Key Tech Trends for 2012

January 12, 2012 Leave a Comment

frog design published a nice piece two days ago on their blog, compiling the thoughts of many of their top creatives, strategists and executives regarding key technology trends for the coming year.  Few firms have the credibility right now of frog, so I encourage you to head on over and read the post in it’s entirety.  A few of the trends they identified stand out as being particularly salient for businesses and agencies, across a variety of specialties, so I’ll summarize and build-on a few here.

Many theorists speculated that our sense of “Place” would diminish in significance with the rise of digital technologies, however, as many of the trends tip toe around, “Place” has never been more important. Cities are obviously in vogue (perhaps permanently) and our digital devices make unlocking their ultimate potential more accessible than ever. Innovations that expand the connection between our digital device and the physical space will continue to grow faster than we can imagine.

As Ficklin, Tuttle and Richardson attest, the computing experience will continue to become more personal or “human” as it were.  The obvious developments from 2011, as they identify were Apple’s Siri and Ford’s Microsoft Sync, both imperfect in many ways but no less, important steps in the development of a more sensitive interaction between human and computer.

One trend of particular interest, is Thomas Sutton’s identification of the Quantified Self.  Made possible by data aggregation platforms that will couple information from technologies like Nike+ and Jawbone’s Up band, providing users with a more integrated understanding of things like their overall health, in this case, further enabling insights and suggestions that are more and more specific, nuanced and in turn useful.

Read more of this post

Filed under Business, Design, Marketing, Strategy

A Word On Presenting Your Ideas

November 30, 2011 Leave a Comment

During a pitch yesterday to a prospective client, it dawned on me how crucial it is to present ideas or opinions in a) compelling, b) organized and c) digestible ways.  All too often we come up with great solutions, that fall flat when our enthusiasm prevents us from sharing them in a logical and emotionally-compelling fashion.

While, an entire book could be written on this topic (and many have, including the hugely popular Made To Stick, by the Heath Brothers, which I haven’t read) this is a blog and so I’ll share a quick series of questions that will help to organize how you present ideas in the future.  But, in reality, it’s not any more complicated than this.

  1. What’s the insight, reality, or problem that your solution or idea is addressing? This will prepare the listener for what they’re about to hear, while providing the reasoning and background behind your thinking.
  2. What’s the idea? This should be a short, emotionally-charged summary that takes no more than a few sentences.  People’s attention spans are short, so this explanation should follow suit.
  3. How will it work? This is where you can dive a little deeper into not just the ‘how’ behind implementing or bringing the idea to life, but also expand on some of the details regarding what the idea or solution actually is.  It’s never a good idea to go into too much depth during your initial explanation, where the purpose is to generate excitement and create a sense of possibility.  Instead, if possible, address the nuances and finer details here.
  4. What will the result be? After expounding on the details, it’s always a good idea to bring your listener back to the end result or that sense of possibility.  In my case, at a marketing agency, it’s often about the potential that an idea holds for the brand on a larger scale.

The best pitches, regardless of how planned or even informal they may be, will simultaneously strive to appeal to the listener’s emotional and rational minds.  And, don’t be mistaken, this format doesn’t just apply to presenting ideas in the traditional corporate sense.  They can be used when asking for a raise at work, making a statement at a PTA meeting, or just trying to convince someone of your point of view.

Filed under Business, Ideas, Marketing, Strategy

LivePhish.com: A Case Study in Building Community

November 6, 2011 Leave a Comment

Most don’t know this, but Phish has one of the most active and passionate communities of fans, not just among bands, but also brands in the world.  How did it all begin? Jam bands, dating back to the Grateful Dead have always been defined by the constantly changing and unpredictable nature of their live performances.  Simply put, it wasn’t the records they periodically produced, it was going to see them live that made these bands and the genre what it is today.  A mainstay of this culture involved fans recording live shows and sharing them with friends, a practice that has been going on for decades.

In the 80s, these individuals became known as “Tapers.”  An entire subculture emerged of people who traveled to concerts to record them, share them and trade them with friends.  Naturally, this made a deeper analysis of each performance possible, while generating social groups that revolved around this discovery and learning process.  Eventually, this ability to more attentively listen to and discuss the music of these bands coupled with the always evolving nature of their performances, grew into a more rabid and loyal fan base.

So, after looking at this history, one that many brands would salivate at the prospect of having as their roots, musicians and bands in more mainstream genres still don’t seem to understand the power that experience holds in developing active online communities of fans. So, I chose the band Phish to show how these powerful sub-cultures harnessed by a sound digital strategy has been turned into not just a revenue source, but a means of constantly fueling support and loyalty for the music itself.

Read more of this post

Filed under Brands, Business, Marketing, Media, Strategy, Uncategorized

A Thought on Brands and Culture

November 3, 2011 Leave a Comment

I read Grant McCracken’s latest Harvard Business Review article, called Cool and the Corporation.  Insightful and thought-provoking as always from Grant.

In a nutshell, Grant explains how brands are now in the business of making culture, by creating meaning and experiences among other things for their customers.  However, brands are often unable to create culture without pulling from existing ideas, aesthetics, music, sensibilities, trends, styles, etc.  In short, they have to borrow to build.  The new VW “punch buggy” ad from Deutsche/LA is an example of a brand paying homage to the culture from which it has borrowed from (read his post first hand for more on the details).  In short, creativity comes from others creativity and VW/Deutsche is, as Grant says, acknowledging their debt to those that came before them.  The progression then is from a “cool hunter” model where brands steal culture to the “rebroadcast” model which is more about borrowing and paying homage.

So, this article got me thinking, why is this change occurring?  Is it something about brands themselves or the progression of our culture that’s creating this seemingly conscientious transition?  The answer, I think, lies in the fact that brands must become more transparent about acknowledging their influences as a means to more effectively tell their story to consumers.  The VW ad is a very small example, akin to hitting a single into right field in my opinion.

So, what’s the home run look like?

My first thought (usually my best), went to the Reebok Classics Collective, also dubbed “We R Classic.”  It’s essentially a site dedicated to short interviews, documentaries and performances from musicians, artists and dancers regarding the process and untold stories behind their work.  More than that, it’s a fantastic example of a brand not only acknowledging the culture that its based upon, but also creating something that actively contributes, builds upon or gives back to that culture.  But, again, it’s really a means of drawing connections between themselves and consumers who share a passion for these same pieces of culture.

Filed under Brands, Culture, Strategy

What Steve Jobs Knew About Philosophy, Business and Life

October 10, 2011 Leave a Comment

I wasn’t going to write a Steve Jobs post, but here we are.

Between Friday and today, adWeek has published two really insightful posts about Apple’s philosophy, approach to business and the marketing of that business. I’d just like to pull a key pieces for all the agency folks and entrepreneurs out there to keep in mind.

First, Jobs knew that the best way to move culture forward was to create superior products. Not just products that seemed superior, or undercut the competitor on price, but products that allowed (and continue to allow) us to be the people we aspire to be.  That was the truth that Apple sold and it’s the reason you continue to purchase from them.

In short, their unmatched beauty and performance gives you the freedom to become that next greatest version of yourself.  Make no mistake, you aren’t really buying a tablet, you’re buying an unwavering philosophy built on the premise that you have the ability to forge your own path, creating new wonders for the world at large.  You aren’t buying technology, you’re buying a way of living.  Few publicly traded companies could say this about their products.

So, that’s today’s post in a nutshell, with a bit of my personal take, but what about the agency relationship between Jobs and Lee Clow (Creative Director of TBWA)?

The post on Friday, which maybe should have come second, includes a paraphrase from Jobs about Lee Clow’s strength as a Creative Driector:

Clow’s fundamental strength was that he “looks at Apple from his heart,” Jobs said, “and this gives him the ability to see us as we should be, to see us as we have trouble seeing ourselves sometimes. And to remind us who we are when we are tempted by compromise or shortcuts.

I love this as I think it encapsulates the best of what our industry can deliver it’s clients. In this rapidly evolving world, rife with more technology and communication points than we can possibly ever use, it’s never been more important to serve clients as a guiding light that keeps them laser focused on who they are and what they stand for.  Designing campaigns around the best of what our clients can be (or have been) will yield far greater results than planting ourselves firmly in reality.

Here’s to you, Steve (cheesy, dated photo omitted)!

 

Filed under Business, Culture, Marketing, Strategy

Drifters, Drivers and Developers: What Kind Of Worker Are You?

September 22, 2011 1 Comment

So, I’m reading Todd Henry’s, The Accidental Creative, which is a book for anyone who must come up with creative and novel solutions to problems in their field on a never-ending basis.  The challenge we face in this position is the need to constantly be inventive and brilliant, amidst an increasingly distracting and chaotic world.  Henry, in his book identifies many of the problems holding us back from reaching our maximum potential and then proposes a series of principles to live by that will allow us to create effectively amidst the turmoil.

The piece I stumbled upon yesterday, pertains to identifying how you tend to operate or work at you job.  Henry breaks these tendencies into 3 main types, which I’ll describe:

Drifter: this individual goes with the wind, working on whatever they feel like in a given moment.  Easily distracted and operating often in very shallow levels of thought, due to their distraction.  Finishing projects is challenging and are often put off until the last possible moment.  The scattered nature of this type’s work can lack purpose because they are missing a systematic and organized approach.  This isn’t to say these people aren’t productive, it just means there missing some critical components to be maximally effective.

Driver: this person is almost the opposite of the Drifter, as they are overly focused on outcomes.  They naturally break projects down into their smallest component parts, in order to complete the work as effectively as possible.  These individuals are propelled by checking off their to-do lists.  While they are incredibly skilled at reaching their objectives efficiently, their rigid systems for accomplishing work, narrow their focus to a point that causes them to miss key opportunities.  Henry says it best that Drivers “are too microscopically focused on the objective and are often reluctant to redirect their energy when new opportunities emerge in the course of their work.”

Developer: this type contains the best of both the driver and the drifter and represents what we strive for in our creative processes.  The developer is extremely clear on the objectives before undertaking a project, but is capable of pulling back and refining their course as new information and insights become available.  They are able to become hyper-focused at the ground level when it’s time to complete the real ‘work’, but periodically zoom out to higher altitudes to look for new opportunities, insights and areas of synthesis.  Because of their flexibility, Developers, are most likely to experience moments of creative insight.

I found this to be extremely helpful as I often find myself bordering on the Drifter type, checking my Twitter feed, reading blogs, jumping back into actual work, checking my phone.  I very frequently move from one task to the next without any rhyme or reason to the progression.  That being said, it would be reductionistic to say that we are only one type.  Obviously different tasks, challenges and environments will elicit different behaviors, but being aware of these types can help you to become more aware of how your behaviors may be helping or hurting you.

Image via Simple Square blog

Filed under Behavior, Business, Ideas, Strategy

Designing a Better Business with Cooperative Systems

September 12, 2011 Leave a Comment

The case for creating more cooperative and altruistic business environments is an easy one to make.  In the modern organization where projects are constantly beginning and ending, and individuals’ workloads are difficult to define and constantly fluctuating, being able to develop an environment that promotes cooperative behavior can quickly return on the investment.

Until recently, we, with the help of evolutionary biologists have been under the impression that humans are inherently selfish.  Flashback to Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan or Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and even though they differ slightly, they reach the same conclusion, that humans are inherently selfish. Certainly in 2008 with the collapse of the financial markets, prompted by the behavior of investment bankers, continuing today with the American political system led by politicians who leave no question that re-election is the only real concern, it’s a tough pill to swallow that humans could possibly contain even an iota of altriusm or conscientiousness for their common man.

However, if we step back we realize that corporate and political systems are based on the assumption that human beings are selfish and need to be controlled with punishments or similarly motivated with promise of financial gain. When we being to see this, it becomes easier to see that these systems create conditions that force or provoke humans to act in selfish ways. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

In the last decade, however, multi-discplinary studies spanning, evolutionary biology, genetics, psychology, economics and political science are beginning to prove, through an enormous body of evidence that the issue is obviously not black or white. Humans are not either altruistic or selfish, they are both, depending on a wide variety of conditions. And, furthermore, if systems are put in place that presume or promote unselfish behavior and create conditions that allow it to flourish, there’s no guessing what our societies could be capable of.

So, cutting to the chase, how do we design coorporative systems (in this case within businesses) that are easy to maintain but that create conditions that will allow businesses to increase profits and employee satisfaction (a logical byproduct or altruism) to soar?  Good question. Here’s an initial framework, borrowed from the work of Yochai Benkler, a Harvard Law Professor and author of The Unselfish Gene, a post which inspired this piece:

Communication: a cooperative environment hinges on open communication, as it predicates trust and empathy. Businesses should strive to develop as much transparency within their organization as possible. The days of closed door meetings and murky corporate strategies are over. As millennials take their places in the work force transparency will be a requirement.

Morality: Clearly defined corporate values set a precedence amongst employees for what constitutes acceptable behavior. Cooperative systems are based on the notion that people would rather follow social norms than obey rules. Simply put, people want to do what’s normal.  So, set the “norm” on an aspirational, but attainable plane.

Rewards: Material payoffs are the gold-standard for incentivizing higher performance, however research is beginning to show that this can significantly hinder altruistic or pro-social behavior. Focusing on appealing to people’s intrinsic motivations, by making the business social, autonomous, rewarding and fun will yield far greater results. Think about it: hand someone a gift card for a job well-done or present them with the opportunity to lead a team that investigates and evolves your process.

Reputation / Reciprocity: constructing systems that have participants dependent on one-another for success will have a much greater likelihood of yielding better results, as shown by project-to-project team-based models.

Research by Peter Senge on Learning Organizations has much to lend this as well, but that’s another post.  In summary, industrial area organizational models are ineffectual at fostering environments capable of competing with today’s challenges and needs for innovation. People who are focused on individual payouts aren’t intrinsically motivated to create, learn, experiment and cooperate with their peers in pursuit of a clearly defined goal for which they feel an emotional connection.

 

Filed under Business, Culture, Strategy

The Human Brand

September 12, 2011 Leave a Comment

So, this is essentially a re-blog of an idea I threw up on a now defunct Tumblr about something I’ve been thing about for some time.  Namely, that the primary obstacle that prevents brands from connecting more effectively with people is that they don’t allow themselves to exhibit uniquely human characteristics.  I’m recycling this post, because 14 months later I find myself returning to the same notion, with more evidence that it might actually be useful.  Please share your thoughts, as this is far from complete.

I feel more strongly than ever that brands must serve as a sort of living, breathing companion to the individual.  But, it’s not enough to simply display humanistic tendencies, brands must use them as the basis for growth and innovation.

By human tendencies I mean the development of an opinion or point of view, the desire to form new bonds and to assist in the connection of likeminded individuals, the capacity to listen and empathize and entertain, all while creating something of value.

With all of this laid out, I found myself more lost than when I began, so I set out to simplify and organize the key human tendencies that might apply to brand evolution.  What followed was a preliminary model based on the key characteristics possessed not just by average people, but highly functioning people. It is by no means comprehensive at this point, but represents what I think is a very solid first draft.

Three main tendencies make up our ideal human (or brand): growth, connection and production.

Growth

Characterized by the natural desire to learn new information and skills, develop behaviors that indicate greater social responsibility and heightened consciousness, as well as a desire to seek out new experiences and cultivate of an increasingly more evolved point of view and unique identity.

Connection

Demonstrated by the tendency to share knowledge and opinions, form new bonds and strengthen existing ones, engage in two-way dialogue, and connect other like-minded entities.

Production

Exhibited as the will to create for the sake of self expression and the unwavering belief in a better tomorrow.

All three components are of equal importance for the human brand and are mutually dependent on one another.  For example, the development of a more complex point of view is meaningless if it is not shared with others and used to create something new.  Similarly, seeking out and engaging in new experiences lacks significance if it doesn’t serve as a means for connection with other likeminded individuals.

The model isn’t worth anything if it isn’t applied as a means for growth, in this case to ask the right questions that will lead to the formulation of intelligent strategies.  For example, if a sports apparel brand realized that it wasn’t connecting with high school youth, it could use this framework to pinpoint areas of potential weakness like a lack of a formulated identity that resonated with young people, or a failure to share their years of accumulated knowledge about sport performance.  The next step would then be to reverse these statements to become questions, like how can we more effectively share our vast body of knowledge about performance to create a devoted following?

With this preliminary model in place, we can begin to develop strategies that are more in line with the needs of today’s consumer.

Filed under Brands, Marketing, Strategy

Johnnie Walker Plays Big in China

June 27, 2011 Leave a Comment

If you follow the spirits industry, then you know that whiskey is hitting a high point, not just domestically, but in developing nations like China.  As consumers in the east have increasing amounts of disposable income, high-end spirits from the western hemisphere have increasing appeal.  The Scotch category is growing at 8% value with Diageo’s own Scotch portfolio sales increasing at twice that rate.

Diageo, whose portfolio includes the likes of Johnnie Walker is striking while the iron is hot with some serious marketing to the Chinese consumer with the luxury mindset.  About a month ago, they launched The Johnnie Walker House, a four-story mansion in Shanghai that allows invited guests to sample product under the guise of some of the brands most trusted experts.  The space will also be used to host lectures, dinners, masterclasses, trade events and more.

But, JW didn’t stop there, they created 1,000 bottles of a custom blend, called The 1910 Edition, sold within the house for a mere $2,000 each.  The rare prize is meant to commemorate the original journey taken by Johnnie Walker by boat from Scotland to China in 1910, a perilous journey at the time, all the way around Africa and up through the Indian Ocean.

Read more of this post

Filed under Brands, Culture, Design, Marketing, Strategy

The Strategist’s Dilemma

March 31, 2011 Leave a Comment

Filed under Brands, Marketing, Strategy

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.