October 28th, 2009
Big black block, silver lining, rounded edges, a line for an earhole and a central button at the bottom. No I’m not talking about the iPhone. I’m talking about the new Nokia N97 mini.
Why innovate when you can just copy a surefire winner? Well because in the world of design and branding for products copycats are seen in a derisive light- especially for something as blatant as this.
If Nokia copied any other phone it wouldn’t have been as bad. In this case the iPhone is so distinct from other mobile devices that even mimicking slight features are noticed. Adding a pull-out keyboard doesn’t make it different.
Mobile devices like Microsoft’s Zune HD and Verizon’s DROID aren’t being pulled into the ’rounded rectangle’ trap and are still able to produce high quality, beautiful, buzzworthy devices. The next major cool-kid device won’t look like the iPhone. Apple already did that. Remember, nothing looked like the iPhone or the Sidekick or the StarTac when they came out.
Look for something completely different in style and functionality. I guarantee the next great mobile device won’t look like anything you’ve ever seen. You’ll be happy it doesn’t.
Posted via web from db’s digital branding database
Tags: anything, Apple, Big, big black, block, bottom, button, buzzworthy, case, clone, com, cool kid, copycats, database, design, device, disaster, droid, earhole, engadget, functionality, hd, iphone, iphone clone, keyboard, light, line, lining, Microsoft, mini, mobile, mobile device, mobile devices, nokia, nokia n97, nothing, phone, pull-out, quality, rectangle, rounded rectangle, sidekick, silver, something, startac, style, surefire, surefire winner, the, trap, verizon, web, winner, world, zune
Posted in featured | No Comments »
October 15th, 2009
Appeared originally as a comment on MJ Newham’s wonderful blog at http://martin.newham.ws on a post called Future Of Print.
There are two types of readers: situational and experiential.
I happen to be both so I understand why dead archives are needed as well as digital files. My solution: bamboo. Bamboo is stronger than tree paper, only takes 2 years (give or take) to grow to maturity, and still retains the tactile sensibilities that tree paper does.
I feel that Kindle is the wrong direction. What Kindle is trying to do is recreate a book experience in digital format. The digital format is something separate and needs to be treated as so. The whole point of a digital library is to be able to take many “books” with you at once. Kindle doesn’t make this easy. Plus, it’s not aesthetically pleasing. That’s aim number one with a bookjacket.
The iPhone trumps the Kindle in many ways with the Stanza app. This app isn’t trying to recreate a book reading experience in digital. It makes your reading experience as easy as possible for the medium that you are using. It’s size makes it easy for me to read on the go, which speaks to the whole issue of portability. If you’re concerned with text size, don’t be- there is a feature where you can increase the text size to whatever suits you. I personally would rather read less on a “page” to gain more space in the physical world. I am a man and do not always carry a bag. I don’t want to be seen carrying some unfortunately huge thing when I’m going out, yet I always want to read AND listen to music on my way to some place.
Dead plant books will still be around, just like cds & dvds will still be around. They will all exist in a special limited edition collectors format for those who really need to have a physical copy of something to cherish. Remember, we like having physical copies of stuff. It adds to our definition of who we are. Not everything that we consume should make the cut though.
Digitization is the implementation of zen Buddhism in our physical lives.
*addendum: vook.tv along with the mythical Apple iTablet will most likely bring us a more truer digital ‘book’.
Tags: book, book experience, book reading, books, business, collectibles, collectors item, design, digital books, digital library, digitization, ebook, ebooks, edition collectors, ereader, ereaders, functionality, iphone, kindle, limited edition, paper books, physical copies, portability, reading experience, sensibilities, stanza, technology, wrong direction
Posted in featured, life, media, technology | No Comments »
September 16th, 2009
While most of you were obsessing over the Kanye West meme taking the internet by storm, Twitter quietly rolled out an update to their brand image. They killed off the Spam Owl and replaced him with their happy-go-lucky mascot Twitter bird. This comes right on the heels of an update to their TOS many of you have already received by now.
This most recent change is just an extension of their homepage image revamp that focuses more on search and trending topics now.
Of course this update comes amidst other high profile updates from major players such as Facebook (Facebook Lite, @ mentions, Application Prototypes), Google (Fast Flip, Public Sector, mysterious UFO logo saga) and Bing (image search). With the new TOS including references to advertising and Twitter.com traffic plateauing, could this new brand image update be Twitter solidifying it’s image to monetize soon?
One thing we know for sure with Twitter is that most of what they implement is done without fanfare in stages. Just as the TOS has been implemented over the course of the last week, the default avatar isn’t changing all at once. In fact, it’s changing over time into many different flavors: purple, dark blue, baby blue, lime green, dark green, orange, dark red so far.
Even with the staggered rollout, established users with their own custom avatars are already having issues:
We’ve already seen the Fail Whale go the way of the dodo in place of a generic 503-error page. Only time will tell what images will replace the other now iconic characters of Technically Wrong Robot, and Maintenance Caterpillar & Chill Ice Cream Cone. What other image changes and default avatar colors have you spotted?
Tags: 503 error, Bing, bing image search, brand, brand image, branding, business, caterpillar, core values, custom avatars, dark blue, default avatar, design, designers, dodo, Facebook, facebook application prototypes, facebook lite, fail whale, fanfare, flavors, functionality, goals, Google, google fast flip, google public sector, google ufo logo, image changes, image search, interaction, interactions, kanye west, mascot, media, monetize, mysterious ufo, network, profile updates, prototypes, social, social media, spam owl, technology, TOS, twitter, Twitter TOS, ufo logo
Posted in business, featured, social media, technology | No Comments »
August 10th, 2009
Tr.im has recently announced that they are shutting down due to non-monetization. According to their press release they “cannot find a way to justify continuing to work on it”. While they may have shopped it around and “no one perceived any value in it, or they wanted to operate a shortener under a differently branded domain name.” I have some ideas on what should happen with their service.
Tr.im is the best brand name for a URL shortener out there. You know EXACTLY what it does by the name (it trims it), plus it’s only 5 characters while most others (including bit.ly) are at least 6. In a character sensitive environment where novices may stumble upon your links these two items are very important.
Here’s some thoughts on who should buy Tr.im:
As of now Twitter has no personal URL shortening service. They made the move from TinyURL to Bit.ly and can just as easily move to their own in-house shortening service. Why is this important? Twitter has been building out their features, and most recently redesigned their homepage to focus on search. By having an in-house trimming service they can create a more seamless experience for their users. They can also own the statistics and analytics. This will be increasingly important for monetization, gauging the depth of their network, figuring out the velocity of messages spread and their growth and keeping their users on their site longer.
Tr.iim graphic courtesy of David Kadavy via his Flickr
Bit.ly
Bit.ly is currently Twitter’s default shortening service. There are other competitors but this factor has strongly bolstered bit.ly’s rise through the ranks. Acquiring all of tr.im’s shortened URLs along with their proprietary name would benefit them greatly. Bit.ly could redirect all tr.ims to bit.ly’s platform, so essentially you will be seeing bit.ly’s analytics coupled with tr.im’s name.
Bit.ly is not short on money, considering they just were funded for $2 Million. Much has been said about Twitter’s rumored acquisition of Bit.ly but until it happens it’s just that, a rumor. Also of note, Bit.ly is building out a full-featured platform that is said to rival Digg’s current service.
TinyURL vs. Bit.ly vs. Tr.im graph
One thing IS for certain though: the recent social network DDoS attack and Tr.im’s announcement of their closure reaffirms the fragility of social media properties. A site can be inaccessible or close down at any time, so don’t hedge your bets on any particular one just yet.
Tags: bit.ly, brand, brand name, branding, business, consumer, consumers, conversation, design, designers, domain name, functionality, interaction, marketing, media, monetization, network, networked, networking, personal url, press release, productivity, proprietary name, seamless experience, selling, sensitive environment, short url, short urls, social media, statistics, technology, tinyurl, tr.im, trim url, trimmed urls, trims, twitter, url shortener, url shorteners, url shortening, Value, velocity
Posted in branding, business, social media | No Comments »
July 12th, 2009
Twitter has gained widespread recognition from media outlets, celebrities and brands among others. There are certain brands that already have a well-known presence on Twitter like @WholeFoods , @JetBlue , and @Starbucks. Now because of the exposure more brands find value in this “social network” but don’t know how to go about utilizing social media tools.
Some have resorted to buying Twitter followers. Some have enlisted Twitterers to get paid for their tweets with Magpie and Adjix. The latest to throw their hat in this ring is Ted Murphy and IZEA with @Spontwts.
@Spontwts is a program where you can signup to allow advertisers to pitch you offers for you to tweet. I learned about this from a tweet from @tedmurphy which said that a celebrity made $2,500 from a single sponsored tweet.
Danny Brown wrote up an article about this. He’s “neither here nor there on the topic as long as it’s handled properly.” I tend to agree with him. Promoting something is generally neutral. How it’s done is what sets it apart.
People generally are adverse to this because of Magpie. Magpie promoted itself in an invasive manner, Any message that doesn’t take your target audience into account can run afoul of them. No one wants to see a blatantly promotional ad for a service that has nothing to do with your or their interests. That’s where Magpie went wrong. This is where Spontwts can benefit.
People want relevance. As long as the advertisers you choose align with what you already consume and subscribe to there should be no problem. I personally promote Mountain Dew on Twitter (@mtn_dew) whenever it’s naturally possible. That’s the key: NATURALLY possible.
I enjoy Mountain Dew in my life & I share my experiences with the brand on Twitter often. I can guarantee you that some of my followers do NOT share my passion for Mountain Dew, yet they accpt it /enjoy it/ engage with me on it. Why? Because I have PASSION for it. Regardless of what it is, they see that I’m genuine about it and THAT is why it works.
Spontwts is about how you use it. If a user accepts any and all offers from advertisers the service becomes a firehose. ANYTHING is a nuisance when used that way. It’s all about timing, relevancy and precision.
The brands you subscribe to and promote become part of your brand. The more value you provide through sharing & helping the more people are willing to ‘buy’ what you are ‘selling‘. Tip the balance too much one way, you become an annoying shill.
Curating their users, advertisers, and tweet frequency/volume will ultimately make or break their service. Some on Twitter go for quantity, others, quality. Only a select few go for quantity of quality.
A couple of items of note:
- Sponsored Tweets only allows you to choose one category from a select sample: Business/Finance, Entertainment, Family, Food, General, Health, Marketing, Technology, Travel.
- You can further specify what types of offers you want to receive by tagging your profile with up to 10 keywords.
- Notification by e-mail or DM but not both.
- Either you or the advertiser can write the tweet (not sure if you can change their writing after the fact).
- There is a pre-set ‘Charge per tweet’ and ‘Charge per click’ that you can change, yet no formula is given to give you scope to gauge it on.
- A ‘Content rating’ area is also available for you to rate your tweets (Everyone, Mature, Adults-only), although if you’re like me, tweets can be all over the board.
One clarification provided by IZEA:
Sponsored Tweets will not auto inject ads into your stream. Each tweet must be approved by you before it gets released. Our goal is to provide you with quality ads that you are comfortable with.
Some final thoughts:
Sponsored Tweets add #spon onto the end as to distinguish that it’s a sponsored tweet. IZEA is also working out some technical issues like sponsored tweet DMs being truncated, thus cutting off vital information from advertisers.
Overall I believe that Ted Murphy and IZEA is onto something here. When you are allowed to preselect your content for your intended audience the ultimate onus falls on you as the selector. This is what sets apart a quality Twitter account from a spammy one and every shade of grey in between.
As I have used Twitterfeed to inject some of the best content I have preselected from the web, so will I try out Sponsored Tweets to see if the advertisers and quality are up to my followers’ standards. I have faith in the community that I have built to tell me if it works for them or not, and I in turn will process that information and act on it.
Trust is gained over time and destroyed in a moment. Be careful with it. It is best to use a scalpel not a machete when dealing with trust concerns and your brand.
Tags: advertisers, benefit, brand, branding, business, celeb, celebrities, consumer, consumers, core values, danny brown, experiment, feelings, follower, followers, frien, friends, functionality, goals, instances, interactions, invasive manner, jetblue, magpie, marketing, media outlets, media tools, mountain dew, network, networking, presence, relevance, selling, social media, starbucks, target audience, technology, ted murphy, tweet, tweets, twitter, Value
Posted in branding, featured, life, social media | 1 Comment »
May 22nd, 2009
Is the web 2.0 bubble balloon slowly deflating?
Recently Meg Pickard released an updated version of the now infamous Web 2.0 image map. This new map breaks down who is dead, acquired and alive (X, O, and no mark, respectively)
Kevin Eklund’s statistical analysis of the chart:
Web 2.0: Project or Business?
Mashable touted all those on the list (survivors included) as a testament to those willing to do rather than watch. While I tend to agree with Mashable and others concerning the survival/success rate of Web 2.0 businesses, no one is asking the important question. Only Doug Martin begins to touch upon it:
I created one of the projects Xed out on the first chart. Looking back it was a project and not a business – I got coverage on all the hot tech blogs and the associated huge spike in traffic but there really was not a business there. It did help me get my next job though and it was a fun ride.
Many Web 2.0 companies start out with a great idea, ambition and a rush to get it first to market. The problem with that is when you think like a designer or a developer you get those results. A businessman thinks of the bottom line: money.
Amazing ideas are all well and good but if you don’t have a proper monetization model in place before you launch you are setting yourself up for disaster. You also need short & long term road maps and an exit strategy. Core values and belief systems MUST be set up before you can start doing business. Crawl, walk, run, fly.
I’m not interested in a failure rate or what that means for a new web industry. What I am interested in is why. Why did these companies fold? Why are some still around? Why did some get acquired? Rates mean nothing without reason behind them.
Web You.0
Meg Pickard is at least asking one question, a question about creating a new roadmap:
“If anyone would like to make a new collage of startups in this genre for 2009, I’d be very interested to see it – please post the link in the comments. Here’s the collage above, but with all the defunct companies removed. There are plenty of healthy and exciting companies around these days which could fill those empty spaces. Who’ll take on the task of filling the gaps?”
I propose not just a new update to the Web 2.0 map but a new way to organize it as well.
- Create a maximum uniform height and width for logos.
- Separate into color groups according to what their primary service is (sharing, storage etc).
- Make each logo into an actual clickable image map that links out to each service.
- Show how the social networking services are linked together i.e. Twitter > Facebook > Friendfeed <->Twitter
- Repeat for a Web 3.0 (aka Semantic Web) map
- Tie both the Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 map together in parallel linked maps
Just remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day. Also, Rome is just a city now instead of an empire. Think about that.
Tags: ambition, belief systems, beliefs, blog, brand, branding, business, businessman, chart web, collage, colors, commenters, communications, core values, design, designers, doug martin, eklund, excitement, exit strategy, experiment, Facebook, failure, failure rate, Friendfeed, fun ride, functionality, grouping, image map, interactions, lists, marketing, mashable, models, network, networked, networking, one question, organization, road maps, roadmap, social, social media, startups, statistical analysis, statistics, strategy, success rate, tech, technology, twitter, update, Value, web industry
Posted in branding, business, featured, social media | No Comments »
May 18th, 2009
or
GR8 BR&
SAY MORE WITH LESS.
The advent of 140 characters has forced us to choose our words wisely.
We now convey more info in a shorter time/space.
Why use ___ when you can use ___?
The old standbys:
lol, gtg, ttyl, brb
The new standbys:
retweet, RT, Via vs. ~
look vs. QQ
open vs. <->
close vs. >-<
this or that vs. %
The difference?
Old shortens to initials.
New creates ideas.
A GR8 BR& CRE8s
Tags: advent, brand, branding, communicating, consumers, conversation, designers, functionality, goals, initials, interactions, knowledge, productivity, retweet, rt, social media, standbys, time space, ttyl, twitter, Value, words
Posted in branding, business, featured, social media | No Comments »
April 22nd, 2009
© Sydney A
Syndicated as a guest post originally from Lisa Hickey’s The Hurricane Inside My Brain
The title of the article is meant to invoke a sense of what is to come, not to just talk about advertising but branding and marketing.
In this article I’ll take a look at what I feel is coming down the pipeline for these areas. The future isn’t set in stone and neither are these predictions. Companies are already starting to track your habits. In the future it will just get more intuitive. Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: advantage, aggregation, benefit, brain, brand, branding, breadth, business, communicating, communication, communications, communications companies, consumer, consumers, desire, evange experiment, exact moment, experiences, feelings, functionality, grouping, habit, hurricane, integrity, interaction, interactions, iphone, life, life profiles, lists, marketing, mobile, mobile providers, mobile technologies, nuances, pipeline, plans, point of purchase, privacy, productivity, promotions, set in stone, signs, technology, thoughtfulness, Value, video
Posted in featured, technology | No Comments »
Has the Web 2.0 bubble burst?
Is the web 2.0 bubble balloon slowly deflating?
Recently Meg Pickard released an updated version of the now infamous Web 2.0 image map. This new map breaks down who is dead, acquired and alive (X, O, and no mark, respectively)
Kevin Eklund’s statistical analysis of the chart:
Web 2.0: Project or Business?
Mashable touted all those on the list (survivors included) as a testament to those willing to do rather than watch. While I tend to agree with Mashable and others concerning the survival/success rate of Web 2.0 businesses, no one is asking the important question. Only Doug Martin begins to touch upon it:
I created one of the projects Xed out on the first chart. Looking back it was a project and not a business – I got coverage on all the hot tech blogs and the associated huge spike in traffic but there really was not a business there. It did help me get my next job though and it was a fun ride.
Many Web 2.0 companies start out with a great idea, ambition and a rush to get it first to market. The problem with that is when you think like a designer or a developer you get those results. A businessman thinks of the bottom line: money.
Amazing ideas are all well and good but if you don’t have a proper monetization model in place before you launch you are setting yourself up for disaster. You also need short & long term road maps and an exit strategy. Core values and belief systems MUST be set up before you can start doing business. Crawl, walk, run, fly.
I’m not interested in a failure rate or what that means for a new web industry. What I am interested in is why. Why did these companies fold? Why are some still around? Why did some get acquired? Rates mean nothing without reason behind them.
Web You.0
Meg Pickard is at least asking one question, a question about creating a new roadmap:
“If anyone would like to make a new collage of startups in this genre for 2009, I’d be very interested to see it – please post the link in the comments. Here’s the collage above, but with all the defunct companies removed. There are plenty of healthy and exciting companies around these days which could fill those empty spaces. Who’ll take on the task of filling the gaps?”
I propose not just a new update to the Web 2.0 map but a new way to organize it as well.
Just remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day. Also, Rome is just a city now instead of an empire. Think about that.
Connect with me on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.
Tags: ambition, belief systems, beliefs, blog, brand, branding, business, businessman, chart web, collage, colors, commenters, communications, core values, design, designers, doug martin, eklund, excitement, exit strategy, experiment, Facebook, failure, failure rate, Friendfeed, fun ride, functionality, grouping, image map, interactions, lists, marketing, mashable, models, network, networked, networking, one question, organization, road maps, roadmap, social, social media, startups, statistical analysis, statistics, strategy, success rate, tech, technology, twitter, update, Value, web industry
Posted in branding, business, featured, social media | No Comments »