Leo Burnett - Cultural Fuel

I’ve written a number of rants here on the accomplishments of the User Experience Practice. Not only in terms of being a practice that has always had he focus on the user and human behavior, but, as a result, having a complete view of people’s journey; a view that gives creative solution a visceral understanding of human behavior, as opposed to merely attitudinal consumer insights laced with flat helicopter-macro trends that ad agencies had to work with in the old days. As advertising agencies have had to learn how to go from creating ads (messages) to acts (experiences), not only was having a UX background a great asset personally, but also a key ingredient to the betterment of the communication industry overall.

However, at the same time, I also had been asking myself what the UX community is really up to. say. The last 5-10 years, it has been my impression, that, in terms of the toolset used by Information Architects, Information Designers, Interaction Designers, etc. not much has changed. Sure, UX people have adapted to doing what they do for new devices that have entered the market, but fundamentally, the process of how we go about unearthing user insights and defining and testing experiences, not much seem to have changed, including who UX people work with and how they position themselves in a larger organization.

So it is with great interest that I came across an article by the godfather of UX Jared Spool, who basically poses the question if a new way of working with new sets of skills is required. I found it interesting, but it also sounded like a late wake-up call. In the article I find a confirmation of my previous stance pure-play UX shops have been stagnant for too long. The question Jared takes on and shares with us is one that agencies (digital and fullservice) have been dealing with and solving for quite a while. While the proposed team constellation he describes makes sense, it really isn’t really news to teams in full-service and digital creative agencies that have been dealing with overlapping job descriptions, disciplines, almost unmarriable structural problems for like 10 or so years already. Those who have had the source of business, have made changes to their team structure in similar ways as Jared proposes already.

To be fair, many have failed and had to try again, and many seem to have given up, going back to an old-school model, hoping Armageddon won’t come after all, and I don’t think many figured out the magic bullet. So the article still does the job of heating a debate that needs more action, more trial and error.

Still, I think it is a great Jared shared the state of thinking on the UX team in a larger context. For, a) it shows that while there might be a (somewhat outdated) acrimony between the “ad” agencies with the UX agencies, there are actually things that keeps us from realizing full potential on both sides that we can join forces on, and b) it’s nice that even thoroughbred UXers got their wake up call to start innovating again, and maybe once more be the subject matter force behind fundamental rethinking the role of the communication industry.

That said, after realizing the potential of a new team skill structure and opening the gates to more “collections”, my dear hope is that UXers will join forces to use their skills and knowledge of micro-behavior to find new tools to create overarching behavioral insights that can be more easily used for a differentiated brand experience strategy as opposed to just user experience strategy, regardless if they are pure play descendents of the library sciences or connections planners from a reformed traditional agency world, or social media ninjas who come from the concept development area.

We are all probably damaged somehow, doesn’t mean we can’t all be good.

Tweet This Post

Yeah, it’s been a slow month on the blog here. I was on paternity leave (yes, we do take them in Europe). So, funnily enough, I just have some parenting trends to report on.

First off, ever since that “Go to F*** to Sleep” book came out, everyone’s in a tizzy. In Germany, STERN magazine caught their cue and made a big deal about how research shows that kids really don’t want perfect parents. Really? Thanks for being Prussian about it, but it’s not like you ever have the option to get perfect parents, so here’s toasting to stating the obvious.

However, being a new parent myself, I can’t say a little pressure release wouldn’t help. Is our society bent on providing perfection to mitigate risk for our kids? Yeah. Apart from the whole notion being an impossible endeavor perpetuating mishigas in the first place - it also isn’t healthy. Learning from mistakes is what makes great individuals stand out. Not that this should give parents a wildcard for abandoning their role decreed by nature - but it calls for another book called “Parents? Just f****** relax”. For, as many things you are trying to do right (as you should), just as many will go “wrong”.

Now, if you have any business with brands in the toddler, kids, adolescent area, this means that you could provide some relief for parents as opposed to creating more tasks and reminders for parents to do their jobs. Yet this is what most brands do, admonishing already stressed out, already caring people to go ‘the extra mile’. Go easy on the “solutions” you might have for parents. Provide peace of mind instead. Rest assured, parents are still gonna worry enough about their offspring no matter what you do to give them 5 minutes off.

All of this is encapsulated amazingly well - and quite subliminally clear - when you listen to Werner Herzog read the oh so famed book.

Thanks to Ninja and Sung for the parental inspiration.

Tweet This Post

On Wednesday, Starbucks rolled out their own digital network to over 6,800 stores across the U.S, evolving how we can sit and enjoy the paper and a cup of joe for the third time in their history.

At first they just offered you a place to buy your paper and read it.  Then they offered free wi-fi so you could read your paper online.  But now they have launched a network on their wi-fi - meaning that the first thing you see when you access that network is their new branded page: starbucks.yahoo.com (but don’t try to go there if you’re not in the store - you’ll get an ‘error’:  “So drop by your local store and log on for interesting and important content you can’t find anywhere else. Absolutely free!”)

The content on the network is basically news/weather/entertainment, music and restaurant reviews - keeping everything nicely within brand territory.  And tipping their hat to the increasing pervasiveness of mobile computing, their VP of Digital Ventures, Adam Brotman, stated that whereas some former digital in-store initiatives focused on getting the right screen in the store for the customer to interact with, they see that now the user is “walking in with their own screen” (although some people don’t think they are being as considerate as they appear).

Only a few days into the experiment, I can predict that the network has plenty of advantages for them -

Content - It’s appropriate for the audience (i.e., what they want) and premium-feeling due to how exclusive it feels - even if it’s really not exclusive content (yet - keep an eye on what they do with Apple), but in terms of access it hits the mark.

Brand fit - The portal aligns nicely with their mission to be a destination, an oasis amidst our crazy lives.

Context - They continue to focus on both motivations for visits to their store, and optimizing the in-store experience for people - their biggest competitive advantage, in my opinion.

Plus, if you keep up on the latest in Digital Marketing you know that Location-Based Services are all the rage, and for most marketers the challenge is getting on the right platform, with good content that users will want.  Well - this move by Starbucks puts them in the enviable position of basically owning the channel, rather than worrying about purchasing media on one.  So they get to offer consumers the network and its content at the right time, right place and for all the right reasons.  Very sustainable and smart.

And the above benefits should encourage us to take away a few questions about your brand as well:

1. Which brand experiences should you be evolving next?  Just because you’ve already made an improvement in one area doesn’t mean there isn’t an opportunity to take it to the next level.

2. Shouldn’t all your brand services and engagements let users BYOS (Bring Their Own Screens) as their motto?

3. How and why would you create a new channel that you own, rather than rent on?

4. Why do you suddenly want a cup of coffee?

Via PaidContent (<—- a really excellent article, by the way)

Update: a good video is posted here about the network.

Tweet This Post

Cool video from Digital Buzz Blog:

… and you have to admit - positioning their drink as all about achieving the extreme makes these kinds of executions fit like a glove.  They execute on a huge scale, and manage to make almost everything a world’s first.

But I have to wonder - does this change behavior?  The focus on the branding aspect of it is so incredibly on target, but it seems to leave me out of the action - I feel like the brand is more important than me.  I really don’t participate in this event, and it doesn’t feel like I can do anything but sit back and appreciate a ‘worlds first’ as a spectator.

I do love that video though!

Tweet This Post

Recently, I’ve come across some articles about the ad industry having a sort of midlife-crisis. This is an interesting notion, as this would premise that advertising as such has a natural life that has to come to an end at some point. And after so many people already having screamed “Advertising is dead,” I am now confused it isn’t. It’s just a mid-life crisis? Folks, get our vital signs right! Also, to follow the metaphor, what exactly is the proverbial “Porsche” in Advertising’s “mid-life crisis”?

Joking aside, just 2 weeks ago Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung painted a critical picture of the industry and mentioned that ad professionals have hard time reinventing themselves and their business model.

Just like a balding 45 year old in a track-suit with disposable income looking for a souped-up convertible to feel better about himself, advertising lacks purpose.

Today, I read Warren Berger’s take on the Bogusky situation “Maybe the Midlife Crisis Isn’t Bogusky’s?“.  Being American and a bit less cynical that his German counterpart, and using the crisis as an opportunity, Warren states that agency professionals (just like Bogusky, but without the massive payout) have been looking for deeper social meaning and context for their work ever since digital technologies have put public opinion (and advertising itself) in the hands of the people. But more interestingly, Berger also makes some nice observations that in fact remind us what the real story is:

The second part of the story suggests to me that some client companies are perhaps still a bit thin-skinned when it comes to having any kind of candid discussion about serious issues. Which in turn suggests that these companies are living in the past — in a pre-social networking era when they could actually still control the public debate.

Ok. To anyone working in an ad agency, this is a pretty shared (even though somewhat of a subjective) sentiment; still, thanks for saying it on Adweek, Warren! And, by the way, this answers my previous question of what the “Porsche” is in the “advertising mid-life crisis”: Affording yourself the irresponsible, ineffective and inefficient luxury of lolly-gagging around when it comes to changing your business model, dragging your heels on changing your creative product and pretending you still live in a brand era. However, I would say this is still true for clients and agencies alike. Dependency on short-term quarterly planning, lack of deeply thought-out foresight and interupted implementation of long-term vision apparently makes it hard to think about a more efficient, unsexy hybrid car when you can still afford the 911. You won’t be able to afford the gas in a couple of years, but hey, »Après nous le déluge«.

Hence, Warren continues to point out that the ad agency’s deliverables should change: product design, launching community initiatives, revising corporate policies, etc.

Or, as we would tell our clients: We want to help you doing things, instead of just saying things. Things that create value exchange, not messaging.

For that to happen though, the role and creative product of agencies have to change. And right now, it’s a a bit of a chicken or egg problem: a) Agency leaders have to really put their money where their mouth is, and enable their shops to actually deliver a creative product that does things with people and instead of milking a defunct business model of creating messages, while b) clients have to become more confident in matters of understanding true human behavior and consequently need to start paying their agency partners for creating purpose-driven initiatives that create a qualitative difference in people’s lives. Result of this catch-22: if agencies don’t offer it, clients can’t buy it. If clients don’t buy it, agencies can’t build those competencies.

So instead of wondering what’s first, chicken or egg, all parties should focus on the chick everyone has been talking about hatching: people-driven brands that have a human purpose, not a promise. Experiences that are authentic, not tagged-on target-audience sentiments that muddy a brand’s expression more than enable a true value exchange. If both clients and agencies came together on this simple observation, Warren’s finishing paragraph would actually not be that utopian:

It might even allow the ad agency to claim some of the moral high ground as it plays a greater role in guiding companies to do the right thing — not just for themselves, but also for the world at large. Is that an overly ambitious and idealistic vision of the future of ad agencies? Maybe. But hey, when you’re having a midlife crisis, you’re allowed to dream big.

Damn right you are. It’s what you signed up for.

In fact, there are enough examples of behavior-based and purpose-driven brands out there that show it’s not utopian to steer clear of a type of cookie-cutter advertising that is either crass exhibitionsm or bland commercialism or teary-eyed sentimentalism, but rather enable human behavior in a way that works for brands and people alike.

Tweet This Post

With Facebook’s forthcoming announcements about the changes to Fan Pages, it seems relevant to bring up the odd situation that marketers and their agencies sometimes find themselves in when things like this change.  That old favorite for the digital world: Catch-up!

(Some elements of the coming changes were leaked here on ClickZ where it states that the news was sent in an email to some agencies).

Facebook knows what it has in terms of an audience marketers want access to, and users know that they have a lot of control when they’re in the FB walled garden, so changes like the move from “Become a Fan” to “Like” as an opt-in call-to-action are sure to put lots of people into a lather, and sure to get Facebook some of that user backlash they have gotten so used to lately.

A big question for me, is how quickly are marketers ready to make changes based upon this new shift?  In some ways, and especially in the case of Brands that actively use social platforms, changes like this can sometimes feel like someone keeps re-coding the internet every few months.  As soon as you get users acquainted with how things work, the rules change.  Most improvements seem to head the company/platform in the direction of streamlining or simplifying, but some missteps are bound to happen (I don’t think I ever really understood the difference between my newsfeed and livefeed).

The question, is, are you ready?  Do you have your specifications documented and know how the new changes will affect your users?  Do you have people looking into how the other changes coming can help make this change less of an issue?

Or are you planning to play catch-up all summer? 

Tweet This Post

In This Article on GigaOM,  Liz Gannes reported on some statements made at the OMMA Global conference by Mark Kvamme, an industry insider, where he basically stated that if marketers harness the power of Social Media, they shouldn’t have to pay for advertising anymore.

It’s a bold statement (which goes over well at industry conferences I hear).  And if you’re interested in the finer points of his argument, feel free to read through Gannes piece which seemed to cover the supporting arguments pretty well (shrewedly highlighting the vested interest the speaker had for at least some of his remarks).  But for the real fun – as happens so often in the online world – DON’T forget to read the comments.

I mean, sure – the idea that some new platforms like Twitter or Facebook or others have low or no cost of entry is wonderful, and when we are convincing stakeholders of opportunities for testing and learning we advise Clients to avoid sinking crazy amounts of money in developing ‘owned’ platforms.  But to take this fact and leap to say that user generated media equates to free marketing is missing some crucial considerations, and it can be misleading for Clients who are entering the space.

1.  Just because you have a message, doesn’t mean anyone wants to hear it. If we start from examining Human Behavior, then - don’t take it personally – no one wants to be ‘friends’ with your Brand’s Mission Statement. Brands should take time and care to determining their place, actions, and voice in social media, and ‘tune’ them in order to participate fluidly and gracefully.  This is not child’s play.  Look at marketers do it consistently well – do they seem to be careless in terms of  their approach?  Are they repeating their :30 tagline on their Facebook page?

2. And just because users can spread your message doesn’t mean that they will. Figuring out why people may want to pass on a message or ask their friends to do something has to be considered in the actual development of what that message or experience is.  This takes time, effort and yes, investment.  In fact you may need to be monitoring the space, because if they are already talking about you, they are quite likely not using your talking points.  And trust me, there are lots of companies out to make money on the fact that these tools need power and utility, as well as smart people to use them. Even Coke’s Facebook success in supporting a pair of fans who started their page is a tribute to targeted investing.  Coke recognized their fans’ serious skills –  then rewarded and supported them.  If passion in the community is there then you’ve got a good shot, but the work doesn’t stop there.

3.  There’s more to it than just ‘do it’. I find comments like ‘Brands just need to harness the power of social media’ or ‘you just need to figure out how to work in this new world’ are pretty glib statements.  Brands can test and learn here, sure, but perhaps an approach might be nice?  Maybe something that starts with questions like, ‘Are my customers using these tools?  Or are the influencers of my customers using these tools?’  Maybe I need to consider producing some content for users to interact with?  Be on the lookout for an article by Michelle Davidson, a colleague of mine, talking about the hidden high cost of User Generated Content.  She and others are talking about behavioral economics and user expectations in social media spaces – and yes, you may have to ‘give to get’. Placing any old content into any old free platform does not constitute a strategic use of social media, nor does it guarantee you an overnight success story in terms of viral buzz.

4. Speaking of viral buzz – just because a video ‘went viral’ does not mean that no money was spent on it. There are actually processes and procedures that marketers and agencies can put in place to help successful videos to spread faster and get into featured lists. And even if the production is done on a dime, the idea needs to be developed in the first place.  But don’t assume the inverse of this thinking proves the rule: your :30 spot may not have viral potential. Too often it is tempting to think that ‘We spent all this money on this commercial – of COURSE it has viral potential.’  Sadly, this may not necessarily be true, and all the preparation in the world can’t make up for the fact that there really are ‘different horses for different courses’.

I could go on and on, like how calling online marketing ‘Advertising’ gets my blood boiling, but in the end I think that a successful marketer will strive to understand the social space and how to use it, which takes investigation, thinking, planning, creativity and yes – investing.  I would agree with the speaker that social media has changed things for marketers hugely, and how they spend their money is one of the most important considerations they have to make right now.  But I don’t think that soundbites about marketing being free are helpful or accurate.  Free doesn’t come cheap.

Disclaimer: I was working in my office during the convention:  I wasn’t there.  Maybe he added some caveats?

Tweet This Post

I had just read this article about marketers not sure how to take advantage of Location-Based Services, specifically ones that are Social-Network based, and one of our Account people popped their head in my office to ask “What’s up with FourSquare? Is it worthwhile? And is it significant for Marketers?”

Good questions all. Foursquare allows you to “check in” to locations and awards badges for different user activities. The Article correctly states that some restaurants and bars are already embracing it, but the activities and offers are still in early days. Note the offer from Wow Bao in my building below:

Yeah – it’s a freebie offer, but I find it interesting that there is such a conversation about “is this interesting for marketers” and “how will marketers use it” – since it should make sense to pay attention to if you’ve got at least some of your audience that uses these kinds of things, and you’re worth having a relationship with in the first place (which, granted, is a big question for some marketers).

Here’s why: think about why restaurants and bars already jumped on the bandwagon. They have to develop relationships with their customers – they don’t have a choice. They don’t have a retailer that will put up POS material, or vast amounts of online ad spend (generally), and most of the places I’ve seen don’t do TV. For them, the relationship with the person in that establishment is everything, and finding new ways to prolong and enrich that relationship is the key to their success. For them the only question would be “why would I not get involved?”

Now I’m looking back over the last 12 months and thinking about the times I’ve mentioned doing something like this for a marketer, and thinking “You know what? My Client needs to break out from the shelf, their target is pretty well-connected digitally, they are not always getting the POS attention they want, or always deserve, they want more engagement, and since their relationship with the consumer is everything for them as well … so Why not?”

Bonus topic for further conversation: How different would the strategy for the marketer be from what they use for Facebook and Twitter?

Tweet This Post