is mobility, not mobile. Our cars are one of the most mobile “devices” we own and yet it’s been fairly technology limited. Ford really changed that with their Microsoft Sync relationship. It was only a matter of time til someone turned your car into something that resembled your phone. If the rumors are true, it’s Audi and Google who are committing to bring you the future of mobility.
Wendy Clark: All Marketing Strategies Should Start With ‘Why’ http://bit.ly/1bCvZsj
I love this article, penned by Wendy Clark, Coke’s VP of Marketing. Brands are built over time and with relentless focus. There’s a reason Coke, as a brand, is recognized, understood and appreciated across the world. To hear Wendy explain it, it’s their focus on their mission. “In these moments, when we lead with the product (what) and not our mission (why), our decisions get smaller, our perspective less brave, our work less memorable, our world impact more limited.” Purposeful positioning matters. It gives a brand a foundation to build upon and to thrive on.
Zappos is going holacratic: no job titles, no managers, no hierarchy http://bit.ly/1bCwjr6
It’s the kind of thing only Zappos could do AND be successful in doing. Instead of a top down hierarchy, “…there will be around 400 circles at Zappos once the rollout is complete in December 2014—and employees can have any number of roles within those circles. This way, there’s no hiding under titles; radical transparency is the goal.” I love this approach. Then again, I’ve always loved the idea of accountability. Roles are much more valuable than titles. It’s your role that enables you to feel purpose and drive impact beyond your box on an org chart.
More Than 300 Sharks In Australia Are Now On Twitter http://n.pr/1bCwWRx
“Government researchers have tagged 338 sharks with acoustic transmitters that monitor where the animals are. When a tagged shark is about half a mile away from a beach, it triggers a computer alert, which tweets out a message on the Surf Life Saving Western Australia Twitter feed. The tweet notes the shark’s size, breed and approximate location.” That sums it up. Brilliant. Just brilliant.
Pew Internet Life Project: The 2013 Social Media Report http://bit.ly/1bCxuHd
Always a fan of the work done by Pew. Their reports on internet/digital/social use and adoption always have me leaning forward. In their 2013 report on social media trends we see a few interesting things.
If you thought Facebook was on the decline…think again.
Just about everyone uses social. Ok, not everyone, but 73% of adults online. That’s significant.
While Facebook isn’t on the decline, people are diversifying their time across many social networks…especially Instagram.