[ paul isakson ]

What's Next In Advertising - Uwe Gutschow's Take

| View | Upload your own

If you have followed this blog for a while, you know that I'm a fan of mash-ups and remixes. Never in a million years though, did I expect something I created to become part of a remix/mash-up of sorts. I'm honored, flattered and impressed all at once.

What am I talking about? Well, Uwe Gutschow and Don Longfellow have picked up the "What's Next In Marketing & Advertising" presentation I shared a couple months back and taken it further with their "What's Next In Advertising - Moving from Advertising to Marketing."

As you can guess from the title, their main point is that advertising needs to go from where it is and has been (interruption and now, annoyance) to adding value. They say we need to "create marketing solutions, not ads" and "stop pitching people with messages," and "start providing useful content." I wholeheartedly agree.

Please give it a look and let them know what you think over on Uwe's post.

To download the slide show or view it full screen, jump over here.

The Curse of Great Expectations

Great expectations are always a dangerous thing. The unveiling of iPhone 2.0 on Monday reminded us of this age-old lesson.

We've all been waiting, some of us for nearly a year now, for the second generation of this device that changed the way we think about mobile communications and web browsing.

Expectations were already high, based on what happened last time. Rumors kept circulating, gaining more and more momentum to the point that they became what several people believed would be announced. Then when it was finally made public, many were underwhelmed. iPhone 2.0 wasn't as fully loaded as they were hoping and speculating.

This seems to be a growing problem for brands. In addition to Apple, we can also look at what happened when Cadbury released their follow-up spot to Gorilla.

We build up grandiose visions of what will come based on a previous experience that surpassed our expectations or completely surprised us. Then the big moment comes and we don't get what we were hoping for. We're let down in some way. We wanted to be blown away again.

But is that fair? Cadbury didn't promise us anything implicitly. They simply made a commitment to creating videos that brought people joy. They didn't say that each time they made a video it would be better than the last one. They just said it would make us smile.

And in this case, Apple didn't make any promises or even give away too many clues as to what was coming with the new iPhone. They just said some new software was coming in June/July and then did what they always do - keep very, very quiet.

Maybe therein lies the problem.

In the "Age of Conversation," keeping quiet and being secretive can be just as dangerous as, if not maybe worse than, saying too much. Especially when you have a bunch of passionate, forward-thinking, creative fans who are highly active online - sharing their visions and hopes for a new product or service - building unrealistic expectations among a larger portion of the general public.

If you are fortunate enough to be a brand that has a community of amorous fans, such as Apple, maybe now your job isn't to create anticipation and excitement for your products or services as much as it is to properly manage expectations.

Had Apple (or better yet, Steve Jobs himself) come out several weeks ago and done something to properly set expectations, we wouldn't be disappointed we didn't get video chat or a bigger hard drive. In fact, if they had done a good enough job, we would have expected less than what we got and we'd be more excited about what was announced yesterday.

Just as we don't always know what we want or know what is possible, we don't always know what is not yet possible. If one of your brand's core principles is to surprise and delight people, then in an age when anyone can generate an idea and spread it quickly and broadly to the point that it becomes accepted as truth, keeping expectations in check should be a top priority.

I'm not advocating that brands should try to control the message. Not at all. I'm simply saying that when these things happen, they better join the conversation rather than sit back and watch. It might seem like a great thing - getting all this "free" publicity talking up your brand and imagining you can do more/better than you really are going to - but it's not. It's irresponsible.

Not managing expectations is gong to become, if it hasn't already, a bigger problem for brands with passionate fans. Not speaking-up when you can see that people are setting themselves up to be disappointed is just as bad as over-promising things yourself.

Brands have more access now than ever before to understanding peoples' expectations. I suggest they start paying attention and getting involved when it's called for.

In an age of collaboration, open source and idea sharing, you don't want to let people down too often or they'll just go find someone to help them make their expectations become a reality on their own.

Back to Basics: Creative Problem Solving

The above "tweet" from David Armano this past Friday has been sitting in the back of my mind the past couple of days. It was from Claudia Kotchka's presentation at the Institute of Design Strategy Conference.

As Alan wisely noted in response to one of my earlier posts, the behavior of agencies is often driven by the way their clients engage them. If you're a client-side marketer and you want to infuse more innovation into your marketing plans, or even into your products, listen to the essence of what Claudia Kotchka is saying.

Don't go to your agencies and ask them to create an _______ (ad, web site, etc.). Bring them the problem you're trying to solve and see what they come up with.

Passion + Listening = A Great Brand

Chris Brogan shared this video as an example of how great branded content doesn't come across as an ad and in doing so, it stands a much better chance of getting passed along from one to many. I absolutely agree with him but that's not why I'm posting the video here. Nor is it because of my appreciation for street art and great street artists. The reason I'm sharing it is because of what gets said around 2:43 into the video.

The guys behind Montana actually paint, so they have an inherent feel for what makes great spray paint when it comes to writing graffiti. Not only that, but they also get out and talk to street artists to really understand what they need. Then they go back and develop those things. The entire video shows how Montana has specially formulated their paints and developed a variety of caps so that street artists can create better work.

This is what great brands do. They have passion for what they make and that passion helps them start out with a pretty good product to begin with. Then, they go out and spend time listening to people who use their products and find ways to make them better.

Great brands always consider themselves to be in beta - even if they don't use that term. They're always looking for ways to improve and be more meaningful to the people who use them. In return, this makes the people who use them even more passionate about them. In my book, that's never a bad thing.

--

Side note: Chris also has a good post on thinking about your blog's design. It made me see the real answer to the question I had been asking myself with regard to my recent banner refresh - "Does my blog look fat with this header?" Thus the change to trim it down a bit. Next up is thinning out the sidebars a bit. Have a bit too much going on over there.

Digging Into Design Thinking

image credit

In looking up more on the subject of design thinking, I came across a great article from Red Hat published in May of 2006 that is well worth the read. Here it is in its entirety:

Intro to design thinking

An interview with David Burney conducted by Tim Hyer

You may have noticed the word "design" being talked about recently. Perhaps you've read about design thinking in a recent business publication, or noticed the phrase being used in discussions on innovation where you work. Maybe you've heard about Stanford's newly-founded d.school.

That's a lot of hype. What is true is that design is changing the way innovative businesses operate. Successful companies like GE, Procter & Gamble, and Maytag have made significant investments and organizational changes to take advantage of design process and methodologies. Design as an innovative problem-solving methodology is fast becoming an imperative business strategy.

Our success at Red Hat is due to one of the biggest and most successful collaborative/transformative innovation models ever--open source. The value we bring to IT customers the world over is unquestionable and defining. Open source, at its heart, is a design thinking process.

What follows is a Q&A with David Burney, Vice President of Brand Communications + Design at Red Hat. Burney is a champion of design thinking.

Red Hat Magazine: What is design thinking?

David Burney: Design thinking is a term being used today to define a way of thinking that produces transformative innovation. While the term feels trendy, the way of thinking is hardly new. One can think of the cave painters in Lascaux 25,000 years ago as design thinkers-- they first began to collect data about the world they experienced, express that data by creating visual stories, document those stories in a way that could be shared into the future, and use that data to create new and innovative ways to solve their problems. The creation of alphabets thousands of years later is an example of design thinking.

RHM: What does design thinking have to do with design?

DB: The word "design" has a lot of different meanings for a lot different people. Often when people think of design they think of an artifact that's been designed well--such as a chair, a car or a building. Or they think of design as style or fashion--a great pair of shoes. The term 'design thinking' has gained popularity because it makes it easier for those outside the design industry to focus the idea of design as a way of thinking about solving problems, a way of creating strategy by experiencing it rather than keeping it an intellectual exercise, and a way of creating and capturing value.

RHM: Is design thinking exclusively art/design-related?

DB: That's a pretty big question. If I could determine the nature of art, then maybe I'd have a chance of answering it. Ellen Lupton, who is a very good designer and a leading writer on design, says that design is "art people use." I like that answer. What I find interesting in your question is that art, design, and design thinking are all about creating something new--in that, they are all transformative in nature. There are very real and important differences between processes that tear down to innovate, or processes that gather best practices to innovate, and creation processes that innovate. They demand very different actions, different cultural ways of thinking.

RHM: What impact does design thinking have on the way businesses operate?

DB: That's a great question. There is one philosophy that businesses only turn to design when they're desperate. After they've competed on price, delivery, systems, etc., and they find their business is totally commoditized and they have no other choice, THEN they turn to design. Some suggest that's true of Apple.

Of course, some businesses look for commoditized industries for opportunites to apply design thinking. Then they create new business categories. Even industries. What's more of a commodity than the coffee bean? Then consider what Starbucks has been able to accomplish. Or consider what Nike did in the sports shoe industry. Or Toyota in automobiles.

Clearly, today, it's increasingly difficult for businesses, even countries and geographic regions, to find ways to compete. They're finding that iterative methods for generating innovation and value aren't giving them the competitive advantage they're used to. The success of businesses who have built design thinking cultures has begun to be noticed. Innovation and creativity are on everyone's lips. Stanford University has started a d.school. This year, Davos has included design as a topic on its agenda. It's all over the business media. And companies as diverse as traditional marketing giant Procter & Gamble and manufacturer GE, commodity companies like Maytag and LG, are creating new strategies and restructuring their companies--making huge investments--to take advantage of design thinking.

RHM: How does it lead to innovation?

DB: From my point of view, leading transformative innovation is a very different animal from the processes most often used in the business world, and certainly very different from the cultures that are built to sustain most enterprises. A few years ago, Businessweek editor Bruce Nussbaum stated that less than 5% of Fortune 1000 companies 'get it' when it comes to design.

Ironically, I don't think innovation is that hard. In fact, once you can accept that innovation is about generating lots of ideas-- focusing on quantity rather than quality-- you're halfway there. That's first and foremost. It's dependent upon being extremely confident while not 'knowing' the answer. People who demand to know the answer too soon kill innovation. So, that's easy, right?

Design begins with the process of defining, and redefining, the issue or problem at hand, because it's terribly important to make sure everyone is on the same page. You can only get there if people are willing to put forth the most basic thoughts and ideas, and use those to create as simple a problem definition as possible. It's extremely important to feel free to suggest bad, even dumb, ideas. IDEO, one of the world's great design firms, actively pursues wild ideas. Because without that mindset you won't have the same ability to innovate; not by a long shot. Because transformative innovation is dependent upon having participants who don't know all the answers. Let's face it, if you know everything--if you have all the answers--it's kind of hard to innovate.

Play is important in design thinking. Critical even. Having fun IS often the objective. Giving up ownership. Listening, humbly. Forming teams from people who come from very different disciplines and cultures; not keeping them compartmentalized. Getting into the world and testing things out. Prototyping and failing. These are all good things in design thinking cultures.

Traditionally, success in the corporate world is often another matter: Territorial battles, internal competition, opaque agendas, hoarding information; strict structure by function--all are serious detriments to building a culture of design.

RHM: What are some examples of companies that embody design thinking as a competitive advantage?

DB: I've mentioned a few already. You can add companies like OXO, Target, VW, Progressive Insurance. These are great examples of design thinking-- companies that really involve their customers in co-creation of their products/service--companies that build great systems.

RHM: What role does collaboration play in design thinking?

DB: Most children easily grasp the concept that two heads are better than one. Well, 40 heads are really better than one. The myth of the lone genius is just that. A myth. I like to remind people that Frank Lloyd Wright is dead. Now, what we're seeing in the development of Linux and other open source collaboration development (design) models is incredible. Look at Fedora! Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Look at the value created! I think we, as humans, are just beginning to tap into the power of large-scale collaboration for creative problem solving. Bruce Mau, who spoke at our Summit last summer in New Orleans, is doing a great job of documenting how large-scale collaboration projects are changing the world. We believe at Red Hat that we have a strong leadership role to play.

RHM: How can corporations take advantage of design thinking?

DB: Design thinking is more than a methodology. Design is a cultural way of thinking. It's important to understand its power, commit to evolving your culture, even restructuring the company, resourcing and rewarding those who practice design thinking. You can no longer tolerate those who shut down design thinking. We have to get rid of the devil's advocates and experts who own their domain to the detriment of innovation.

 

Free Idea for Netflix

Saw this just now. I say, "Why not?"

How much better would that make a Netflix subscriber feel about Netflix?

Picture it...

You haven't returned any of your movies in a while. One day, you come home, open your mail box and find a Netflix envelope with a bag of microwave popcorn and a note inside that reminds you it has been a while since you returned a movie.

The note could be written in a fun way that assumes you must be really busy / working hard / entered the witness protection program / etc., and advises you to take some time for yourself, enjoy the popcorn and watch one of the movies you have.

With it, they could offer up that if the person wants to, they can lower their movie titles per month so they're not paying the higher subscription amount and when they're ready for more titles per month again, they can always put it back up at the existing level.

It seems like Netflix has some very devoted subscribers/fans. By doing something like this, they're only going to further entrench the love people feel for them. They just need to trust that people will manage their subscription level to suit the time they have for movies. When they can watch more, they'll bump it up. When they can't, they'll lower it. By reminding people that they can do this, they'll be more likely to have people hang on rather than cancel.

Anyway... just a thought based off of robfinn's tweet.

The Future of Marketing + Advertising

So here are the slides from the presentation I shared with everyone at work on Friday during our monthly, "What's Next" lunches. These lunch sessions are one of my favorite things about working at space150. It's fun to see what people are interested in and what makes them excited to come to work every day. Not only that, but with my having only been here around six months, it gives me more insight into the people presenting, which helps me get to know them better. Anyway...

Quick background on these lunch sessions: Each month, three or four people are called upon to share either what inspires them or what's going on in a specific area. So far, I've seen some of our creatives talk to what motivates them and share trends and up-and-coming names in art and design; some of our tech team talk to emerging technologies, showing off what they can do and how they're relevant to our clients; and finally some of our modern media team share the newest ways we can help people find what they're looking for more easily and get more relevant information in front of them for our clients. Like I said, it has all been very fun to take part in as well as quite inspiring and energizing.

For this one, I was asked to share what's going on in marketing and where things are moving. What you'll see/did see is that I ended up using a little bit of what I've been posting about here and some of what has been getting covered both within the trade pubs and on blogs to give me the outline. If you follow the plannersphere and other social media and marketing blogs, then this probably won't be much new, but it might connect the conversations a little more. Or maybe not.

Mostly just wanted to share it since I did put a bit of time into pulling it together and was inspired by many of you who've been writing about similar subject matter. Also because what limited free time I did have last week went into putting it together instead of writing on here.

Note: Most of the examples in it are the more covered ones used to support the topics they're associated with. With limited time, I opted for the easy-to-find examples. Sorry about that. One that isn't as covered across the blogs and in the press yet is the My Vegas site. For more info on it see David Armano's post.

As always, if you've got any thoughts, questions or comments...