Search results matching tag 'widgets'

Web 2.0 hype: Time to try decaf.

2516287 — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:31:00 GMT

I’ll admit I’m a bit of a luddite when it comes to jumping on the Web 2.0 bandwagon. So it may come as a surprise to some that this is my first ever “Blog". Don’t get me wrong; I’m far from being a technophobe on any level, with the goal of producing somewhat delicious irony for my blog’s title. Over the years, I have written regular short articles about news and daily life, formulated opinions and vented my frustrations and put them online in a web-based journal. Sound familiar?

But package that up with a cool name, wrap it up with an aura of “the little guy that could take on The New York Times” and immediately, everyone must have a “Blog”.

I’ll reiterate again, I love technology and live and breathe the t’interweb. But bearing the scars of a couple of dot-com booms and busts now, there’s one thing I can’t stand in my line of work: hype. And more precisely, how some marketing types go into a frenzy as soon as they latch on to the latest Web 2.0 buzzword du jour like it’s the latest must-have accessory.

Let me give you a recent example.

I love widgets. I have them all over my desktop and on my phone – they’re great for telling me the weather or the time of the train I just missed. They just sit there, do what I need them to do, and nothing else.

A client of ours loves them as well, and wanted us to build one to broadcast messages to their agents. But without considering a purpose of what a widget is for, they ended up dismissing all sense of usability or usefulness. “Can we have background sound as well? That you can’t turn off so everyone can hear it? Oh! And can it take up half the screen on top of the other windows? And display whole web pages? And can it automatically send emails back to base?”

Having all said and done, not all hype is bad, it drives the web forward in developing more cool stuff. But like many good things, they are best enjoyed in moderation.

Through this blog I hope I can provide some perspective from us techies on the coal-face of web development, demystifying some of the marketese and buzzwords where we can along the way. If we can also bring some level of common sense and consideration for the user, as we can be a little tunnel-visioned by marketing goals at times, then I will be a happy bunny.

P.S. Am I behind the times? I’ve heard from an Account Director that we’re up to Web 3.5 now. What that entails exactly is beyond me - I missed the release notes when Web 3.0 was in Beta.

Take your web presence to the consumer using interactive display advertising

1919324 — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 10:54:00 GMT

O2 has been using the below ad for a while now, so I’m guessing it must be quite effective, particularly as Orange has a similar ad too. It’s an application form for a free mobile sim card embedded into the Flash advert itself.

There is no landing page conversion because conversions happen in the advert without taking the user away from the page they’re looking at. This is so simple, but to me it’s a hallelujah moment for the industry.

Increasing adverts with creative interactivity and moving away from the need to always drive people to websites can be a good decision. If people are using a website or a social network, they don’t always want to leave that. Think about the purpose of your campaign – do consumers have to go to your website to fulfil that purpose? In O2’s case, the answer was no.

Interactivity is where the power of the internet lies over other forms of display advertising. While I’m not recommending every advert become a form or a microsite within an ad – the web would become a very boring place – it is the best solution for certain campaigns.

Update: it arrived within days!

Follow the IAB on Twitter

Skittles, famous for 15 days?

1323563 — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:04:00 GMT

So yes, I'm jumping on a bandwagon and my title should get me on their feed when we announce this blog post on Twitter later today. And obviously I'm mature enough to refrain from saying that they're the root of all evil, taste of acid or that the old TV ads where the woman whispered 'taste the rainbow' at the end really made my skin crawl. In fact (just as an aside) any TV ad that includes whispering of any kind immediately makes me want to throw up or cut off my own ears, and that includes 'sexy' talking that M&S are so proud of...

I decided to write this post because I think it's been long enough since the initial flurry of media commentary to evaluate what I think is an excellent social media case study, and I've been wanting to talk about it for a while. I'm fully aware that I'm just one of thousands who are doing the same, and when IAB marketing director Kieron Matthews wrote about the application a couple of weeks ago, the response to it was incredibly mixed. The terms 'creative rip-off' and 'strategic failure' were banded around simply because a similar idea had been executed before... which confuses me slightly. Does this mean a brand's own website is a creative rip-off? And every time a brand launches a group on MySpace, or Facebook, should be criticised because people have been doing it for ages? Should we disregard banners entirely because my God they are SUCH old news!? And what about search, people have been doing it for years now, how totally dull! ('No' is the answer to all those previous questions by the way, the IAB loves search and online display advertising, always has and always will!)

This constant quest for uncovering the 'next big thing', striving to come up with something completely new and conquering online's unchartered territory is, quite frankly, what may be putting some brands off. Why does there seem to be so much pressure to try something so creatively mindblowing and technologically advanced that no one has ever dreamt about before, let alone incorprated it into their marketing plans? For those of us who work in digital 24/7, pushing those boundaries may seem like the only option, but for marketers who need to justify budgets and prove their return on investment in some way, maybe now is not the time to criticise brands who are learning from the work of others and adapting it to suit their own strategic objectives.

And of course there was the big 'hoo ha' surrounding the comments people made on the various social media properties, which apparently meant the campaign was not a success. Shock horror, someone said the word 'c*nt!' Because of course, any kind of bad language or negative response simply doesn't exist in our wonderful little advertising bubble! In my opinion not moderating or censoring the UGC was the best thing that Skittles could have done, and rather than resulting in a big old public relations mess, actually made them stand out as a brand that is happy to open its eyes and ears to exactly what normal human beings may say to each other from time to time. Does anyone really believe that a statement such as 'Hey! I love iced gems, this campaign was great so let's all buy them!' posted on some forum or other will actually have any impact whatsoever, whereas 'Skittles: Eating one at a time or going for the full cheeked, teeth crinkling, power rush sensation?' and 'In business bored. William just handed me a skittles wrapper and said it was a fruit flavored condom. I'm worried.' which I found on Twitter today, are a lot more authentic.

My point here is similar to previous points of mine, which is, why can't we just applaud stuff that's good!? The fact is that this recent activity probably had about as much impact as a TV ad would: it made them famous for a while, plus it was more interesting and actually got people involved. The debate about whether it's worked is ongoing, and some make the point that all these online conversations were about the nitty gritty of execution and inevitable reaction rather than the content itself. But at least there were conversations, which the Skittles brand had sparked and facilitated. Do I like Skittles? No, I hate the things, they taste horribly weird and are far too chewy. But do I respect Skittles as a brand, maybe even like them a bit more? Most definitely. What will be interesting now is how they sustain this chatter and keep consumers interested in the long-term.

Follow the IAB on Twitter

Facebook Connect is VERY important

1919324 — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:57:00 GMT

The internet is a hugely disjointed and messy place. How many logins do you have? How many times do you have to enter payment details? There’s only one ‘you’ so it seems ridiculous that you have to do all the leg work on the internet. Companies try to make processes simpler and Microsoft has done a good job of this with its Live accounts. Likewise for Google. Facebook however, is the first to launch itself head first into joining up the dots outside of its own property.

The dream behind Facebook Connect is that it will let you connect your Facebook account to other websites, allowing you to leave comments, buy products, upload pictures and more using a single account. Google has a good grip of the internet at the moment with search, but it’s this level of personal account connectivity that is the Holy Grail. It also puts the fear of god into people because it means one company sets the standard and you have one account for all of your personal information.

Personal information isn’t actually a worry at this stage because Facebook Connect doesn’t go anywhere close to linking your bank account details yet. If it ever does, it will no doubt employ far more secure measures. As from last week what it does allow you to do is post comments on blogs and websites set up to use your Facebook account. These comments also appear within Facebook, so Facebook benefits from attracting more page views for advertising. Content will appear in both places and it will be read by more people however.

There is no doubt in my mind that the internet has to have this kind of functionality to work in the future, but should one company have control of so much data? An interesting question and it isn’t a simple case of ‘no’. We do need a single account, and a company with the right structure could do this. Ideally it would not be a ‘company’ that has total control, but a trustworthy organisation. How does such an organisation raise the money to cover the cost without commercialisation though?

All of this may sound complicated in text, but in practice it tidies up the messy internet a lot. So, this is a hugely important step. It is very early days but the first fruits are filtering their way through. I’ll be keeping my eye on it closely at the IAB, as will the rest of the team, to track its developments and potential. You should too.

Follow the IAB on Twitter

Branding utility will save the day. Seriously.

1319935 — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 10:39:00 GMT

“An extraordinary, almost unimaginable sequence of events” says Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England commenting on the past weeks' goings on in the global financial markets. Which do you prefer – the culture of blame, or the culture of coping? Weak people immediately point the finger at others, stronger people move on and work out how to make things work, develop products customers need and communication strategies to help consumers realise that's what they want, and build genuine underlying performance in their businesses.

In the FT today, the question is asked – is the MBA culture responsible? From the country that has chosen Sarah Palin as a legitimate candidate for president in waiting, one might question the decision making processes that got her there, and it’s too easy to blame the overt complexity built into the debt instruments that have brought the world's capital markets to a state of chaos. Palin is a nutter, obviously, but I think the true characteristic of disaster is the ability of executives to take things at face value. By ‘branding’ toxic assets as ‘debt instruments’ it’s easy not to look under the skin, do the due diligence, and frankly bullshit past the next quarter's earnings to worry about the next crisis.

What can we learn from all this? One point of view about branding is that it is only meaningful if supported by a set of values that a brand is credible in, performs to, stands for and stands by. For lots of products and services, this is hard to achieve, if the product doesn’t work, for example, or the service promise isn’t delivered. One enormous impact of the internet is enabling consumers to share issues about brands. These can be both negative and positive vibes. Brand owners now have to develop strategy and process internally and externally to manage this. And they are challenging their support networks (of branding consultants, PR people, agencies and technology partners) to help.

Ad people talk about campaigns, and hitting the message home and how to unravel the narrative in linear way. Consumers don’t think about this at all. They tend to see ads in passing, remember some of them, and if the ad is strong enough, may even remember the name of the brand. This works well enough, but if the brand doesn’t have a set of values to stand for, by and for consumers to believe in, they won’t necessarily hand over cash for the stuff. Everyone now likes the idea of branded utilities - virtual test driving, travel advice, holiday planners, Christmas planners and so on - as the necessary adjunct for consumers to build everyday experience of a brand in some way (beyond running in the shoes or actually eating the chocolate.) If you’ve worked in the world of the web for a while, creating interactive experience and regular customer interaction, you might say – hang on, that’s what we’ve been doing for years, but suddenly it’s become branded.

That’s what happens when the ad people get involved. If we give it a name it’s easier to believe in. I sympathise with both sides, if sides is the right term to use. Having run both ad agency and web agency organisations, you get privileged insight. The fact remains though, that unless there is genuine usefulness (either from entertainment or information value) the measurement of such things will remain in the world of wool. In the old world, if the brand didn’t stand for anything, (or indeed, as much more likely in the regulatory environment we now operate in, couldn’t), the advertising itself had to deliver the substantiation. Think glamorous cigarette ads from the 80s. In the branded utility world, you can’t just make it up. There has to be genuine interaction and exchange for consumers to see a benefit of spending, rather than wasting, time with the brand. This is where our creative and tech brains should be focused. If we get it right, and know how to get it done, there’s a new marketing nirvana to be had.

Give a little respect get a little

1241878 — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:08:00 GMT

God knows how much the new St Pancras station cost but what a joy it is to arrive at every morning. The hotel clock tower peering through the ‘shed’, the beautiful restoration, the plethora of eateries and of course Fat Face for a cheeky browse (on the way home of course). Everything oozes of respect for William Barlow who built it way back in 1863. I can’t help picturing it full of steam and orderly civilians tipping their bowlers to bid fellow passengers a safe onward journey. Why the do people think it’s ok to walk the full length of a good old English queue and push in. Avoiding stereotypes, these are generally Brits, with nothing but rudeness coursing through their veins. Rarely is there even a reason – e.g. a bun fight for seats, there is nearly always room for everyone. The other day I did the rather un-British thing of challenger a ‘pusher’ as they are known. I said, “Excuse me mate, would you like my ticket?” When asked why, I simply responded by saying, “if you feel you can push in, why don’t you take my ticket as well.” He puffed his chest and stormed off accusing me of being “f*!king rude.” I still haven’t quite worked out why, but what I do know is he utterly lacked any form of respect.

Putting a positive spin on this, I think respect is one of the most underrated terms used in marketing today. You’ll here a client talk about ‘respecting the brand values’ but do we spend enough time respecting consumers? If someone (consumer) is prepared to give a brand some time whether its watching a TV ad, or writing a review or passing on an email the very least you can do is make the most of their time.

Try this - think of the most famous person you’d like to meet and imagine you have 10 seconds with them. What would say? How would you behave? What would you want to get out of the encounter? How would it meet you expectations?

Now try the exercise as a brand meeting a consumer. You’ve got 10 seconds, what would say, how would you behave…………..and so on. If you can respect that initial period with a consumer it may lead to a longer dialogue. So often we respect our own craft and don’t consider enough about, am I being respectful of their time, am I wasting it and do I have permission to say what I want to say.

Part of the challenges Facebook have faced recently is respecting the community – if you want to talk to me, respect my time in this space.

Big respect to the Top Shop App on Facebook, which is useful to consumers and used amongst the community. Big respect to Play’s scuba game for Fosters where a blokey bloke is quite happy to burst bubbles of lager in a huge tank. Big respect to Nike PhotoiD that actually does what it said it would – design a shoe that matches the colour of my boxer shorts. These are all campaigns, which make the most of the time with their consumers.

So let me know if you think ‘respect’ should make it onto the creative brief and in return I’ll let you know which famous person I met and how I made the most of it.

Let's get everyone widgetised by 2010

1323563 — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:52:00 GMT

Although possibly a little late to hop on the bandwagon, I'm currently obsessed with widgets. Not obsessed to the extent that I actually use that many you understand, but in terms of what they represent for the future of advertising - not just online - i think they're pretty spot on. However there exists a contradiction surrounding the premise behind them, in that making marketing, and indeed your brand, useful, should not really be a new thing. What's a corporate website if it's not a useful source of information about your product, service or corporation? What's a press ad, if not a useful form of communication with numerous readers, inviting them to engage with you further via a unqiue design and persuasive prose? All useful, I would argue, yet manifested in different ways.

Therefore this apparently 'new' concept of the branded utility should not be treated with caution by advertisers, rather they should simply be seen as the next step in building your brand online. At the IAB we're used to being told about the next big thing, in fact we're quite used to talking about it too, with each year being heralded as the year of something, whether it be video, mobile or social media. In march i read that 2008 would be the year of the widget, as eMarketer reported that this year, US companies will spend approximately $40million simply making themselves more useful online. Social networkers love them, brands have embraced them and developers couldn't get more excited about them, it seems. But lets not consider the widget as the next big thing, rather a mainstay of modern marketing.

Over the past couple of days I've been looking around trying to find the best 'stuff' that marketers have been creating, widget-wise. UPS is a great example, staying ahead of their competitors with a useful application that tracks your orders whilst sitting on your desktop. Cancer Research can monitor your drinking with their widget, Nike launched a video widget in tandem with their NIKEfootball website and the STA travel application handily counts down to your holiday. All useful, relevant stuff, that fits the brand and makes perfect sense for consumers. During my research I even found whole blogs dedicated to the things, which only served to fuel my obsession even more! Who would have thought such a small form of branded content could have attracted such a widespread band of faithful followers?

Basically, because they're brilliant. What better way to extend your online presence, over and above the more traditional forms of internet advertising? What better way to literally sit in front of your consumers, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Widgets should be a natural progression from developing your own website, and frankly i don't know why every brand doesn't have one by now. So, with my current commitment to waxing lyrical about the widget, in true politician style, I hereby announce by aim - and the IAB's, sorry guys! - to have every single one of the top 100 UK brands widgetised by 2010. Sure, it's not quite as siginificant as aiming for a better educational system, or a robust National Health Service, but it's significant nonetheless. Over the next couple of years, marketers should be thinking more and more about how they can make themselves more useful to consumers, and by doing that, earn their respect and encourage brand loyalty. And if you can't think of anything useful that your brand can do, then how useful is it in the first place?

A quick search on Wikipedia tells me that a lot of things are set to happen in 2010... Croatia is set to join the European Union, of course it's the next World Cup, and BBC 1 will be airing the 55th Eurovision Song Contest. But for me, the most profound development will be the fact that every single one of our top 100 advertisers in this country will be boasting their very own widget. And because it's an aim, not a prediction, no one's able to call me on it.

Is it useful?

1319935 — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:47:00 GMT

Speaking at Ad tech today, we discussed how the shape of the new media agencies is changing again. I love this business. Because no sooner have you sorted out your organisation to cope with the client demands as is, you need to reorganise because the industry has changed again.

Brand utility is the latest trend – the principle being that because there are so many consumer controlled barriers (PVRs, Sky Plus, general indolence to advertising and the like) that giving useful stuff to consumers is the way to get through. Stuff that is so useful it attracts, engages, builds loyalty, keeps customers happy.

Shiny stuff, as they say at Naked. Good stuff works, though. Colour selection advice if you are Dulux, or traffic reports or train times for Brighton’s commuters, or fun things to play with like Doodle dogs and so on. Widgety goodness. Measuring is is a bit more problematic though. That discussion deserves a conference of its own.

The BBC's new widgets

878512 — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:06:16 GMT

BBC Worldwide have launched a nice series of multi-platform branded widgets for Top Gear, Radio Times and Good Food. Good stuff...

^{Subscribe to Advertising 2.0 by} ^email^or^RSS

Topshop's Facebook app

878512 — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:06:52 GMT

I've been hearing really good things about Topshop's new Facebook app that Poke have built for them (see Marketing's article) - however, I've not tried it out as I'd face the derision of my male friends. Can any girls out there who've used it leave some feedback in the comments?

^{Subscribe to Advertising 2.0 by} ^email^or^RSS