WWDC introduced a number of features on monday that really showed off some impressive applications of responsive user experience ( I feel like I should coin that term ). Several things stood out, but one thing in particular – “handoff.” A lot of apps were designed to run the same content in multiple browsers and device sizes but the experience always had to be saved, and then reopened in another window. The fact that you can do this in a ubiquitous way is huge. This represents a new way of working where you never have to pause or exit while transitioning between devices. Instead of responsive consumption, we can finally have responsive production.
Another interesting question is if this will support cross device cookies for advertising? I could imagine if that if you could track a mobile website going to a desktop version, you could also track conversions between different iOs and web browsers for retargeting and digital ads. This could be really powerful for advertisers and marketers alike.
Windows 8 created an experience that allowed for windows to be scaled across devices. iOs has taken that to the next level where they can truly be used across devices without interruption.
I cant wait for fall to come so we can try this out in person, but I am more excited to see how this changes workflows for everyday people. Gone are the days of emailing a photo to yourself, or saving something to a google doc just so you can open in at your desk. When we can actually take things with you, how will that change how we act and plan?
Samsung’s new HD Curved TV ad is a huge success. I am curious on how they will translate this campaign to digital marketing as well.
Using snippets from movies and TV is an old trick, but it goes over very well when done right – which it is here. The key learnings for how to do this take into account infotainment and Brand transference.
Infotainment is rather simple, it’s when we are both educated and entertained with a message. By using entertainment clips for a new product, this is done by default.
Two, brand transference employs that by seeing Amy Adams or scenes from Jurassic park, the emotional feelings from that movie are carried over to this new product launch for Samsung. A consumer gets to transfer feelings from one experience to a new product, rather then having to start from scratch.
Using these two methods, they have crafted an effective and beautiful ad. Im sure they had to pay a lot of licensing fees, but I assume they will have plenty of awareness for their product. We will have to see if consumers flock to retail establishments to consider it for purchase. The TV market in general has been undergoing fragmentation between which next smart features are needed for 2015 and beyond. The curved form factor of the TV also may be problematic for families who wan multiple best points of viewership.
ps. As an aside, I find it fascinating that TVs have gone from convex to flat to concave in the course of 10 years.
When Street Skating took off in the late 70’s early 80’s, many skaters had to end up making a choice whether to do contests or do videos. Contests where very structured and was the traditional paid route (mainstream). Video cameras at this time were also coming to light, and kids could finally afford to create and distribute their own content. Many had to choose between what they viewed as making a living and selling out, and trying something truly new and innovative. Which where highly copied, shared, and coveted across a very selected engaged community.
One media channel was very well established, strict regulations, low risk, low rewards, and high barriers to entry.
Another new media channel was taking off, had no rules or regulations, and were sought out by tons of fans.
Similar forks in the road are forming every day. Which one would you choose, and what levels of diversification can you employ to balance the well known and established and take a risk and get noticed? A better question is how does your media strategy align with an ever changing bell curve with uneven distribution and ROI.
3d projection mapping for buildings has been done for advertising and agencies for a few years now, but it has only thrived in post via youtube for brands.
The recent use of 3d mapping for the Cleveland Cavaliers made its way around the internet recently for a few reasons. Its an interesting example of an existing solution, mapped to a new type of problem, which just seems to fit. The solution is entertaining, and contextually makes sense. Here are a few more thoughts on this project.
1. The game court is essentially an empty screen while the game is not going on. Therefore, how can advertisers or programmers use this space for fan engagement. Can we take this a step further?
2. Pregame and halftime shows have been historically very analog. I know this show must have cost a lot for projection, but it also made an impression. However, I wonder if being in the dark was a problem for some fans trying to find their way to their seats.
3. Rethinking opening sequences. 3d mapping in general has never really added to an experience, it has only been a wow factor thing that made people stop and look. However, in a “coming attractions” context, it was a great opener to the show. The key here is that the technology added to the story and fan experience, rather then just being for tech sake. This is a very important distinction.
Technology without context and purpose is just a fad. But use it as a tool for create a touchpoint for something memorable, and people will never forget it.
+ A season of creative content generation with storytelling engagement.
multiple episodes featuring product placement, great entertainment, and a parallel webisode to engage people in transmedia. The final product of 12-20 episodes of quality television, a cookbook that I can buy and a call to action for next seasons show. This is overlooking the obvious ad spends, and endorsement deals.
I love this show. I think its great content. I get exposed to great recipes, I am entertained, and the filmmaking of the show itself is both entertaining and informative. I dont even mind the fact that I am watching a giant ad.
Reality TV has become a great investment for brands and channels. Skilled labor becomes subsidized for the shot at a dream of the story of “Everyman.” A hero emerges, and the curators of amazing content and brands all rise in engagement levels and customer satisfaction. I am curious to see how this format continues to grow.
What does it mean that major albums are co launched by a mobile company for an artist? Jay Z teased the release of his Magna Carta album today signifying a milestone in artist marketing. The video above showcases tracks, producers, and story, but its presented by Samsung Galaxy. More and more we are seeing corporate endorsements of the changemakers and creatives of our times, and I personally am intrigued on how this awareness and shift in paid media dollars will effect content creation. What does it mean when a new album from the heart is cosponsored by a secondary brand ? This is commonplace in sports, and social entrepreneurship, but music has usually only maintained this relationship after the fact. Ex. Tailor Swift and Pepsi. However, to co associate your personal brand with a tech brand seems like a new frontier in a pre launch environment. Do you think any other artists will follow this trend? Or for a brand like Samsung, maybe this is the best time in the “hype cycle” to endorse a product / person to get the maximum brand transference to impact their bottom line. What do you think?
ps. The other interesting note is that he teased the announcement using imagery via social media. More and more, Artists and personal programming channels are being used to interact with fans wtih RTM ( real time marketing ) rather then relying on older PR channels and wire services.
Nest was cool, but August is awesome. As we talk about the internet of things, I think about how this is a perfect execution of having something be “smart” but actually be useful as well – not just appealing to the geeks.
The beauty of August is that is plays on constructs that we already use in the digital realm ( permissions ) but makes them analog. In a way that has never been done before. And really, the key itself is an outdated concept. We have replaced it everywhere possible. This makes me think about homes and spaces in terms of those same digital terms – people crave contextual access.
Although the launch focused on homes, I think where this could really shine is with brands, guerilla marketing, and nightclubs. Pepsi came out with the like machine yesterday, which was impressive, but August is that on another scale. Imagine a brand telling you that you have an exclusive pass to the movies, or a VIP party, or a car. And these may not be the best examples, but what we really again are talking about here is access. What could you unlock that could provide a meaningful experience. And if we expand this handshake protocol to other types of mechanical actions, perhaps a lightswitch, or a valve, or a secret elevator floor, imagine what could be unlocked. What experiences we could create. In a world where digital and IRL are blurring, access to a new place could change your whole perspective.
In a world that craves exclusivity and scarcity – what power does a lock and key hold ? I think their are opportunities to move past surprise and delight here. I hope that other people are thinking this way as well. Past the physical to think symbolically about how this marries experiences, mobile, digital, and access.
Many reality TV shows utilize people’s “social capital” ( shares, likes, tweets ) to raise its own level of influence and boast higher levels of engagement and earned media levels. However “the voice” has take this to a new level. If you have wanted to vote on these shows in the past you could pay for a text (sms) if you were on a specific carrier, or sometimes vote through on online portal. However, this year ( Maybe last year) they added a new element where part of the voting is dependent on how many people download (pay for ) the contestants songs on itunes. Now this changes the cost per vote from a few cents, to dollars. This is several orders to magnitudes greater, and is a really smart profitable decision. And I am not sure how I feel about it.
One one side I feel that they are double dipping on getting paid. Once with traditional ad based models on tv, and a second time with itunes. However, I actually wonder if this creates a more authentic version of how these shows should work. I like that the artists probably get a small cut per each song sole. And I also like that the people voting in this sense, are more likely endorsing their song versus someone they think is cute or a good showman – 90 more cents is a larger barrier to entry compared to a nickel.
There is one thing I still dont understand. I wish the voice was a bit more like the Jersey Shore. In the sense that everyone wins. This is still reality TV. However, with new publishing models around, there is NO reason except for entertainment value that there should be a winner. I feel like at the end of the show, everyone should publish an album. Obviously those who were on the show longer have a higher chance of getting more screen time and thus free advertising – but this show still runs on a hunger games type of model. There does not have to be only one winner. As far as I see it, they all have incredible talent, and I hope they all go one to use this show as a springboard. The models they have introduced to TV really blur the lines between what is owned media, how does real time marketing change programming, and how do influencers ( hosts / cohosts ) act as curators of the crowd, and ultimately . . . who can win ?