The fraudulant storyteller

There is a thought provoking interview with Stefan Sagmeister, where he challenges the pop reference to storytelling and the self-label of storyteller. Coming from a guy who’s built a life around insanely flawless visual design, he definitely brings a level of authority to the subject. I agree with Mr. Sagmeister on two fronts: 1) the phrase has been pirated by industries and brands where ‘storytelling’ is a stretch 2) I am one of the people who is guilty of self-labeling as a storyteller. I know it has become a buzzword, but for me it feels like a positive sign to see the creative within brands and ad agencies attempt to focus the simplicity of what they do. The distraction of content, the temptation to lead with technology or tactics, and the realization that it is the stories that people tell themselves that create change, motivate purchases, and guide choices.

In the world of technology, I think the idea of storytelling should be embraced. Screw the fact it may be overused or not reflect ‘true storytellers’. The opportunity to have an insanely complex industry of people take a step back and make the connection between why the technology exists in the first place and the people that it helps should be welcome by everyone. It can be the difference between doing a job and honing a craft.

A few years ago our company decided to celebrate it’s birthday by sending out an invitation to our clients. The digital invite led them to a webpage where we had cued up an augmented reality experience. People sat in front of their webcam and were invited to make a wish by blowing out the candle on our digital birthday cupcake. As each person would blow at their computer screen, the digital candle would blow out. A wink that bridged the digital space and physical space in a single moment.

If I asked you the how this worked, you would likely concentrate on the use of technology that could have been used to make this happen. But a simple idea like this, or the successful implementation of any technology is not the result of a focus on that technology – it’s the result of focusing on the story that you want your audience to tell themselves.  It is this strategy that makes room for imagination for an experience evolve from an action to a memorable moment.

Man Servants

I’m seriously digging the idea of a Concierge MVP – where humans fill the gap in a digital experience. The quick example is the idea that driverless cars are not far off on the horizon, but Uber and Lyft provides the Concierge MVP in the interim; building user habits for automated and tailored transportation.

Two weeks ago I saw another take on this idea with a service that is getting all it's attention for it’s outrageously link-bated content strategy: “Man servant service is not a joke. And it’s nota gigolo service”

The point of ManServant is to provide women with a tailored and customized gent who can show up when needed. I know the point is the 'tailored man' part, but essentially it is an automated assistant service for a spectrum of tasks. At first glance it’s easy to mistaken the fact that it is packaged in this man-servant story that it has very little to do with building a behavior around man-servants or personal assistance of any kind. It does  however create an initial MVP to a set services that women (and consumers in general) don’t currently consider to be automated. As with many use cases, it fits a grey area where other entrepreneurs have not dared to go, or not considered to be viable business models. 

The best part about the idea of Concierge MVP’s for true connected experiences is that they are more about building behavior and understanding new habits, rather then implementing new technology. The idea behind Man Servant is pretty simple, the execution complex, but the way its consumers will utilize the service is likely a bit further away from the obvious hopes of the companies founder. Give someone a killer platform that they didn't know they needed, and they will quickly take the lead in its development path.

Historical Convenience: UX Intertia

The more time I spend in the U.S. the more I notice the little differences in human behavior.  For the most part, these differences don't actually translate into differences in digital UX or UI design. This lead me to the question - is good design a reflection of existing human preferences, or does it create new human preferences?

This isn't a black and white answer. It waivers in the grey. If we look at one element that touches everyone daily - money -  we see that most implementations of design are adopted when they reflect a mass-based human behavior.

Micro-chip credit cards
The American adoption chip based credit cards has followed the path of the adoption of electric cars - even when a realistic solution comes into play, the intertia of old perceptions on UX and unpredictable commercial accessibility get in the way. One part of this is the lag for retailers to implement chips reading credit card scanners at point of sale. The greater part is the lack of consumer demand, as historical convenience almost always outways change in UX. For the U.S consumer, they have lagged in most changes that increase the convenience of using money - adoption of automated tellers, digital currency, and the idea of cash free solutions generally lag compared to other similar countries. Companies like McDonald's have spent millions to update locations to accept micro-chips, and have struggled to realize a return on that investment.

North of the border and across the ocean, chip technology started making it's way into the hands of University students just over ten years ago - a low barrier pilot project with a target audience who do not suffer from the inertia of historical convenience - mass buying food or drinks was not really a behaviour until they left home. Since that time, chips have become the norm and within the last 18 months have evolved to include quick scan payments. Perhaps the cultural nuances differ in trust or security enough to allow this, or perhaps the new convenience of quickly scanning a purchase is closer to feeling like a cash transaction than credit cards have ever managed to do before.

In this case adoption of the chip in the U.S. the user experience leans on the barriers of behavior changing; there is no perception that a new transaction system fits or improves on the convenience of the current system. A case where UX adoption is being lead by existing human behavior.

Digital Currency: Let's forget about Bitcoin for a second and just look at the use of digital to facilitate transactions. The use of e-commerce is definitely main stream. After overcoming the trust barrier in user adoption, it has not had trouble becoming a new norm. Look overseas to South Korea, and we get another hint at existing human behavior driving digital UX. A society rich with tradition, and tech adoption, we see an interesting convergence of behavior. Traditional gift giving for major life/death events involves money in an envelope. The dominant messaging app, Kakao (kind of like WhatsApp), has recently added a digital wallet feature, that allowed its millions of users to send monetary gifts to other users. Was there a lag in adoption? In two days, 22 million transactions were made (maybe that's why Facebook bought WhatsApp...but that's a different blog post). There was no thought to adoption, there was an existing human behavior that had reached the point where 'digital' and 'traditional' converged in the mind of the user. The use case proposed a new process, that didn't require new behavior or thinking.  UX lead again be existing human behavior.

I'll be expanding on the hints of design and adoption in future posts. They apply to all aspects of user interaction - from mobile apps to vehicles to the next gadgets that connect us to the world around us. A trend of characteristics connects all of them, which include:

• Balancing Convenience: weighing historical versus innovative
• Accessibility: reducing friction to use and continue using
• Reflecting behavior: a mirror on existing UX, even when it appears to be drastically different.
• Perpetual Reinforcement: We all learn by doing. we create habits by repetition. Combining these in the UX is often the tipping point in surpassing UX inertia.

The Human Challenge in Technology

Much like theatre has the fourth wall, design and communications has the z-axis. Traditionally, as in theatre, the story being told is left on two-axis – two-dimensions of engagement that allow the audience to participate.  

Side note: I tend to interchange storytelling with communications/design/UX – it’s the output and the approach, and I like the word.

On occasion, a third-axis (or dimension...3D) is added to the mix, drastically shifting the way in which a story can be told and consumed by the audience. However, change rarely comes easy.

With VR tech like the Occulus Rift, ulrasound tech like the Qualcomm Pen, and the insane evolution of 3D printing, the world of storytelling has more than enough tools to evolve.  Re-thinking story telling and experiencing, we can add the z-axis and allow the audience to lie in the middle of the narrative and explore their new surroundings.  We see lite versions of this with presentation tools like Prezi, which aim to break the flat mold of typical presentation styles. Occassionally, we get a glimpse of the z-axis fully integrated into the story, as in this case with a recent DARPA project, where the experience is “…like swimming in the internet.”

The Internet of Things has freed us from the rectangle, allowing the user interface (i.e. the story experience) to move beyond the digital screens of our phones, tablets, laptops, etc,  Likewise, three dimensional  technology and experiences hold the promise to free us from being a passive viewer – allowing the user interface to move beyond the flat surface or single direction of dialogue most stories are told with today.

But there are hurdles...

There are two reasons why shifts in how we engage or consume are slowed down or fail completely.

1. The majority of us do what we know has worked. 
2. We often build, or use the things we build, in the way we historically used the previous version of them. 

I call this the human challenge in technology; we often use the new in the same way we use the old. Internet advertisers destroyed the early potential of online media by failing to see the context of the audience. Mobile phones were simply smaller versions of the land-line phone for over a decade – now the mobile calling takes up less than 30% of mobile phone time.

Taking full advantage of the ability to tell a story across all three dimensions, requires us to avoid these two points, and approach the experience through a new lens – involving context, constraints, and cooperation.  BUT that is an entirely different blog post; one I have yet to write.

Learning to suck at creativity

Somehow, somewhere along the way, the line between creativity and technology became blurred. Same goes for innovation; a word often used but rarely in the absence of technology.

We've learned to suck at creativity by masking it in technology or placing it in the shadow of innovation. There is nothing worse that technology that lacks creativity.

It seems to happen systematically. The reason may be that we often place creativity on a pedestal. Rather than reach for the pedestal, we conform to the present (which is currently technology/innovation).  It's easier than lowering the pedestal. Up there,  creativity is an isolated activity owned by someone with creative credibility (I'm talking broadly and not judging... where on one side of the scale, they have a knack for coming up with ideas. While on the other side of the scale, they have a wall of awards made of crystal or earth metals). In this scenario, creativity can't be easily influenced or redefined. Collaboration ends up being a word that is used by people on the pedestal looking to gain support by those who are not. And often, the collaboration comes in requests for technology or innovation. It is here we see the meld of creative suckitude fuse into our unfortunately acceptable definition of creativity.

Creativity should be rooted in simplicity and improvement. This is something everyone is capable of but rarely provided permission to explore. Finding the insight that connects consumers to a product, cutting down lines of code to increase an apps efficiency, modifying company HR policies to encourage an activity (and ultimately discourage another), or simply allowing for conversation to flow among people uninhibited -  are all examples of creativity at work.

Learning to unsuck just requires the discipline of defining the creative request to the person you're engaging with. Lists aren't creative, but they are focused. Here's one on how to turn down the suck in the creativity of your workplace or community:

1. Don't ask the same questions at the beginning of every creative process. This is habit, and habit kills creativity. A starting point is to avoid the words "engage" "innovate" "connect" "brainstorm" "blue sky" "viral" "social" "insight" - make a creative request...creative.
2. Never ask a bull for milk. Focus the tasks on the persons expertise - if they know money, focus it on savings/profits, if they know software, focus it on UX or efficiency, if they know design, focus it on...you get the picture. Expand the notion of creativity by framing and priming participants with a set of tasks that fits their abilities to add to the discussion.
3. Favor diversity over support. Diversity of thought inspires great ideas. If you're in a creative discussion, or a meeting, or a brainstorm, and you feel comfortable with everything you hear - then you've missed the creative bus. Same goes for simply giving time to ideas you like - you've missed the point. Which brings us to point #4.
4. Check yourself first. Creativity often sucks because we often come up with the creative framework/solution before we ask for help. We look to support our cause and build a brainstorm around it. Hence why leaders of creativity often end up with unstable egos, or unchecked biases, they are constantly supported in every collaboration. Check yourself should be step one, but it took me four steps to realize I didn't before writing this.

All that said, the point isn't to tear down creative bureaucracy. People need to make decisions, and decisions don't involve everyone all the time.  Rather, the point is to foster creative diversity at the beginning - which creates creative health....and actually leads to true innovation.

3 Tips to Creative Storytelling with technology

Conversations around innovation are often rooted in limitations. A creative team would like to know what is not possible, a brand wants to know possible risks, etc. Often the focus on what is not possible distracts everyone from the possibilities of what is possible.

Storytelling in action in galaxy far, far, away.

The point of technology is to assist a user experience. And the beautiful thing about a user experience is it is always wrapped in a story. Rather than look at a technology set a set of barriers that a creative idea needs to fit within, shift the perspective to start with a story with technology as a supporting role.

I would argue that the current state of digital provides limitless creative applications. The barrier lies in the stories - not in the technology.



How do we craft better stories with technology?

1. Focus on people. Start with the user experience, or if we want to sound technical, the Human Interface. All stories have an arc and motivate reaction. Ignore technology entirely at this point.
2. Create Momentum. With the human story in place, look for points where the imagination will begin to run. If the story arc guides the imagination, find the points that have opportunity to be reinforced. Perhaps the imagination stalls during details of the story, or perhaps the user needs to be primed so the store has the greatest effect. What tangible action can ignite the imagination? What literal elements can be removed to leave room for the mind to play? This will lead you to explore the medium of the storytelling experience and technology will naturally seep into consideration. Avoid crafting to what you know or a technology that seems to be an obvious fit.
3. Use technology as a mirror or support (not both). Begin to weave the use of technology on the same path as what was identified to create momentum; using it as a tool to mirror the momentum of the story and augment the imagination, or to support the story and create momentum where the human experience lacks. If you find that technology is mirroring and supporting the story, you're likely forcing things together. What's the point of a story if it needs technology? Simplify and always fall back to the human experience.

Helping people to tell their crafted story with the help of technology is often how I spend my day. I have yet to become an expert, but have learned a few lessons the hard way. Creative technology without a story can be compared to a creative tactic without a story - without the story (or strategy if you prefer) it is clutter.

Concierge Minimum Viable Product

A phrase often heard in our boardroom is: "Where technology falls short, the creative experience does the rest" - meaning, technology can do a ton of heavy lifting, but if it becomes too complicated we can simply let people fill in the gap by guiding them creatively (storytelling with technology...another post entirely).

I recently was reminded of an amazing articulation of this idea by Eric Ries.  The Concierge Minimum Viable Product.  If an MVP is the minimum set of features a customer will pay for, a Concierge MVP takes this a step further by offering those features - even if the technology that would enable those features is not yet ready (it's not solely technology based, but I'll stick with the digital interpretation).

An example?
Shipping. If you don't currently offer integrated and automated shipping to local online customers, you can still offer a Concierge MVP by manually doing the shipping/ordering/etc. When it reaches a revenue level that allows this to become automated, you invest. It's all about staying lean.

A shift from financial limits to technology limits
I love the idea of a Concierge MVP when it comes to the Internet of Things. If the idea of a MVP is an approach to market entry when finances are limited, think of a Concierge MVP as an approach to market entry when technology is limited.

From an IoT perspective, allowing the human experience to connect technologies creates infinite possibilities for bringing the (currently) impossible to life.

• We are years away from automated taxis picking us up, but Uber does a great job of providing a Concierge MVP - an automated transportation network delivered by humans. 
• Sticking with cars - products like Automate - provide a ton of value by providing sensor data to drivers - but the driver still needs to monitor this data and alter their driving behavior. 
• Look to fitness, shipping, and healthcare and you'll see dozens of examples  - apps or shoes that track footsteps (informs users, but requires a user to act), sensors to track the temperature of a shipping container (informs users, but requires a user to adjust temperature), or patient monitoring (sense user activity data/health indicators, but a doctor still delivers the care).
• Augmented Reality is no different. Ideally, technology would be smart enough to understand the context around the user - but right now those tech features are limited - so the mobile experience leans on the customer to fill in where technology is absent.

The underlying theme is that some of the greatest innovations for the IoT  - connecting the digital and physical space - have already started. The Concierge MVP version is likely in-market, and perhaps that idea that you're waiting for technology to catch-up to is already possible with a bit of human interaction.

The end of an era: The Prehistoric Internet of Things

The buzz around the Internet of Things (IoT) has people's imaginations soaring with driver-less vehicles and fridges that keep track of your food. However, for many people, the interaction with the IoT is likely not that far away. It's likely in their pocket.

Source: TheTelegraph.

A less obvious form of the IoT is the smartphone. Once simply an object with one purpose (phone network), little data collected (no sensors or intelligence), and very little UI, the phone in your pocket has become a central data collector (for you and others), is loaded with automated sensors (gyroscopes, GPS, light, audio recognition, etc) and has a UI that accommodates for all of it. In terms of being a 'smart' object that connects the physical and digital world - automating activities and processes - our mobile phone could be thought of as the first mass consumer product in the IoT space.

Even Augmented Reality, an innovation that first took the mass market by storm in 2008, is just a simple form of the IoT. By nature it allows you to unlock digital content or connect to experiences by scanning or tracking to the physical world. It takes the mobile experience a step beyond the rectangle screen - allowing the UX to flow between a mobile/digital interaction and a physical object or location interaction. As more physical objects become networked and equipped with sensors, the words Augmented Reality will disappear, as these physical/digital handoffs become a regular aspect of every day life.

With first generation wearable glasses now available to the masses, networked home heating and monitoring systems falling more into CPG than luxury goods, and robot assisted professions improving care, we are living in the end of a prehistoric period of the Internet of Things. A period that began in 90s when the folks at MIT imagined a world connected by RFID, is now ending as connected devices exceed the human population. The speed of this shift is where the real fun begins - we never know how behaviours will change with new technology until people actually use it.

Has the wearable bubble burst?

A few days ago Nike put the final nail in the coffin on its Fuelband wearable-technology. Laying off the majority of the digital hardware team and announcing it is exiting the wearable-hardware business.

This follows some recent news reporting that one-third of American consumers who have owned a wearable product stopped using it within six months. In a potential U.S market of approximately 45 million adults who are regular members of a gym, this must be a clear signal of an over-inflated 'need' in the market or perhaps that the world is not yet prepared to enter the age of wearable tech.

In this case both those ideas are likely not the reason and do not paint the entire picture. There are some re-occurring principles to be observed that extend beyond the Fuelband. Here are a few:

1. Tech moves faster than any single company can adapt. At my organization, in a typical project our technical capabilities and options will refresh every 45-60 days. Meaning, how we plan to build something is usually replaced by a better way to build it before the project has been completed. This is the reason why we have remained hardware and software agnostic - we build on the latest and adapt/evolve during the process. This is echoed with Nike, which had  several hardware and software rapidly released for the FuelBand, as well as Samsung's Galaxy Gear which seems to release a new hardware option every few months; bringing me to point number two...
2. Beware the hardware demand vacuum. With the release of new versions of wearable tech, the speed of the release rarely is an attempt to meet increasing demand. It is an attempt to improve the product. The result creates a false demand within the existing consumer base. This symptom has a sense of half-life, as new iterations decrease novelty and cause demand to collapse in the category - creating a vacuum within the existing market. Even though wearable technology is still within its infancy, this generation of consumer largely expects the product to behave and evolve as a mature product.
3. Perpetual infancy of technology.   In the case of mobile, wearables, and the human interface (the Internet of Things) the industry will likely remain in a state of infancy longer than consumers are used to experiencing. Evolution in hardware and software will feel more like a revolution as the platforms and delivery of these experiences changes at an increasing rate. It is no wonder Google Glass continues down the Explorer path, as the yet-to-be market ready product has gone through nine software updates since its release just over twelve months ago. For Nike, a business built on apparel and shoes, we'll see their focus on software continue to support digital sports - a market they've also created. Their return to hardware will likely be delayed until the sensors and processors reach a size that allows for true wearable integration - within fabric or within the environment around us. Samsung will follow its path that helped it succeed in mobile - it will try, fail, try, fail, etc until it launches the wearable equivalent of the Galaxy, the mobile device that finally succeeded for them. Dozens of other players will continue to enter the market and keep everyone honest. The wild west will expand.

It is a seriously exciting era in technology, as we all figure out how to move beyond the rectangular limits of our smartphones, computer screens, and televisions. The promise of interaction with the world around us, pushing us back into our communities and physical interactions will continue to fuel the demand for seamless hardware and software.

3 smart glasses you can use today

There's a lot of buzz about wearable technology, especially around glasses. Google's marketing machine is driving its Glass message home, but there are a few market-ready competitors that are worth knowing about.

Earlier this year, Ad-Dispatch posted a complete breakdown of the hardware options in this space covering any product that is expected to launch in 2014. By contrast, in this post the information is distilled into the quick points that are important for those looking for a wearable augmented reality solution, wearable gaming solution, or just want the low-down on these three wearable devices.

After 5 years....

...I'm back on the wagon. I stopped writing in 2009 on this blog for one simple reason - I didn't think I was saying anything new worth publishing. What started as a mechanism to alleviate frustration became boring. It felt like the stories marketers were telling (including my own) were over-used, the bloggers all single minded, and really what more could I offer.

A lot happens over five years. I've moved from digital marketing to creative technology. From a narrow focus on client vs agency relationships to exploring the worlds of augmented reality, the internet of things (my favorite) and wearable technology.

I find myself on the road in a different city every few days and in my travels I have the opportunity to speak with some pretty phenomenal people, try some ridiculous tech, and learn about some of the motivating community minded enterprises on the planet.

So, this is Day 1 - Round 2 of this blog. I'll write when I have something to share and won't write when there's nothing great to say. You can always check-out my work in the creative technology space at Ad-Dispatch or follow me on twitter if you just want to stay connected.

Nice and Aggressive: Post 3 of 3

We've discussed the importance of pride and desire for a brand to establish confidence and consistency. For a brand to ultimately establish a tone that is direct and positive there is one last piece in the puzzle.

Truth
The last component of success for a brand to pull of being nice and aggressive is trust. You can have confidence and create desire in the mind of consumers. You can own joy and blanket the side of every bus in North America with your message, but if you break your customers trust it is all for nothing. Breaking trust doesn't just mean lying to them. It means:

• using one price point as bate and switching it with another when customers inquire.
• setting up false expectations for a product based on the desire you've created. If you're T-Mobile and you say "life is for sharing" but fail to offer reliable or convenient service, you've failed to backup your promise. If you say you're better, cooler, happier or faster than be just that. Don't confuse customers with clutter and detailed product messages.
• allowing customers to wait for more than 2-3 minutes to talk to a representative.
• calling or emailing customers who have not asked to be contacted. Getting an email address for info about Product A doesn't mean they want to hear about Product B or C.
• failing to help a customer because you only empower your employees to follow a procedure rather than provide a solution.
• providing a warranty* or guarantee* - no *, it is either guaranteed or it isn't.
• Being aggressive in mass media and but not offering the price to the mass market.
• Using contracts as excuses to keep your customers from being treated fairly and as valuable consumers
• Using mass media to shout out offers and expecting anyone to care. For people to notice you need to build trust. If you break the points above, everything else you say will have less credibility and will reflect on your brand across the board.
  

What other ways to do brands break trust? I'd actually like to build a list.

To recap, for a brand to be positive and aggressive they need to be confident and consistent in each consumer touch point (product, advertising, customer service, etc)

To be confident and consistent, a brand needs to build on three pillars:
1) Pride
2) Desire
3) Truth

If all three pillars are covered, consumers will grant the brand permission to reach them at higher levels of engagement and will ultimately make choices to choose this brand even in the absence of a promotional campaign or even with the abundance of a rational alternative. This brand will own the consumers share of mind and stand for something greater than the features its product delivers.

Nice and Aggressive: Post 2 of 3

We started this discussion on the premise that the ability for a brand to succeed requires confidence and consistency. One of the first pillars to ensure that a brand to reach this level of confidence and consistency was for it to emit pride. The second pillar is desire.

Desire
Rule #1 in sales is to build desire with your prospect. The same goes for brand development. If consumers feel that there is pride and confidence in a brand they will start to pay attention. Step two is to ensure that the brand offers something they desire. This can tangible, like an innovative product. It can be communications based, like excellent customer service. Or it can be in-tangible, like a promise to be better or a connection to an emotion (i.e.: Life's for sharing - T-Mobile).

For 90% of the brands out there, the product or service they are selling is not massively different from its competition. The employee (if they have pride/confidence may say it does) but to most consumers it does not. This is the biggest reason why finding a desire point that is bigger than the product you sell is essential to delivering a positive and aggressive message to consumers. If we look at Computers, Soft Drinks, Mobile Phone Carriers, Furniture, Cars, Clothes - in every major product category you can find a core offering and match it to a set of needs and wants within the consumer market. It just so happens that if someone is looking to show the world that they are worth more than their neighbor, they'll buy a Mercedes instead of a Buick. Although Apple is innovative as an organization, as a brand they dominate cool. The core message they deliver is that they are cooler than everyone else. Regardless of how innovative HP is able to be, they will never (at least within the current branding landscape) be cooler than Apple.

Think about this...does your brand own a desire that is greater than the tangible features of its product?

Nice and Aggressive: Post 1 of 3

Can a brand be positive and aggressive? Can it hit hard but come off as nice in the minds of the consumer? The simple answer is yes.

The complicated answer has to do with confidence.

The next three blog posts will explore three pillars of the pillars to build a brand that will allow a brand to be positive and aggressive in brand communications and actions

If the nature of a brand is to be positive and optimistic - think Pepsi (joy), Coke (open happiness), Apple (experience) - it will have a hard time pulling of assertive messaging unless it shows consistent confidence. The brands I've mentioned have the distinguished fortune of providing exceptional products, however the core of any brand does require confidence and consistency so that consumers allow their message to be heard.

Emit Pride
The first step for a brand to combine positive and aggressive messaging is to show pride. Pride in itself, its people and its products. This should not be confused with self-centered advertising. It means that if the brand is going to communicate, each image, message and media will reflect the pride and confidence this brand believes in.

If we dig one foot deeper, the core of any brand are the people that stand behind it. Employees require pride and confidence in the brand for this to end up as a believable proposition in the minds of consumers. If an executive team/customer service department/marketing team/etc. cannot decide on a unifying message that describes the brand, pride will never resonate with the consumer, regardless of the clever tactics or creative advertising that are thrown at them.

There are a few industries that are often picked on by consumers and marketers for being wolves in sheep's clothing. They attempt to be nice but the core brand is focused on aggression. Think about some used car companies, insurance companies or telemarketers.

Look through your organization - do your employees show pride in the brand? Does your brand reflect this pride in its communications?

Traditional strategy bring traditional results

Last year at about this time I wrote about how advertisers and brands are working together to kill the online click-through ad industry. My point was that, as with all new media, brands who have always been concerned with impressions (i.e. yelling at consumers) have misused the power of the online ad space. My thought was that this was training consumers to lose trust in online ads, ultimately sabotaging the major benefit for advertisers - tracking. The argument from those looking to keep online ads as an attractive choice was that these ads would serve as a branding medium and reach people 'where they are' - the same model traditional advertising has delivered for seventy years, wrapped up in a digital package so that marketing budgets could go to this 'new interactive' stuff and make everyone look good.

A few weeks ago, Marketing Vox confirmed this trend. "The number of online Americans who click on display ads has dropped by 50% since 2007 - and now stands at only 16% of all US internet users..." (thank Mitch). It seems that our inability to resist the traditional way we've thought about communicating with consumers has once again burned a bridge with them.

We've seen the same thing starting to occur with Twitter, Facebook ads, Youtube ads and most Social Networks revenue models. This shift has decreased the value of these tools for advertising. I'm not saying they can't be properly used to advertise, nor am I saying that they are poor marketing channels. You can see the jump in Youtube channels and Facebook Business Fan Pages as proof that relevant and permission based marketing can be greatly beneficial for brands. I'm all for relevant, engaging, memorable and permission based content. I just need help understanding why brands continue to advertise the same way they always have (but have just changed media) and still expect different results?

Decision Time

I'll apologize in advance for not delivering something original for this post. However, the point being made takes priority over creativity. Seth Godin's recent post about decision making should be filtered out as far as it can so that those who have the capability to make a decision but choose not to (for various self-justifying reasons) will reconsider.

One more quick point. When you make a decision don't blame anyone for it. Too often people are influenced by fear from peers/coworkers/management to make a decision. Its easier for most people to appease peers then do something remarkable. Besides, if it doesn't work out there is always someone else to blame.

In advertising and marketing this is the biggest reason for failure.


From Seth's Blog - "Make a decision"

It doesn't have to be a wise decision or a perfect one. Just make one.

In fact, make several. Make more decisions could be your three word mantra.

No decision is a decision as well, the decision not to decide. Not deciding is usually the wrong decision. If you are the go-to person, the one who can decide, you'll make more of a difference. It doesn't matter so much that you're right, it matters that you decided.

Of course it's risky and painful. That's why it's a rare and valuable skill.

How to revise your keyword strategy

The agency I work with had an experience a few months ago that reminded me of the power of keywords. I know that when I say ‘keywords’ your eyes have automatically glazed over. You’re thinking about lists and bids – trying to find that word that steals people from your competition to arrive on your website. What a chore. Why don’t we just do a viral video or a huge billboard. Your reaction is on par with every reaction I’ve ever received when I bring up keywords to a marketer, client and even some agencies. Hold on for a second, this is going somewhere useful…

Over the past few years we have worked closely with the Workers Compensation Board in Nova Scotia. This relationship has seen great creative work and awesome results delivered year after year. Most public service advertising of this kind focuses on the big messages – huge accidents can be avoided, don’t take unnecessary risks, etc. For this campaign the insight was based on the little things: How a small action can prevent a major problem. We thought it was good, the client thought it was good and after the launch, the public thought it was good as it was quite successful.

Just after the launch of this campaign, Pat Cowin was putting together a safety presentation for her fellow workers at the NASA Langley Research Centre. In preparing for the presentation she wanted to demonstrate how the little things that no one thinks about usually cause the injuries. She dropped ‘safety is in the little things’ into Google and received this response: www.worksafeforlife.ca followed by the description “It’s the little things that no one thinks about that can cause injury…” . A person looking for something very specific found it from an organization a country away. There was no major keyword buy, but keywords and content were not ignored. Because the root of the campaign was based on a rationale that was easily shared and specific, it was picked up by a variety of other organizations looking to spread a similar message. Because the main idea was built around that simple set of keywords, the keywords that made it accessible were found in every piece of communication and they didn't have to be forced in.

The basis for any online strategy should be on an insight that reflects common sense. Your keywords don’t always need to be purchased, but they must always be thought of. They are essentially the only continuity between your message and a person’s action. A keyword strategy is the central point of integration between any traditional campaign, the message, and the audience response. We have the opportunity when developing a campaign, product or any communications to either

1) capitalize on existing language that is familiar to our audience;
2) or develop something new – something that stands out.

For worksafeforlife.ca we chose the former, as ‘safety in the little things’ was common language but rarely used to promote work safety. Think about how a similar strategy can easily be integrate for your products or services and how looking at the creative idea for its main point can leverage the online traffic searching for your solution.

Transparency does not mean trustworthy.

Being upfront and open to people has always been a challenge for companies. They live in a world surrounded by paranoia and legal teams that influence when things are disclosed or off the record. Nobody wants the competition to steel that secret and nobody wants to be sued for using some misunderstood headline. The presence of companies online has only added fire to the debate about the requirement to be transparent. They're on Facebook, anonymously dropping videos on YouTube, and talking back on Twitter. They should be upfront and transparent. If I write a blog post about a product and that product pays me, I should let readers know. If I'm a credit card company advertising a 4% interest rate, but I'm really just trying to sell an18% interest rate, I need to put a * beside my 4% followed by some legalese that states my goal. Transparency has various degrees of truth. It usually is motivated by a short term impact or action.

When something goes wrong - profits fall unexpectedly, CEO is investigated for fraud, or customers get ticked because they thought the ad actually meant 4% - companies point to transparency. Since they have been transparent you should have known all this stuff could go wrong. Even though you didn't, they would still like you to see that because they have been transparent, you can trust them.

Transperency is not enough.

It's a one way action with an expectation of return. A contract with your mobile phone company is open and transparent, but the fact that it states that they can change your monthly fee without notice and your only recourse is to pay them $200 to end your relationship is not a customer/company relationship based on trust. It's more like a protection agreement, where you pay me to look after your shop or I'll burn it down. Transparent? Yes. Trustworthy? No.

Trust is also one way, but with no expectation of return. Actions result from the decision to just be better. To look at the world through a different lense. Profits come from happy people, so rather than focus on profits, focus on happy people.

Trust is a gradual process that results from consistent behaviour and time. If a company says that they will refund your product, no questions asks and actually does it repeatedly - people will notice. Athough it doesn't make short term sence to lose the proftis on all these refunded products, some of which could be just customers taking advantage of the trust, in the long term most people will feel compelled to return to those companies that have earned their trust.

Trust is the long ball game. It's the differentiator you've been paying all those consultants to find. The reason the new company in the industry can make a big splash is that they can be reasonably trusted. They have no track record. Trust is theirs to lose. They say they'll deliver their product in 2 days and do it - they're already better than the market leader who was late on one shipment.

One final point. If a company only looks a whether customers trust them compared to the competition then they are probably no better than the competition. If people are skeptical of telemarketers, then being the most trusted of untrusted telemarketers is no prize. This is true for any industry. If your company is focused on being transparent, it probably in not actually concerned with being genuinly trustworthy. The shift to looking at each consumer as an individual and actually doing what you say you'll do - with every action and communication - will build a consumer base who is your for the long haul. They weren't baited by some promo price and won't compare you to your competition.

The best seafood in the world

A few weeks ago I took a drive through 11 states on my way to South Carolina to visit some friends. As I made my way down the East Coast the changing scenery provided plenty of entertainment for my 26 hour drive. Beyond the changing scenery, the outdoor advertising and retail signs were equally entertaining.

I was on some back road in Maine, trying to shave a few hours of my trip (unsuccessfully) and passed a small shack restaurant. It was tucked in the side of the road just outside my line of site. It had one of those back lit movable signs that allow the owner to change out the letters. You know the ones that have the arrow at the top that points towards whatever it's advertising?

On the sign it reads "Best seafood in the world". Perfect. A bold statement that could not be more clear. If it wasn't 8:00 in the morning I may have stopped in to find out what the best seafood in the world tasted like. What I love about this type of situation is that we clearly have a small business making a serious effort to market its product. This restaurant has gone out and made the greatest claim a seafood restaurant could possibly make. As a result, I'm sure they get more patrons, but more importantly, I bet they work harder to deliver on that promise. It could be argued that there just setting people up for disappointment, but I didn't try the food so I can't comment.

Side Note - this picture is not from the restaurant I'm referring to. The best seafood in the world restaurant is obviously better.

Lesson 1 from the Best Seafood Restaurant in the World:
It takes a lot of courage to actually try to be a better business than what people expect from you.

Usually making some over-the-top claim isn't the way to do it, but at least it's something. Good advertising and marketing is as much about telling a story and entertaining as it is about what you're selling. Companies reach a point where they focus so much on what they know, that they forget what makes people actually care about them. If you're in business, have customers and are actually making money - the story that captured your current customers is probably a great place to start when looking for new ones.

Lesson 2 from the Best Seafood Restaurant in the World:
Don't be so afraid to be impressive or to say something truly and unbelievably bold. In the right context and market it can be done honestly and can drastically shift the way people (customers and employees) think about your business.

The value of one person

Everyone is thinking about Social Media. They can't help it. Social Media is all over the news, preached about at every conference, added to every pitch - it's everywhere. With so much discussion going on within these organization there is very little doing. Roadblocks are everywhere in traditional organizations that keep Social Media as a fringe strategy and not an integrated communications effort. The list is long: budgets, understanding the technology, resources, content, etc. However, there is one big roadblock which will always get in the way, regardless of how you address the other insecurities in the organizations: how we view the consumer.

Acknowledge the value of one person
For any new media, you will not be successful if you make it a numbers game. These strategies do not work with a 'tell the masses' mentality. Beyond the fact that the masses cannot be found in one particular social category or new media, the nature of the media allows us to communicate more individually (which is good, not evil). In fact it is most effective when the communication is more individually focused. This is lost within most organizations who are looking at adding Social Media to their strategy. Those in charge of budgets and marketing decisions have spent the last thirty years trying to find the media that hits the most people at once. Costs are CPM. Reach is so big it's broken down into single number representations. However, the message that went with these communications was broad - a one size fits all shotgun blast. If the people who are in charge of marketing decisions do not value that one person who could be the next customer/fan/evangelist it wouldn't matter if you had Godin, Brogan, Joel or McConnell selling the strategy -the Social Media recommendation will die.

I'm not sure how you can value the masses and not value one person's opinion but that is the case for most companies. For these organizations the opinion of the masses is marketing, the opinion of one person is either a public relations issue or a retention issue. Usually in these organizations you'll find job/position silos (retention, marketing, customer service, PR) that continue to reinforce the value of the mass market over the meaningful market. By fragmenting the consumer experience into job descriptions, there is the possibility for a more individual message - however, the result is usually a mediocre delivery on the consumer promise. Acknowledging the value of one person is a cultural change that requires the same people who have been chasing the masses to focus on the micro level of consumer engagement. A focus on experience delivery over reach.