Apple TV

My present to myself this holiday season was an Apple TV. I resisted as long as I did because we don’t buy a lot of movies at the iTunes store, although we do watch Netflix on the TV.

Up to now, I’d hook up my laptop, a small but cumbersome step. On the other hand, it enabled us to watch the original Star Trek episodes on CBS.com (I’m indoctrinating my kids) as well as ESPN3 European soccer. Unfortunately, we still won’t be able to watch either of those (or Hulu or Boxee) on Apple TV.

Yes Apple TV isn’t perfect. But what it does, it does very well. And I think it has a killer app, especially for families: photos on your TV.

Maybe to some that doesn’t sound so exciting. But we have thousands upon thousands of digital pictures that we rarely look through. Computers are not great tools for doing things together. When we, as a society, switched from printed pictures to digital pictures, we increased individual sharing (sending pictures, posting them on Flickr) so many people could see them, but we lost group sharing of people sitting down together to look at pictures together. Losing that togetherness lost a lot of texture around the past and present experience.

Apple TV changes that. Since I installed it, we’ve been looking at our old pictures almost non-stop, as a family. And, we’re having a blast watching and remembering, together. The event that got me off my butt to finally buy this device was when my sister Janice and I dug out our old family slides and had an old fashioned slide show at my Mom’s house. It was awesome. That’s what Apple TV brings back.

It’s not only the photos, though. Netflix runs great through Apple TV. And if you have a lot of home movies, like we do, and don’t want to have to create DVDs to watch them, this device is for you.

My wish is that Apple steps up to the plate and “Appifies” the device. I can imagine a number of iPad apps I would love to have on AppleTV. Web browsing being one of them.

But if you have a family, or take lots of pictures and movies, like we do, at $99 this is a complete no brainer. If for no other reason than it sure beats hooking up the laptop several times a week!

 

Is it (digital, social, marketing) worth it?

I just read a blog post encouraging the financial services industry to stay away from social media. The focus of the post was that social media was way too expensive and there was no proven ROI, so banks and credit unions should avoid it completely.

As I’ve written before: social media isn’t for everyone. But on the other hand a blanket rejection of it seems just as extreme as forcing it upon every business. The biggest problem I have with arguments like these (even though they do wonders for blog traffic and comments, see Mitch Joel’s post here) is that they provide convenient excuses to do nothing at all.

And the question is: is it better to do nothing, to do something or to do the right thing?

Nothing is always an option. Doing nothing won’t move you forward but it may not move you backwards (at least in the short term). In the long term, doing nothing will move you backwards, if for no other reason that everyone else is moving forward while you stay put.

Doing something is active, even if it’s not always correct. The challenge with something is doing too much of it without a plan, and not learning from it. Even if you don’t do the right thing, you can always learn positive or negative lessons by doing something. It should make you smarter the next time. If you look at something as a continuous test, you always win. Of course there are many instances of people and companies doing something that doesn’t work and then throwing their hands in the air while saying, “See, I told you we shouldn’t have done something!”

Doing the right thing requires careful planning, strategy, execution and measurement. Doing the right thing doesn’t need to be grand or expensive, it simply needs thinking before doing, and counting while doing. In one way or another, you always end up ahead when you do the right thing.

Saying that every company shouldn’t start grand, thoughtless, expensive social marketing campaigns is a non-starter. Why bother arguing with something like that? But as marketers in a changing consumer landscape, we need to adapt, learn and try, even if we fail. And the only way we do that is to do something.

I understand that some people are afraid of failure, change and risk. Most financial institutions, but not all, fit that description. It’s still not an excuse to ignore how people live and act today.

 

Digital Growth: Scale or Jobs?

Investors are flocking back to digital, after surviving one dot com bubble ten years ago. Venture capitalists are pouring money into social networks looking for the next big thing. What does the next big thing look like?

Right now it probably looks like Facebook or Twitter, two social networks that have the advantage of scale. What that means is that they are built on relatively simple platforms geared for growth. The more people who participate in these social networks, the larger the platforms grow. The best thing about these investments, from a VC standpoint, is that you don’t need to scale up the number of employees to match the growth of the platform.

The value of these scalable social networks is size and a promise: once the network gets big enough, you can monetize it (eyeballs being the operative word ten years ago, while today we use engagement).

On the other hand, there are a few social companies that don’t scale well. James Surowiecki wrote a telling article about Groupon in this week’s New Yorker. Groupon’s product is labor intensive. They need to find deals and then help promote them. Groupon has 40 million subscribers and 3,000 employees. The scalable Facebook, on the other hand, has 500 million users and 2,000 employees.

One big difference is that Groupon has made money from the get go. So if you were an investor, would you invest in the sexy promise of scale, or the slower, profitable labor-intensive value? 

To be honest, after reading that article, I have even greater respect for Groupon. Why? Because they’re providing the jobs we need in the digital sector. That’s something we usually don’t talk about all that often. Yes it’s great that Twitter and Foursquare can start up with a few people. But it will be really great when they provide hundreds or thousands of digital workers with inspiring jobs.

The digital age has made us nothing if not impatient. We want things bigger, faster and cheaper. The Groupon story also poses a good question for all of us:

What type of business are you building? For quick scaling or growth through jobs?

Review: Buy In

I just read John Kotter’s new book “Buy In: Saving Your Good Idea from Getting Shot Down.” One of the hazards of reading the Harvard Business Blogs is that they have a number of enticing books they promote on the site. Although I have piles of un- or half-read business books in my home and work offices, I couldn’t resist. After all, who doesn’t want more people to say, “Yes” to his or her idea?

Before I get to the content, I have to say that Kotter and Whitehead did a great job writing this business advice book as a story. That’s right, they wrote it as one continuous story, rather than strictly as advice or in scenarios. Then they analyzed the story. It’s a smart technique and one that makes the book easier and more interesting to read.

This book is not about creating good ideas, or fighting for your idea in competition with others. No, this book is about presenting your ideas to groups who have the power to shoot it down without offering anything better in return. Anyone who works in any type of corporate atmosphere (big or small) or has to sell their ideas to client groups or any other type of committee will recognize the story.

It’s unfortunate that we have a world filled with people who get juiced by saying “No.” Ego, power and personal dysfunction keep a lot of good ideas from coming to life. “Buy In” offers descriptions and strategies for deflecting criticisms without turning off your supporters.

The authors offer 24 basic attacks on ideas. They include examples such as:

• What about this, and that, and this and that
• Sounds like something [most people dislike] to me
• No one else does this!
• It sounds too simplistic to work
• We tried it before and it didn’t work

If you’re like me, you’ve heard a lot of these before. Most of us would just like to shoot the smug, self-absorbed twits who throw these in our way. Perhaps the best advice in the book is how to NOT take these questions personally but how to respond with the utmost respect. Hey, no one said it would be easy.

I think this book is a worthwhile read if you have to present to, and get approval from, people who have little understanding and insight as to what you’re proposing. At some point I did have the feeling that the advice was a little manipulative but on further reflection I realized that the problems in the book describe a particular, and important, point in time. But it’s a point where a lot of good thinking (not to mention time) can go down the drain due to someone else’s personal agenda. 

Now, to put this into practice… 

The Dustbin of History

I couldn't resist. Enjoy.

Digital Talk is Cheap

Everywhere in meeting rooms across the country, agencies, marketing groups and C-levels are talking up the need for their companies to “go digital” or “get digital” and in some places “be post-digital.” Plans are hatched to hire more talent, to infuse the enterprise with a new culture, to become social and to follow the shift consumers have already undertaken. Campaigns are launched, offices are moved and everyone can sit back and pat each other on the back. Right?

Wrong.

Here’s one of the reason’s marketers are in such a frenzy. This is from Mary Meeker’s great presentation on Internet Trends.

People have shifted their time to digital, but marketers have not. It’s the combined fault of slow shifting agencies and even slower shifting marketing departments.

During the last two years almost everyone has jumped, or talked about jumping, on the social media bandwagon as a key digital initiative, for example. They look at Facebook’s growing influence as proof that they should act.

But starting a Facebook page is cheap. Imbuing a social media culture in your company is hard.

The same Morgan Stanley report shows the how handheld computing devices (smart phones and tablet devices) will outsell desktops and laptop computers as early as 2012.

But naming someone as Chief Experience Officer is cheap. Imbuing a two-way, handheld, digital culture in your company is extremely hard.

I’m hope all this talk is necessary to get where we need to go. But I wonder, sometimes, if it’s more of a smoke screen for not taking the hard steps needed to move forward. Words are free, but actions, budgets and change are not.

If you can't lend an e-book, is it still a book?

Ever since I purchased my iPad in June, I’ve been reading more literature (as opposed to business books) than I have in years. I have iBooks and a Kindle reader on my iPad. When I was headed out on a vacation this summer, I realized I didn’t have a good book with me, and it was too late to go to the bookstore. It was only then that I realized that I had, not one, but two amazing book stores with me.

That started me on a book-buying binge that’s continued unabated throughout the year. I have to admit that my brain is very happy to take a break from the digital/social/marketing/future/business books that rise like towers of paper cities in my office. Not that there’s anything wrong with these books; many of them are incredibly inspiring. But since we’re in the communications business, shouldn’t we read more stories?

Who am I to say what others should read. All I know is that the novels I’ve read have stimulated more creative ideas than I expected. Reading one of those also makes me sleep and dream better.

There’s just one big, humongous problem with e-books, whether they come from Apple, Amazon or, now, Google. The problem is that it’s impossible to share a book. Actually I think that if you can’t share it, we shouldn’t call it a book.

Many of the best books I’ve read in my life have come from someone else’s library. Friends have not only recommended books, they’ve lent them to me after they’ve finished reading them. When it works, it usually starts a lifelong loyalty to specific authors. 

It stinks that I can’t lend e-books I’ve read to my friends and family. And I’m certainly not lending them my iPad. The only way I’ve seen to do this is to log into my accounts on someone else’s device, which seems overly burdensome.

I understand the copyright and piracy issues. If the big guys can figure this out for music, they need to figure this out for e-books. Until they do, maybe I’ll just call them e-wordcollections.

Propagation Planning or PR Influencing?

Over the last year or so Griffin Farley, strategy director at BBH New York, has been working on what he calls “Propagation Planning.” To oversimplify his main thesis, he’s trying to get marketers to focus their attention on people who influence others, rather than end users or end consumers. By shifting the focus you open up the potential of influencing purchasing decisions through personal recommendations, rather than trying to drive home brand or rational benefits through your media.

Here’s a great presentation he gave at the Bolder Digital Works New York conference.

Griffin Farley_Propagation Planning

View more presentations from Boulder Digital Work at CU.

I’m starting to use Griffin’s propagation planning brief for my client strategies and it’s been a successful too to shift mindsets. It’s funny what happens when you get someone to focus their attentions in new areas; it opens the floodgates for great ideas.

One of the easiest examples to understand comes from the Great Shlep idea for the Obama campaign. When faced with the challenge of elderly Jewish, democratic voters who were skeptical of voting for Obama (and who had been on the receiving end of some anti-Obama propaganda emails), the Obama campaign decided to not solely rely on rational messaging.

Instead, they enlisted comedian Sarah Silverman to enlist young Jewish Obama enthusiast to convince their Floridian grandparents to vote for Obama. What an insight! If there’s a force no Jewish grandparent can resist, it’s their grandchildren (with their own children, not so much). 

One challenge I see in a number of examples of propagation planning is where does the new propagation planning start and the old, public relations influencer campaign end? The recycling campaign of the 70’s and 80’s in the U.S. that targeted school children to influence their parents (and completely shifted the recycling landscape here) was a beautifully executed PR influencer campaign. Or was it? Maybe it was propagation planning and we didn’t even know it!

An example that made the rounds recently is a campaign by L’Oreal to target hairdressers to influence their customers to get HIV tested. The campaign includes kits to hairdressers and in person events, along with some Web and social channels. It takes an ad copy line: “Only your hairdresser knows for sure” and puts a modern, helpful twist on it. You can read more about it here.

It’s a great idea. But it seems more like the recycling idea than the great shlep idea. It seems more like a classic PR influencer campaign than ad agency propagation campaign: Target your influencer, send them something, do something in real life, get press, create buzz and word of mouth and you get results.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs here. But I see a difference, however subtle.

When a group is clearly defined (hairdressers, teachers, students) that feels more like a PR influencer campaign. When the group is much looser (Jewish grandchildren, women who want their men to smell better) that’s Propagation Planning (the latter is the propagation focus of Old Spice). While the intent may be the same, the way you get to both of those influencers or propagators requires different approaches and tactics.

Perhaps the difference is simply that creative groups and PR groups don’t collaborate as much as they should. So they end up calling the same things they do by different names. 

I think Propagation Planning is awesome. I love PR influencer campaigns. Great work includes both. But I don’t think they’re exactly the same thing.

Propagation Planning or PR Influencing?

Over the last year or so Griffin Farley, strategy director at BBH New York, has been working on what he calls “Propagation Planning.” To oversimplify his main thesis, he’s trying to get marketers to focus their attention on people who influence others, rather than end users or end consumers. By shifting the focus you open up the potential of influencing purchasing decisions through personal recommendations, rather than trying to drive home brand or rational benefits through your media.

Here’s a great presentation he gave at the Bolder Digital Works New York conference.

Griffin Farley_Propagation Planning

View more presentations from Boulder Digital Work at CU.

I’m starting to use Griffin’s propagation planning brief for my client strategies and it’s been a successful too to shift mindsets. It’s funny what happens when you get someone to focus their attentions in new areas; it opens the floodgates for great ideas.

One of the easiest examples to understand comes from the Great Shlep idea for the Obama campaign. When faced with the challenge of elderly Jewish, democratic voters who were skeptical of voting for Obama (and who had been on the receiving end of some anti-Obama propaganda emails), the Obama campaign decided to not solely rely on rational messaging.

Instead, they enlisted comedian Sarah Silverman to enlist young Jewish Obama enthusiast to convince their Floridian grandparents to vote for Obama. What an insight! If there’s a force no Jewish grandparent can resist, it’s their grandchildren (with their own children, not so much). 

One challenge I see in a number of examples of propagation planning is where does the new propagation planning start and the old, public relations influencer campaign end? The recycling campaign of the 70’s and 80’s in the U.S. that targeted school children to influence their parents (and completely shifted the recycling landscape here) was a beautifully executed PR influencer campaign. Or was it? Maybe it was propagation planning and we didn’t even know it!

An example that made the rounds recently is a campaign by L’Oreal to target hairdressers to influence their customers to get HIV tested. The campaign includes kits to hairdressers and in person events, along with some Web and social channels. It takes an ad copy line: “Only your hairdresser knows for sure” and puts a modern, helpful twist on it. You can read more about it here.

It’s a great idea. But it seems more like the recycling idea than the great shlep idea. It seems more like a classic PR influencer campaign than ad agency propagation campaign: Target your influencer, send them something, do something in real life, get press, create buzz and word of mouth and you get results.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs here. But I see a difference, however subtle.

When a group is clearly defined (hairdressers, teachers, students) that feels more like a PR influencer campaign. When the group is much looser (Jewish grandchildren, women who want their men to smell better) that’s Propagation Planning (the latter is the propagation focus of Old Spice). While the intent may be the same, the way you get to both of those influencers or propagators requires different approaches and tactics.

Perhaps the difference is simply that creative groups and PR groups don’t collaborate as much as they should. So they end up calling the same things they do by different names. 

I think Propagation Planning is awesome. I love PR influencer campaigns. Great work includes both. But I don’t think they’re exactly the same thing.