The Kids Are Alright

Before I delve too much into all that I've learned these last few days at TWTRCon09 and the Ypulse Mash-up, I need to start with highlighting just one piece of the puzzle when we look at our communication with youth:

A whole lot of people just don't understand or respect them.

Now before I get a whole bunch of marketing and advertising folks jumping up to prove how much they've done to authentically reach youth, know that I'm not necessarily talking about you. I'm talking about the general public: anchors, teachers, authority figures, the check-out lady and the mailman. 

I was deeply disappointed to read an article today about a Manvel, TX high school teacher named Cesar Flores who appeared to be teaching while intoxicated, and attempted to kiss a female student in class. The students in the classroom were 10th and 11th graders, who contacted district police to address their concerns. The spokesperson for the Alvin Independent School District, Shirley Brothers, then spoke to the media about the accusations:

"The good thing is the kiddos noticed something was wrong and reported it. We're proud of the youngsters for reporting something was wrong."

Kiddos? Youngsters? Noticed something was wrong and reported it? Pardon my language, but NO SHIT they noticed something was wrong. These are not children; these are young adults learning about how to live in an adult world, and they were faced with a very serious, very adult threat. And while Brothers is right--they did respond correctly to the situation--she could not have come off more condescending or more surprised at their success.

The truth of the matter is that youth are thrown into adult situations earlier and earlier (and admittedly, some of that is by their own doing, but that's neither here nor there.) But when they respond admirably and with maturity in a difficult situation, let's remember that we should reward them in the same way: with admiration and as peer adults.

Full article can be found here.

OMG, digi=IRL, rite?

"If you're a newspaper publisher and you think the solution is a digital facsimile of the analog version, you need to re-think." - Ed Cotton, from his post about the News Corporation starting to charge for online content

This is a fantastic quote, and not just because it succinctly calls out newspapers' digital stumbles, but it speaks to the larger issues facing the media and advertising/marketing industries with the growing role of interactive. Digital is a whole new ball game, and we need to recognize that we can't just simply take what worked in other mediums and assume it will have the same success digitally. If I may build upon the idea Ed brings up in this quote, I'd like to share a few additional guidelines: 

• Static web ads shouldn't just be print ads put online. Work with the medium, take advantage of the placement, the shape, the size.
• Similarly, rich media shouldn't just be your commercial on a digital platform. No one likes to open a web page and be bombarded by a 30-second commercial. We are social beings--we want to interact! Engage us. 
• If you ARE putting up a commercial say before a video clip online, know the appropriate length. When we watch a 60 minute TV show, only 14 minutes of it is allowed to be commercials. If you're attaching your :30 commercial to a 1:30 video, you're pushing your luck.
• When folks come to watch a television program online, its much more of a conscious activity. There's no channel flipping, no waiting around for your program to begin. Recognize this different level of engagement and leverage it. And please please please, don't show us the same ad over and over at every commercial break. On a TV we can just change channels...online we're stuck with it, and I believe the potential benefits of repetition will be outweighed by the feelings of ill will.

There's gotta be other applicable scenarios. Any others weighing on your minds??

Yooouuutuuube and Other Oddities

I remember when I first learned about YouTube, I didn't think it would catch on. I didn't think people would take the time to CREATE videos and I certainly didn't understand WHY they'd even have the desire. Sure, I had seen videos online. But All Your Base Are Belong To Us wasn't on a video-sharing platform, so why would we ever need one?

Well, clearly I was wrong.

We love the creation, the attention, and the relative fame. In an era of Idol, reality TV shows, and YouTube, we've learned to recognize the "easy way" to fame and appreciation. With YouTube in particular, we were introduced to a whole new area of social currency, and everyone who was anyone seemed to jump on board.

Fast-forward to April 28th, 2009. An independent programmer/designer out of NY named David quietly released Yooouuutuuube, a kind of kaleidoscopic visual remix of any and all youtube videos based on each sequential frame. (For a great post about the details that make up Yooouuutuuube and an interesting discussion about compelling data mining on this platform, check out Misentropy's blog.) I got a chance to ask David a few questions via email and learned a few interesting bits about Yooouuutuuube and it's success.

I saw that you link to the original YouTube video. Are you affiliated with YouTube?

No, I am not affiliated in any way whatsoever with YouTube.

In your own words, what is the purpose of YooouuuTuuube?

Yooouuutuuube doesn't really have a purpose.

What kind of traction have you been getting? I found out about the site on Twitter (thanks, @nguyenduong!) and a friend of mine found out on Digg. Do you track hits? Unique visitors? Time spent?

The site has received 376,670 unique visitors since it launched. The average time spent on the site is 2 minutes and 30 seconds. This means I have wasted roughly 1.8 years of humanity's time.

I couldn't help but laugh. This was pretty much the kind of answers I'd expect from the creator of a program like Yooouuutuuube. But this overwhelming success of a small, independent project definitely points out a few lessons for us:

• As consumers, the mash-up/remix phenomenon remains, with more opportunities out there to be realized. Now if only David could find a way to monetize...
• We're drawn towards platforms that facilitate our own creations. Since Yooouuutuuube allows you to choose how many rows and columns and what kind of effects you see when it plays your video, we get the feeling that WE'VE created this incredible eyegasm, though in truth we owe it all to YouTubex3's infrastructure and programming. 
• Programs that don't require extra experience, knowledge, or equipment will grow far more quickly than those with more barriers to entry. David made it incredibly simple--what can your programs do to remove some of these barriers?
• Misentropy reminds us that we can use YouTubex3 for data as well as entertainment. This means that our innovations may have secondary benefits. I'm reminded of the box of Baking Soda sitting in my cupboard right now. How many boxes do you think they've sold based on its alternate benefit? And having discovered the alternate benefit, what did they do? They advertised it.

I'll leave you with one of my favorite iterations of YouTubex3--the Alice Remix Remix. Warning: Contact high is imminent upon viewing. It's about 2 minutes long but will play on repeat.

Try your own at www. yooouuutuuube.com and let me know what you think. What else can we learn from YouTubex3?

Make it Relevant

I was walking down Sutter Street here in the Bay Area on Earth Day and came upon this:

I couldn't help but stop and re-read it. The more I thought about what it said, the more I really started to see "the bigger picture." For a time, the environment was where it was at. Everyone was doing their part to live green, buy organic, change their energy habits, etc. But as the recession smothers us more and more, we've shifted all of our focus to the financial sector. In both cases, it required a crisis to make us act. The problem is, we've stopped looking at the environment in our sorrow for the sorry state we're in financially. And unfortunately, living environmentally-responsible doesn't always suit a tight budget.

Every day I walk downtown and every day, I see more stores closing. And it's easy to get caught up in the crisis--I've got ads telling me left and right how "In this economy..." or "Because of the recession..." and the news telling me about all the lost jobs and unemployed workers. But this sign took me back. "Nature doesn't do bailouts." Even throughout this crazy recession, there's always been movement--towards a bailout, towards consolidation, towards cost-cutting. And we've relied on anyone but ourselves to provide this movement. 

But that's not the case with the environment. We're the ones who have to make the change. By likening the environmental crisis to the financial one, it inspired me, the viewer, to be an advocate. By making the crisis relevant, it showed me the necessary path that I, and others, must take. 

I've since found that there have been more postings in SF and NY:

I love it when I find ads that help me better understand how to be a great advertiser. It's even better when it helps me better understand how to be a good person.

I've since signed up at teamearth.com and I highly suggest you do the same. If we don't, who will? Nature has no government to get us outta this one.

Very cool work by BBDO West. 

Celebrating Value

In recent years, we've seen a great increase and emphasis on brands that facilitate "masstige," a kind of accessible status.  As both marketers and consumers, we recognize that much of our lives are aspirational--some young girls start reading Seventeen as early as 11 years old, and many driving enthusiasts learn all they can about Aston Martin so as to feel as though they intimately know the car without having actually owned or driven one themselves. When we can't DO or OWN, we imagine and aspire.

Think about a few things you've splurged on--maybe a Coach purse or a great Ralph Lauren sports coat. These brands elicit a certain amount of status, but almost anyone can feasibly purchase these items with a little thought towards saving.  Brands like Coach, RL, Grey Goose, W Hotels, Anthropologie, and even Gourmet magazine are all part of the masstige market. Manolo and Jimmy Choo shoes are imitated by Nine West and Michael Kors to bring status to the relative masses. Having seen the success of these brands, this same idea began to trickle down to value stores. 

Target has long been the "upscale" value store--they've told their consumers to "expect more" and delivered on that promise with an emphasis on design. For many years, this has served them well. But the recent recession has really taken Target down a notch. Despite putting out new ads that focus on the "Pay less" part of their slogan, defensive couponing, and price gouging, Target reported massive fourth quarter losses, down about 41%.

Walmart, on the other hand, which has always stood for value and nothing but the best price, has defied the recession, citing strong Q4 growth in packaged media, flat-screen TVs, and video game systems. By growing their Blue-Ray section and leveraging their entertainment exclusives, Walmart is able to keep their brand essence of value for everyday Walmart shoppers and provide the impetus for Target shoppers to try something at Walmart that they might not get currently. While still ultimately down 7.5% in Q4, Walmart reported 2.8% increase in quarterly same-store sales and a year-end net revenue increase of 7.2%. 

So what we can other brands learn from this?

- See what's performing strongly and leverage the hell out of it! Once you've got them interacting with your brand, they'll recognize your other efforts to provide value. And remember, high quality goods aren't out of the question; consumers still desire great products--you just have to provide them in the context of value.

-  Take a leaf out of Walmart's book and act on the offensive: instead of releasing "$10 off your $50 electronics purchase" coupons that exclude most any brand you'd want to buy (Target, I'm looking at you), sell me on a product or category I can't resist, and make it affordable.

- Even if you price gouge, Coach will still stand for quality purses and Target will still be upscale, design-infused value--pre-emptively mitigate competitor poaching by finding what you can offer at an everyday value price that is unique to your brand.

Q&A: Targeting vs. Alienation

And I use the phrasing "Question and Answer" loosely as I ask--

Answer: "It's OK if some people don't like you, if your target loves you." - Ashley Sommerdahl, professor at the VCU Brandcenter

On the one hand, it makes a lot of sense. Don't waste dollars on fish that won't bite. On the other hand, are you shooting yourself in the foot if you close the door on second-tier markets?

Proof: I'm still stumped on this one. Of course, as with most things in this business, the veracity of this claim likely relies up on the certain unique circumstances of any given project, but my immediate gut reaction is to be hesitant to speak so exclusively to your target that you alienate others. Naturally, my brain responds that while I can't shake that reaction, you still can't be all things to all people.

Nike tried this when they attempted to build a campaign around the idea that "if you run, you're a runner." At first glance, it's brilliant. It's empowering to all the college guys who run shirtless around campus, to the moms who take a jog around the neighborhood. When they're empowered, they feel like they're a part of the community, the tribe. So they follow the creed and take part in the rituals of the tribe--the right shoes, the right clothes, the right gear, the iPod and the Shox and the whole enchilada. All of this translates into sales--success!!

But what about their core consumers, the ones who train for their health and their sport, not just the end goal of a marathon? The ones who live for the race, not just the accomplishment? Those for whom running is their sport, not their hobby? I think they felt alienated by the idea Nike wanted to sell. Runners are typically quite humble folks, and their own standards for what makes a runner are often set far far above what Nike wants those college kids and health-conscious moms to think. I'm not trying to make claim on who's right--but I will say that the embodiment of Nike, and the allure it has for those moms and college kids, is the attitude of the core consumers. Aspiration has a strong role in advertising, but I think the degree to which Nike wanted to take it went against the brand and it's loyal consumers.

On the flipside, where Taco Bell went the route of Fourth Meal and the pure enjoyment and accessibility of their product for the younger, late-roaming, harder-partying crowd, McDonald's has fallen into the trap of trying to answer to every need of existing and potential consumers. McD's rode the health-conscious wave by adding salads, yogurt, apple slices, etc. to their menu. Then, they added coffee that they poured the cream into for you, later leading to lattes and flavored drinks to try to embrace the coffee shop trend. And I'm sure they found some success in it, though much of it seemed rather weak to me, even though I would consider myself one to ride the wave in the case of both the health and coffee trends. Previously, I had enjoyed McD's for their ridiculously gross but oh so satisfying dollar menu, but I wasn't charmed by their attempts to appeal to an impossibly wider market--I usually left feeling guilty, if anything. Taco Bell, on the other hand, stuck to their guns, offering greasy taco variations and bucket-sized sodas, and yet have somehow kept my loyal patronage and even grown my feelings of goodwill toward them, both of which were evidence by my enjoyment of a Crunchwrap Supreme from TB just this very afternoon.

So? Where's your proof? If the original claim is sometimes true and sometimes false, what guidelines can we use in determining when and for what reasons? Take your turn at Conversation B in the comments.

New Series: Questions and Answers

I'm regularly frustrated by bloggers who have nothing to say but somehow manage to be excessively prolific. When I began this blog, I wanted it to be used for proprietary thoughts and ideas, not reactionary ones. However, I've come to realize that sometimes I disappear for too long as I stew and consider to a point where I have something to share that you might not have read elsewhere. In an effort to allow a more steady stream of input so as to reward your loyalty, I'd like to introduce a new, ongoing series of bits and pieces I've picked up during my education and experiences that have helped shape my ideas and continue to make me evolve. I've enjoyed sharing my thoughts, but I think sometimes it might be helpful to share some of my source material as well.

Sometimes, this material may offer up a query that begs our brains to look for an answer. Sometimes, it will be an idea that we can learn to apply to our own struggles. And sometimes, it will merely be the proof we need to believe the solution. In turn, I hope you'll join me in putting the pieces together and use them as a catalyst for your own evolution of ideas.

So without further ado, please enjoy the first post for Questions and Answers.

Answer: You can't solve a new problem by choosing from a used set of solutions. 

Proof: Marty Neumeier points out in his new book "The Designful Company" a number of pieces of proof for this answer. In creative professions, we spend much of our time in the "vision-reality gap" where we have only our own creativity as building blocks for the solution to act as a bridge. We've spent much of our time analyzing what we've already done, what our competitors are doing, and what could be, but we remain steadfast in our focus on "what is," our current set of solutions. But as Edward de Bono points out, "You can't dig a new hole by digging the same one deeper." If we want to realize the reality we've dreamt of, we need to imagine a new solution. 

Precisely the kind of thinking that has been the guiding path for this site. More on Marty Neumeier's book "The Designful Company" in a few days, as well as more Q & A from other fantastic minds.