— Uneven Distribution.

Archive
Data

We believe that the next step in copying will be made from digital form into physical form. It will be physical objects. Or as we decided to call them: Physibles. Data objects that are able (and feasible) to become physical. We believe that things like three dimensional printersscanners and such are just the first step. We believe that in the nearby future you will print your spare sparts for your vehicles. You will download your sneakers within 20 years.

And with that, The Pirate Bay created a new category on one of the world’s largest piracy outlets – a category for physical objects. 3D Printers are now under $1000. And while the resolution, size and materials still leave a lot to be desired, it’s worth casting your mind back to your amazement at first seeing a domestic printer spit-out a colour printout that sort of resembled a photograph. Because that was likely less than 20 years ago. A few quick points on this:

  • This is the future. I love it when the future actually arrives.
  • Any (likely) arguments or discussions around IP are completely pointless. The piracy of objects is well an truly established across the world already. It’s not just fake handbags either, the Chinese have pirated a Rolls Royce. That Eames chair your sitting on is more than likely pirated.
  • This will eventually change how we look at products – the free availability of almost any design we want will ultimately lead to people thinking about their needs rather than their wants. Instead just buying what we are told too from the limited range available, we will consider what we need and how that need could be fulfilled through the infinite possibility of design customisation.
  • This won’t be a huge challenge for brands – firstly because multi-material 3D printing is still at least 10 years off, so you’ll be waiting a while to print out those Nikes. Secondly because even in a world of downloadable (and piratable) objects, the same fundamentals remain – brands are a heuristic, a shortcut to something we know and are comfortable with. If brands are providing good service, customer-centric customisation, and simplicity, the world of 3D printing is far more of an opportunity than a threat.

In the meantime, if you really can’t wait, your 3D printed shoes are available here.

Read More

I recently spoke on a panel at the Sydney Advertising Marketing and Media Summit in Sydney, on the topic of “The new marketing rule book”. It was a great panel, with a broad range of perspectives and some good debate. I’m also in Melbourne on Thursday at the Melbourne leg, and given I just realised I’m speaking on a different topic, I though it might be worthwhile to post up my notes from the day. As usual they’re rather long, so I’ll post them up here in two bits.

Rule #1: Everything is now a transaction.

  • We, as marketers, have exited ‘The advertising century’, and have entered ‘The transactional century’. Everything we do now as consumers is a transaction in some way. Whereas in the past purchase has provided transactional data, now every banner ad we see, search result we click, venue we check-in, and TV show we watch is a transaction, a point of data.
  • Essentially, getting someone’s attention, is now a transaction. And the data that is generated is now a valuable commodity. And importantly, a measurable one.
  • This works two ways, it’s not just about marketers collecting data, but it’s about consumers offering it up. And in this sense, marketers are ripping off the public. A lot of data is being collected, with not a lot being given in return. This will change, and it will change fast.
  • This data pool has the capacity to grow faster than we know what to do with it. Even at the moment it is underutilised. In the next few years we’ll see real-time exchanges for display advertising, unique content delivery of major sites and apps, contextually aware (and useful) non-disruptive mobile marketing, and sooner than you think household level TV commercial targeting.
  • Marketers need to consider every single transaction they are asking a person to make. And they need to consider them from two angles. Firstly, are you making the most of the data you are collecting? And secondly, is the transaction a fair one – are you suppling something of value back to the user?
Rule #2: There is no ‘best case’.
  • Best case scenarios are based on replicability. We can benchmark TV, Print and DM because the only thing that really changes from campaign to campaign is the idea. The execution is fixed. But in the digital space the execution is the idea, and the idea is the execution. Everything changes, every time.
  • Trying to replicate the stunning successes will fail every time. Subservient Chicken, Best Job, Old Spice – these cannot simply be replicated with a new brand and a tweak on the idea, because the user is not an idiot.
  • This makes integrated communications and integrated agency partners more important than ever. It’s only through having all the bits talking together that truly fresh thinking can flow through the whole process.
  • More than this, the key to becoming a ‘best case’ is to accept that ideas come from anywhere. The true art of marketing is now to spot that brilliant idea and bring it to life.
  • Stop looking backwards to move forward.
Read More

I. Living in a future mindset.

In his recent post on Anachronistic Science, Kevin Kelly talks about knowledge gaps and the anachronisms in thinking prevalent throughout history. He uses the example in which a modern scientist could return to Aristotle’s time and still perform a huge number of experiments to prove theories only developed in the last few decades.

“If anachronistic science occurs in the past, then by definition there must be future technology that we are capable of creating today, if only we knew how.”

Which made me think, does this apply to online social tools? Have we created an anomaly in cultural development? Are the tools we are using today possible in the past? Are the social behaviours, insights and technologies they rely on anachronistic?

It would be wonderful to think that we’ve somehow created a glitch in the cultural matrix. That we truly are unique thinkers and pioneers of culture. But I honestly don’t believe this. The sheer limit of bandwidth makes many of the great ideas from the past 5 years impossible on a basic executional level, but the essence of most great ideas enabled by the internet have always been possible, we just haven’t had the mindset.

If this is the case, surely there is an argument for letting go of the boundaries we work within, and simply develop ideas regardless. If we can live in a future mindset, we can worry about executing the ideas later. Easier said than done, yes, but I don’t think this happens often enough.

II. Stop building spaceships.

Another area that Kelly only briefly touches on is that the development of pioneering thinking has, in almost every advanced civilisation, simply reached a point where it’s innovation slowed dramatically.

“Why didn’t China, which invented so many other things in the first millennial, just keep on going and invent science by 1000 AD? For that matter why didn’t the Greeks invent the scientific method during their heyday? What were they missing? “

I’m not sure that this question is really answered, and that is telling (Kelly simply states that they didn’t have the mindset). There is an argument here that intellectual, cultural development can eventually slow down, even when it has great momentum.

Like right now.

This argument is given further weight by ideas such as Richard Watson’s thoughts on Extreme Teens. We are simply so overwhelmed with new ideas now, that our ability to actually move forward cognitively in a meaningful, constructive way has been significantly diminished (how many new sites do you sign up to every week? Of those how many do you really understand?).

So where this gets interesting is in the startup industry. There are thousands of people and millions of dollars currently devoted to being “the next Facebook/YouTube/Twitter/X”. Perhaps we have evolved in this online space to a point where we are cognitively full? Perhaps we should be focusing more on understanding and refining exactly what we have created in the last 5,500 days?

Perhaps, just maybe, there is a wealth of ideas, information and insights already created online that are being ignored because we are so focused on driving forward. And if this is the case, the real innovators in the next few years may come from people that understand where we have been, not necessarily the ones that are blazing forward into the unknown.

Read More

Reading Clay Shirky‘s “Here Comes Everybody” recently I came across the following idea. It’s a simple reminder that the advertising and marketing industry is heading towards a massive shift, one that many people still can’t see and one that I’m still not entirely sure how we effectively approach.

“It’s when a technology becomes normal, then ubiquitous, and finally so pervasive it’s invisible, that the really profound changes happen, and for young people today, our new social tools have passed normal and are heading to ubiquitous, and invisible is coming.”

The invisibility that Shirky talks about here highlights a fascinating change and compelling challenge. And I don’t think his use of the term ‘profound changes’ is understating the significance. In the next few years, a huge slice of consumers will have spent their entire life online and in the social space. How they communicate, and how they expect to be communicated too, is vastly different to how ‘we’ (late gen Y’ers and up) experience the world, particularly when it comes to advertising and marketing.

So what exactly will happen when this change arrives? There are some things we know, as well as things we can fairly safely predict.

1. Privacy will become less of an issue.
Companies collecting digital information on you was once shocking. It’s now somewhere between normal and ubiquitous (depending on who you ask). But to those who have grown up with their Facebook or Bebo or MySpace conversations on display to the world, the wall between personal and private will become completely invisible (Facebook pun only slightly intended).

2. Amateur content, specifically targeted, will take precedence over professional content.
The natively-wired generation expect their content how they want it, when they want it, and as they want it. Mark Pesce explains the scenario well:

“When he weighs the latest episode of a TV series against some newly-made video that is meant only to appeal to a few thousand people – such as himself – that video will win, every time. It more completely satisfies him.”

3. Brands will no longer be a signifier of being cool.
The cool people will be the early adopters, those on the tip with the freshest content or latest meme. They will in turn create cool rather than have it dictated to them through the pages of a magazine.

None of the above are terribly groundbreaking thoughts. But it’s worth thinking about how the above scenarios affect traditional off and online advertising and marketing. How do we talk to consumers when almost every channel available to use 20 years ago no longer exists? With social media focused agencies like The Population opening up, it’s tempting to say that social media marketing is the answer. But I can’t help but think it’s simply an evolution of what we’ve always done as a reaction to how the consumer is evolving. We may need to move  upstream, because once communication becomes invisible, we cease to have a forum in which we’re relevant. So what are some possible responses?

1. Become ingrained in their content creation.
I was fortunate enough to see a presentation of Smirnoff Secret Party campaign run by Amnesia a few days ago. While overall it was a great campaign, I really loved the final step in the discovery process whereby ticket holders would upload of a photo of themselves with their ticket. This is an extremely basic execution of the idea of becoming ingrained in content creation, but with the only other one beings Sprint’s Sellout, it’s probably the best I’ve seen (please let me know if there’s anything more out there). User generated content is shoehorned into so many campaigns today without the fundamental understanding that people will only create content for love or money. Convince people to love your product, and they will happily create content around it, and this is what their friends will be watching, reading, listening to, and sharing.

2. Allow everything to be remixed.
If people can’t take your content and your product and make it their own, express themselves through it, and create something with it, it’s just not as interesting. The idea of amateur content for many people conjures up visions of poorly produced and sub-standard videos, but this won’t necessarily continue to be the case. Collaboration and the removal of barriers to entry means professional quality content is becoming more and more achievable by amateurs.

3. Create brand ownership by involving them in the product development.
With rapid prototyping technologies, the idea of personalising a product to thin slices of your market is a reality. As a consumer’s involvement in your product increases, their brand ownership and advocacy increases (often at an exponential rate). There is no better way to create brand advocates and create better products than actually allowing consumers to have a hand in creation. Even if it’s just the packaging, or the naming, or the colours. Since the birth of Wikipedia we have seen that lowering or removing barriers to creation can result in quality content, and lots of it. There is no reason a company shouldn’t take those learnings into their product development and remove barriers to collaboration, ending up with both an amazing product and amazing consumers.

4. Rethink how we’re using the information we have about consumers.
There’s a theory in computer science based around ‘wasting cycles’ (covered in both Paul Graham’s Hackers & Painters and also Nicholas Carr’s The Big Switch). The short version is that if the developers of the next generation of software or hardware take away the restrictions of current computing power, they could dream big. By the time their dreams were a reality, the computing power had caught up. In the same way, what if we wasted data? Generate completely new ways to use consumer data. Rather than using it as a filter for messaging, use it as a platform to build a product, or move up the network and use social graph data to market to entire communities rather than individuals. Sounds counter-intuitive yes, but there’s no reason it’s not worth testing, all we’re wasting is data, and that’s almost free.

With all the talk of integration and social media, it sometimes seems that we’re doing little more than following the trends that a digital society has created. The idea that the tools people have only recently adopted for communication could become so ubiquitous as to become invisible in a matter of years is both remarkably exciting and daunting. As communicators, we need to better comprehend what this invisibility really means, and how we adapt or re-invent our thinking to accommodate it.

Read More

Next year is going to be cool. There’s going to be some ace stuff. With things like Android and the iPhone opening up we’ll start to see some really cool mobile startups; as people begin to grasp the social graph and data portability we’ll start to see some awesome tools in that space; and as marketers start to realise that a conversation with the consumer is more about offering an experience than a product we’ll get some really amazing campaigns. To keep up with this (and in fact to catch up with even where we’re currently at) digital media needs to change significantly in the next year. There’s a huge lack in Australia of media people who understand this space (especially among the traditional media agencies’ digital offerings) and as a result the creative agencies are, to a point, suffering.

So what are the media agencies doing wrong? It would be great to be able to say it’s a problem of deciding on a technology before a goal, but most of the time there isn’t even a consideration of technology. It’s simply display ads being offered up on the same predictable stable of publishers. Digital media requires a solid and sometimes instinctual understanding of online audiences and a geekish love of metrics, and it’s only going to continue down this route. In the future simply going down the path of least resistance and treating digital media like TV simply won’t cut it. Creative agencies shouldn’t (and for the most part, don’t want to) own the media process, but in the future everyone is going to have to work a lot closer together rather than just selling TVC’s and going home early.

In the past few years we have seen an increase in fragmentation of market segments, we now know more about smaller groups of consumers and media agencies need to react to this. As more and more data is gathered this fragmentation will continue (hopefully as a benefit to the consumer rather than some evil Orwellian entity), and we now have to start to consider this when thinking about the messages we create. The days of every campaign having the same over-arching brand or product message tweaked to each channel and segment might soon come to an end. We now have the knowledge, data, and capability to create extremely tailored messages for smaller segments, so we need to have the placement to back it up. But the answer to this problem isn’t as easy as “here’s the message, now show us the media”, there needs to be an almost symbiotic relationship between media and creative.

So cookie-cut responses to a media brief for a specific segment or product won’t work. No doubt media boffins in big agencies are hoping their global tools will work and they can move in and get the big slices of the massive online cake. But localisation means that some simple formula can’t be applied to global digital media. Even online, people in most areas want to stay local, and in the future this probably won’t change and likely will increase. As more and more and more users flood into the online world, it will become more important to people to have a sense of place in this space. This trend, combined with segment fragmentation and the already obvious fact that there’s not going to be any Rupert-esque media domination online means that local knowledge is essential in effective digital media buying.

Quick tactical response and effective data management are the final pieces that need to fall in to place to fully leverage the opportunities we’re facing. Tactical response will require solid client, ad and media agency relationships and will no doubt come once more advertisers see the potential of the area. Data might be a harder challenge. We are already facing a mountain of data that dwarfs the days of analog DM and focus groups, and we’re not even that good at collecting it yet. We have opportunities to collect all sorts of data regarding how, when, why, and where people are viewing, creating and interacting with digital media. Despite this there’s reluctance from most people in all facets of the industry to get out of the kiddy pool and start working with behavioural targeting, attention profiling, integrated CRM and seriously using the plethora of data consumers volunteer on social networking sites.

So for the media people, please jump at this opportunity. The future is way cooler than the past, and if you know and live what you’re talking about you will be an invaluable resource. For the big media companies who don’t seem to be getting it right, just get in people that know what they’re talking about. Get in geeks and skill them up in media, because it’s much harder to skill someone up on the intricacies of the digital world. For anyone else who thinks this doesn’t sound all that hard, jump in and give it a crack. Step up and start something, because there’s definitely a gap there waiting to be filled. And once it’s filled some really great ideas and great results will surely follow.

Read More

In the past few weeks we have taken some major steps in the area of advertising and privacy on the internet. I’m not going to copy and paste the press releases of Google, MySpace and Facebook, but I will quote the always brilliant (and wonderfully sarcastic) Nicholas Carr…

It’s a nifty system: First you get your users to entrust their personal data to you, and then you not only sell that data to advertisers but you get the users to be the vector for the ads. And what do the users get in return? An animated Sprite Sips character to interact with.

Yes, apparently the future of advertising arrived this week. Zuckerberg pitched himself as a 21st century Gutenberg and marketers all over the world were loving every bit of it. And to be honest, it’s not all bad. Everyone working in the digital arena knew it was coming, but now it’s here we really need to think about what we’re doing with this future before we wreck the whole thing. To quote Uncle Ben, “With great power comes great responsiblity”.

According to Facebook, every user now has “a way to connect with things you are passionate about.”

But this is slightly misguided. Kids will always scribble brand names all over their pencil cases, but we’re talking a very small slice of brands. There are very few brands that people are willing to wear as a badge so publicly. So while Facebook seem to be preaching to every single brand manager in the world, the impact these announcements have on 99.9% of brands just won’t be significant enough to worry about. The only significant benefit for the majority of marketers is that now any brand venturing into these waters won’t be risking to the astro-turfing suicide of the past few years. And if the venture fails it will likely just fizzle out quietly (unless you’re Wal-Mart or McDonalds of course, in which case you’ll go down in a blazing Facebook fireball). It’s a safe way for any brand that has previously been hesitant about the whole 2.0 social web thing to jump in.

So while the direction we have taken in the past few weeks is exciting, it simply isn’t the knockout blow to traditional advertising that we’re being made to believe. It is the start of something big, but we can’t now just go out and start abusing this new technology and consequently the consumer’s trust. Everyone working in digital marketing and advertising has worked hard to earn the customer’s trust, and by giving consumers a voice in the social webspace brands have also taken a brave step. So before we go utilising the data that social networks will be so happily (and no doubt profitably) providing for our advertising, we need to think very hard about what expectations people have regarding their privacy.

Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should.

I have written about what is essentially the Social Ads platform previously, and I still think it really is the only way for marketers to effectively and positively use uninitiated advertising on the social web. This is not to say the digital ad departments as they currently stand are going to disappear. The most effective use of the web in marketing and advertising in the future will still be user-initiated discovery. But issues will begin to arise when people are being marketed to by unknowingly using their social data.

Users are happy to go to Facebook or MySpace or Ning and have targeted advertising. Done well this may even become a key reason for choosing one social platform over another. But where a certain ‘creep’ factor (in both senses of the word) will occur is when social data is being used outside of that network. This will create an increasing public distrust for the platforms, sites and brands involved. Very quickly everyone will get the feeling that their social network platforms are some sort of Panopticon.

The danger is that once advertisers cross that point, users will simply abandon those platforms. And if that happens then we’re back to banner ads and Flash games.

A few links…
Personalisation vs. Privacy in CRM (Read/Write/Web)
replacegoogle.com, one view of the future
Nicholas Carr on The Social Graft
TechCrunch’s coverage of Facebook’s announcement
John Battelle on the OpenSocial announcement

Read More

Facebook know everything about me and my friends. So why am I currently looking at a banner ad for air filters for my car (which I don’t even own)?

This post isn’t just about Facebook, it’s about online advertising. But I’m going to use Facebook as my example.

A few weeks ago I noticed an ad in my news feed. It consisted of a little loudspeaker icon with some copy telling me to get out and buy the latest pop-house music compilation from one of Melbourne’s most average DJs. It’s not that hard to look at my profile and my friend’s profiles and know that this was some terribly targeted advertising. The funny thing is that if it had been advertising an album I might actually like, I would have a totally different opinion to these news-feed ads. As it is now though, every time I see one that is irrelevant it is diluting their effectiveness. Facebook need to stop advertising like this until they can really effectively target people so that news-feed ads become a service, a welcome addition, rather than an abstract intrusion.

One thing the internet has done is democratised culture. These days it’s much easier to be into music (and for in turn a culture/sub-culture) that doesn’t get commercial radio play, doesn’t have glossy magazines dedicated to it, and doesn’t feature on MTV. So one thing I often ask people when they start getting a vacant, confused look on their face as I talk to them about advertising as a service is “What’s your favourite band, and how did you hear about them?”.

According to last.fm my favourite band is Son Kite. A Swedish progressive psytrance duo on the Digital Structures record label, these guys have a touch under 5,600 listeners logged on last.fm. Compare that to Radiohead with just over 901,000 listeners. So it’s fair to say they’re moderately obscure. Yet every time I see them play they are treated like absolute superstars by those that also love their music. They might be terribly niche, but the long tail means that with today’s technology they can still have a massive global following.

So how did I hear about Son Kite? Well one day I was talking to the delivery van driver for my mum’s business. He mentioned he was a DJ and I asked him what sort of stuff he played. Cut to 15 minutes later and we’ve both been talking about the music we love and he mentions some guys he knows from Sweden called Son Kite, he reckons I would love them and tells me their first album is coming out in a few weeks. Seven years later I still listen to that album.

So now that Facebook know everything about me and my friends, why can’t they act as that friend that recommends the cool new stuff? Advertising doesn’t need to be intrusive and irrelevant in a space like this, with effective communication it can be an invaluable service.

And essentially this comes down to what advertising and marketing should be about anyway, effective communication to the people who care.

This post also appeared on theDigital Ministry Champion’s Blog

Read More