Launching in Alpha today is 'Qwiki' - a multi-media online encyclopaedia which combines audio, video, image and text to create an information experience reminiscent of a sci-fi movie. Is this the future of information provision on the web? It's certainly simple, accessible and appeals to the goldfish-like attention spans of our over-stimulated brains.
I've been trying it out and, despite a few laughs at the hilarious attempts at welsh pronunciation by the game American voice-over lady, it's a great experience that I'm sure educators will find useful in some contexts.
Take a look at the entry for Swansea below and make up your own mind.
Monday, 24 January 2011
Saturday, 22 January 2011
Doro Mobiles - 'Back-to-Basics' Marketing at its Best
While all the big mobile manufacturers were scrambling to develop the best Smartphone, Swedish company Doro were quietly cornering the market for simple, easy to use mobiles aimed at financially secure, new to tech, baby-boomers. The beauty of this is that it's simple, back to basics marketing - identifying a gap and positioning yourself firmly in it.
Doro have created products that are carefully designed to meet the needs of their target market. Large keys, no fancy gadgets - just a simple, robust mobile with intuitive controls. The Doro approach highlights how easy it is to get so caught up with 'shiny new things' that you lose sight of your customer and what their needs are. The major mobile manufacturers have become so engaged in the competition to exploit new technologies that they have largely missed out on this lucrative market opportunity.
For me this is a reminder that in any organisation, knowing what your customers (and potential customers) want is always more important than worrying about what your competitors are doing.
Simple...
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
San Fran and the Happy Meal Ban - PR, politicians and the public good
It's a story with a gift of a headline - San Francisco policy makers recently decided to ban McDonald's from providing a free toy with every purchase of a Happy Meal on the grounds that the meals did not meet a required nutritional standard. 'You CAN market carrots!' was the somewhat unconvincing cry of one member of the San Francisco supervisory board as this policy was launched. Using a stick to sell a carrot...hmm...there's a proverb in there somewhere...
Naturally, a national debate in US ensued with the battle lines firmly drawn. Nanny state, commercial freedom, and parental responsibility are issues all thrown into the mix here and this highlights fundamental differences between capitalist and socialist political systems. But who is really responsible for the core problem here - the problem of childhood obesity rates in America? This story creates a triangle of potential responsibility - the state, commercial organisations and parents. Looking at those three, I personally can see only one group who could quickly, cheaply and effectively take direct action to create the change that would improve a nation's health...I'll let you work it out...
In marketing terms there are also some interesting issues. From a PR perspective, the combination of a killer rhyming headline (San Fran/Ban) and the mental image of a politician taking a child's toy away should really have been enough to keep the policy makers away from this one. On the other hand, if I were representing McDonald's I'd be pretty happy with the coverage, which has been both extensive and mainly focused on ridiculing the decision. See for example the Daily Show's pastiche, the 'Crappy Meal'.
At the heart of this is the fact that America is a country built on the principle of freedom. The freedom to pursue a ruthless, capitalist profit goal; the freedom to carry a gun; the freedom to feed your children whatever you want; and, even in the more liberal states on the western and eastern seaboards, this was always going to smack of an unwelcome restriction on the freedom of choice enjoyed by all Americans.
Here in the UK we're more accustomed to state intervention in public health issues - after all there is a vested interest in that the government is responsible for allocating funds to the National Health Service. I for one am not convinced, however, that investing public funds in mass media social advertising such as the recent Change 4 Life campaign are going to have a significant impact on child health. Getting into schools and working directly with parents, incentivising positive behaviours and dealing with some of the mental health and poverty issues that are underlying drivers might, however make a difference. In fact you might call it the 'carrot' approach, rather than the stick...
Naturally, a national debate in US ensued with the battle lines firmly drawn. Nanny state, commercial freedom, and parental responsibility are issues all thrown into the mix here and this highlights fundamental differences between capitalist and socialist political systems. But who is really responsible for the core problem here - the problem of childhood obesity rates in America? This story creates a triangle of potential responsibility - the state, commercial organisations and parents. Looking at those three, I personally can see only one group who could quickly, cheaply and effectively take direct action to create the change that would improve a nation's health...I'll let you work it out...
In marketing terms there are also some interesting issues. From a PR perspective, the combination of a killer rhyming headline (San Fran/Ban) and the mental image of a politician taking a child's toy away should really have been enough to keep the policy makers away from this one. On the other hand, if I were representing McDonald's I'd be pretty happy with the coverage, which has been both extensive and mainly focused on ridiculing the decision. See for example the Daily Show's pastiche, the 'Crappy Meal'.
At the heart of this is the fact that America is a country built on the principle of freedom. The freedom to pursue a ruthless, capitalist profit goal; the freedom to carry a gun; the freedom to feed your children whatever you want; and, even in the more liberal states on the western and eastern seaboards, this was always going to smack of an unwelcome restriction on the freedom of choice enjoyed by all Americans.
Here in the UK we're more accustomed to state intervention in public health issues - after all there is a vested interest in that the government is responsible for allocating funds to the National Health Service. I for one am not convinced, however, that investing public funds in mass media social advertising such as the recent Change 4 Life campaign are going to have a significant impact on child health. Getting into schools and working directly with parents, incentivising positive behaviours and dealing with some of the mental health and poverty issues that are underlying drivers might, however make a difference. In fact you might call it the 'carrot' approach, rather than the stick...
Wednesday, 12 January 2011
Freedom of speech on Twitter - should service providers be responsible for policing their users?
The last few days have seen a flurry of Twitter activity surrounding one particular user whose opinions have caused enormous offence to thousands, and that have been described as highly dangerous and damaging. Kenneth Tong (Twitter account name @MrKennethTong) posted a range of comments promoting what he described as the practice of 'managed' anorexia. His tweets were both outrageous in their extreme negativity and, in my view, potentially highly dangerous to those with the illness.
Eating disorders are often trivialised by the media and those who see them as an expression of vanity or naivete, but they have the highest fatality rate of any mental illness - between 13% and 20% of sufferers (Howlett et al. 1995) die as a result. Following a rapid and vehement protest from thousands of Twitter users, Kenneth Tong has now apologised, saying that his tweets were part of a social experiment designed to measure whether he could become a publicly recognised figure within a short space of time. Essentially, it was an ill-judged PR stunt - which may, in fact, have long term consequences not just for those with an eating disorder, but for Mr Tong himself.
Playing games like this to gain publicity by someone who is clearly incredibly interested in fame (he recently appeared on Big Brother and has gained over 20,000 followers on Twitter and become a worldwide trending topic as a result of his comments) is all very well, but the dangerous nature of his tweets (which for sufferers could trigger their illness by compounding the feelings of inadequacy, worthlessness and imperfection that are often experienced by those with anorexia nervosa) raises ethical questions about whether organisations such as Twitter should regulate users making provocative and controversial statements using their platforms.
Who is responsible for managing this, and is it simply a matter of freedom of speech? Thousands complained to Twitter about this user, and indeed that seems to be the most commonly employed method of management - a form of 'community policing' if you like - but Twitter did not block or remove his account. Should they have done so? Or, would that have been an abuse of Mr Tong's human rights?
This incident raises questions which are causing increasing problems for law makers and governments around the world. How do we manage the Internet - which transcends national boundaries? In the case of Wikileaks there are huge issues for governments in terms of national security and diplomatic relationships, but what this case illustrates is that there are also complex human issues at stake here. How do we protect vulnerable groups on the Internet - whether they are children, sufferers of mental illness, or those who are easily influenced? Can we place the onus on users and service providers? Or do we need an international solution to the management of the more dangerous aspects of the Internet?
Eating disorders are often trivialised by the media and those who see them as an expression of vanity or naivete, but they have the highest fatality rate of any mental illness - between 13% and 20% of sufferers (Howlett et al. 1995) die as a result. Following a rapid and vehement protest from thousands of Twitter users, Kenneth Tong has now apologised, saying that his tweets were part of a social experiment designed to measure whether he could become a publicly recognised figure within a short space of time. Essentially, it was an ill-judged PR stunt - which may, in fact, have long term consequences not just for those with an eating disorder, but for Mr Tong himself.
Playing games like this to gain publicity by someone who is clearly incredibly interested in fame (he recently appeared on Big Brother and has gained over 20,000 followers on Twitter and become a worldwide trending topic as a result of his comments) is all very well, but the dangerous nature of his tweets (which for sufferers could trigger their illness by compounding the feelings of inadequacy, worthlessness and imperfection that are often experienced by those with anorexia nervosa) raises ethical questions about whether organisations such as Twitter should regulate users making provocative and controversial statements using their platforms.
Who is responsible for managing this, and is it simply a matter of freedom of speech? Thousands complained to Twitter about this user, and indeed that seems to be the most commonly employed method of management - a form of 'community policing' if you like - but Twitter did not block or remove his account. Should they have done so? Or, would that have been an abuse of Mr Tong's human rights?
This incident raises questions which are causing increasing problems for law makers and governments around the world. How do we manage the Internet - which transcends national boundaries? In the case of Wikileaks there are huge issues for governments in terms of national security and diplomatic relationships, but what this case illustrates is that there are also complex human issues at stake here. How do we protect vulnerable groups on the Internet - whether they are children, sufferers of mental illness, or those who are easily influenced? Can we place the onus on users and service providers? Or do we need an international solution to the management of the more dangerous aspects of the Internet?
Monday, 3 January 2011
Prediction + Action = Entrepreneurialism
It has become fashionable to spend the final days of one year and the first few of the next publishing reviews of the past and predictions for the future. 'The top 100 (insert noun) of 2010' is a familiar title for blog posts, TV programmes, newspaper articles, radio shows etc etc etc and is swiftly followed by '10 (insert noun) predictions for 2011' (predictions require a little more thinking about and are at greater risk of being incorrect, so they are normally fewer in number). This provides publishers with some lightweight content that can be prepared in advance to fill up that time when really their writing staff are on holiday.
This idea of making predictions is deeply embedded in the human psyche - but why? Is it a need to control our world around us, or do we just like the feeling of knowing we were right. In business, people make predictions all the time: which stocks will rise this year? How will consumer behaviour change? What will be the 'next big thing'? We can all make predictions - but it is those who act on those predictions who stand to make the biggest gains (and losses) in business. Risk taking, instinct, and intuition are characteristics often associated with successful entrepreneurs - but how often do they get it right? And how much of their decision-making is based on gut-feeling and how much on meticulous research and evidence gathering?
My observations suggest that entrepreneurs fail as often as they succeed, and that quite often they fail a number of times before they succeed. Is this a learning process or just luck? Do you have to roll the dice a few times before you get a six? Maybe. Sometimes you'll get a six the first time though - and indeed there are entrepreneurs who seem to get lucky with their first punt. So - do we make our own luck? Or is it just a matter of right place, right time? Well, I would argue that luck has a part to play, but that action has the greater role. If you see an opportunity, if you make a prediction, but do not act on it, then you're not even in the game. Any luck you may have is immaterial without action.
Fear of failure is one of the things that hold many people back from taking the plunge and starting a business. Fear of losing what they have already - and the more you have, the bigger the fear. So, how do you overcome this? Well, there's no easy answer to that one - if I had it I'd be out there setting up businesses left right and centre! This brings us back to character and entrepreneurship. One of the key questions we as educators ask ourselves is - can entrepreneurship be taught? Or, are there innate character traits that make some individuals more entrepreneurial than others. My belief is that there are certain character traits that make people more likely to be entrepreneurial - but that their life experiences are equally as important in shaping their attitude to risk and reward. We all make our choices based on what is important to us, and this characterises our working life. Some risk-takers get it right or get lucky, some end up in poverty, and those who do not act all just plod along on the sidelines...
This idea of making predictions is deeply embedded in the human psyche - but why? Is it a need to control our world around us, or do we just like the feeling of knowing we were right. In business, people make predictions all the time: which stocks will rise this year? How will consumer behaviour change? What will be the 'next big thing'? We can all make predictions - but it is those who act on those predictions who stand to make the biggest gains (and losses) in business. Risk taking, instinct, and intuition are characteristics often associated with successful entrepreneurs - but how often do they get it right? And how much of their decision-making is based on gut-feeling and how much on meticulous research and evidence gathering?
My observations suggest that entrepreneurs fail as often as they succeed, and that quite often they fail a number of times before they succeed. Is this a learning process or just luck? Do you have to roll the dice a few times before you get a six? Maybe. Sometimes you'll get a six the first time though - and indeed there are entrepreneurs who seem to get lucky with their first punt. So - do we make our own luck? Or is it just a matter of right place, right time? Well, I would argue that luck has a part to play, but that action has the greater role. If you see an opportunity, if you make a prediction, but do not act on it, then you're not even in the game. Any luck you may have is immaterial without action.
Fear of failure is one of the things that hold many people back from taking the plunge and starting a business. Fear of losing what they have already - and the more you have, the bigger the fear. So, how do you overcome this? Well, there's no easy answer to that one - if I had it I'd be out there setting up businesses left right and centre! This brings us back to character and entrepreneurship. One of the key questions we as educators ask ourselves is - can entrepreneurship be taught? Or, are there innate character traits that make some individuals more entrepreneurial than others. My belief is that there are certain character traits that make people more likely to be entrepreneurial - but that their life experiences are equally as important in shaping their attitude to risk and reward. We all make our choices based on what is important to us, and this characterises our working life. Some risk-takers get it right or get lucky, some end up in poverty, and those who do not act all just plod along on the sidelines...
Tuesday, 28 December 2010
The January sales: when collaboration goes out of the window
A few weeks ago I posted a piece about why groups never seem to win the talent show 'The X Factor' and concluded that individualism is very much alive and living when it comes to aspiration and ambition. Seeing images on the news of shoppers at the post-Christmas sales this week leads me to the conclusion that the same seems to apply when it comes to ownership and control.
We're constantly being told how wonderful it is that we live in a world where collaboration is king - where we share our thoughts and creativity freely and where we can create more collectively than as individuals. This is not in evidence, however, when it comes to possession. The need to buy more, for less, than everyone else seems to override all sense of moral decency when it comes to the January sales. Elbows are sharpened, routes planned and queues jumped with military precision just to get a chance to buy products we might otherwise not have looked at.
Have you ever noticed when shopping that if you stop and stare intently at a particular product - maybe pick it up and look at it, then put it back down - it becomes irresistible to other shoppers. They have to take a look - they need to know what you've seen that they may have missed. Try it one day in a busy shop- find a product that is completely useless and pay it a lot of attention - you'll soon attract other shoppers. We seem to want what others want.
So what drives this - and does it apply to us all or are there particular personality types that are more likely to treat shopping as a competitive sport? Well, I expect if you headed to one of the big department stores on boxing day you'd find a particularly determined sort of shopper there - and they're a fairly ruthless bunch - maybe even 'professionals' who are buying to re-sell on e-bay. I avoid the sales like the plague (although online shopping has given me another option) - but then, I've always hated competitive sports.
Maybe this is a Darwinian thing - animal behaviour programmed into us that only comes out when in competitive crowd situations (football matches are another good example) - survival of the fittest. It certainly seems to bring out aspects of human nature that are unpalatable in other situations. And yet maybe there is a correlation between success in shopping (hunting and gathering) and successful survival (there's a research project there) - although I have to say I remain unconvinced that even a cashmere sweater with a 70% discount is going to secure a place in the evolutionary story...
We're constantly being told how wonderful it is that we live in a world where collaboration is king - where we share our thoughts and creativity freely and where we can create more collectively than as individuals. This is not in evidence, however, when it comes to possession. The need to buy more, for less, than everyone else seems to override all sense of moral decency when it comes to the January sales. Elbows are sharpened, routes planned and queues jumped with military precision just to get a chance to buy products we might otherwise not have looked at.
Have you ever noticed when shopping that if you stop and stare intently at a particular product - maybe pick it up and look at it, then put it back down - it becomes irresistible to other shoppers. They have to take a look - they need to know what you've seen that they may have missed. Try it one day in a busy shop- find a product that is completely useless and pay it a lot of attention - you'll soon attract other shoppers. We seem to want what others want.
So what drives this - and does it apply to us all or are there particular personality types that are more likely to treat shopping as a competitive sport? Well, I expect if you headed to one of the big department stores on boxing day you'd find a particularly determined sort of shopper there - and they're a fairly ruthless bunch - maybe even 'professionals' who are buying to re-sell on e-bay. I avoid the sales like the plague (although online shopping has given me another option) - but then, I've always hated competitive sports.
Maybe this is a Darwinian thing - animal behaviour programmed into us that only comes out when in competitive crowd situations (football matches are another good example) - survival of the fittest. It certainly seems to bring out aspects of human nature that are unpalatable in other situations. And yet maybe there is a correlation between success in shopping (hunting and gathering) and successful survival (there's a research project there) - although I have to say I remain unconvinced that even a cashmere sweater with a 70% discount is going to secure a place in the evolutionary story...
Wednesday, 22 December 2010
Christmas may be cancelled - but the January sales are definitely on...
The run-up to Christmas 2010 started fairly predictably - M&S launched their all-singing, all-dancing celeb packed Christmas ad (I particularly liked Jamie Redknapp's unconvincing turn as a DJ), closely followed by a moody number from John Lewis (which, in attempting to tug at our heart strings, instead caused a furore amongst animal rights groups). We all had a moan about Christmas starting earlier and earlier, but I'm guessing that some of us are wishing we had begun our shopping a little earlier, because then the freeze came...
It has been a perfect storm - austerity measures, freezing weather, protesting students, rising fuel costs and rubbish on the streets - we could be back in the winter of discontent...and it's not over yet; on January 4th VAT will rise to 20% adding to the squeeze. So, have we all cancelled Christmas and gone back to a simpler time when it was about stuffing a satsuma and a sugar mouse in a stocking and hanging it at the end of the kids' beds? Nope - we've gone online.
UK shoppers spent 6.4 Billion online in November when the big chill started (more than 20% up on last year) (Source: IMRG Cap Gemini) - and December figures are expected to be equally high. Great for online retailers? Well yes, but only if the deliveries can get through in time for Christmas. If goods don't make it in time it could mean a lot of returns for companies in the New Year, giving them an unrealistic picture of their Q4 sales. TV news items showing major out of town shopping centres that are virtually empty on what should be their busiest days of the year suggest that there will either be a massive last minute surge or that people are going elsewhere. It could also be a great time for small, local independent retailers that people can reach easily on foot.
Whatever happens, it's likely that major retailers will have a lot of stock to shift in January, so shoppers can expect excellent discounts, despite the VAT rise. It all hinges on a good January for many retailers - but inevitably there will be casualties... On that happy note, I'll sign off - happy shopping - I hope you have a lovely Christmas, with or without the presents...
It has been a perfect storm - austerity measures, freezing weather, protesting students, rising fuel costs and rubbish on the streets - we could be back in the winter of discontent...and it's not over yet; on January 4th VAT will rise to 20% adding to the squeeze. So, have we all cancelled Christmas and gone back to a simpler time when it was about stuffing a satsuma and a sugar mouse in a stocking and hanging it at the end of the kids' beds? Nope - we've gone online.
UK shoppers spent 6.4 Billion online in November when the big chill started (more than 20% up on last year) (Source: IMRG Cap Gemini) - and December figures are expected to be equally high. Great for online retailers? Well yes, but only if the deliveries can get through in time for Christmas. If goods don't make it in time it could mean a lot of returns for companies in the New Year, giving them an unrealistic picture of their Q4 sales. TV news items showing major out of town shopping centres that are virtually empty on what should be their busiest days of the year suggest that there will either be a massive last minute surge or that people are going elsewhere. It could also be a great time for small, local independent retailers that people can reach easily on foot.
Whatever happens, it's likely that major retailers will have a lot of stock to shift in January, so shoppers can expect excellent discounts, despite the VAT rise. It all hinges on a good January for many retailers - but inevitably there will be casualties... On that happy note, I'll sign off - happy shopping - I hope you have a lovely Christmas, with or without the presents...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)