Google vs News

It seems like a good 20% of the news produced on the internet in the last few months is about news on the internet. Declined as newspapers are doomed, journalists are doomed, journalism is doomed, we are doomed.  And if you’re looking for the killer, you should probably head to Montainview.

Perhaps that explains why like Google has recently joined the club or the more-or-less enthusiastic supporters of micro-payments, using the Google Checkout platform.

However media companies shouldn’t be celebrating, as I think this will turn out to be little more than a PR initiative from a company that’s being accused of being a parasite.

The reasons why micropayments are very unlikely to work still stand:

- In the math of consumers, unlike the math of business models, the difference between zero cents and 1 cent is not one cent. It’s the difference between the feeling of grabbing something for free and the feeling of paying with your limited resources, plus the hassle of registering into and going through a payment verification system. (Dan Ariely has done lots of interesting research on behavioural psychology, check him out)

- News can be easily replicated and divulged. Apart from any ideological considerations now why news should be free, it’s simply impossible to keep them from spreading. The same applies to editorials and any other from of digital text.

- The analogy with iTunes is wrong: music is something that you own and use over time, whereas for everyone but researchers news are disposable.

- The analogy with iTunes is misleading: from every song purchased on iTunes, an estimated 99 are still downloaded via p2p piracy. That’s not what I would call a successful business model for an industry.

- Pricing policies would be a nightmare: is an all-you-can-eat model feasible for a search-driven, snack-size consumption? Can you fragment a newspaper down to its elementar financial value? (Clay Shirky suggested you can’t back in 2000, it’s funny to see how the debate hasn’t moved further.)

- They provide a massive advantage for free-riders: the one news organization that will publish news for free will receive almost all the traffic, and the related ad-driven revenues.

It’s no coincidence that 2009 was supposed to be the year when media starts demanding its money back, and so far everyone’s waiting for someone else to take the first step, and the risk of being considered a fool.

Final Burp: So, why is Google going down this route? PR. Why are media owners doing it? Self-delusion.

Pizza Hut made me feel like an idiot. (And I’m not sure it’s a good thing…)

 

I found a link to the above site from Pizza Hut, and I thought: wow!, what a brilliant and simple idea!

The privilege of having your face featured on a pizza is no longer reserved to Jesus, Mary and Kurt Cobain…

This is what I would expect from Domino ever since they started working with Crispin, and instead it comes from the same Pizza Hut whose latest brand initiatives were,  let’s say, debatable at least…

 

So I gladly uploaded the picture I wanted on my pizza:

 

 

 

and this is what I got back:

 

 

And it made me feel like an idiot.

Now,  I don’t know who pitched this idea to Pizza Hut, but I’m pretty sure they said that it would be “fun social content” that would “engage your hard-to-reach, on-the-go, web-savy consumers”,  allowing the brand to “entertain them”, and of course “it would go viral”. 

My problem with this is that April’s Fools are designed to make you feel like an idiot because they are clearly  hyperbolic stunts that no person with a sense of reality would fall for. (Like, let’s say, building a global financial system on mortgages paid for by people who can’t afford them, backed by houses that noone would want to live in…)

In this case, portrait pizzas are feasible. You need a relatively simple algorythm (one that you can find online for free), a variety of different ingredients (the same you can find in any Pizza Hut) and a little time (maybe more than what Pizza Hut is currently taking to bake a pizza, but I have no doubt taht consumers would be willing to wait 10 minutes longer to have a personalized portrait pizza).

So, to sum things up:

1. Pizza Hut came up with a feasible and unique marketing idea
2. Instead of making it happen, they used it as an April’s Fool
3. In doing so, not only they walked away from its marketing value: they made their potential consumers feel like idiots

 

The irony of all this is that the more people try to customize their pizza, the more an evidence it is that it could have been a great marketing idea. And instead, it’s just more people that will be annoyed at Pizza Hut.

Quite an achievement for a brand under pressure.

It will be interesting to see how many people actually redeemed the coupon, and how this influenced brand perception…

 

Final Burp: Do you want to do something audacious, engaging,  edgy and viral as a marketer? Make a damn good product! That’s your job.

It’s coming

 

My new neighbourhood Waitrose, in Islington. 

Next to Sainsbury’s, opposite from Marks & Spencer. Slurp!

 

Final Burp: Oh, sweet anticipation…

What do you still Google for?

Here’s one thing everyone knows:  Google’s success lies in managing abundance, delivering you relevant results.

Here’s one thing that apparently is not related to this:  a report on how Facebook could kill Google, based on analysis from Ross Sandler. (Just so that you know, the article doesn’t  say how Facebook could kill Google, it just compares the size and growth rate of the two giants.)

Here’s one thing worth thinking about: how Facebook could damage Google. Not as a social network in itself (in a way Google is a social network), not as a competitive ad destination (there’s still plenty of money to flow towards online advertising), but as an alternative search engine. Here’s why.

 

Google is great at simplifying complexity. But it’s a universal search engine, and there’s only so much it can do.  So it inevitably loses some ground to its competitors. And they’re not Yahoo or Msn.

 

When I want to know something, I search Wikipedia. Because I’m sure that there I can find the one, most relevant result. (Even Google acknowledges that, by usually ranking Wikipedia results first). And from there, I can move on to related information.

When I want to buy something, I search Amazon. Well, I don’t,  because I’m old fashioned, but plenty of people do.

When I want to watch something, I search Youtube. And that’s what killed Google Video; and why Google bought it.

 

When I want to find out what’s going on right now about a certain event, I search Twitter. Twitter gives me real time results. Not only Google doesn’t. Google is designed not to, because it privileges older results that have had time to grow relevant for its algorythm, over more recent ones that are relevant for my search.

And when I want to find someone, I search Facebook. Not only is it  a search engine for people; it’s the most relevant search engine for people. (At least in the US and Western Europe). After the first click, I get a list of people with pictures, so that I know at first sight if any of them is the person I’m looking for. After the second click, I can contact them, and in many cases find out a whole lot about them.

 

In general, it seems that internet users are devising new ways to aggregate content around a specific critera, and deliver more relevant results based on human contribution, rather than an algorythm: results provided by Wikipedia are smarter because they are created by a crowd for that specific purpose, and managed by a human intelligence.

To that same extent, every social network becomes an alternative search engine: a specialized, thus more relevant, thus better one. If I want to plan a dinner out, I’m better off running my search in a social network about restaurants/london, then Googling “good restaurant london”, and be flooded by a number of more or less relevant results.

One could argue that Google would redirect me to that social network, and many others, but why waste time with one more unnecessary search, once a preminent, relevant social network emerges?

 

This is true for simple tasks, but even more so for more sophisticated ones. If I have to research a topic I know little or nothing about, for work or study, where should I start from? If I google it, I can’t really tell the relevant results from the less relevant, and above that the most credible results from the BS, because I have no expertise in the subject.

So here’s what I’d do:

First, start from my usual, trusted sources:  Wikipedia and other knowledge social networks. Ask friends and  coworkers, fellow students. Maybe ask someone on Linkedin.

Second, check some general trusted sources. Newspapers and magazines with a good reputation. (And who happen to be desperately looking for a new purpose right now, as brilliantly pointed out by Clay Shirky.)

Thirdly, if I haven’t found enough information through my first two sources, or if I want a little more, I can Google. And hopefully by now the first two kinds of sources will have provided me with enough backround expertise to tell the good from the bad.

 

Does it mean that social networks will kill Google? No. At least not if we look at “Google as an ad platform”.

But I can safely say that  ”Google as a search engine” has been steadily losing share of my time, and will keep losing more.

 

Final Burp: Specialized hubs (of knowledge, goods, relationships) will naturally gain ground over unspecialized hubs. (Until the semantic web shows up for real?)

Predictions for 2009: Social Media

Ok ok, everyone’s talking about social media, it’s gone mainstream, there’s plenty of parliamentary petitions all over the world that take Facebook more seriously than they should, and we’re all tired of it. Still, social media is here to stay. At least for 2009.

 

Highlights:

“Friend Synchronization Tools”, as well as “Tools to reduce noice, deal with RSS overload“

“Doors are going to close all over the social web. The money didn’t come the way people thought it would”. Interesting, but I doubt it’s going to  happen. Money always flows to the latest trends that everyone talks about, especially in uncertain times.

“B2B goes social media” Yes, this is something I would bet on. (If I had any money, of course.)

“Google will buy Twitter“

“Mobile marketing takes off”. I wish.

“Live: as it happens content”. Now, this would be interesting.

“People will really become the media”

 

Final Burp: Social media will not dictate trends, it will deliver them.

Predictions for 2009: Consumer trends

More from Trendsspotting, with some highlights:

 

“Several people have mentioned that the recession almost seems like a blessing because they are now forced to readjust their values” I heard that, too. People who are saying this have not been  hit by the recession. Those who have are readjusting their meals and clothes, not their values.

 

“Lipstick sales indicate economic recession”.

 

Lots of other statements, but none of them are really predictions: they’re either acknowledgments of what’s already happening (“People want to know where their products come from” Nah, really?) or generic declarations that could it’d be hard to prove right or wrong, pretty much like horoscopes (“It’s going to be trendy to dress dowdy, with faded colors and melancholy looks”. Already is, always was, always will be for someone. Emo, anyone?)

 

Final Burp: I’m experiencing a new sense of respect towards astrologists…

 

“Content creators are layering a multitude of media into entertainment for simulatenous consumption and engagement. For example, “Little big planet” users are gamers, social networkers and content creators…” This confirms entertainment is the industry we should all try to be in, and that lots of marketers should look at as the new outlet for their products.

Damn’, it was an ad!

Chevrolet. Smart.

 

Final Burp: I can’t stand the word “viral” anymore. But when it works, it works.

Ad world and the war for talent: the half-empty glass

Advertising agencies, just like most other creative and consulting industries, base their success on one factor, one single asset: human resources.

Their business model is built on selling ideas, ideas are crafted by the workforce of the agency. The agency with the most talented workforce produces the best idea, thus resulting in a competitive edge on the only product that the industry is offering. It’s this simple.

Yet, advertising agencies often neglect this, and treat their human resources as a commodity. (Heck, lots of them don’t even have an HR department or program); therefore resulting in commodities themselves, since an ad agency is essentially made up of its people, and that’s about it.

If we look back at how the ad industry lost part of its standing and credibility (I assume we all agree it did), we can see a number of processes combine:

1. Client companies grew a marketing culture: all of a sudden, the same company that used to make cookies started hiring people that could sell them, alongside those who could bake them.
2. Seeing the uniqueness of their marketing expertise challenged, ad agencies could have resorted to establishing a sound and proven expertise in communication. Unfortunately, such a choice would have implied building an expertise in a number of disciplines, from behaviourial sociology to semiotics, and investing in research, training and talent.
3. Instead, ad agencies resorted to the tempting route of “advertising as art”, under the arguable selling proposition of “Buy into this idea because our creative director says so”. (Or under the best circumstances, “Buy into this idea because our multiple-awards winner creative director says so”)

Quite predictably, this only worked when creative directors could count on an already established reputation and they’d come up with a creative idea so brilliant that it could easily sell itself and clients were brave and confident enough to buy into it.

In absence of that, marketers started hanging onto anything, from past cliches that had always worked (and thus would not be working anymore by definition) to tedious focus groups, to assist them in critical decisions. And in today’s world, when any decision is critical, that means everything.

All this has been made worse by an industry that has refrained from investing in talent, in an effort to find the one or two star creative directors that would boost an ad reputation, letting everything else go: how many account directors can get a good understanding of a client’s business? How many of them are brilliant public speakers? How many copywriters could write an episode of a sit-com, and make it at least as funny as your average tv-show?

Not many, and quite a few of them would be tempted to move to other industries, where they’d receive higher salaries and opportunities.

Therefore depriving ad agencies of talent. Which in turn results in poorer ideas, and a poorer service. Which results in declining fees. Which of course results in less money for hiring and training talents. And so on…

Now, here are two more questions:

Why am I leaving planners aside? Firstly, lots of agencies don’t even have planners. As for those who do, sometimes they have made things worse:  hiring a handful of smart planners was seen as a good enough way to provide the agency with all the brains that it needed. (I always found an insulting stereotype that of seeing planners as “the intelligent ones”, creative teams as “the creative ones”, and account managers as “the reliable ones”. As if someone couldn’t be intelligent, creative and reliable at the same time. Hell, as if everyone shouldn’t be required to be intelligent, creative and reliable at the same time today!).

Why am I complaining about this right now? Because the IPA website is hosting an interesting (though very UK-oriented) view on training talents, by BBH’s Nick Kendall. It’s about IPA’s 7-stage model, but I see it as part of a larger debate on talent in the ad industry, one that deserves each of us spending some of our time and braincells on.

 

Final Burp: how many practitioners in advertising have done at least one reading in any one of the following: beavioural psychology, semiotics, neuropsychology, game theory, social movements,  organizational psychology, linguistics, anthropology…?

Lessons in fucking yourself up: Pizza Hut rebrands into Pasta Hut

With the most brilliant brains worldwide kept busy by the financial crisis, and the so-so brains as well, stupidity has been free to roam around, eventually getting a hold of Pizza Hut. It has recently announced its decision to temporarily (?) change its name to Pasta Hut to celebrate its pasta offering.

And by temporary, they don’t mean a short term stunt like the brilliant 7-11 / Simpson rebranding of KwiK-E-Mart.

They mean “multi-million ad campaign and store rebranding” short term.

That is, “months” short term.

That is, “let’s try this and see how it goes, and if it fails we had already announced it would be short term anyway” short term.

And why in the world do that?!

This is where it gets interesting: the answer is a combination of most of what’s wrong and stupid in brand management:

1. Their core product has become more expensive, so instead of trying to work that problem around and redefine the value proposition, why not change what we stand for?
2. Pizza can be deemed as too fat for today’s healthy diet trends. Someone should tell folks at Pizza Hut that pasta is not that much lighter a dish: both feature elaborated toppings that add a significant amount of calories to a dish already rich in carbohydrates. (Oh, and since we’re there already, someone could also mention that Carl’s Jr is enjoying same store sales increase staying true to what they stand for: bigger, fatter burgers. Funny, huh!)
3. They think there’s a problem of communication: not enough people know that they offer pasta, too. Now, Pizza Hut has been offering pasta dishes since 1975: chances are, anyone who is even remotely likely to be a Pizza Hut consumer already knows they do pasta.
4. The best bit is: research (could it be missing?) showed that consumers wanted more variety eating out. Now, without even wondering if, faced with the choice of wanting more or less variety, someone would ever opt for less, does Pizza Hut believe that changing its name to Pasta Hut will make people believe that they’ll offer greater variety? Or will they just think “Oh, they used to make pizza, now they make Pasta”? And for Christ’s sake, you’re a freaking restaurant! You want to show your potential consumers that you offer a variety of food? Stick a damn menu out of your damn windows! That’s what restaurants do!

If I were to judge this operation, here’s a few questions I’d ask:

- What kind of consideration does management at Pizza Hut have of its own brand, to believe that it can dispose of it so easily?

- How much money will be wasted on trying to overcome a brand perception that has been built over the years?

- Like it or not, Pizza Hut is the leading brand in fast pizza: how much money will it take to achieve a similar position in the fast pasta market?

- How much money will it take to get your brand back to where it was, should this operation fail?

- I know it would have required some real brain, but wouldn’t it have made more sense to try and fix the pizza business, thas is the only reason to be for Pizza Hut in the minds of consumers, and develop some Pasta Hut franchises alongside, like Mc Donald’s did with the successful Mc Cafe?

I think it’s important to point out that the decision to enter the pasta category “very aggressively” can make very much sense, as there’s no established leader in the industry, and Pizza Hut can count on an established distribution, as well as relationships with consumers. What I don’t get is why you have to kill yourself in the process.

(That is, assuming that the rebranding will last for a decent amount of time. Otherwise, noone’s going to remember it in a few months, and the whole thing would have only been a waste of time. But not of brand, at least)

 

Final Burp: Best Comment Award goes to Jim Prior, on Brand Republic: “It is a bit of a puerile idea; the sort of thing the chair-man’s wife comes up with at Sunday lunch”

Who is Johnny X?

The specific answer will only come on Friday, so I don’t know.

The broad answer is: the launch campaign for the new Sony Ericsson X1, the first convergence device from the new Xperia sub-brand. (Disclaimer: it’s been produced by the agency who I work for, and who, therefore, pays for my mortgage.)

We could spend days and days in a serious conversation on convergence devices, but why bother, given that the main users of such devices are too busy crashing the world economy, and chances are they’re not going to need one when they’re done?

So, let’s focus on the content instead. A basic insight about mobile phones is that, by always being with us and having grown more and more sophisticated, they literally embed all our life: people we know, places we have been, things we have to do…

The downside is that you don’t need to be Paris Hilton to know that if someone gets a hold of your phone, your whole life is exposed.

On the other hand, should you lose your memory, your mobile phone would be the right place to start getting it back. And this is what happens to Johnny X.

 

Final Burp: I wondered what’d happen to me, if I lost my memory or someone found my phone, so I went through the last numbers I called on my mobile phone, and looked at what kind of picture they’d paint of myself. It’s interesting, you should all try it.