Three Minds On Digital Marketing @ Organic

Source: Ohio State University


A piece in the March issue of Wired took on the issue of 'texting-while-driving', turning the issue on its head by suggesting that instead of banning texting, we should simply drive less.

Now, we're talking. I'm of the opinion that the Internet has done less to change the world than we give it credit for (See "The Internet: More or Less Revolutionary than a TV Dinner" here). To reach revolutionary status, the Web and/or mobile must fundamentally change the way we live. Will the basic inability to text our thumbs off push commute times down? If it does, then we're really seeing where the mobile/web era is taking our lives.

Do We Love Commuting?
Is it really possible? Americans and their cultural hangers-on love to drive. Our culture (and tax code) is heavily stacked toward home ownership. Big houses and plots of land are considered birth rights of the middle class here. And to meet that, we would have to keep building outward from the urban cores for decades to come.

Won't those 30-, 45-, 6-, 90-minute commutes keep things under control? Not hardly. Commuting times have soared consistently since the 1950s and show no signs of stopping soon. And considering even the most entry level cars in 2010 are mobile palaces of HVAC, auto everything, entertainment and comfort -- commuting has become more of a positive respite from the outside world than a negative waste of time.

But people in 2010 also love to text. There's no question. And texting while driving is ridiculously dangerous. Most people I know have a "eureka" story with the phenomenon...a time when they were so lost in texting they nearly killed themselves in traffic, leading to a personal ban on such behavior in the car. Yet at stop lights, they text. In bumper-to-bumper, they text. And if it's really, really important...they text no matter what (despite nearly dying previously -- now that's love).

"I Don't Want a License, Dad"?
Perhaps it won't be my generation that starts seeing driving as a net negative to life...we're probably already too far in the "loving to drive" corner to give it up. But for the text crazy teens coming up now, I'd bet many would actually choose texting over driving if put to the choice. So perhaps after college, they will be drawn toward a lifestyle with less miles on the road all so they can keep avoiding actual conversation via awkward tiny keyboards.

Hard to tell. Maybe texting will simply vanish in the near future, replaced by something new. But love makes people nuts, and the text craze really doesn't make much "logical" sense to begin with. One thing is for sure, texting and driving cannot coexist happily. And that will lead to some kind of cultural shift.

Mike Hudson

 

 

Quick thought here on something that wasn't a very big deal, but for what it's worth, Bob Costas lambasted his production crew at the end of the NBC Olympics telecast last night for a video error, breaking the character of the effortless/flawless anchor we've known and loved. He had little barbs like "that had nothing to do with what we're talking about" and "we'll try to get our act together tomorrow" without so much as a wry smile.  

Not a huge deal, but it occurred to me I've seen this many times in recent months where TV personalities feel like pointing out mistakes made in production on the show. Or making a big deal out of mispronunciations. Or whatever. We've certain come a long way from the day of anchors making a mistake and soldiering on, hoping the audience would just forget about it. Is this an effect of our more casual relationship with media these days? We see them make mistakes on YouTube, or misspell things on Twitter or cursing out a production assistant when the cameras aren't rolling.

It's still weird. Why dog your production crew? Any thoughts appreciated...

--Mike Hudson

image credit: smcgee [Flickr]

Five minutes after my daughter was born, I was running around the delivery room to grab my Canon 40D and iPhone to take pictures. A minute later, I was uploading my iPhone 3G photos to Facebook. Within five minutes, I had shared this moment - these near term "memories" - with over 600 Facebook friends, but that wasn't enough. I needed to use my Flip to take some video, which I'd upload to Flickr for my mom and dad, who live in California.

As my wife and I wheeled towards to maternity ward, I felt an impulse to capture all of these moments and reach out to my friends via email and Facebook -- not to brag, but just to share in the thrill of it all.

When I settled down to sleep that night, I took stock of my incredible day, without question the best of my life, but I wondered to myself: to what degree did I live the day to the fullest versus trying to capture it via a viewfinder? I remembered two months earlier attending my second cousin's 1st birthday. It too was a joyous, great event, but I smiled to myself as I saw all the parents scrambling to capture the perfect shots, for a single photo might have missed something. At the time, I thought they had "missed" something - the event itself and perhaps participating in it in real time, choosing to use the latest technology to be able to appreciate it later.

It could just be me believing that with my unswerving faith in progress and technology - with the endless possibility of capturing (photo, video, text, image, etc.) and sharing (via blog, Tweet, Facebook status update) - that I am capturing and sharing more than I am living and enjoying the moment.

As I watched the recent Paul McCartney DVD of his performances at CitiField, with the audience aglow in digital cameras, it became somewhat clear that I'm not alone.

Consequently, I think I'm going to start trying to "carpe diem" instead of "capture diem"... that is right after I post this blog post, so everyone can know what I'm thinking.

Jonathan Cohen

Google recently released Goggles which is arguably the broadest reaching AR program available to date. If you are not familiar, it allows you to do two things:

1. Snap a photo of anything and automatically search for results based on images and text within the photo
2. See location and direction specific google maps results by pointing your camera in any direction

The potential of this tool is that of most augmented reality: quick, easy and highly relevant information. This is also another avenue (along with voice recognition software) for mobile devices without a keypad to access search functionality. To see Google's description of benefits check out the video here.

From my tests the text processing works well so things like book covers, business card, and anything with a URL on it return useful results. Goggles was able to identify flat logos but had much more trouble with 3D object logos, for example it immediately identified a Dodge logo on a sticker, but was not able to identify the Dodge logo on the grill of a Nitro.

While many augmented reality apps have been released recently, Goggles is the strongest indication that augmented reality is coming to the masses quickly. If using the camera on you mobile device to gather information and navigate on foot becomes a commonly adopted behavior this has significant implications to marketers.

How Google Goggles Could Impact Marketing
Many things can be done (or not done) with regard to products and storefronts to provide more value to customers and make shopping easier. An analogy is the way natural search, paid search, and search engine optimization work in concert. Users will see naturally occurring results regardless of where they are.

At some point in the future those results could have paid listing next to them or could be enhanced in some way. For example if a person is walking down the street looking for a place to get a coffee they see a Starbucks .25 miles away and next to that appears an ad for Mom and Pop Coffee Shop .5 miles away. So the person is made aware of a local option just a little further away.

Finally products and store fronts will be able to be optimized to better market themselves. For example logos could be optimized to be easily photographable (make them 2D not 3D). Search results could be specific to a model number to provide end users the most important information. For example if I were in market for a new car and saw one that I liked on the street photographing the trim level/logo could return results of fast it accelerates, the mpg and the cost if search results were properly optimized.

My guess is that Layers on Google maps will offer a lot of opportunities for augmented reality marketing through Goggles. Definitely a product to watch over the next year.

Russ Hopkinson
@rhops

The word is out. The Twitter account ShitMyDadSays is going to broadcast. And it's not the first Twitter sensation to land a TV show. In May, we reported that networks might be developing a series based on Twitter. And back in September it was announced that Texts From Last Night is being picked up by Fox.

These account holders are selling out. I don't think their followers will follow them over to the boob tube. Here's why:

1. Censoring. How are they going to get away with saying the F-word on prime time? Maybe they'll take lessons from Battle Star Galatica and make up a new word. Frak? Uh, not so riveting anymore.

2. Lost in translation. Voice to text then back to voice again. Yeah, both ShitMyDadSays and Texts From Last Night originated as something that supposedly happened in real life. But the humor is in the short tweet delivery. Build a 23-minute (I'm giving them a 7-minute commercial break) story around things like, "she sang that 'this little piggy song' to my balls. and somehow made it work, with me only having two balls instead of five." That alone is funny. I really don't want to know the whole story around it. Or, "If mom calls, tell her I'm shitting... Son, marriage is about not having to lie about taking a shit." Are you laughing? I am. But I wouldn't be watching an old man walking into a bathroom. TMI.

3. Too much of a good thing. These accounts have a ton of followers because people get a good laugh once a day or so. Cram it into a half-hour segment every week and it'll get old fast.

4. Wrong audience. Who's reading this on Twitter? The largest users are 30-plus-somethings. Who's watching TV? According to a study on the big networks released last year, it's 50-plusers. I'm not sure my dad would think someone of my generation making a mockery out of what he said is funny.

5. Wrong message. Sure, most sitcoms are simply a bunch of one-off jokes somehow wrapped into a short story. I can't think of many interesting stories around a guy living with his dad. Seems pretty depressing to me. Texts From Last Night isn't any better. It'd be like one big party. A bunch of kids going out every night. What kind of message does that send our youth?

Will Justin keep tweeting quotes once his show airs? I would think he's save all his material for the show. So all those 742,593 readers (as of today) will have to find something else to laugh at. Or maybe he'd still tweet and save the best material for TV, turning his Twitter stream into a second string. In either case, both ShitMyDadSays and Texts From Last Night have jumped the shark.

How long before you stop following?

Update: The link and quote for Texts From Last Night above were originally posted incorrectly. They have now been corrected.

Sarah Jo Sautter

Editor's Note: This is an excerpt of a document created for a client who was new to digital marketing and wanted some context for making better marketing decisions. Consider it a useful primer for anyone who needs a history lesson in how we got to where we are today.

"In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists. " - Eric Hoffer

The Good Old Days
In an era that now seems as antiquated as betamax, advertising was once simply a message created by an agency and distributed through mass media channels to a large passive audience.

It was one-way communication knotted to a piece of popular content, eagerly gobbled up by the viewer, reader or listener. Creating content was difficult and distribution channels were owned properties which created a power structure that favored the publisher of content. Enter the Internet.

Web 1.0 (Also the Good Old Days)
Like a telephone in a world of telegrams, Interactive changed the game by allowing user to interact with the content and with each other around the content. Users could choose what was interesting to them, when they wanted to view it and create a personalized experience. Remember the thrill of the "You've Got Mail" voice popping up, or setting Yahoo to display NFL scores every time you showed up?

As web publishing became easier and access to the internet grew, the proliferation of websites exploded allowing users to choose from millions of sources of content on demand or to create their own. This began the transformation of the media industry.

Channels that were once held by a small number of companies were opened to consumer and any digitized content was easily sharable. Now consumers started to question their existing media consumption.

Did you know the FCC touched cell phones, satellite dishes, internet, broadcast (TV & Cable), radio and telephone? Traditionally they've struggled with emerging technologies. However, when Obama appointed Julius Genachowski as the FCC chairman back in January, we knew their focus would shift from traditional to digital and a true consumer positive focus.

The shift is happening and there are some true wins for the consumer. With this shift you can:

- understand your cell phone bill and figure out why there are overages because of the Truth-in-Billing policy.

- share files legally the way you want to without having the network block you because they don't like the content provider you chose, thanks to the Net Neutrality policies.

- make choices about ISPs based on how they manage their traffic. Why does this matter, if you do a lot of peer-to-peer file sharing you may be being blocked, the network isn't down. Transparency would require ISPs to inform paying subscribers about how they manage their network traffic.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The FCC is beginning to look at cell phones with a consumer focus as well. The idea of one phone, one network may be going by the wayside. Apple won't be able to block Google, Skype or other apps.

What does all of this mean? Genachowski seems to be on the right track, he seems more involved but in a good way. Not regulating what I want to watch or listen too, that's my job. He's actually protecting the consumer.

Kari Girade

In our business, it's easy to get overly sentimental about the Internet. I'm not checking my email with this new multiplatform app on my iPhone... I'm now going through an experience! I'm not sending tedious updates about my day to a vacuous pool of navel gazer... …I'm social engaged! So on and so forth.

In life, I tend to be more romantic about the chores of daily life - …so I fit right into an industry hopelessly in love with itself, the possibilities of the future and the search for human meaning in the modern technology era.

But there's a crumb of discomfort with the praise for Web, in my mind. Perhaps it's academic, but I believe it is fundamental and important. It crystallized while watching a PBS documentary about Martin Luther's writings changing the world via the printing press. Before the printing press, Luther could never have gained the political support he needed to challenge the Roman church. He would have been put to death or silenced as dozens of others had been. His cultural impact on society could not have happened without that invention.

It hit me: we have yet to experience something as fundamentally unique with our current use of the Internet. It is less like the astrolabe making global navigation possible and more like enjoying the benefits of a movie on DVD as opposed to VHS.

It sounds strange to say, given the way the Internet's impact on every person I know. But on some flow chart somewhere in my head, this thing is still just replicating other forms of media in a shinier package. Movies, TV, letters, journalism, music, common chit chat - …all things we did before. With the Internet, these things are now consumed or achieved more efficiently, but perhaps not quite as differently as it gets credit for.

An example: In banking, I'd argue that the ATM fundamentally changed the way the economy works by affecting consumption patterns. Not just a matter of convenience, the ATM became the new front line of Western consumer capitalism. Academic understanding of this led to important actions around ATM banking at historic moments that came to pass. Post Sept. 11, 2001, the Fed took emergency measures to shore up the money supply as Americans "hoarded" cash during a time of instability. During the financial sector meltdown of 2008, economists theorized that the modern bank collapse would "hit Main Street" when ATMs ran out of cash…an event that would cause something in the realm of riots and mayhem.

If your banking Web site went down, would society come unraveled? Would anyone argue that?

On and on my mind goes…an artist displaying photos, a musician distributing songs. These things are now handled differently, but the art itself is unchanged. The Internet has only served to make these things more readily available and (ahem) disposable.

Little email forwards were the ditto'd cartoons posted in break rooms of years gone by. The 15 second video of the guy getting hit in the crotch with a flying cat is the discount bloopers VHS tape of 1985. I watch baseball anywhere, anytime…but is the game now different? Even fantasy sports were played years before Web-based applications by nerds via the postal system.

Unlike the cinema, the television, the telegraph, the radio wave, the printing press, the camera, the University, the democracy…the Internet still has yet to achieve anything truly new, despite making things faster and more widespread. Sure, it's a bit precious of a point to make, but for all the credit the Internet gets in changing the world, so far it has not pushed itself beyond the humble postage stamp in terms of creating a new way of life for society. Are we smarter? More happy? Did this thing change who we truly are? Or are we just doing the same things in a different way?

Is the world more different pre/post Internet than it was pre/post internal combustion engine? I have no doubt someday it will be, but for now…, the answer is no. Maybe it will be around social media as we gather our minds and consciousness in new and different ways. But not until we're at least 10 steps beyond our current understanding of it. Maybe it will be around mobile technology, keeping us linked to the cultural mainframe without borders. But not until hardware becomes more fundamental and seamless.

I guess that means we have some work to do. But hey, that's what keeps me coming back for more.

Mike Hudson

One month ago yesterday, a 28-year-old Justin Halpern launched a Twitter page wherein he tweets out quotes from his 73-year-old father Sam. See, some time earlier Justin had moved back into his folks' house in San Diego. Initially, he quoted his dad in the status line of his instant messaging account. Later a friend suggested he use Twitter. On August 3rd, Justin launched the feed with this missive from Sam.

"I didn't live to be 73 years old so I could eat kale. Don't fix me your breakfast and pretend you're fixing mine."

Sam is a preternaturally quotable old cuss, whose penchant for colorful language didn't take long to become the signature feature of most of the daily updates. By mid-month Sam had hit his stride.

"My flight lands at 9:30 on Sunday...You want to watch what? What the fuck is mad men? I'm a mad man if you don't pick me the hell up."

With material like this, the number of followers exploded. Approaching 250,000 now, this page now has a follower total more than three times that of two-time NBA MVP Steve Nash and two-thirds of the way to Tina Fey. With hundreds of people adding SMDS every hour, the stream has now attracted the attention of the publishing media. According to the LA Times, Justin has signed with an agent and is considering offers from publishers. Sure, he was already a writer for Maxim. But it's only been 31 days.  Twenty-nine tweets. This has to be the craziest ratio of writerly output to popular and industry response in history. Justin's not even within shouting distance of 1,000 words yet, but a quarter million people appear to be hanging on damn near every one of them.

And therein lies the lesson. As anyone who's ever tried to grab your attention with 14 words on a banner ad can attest, sometimes a highly condensed story can have much of the character, nuance, and narrative arc of its bigger brethren. Creating the right mechanism of delivery is tricky. But Justin and his dad sure cram a lot of story into those 140 characters. And it seems to resonate more than a little bit. With all of those people tuning in to read what Justin's dad has to say, those little stories--that are all part of a bigger story--are starting to develop some muscle. Sometimes the old man even talks about products. Mrs. Dash: thumbs up. Maker's Mark. Aye. Jim Beam, Kate Beckinsale, not so lucky. At this rate Sam will have a Super Bowl spot by January. Well, maybe I'm getting ahead of the story. But, at least a free case of Mrs. Dash should be already on its way.

Daniel Turman

PS. Hat tip to Craig Ritchie for breaking this news for me. On Twitter, of course.

Digital divide refers to the societal and knowledge gap between the people with effective access to digital information, and those who do not have ready access. It was once a hot topic, but does not get much air time these days. Is it because people have become jaded about the subject or are too busy social-networking to pay attention? Or maybe, just maybe, digital divide is getting less pressing because the same technologies at the heart of the problem have been put to use to combat the very issue.

A good example is the ACCESS program in Alabama. ACCESS is an educational program that provides Alabama public high school students the opportunity to engage in Advanced Placement (AP), elective and other classes that they don't typically have access to or could be losing access to due to budget/curriculum changes. The Economist reports:

"The state has many small, rural schools. Because of their size, and the relative scarcity of specialised teachers, course offerings have been limited. Students might have had to choose between chemistry or physics, or stop after two years of Spanish. ... In 2005 the governor, Bob Riley, announced a pilot programme called Alabama Connecting Classrooms Educators and Students Statewide, or ACCESS. The idea was to use internet and videoconferencing technology to link students in one town to teachers in another. ... In 2006 students took more than 4,000 courses at 24 schools. In 2008, with ACCESS now in more schools, the number exceeded 22,000. Administrators are finding new ways to liven up the experience. Last year a dozen schools went on a 'virtual field trip' to Antarctica, with scientists beamed in by satellite."

What do you think? Could digital actual help decrease the educational divide?

Read the full Economist article here.

Fang-Yu Lin