A necessary and brilliant move, Apple has added suggestions to their receipt to give a valid call to action. The only problem is the suggestions are based on what others who bought my selections also bought. While this is helpful in giving more suggestions I’d actually like suggestions based on what I bought that’s relevant to me.
Semantic technology may still be in it’s infancy but relevancy can be given based on many other factors. I personally don’t need an app to view my pet pictures on my Mac remotely (Clarus), a separate app to read a blog (Pali Research), and I certainly don’t need to track my neuroses (SymTrend). If Apple knew me they’d know that I don’t have a pet, am reading my blogs via my6sense now and have overcome neuroses long ago.
Tagging is a very simple technology that is successfully implemented by many brands. Foursquare has taken descriptive tagging to another level by crowd sourcing this task and rewarding for levels of input. If the ‘Give Work’ app was properly tagged it would’ve been able to suggest other apps that are similar in the social good, social change categories and crowd sourcing categories. I would even accept most recently added app suggestions, most popular in category, or even what other users in my area downloaded [which they can do because they have my address].
Suggestions are a step forward but these aren’t enough for me. For now I’ll keep archiving my iTunes receipts so I can search through my download history, as Apple doesn’t allow you to do that easily. If apps like my6sense can learn my preferences then surely a large company with vast resources like Apple can figure out how to do the same.
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’.
For branding and social media insights check out my Posterous.
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.
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?
For branding and social media insights check out my Posterous.
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.
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.
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 socialnetwork DDoS attack and Tr.im’s announcement of their closure reaffirms the fragility of socialmedia properties. A site can be inaccessible or close down at any time, so don’t hedge your bets on any particular one just yet.
For branding and social media insights check out my Posterous.
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 “socialnetwork” but don’t know how to go about utilizing socialmedia 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 Brownwrote 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.
For branding and social media insights check out my Posterous.
On June 8th 2009 Microsoft took an unprecedented move in advertising their new search engine Bing. They subsidized all commercials on Hulu for a limited time period. In exchange for that they produced something akin to a telethon meets an infomercial- the Bing-a-thon. The Bing-a-thon is something that has never been done before online.
Microsoft is getting it right with the marketing of Bing. They understand that search should be easy. They understand that in order to learn about something it should be fun. People don’t want to be lectured. We want to be entertained. Disguise learning in entertainment and you have just created an educated consumer. Here’s what some of you took away from the Hulu Microsoft Bing-a-thon:
Some of you were:
Compelled
destroytodayThe Bing a-thon is like a gruesome car accident. I keep wanting to look away, but can’t seem to close the window: http://bit.ly/zHpPT
RobLaughtonis bing-a-thon really made by the one of the most powerful company in the world? It’s sooooo bad, yet strangely compelling……
latitude46Bing-a-thon is simply terrible, but I just can’t look away. God help us all.
JaysonElliotWatching the live “bing-a-thon” on Hulu right now. I can’t tell if they’re attempting irony or not. It’s all too self-referential.
Informed
mariogvasquezwatched the bing-a-thon on hulu.com. Sudeikis is funny Olivia was hot. Fred Wilard was awkward. Did learn some cool stuff about bing.com
aznsclboiBing-a-thon over… I’m not sure I’m smarter for watching this… but eh, at least I know how to Bing now.
Repelled
johnyjuiceOMG….wth #bing-a-thon that is time spent I WILL NEVER get back! Thank you #Google for not EVER doing that!
jbruin@AlexBurdz I’m really hoping that MS spent most of that 80/100 mil on ads cause bing-a-thon was an epic disaster
Interested
arturotthe Bing-a-thon is awesome, haha so cheesy but actually very fun. I hope they make the entire event available later on.
bajanxWhat an idea by Microsoft having a Bing a Thon on such a recognized website like HULU. How much will this help popularize “THE BING”?
{The interesting thing to note here is that Microsoft made it easy to share the telecast in Facebook and Twitter AND the message that was shared was updated according to what was happening on the Bing-a-thon. Notice the same bit.ly link.}
{Of note here is that some found such value in the automated shared message that they reshared it. Some (myself) changed the message & left the automated link only to have others share that message as well.}
My conclusion? Microsoft made the right decision to market Bing the way they did. People were clearly informed. These are the people that are likely to use Bing over and over again. The people who were compelled (as well as the promoters/sharers) are likely to tell their friends of the funny cool thing they saw and interacted with. Bing has a funny name. It can make you think of Friends‘ Chandler Bing or evoke a sound. The bottom line is this: Microsoft wanted to educate its consumers and brand Bing’s personality at the same time. Mission completed.
Only time will tell if people adopt Bing as their default search engine. Right now people have turned the proper noun ‘Google‘ into a verb by saying ‘google it’. I can definitely see people adopting Bing in the verb sense. They may say ‘bing it’ if someone wants to know specific information about something or ‘bing’ as a verb may just eclipse ‘google‘. Google may provide tons of search results but that’s also its downfall. Microsoft may not say Google in their ad but they might as well, as I’m sure many of you have felt the same frustration:
Microsoft’s differentiator? Their tagline:“It’s not just a search engine. It’s the first ever decision engine, from Microsoft.”
While Google is focusing on Wave, Microsoft is taking this chance to make search more relevant. Yes, many of us are excited for real-time email etc etc BUT frankly I’m more excited with relevant search. The internet has become our default for information. I’m hard-pressed to find anyone who actually uses encyclopedias and dictionaries in dead-tree format. I already have Twitter for real-time info as well as instant messages. E-mail and document editing are fast enough for me now.
Make your customer’s life easier in a timely and relevant way and you’ve won their hearts. I’m sure Google has something up their sleeve for semantic web but until that day you can just Bing me.
For branding and social media insights check out my Posterous.
Recently during NY Internet Week I had the pleasure of having dinner with Brian Solis [@briansolis] (among others) where Nicole Jordan [@nicolejordan] joined us. Nicole began speaking about how she has resorted to calling what she does as ‘integrated communications‘. Brian proceeded to say that that’s just another way of saying ‘public relations’. He should know more than anyone else as he wrote ‘Putting The Public Back In Public Relations.’ The question that came out of our conversation is this: Is it time to stop calling it PR and call it anything else?
Public relations, integrated communications, holistic branding- they all speak about conveying your core values in a message for others. When you ask most people what they think of the word PR many will tell you ’spin’ or press release. As a communications professional you will need to use spin in crisis situations but not all the time. And yes, you will need to send out press releases but these two tactics do not make a public relations professional.
“There is no doubt in my mind that eventually all PR agencies and consultants will follow suit and transform from publicity firms into New Mediacommunications and marketing organizations rich with in house or contracted content producers, digital sociologists, research librarians, community managers, digital architects, connectors, and industry experts/strategists.” ~Brian Solis. It may not be long until all PR professionals are new media agents just as he predicts.
Socialmedia has changed the discipline of communications forever. Instead of corporations talking at you, they’re now attempting to talk with you.Socialmedia is now used professionally by many different corporations successfully- Dell, Whole Foods, Ford, Pepsi, among others. Some have had socialmedia backlash against them (Motrin) while others use socialmedia as a shiny new toy (Skittles). In order for socialmedia tactics to ring true you must weave them in at the base level to reflect your core values.
This is how socialmedia has returned public relations to its roots.
The stigma of the word ‘PR’ may be so great that we may need to stop focusing on what we are called and focus on what we do. What do we stand for? How is that being reflected in what we do? What can we offer others? This is the key.
Gone are the days where you can use a channel of communications to say ‘look at me’. If you can’t use those same channels to say ‘look, it’s me, i’m here for you’ then you’re toast. People get right away when someone isn’t being genuine. We have too much stimulus and not enough time in today’s world. For you to stand out from the crowd you must be true to what you stand for and only want to help those who align with you.
The hucksters and the spin-doctors have ruined the good name of PR by taking the focus off of the public and putting it on themselves. It’s not about me me me or you you you. It’s about us us us.
Doing business at all costs is no longer viable. Doing business at the best costs is the new modus operandi. Regardless of what you call the discipline the ones who will get ahead will be those who can align their values with their customers. And that’s the truth.
For branding and social media insights check out my Posterous.
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)
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.
I usually don’t reblog anything but sometimes I come across something that is so on point that there’s no need for me to say it any other way. The following about core values is from the United States government National Park Service training website:
The core values of an organization are those values we hold which form the foundation on which we perform work and conduct ourselves. We have an entire universe of values, but some of them are so primary, so important to us that through out the changes in society, government, politics, and technology they are STILL the core values we will abide by.
In an ever-changing world, core values are constant. Core values are not descriptions of the work we do or the strategies we employ to accomplish our mission. The values underlie our work, how interact with each other, and which strategies we employ to fulfill our mission. The core values are the basic elements of how we go about our work. They are the practices we use (or should be using) every day in everything we do.
Loyalty – Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit and other soldiers.
Respect – Treat people as they should be treated.
Service – Put the welfare of the nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own.
Our Core Values are a statement of the framework in which we accomplish our Mission. They express the manner in which, both individually and collectively, we pursue our mission. When we are challenged in fulfilling our mission, our Core Values sustain us and guide us in meeting the challenge. - National Leadership Council, 2001
For branding and social media insights check out my Posterous.
While most of you were obsessing over the Kanye West meme taking the internet by storm, 
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 »