A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

Have you ever heard of the online video series, Foundation? If you haven’t, it’s an interview series moderated by Kevin Rose, “angel investor and serial entrepreneur” who is probably most known for founding Digg. Kevin is a fascinating guy who interviews fascinating people – primarily other successful entrepreneurs who have made a name for themselves in the game of technology, broadly speaking.

The most recent episode features Kevin Systrom, founder of Instagram. I’d strongly recommend that you watch this (and every other) episode of Foundation in full. If nothing else, you will learn to appreciate what it takes to be an entrepreneur. But more than likely, you will learn something new, or see something differently. And that’s always very cool.

What I appreciated in a new way after watching this interview was the unique position that Instagram finds itself in. It is clearly a social network (15 million strong, two people joining every second), but one that doesn’t try to be all things to all people. It is singularly focused on the visual medium (right now photos but someday video.) That’s not the space that either Twitter or Facebook dominate. And as Kevin S. notes, it’s the first truly international network because it isn’t constrained by language – pictures are universal.

Kevin S. also voiced an oft-held opinion that a lot (most?) technology companies get caught up in a build it they will come mentality. In the case of Instagram, they actually set out to solve three problems (something that differentiates them right off the bat):

  1. People tend to be less than totally enamored with the pictures they take — they’re not bad, just uninspired;
  2. People want to share their (good) pictures across multiple networks;
  3. Other filtering apps take forever to upload (Instagram starts uploading the picture as soon as the user begin adding a caption so it doesn’t seem like it’s taking as long.)

Oh yea, Kevin Systrom also turned down the Zuck and left Twitter to start Instagram (more). Nice.

There’s a lot more in the interview so watch it, and let me know what you think. I’m sure you’ll find it worth your time.

Context Matters, Just a Bit Differently Than You Might Have Thought

Interesting findings from a Bravo/Neuro-Insight study that finds the theme of an ad matters more than the product it’s selling.

“Marketers get better retention if the category doesn’t match, and the theme does. The study calls these ads “neo-contextual,” and their advantages are considerable. The former will get a 15 percent advantage over an ad that’s not matched at all as opposed to 9 percent for an ad that matches only by category. Third, and most effective (a 19 percent boost), are network-created “program-hybrid” ads, which use show elements or talent.”

Another sign, not that we needed one, that the less you interrupt someone, the better. If an ad is really organic to the content, everyone wins.

Via AdWeek. Read more here.

Online Upfront. Really?

I certainly understand why they’re doing it but I can’t help but grin. For years, many of us have scratched our heads as big media agencies get together with big media companies to trade in TV inventory that continues to rise in price as the audience goes elsewhere (i.e., digital.) It simply doesn’t make any economic sense (although that does seem to be a running theme these days.) But now the big digital companies (Yahoo, Google, AOL and Microsoft) who have spent years telling us why they’re better than TV are playing exactly the same game. Well in this game, there’s only one winner – and it’s not the companies buying the inventory. Insane. See more here.

Old habits…

The New York Times published a really interesting piece yesterday, the overall theme of which was habits, how we form them and how difficult they are once formed to break. Nothing earth-shattering there – anyone who has vowed to get in shape after the new year gets this. But it is a really good reminder for those of us in marketing that human behaviors are very difficult to change…and how it behooves us to be very careful before we commit to delivering results for clients that simply aren’t realistic, all in the spirit of making a good meeting.

There’s also a great sub-story around the introduction of Febreze that I haven’t heard before. Goes to show just how important data-driven insights are in defining effective go-to market strategies.

Oh yea, and the fact that Target can tell you your daughter’s pregnant before she does.

Mark of the Spider-Man Lets Fans Walk a Mile in Parker’s Shoes

Having worked at the agency (McKinney) that created Audi’s Art of the H3ist alternate reality game, I have always had a particular fascination with the genre. There is so much talk these days about engaging consumers in deep interactive experiences but few campaigns can actually deliver on that like a well-executed, entertaining ARG. I plan to follow this one closely (hell, I love Spider Man as much as the next guy)…or at least until reality gets in the way. Check out the article on ARGNet.

The appeal of TV’s broad reach is irresistible…to some maybe.

I saw two articles yesterday that seemed to be in direct contrast to each other.

The first, posted yesterday on CNNMoney (originally published coincidentally in Fortune Magazine) discussed Nike’s aggressive move into the digital space. “Gone is the reliance on top-down campaigns celebrating a single hit — whether a star like Tiger Woods, a signature shoe like the Air Force 1, or send-ups like Bo Jackson’s ‘Bo Knows’ commercials from the late ’80s that sold the entire brand in one fell Swoosh. In their place is a whole new repertoire of interactive elements that let Nike communicate directly with its consumers, whether it’s a performance-tracking wristband, a 30-story billboard in Johannesburg that posts fan headlines from Twitter, or a major commercial shot by an Oscar-nominated director that makes its debut not on primetime television but on Facebook.”

The second, on Reuters, highlighted findings from a Magnaglobal forecast which predicts TV ad spending to rise 6.8 percent in 2012. “TV is the king of media categories when it comes to branding,” said Vincent Letang, global head of forecasts for Magnaglobal, a division of IPG Mediabrands. “It is indispensable.”

TV, indispensable? How quaint. My bet’s with Nike.

R/GA helps out in the love department with Valentweet

Bummer…I’m sure it’s cool. Seems like a rookie mistake from a group that doesn’t make rookie mistakes. Original post from Adverblog here.

Burt’s Bees Launches Gud, Aimed At Gen Y

This is a really interesting move by Burt’s Bees to expand the franchise to a younger consumer who is probably more concerned with how it makes her feel and smell than she is with the product’s all-natural, earth-friendly ingredients. Moves like this always carry some risk but I’d be surprised if there’s any real backlash from loyal Burt’s Bees consumers. Good luck to Burt’s and my good friends over at Baldwin& who worked on the new product. Read more at MediaPost Publications.

Wikipedia Appears on Page 1 of Google for 99% of Searches [Study]

If you asked me, I would have said “most of the time” or “almost every time” but 99%. That’s crazy!

“Google loves Wikipedia. Everyone knows it, and many aren’t that happy about it, especially when some of their poorly written content outranks higher-quality websites on the same subject. But did you know Wikipedia pages appear on Page 1 of Google for 99 percent of searches?

Beyond that staggering number, Wikipedia is the No. 1 result on Google for 56 percent of searches, while 96 percent of searches saw Wikipedia in one of the top five positions. Only eight keywords (Mail, news, trainers, national, sweets, wardrobe, phone, flight) didn’t appear on Page 1.”

More at: Search Engine Watch.

The Purchase Funnel – a Not-So-New Take on the New Consumer Decision Journey

“If marketing has one goal, it’s to reach consumers at the moments that most influence their decisions.” Yep, pretty simple. Now Granted, this is much easier said than done.

For as long as I can remember, marketers have approached this process with the help of a funnel, the purchase (or marketing) funnel to be precise. The funnel is a model which describes the theoretical customer journey from the moment someone first becomes aware of your brand (ideally) through to purchase. Also inherent in this model was the assumption that consumers start with a number of potential brands at the beginning of the process and narrow those choices to one as they move through the funnel from awareness to purchase (and hopefully a lifetime of repeat purchase.)

The Consumer Decision JourneyThat was until McKinsey did a little research (in 2009) into the topic and found that the “funnel concept fails to capture all the touch points and key buying factors resulting from the explosion of product choices and digital channels, coupled with the emergence of an increasingly discerning, well-informed consumer.” They describe the funnel as “a more circular journey, with four primary phases representing potential battlegrounds where marketers can win or lose: initial consideration; active evaluation; closure; and postpurchase.”

And interestingly:

“Contrary to the funnel metaphor, the number of brands under consideration during the active evaluation phase may now actually expand rather than narrow as consumers seek information and shop a category. The number of brands added in later stages differs by industry: our research showed that people actively evaluating personal computers added an average of 1 brand to their initial consideration set of 1.7, while automobile shoppers added 2.2 to their initial set of 3.8”

So the notion of having to be on someone’s shopping list is not as critical as once imagined (although it should be duly noted that “brands in the initial-consideration set can be up to three times more likely to be purchased eventually than brands that aren’t on it.”

The other key finding, which is quickly becoming a matter of record, is their conclusion that “marketers must move aggressively beyond push-style communication and learn to influence consumer-driven touch points.” The research found that “two-thirds of the touch points during the active evaluation phase involve consumer-driven marketing initiatives, such as internet reviews and word-of-mouth recommendations from friends and family, as well as in-store interactions and recollections of past experiences.”

One other point that is worth emphasizing is McKinsey’s distinction between active and passive loyalists. Active loyalists are those that not only stick with a brand but recommend it to others; passive loyalists stay with a brand without being committed to it. Obviously having more active than passive loyalists engaging with your brand is a good thing.

I would strongly encourage anyone in the marketing business to read McKinsey’s write-up (McKinsey Quarterly 2009 Number 3), posted here for your convenience. It is smart, well-grounded and a model that can help us all do our jobs better.

Call me an active loyalist.