Dazzle Ships

Data is the sword of the 21st Century...

...those who wield it, the Samurai.

Thus spake Google in the 'President's Address' earlier this week, as they set out their vision for the year ahead.  It's jolly interesting reading, setting out their 5 big goals for this year and is, as you'd expect, grand in scope, reflected in its title 'From the Height of this Place'. 

Mark Howe's been toeing the party line in his Media Week blog, opining that data is the new black and it's something we've been banging on about for ages and ages.

But all is not well.  We're not going to say 'We told you so' because it's not our style (see what we did there), but for the last year we've been warning about a data backlash from consumers.

The evidence for this is mounting up, the latest being Facebook's climbdown yesterday over their proposed new terms of service.

Just as early marketing forays into social media were marked by consumer protests about the commercialisation of social spaces (see any of Mark Earls' excellent posts on the subject here, or even the article in today's Campaign), the debate has now moved on to the commercialisation of data. 

It can be traced back to the government's losses of personal data, the publication of SuperCrunchers last year, even the remarkably prescient (and excellent) BBC drama The Last Enemy, which we wrote about here: 

So, whilst we are swooning about the possibilities of all this lovely data, we've completely forgotten about consumers, who feel, rightly in my view, that the government has no business prying into their business.  And marketing people certainly don't. 

And when marketing people do address the issue, it's the darkly Orwellian BBC trails talking about 'the database'.  Way to go.  That'll get people on side.

In short, we need to stop talking about how data helps us sell stuff and start talking about how data helps people get better services.  There's a few examples (Last fm, for example), but we need more and we need to overtly explain how data gets used to improve services for consumers, not make more money for clients. 

James Martin, in his excellent 'The Meaning of the 21st Century', recognised that 'today people worry about privacy - that their computers know too much about them.  Tomorrow they'll worry about the opposite : we'll want a personal machine that knows everything about us so it can offer us the best possible assistance'.

For the record, I think he's right.  But we need to rethink our approach to 'data', focus on how we can use it to make people's lives better, and actively promote it in this way. 

I'm sure Google believe that they, and their agency and client partners, are 'the Samurai' in the quote above.  They're not.  Consumers are.  The sooner we recognise this, the sooner we might start winning the argument.

 

-- Toby

Tweet Branding

Everyone is all a Twitter of late, so thank you to Sam Phillips for forwarding me a blog post that touched on the question of how brands can best use Twitter. 

Twitter is interesting from a targeting and Influence perspective.  There are your friends you follow, people like Stephen Fry who 205k follow, those that like to shout out their views and those that just like to sit back and listen.  Understanding who is doing what and how they influence others is going to be more and more valuable to us.

There are some purists out there that will argue that brands have no place on Twitter because it is all about people to people communication, but as Cohen (@obilon on Twitter), a writer and social media strategist points out on mashable, Twitter is opt in, so there is no reason why brands and people can't live side by side.  If you chose to opt in, it simply demonstrates the level of Permission you have given a company to speak to you.

As Seth Godin would no doubt tell you though, the important thing about Permission Marketing is that when someone has given you permission to talk to them, it needs to be very carefully managed, valued, and not wasted.  Smart brands use it in ways that are meaningful, adding value to peoples lives. With this in mind, the blog sent has kindly summarised 40 of the best Branded Twitter campaigns for us to learn from. 

The examples highlight that like people, brands have personalities too.  In short, the Twitter community will decide whether you are worth following or not, so here's a few tips:

1) Learn from those doing it well

2) Be relevant, interesting, entertaining and informative

3) Don't just talk about your brand, think about related topics that will interest people

4) Be human, not corporate

- Sam

Pirates in th' dock

   

Thank ye t' Data Jedi Jago fer sharin' this seafarin' hearty tale.

Yesterday th' guys at Th' Pirate Bay sailed on trial in Sweden fer copy infringement, wi' th' Swedish Music industry lookin' fer US $13m in booty an' ham.

The booty be nay th' interestin' thin' about this case however. What be interestin' be that one o' th' defendants, Peter Sunde (aka brokep) be tweetin' away whilst sat in th' dock. In fact, he’s still tweetin' as I write now. Th' case has become a hot topic online as this post on TorrentFreak highlights. Numerous Twitter users be very kindly translatin' th' proceedings from Swedish into English so that th' world wide, social web can follow what be goin' on in court, makin' "#Spectrial" th' most searched tag in th' Twitterverse.

As Bryan pointed ou' t' us, 't looks like Th' Seafarin' Pirate Bay be takin' the'r approach o' helpin' swabbies t' connect together into th' courtroom wi' them.

  

The trial, Christian Engström,Vice Chairman o' th' Swedish Pirate Party believes, be more than jus' a prosecution o' Th' Pirate Bay. He feels 'tis a question o' th' future o' communication.

“Should the Internet be a place where everyone can communicate or should it not? That’s the question of this trial, and no court can answer that question. Even if The Pirate Bay would be freed all the way through the court system, the problem isn’t solved. The Copyright Lobby will demand more restrictions and tougher laws and the only way to protect social media culture in the long run is to work politically” (clearly nay a propper swashbuckler, as his lamnguage be all wrong).

The next step could be legal experts on Twitter who support Th' Pirate Bay offerin' the'r own advice. 'Tis a social media trial th' world be followin', an' while Peter Sunde recently tweeted "how the hell did they think this was going to be something else than EPIC FAIL for the prosecution? We're winning so hard", the reality be someone could end up walkin' th' plank at th' end.

That spake, wi` th` trial beein` scrutiniszed by thousands worldwide, maybe th` gentleman o` fortunes will win, and th` anitpiracy lobby will all get scurvy.

Keep watchin' ya scallywags,

- Sam (a buccanneer at heart)

If ye too want t' become a seafarin' hearty click here

 

 

Social Media inspiration

 

We have given plenty of examples of brands using social media well before in Dazzleships and in our trends programme, but here's a nice list by Mashable of 10 of the smartest Big Brands using Social Media. Good inspiration or presentation fodder.

Stephen 

The book that isn't (yet)

 

Stokes has written a fair amount here about Chris Andersen's much touted new book 'Free', so you should all  be familiar with the basic premise.

The latest salvo by Anderson came in the form of an article in the WSJ last week.

The gist of the argument is basically the same as reported by Stokes, but there's some really interesting examples of companies actually doing this stuff.  Let's hope they, and the idea, survive the recession.

Read it here, and start thinking about this stuff now.

(Don't forget the comments, there's some good stuff in the comments)

--  Toby

The joys of UGC

In the wake of the (ludicrous) decison to block the launch of Kangaroo (more on this in another post), looks like we'll just have to keep relying on YouTube for our online video.

Nice one.  If a little harsh...

For a more considered, though less amusing, discussion of online video try here.
 

-- Toby

BOGOF Kids

 

If you work with a Toy client, have kids, or are just a little bit creepy, you may well have heard about Webkinz.  Webkinz make fluffy plush toys like the ones above.  The company started in 2005 in the US, and is doing rather well for itself.  Each creature comes with a code that unlocks it's virtual self on webkinz.com that you have to look after and nurture, a bit like Simms.  Not an original idea you might thus think, but the incredible thing is that three years later, the company has just been valued at $2bn.   

Hasbro, Disney, Mattel and more have all since followed suit, offering toys with a virtual bogof attached.  With this in mind it got me wondering how long it will be before many more brands start doing the same.  The brilliance of the Webkinz idea is that kids often discard toys after a few days, but once you manage to hook them in to the vitrual world, they come back again and again. You build greater loyalty, along with a desire to get yet more fluffy pigs, cows and more, because clearly you have their permission to immerse them in the brand story.  

What started as a great marketing idea to build and reward involvement, has since become an incredibly valuable virtual world in itself.  How long will it be before each car you buy entitles you to enter a worldwide rally championship with real world prizes; each CD you buy invites you to interact and go behind the scenes with their virtual celebrity doppelgangers; each Coke can opens a worm hole in to the virtual happiness factory etc. 

Sounds like a far more interesting way to offer value to consumers, than the usual buy one get one free that only ends up devaluing your brand in the long term.

- Sam

TheyTube

News came through a couple of days ago that YouTube have agreed a deal with MGM to feature full-length movies on the site, in an MGM-branded channel. You Tube already has a deal with CBS to show episodes of all sorts of stuff like CSI or Big Bang Theory, but this will be the first content that stretches to really significant length of viewing experience for consumers. The titles being talked about for launch are hardly earth-shattering (Bulletproof Monk, anyone?) so it feels like a fairly cautious approach from MGM for launch, but nevertheless it's an interesting development.

So, we move away from the snackable, 'you own it' style of content that YouTube built its reputation and massive following on and shift to a much more traditional channel through which to broadcast content from the establishment.

What does this tell us? Is the bubble bursting on UGC? Well, its true that this style of content becomes less appealing (for older viewiers at least, I would think) as the broadcasters catch up with technology. Now I can get 'decent' content at lunchtime through iPlayer, ITV.com, Channel4.com etc, I'm less interested in watching people break their femurs whilst attempting a 360 heelflip, or at least I think that was it as the resolution on his mate's cameraphone is so shit I can't really see anything.

Closer to the undoubted truth is that this is all about money. YouTube struggles to generate advertising revenue against a load of home videos that shiny brands don't fancy being associated with. Films are another matter - that I can buy!

Going back to the resolution issue, one has to assume that YouTube will broadcast these movies in something worth watching as opposed to grain-o-vision. Even then though, will we want to sit for two hours in front of our computer monitors?

But maybe this is nothing to do with me. I'm too old. A generation of people are being brought up with this as a main method of consuming content. Their experience of it is all that matters. Resolution be damned! Immediacy wins over quality. And portability is a big draw. With YouTube naturally synced into the current generation of mobile handsets, films on YouTube become a free library of movies on the move. With this kind of content perhaps YouTube is cracking how to monetise the modern viewing habits of youth.

Might need something better than Bulletproof Monk though.

-- Alex

New old media

 

Via the always fascinating springwise, developments in print media, showing that pre-occupations such as personalisation, content aggregation and The Long Tail are not restricted to our cousins in didge.

Item 1 is Distill magazine.  As the name suggests, Distill is a collection of fashion and style editorial from publications across the globe, aggregated together and published bi-monthly.  A fine example of attempts to m op up the Long Tail and repackage it profitably.

Item 2 is MagCloud. MagCloud operates firmly within the Long Tail itself, indeed makes it longer.  Basically, the idea is that they will convert pdf files into magazines, for a basic cost (20c per page, plus a $13 cost for shipping up to 100 copies).  So if, on your business plan, you can turn a profit on this cost base, this is the site for you.  Good luck.

-- Toby

Another Paradigm Shift?

In May of this year, amid much hoop-la, Fox unveiled 'Remote-Free TV', a 'paradigm-shift' in TV advertising, according to Fox Entertainment President Kevin Reilly.

What this meant in practice is that in two of its big Autumn launches, JJ Abrams' Fringe and Joss Whedon's Dollhouse, would have restrictions placed on ad minutage, airing about half the number of ads that would normally appear.

Whilst perhaps not quite the 'paradigm shift' you may have been expecting, it was, nonetheless, a brave move.  In a highly commoditised market, cutting minutage and charging a premium of around 35-40% was clearly a risk.  Just ask GCap.

Well, Fringe debuted in the US last month (and is currently showing over here on Sky).  And it appears, at least initially, to have been successful.  As you'd expect there were some tough negotiations, but they managed to get through higher CPT increases.  Perhaps more importantly initial research findings seem to be pointing to increased audience engagement with both the show and, most importantly for us, with the advertising.

So, 92% of viewers stayed with the programme through the commercial breaks, compared to the ususal 87%.  More impressive are some of the early tracking stats.  Ad attention is up 31%, likeability up 61% and unaided recall up a whopping 250%.

It looks, then, as if Fox could be onto something with this approach.  I think it makes more sense on TV than on radio as active channel hopping is much more prevalent (as the marvellous ad from the 1950's above illustrates nicely).  But before we get too carried away, a couple of words of caution.

First, whilst it is undoubtedly refreshing for viewers to only have ad breaks of, on average, 1 minute 18 seconds (against 3m 16s on the rest of the network), let's remember refreshment doesn't last.  At the moment this is the exception not the rule.  They've used some nice tactics such as flagging up the length of the break ('Fringe will return in 70 seconds...') but if this approach becomes more widespread, viewers will simply recalibrate their expectations.  This will only lead to more downward pressure on ad break length, thereby destroying the advantages both viewers and advertisers get.

Secondly, I think there's a real danger that we're falling into the classic media agency 'numbers only' approach.  There could be something more obvious at play here.  Here's a rundown of the ads that appeared in Fringe.

They sound pretty good to me.  Maybe even the sort of ads that people wouldn't mind watching.  It seems almost embarassing to have to say it, but I'm going to - Let's not forget the impact of the creative work.  And let's hope that these impressive sounding early numbers don't get destroyed by people piling in with dreadful ads. 

Perhaps agencies could even club together and buy whole breaks of 'good' ads?

That really would be a paradigm shift.

-- Toby