viernes, 27 de abril de 2012

Baekdal.com (2 сообщения)

    Baekdal.com
The Magazine about the great experience
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • Free Yourself From the Office - (by @baekdal)

    People who are close to me know that I am a bit anti-office. The entire idea of forcing anyone into the same building, when the products that we make is being produced in China, makes no sense.

    The office was invented back when the only form of communication was face to face. Back then it made sense to force everyone together otherwise you couldn't coordinate what needed to be done.

    But today, we have absolutely no problem coordinating that our products is being produced on the other side of the planet. We live in the connected world. Why is it that we can work efficiently with people from far away, but apparently cannot with people in the same country?

    The office solved the huge problem of communicating, but it also brought with it a number of disadvantages.

    First we have the commute. Back when I used to work in an office, I would have to spend an hour every day being stuck in traffic. That is a full hour during which I could have done some serious work. For instance, this article took 20 minutes to write.

    Then we have the idea that everyone should be 'in the zone' at the same time, despite the fact that many studies have proven it to be impossible. What you really get is suboptimal efficiency.

    We also have the huge amount of interruptions throughout the day. Not just by co-workers, but by the sheer noise level oozing out from every workplace.

    But the biggest problem with the office is the shallowness. People are never given enough time to think. Someone will walk up to you, ask a question and then stand there waiting for an answer. The result is that all the answers you give, are whatever that comes to your mind at that moment. Usually, those types of answers are pretty mediocre.

    Companies then try to solve this by having meetings and brainstorming sessions. The whole concept of those is to focus on quantity over quality. You cannot think you cannot reflect you cannot respond. You just have to say whatever comes to you as fast as possible.

    Think of something now, more ideas the better, don't stop, don't think, just give me an idea!! Right! Now another one ...and another ...good, keep it coming!! ...MORE IDEAS!!

    The result is a whiteboard filled with an impressive amount of ideas. But the basic quality of these are often pretty low.

    The whole concept was envisioned by Alex Osborn in 1948, but several studies have proven that he was wrong. That kind of working environment doesn't produce better results.

    I too used to be an Osborn fanatic. I believed in the office and the idea that people worked better if they where all in the same room - even better, if it was in an open office environment.

    In 2005, when I started working virtually, I learned that the office is pretty much the worst place for serious work. I hired this guy, Andy, in New Zealand, to help me with a number of projects. Not only was he on the other side of the planet, but he was also in a completely different time zone. Traditional office thinking dictated that this could not work.

    But what extraordinary difference it made. The difference in time zones actually allowed us to work twice as fast. I would be working when he was asleep, and he would work when I was asleep.

    Sure there where times when one of us got stuck, and we would lose a day, but those times were nothing compared to what we gained.

    The biggest difference, however, was the dramatic increase in quality. Whenever he asked a question, I would have an entire day to think about it. That meant that I didn't just answer whatever that was at the top of my head at that specific moment, but each answer had time to incubate in the back of my head.

    The result was dramatic. When I worked with local people and agencies, I spent an enormous amount of time going over the same thing again and again. But when I worked with Andy, everything just flowed.

    This not only meant we could do the same amount of work faster (usually three times faster), it also meant we could do it at a substantially lower budget (less than half).

    In 2007, I started to combine working virtually with working from home, and I would only show up at the office when I had a meeting with someone. Again, what I found was remarkable. When you move away from the office, the lack of constant distractions make you about a billion times more productive. The first couple of months, I often found myself in the odd situation that I had completed all the work that I had planed for that week, but it was still only Tuesday.

    Not to mention that I had an extra hour of free time because I no longer had to commute. Working virtually was three times faster, at half the cost.

    Working in an office does have it's advantages too. It's social. It brings your team closer together, and you can hear all the gossip. From a social aspect, those are all good things.

    But from a work perspective and in actually getting things done fast, efficient, and at the highest quality, the office sucks.

    Worse is when you combine office life with local media agencies. Try calculating the return of investment on this:

    Let's say you have an one hour meeting in another city. You first have to drive for one hour to get there. Then you spend the first 10 minutes saying hello and introducing everyone, then another 25 minutes looking at slideshows, and then 15 minutes of serious talk, followed by 10 minutes of chit-chat. Then you have to spend another hour driving back. And because the meeting was at 11 AM, you didn't get to do anything serious form 9 to 10 AM ...and you are definitely not going to do much from 2 to 5 PM other than to check email.

    That's an entire day wasted so that you could have 15 minutes of serious discussion. I could have done all that in 20 minutes virtually.

    The difference in productivity between office live and virtual life is simply immense. Not to mention that working virtually also reduces people's stress levels and makes it easier for them to organize their lives. People don't have to work from 9 to 5, they can work when it suits them the most.

    There are, of course, also disadvantages to working virtually:

    • There is much less social interaction. Extroverts in particular will have a very hard time coping with the solitude.
    • You have to be a self-starter. Working virtually doesn't work for those who just do what they are told. When they run out of things to do they just sit there and do nothing.
    • You have to manage your projects asynchronously. Office live is synchronous. This requires a completely different project flow (and this is the main reason why many managers have a hard time managing virtual projects).
    • You have to be motivated and believe in the company you work for. If you don't believe, slacking off is much easier when you are sitting at home. But if you are motivated, you will keep working, even when things don't work.
    • You have to be cloud-based. Trying to work virtually with traditional IT systems is a nightmare.
    • You need to have a shared platform for collaborating. Working virtually doesn't work if nobody knows what you are doing, or if collaborating involves many complicated steps (think Dropbox + some kind of web platform for managing projects, tasks, ideas etc).
    • You need to have mobile tools and mobile internet etc.

    Many work virtually by disconnecting from the people they work with. That is not what this is about at all. You need to be connected to people around you.

    Another important factor is the work environment. One mistake that many make is that they work virtually from their kitchen table or, worse, in a cramped corner under the staircase.

    That is no way to work. If you want to work efficiently, your virtual office has to be as good as your office at work. My home office, for instance, is far better than the workplace I had when I worked in the office. It has good lighting, it's spacious, and it invites work.

    Note: Old picture from back before I turned into a Mac/Apple fanatic )

    Finally, you need to set boundaries for disruptions. Just because you work virtually, doesn't mean your friends can come by and hang out with you all day, or that your work can be squeezed in between washing clothes and going shopping.

    Working virtually doesn't have to be from 9 to 5, but you have to know when you are in work mode and when you are not. For instance, I'm usually in work-mode from 11 AM to 4 PM and then again from 8 PM to 11 PM.

    Of course, working virtually does give you a huge amount of flexibility. If you are not 'in the zone' do something else. It's not very efficient to try to work when you body tells you that it can't. It's more efficient to wait and give you body the space it needs.

    And working virtually also means that you can bring your work with you into whatever environment that motivates you the most. For instance, I wrote this article on my iPad, sitting in my car. And this is just one of my new eight writing spots. I'm still connected using high-speed mobile internet, but the different environment is a great way to make new ideas flow.

    Places like these make me far more productive than anything I have ever experienced in my 15 years in an office.

    In the future, we will see more and more virtual companies, even those run by people living in the same city. Instead of working from an office, each employee will work virtually ...but, every now and then, you would meet to socialize at the local coffee bar.

    You will likely find that those companies get far more done than those who insist that everyone has to sit in the same room every day.



    Переслать  


  • RESET: The Future of Books in 2015 - (by @baekdal)

    In this last part of my 'Reset' series, we are going to look at the future of books. What should you do if you have to start from scratch in 2015? What will books be like? What is the market like?

    Baekdal Plus: Read the rest of this article in Baekdal Plus



    Переслать  




  Клуб Мамбини — это скидки для мам. Регистрируйтесь!  


 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1

martes, 24 de abril de 2012

Baekdal.com - Outsourcing Your Brain To The Cloud - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal.com
The Magazine about the great experience
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • Outsourcing Your Brain To The Cloud - (by @baekdal)

    I just saw the test questions for upcoming journalists from the Danish School of Journalism. In order for you to become a journalist (In Denmark), you will have to answer questions like these:

    How long has Denmark had a democratic constitution? 178 years, 162 years, 137 years, or 115 years?

    I don't know ...and neither does it matter. All people need to know is that sometime before anyone was born, we had a different form of Government. It doesn't matter if it was 178 years, 162 years...or whatever. It has no value to make that distinction.

    Then we have the obligatory racist questions:

    What nationality are the largest group of immigrants and descendants in Denmark after 1960?

    I don't judge people based on what country they where born in. I don't put people into groups and react to them differently because of it. And quite frankly, I think it is a problem that the media keeps focusing on it.

    Another one:

    What is the title of the song that contains the words ' ...Ggen kukker i skov og krat. Vesterhavet og Kattegat ..'?

    I don't know ...but after spending half a second looking it up, I found that it is a song from 1912. Which means that unless you are an old geezer, you wouldn't know either. But more to the point, the whole purpose of this question is to limit applicants to those who was brought up under a purely traditional Danish culture. You would have no idea if your parents have moved here from another country.

    Oh and I just love this one:

    Which of these ingredients are usually not included in Minestrone Soup? Eggs, Pasta, Tomatoes, or Cabbage.

    What does that possibly have to do with my ability to become a journalist?

    And what about this one:

    The director of catering firm Gate Gourmet, Amanda Jacobsen, came under fire last year when she?

    I actually do know the answer to that one, but what does the knowledge about a single person, in a news article last year, have to do with being a journalist in the future? Is it a test to see if I have read every single article the newspaper have written in the past?

    There are many other questions, and most of them are equally irrelevant. But there are also a few good ones:

    The price of an Argentine winery has been reduced from 15,017,225 pounds. But it was sold for 9,877,810. How many percent discount is that?

    I don't understand why it has to be an *Argentine* winery, but too many journalists have a really poor sense of basic math.

    Then we have a question like:

    In 2011, media mogul Rupert Murdoch closed the newspaper "News of the World". What was the reason for closure?

    Good question, which every journalist should know because it is a very relevant topic.

    Note: And as always, the test itself was flawed. Several of the questions were later found to be incorrect. But hey, you are only required to answer 45% of them correctly, so accuracy does not seem to be that big of an issue.

    My problem is that questions like these are based on a world that simply doesn't exist anymore. This might have been relevant in the 1700s, but in 2012, basing the future skill of a person on how good that person is to remember irrelevant nonsensical information is appealing.

    It's basically asking people to play a game of Trivial Pursuit, in order to judge how good they are. This is not just a problem at the School of Journalism, it's a problem with any type of education.

    For instance, when I studied to become a certified international project manager, the exam was based on how good I was at remembering specific project buzzwords, not how good I was at completing projects.

    But more to the point, two things have changed since the 1700s. First, we now live in the age of information overload. A time where the amount of information made available to us far exceeds our mental capacity.

    The most important skill people can have today is the ability to focus on the few bits of information that matters. The bits of information that can help you move forward and be successful in the future.

    Demanding that people should remember the recipe for a specific soup, or a single new story a year ago, is absolutely unacceptable. It illustrates that the people who created these questions, do not themselves understand the importance of focus and value.

    The other change is that we now live in the connected world. We no longer have to remember nonsensical information. We can just look it up.

    This entire idea that a person's skill is directly linked to what that person has within his brain, neglect to take into account anything that has happened in the past 20 years. We have outsourced the storage of irrelevant information to the cloud.

    For instance, one question asked: "Which party is the Minister of Education from?"

    I didn't know the answer. Here in Denmark, the Government is a coalition of three political parties, and I couldn't remember what specific party got that assignment. It's not relevant for me to know, so I have outsourced it to Google. If I need it, I can look it up.

    And with Apple's Siri and perhaps, in the future with Google Glasses, this concept of outsourcing secondary information to the cloud will become common place.

    This entire purpose of locking people into a room, disconnecting them from their cloud-based brain, and asking them to answer 50 random and irrelevant question is pass.

    When I tried taking the test just for fun, I only scored about 65% correctly. But if I could use my 'cloud-brain' I would have scored 100%, and I would have been able to do it faster.

    We now live in the connected world. Determining a person's skill is not based on how much each individual can remember, but instead how good we are at crowdsourcing with the world around us.

    The skill of a journalist is not to 'know', but to establish the right connections. The skill of a journalist is not information storage, but information processing. The skill of a journalist is to connect to dots and find the missing links.

    Your brain is not a place of solitude anymore. It's connected!

    Obviously, if you are political correspondent, you need to *know* about politics. Just as if your are a tech journalist, you need to *know* about tech. But you don't need to know random irrelevant questions.

    Note: Image by U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Timothy A. Hazel/Released



    Переслать  




  Клуб Мамбини — это скидки для мам. Регистрируйтесь!  


 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1

sábado, 21 de abril de 2012

Baekdal.com - We Need To Drastically Simplify Payments Online - (by @baekdal)

    Baekdal.com
The Magazine about the great experience
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • We Need To Drastically Simplify Payments Online - (by @baekdal)

    One of the really strange things about the internet, is that the one thing every business needs, payment, is also the one thing that we haven't solved yet. True, there have been many of workarounds, but they are just that - workarounds.

    What I want is to be able to pay for a product *without* having to create an account, and without going through complicated steps involving a lot of numbers. I want payment online to be as easy and private as paying with a credit card in real life. No, I want it to be even simpler than that, because the internet is better, right?

    Let me illustrate the problem. To pay for a product in the physical world, you swipe your credit card and type in four digits on a terminal...and you are done! That's easy, convenient, really efficient, and very practical.

    Online, however, you have to fill in a complicated form like the one below, involving having to type (in my case) a total of 207 characters. That's not easy. Worse yet, you have to go through all these steps for every single brand you want to buy from. And you have to give them your credit card information - opening yourself up to risk of fraud and other security problems.

    Why is it that we accept this? Why is it that, after twenty years, this is still the way to pay for things online? No wonder it is hard to make money online. Imagine if you had to do this in every physical shop.

    It is sale 101. Never put complicated steps between the customer and the sale.

    What we need

    What we need is quite simple. We need a system...:

    • That works across all sites on the internet, so you don't have to sign up for each one separately.
    • Where privacy is on a need-to-know basis only. If I'm buying an ebook, I don't want to tell people my physical address.
    • Where providing private information is depended on the transaction being completed. I don't want sign up for anything before I have paid.
    • Where the transaction is as simple as swiping a credit card.
    • Where the validation is handled securely be someone we trust.
    • ...and is secure (obviously).

    The solution is quite simple. The technology already exists, and it is easy to implement. We need to think of payments the same way as Facebook think of the Like button.

    The way the Facebook like button works is very, very simple. They just use an iframe. An iframe is essentially a mini website embedded into another website - causing you to have two different websites on the same page.

    Here is the like button from Facebook. And as you can see, it is loaded from www.Facebook.com using a secure connection. It's *on* Facebook.

    You can then embed this page on any other site using an iframe. Here I am placing the above web page on 42Concepts. Now we have one site, with content coming from two different pages.

    When I place a like button on my site, Facebook does not send any information about you, nor can I like anything on your behalf. The same when you click on the like button. No information is being sent to my servers. The entire window is *on* Facebook. When you click that button, you are not doing it on my site, you are actually doing it in the mini-site above. Facebook knows who you are because you are *on* Facebook.

    You have 100% privacy and security but at the same time you can like anything from anywhere. It's so simple that it is brilliant (and Facebook is far from the only one doing this).

    This is what we need to create a secure and private payment system that works across any site.

    The banks and credit card companies need to get together and create a payment site that works just like a like button. We don't want to give our credit card information to other people. We don't want them to know who we are. We just want to be able to pay for a product - using one click, and that's it.

    How it works

    Imagine that VISA and MasterCard created a page like this.

    It's a payment checkout page *on* MasterCard's server. It is using a secure connection. The seller, in this case CBS, is verified by MasterCard. And because MasterCard already have all your payment information, it also knows how you prefer to pay for things online (but you can change it if you want to).

    And you would trust it.

    More to the point, upon purchase, again handled by MasterCard, the only thing MasterCard sends to CBS is the payment itself. CBS does not get access to your name, email, or your address. And CBS does not get access to your credit card information. The only thing they get is the money.

    This is exactly the same as when you buy something in a physical shop. Unless you specifically tell them who you are, the shop have no idea who just paid them - but they still get the money.

    But here is the smart part of it. This mini-shop, managed by MasterCard, can then be embedded on any page, just like a YouTube video or a Facebook like button. For instance, CBS could use it on their own website. They could put it in a blog post, on Tumblr, in a Facebook tab, and even add it to a Google Hangout. It's just a shop in an iframe.

    More to the point, this would obviously not be limited ti just one product. It can be used for any product, for any brand. And be used, embedded and/or shared on any platform and any device.

    And because it is handled by MasterCard, you don't have to sign up for each site. In fact, you never have to sign-up again. You don't have to fill in tons of forms. You don't have to do anything.

    With just one click, you have purchased this product securely and privately. And you will be able to watch and download the product immediately.

    Imagine if buying a product online was as easy as this. Any site, any brand, any product, on any channel, using any device ...and the only thing you need to do is to click ...once!

    What about physical products? ...or magazine subscriptions?

    It is the same thing. Here is an example with Nike. Same box and the same system, handled by MasterCard. Now in this case, because it is a physical product, Nike is requesting access to your name and address, which you are clearly notified about in the payment screen.

    Again, because this is actually just an iframe handled by MasterCard, you don't have to sign-up for a Nike account, and Nike doesn't get access to your credit card information, or anything else than the specific information listed in the payment screen.

    It's completely secure, and 100% private. Even if a hacker hacks into Nike's servers, they can't do anything. Nike's servers will only know your name and address. There is no username or password, no email address, nothing!

    Here is another example with New York Magazine, asking people to subscribe.

    Same box, same principle. All you need to do is click. There are no complicated steps. The New York Magazine only gets access to your email address (for sign-in) and the money. They do not get access to your credit card, your physical address, or even your name.

    And renewals are handled securely by MasterCard automatically.

    It is secure and private commerce that can be used by everyone (like AdSense), and embedded anywhere (like the Facebook Like button or a YouTube video). And you don't need to sign-up for anything. All you need to do is to ask your bank to give you a MasterCard (or VISA), and you can easily use it anywhere - online and offline.

    What else can we do?

    This concept also opens up many other advances. For one, it will enable micro-payments. The reason why micro-payments doesn't work today is that there is a fixed fee associated with each transaction.

    For instance, on PayPal the fee is 2.9% + $0.30 per transaction. Meaning that if I want to sell something for 5 cents, I would loose 26 cents each time. But since this payment platform is handled by the credit card companies themselves, they can easily charge only a percentage, and still make just as much money.

    Publishers would suddenly be able to charge for each article. We would have a payment system that could handle anything from 1 cent to a million dollars (or more).

    Another thing this could be used for is authenticated logins. A huge problem that we have today is that it is easy to sign-up with a bogus account. We see this on all social platforms. But MasterCard wouldn't have that problem because only they can create an account when they issue you with a credit card.

    This means that sites like Twitter could ask people to sign-in with MasterCard, and thus only accept people who have been validated by a them. It is not 100% perfect, but it would certainly make it a lot harder to be a spammer. You would have to persuade a MasterCard to create a huge number of bogus accounts for you. And since banks are legally responsible, well ...that's not likely to happen. Even if a someone in some 3rd world country does so, MasterCard can just block them altogether.

    This whole system is not only secure and maintains your privacy. It is also much, much harder to cheat.

    Thirdly, think affiliate bonanza. Because this is a shop in an iframe, you can offer anyone a cut of the profit, and it would be handled centrally by MasterCard. Meaning that affiliate sale can be truly mixed with social sharing, across sites and brands - without having to sign-up for each merchant.

    The technical gobbledegook

    If you are technically inclined, you are probably thinking about a million reasons why this won't work. So let me explain why this does work, even technically. This entire concept is based on three important elements:

    • It based on APIs, which anyone can use and implement.
    • All transactions are server based. Nothing is ever revealed to the client.
    • Only the payment platform have access to sensitive information - the merchant does not.

    I will get to the API, but let's discuss the last two. The main reason why ecommerce is problematic, from a security standpoint, is because data is being sent over questionable connections.

    The way to solve that is not to make things more secure, but remove anything that 'bad guys' are not allowed to see. This concept does just that. The information sent to the client only contains the product being sold, and the name of the buyer. If you look at any of the screens above, not a single thing is a security risk.

    It wouldn't matter even if a person has a virus on their computer. The transaction can only take place between you and a verified merchant (by MasterCard). So if someone decides to exploit the system, MasterCard can just block the transaction (and the merchant altogether). You, as a buyer, will never be at risk.

    Note: The easiest way to handle this is for MasterCard to delay the transfer of funds by two weeks.

    Secondly, since the merchants don't get access to the credit card information, nor any private information about the buyer, questionable security practices (like those we hear about every week) won't matter. It doesn't matter if CBS gets hacked, because they don't have any information that can be exploited.

    What's left is to make sure the payment cannot be diverted ...and this is where the API comes into play. The trick is to turn it into a platform that can handle anything. You don't want complicated setups, or expensive service providers. This should be something anyone can do. Also, the API must be server-to-server based. You never want to send any information through the client.

    We have three elements. The platform (e.g. MasterCard), the Merchant (e.g. CBS) and the Buyer (e.g. you).

    The first part looks like this:

    The buyer visits a merchant page (or anywhere else the iframe is embedded). The iframe is requested causing the Platform to call the Merchant server for product information.

    So we have dual requests here. First the site request the iframe page, but before it is sent back, another server-side request is done to get the actual information and validate the source. This prevents fraud. Even if the iframe was loaded from a 3rd party site (like Tumblr), the product information would still come from the merchant server.

    The next step is the payment and delivery of the product. And once again, it does not involve any exchange of information to the client. For instance, if it was loaded from Tumblr, the blog would have no clue as to any of these steps.

    Notice that it is not the merchant that delivers the file, it is delivered by the Platform. Upon payment, the Platform tells the Merchant server that a Buyer has paid (only providing the anonymous payment ID), and request the file to be delivered.

    If the Merchant doesn't deliver the file, the transaction is cancelled before the customer has paid anything. Again, preventing fraud. It is also the Platform that sends out the receipt and email with the download link.

    This is for digital products. For physical products, the Platform just sends the contact info (name+address) to the Merchant.

    It's just a concept

    All of this is just a concept. But we need to simplify payments online, and I think this is the best way to do it. It's private and secure, while at the same time it's open to everyone. It can be used on any site, using any device, and on any channel.

    You might be thinking, "this is great we should create a startup and make it happen". But the catch is that it only works at scale. It's the chicken and the egg problem.

    In order for this to work, you first have to get access to everyone's payment information. For a startup to do this, you literally first have to ask them to sign-up for your system, before they can buy anything anywhere else. That is an almost impossible task.

    That's why this must be done by credit card companies. They already have the scale and the data. We use it every day in millions of credit card terminals.

    It could also, potentially, be done by the big digital platforms, like PayPal, Amazon, Apple, and Google. They also have the scale and many people's credit card information. If I was working for Google, I would work really hard to make this happen. It's like Adsense for ecommerce. A shared payment platform that anyone can implement with a minimal amount of coding.

    The company who makes this happen will rule the future of ecommerce - on any device and anywhere.

    And for you, the buyer. You would have a secure and private way to pay for products online that is as easy as watching a YouTube video or clicking a Like button.

    ---

    If you want me to help you transform your future, check out my consulting services. Or sign-up for Baekdal Plus for reports about the future of media.



    Переслать  




  Клуб Мамбини — это скидки для мам. Регистрируйтесь!  


 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1

jueves, 19 de abril de 2012

Baekdal.com (2 сообщения)

    Baekdal.com
The Magazine about the great experience
http://www.baekdal.com
рекомендовать друзьям >>

  • A New Logo Won't Make You Social - (by @baekdal)

    About a year ago, a company contacted me because they wanted my help with something new. They told me that they had a meeting ahhh..., during which they had decided to be 'more visual' oh uh, so they had designed a new logo red alert - abandon ship. The help they wanted from me was to put their new logo on their website man overboard.

    Why do brands think they can embrace the new connected world just by updating their visuals a bit? It's not about the colors, the shape of the logo, or some new visual advertising campaign.

    It's about connecting, influencing, demonstrating, and inspiring people in an active way. A logo is not engaging or active.

    Yesterday I came across this press release from Jaguar ...(highlights by me)

    ---

    Jaguar today announces a new future-looking global marketing and brand strategy that will add fresh impetus to its evolving product-led revitalisation programme.

    Lot of marketing buzzwords, but the 'future-looking strategy' part is good

    Simultaneous with the unveiling of a new Jaguar logo and corporate identity, the launch of an innovative marketing campaign aims to increase awareness of the brand amongst a new audience in line with the marque's ambitious future plans.

    Uh oh ...this sounds like yet another completely traditional marketing campaign

    The new Jaguar global marketing campaign is the result of collaboration with SPARK44, the international communications agency that's part-owned by Jaguar Land Rover, and will feature print, television, outdoor and digital advertising. In addition, a programme based around experiential assets will offer consumers a contemporary opportunity to learn more about both the Jaguar brand and its products. Deliberately provocative, the campaign is designed to capitalise on the existing emotional pull of Jaguar's cars and challenges consumers to answer: 'How alive are you?'

    Ahh ...so it is a completely traditional marketing campaign, plus an experiential something, which I can only assume is a lame social advertising campaign in a Facebook tab ...let me check. Yes it is!

    Jaguar's current range already represents an enviable combination of luxury, innovation and seductive performance, and we're working hard to build on those existing strengths by developing exciting new models and derivatives - some of which you will see very soon. As that product-led revitalisation continues, now is also the perfect time to re-energise the Jaguar Brand, both to underline how ambitious we are, and to reach a new and enlightened customer base that is rightly demanding of the cars it buys.

    In short, blah blah blah ...maybe someday. And a new logo shows how ambitious we are.

    Our fresh corporate image and the new global marketing campaign both underline the confidence we have in our existing products, and set the tone for our future expansion.

    In other words, we are going to pretend nothing has changed, and just do the same we have done for the past 50 years ...hoping people will be amazed that we use new pictures, fonts and graphic elements.

    The Jaguar Alive campaign including the new Machines TV Commercial will be available at www.jaguar.com from Monday 27th February.

    So, their digital campaign is not digital. It's just a traditional website with a video showing a commercial designed for TV

    ---

    Want to see what this campaign looks like? Here it is:

    I wouldn't exactly call this future-looking. And I wouldn't call it innovative either, because it is just a play on Apple's think different campaign. Arguably, it is a great TV commercial. But it's not new. Here is one from last year, from Lenovo:

    And here is an old one from Nike:

    Oh, and don't forget this old one from Porsche:

    It is so common, that it was even used in Madmen:

    All of these has the same thing in common. It is a script about motivating greatness, narrated to you on top of some gentle music, with a few images flashing by. All of these are great, and it's a wonderful way to do a TV commercial. But they are also very traditional.

    This is "best practice" of inspiring TV commercials.

    But this was not the only video they made. They also made these two, featuring the actor who played Sherlock Holmes:

    They posted this one, which I just have no clue about:

    And then this one, which is slightly better. But I don't feel Jaguarish after seeing it.

    Both of which was posted on their Facebook page good, but Jaguar's entire Facebook campaign was to post five 'Alive' posts over a two month period. Jaguar has 1.2 million fans, but only 612 people liked it, 31 commented, and 178 shared it. That is an engagement rate of 0.06%.

    If you want to "increase awareness of the brand amongst a new audience", your strategy needs to be centered around engagement. In the digital world, 'visual campaigns' have been reduced to a gimmick. They can give you a push, but they cannot be your strategy. The digital world is active by default.

    Read also: What it means to be an advertising agency in 2015.

    Jaguar is a special brand. As a luxury brand it has to appear a little aloof. Something that is slightly out of reach, with a sense of desire. This is sometimes hard to do on social channels, but you only have to look to the celebrities to see how to do this well.

    1.2 million people 'desire' Jaguar, but only 178 shares it. That is a failure. People don't like Jaguar because of their marketing. They like them despite their marketing. In other words, they like Jaguar because of the product itself.



    Переслать  


  • How to Determine When Laggards Change - (by @baekdal)

    If you are reading this site, you are one forward thinking people in the world. You use all the new devices. You own a smartphone, you have a tablet, you are constantly connected, you decide what you want, and when you want it - because everything is 'on-demand'.

    You also know that there are still a lot of people out there who are not like you. The laggards. The ones who never change. Either because they don't want to, or because they can't (e.g. several of my friends haven't embraced Facebook yet, because it is being blocked where they work).

    But how do you tell when the general public has truly embraced the new world? Not just in what people use, but also in how they think? Well, there is an easy way - just look at the comics.

    It turns out that the last people to change are the comic artists. Let me just give you a few examples:

    This is a Garfield comic from three weeks ago. John Arbuckle is talking into a strange looking box of enormous size, connected to an odd looking string. I think they used to call this a phone. Personally I haven't seen one, anywhere, for the past 10 years.

    Here is another one from last week, where Adam is talking with a friend, and he is just discovering the wonders of exercise DVDs. Who buys DVDs anymore?

    Today we use XBOX Kinect...

    Here, Broom Hilda is carrying a TV and a satellite disk on her back, to get kids to go to school. And this comic was published today. I bet she should will love to get an 4G-iPad with Netflix.

    And finally, Ziggy is sitting in front of something bulky (again, published today). I think this was what they called a monitor, but I cannot remember the last time I saw one.

    The point is that the comics have to appeal to as wide an audience as possible, so artists use objects that they think most people can identify with. They are not drawing what most people do, they are drawing how most people think.

    When the comics change that's when you know the laggards have changed too. But until that day, your kids will think of the Broom Hilda comic as if she is carrying a TV on a hot day, and that's why she is under that big umbrella.

    Read also: The New Generation Never Used Cassette Tapes.



    Переслать  




  Клуб Мамбини — это скидки для мам. Регистрируйтесь!  


 rss2email.ru
Получайте новости с любимых сайтов:   

rss2email.ru       отписаться: http://www.rss2email.ru/unsubscribe.asp?c=31069&u=180536&r=773736329
управление подпиской: http://www.rss2email.ru/manage.asp
партнерская программа: http://partner.rss2email.ru/?pid=1