Always the last to know

Last year I got invovled with a start-up backed by a reasonable amount of coin from traditional media folk. My thinking about online and where media was headed in that time matured drastically, in large part due to the wildly differing opinions on it at any given turn.

Yesterday I touched on corporates in the social media space, and was thinking about why they so often get it wrong. I'm perhaps over-simplifying, but I believe a big reason is the ubiquity of all the tools we're asking people to take seriously when they're so flippantly used most of the time. Everyone uses email, most people know somebody who has worked on a website or writes a blog, a large portion of industrialised society has watched video online, has played some sort of game online, chatted and interacted in ways ranging from one off to incredibly meaningful - my younger brother even met his wife online, but that's for another time.

What this creates is a level of familiarity with the mediums if not the methods and brings with it a false sense of security for all involved. "I send email every day, why would I pay someone to do that for me?". "I played Scrabulous on Facebook, I know how games work." "I have an idea for a viral, like that one you sent me last week."

All of the above statements are absolutely valid. The problem is they don't know what they don't know, which is not something you can beat people up for. I have the same problem with massages, I do them well, so I can't bring myself to pay for one. Why would I? If I can do it, how hard can it be?

Contrast this with a DM piece or a TV commercial. Most people have never made a TV commercial, the barrier to entry is pretty obvious. "Do I know how to edit film or use a camera? No, better hire someone." That barrier exists for a very good reason: it is hard to make a good TVC, but you very rarely need to explain that to people, the medium is more obvious, the inner workings easier to see.

So, where to now? We wanted the internet and all its glories to proliferate and invade every aspect of our lives, which is has now done. What matters from here on in is taking people on that journey, making them understand the difference between the notes we get from our families and lovers and the communications they send out that can radically alter the course of their businesses. More than that, why technology is fundamentally altering the way they should be doing business, and how those of us in this space should be helping people get there.

I got called out on being a ranting bastard by a friend the other day, and realised I ultimately wasn't helping anyone. So this is Day 1 of trying to give something back. I do so love the rants, so I may slip back into it from time to time, but here's to being a little more positive.

If you'll excuse me for the moment though, I have to go argue with a client.

Har.

--

Image courtesy of Allan Ferguson, with thanks to compfight.

As she rises to her apology

Somewhere early Sunday morning (sober, I swear Mum!) I was talking to a friend about intent, and the revelation of intent through actions. She suggested action wasn't enough, that consistency was required. Consistency then perhaps becomes the actual revealer of intent - or at least of priorities.

You can have the best intentions in the world, but your priorities will always one-up you with a slow reveal (or sometimes not so slow) of what your true intentions were.

This is no where more prevalent than corporate intrusion into social media spaces, where increased sales is the intent, revealed by the lack of consistency (which itself a form of consistency I suppose). I've actually been talking clients down from the social media ledge recently on account of so many other aspects of their online being fundamentally flawed. I'm always amazed at an organisation's willingness to drop $50,000 on a "viral" campaign while being happy to ignore things that are fundamentally wrong with their main website.

The fact is we used to call social media "community management", and much the same way that had a dedicated employee playing that role, social media requires the same. Companies who want to get involved have to ask themselves how much they want to get involved, and how much they're willing to invest in it. It will only work if you are consistent, you can only be consistent if it is somebody's job to handle every day.

If you're not willing to hire someone to do the day-to-day on your organisation's social media, to deliver consistency, you need to pick a different game to play.

Tomorrow we'll look at why the barrier to entry is more than a 30-second spot (and why that's a good thing).

--

Image courtesy of spud murphy, with thanks to compfight.

We're not here for a long time

Being in the office on Sunday fees like I'm back in high school and am the only kid who forgot it was free-dress day, having showed up in my school uniform much like any other day.

In between the burst of work, I'm catching up on feeds. Quick off the mark this morning was Gavin Heaton's great Servant of Chaos blog, and a fun little video about growing and nurturing creatives. Ultimately pointless of course, but Sundays aren't made for productivity.

Most Sundays anyway.

Why creative is not a department

How I hate a title for a post that isn't a line from a song.

Anyway...

The below talk by Sir Ken Robinson (again at TED) is extraordinary. I wish I'd seen it when I was a kid, it would have made a whole lot of things make lots more sense. Thankfully I had parents who were already thinking along these lines, so they made everything a whole lot easier than some of my friends got from their traditionalist upbringings. Ken's talk is on creativity and the new role it has to play in today's world.

Please watch it.

I'll pick you up at half past three, we'll have lasagne

So I mentioned willingness to pay the other day, which is intrinsically linked to notions of value and price point the former being set by the customer, the latter by the operation doing the selling. Raising the perception of value increases the chance your customer will agree to the price point, and you do this by heightening the expectations set by the brand you're pushing.

Now, I'm pretty fortunate in being able to eat at some nice places. Not all the time mind you, but I'm a big fan of food, and I get to indulge that often enough to keep me happy. Most people out there would be familiar with Jamie Oliver (aka The Naked Chef), a guy for whom branding and food are inextricably linked. This naturally brings with it all sorts of extra notions of value.

In his books, you look for the recipes, tips and tricks that mean you can deliver a wonderful meal for anyone who comes to dinner. There's this idea of product delivered, life enriched - through the learning of a new skill and the sharing of that experience. Enriched living? What a great place for a brand to occupy; let us help facilitate this wonderful evening and not be at all responsible if you cock it up. Brilliant!

He has a restaurant in Melbourne called Fifteen, which I've been to a few times. The first time I went I was blown away, but the last couple times have left something to be desired. The pull for me was very much getting to eat at Jamie Oliver's restaurant, and while the service and wine list is impeccable, the food left me feeling a little unsatisfied.

This is interesting because in both cases, the product is the extension of a single brand into places the person cannot be; Jamie can't be at my house making sure I don't drown my risotto, and he can't be cooking in Fifteen every night. Yet in the first example his brand isn't dminished by me messing up a dish, in the latter he can't help but be held responsible.

What it boils down to is a single brand, executed to differing standards in different mediums, which overall dilutes the whole. In the case of the book, he has done all he can do, the rest is up to me - the notion of willingness to pay in this instance is my willingness to buy the right ingredients and invest the time in making a dish; this good will naturally gets transferred to eating in Fifteen, but after that I'm less willing to invest in a Jamie Oliver dining experience than I am in a book of his and my own compass.

I'm trying to think of other examples where a product can be offered but any negative experience had in association fails to actually taint it...I'm drawing blank. Anyone?

--

Image courtesy of Christop, with thanks to compfight.

Play yo' part

Last week I talked about ING and a newsletter I got from them, specifically about how it contained only a small amount of information I was actually interested in and a big chunk of stuff I didn't want to know about. Like an eager kid banging at my door to tell me about their day, once I've gotten a "No" to my question of "Did anything bad happen?" I have what I need to know.

When brands step outside the zone they have asked permission to occupy (those that are smart enough to get permission anyway), they're jumping the shark, they're stepping into territory where they don't have credibility, and all the onlookers can do is sigh and roll their eyes.

In the same way the web has allowed the proliferation of niches, it means brands are afforded smaller and smaller spaces to occupy in our lives. What they need to work on is owning that niche, becoming a credible and trusted source. Once they have that down, they can expand - carefully. The move for ING from savings account bank to home loan bank isn't a huge step for anyone to make; when they start talking about dolphins, this is where I lose interest.

Know your role, and play your part. Meet expectations consistently and you'll be afforded the platform to grow, one piece at a time.

Tomorrow I'm going to look at how expectations support a brand and tie into the customer's willingness to pay.

--

Image courtesy of discola with thanks to compfight.

I've seen a million faces and I've rocked them all

Consistency. Consistency is the key to a killer product, service or brand. McDonalds build their business on the premise a cheeseburger you ate in Tokyo would taste the same as one you ate in Chicago. It didn't matter where you interacted with them, the product would be (for better or worse) the same.

In game design, consistency forms the rules within which your world exists. Getting through a game is basically a process of learning the rules, the fundamental building blocks of that world, and stepping up your own level of skill as those rules evolve. This extends to the aesthetic of the game too, which is why although it has some of the lowest resolution artwork of any game around, people marvel at how beautiful World of Warcraft is. The tiniest detail is completely consistent with the largest, which all works towards a single thing: suspension of disbelief.

Use of consistent imagery and mechanics in design gives the person you're dealing with an innate understanding and expectation of the experience they're about to have with your offering. You can imagine if the way you drove a Toyota was completely different to the way you drove a Ford there'd be incredible problems moving from one car to another, but we rarely think about this when dealing with design.

See, 99% of problems in a relationship stem from expectations not being met (the other 1% is always my fault). It is the source of the most frustration, regardless of whether you're dealing with another human being or a magazine.

Be consistent so you can spend your time with someone getting to know them better, not continually covering off the basics.

Tomorrow I'm going to be look at ING and talk about the difference between knowing your role and playing your part.

--

Image courtesy of M J M, with thanks to compfight.