well worth a read - the case for banning advertising to children (and a neat behavioural example of how to get agencies to support something - make a Cannes award for it!)
Smart thoughts, great analogies, and some real insights on the social world and why it isn't the same as advertising. in fact why it is the opposite of advertising. Advertising is the brand's view of the world: social is everyone else's
As well as being a neat and original idea, Pocketgame also has some very smart judges whose advice applies to far more things than making pocket games. Like this post by Mark Earls, which applies to designing anything that spreads. Which is really the only sort of thing that people working on ideas for brands want to design
Advice from Pocketgame judge Mark Earls, sets out some basic principles of social interaction for the benefit of contestants
To be honest, I don’t know much about game design. Or games.
But I do know a bit about human behaviour, how to get people to try new behaviours and how it spreads.
So if you thinking about entering something for Pocketgame here are some thoughts that might prove useful:
The play’s the thing
First, don’t think “game design”, think play-engine. What matters is the play – the behaviour that you want to encourage; the game is just an excuse or platform for the play. It’s all too easy to get caught up in the thing you’re making and forget the point of it. As Tom Hanks famously observed in the movie Big, “playing with a building – where’s the fun in that”. Yes, fun is often the casualty of poor game design…
Simples
Which means making your game easy to start. That’s E-A-S-Y. Simples, as the meerkat twitches. Of course, as the game progresses things can be made more complicated, but the start needs to feel easy
Steal
One way to achieve this is to base it on a behaviour that your players already have. One of the most important factors in the success of the Wii platform is that you don’t need any game-console experience to start playing. Play tennis? Right, you can play tennis on the Wii. So the conclusion here is to start with what players already know and do. Maybe the whole game is just a twist on something that already exists (though please don’t go down the Star Trek 3 Dimensional Chess route…)
Winning is good
Let people win. Quickly, too (at least, to start with). We all need feedback that what we’re doing is the right kind of thing and that we’re doing well at it.
So far so good. You’ve got a simple, easy game based on behaviours that the audience already know; a game that folk can do well it quickly. The real success of games though is when folks see each other playing them – without this, you’re going to have to rely on teaching all new players yourself.
I’ll have what she’s having
Make game-play visible – really visible. Because if people can’t see a. the fun that’s being had b. the victory and losses being enjoyed and c. the excitement other observers are also picking up, it won’t spread either.
Of course, yours could just be a wicked piece of trickery and all of this a waste of your time but it can’t hurt, eh?
Think Technology Will Bring You Closer to the Consumer? Think Again
Why a Chasm Is Growing Between Consumers and Marketing
Posted by Oren Frank on 06.17.10 @ 10:09 AM
Intuitively, it makes sense to believe that we all live in a post-digital age, and that we're all fully matured, "digital" consumers. We now assume that technology is an abundance instead of a scarcity, and that the computing grid will be there for us wherever and whenever we want it -- just as we expect the light to turn on when we flip the switch. Although, as consumers, most of us live in 2010, when we look at ourselves as marketers and agencies, many still inhabit a parallel and irrelevant universe. Although common sense would suggest that the gap between marketers and consumers is shrinking, I believe that it is actually growing wider.
Oren Frank Look at the iPad launch as an example: The iPad, along with other readers, is possibly one of the last lifelines for the publishing industry, yet almost all big publishers still massively under-leverage this phenomenal device. The NYT, News Corp. and most others have yet to launch a decent application for the iPad, and most of the ones that did (yes, even Wired) basically launched branded and half-baked PDF readers. In a world where being first to market is probably the key success factor, I believe that this could be the last iceberg some of these organizations will see in the future. (Anyone mention Newsweek?) Unsurprisingly, it's the smaller, nimbler developers that managed to quickly launch clever applications that demonstrate the true potential of the iPad and its interface; Look at Pulse, Moodboard, Godfinger or even Gilt as a few examples.
There is a simple explanation for this: The acceleration of technology and the growth of digital networks are obeying Moore's and Metcalfe's laws, both of which are playing nicely together in the silicon sandbox of exponential growth. In other words, acceleration itself is accelerated and becoming exponential. This is not a mathematical or a theoretical discussion, but a practical one concerning our lifestyles. Where it differs significantly from the past is that very same acceleration delivering new technology also makes it simpler, easier to use and much more intuitive than ever. When we look at modern mobile devices, computers and the internet, we notice that consumers -- young and old, geeky and geek-chic deficient -- all are adopting it faster than ever, and now really "need" a new gadget every few months rather than years.
As modern consumers, we have an intuitive and natural ability to integrate and synthesize information, communications and services, and reduce it into a coherent view of the world. But, as marketers, most of us still work at siloed organizations that are built in a hierarchical and vertical way, reflecting an ancient management paradigm. Such structures can only change (if at all) in a linear and slow way. The perfectly logical conclusion is that, when consumers are changing exponentially with technology, and marketing organizations don't, the gap between us as consumers and "us" as marketers is growing wider. Not sure? Try running some research following the behavior of your "young and friendly" CMO as a consumer, and compare it to her or his media-spending allocation. It's as if we follow two separate sets of rules.
Alvin Toffler said that "the illiterate of the 21st century will not be the ones that cannot read or write, but those who cannot learn, un-learn and re-learn." I believe this perfectly encapsulates the zeitgeist: As marketing professionals operating in an industry where change is a constant, we must commit to learning as a part of what we do. Please allow me to spell it out: Anyone not following a couple of dozen feeds hasn't got the slightest chance to keep with the pace and remain relevant -- let alone be ahead of the curve.
To be truly competitive, we must build innovation-driven, shape-shifting, super-fast and customer-centric organizations -- and that's just the price of entry. Beyond that, it's all about investing in people who love change and learning as a part of their personality. Add an open approach, a passion for innovation and technology and an ability to truly collaborate with others, and we're on our way to painfully and slowly narrowing the gap. How many such people does your agency or marketing discipline employ today?
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
the ever increasing difference between how brands and people act, between how individual marketers act personally and professionally, and between the concepts of 'at work' and 'not at work' - the geographical concept of 'work' particularly seems outdated to me
News Corp rebuffed after £7.8bn offer to buy remainder of Sky
The independent directors of BSkyB have rejected an offer from Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation of 700p a share for the 60.9% of the company not already owned by News Corp. In a statement to the city the independent directors said following advice from investment banks Morgan Stanley and UBS they believe the offer significantly underestimates the value of BSkyB.
The independent directors have indicated to News Corp that they would have been able to support a proposal if it would deliver more than 800p a share or higher.
50 cities visualised by location that tourists take photos vs locations locals take photos, powered by the Flickr API, Navteq maps, and a supreme level of genius by Eric Fischer
all thse really useful stuff from Sept 09 (from April 09 data) updated for a whole year of extra Android data - plus lots predictions about PC/mobile, smartphone/featurephone, incumbent/innovator
Is advertising the next casualty of the ongoing digital tsunami? For now, advertising looks like the patient who developed an asymptomatic form of cancer without realizing how sick he is. Such behavior usually results from excessive confidence in one’s body’s past performance, mixed with a state of permanent denial and a deep sense of superiority, all aided by a complacent environment. The digital graveyard is filled with the carcasses of utterly confident people who all shared this sense of invincibility. The music industry and, to some extent, the news business built large mausoleums for themselves. Today, the advertising industry is working on its own funeral monument.
Before performing media oncology tests and discussing possible treatments, let me describe which soapbox I’m standing on. Each time I raise the issue of advertising trailing behind the digital train, I get two responses: Media execs nod sagely and later explain how they intend to progressively circumvent the ad food-chain; advertising people breezily dismiss my remarks: ”Anyway, you don’t like us.” Untrue.
First, I’m in the same boat as many of my friends in the news media: A significant part of my income, past and future, rides on advertising. Therefore, my pragmatic self-interest is to see digital advertising thrive.
Second, over my 25-year career, I have worked with ad people on many occasions. In the late ‘90s, for a year I even worked at a large ad agency, trying to evangelize for multimedia. I met interesting people there, even though I quickly realized we had little in common. And my last job as a managing editor was at a free newspaper that was 100 percent dependent on advertising.
I am far more open to this business than most of my journalistic colleagues are. No ideological posture or agenda on my part. Today’s note is the result of two years of observations and conversations with digital editors and publishers I met in Europe, the United States, or Asia.
Let’s face it. On digital media, advertising hasn’t delivered. In the news business, we have a rule of thumb: An electronic reader brings 15 to 20 times less in advertising revenue than a print reader does. I’ll stop short of saying this dire state of affairs is attributable only to advertising. Between inadequate interfaces, poor marketing, and the certainty that, just by itself, intellectual superiority entitles it to success, media carry their share of responsibility in this situation. But for the most part, it is the advertising community that missed the digital target.
Digital advertising sucks. Both on the Web and on mobile. There are two main reasons for this.
No. 1: Poor design. Where is the creative talent? Not in digital, that’s only too clear. Let’s face it: Most banners, skyscrapers, sliders, pop-ups, you name it, merely act as reader repellents. They end up as fodder for ad-blocking systems. Unfortunately, these defense mechanisms are thriving. A Google query for “ad block” yields 1.25 million pages that send you to dozens of browser add-ons. On Firefox, AdBlockPlus is the most used extension, with more than 80 million downloads and more than 10 million active users. The same goes for Chrome, whose ad-blocking extension is downloaded at a rate of 100,000 times a week and now has over 1 million users. For Internet Explorer, there are simply too many add-ons to count.
I spotted this comment in an excellent Guardian ad-blocking story.
<<BLOCKQUOTE>>I work for a digital advertising agency. Along with microsites, iPhone apps and long-form digital content, I make banners. Shitloads of them. And I use Adblock Plus. I also advise my friends and colleagues to use it too. This is because most advertising, online or otherwise, is utter crap. And banners contain some of the worst of the crap. Flickering, squiriming, farting, buzzing crap.
Another sign of the ad-design failure is Apple’s (AAPL) decision. Not only does Apple enter the mobile-ad business as a sales house, but Jobs’ company will also design ads, for a hefty $50,000 to $100,000 fee. Apple’s message is that the profession needs to reboot advertising graphical standards. How strange it is to see a technology company giving lectures on design to the very people who prided themselves for their creative brilliance.
No. 2: Badly sold, badly bought. Digital advertising high-tech products sold and purchased in the most low-tech way. One after the other, most technology aspects of the advertising business have slipped out of the hands of those who were supposed to own them: ad serving, data management, behavioral targeting, analytics—all are now controlled by engineering-driven companies.
In the process, the added value of media buying outlets has shrunk to a bare minimum, in which a bunch of twentysomethings are negotiating discounts with their counterparts in media. That’s the exact opposite of yield management.
Everyone laments that Google (GOOG), the ultimate geek machine, has absorbed a large part of the digital advertising business, but that’s just the logical consequence of an inability to invest in technical talent.
Three trends should cause the advertising community to stop and think harder about its future.
1) The technology dimension of the business will intensify. Competence and imagination will tend to be in the hands of small companies. As they already do, the biggest and the smartest ad outlets will want to acquire such talent pools. But they will face tech companies ready for a bidding war; see what happened in the mobile ad sector with the AdMob’s acquisition by Google and Quattro Wireless’ takeover by Apple—with the subsequent launch of iAd.
2) Media will have a strategic interest in boosting their CRM. They’ll invest in developing this crucial asset for their digital properties.
3) Media will tend to move up the ad production chain by having their own creative teams, working more closely with big advertisers. On that matter, Apple could give an interesting pitch: “We are the media, we spent time and money designing a good interface; we don’t want our work ruined by substandard advertising; let’s work directly with brands and concoct great campaigns that will benefit us, the advertiser, and the reader.” This could become a broader trend, spreading to other media, such as broadcast radio, neglected by today’s ad creatives.
Does this lead to the extinction of big advertising shops? Certainly not. First, there is the inertia factor; these companies remain quite wealthy, thanks to decades of solid rainmaking. Second, agencies still enjoy profitable strongholds in which their value-added is undisputed, such as outdoor, display, television, and print—and the associated media and strategic planning. Third, they have no shortage of good managers able to organize a turnaround … in due course.
It is hard to reform a fat-cat culture—from heavy margins, captive clients, cozy cronyism—to a more agile one in which technology and innovation drive the business. In this very respect, advertising and news media converge: Both have been late in hiring developers able to understand the specifics of their business. Because of their intrinsic vulnerabilities, the media have been the first to take a hit. If advertising wants to avoid a Jivaro-like downsizing, it needs to listen to the clock: It’s ticking away.
iAds as a symptom of a dying ad industry - or how in advertising Apple used to sell hardware for creative people to be creative on. Now the creative people have stopped being creative, Apple are having to do that for them too...
