Monday, April 30, 2007
More social networking
So here's yet more - and perhaps a solid introductory text - on social networking from the Times.
I keep wondering though, does the selling point for these technologies - i.e. the ability to send your network up-to-date info on your whereabouts, etc. - have staying power? The idea that my friends might care that I'm "heading to the gym" seems self-indulgent and gratuitous. (A bit like blogging according to this well-written summary in today's IT World...)
I've never been a fan of technology for technology's sake...I'm curious to know what applications you've found for your clients businesses for these techn'ies. Anyone..?
So here's yet more - and perhaps a solid introductory text - on social networking from the Times.
I keep wondering though, does the selling point for these technologies - i.e. the ability to send your network up-to-date info on your whereabouts, etc. - have staying power? The idea that my friends might care that I'm "heading to the gym" seems self-indulgent and gratuitous. (A bit like blogging according to this well-written summary in today's IT World...)
I've never been a fan of technology for technology's sake...I'm curious to know what applications you've found for your clients businesses for these techn'ies. Anyone..?
Labels: social networking
Thursday, April 26, 2007
MySpace for President
So I'm re-blogging this story about MySpace's program, "independent" which will allow people on MySpace to "run" for "President" using MySpace's subscriber base as a voting audience. It will brilliantly demonstrate the power of social media - an area all our clients should be taking another look at.
You may have noticed there are widely varying reports out on the the numbers referencing MySpace's user base. It could be the world's 5th most popular website, boasting 50 million registered users, or it could have over 100 million users. Either way, the point is, it's big, and it's growing everyday.
The "independence" idea - running an everyday Joe for President - isn't an entirely new notion: my friend Jim Taylor made a film, "Run Some Idiot" about his runs for the Presidency in the last two elections. But having to distribute the "tapes" made it hard to think about reaching even 1 million people, let alone 50-100 million, depending on whose stats you like best.
MySpace is doing a cool thing with the winner, too: they'll be awarded $1 million that they're required to either donate to charity or use for a bona-fide political run in the future. It's a great way to encourage participation in the political process.
Labels: Jim Taylor, MySpace, political process
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Google, The King of Brands
It's a small surprise that google was voted this year's most valuable brand, knocking Microsoft out of the top spot.
So, what makes a brand "most valuable"? For starters, everyday use, and word-of-mouth figure prominently in the equation. The more people touch a brand on a daily basis, the more opportunity it has to become important and meaningful to them. Google has done a lot in the past few years to create visibility and dependency among its consumer-base users - and they've been progressive in anticipating consumer need - sometimes before consumers themselves.
I was telling this story yesterday at lunch with my good friends Mark and Brian from IdeaPark in Minneapolis: a few years ago when google offered gmail, I accepted the then-coveted invitation and got myself a gmail account. The kicker is, I didn't use that account up until about a month ago, when I did my first google AdWords buy to promote my business and had to use my gmail to access the interface. Today when I log into google, my customized dashboard lists AdWords, gmail, Blogger, and Alerts: services I use everyday. Google keeping them all in one place keeps me in touch with them in a way that is easy, quick and relatively painless (except when having to up the bid on my AdWords, but that's a blog for another day). My point is, google anticipated consumers' need to use these related types of services, and to have them displayed in one easy- to-access location. In doing so, google made itself invaluable to me.
So today, I congratulate google for having the foresight and savvy to tap into and respond to consumer needs. But as with everything, I can't help but wonder if they'll keep up the pace, or stop to revel in this success long enough for another brand to capture the market by creating an even more meaningful brand experience. And no, I don't have ideas about how to do that. But if google wants to contact me, I'd be happy to put together a proposal to get them some customer insight.
It's a small surprise that google was voted this year's most valuable brand, knocking Microsoft out of the top spot.
So, what makes a brand "most valuable"? For starters, everyday use, and word-of-mouth figure prominently in the equation. The more people touch a brand on a daily basis, the more opportunity it has to become important and meaningful to them. Google has done a lot in the past few years to create visibility and dependency among its consumer-base users - and they've been progressive in anticipating consumer need - sometimes before consumers themselves.
I was telling this story yesterday at lunch with my good friends Mark and Brian from IdeaPark in Minneapolis: a few years ago when google offered gmail, I accepted the then-coveted invitation and got myself a gmail account. The kicker is, I didn't use that account up until about a month ago, when I did my first google AdWords buy to promote my business and had to use my gmail to access the interface. Today when I log into google, my customized dashboard lists AdWords, gmail, Blogger, and Alerts: services I use everyday. Google keeping them all in one place keeps me in touch with them in a way that is easy, quick and relatively painless (except when having to up the bid on my AdWords, but that's a blog for another day). My point is, google anticipated consumers' need to use these related types of services, and to have them displayed in one easy- to-access location. In doing so, google made itself invaluable to me.
So today, I congratulate google for having the foresight and savvy to tap into and respond to consumer needs. But as with everything, I can't help but wonder if they'll keep up the pace, or stop to revel in this success long enough for another brand to capture the market by creating an even more meaningful brand experience. And no, I don't have ideas about how to do that. But if google wants to contact me, I'd be happy to put together a proposal to get them some customer insight.
Labels: google, IdeaPark, most valuable brands
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Dodge did WHAT?This is one of the strangest (if I wasn't somewhat tempered by the realization I only just read about this and there's probably more to it (?), I might have said "stupid") things I've ever heard a brand do. Dodge is truncating its tagline "Grab Life By The Horns" to "Grab Life" - in an effort -get this - to appeal to female buyers. What?!!
I happen to be female - and I like"By The Horns". I get what it means: It's Dodge, it's Americana, it's cars. This is, IMHO, one of the best examples of a brand's tagline communicating vital info about the brand that differentiates it from other car brands AND creates a lasting impression of the brand. It's not generic - it stands for something - I get it, and I like what it says.
But just to make sure I'm not some kind of hyper-analytical anomaly, I talked to some of my estrogen-endowed friends, and we all seemed to agree that the "by the horns" bit IS Dodge. And as women we are capable of seeing the appeal of "grabbing life by the whatever."
"Grab life" references ...umm - a beverage? A movie? Ah, I don't know - could be anything. In the words of an old and dear co-worker at Mullen who coincidentally happens to be a carguy, "Grab Life" - "leaves me limp."
I'm going to disclaim this rant by stating that I do believe Dodge's agency wouldn't change the line without an abundance of consumer insight to lead to it, and if that is the case I (a) stand corrected and am humbled and (b) would love to know about such a study.
BTW, the weird thing about this is that Dodge's buyers skew 53% male. I can understand women are a conquest audience, but why risk alienating their base? Seems to me building a product that appeals to women would be the first step in attracting female buyers...
Labels: authenticity in branding, Dodge, marketing to women, taglines
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Do we really need Nikon's new "find a face" technology?
I admit that I'm not the world's best photographer: I like to take photos but I rarely take what would be regarded as a great photo. Still, I can't ever think of a time when I mistook a horse's ass for the face of a loved one, or aimed so badly that I completely missed the subject I was trying to shoot. So I admit, I'm confounded by Nikon's new "find the face" technology that allows you to focus in on up to three faces per photo.
I appreciate the ludicrous nature of the ad campaign - it grabbed my attention, for sure - but how realistically was it meant to portray real human truths? Do people actually have issues focusing on the wrong subject? I can't help but wonder if this 'product innovation' was a result of real consumer needs, or a case of using technology for technology's sake.
Would love to hear any thoughts on the subject...
I admit that I'm not the world's best photographer: I like to take photos but I rarely take what would be regarded as a great photo. Still, I can't ever think of a time when I mistook a horse's ass for the face of a loved one, or aimed so badly that I completely missed the subject I was trying to shoot. So I admit, I'm confounded by Nikon's new "find the face" technology that allows you to focus in on up to three faces per photo.
I appreciate the ludicrous nature of the ad campaign - it grabbed my attention, for sure - but how realistically was it meant to portray real human truths? Do people actually have issues focusing on the wrong subject? I can't help but wonder if this 'product innovation' was a result of real consumer needs, or a case of using technology for technology's sake.
Would love to hear any thoughts on the subject...
