Corporate Happiness

Entries from May 2009

Are big brands the new gods?

May 29, 2009 · 1 Comment

One of the greatest feats of modern advertising is the ability to seep into every facet of our modern lives, no longer limited to traditional media like television and print, new media is the next frontier, with campaigns reaching deep into the latest tools we use to communicate. Email marketing floods the inbox, Facebook spits out targeted banners and clever viral apps, Twitter is bombarded by promotional “tweets” and soon just walking near a Starbucks will alert us to the free cookie we’ll get with every coffee – the delights of GPS and new mobiles phones!

The point is advertising needs to continually re-invent itself to deal with its own self-made enemy: saturation. Futurelab recently presented this succinctly, saying:

People who live near train lines adjust to the noise. They do the same with advertising.
Futurelab – Change Marketing

So even the most viral of ads, even the savviest of ad placements have the converse effect of educating us – meaning we get increasingly discerning and harder to convince.

The upside of this downside is we’re going to see a lot less of those full-blown “cinematic” production ads – the slick sports car in surreal landscapes, cornering at torque speed; shiny happy people overcoming all obstacles in record time with the help of the gleaming new product.

Why? Because the formula is predictable and fails to convince as it once did – so backed into the corner, good marketing practice becomes more about finding and presenting what’s authentic in a brand.

Take for example “content marketing” advocated by marketing expert David Meerman Scott, he throws out the ROI obsessions and aims to build genuine consumer trust. There’s no real sales pitch either, it’s about educating prospects with relevant, valuable and engaging content.

You’ve got to think in terms of spreading ideas, not generating leads. A World Wide Rave gets the word out to thousands or even millions of potential customers. But only if you make your content easy to find and consume
David Meerman Scott – World Wide Rave

A good example is the recent Razorfish 2009 outlook document – because of its insightful content on digital marketing, it’s hit my inbox a few times and if looking to refresh my digital strategies, Razorfish has positioned itself nicely as an authority and without any direct sales pitch (also spreading their message even further right here).

The catch-22 is that today’s cynical consumers judge this type of marketing as authentic only when there’s no underlying monetary agenda – but isn’t ROI and actual sales why we market in the first place? Yes, but more importantly, if our marketing matches our product, there’s not need for the marketing veneer – it already is authentic.

Great. But my product isn’t cool – What can I do??? – Well, Frankly you’re screwed.
Futurelab – What’s Next In Marketing & Advertising

So, what makes a product cool? If we take Seth Godin’s approach – anything that creates meaning, a sense of identity and a connection to others builds a following (a tribe). If the tribe likes it – its cool. The communal spirit of the iPod garbed masses packed into subways and lining our streets is a classic example of how a product became not only cool, but an global phenomenon.

There’s a real religious inkling to Godin’s ideas on tribes, especially as religion for a lot of people is the ultimate path of seeking connection, authenticity and meaning.

It begs the question: Do brands need to become cultural gods, in order to survive? And if so, are their devotes the ultimate consumers? What are your thoughts…

References

David Meerman Scott
World Wide Rave
http://www.worldwiderave.com

Futurelab
Change Marketing
http://www.slideshare.net/Futurelab/change-marketing-v01-1452235

Seth Godin
Seth’s Blog
http://sethgodin.typepad.com

Razorfish
2009 Digital Outlook Report
http://digitaloutlook.razorfish.com/publication/?i=13617

DOUGLAS B. HOLT
Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding
http://www.lombard-media.lu/pdf/0308_brands.pdf

Categories: happiness

Debunking Jakob Neilson

May 21, 2009 · 2 Comments

Usability gurus like Jakob Neilson are ongoing proponents of the idea that websites are about getting information – a website is only as good as how effectively it transfers information to the user.

In the early 2000’s Neilson wrote:

Ultimately users visit your website for its content. Everything else is just the backdrop. The old analogy is somebody who goes to see a theatre performance: When they leave the theatre, you want them to be discussing how great the play was and not how great the costumes were.

Neilson’s approach comes from a user centered design model, more commonly called “usability”. Usability is concerned with how easy it is for users to complete the tasks a website is designed for. A website works when users get to where they want to go without hindrance or as Steven Krug has popularized: websites work when they “don’t make [you] think”. Thinking is obviously not the desired effect for good websites.

If we take this approach to its logical end, we might expect the internet to be intravenously injected straight into our minds – no unnecessary design or artistic fluff to get in the way of good content and certainly no thinking required!

To be fair though, Neilson and followers have done their bit to lead the mass exodus away from glossy brochure style sites (nice for billboards / magazines but almost useless for websites), and non-human designed sites like those attempting to fit a whole encyclopedia into one never ending long scrolling web page.

What is often left out of the usability debate is that the internet is not just a deliverer of external content, but has become more a medium in itself – with its own content and set of rules. The whole Web 2.0 phenomena makes use of and makes money out of this very fact.

It’s difficult to pin-point an exact definition of Web 2.0 but broadly speaking it describes sites that leverage the dynamic and collaborative nature of the internet. Sites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are populated with a constant flow of user-generated content. Static Web 1.0 sites have a 1 directional flow of information similar to traditional publishing models like newspapers and television. Web 2.0 is different by being able to offer information (and advertising) apparently more relevant to the user, based on how he / she interacts with and contributes to these sites.

So, how do we apply Neilson’s premise to Web 2.0 websites?

Most people just want to get in, get it and get out… the web is not a goal in itself. It is a tool
Neilson, 2007

The problem here is that a growing number of people are using the internet (especially social Web 2.0 sites) with vague intentions – not always looking for something specific. For instance we might be online to make conversation, browse with no particular goal in mind or just passing time when we’re meant to be working.

If we need to determine a goal, we might just as well ask why is it we do anything social? A lot of people are just looking for a way to feel a part of something bigger – perhaps looking for a community of like-minded people to relate to in a safe and non-intrusive environment.

It’s here where the a task-based usability model falls short (when specific tasks can’t be so clearly defined). What is needed is a way of determining social engagement – how engaged are your users when online on your particular site? How well did the experience imitate real social interactions?

References

Steven Krug
Don’t Make Me Think! A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability
http://www.amazon.com/Think-Common-Sense-Approach-Usability/dp/0789723107

Jakob Nielsen
Designing Web Usability
http://www.amazon.com/Designing-Usability-VOICES-Jakob-Nielsen/dp/156205810X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242705058&sr=1-1

Jakob Nielsen
Web 2.0 ‘neglecting good design’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6653119.stm

Categories: happiness