Three Minds On Digital Marketing @ Organic

As a young kid, I spent a lot of time at my grandparent's place in Bushwick, Brooklyn. They were de facto babysitters for my sister and me, who had two working parents with afterschool childcare needs and the desire to preserve their sanity with the occasional evening out.

Grandpa used Old Spice. The image of the white bottle sitting on his dresser in front of the mirror, next to a pocket comb he didn't need; and the smell of him, musky island breeze, dark rum and cigarettes (yes, he smoked--you could still do it on planes back then) are forever stamped in my memory. That the brand took on the task of updating itself for today's man is no mystery; it was a necessity. And it was done quite well. Everyone, including me, loves The Man Your Man Could Smell Like. As a TV campaign the Mustafa work was executed flawlessly - it entertained; it brought the funny. It made me think about smelling like my grandfather--as a good thing.

And it also became an Internet hit because as it turns out, when you have a great piece of content--be it fifteen seconds of something user-generated, a documentary style five minute time-lapse, or a thirty-second spot originally developed for TV-- people will seek it out, as the Internet has enabled them to.

Several thousand, or perhaps millions of hits later it became clear that what we were watching wasn't just a Man On A Horse. It had the potential to become something much bigger. And it did become bigger. Enter Facebook, and customized responses to viewer questions from Mustafa. They're hilarious. People engaged with the new face of the brand and they had some fun with it. They enjoyed themselves. A hit.

Where's the miss?

It's a tricky question and the answer depends on your perspective. There may have been no miss, or, there might've been missed potential, or this might have been a hit that causes subsequent misses for brands taking a crack at the model.

Transparency demands that I admit to having no clue about how the Old Spice idea came to be, and that, for the purpose of discussion, I'm reconstructing the model of initiative development from the outside in. Those of us in digital will recognize it instantly:

The brand's traditional agency came up with a campaign idea, in the case of Old Spice, a really good one. The TV spots were developed, and somewhere along the way, (but after concept development) the need for a digital strategy was realized. The easy answer here: put the spots on a website along with some ringtones and wallpapers and the opportunity to buy. But this solution failed to harness the true power of social; where every marketer's head is these days. And Mustafa needed to live in the social space. Social media is the new viral (and by definition is viral). And so the Facebook tactic followed. Win. But...

The medium your campaign could act like

Miss? Why treat digital like TV? The TV experience is passive. It pushes messages at you. The beauty of digital is that it allows for interaction. That interaction should go further than the selection of which TV spot you want to watch or where to buy.

Mustafa now lives on Facebook and Twitter, yes. But that's no reason to keep you in the dark about his escapades while you're at oldspice.com is it? You might come back to the site if you had a reason. Speaking of which...

What about user participation? (Facebook responses aside.) What about getting the product into your hands (a sample perhaps?), and letting you show what happens when you smell like the man your man should smell like? For example, could there be a way to enable a little video UGC? (The "C" here could just as well stand for "Campaign.")

The thing to watch out for here is a tricky precedent being (re)set. And this is something we in the digital space will have to manage. It was a great TV campaign that ran basically as TV in the online space and was successful (more than 600,000 "likes" on Facebook). Most TV does not go very far when it's slapped online (if at all). As our clients begin asking for their "Old Spice campaign" digital equivalent (or, to put it bluntly, to simply run the TV spots online) we will have some explaining to do.

The gist of that explanation is simply this. Online is a great space for an idea either to begin or evolve. The Mustafa campaign was a great idea. Digital offers more to it than the recreation of the TV experience. Digital stays it in touch, nurtures relationships and enables new connections. We build the brand. We drive product sales. We allow consumers to be part of the campaign. We do it better when we're part of concept development--from the outset. We do it better when the ask for digital, is actually asked of digital. (Imagine if you will, the momentum that could have been generated if a proper digital strategy had been activated when the TV campaign launched.)

In a sense, the Old Spice effort does all of this. If the idea was to literally leverage the TV ad in the online space and then film responses in what seemed to be a one-time, marathon fashion, the campaign is an A+. Still, I wonder what could have been...

Gary Nelson Ed.Note: Blogger Rob Paterson at the FASTForward blog had a similar analysis of the Old Spice campaigns, and in fact compared the work and results to the UbyKotex campaign: http://www.fastforwardblog.com/2010/07/27/the-market-is-a-conversation-why-kotex-is-winning-vs-old-spice/

On a panel at the CLIOs earlier this month I was asked, "What gets in the way of innovation?"

"Clients," I said.

It was good for a laugh and partially true (depending on the clients, of course). But after some more thought, I want to elaborate: Innovation can't happen unless  clients, and agencies, are attempting to solve a human problem.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for solving business problems, too. I'm even up for earning some press and awards. Just not without starting with a little truth and empathy for those sentient, passionate beings we call consumers. With sincere apologies to Nick Lowe and Elvis Costello, when I see hollow, uninspired marketing I have to ask, "What's so funny 'bout peace, love, and understanding?"

I'm not going to waste any characters calling out the work of others. There are plenty of blogs I can recommend if that's your poison. Instead, I want to use that B-side-turned-timeless-pop-song as a framework for dissecting a product launch that attempted to solve a very human problem. And, in doing so, provided fertile ground for some meaningful innovation in the realm of feminine care.

First, a bit of background... Almost two years ago, Kotex asked Organic to join their roster of agencies and, as our first assignment, help them shake up the category they'd invented. You can read more about it in the NY Times article, but to really appreciate the scope of this effort, spend some time on UbyKotex.com. Sure, the site looks, feels, and sounds different than your typical feminine care site. We're most proud of what the site enables. Apart from demoing the product and soliciting sample requests, girls are invited to watch funny but telling social experiment videos testing taboos and comfort levels, spoof clichéd period ads, submit questions to be answered by a panel of moms, peers, and medical pros, sign a declaration vowing to be more comfortable with their bodies (and the word "vagina"), connect with grassroots programs dedicated to female empowerment, or learn once and for all how to insert a tampon without needing a medical degree. All of this comes with a running tally so girls can see they're not alone, which is important - especially given the topic matter. Oh, you should also visit the YouTube channel, Facebook page, and follow our full-time UbyKotex community manager, Jordan, on Twitter.

Okay, so back to the chorus. What exactly do peace, love, and understanding have to do with marketing tampons? Turns out they were the three key ingredients to the U by Kotex launch. I'll explain...

Peace

Peace between partner agencies often feels as genuine as the relationships on Real Housewives. However, without such peace, you will never achieve a cohesive, living marketing ecosystem. We worked well with our partner agencies on U by Kotex - JWT, Mindshare, Marina Maher Communications. Not only did our creative teams share and shape throughout the process, but account directors, strategists, producers, etc. all got along in the name of making this launch as successful as possible.

Peace didn't happen by accident. Our clients expected it. They insisted on joint briefings and joint pitches. The more we worked together, the more we learned to leverage one another's strengths. After a while, peace came naturally, because we've seen the success that comes from it.

Love

Your best work comes when you're doing something you love. This is especially true of advertising. It's a lot easier to sell something you believe in. We love what Kotex set out to do with this launch. And not to get all hokey, but love makes you brave. And bravery is infectious, which leads me to my next point...

When you're selling a product with purpose, you're selling a cause - not a campaign. Causes by their nature take longer to nurture but yield exponential dividends because once they start to resonate, they pick up more advocates and bear fruit long after the media money has been spent. Since late March we've already seen over one million people "break the cycle" on UbyKotex.com, and tons of spontaneous activity throughout the social sphere. Sure, the media-driven spikes have wound down but ongoing involvement hasn't waned. We've seen the love.

Understanding

Understand your audience. Not as easy as it sounds, especially when you're talking about teenage girls. To pull this off with any degree of credibility, it's not enough to rely data points and segment profiles. You have to spend time in the shoes of today's young woman - to suffer with them, as the Greeks would say. So we did just that, both through formal research and by asking our sisters, nieces, and daughters a lot of questions. And, perhaps more importantly, watching how they behave in groups and online.

A theme that came up time and again in our research is how confident girls are in some ways while being so uninformed in other ways. Yet, once a light was shined on a particular problem or fact, they grasp it quickly. Girls want to act on it. They want to spread the word and put their own spin on it. Just look at some of the fan videos posted to our YouTube channel or the captioned period ads on UbyKotex.com. You'll see how a little understanding can go a long way.

The result

Once you have all these components in place - peace between agency collaborators, love for your assignment, and a deeply human understanding of your audience - the ideas just keep coming. As we were resting up from all our launch activities, we came back to an idea that popped up when we were doing a photo shoot in a women's restroom (yes, we had permits). What about those ugly, metal vending machines that rust away on tiled walls everywhere? We're really still doing that? We can watch the World Cup from the back of a taxi cab, but if a girl is stranded without the goods, she still has to fish for a quarter, turn the crank, and settle for a tampon disguised as a cardboard missile? So we set out to kill the ugly metal tampon dispenser and replace it with a modern, re-imagined version.

Once we concepted and designed the interface, we hired Pensa to help us build a hardware prototype of the tampon dispenser. We unveiled it at Cannes this week. Here's Amy showing a festival goer how it works...

Sam Cannon with Amy Hodgins Carvajal

Mortal Kombat Rebirth, a short film/trailer/teaser created by Director Kevin Tancharoen, has received over 2 million hits in 48 hrs. It has easily become the most successfully viral video in recent memory and the response to it has been overwhelmingly positive. For a couple of reasons - the high production values and the fact that no one initially knew where it came from.

(The truth - $7500, a couple borrowed Red Ones, plus the donated time of the actors and post production staff over 2 months, so Tancharoen could use it to convince Warner Bros. to reboot the MK Franchise with him as the director. See the interview at Collider for more)

But this was just another short in an ever growing field of high-end independent shorts. Films like The Raven, and Pixels and even online commercial productions like The Gift by Carl Erik Rinsch for the Philips campaign Parallel Lines are all highlighting a growing trend - you can do big Hollywood looking productions, in your basement so to speak, if you're passionate and saavy enough, and you know how to utilize the tools that have recently become available to budding filmmakers for very little money.

The aforementioned tools available nowadays are tremendously powerful. Everything from software to HD video shooting DSLR cameras, to new techniques in visual effects are making it possible. The accessibility is mind blowing, when you think what $500 worth of rented equipment over a weekend, and a laptop can produce.

Chapter 1: The Cabbie from Vincent Laforet on Vimeo.

Canon is currently sponsoring a short-film chain-letter competition on Vimeo, known as The Story Beyond the Still. With the recent ability of Canon's DSLRs to produce high-end video, professional DPs and hobbyist filmmakers alike are jumping aboard, creating incredible content jumping off Canon's kickoff short. It's now up to chapter 5.

http://vimeo.com/groups/beyondthestill/

It's also worth noting that the season finale of House was shot on a Canon DSLR, and shows like True Blood and Ghost Whisperer are apparently also jumping on the DSLR bandwagon, Edging out cameras like the Red One in some instances for their portability, variety of lenses and fantastic images they can produce for a fraction of the cost. A sub culture of DSLR filmmakers has popped up as a result, many calling Vimeo their home.

As Digital agency creative, we know a little bit about the indie lifestyle. Digital has grown in the last decade, but we're still a bit of a ways away from the paradigm shifting to the point that Digital and online gets the budgets that TV and mass currently enjoy, and like indie filmmakers we're very used to having to do it all ourselves with very little resources and the budget gap almost always obvious in the end result.

These new tools and techniques however, are narrowing the gap considerably.

More resources:
www.videocopilot.net
www.cinema5d.com
www.vfxtalk.com
motionographer.com
www.thegnomonworkshop.com

James McIntosh

Mad Men is a television show, similar to Bewitched (the original). Adding a video clip from the show to your next PowerPoint presentation will add nothing to your credibility. Anyone working in the business has seen the show. We've seen the Carousel scene more times than we've seen our relatives in the last six months.

The only thread that binds our time to theirs is something that I was reminded of today while watching Terry O'Reilly at the CMA conference in Toronto. Terry is a self proclaimed fan of the great ad writers. I share Terry's view that they were the great persuaders. Writers such as Bill Bernback, David Ogilvy and Herschell Gordon Lewis understood that a handful of basic emotions govern the lives of people. Those things haven't changed. People are persuaded by ideas that appeal to love, acceptance, self improvement, pride, fear and greed (to name a few). The basic animal has changed very little since climbing down from the tree.

Technology taps into our emotional need to connect. What's so different? Why is this surprising? We've always wanted to connect with each other.

Stop looking for answers on Mad Men. Stop worshipping youth culture as though they know more than you. Start doing what great persuaders have always done. Give people a reason to give a shit. Invite them to the party. Young and old will believe you if give them the right reasons.

John Ellis

Lou Rosenfeld is a pioneer in the field of Information Architecture. He's contributed to the field as an author, evangelist, speaker, trainer and now publisher. As founder of Rosenfeld Media, he publishes books and webinars on user experience topics.

I had the pleasure of interviewing Lou and, I have to admit, I was surprised by what I learned about my own role in the world of User Experience Design. We all contribute to the "Big Tent" of User Experience, and the future is very bright. See the full interview below.

Question 1: When do you believe you started your career in User Experience (UX)? What was your first major contribution?

I'm not even quite sure I know when I started my career as an information architect, much less as a UX practitioner. I do recall color-coding all of my audiocassettes in the late 70s. Does that count?

Information architecture aside, I learned about UX by being invited to participate in a couple of the AIGA Experience Design community meetings in the late 90s. I was something of an outsider--there weren't many information architects of my variety there--which is why I was invited. It was at those meetings that people like Terry Swack, Clement Mok, and Nathan Shedroff converted me to the belief that the world needed some way to "glue" together different design disciplines in order to solve the most challenging design problems. So I guess that's when I got my start in UX.

At that time I was president of Argus Associates, an Ann Arbor-based information architecture consultancy. Initially, all of our consultants came from library science backgrounds. But we'd started diversifying our consulting staff, hiring Keith Instone, an HCI expert, Karl Fast, who was strong in XML and other markup languages, Fred Leise, an indexer, and Dennis Schleicher, an ethnographer. So we were already putting an interdisciplinary team--and, arguably, a UX team--in place.

Question 2: How has the UX profession changed since you began?

Well, I don't really see UX as a profession. I'm not sure that a single person can know enough to be a UX professional. Instead, I'd say we're all practitioners of UX-related disciplines, sharing enough in common that we're able to meet under a nice Big Tent. If anything's changed since the late '90s, it's that there are a lot more people who share this perspective, which is heartening.

Question 3: You wear a number of hats, but your two most often worn are Information Architecture Consultant and UX Publisher. What are the major differences between the two roles?

There really aren't all that many differences. As a consultant, I help Fortune 500s and other large organizations work their way through thorny problems around organizing and providing access to information. As a publisher, I do much the same thing, albeit for my own content. In both cases I work with other kinds of designers and analysts who have skills that are complementary to my own. So, while one affords my insider's perspective, and the other that of an outie, the work is very similar. And understanding both perspectives makes me more effective in either role. It's truly the best of both worlds.

Question 4: Why did you decide to start a publishing company?

Well, after working on digital systems for so long, I wanted to have a tangible product that my kids and parents could hold in their hands and understand. Ironically, 2010 seems to be the year of the tipping point in publishing; thanks to the iPad, we're seeing the proportion of our digital-only book sales balloon.

That said, I was also looking for my next business to be as dependent upon whom I knew as it was on what I knew. While we've tried hard to apply UX practices to everything we do--from designing and testing our books to handling our customer service--selling to a small community like ours is largely reliant on having a strong interpersonal network. In fact, it's what gets me interviews like this one. ;-)

Question 5: Why did you start the UX Zeitgeist and how does it inform your work? How can UX Pros participate?

UX Zeitgeist, as you'll see it right now, is a failed experiment in assembling a library of UX-related books, topics, and people, and aggregating useful content for each. It failed because we had to rely too greatly on screen-scraping--more of a fact of life four years ago--which means our data feeds will eventually break down. We also required user accounts, which made it too hard to participate in. The good news: this summer we'll launch a new version, one that relies on APIs and makes it possible for even anonymous users to participate. And we'll be adding a new content type: UX-related articles. We're very optimistic that we've addressed the initial concept's weaknesses, and that the outcome will be truly useful for the UX community.

Question 6: What are you currently reading?

I'm reading Philip Roth's American Pastoral. In terms of UX writers, there are so many good ones out there, but I'm always especially interested in what Luke Wroblewski has to say. Not just because he wrote a fantastic book--Web Form Design: Filling In the Blanks--that Rosenfeld Media published, but because he always seems to have a bead on the most important issues facing the field at any given moment. Right now he's doing a fantastic job at getting us to think hard about designing for the mobile experience

Question 7: What do you believe UXers might be overlooking that will benefit them most?

We're not comfortable with making data-driven decisions (not surprising, considering the disciplinary roots that are common to most of us). Meanwhile, our organizations employ web analytics people and others who are very good at analyzing performance, but not at designing solutions. We need to get together.

Question 8: You're speaking and teaching a lot on site search analytics. Why do you feel that this is such an important source of information?

Site search analytics--studying what users are searching on your own site--is something of the bastard child of web analytics and user research. Neither seems to understand its value. Yet there is no better source of information when it comes to understanding what users want from our sites and our organizations. Yes, it's data--but it's semantically rich--users are telling us what they want in their own words. It's behavioral data that paradoxically has a lot to say about users' intent. And heck, just about every organization already has it in huge volumes; why wouldn't we want to learn from and take advantage of it?

Note: Lou has a book in progress on the subject of Search Analytics.

Question 9: How do you see the role of UX Professional changing in the next 5 years? 10 years?

More people--many newly minted by UX-related academic programs--and more of them will be nuts-and-bolts practitioners. In other words, there will be a large-scale commoditization of UX-related skills and people, which makes sense, as demand for both is growing rapidly.

I sure hope I'm right! It's just these people that Rosenfeld Media's books are targeting.

Anthony Viviano

Louis Rosenfeld is an independent information architecture consultant and founder of Rosenfeld Media (Twitter: @rosenfeldmedia), a user experience publishing house. He has been instrumental in helping establish the field of information architecture, and in articulating the role and value of librarianship within the field. Lou has helped such organizations as PayPal, AT&T, Caterpillar, Ford, Microsoft and the CDC make their information easier to find. He is co-author of Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, considered the bible of the field, and has been a regular contributor to Web Review, Internet World, and CIO magazines. Lou is co-founder of the Information Architecture Institute and helped found the Information Architecture Summit. He blogs regularly at www.louisrosenfeld.com, and tweets at @louisrosenfeld.

As you may have heard, Congress recently announced plans to propose privacy legislation for digital advertising and marketing.

Under the new legislation, websites collecting information about their visitors would be required to disclose to consumers how data is being collected and used, with whom it is shared and the circumstances under which that sharing takes place. In addition, if consumers do not want their information collected or used for those stated purposes, they have the option to opt out directly on the site.

This move comes at a very interesting time as online privacy is -- and has been -- a hot button issue for a long time because some consumers have a vision of the advertising industry as "Big Brother," monitoring their every move on the Internet and taking copious notes.

The reality of customer tracking, however, is much more boring. Ad agencies are simply trying to get the most appropriate message in front of the most appropriate consumer at the most appropriate time. No one is harmed in explaining how this is accomplished.

The key to rectifying this situation is through transparency from advertisers. Transparency leads to consumer knowledge and, therefore, empowerment. Rather than implementing a disruptive opt-in screen for websites and online ads that track customer behavior, the industry could instead build consumer trust through proactive initiatives.

Trust is the most valuable asset a marketer has today so dispelling all of the myths and treating the trust of consumers with the respect and value it deserves gives them no incentive to opt out.

Just think the opt-in process through for a moment: you're online, surfing the web when suddenly you're presented with a prompt that says something like, "You are now entering a website that will track your every move. Would you like to continue?"

I'd be willing to wager that not a whole lot of people are going to willingly press the "Yes" button. It's an intimidating process and positions advertisers as shadowy figures when the information that will be gathered is harmless to consumers.

It is no longer marketers vs. consumers; we're all on the same team today. While opt-in seems to be Capitol Hill's answer to the issue, ad companies know that keeping consumers' attention online can be difficult and any bump in the road has the potential to derail a campaign or website's success.

It is the fear of the unknown that is fueling this legislation so it is the advertising industry's responsibility to work with lawmakers to create an unobtrusive, transparent consumer advocacy environment to let consumers know what information is gathered and what exactly it is used for. Breaking down these last remaining barriers will only help to make us all better off.

It will be interesting to see how this legislation pans outs and even more intriguing will be how marketers adapt (or don't adapt) to these privacy regulations. Will they take the proactive approach to developing and maintaining customer trust, or drop tracking tactics altogether to avoid penalties? And how will this impact online advertising overall?

Only time will tell.

Jason Harper

Editor's Note: This is a reprint of Jason Harper's article at Adotas.com

Music videos are one of my favorite founts of inspiration. There's no limit to how one 3-minute video might influence your work. The music is just one of many facets of creativity--there's also animation, special effects, editing technique, coloring, wardrobe, choreography, storytelling, the list goes on.

Just look at the new Kindle ads and you'll see the influence of Peter Gabriel's 1986 music video Sledgehammer. Clearly the influence is undeniable, and, better yet, the reinterpretation is really quite wonderful.

Music videos are in our blood. In our collective awareness. The global familiarity and kinsmanship with Michael Jackson's iconic "Thriller" video led over 41 million people to view the Philippines prison re-enactment of it on YouTube. Just as this video inspired a show-tune loving prison director, it and other music videos can inspire us to come up with new ideas in the digital space.

There are many great sources to view music videos both old and new. I was in high school when MTV launched, and so I have a great affinity for the classic videos of the 80s and early 90s. But for more recent material, you need look no further than your favorite band. Ok Go has never failed to disappoint, and you can view all of their videos on their website.

Better yet, review the collective works of the top music video directors, including Hype Williams, Michael Gondry, Spike Jonze, Mark Romanek, and McG. Did you know that Jonze directed one of the most beloved and talk-about videos in the last decade--Fat Boy Slim's "Weapon of Choice" featuring Christopher Walken?

Did you realize that before McG was tapped by Drew Barrymore to direct Charlie's Angels, he was best known as the director of Smash Mouth's "All Star" video?

Hype Williams is perhaps one of my favorite music video directors, because he works with my favorite artists, such as Missy Elliot. His work at the helm of her "The Rain" video was a creative buffet.

And, if you're more into current events, check out the latest work of Jake Nava, who, after years of directing iconic pop videos for Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears has upped his creative ante with Beyonce's amazing (and much imitated) "Single Ladies" video.

Now remember, the goal is not to imitate (unless you're doing a parody), but rather to reimagine new work based on certain creative influences. Take for instance, the horizontal split screen editing in Mary J. Blige's "No More Drama," and you can see how that may have been an influence for Suave's "Oo Oo La La" telelvision spot.

Observe, collect, and curate the best influences--and if you're very lucky, they can inspire you to come up with something new. In the words of my college painting professor: "Everyone is contrived. There's too much history and art and influence not to be contrived. The trick is to be so contrived that you come up with something new."

Goldy VanDeWater Bardin

Read Goldy VanDeWater Bardin's first Areas of Influence post on Threeminds

flickr photo by cvander

There are now two kinds of people in the world. Those who own iPads and those who peer over their shoulders - at least just for a few seconds (Denial? There's an app for that).

This week, those users and curious over-shoulder readers were stroking the pages of Wired's first iPad issue. Organics had some things to say about the experience:

Todd Fraser says, "I downloaded this just before my flight is about to board. It's seriously slick. Images/text look fantastic, interactive elements are cool but not overpowering, and everything shifts perfectly to any orientation. They mention that they are still using Adobe technology. Interesting if it's still Flash. Given the 3D interface of the Mars page, I'd say so but could be wrong. [It uses Adobe AIR - ed.] It also seems that every page has two predefined layouts instead of one that dynamically adjusts to space given. I'd love to see more details on the making of the content."

James Herrera notes, "My impression of Wired on iPad is that if you removed the novelty of the gesture-based UI then it would seem very similar to a magazine that took the shortest route to put their content on the web: basic page metaphor, 360s, touch thumbnail/enlarge thumbnail, "flip" pages, etc. Of course Wired (and all the other publishers) have added "sharing" features which are touted as innovative but are simply examples of already existing web functionality to share with FB, Twitter, etc. It just seems that with rare exceptions that Wired (and the other publishers) have only considered the simpler equation of content+gesture rather than the harder equation of content+new hardware+variable environments of use (lean forward, lean back, mobile, desktop, casual, applied, quick view, long engagement, etc)+gesture.

"For Wired's app they seem to have taken an approach where the analog magazine's content hasn't really been reconsidered. When you see it on the iPad (at least in their video demos) the content is locked in traditional print magazine layouts where the text, content structure (grid) and images are locked as a single unit. Some images can be enlarged but the more interactive 360s are reserved for ad units.

"If you consider Popular Science's implementation it's clear they approached the iPad with consideration for the more complex equation. PopSci's publisher, Bonnier, partnered with BERG, a London based design firm, to develop the Mag+ platform to use across their line of titles. They're very concerned with an "honest" representation of the content and the "physical geography" of use. These were their guiding lights. PopSci's iPad edition is dynamic in its presentation of content and that content has been reconsidered for the context of use on the device (interactive diagrams showing the workings of a turbine engine, etc).

Popular Science:

Bonnier / BERG's Concept video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAZCr6canvw
Society for News Design (SND)'s interview with PopSci's AD on the design of their iPad editions: http://www.snd.org/2010/04/ipad-qa-popular-science-magazine/

"Obviously these are the first version of iPad editions and there's a ways to go. Wired is somewhat disappointing. I would have expected them to push things a bit. They really seem to come off as a very traditional print publication (much like a pub would sound in 1996 coming out with it's first website). While they talk about "storytelling" as their strongest asset I think it'll be important for them to fully embody the capabilities of the device or channel they use and free their content to match or exceed expectations."

Personally, I was most struck by Wired's decision to charge for the first issue. They report 24,000 downloads at $4.99. I would think they would have got more out of giving it away for free and earning new subscribers in the future. Also, similar to James' point about a magazine jumping on the 'Net in '96, it was challenging to know where to flick to turn pages; where buttons were to initiate some of the extra media; how to get back to the magazine after clicking (hey, is that still what it's called?) on a browser-launching ad; and, as a first-day iPad owner, how to keep my big ol' thumbs from changing the page unintentionally (but, that's a personal issue).

Overall, I would say the buzz on the Wired issue was very positive - lots of oohs and aahs from those over-shoulder readers. But, we want more.

Who do you think will be first to absolutely destroy the envelope on this new device? Will it be the reincarnation of a magazine, another re-envisioned media platform or a completely new type of content provider?

Craig Ritchie (@craigritchie), James Herrera (@jamesherrera) and Todd Fraser (@toddfraser)

Two years goes by in the blink of an eye. It was just about two years ago that I took over from Misha Cornes as Editor-In-Chief of Threeminds. And now the time has come for me to move on. I'm not going to spend my last post going on about how rewarding the experience has been (which it has!!) or how I will be leaving the blog in the qualified hands of Mike Hudson and Craig Ritchie. I'd much rather talk about this...

Just how far has social media come in the past two years? And can we finally stop calling it that?

It only takes a look back at some of the articles we were posting back in 2008. The ideas were much simpler. It was marketing "business as usual" with a little bit of social thrown into the mix. Cross your fingers and hope it worked.

Consumer involvement was appreciated but limited... a community member featured in a video, enthusiasts leveraged to help promote a new rollercoaster, and at best brands were crowdsourcing ideas for new products or services.

But even back then it was wrong to call it "social media". It was something more interesting. For the first time companies were using their own loyalists as part of their marketing and even product development process.

It's advocacy-led marketing, or perhaps that is still selling it too short... it's consumer-led innovation.

Nothing hammers this point in stronger than the evolution the DEWmocracy campaign. What it was in 2008 versus what it is now (can you even really call it a campaign?).

DEWmocracy 2008
The 2008's DEWmocracy was all about big. A big story about a future society where creativity was run by the government (I think?). A movie. A video game. And can we get a giant billboard and to shoot paintballs at? All leading up to the big vote.

Consumer interaction was limited to brand-designated activities. There was nothing to reward the enthusiasts for greater participation. It was interesting, but overly designed and heavy-handed in retrospect.

A New DEWmocracy
I could spend about five more paragraphs describing the incredible details of this new effort, but honestly it is so complicated (in a good way) that I will let their media hub do most of the work. This is big in a completely different way that 2008... big as in following an entire product lifecycle, big as in utilizing every tool in the social toolbox, big as in pure guts and forward-thinking and not being afraid to scare some people along the way.

3 Ways Social Media Consumer-Led Innovation Has To Change

1. There needs to be room for spectators and room for innovators.
Unlike DEWmocracy 2008, which didn't really reward consumer innovation and contribution, Mountain Dew has figured out a nice balance this time around. "Dew Labs", a invitation only community, allowed enthusiasts to vote, visit a sampling taste tour in 17 cities, or order their own drink kit in the mail. Designers and film students were challenged to get involved with packaging and advertising. Then there is dewmocracy.com and Twitter where anyone and everyone is invited to follow along as teams try and rally votes from around the nation.

2. It's not about launching the big idea, it's about building a story... one with room to be rewritten.
I'd be hard pressed to summarize the new DEWmocracy in a pithy pitch line. Even the media site requires a diagram. I don't imagine a board room where an agency came in and gave a Mad Men style song and dance about "In a world, where they no longer get to chose the sodas they drink..." That was 2008. In 2010, the consumers are help writing the story. They are choosing everything from the media placements to the advertisements.

3. Integrate or FAIL.
Mountain Dew had figured out back in 2008 how to open the doors at their own company, to get product development and marketing working hand in hand. But it takes more than integration at the brand, it takes brand-agency integration and agency-agency integration to do what they are doing right now. The new campaign is a happy marriage of big social and niche social, of paid entertainment and user-generated content, of an ongoing road show and lead up to a big event. Nothing is overshadowing anything else. It's a sign of a strong leadership and vision, but with healthy room for agency innovation.

So What's Next?
That is my big question to Mountain Dew. What comes after Stage 7? (And hopefully it has nothing to do with an evil galactic overlord) How are you going to keep your audience interested? What is their reward for the journey you have taken them on?

Next for social media consumer-led innovation... More involvement in campaign development. More involvement in product development. And continuing blurry lines between when campaigns start and when they end, and who is in the driving seat.

Next for me... Well, you are welcome follow along...

Marta Strickland
@martastrickland

Earlier last month, Lexus launched the "Darker Side of Green" campaign to a perplexed auto industry, although this isn't the first time Lexus has perplexed audiences. The campaign goes after the young, hip, environmentally conscious crowd who doesn't want to give up styling and handling to save the planet.

Enter Lexus Dark Ride, a 12:30 interactive movie experience that takes the user for a ride in the brand's new hybrid compact car, the CT 200h. If you can get passed the load time and the ridiculous premise that you have to help navigate the CT 200h home "before dawn" without getting photographed by the automotive paparazzi... it's an interesting interactive piece.

"Although a bit long to sit through, it kept me watching until the end. What I like about this interactive video, is that it isn't feature, feature, feature, let me tell you about the feature. There are some gratuitous dash and panel shots, but it is all about the experience. They have a nice integration with Facebook, however I would have liked to see them go farther with it." Paulette Adams

Taking a cue from many video game or movie trailer + Facebook integrations to come before it, Lexus integrates the user's Facebook profile, webcam and microphone to help make the experience more personalized. While not a total success, the alignment to the younger entertainment industry certainly reinforces who they are going after and how they are doing it.

I have to credit my junior-year painting teacher for providing me with the most useful piece of knowledge I would receive from my four years at RISD. During a critique, when one of the students derided a classmate's painting for being too contrived, Mr. P responded without hesitation, "Everyone is contrived. There's too much history and art and influence not to be contrived. The trick is to be so contrived that you come up with something new."

And that was it. Without even realizing it, I had words to live by. Words that I would repeat time and time again. Words that would travel with me throughout my life and career, and urge me to pay attention to everything around me. Every mention of a new author, every piece of art on a friend's wall, every explicit diagram Sharpied on a bathroom stall. Because you cannot not be contrived. But you can observe, collect, and curate the best influences--and if you're very lucky, these influences can inspire you to come up with something new.

Those words are especially important to me because I ended up working in advertising, where contrivance is embraced both wittingly and unwittingly. Where the famous campaign "Got milk?" sired a brood of bastard knockoffs. ("Got tires?"; "Got health insurance?", "Got gay rights?") Where clients order creative like Happy Meals at the drive-thru.* Where "ElfYourself" has spawned "TrekYourself," "TerminateYourself," and "MunkYourself." You get the picture. There aren't enough new ideas in advertising these days. And to be original, you must be contrived. Über-contrived.

Contrivance is a subtle art. Look at some of your favorite artists and you'll see how being just a little contrived can lead to an eye-opening masterpiece. Study Modigliani's paintings closely and you'll see the influence of West African tribal masks. Gaze at van Gogh's Sunflowers and you'll see how he borrowed liberally from the rich colors of the Arles landscape.

Tell ya what I'm gonna do. Influence is the key. So I'm going to write a regular column for ThreeMinds, with each article featuring a different area of influence. And there's no shortage. In my career, I've drawn inspiration from fashion design to children's books, and all that's in between. Because, everything that inspires you will arm you in the fight for great creative. It will give you the tools you need to be contrived. Be so contrived in fact, that your boss, peers, and clients will think you're some kind of creative genius.

But before I hand over the keys, let me leave you with some words of my own. Don't borrow too much from one source. (That's cheating and most likely illegal.) Learn as much as you can about everything. And let the creative that inspires you be a diving board into a bigger pool of ideas. In other words: Borrow lightly, borrow often.

See ya next month with the first installment, Areas of Influence: Music Videos.

Goldy VanDeWater Bardin

*This comment does not pertain to any of my clients. I love you guys.

Much has been said about clause 3.3.1 of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement, but now that the dust has started to settle it's worth taking a closer look at the implications. It's been reproduced many times, but let's take another look at the wording in question:

"Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited)."

This language clearly prohibits Flash CS5, and we've seen the fallout from that. But what does it really mean for the tool such as Titanium, Gambit Scheme, MonoTouch, and Unity3D that offer development environments other than the Apple provided tools?

In his "Thoughts on Flash" letter, Steve Jobs says "We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform." However despite this stance, many of these third party developers (PhoneGap for one) have received word that Apple considers them "not in violation of the 3.3.1 clause of the license agreement".

PhoneGap does seem to lie in the only grey area of the clause. Depending on the details of their implementation the "only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs" might apply. e.g. if they wrap webkit to add access to APIs which are not provided by the "iPhone OS WebKit engine" then they are providing an "intermediary translation ... layer". I honestly don't know enough of the details to say, but in the end it doesn't really matter.

I have yet to see any indication that Apple intends to change their established behavior, for good or ill. They will continue to leave their processes unclear and they will continue to selectively enforce their own policies. It shouldn't be a surprise, since it no change from the current state (e.g. the silent blessing of LUA interpreters which are currently in use by some, despite being officially against the rules).

So far the discussion of the 3.3.1 clause has mostly been a lot of hand waving and hoping for a blessing to be handed down to them from on high, when really there is little vagueness in the clause. While PhoneGap may or may not actually be compliant, they seem to have been given the blessing, and I will be surprised if any further clarification is forthcoming. I will also not be surprised if other, more clearly non compliant tools (Unity for one) are also given the blessing of being "Ok", without any more details.

And therein lies the problem. We already know Apple is a jealous master, and they have demonstrated they will go to great lengths to only allow their friends onto their playground. But if you don't know the rules, how can you be sure you're playing nice?

This is a much bigger concern for those who are trying to base a business off of the platform, but it does have a direct impact on our business. I would like nothing better then to be able to pitch a cross platform mobile app to reach as much of a clients audience as possible, but what can we say now? "We can get you on Android and Blackberry, but no guarantees on iPhone, and if not, I won't be able to tell you why."

The uncertainty Apple fosters has made clients uneasy enough to not pursue pure iPhone apps in the past, and the new rules pile on even more uncertainty if we try to consider rapid development or multiple platforms, both of which are key to getting a clients brand in front of their customers.

Matt Cribbs

Apple's iPad, selling over a million units after launching just over a month ago, seems like an easy choice for those brands looking to create immersive experiences for users and expand upon the ways they're already connecting via social and mobile on other platforms.

Yet, aside from ecommerce retailers and content publishers, there are still only a handful of brands leveraging the iPad's 1024x768 display, gesture-based interface and App Store ecosystem. I'm going to speculate that's for two reasons: First, the big agencies and their brands want to wait and see what kinds of 'investments' others will make, and second, they're all just too busy with their large-scale, wide-reach projects on established platforms (web, social, mobile apps and ads on smartphones, DR-style SMS, etc.) that the priority and rationale for getting on the iPad platform just aren't there yet.

That's going to change quickly as more units are sold, use cases become more clear and a small number of brands create something 'magical' and 'revolutionary' - something I'll get into later - but for now here's a quick guide to some of the first - and best - branded apps and placements on the iPad:

Continue reading "Top Brands on the iPad: From Cool Hunting to Baby Countdowns" »

Last week's "letter" from Steve Jobs and his thoughts on Flash clearly caused a stir. Not only did it solidify the suspicions that Apple was simply not a fan of the Flash plugin but it also provided a few reasons behind the exclusion.

With the kindling poised for a massive "flamewar", a few people at Organic decided to express their thoughts on the debate.

First up was a few points about rollovers:

"Since the mid-90s, users have struggled with the Designers'/UXers' choice to hide functionality behind 'rollover interactions.' Now, evolving form factor is further argument against these poor choices. Imagine if every door you entered you had to 'explore' the face of it by floating your hand over the surface until the hidden knob appeared?"

"Rollovers that reveal expected and expanded functionality aren't bad, but 'uncluttering' an interface by hiding functionality is bad. Rollovers should enhance understanding. And, if you 'touch,' that's not a rollover. Rollover is a passive action. Touch isn't."

Next came the point of performance:

"Flash sucks on mobile devices. When showcased during the Adobe Keynote at FITC, I seriously cringed and had to look away from the disaster on stage. The performance was horrid and the UX was even worse. Mis-clicks, ridiculously non-optimized text, and strange transitions mean that the already unfortunate experience that most Flash sites provide is made even worse."

This potentially argumentative statement instead fueled a discussion on choice:

"If Flash sucks on the iPhone, iPad, mobile device and robs battery life, poor functionality, etc etc, then let people discover that... find alternatives. When you present people with options, and the ability to see what works better, they will gravitate towards the better technology without a single guided hand. When you deny people the option, it doesn't matter if it's good or bad, you are preventing people from discovering their own opinions."

This seemed to be the crux of the problem. Regardless of any technical/business challenges that are presented, there is a large group of people who prefer choice over all else. However, it's clear that the "pro-choice" folks do seem to be largely technically savvy. What about mom or Joe Shmoe?

"You're all talking as if people know what Flash is. Most don't. We're in the industry, so we get what a plug-in is. This doesn't reflect the understanding of the greater majority, who still confuse browsers with search engines with internets."

Now are we just "catering to the lowest common denominator"? Does it make financial sense to bet your product on the idea that your audience will understand how the whole thing works and know what elements are at fault for an issue?

"Gone are the days when you needed to know how the rear differential or transmission works in your car. Just get the driver to their destination and make sure the radio works."

Special thanks to Todd Fraser, Craig Ritchie, David Moag, James McIntosh, and Scott McFayden for joining in the debate.