A trend observed on Google’s behaviour and Twitter may have triggered this. Murdoch doesn’t want to block Google but to sell access to his content instead. The timing is nothing more than perfect.

Murdoch’s move

Murdoch is aware that he controls the second largest media conglomerate of the world. That’s a lot of content online. Murdoch is aware the the movement toward free (or very cheap) on the web is forcing his content to be less valuable. But Murdoch also knows that probably 3-50% of traffic on his site is originated by Google: so why this move?

Google’s being a bit hevil’ish

Google has been mashing up their products with more and more content. Google news for instance  has short summaries of the news and some people don’t really want to read the long version of the news. Google is then moving up on the “supply chain” of content by providing the same as the next guy when considering user experience and flow. This is extremely dangerous to content providers.

and then Twitter sold his content to Google and Bing

Twitter recently announced that they sold access to their real-time content to Bing and Google. This is a big thing because they were able to sell content to google, when before companies thought Google was an added value to their site. When Twitter’s content has it value due to the fact that it is real-time, Murdoch is taking advantage that he owns a lot of the valuable content of the web.

What if Bing had access to it but Google didnt?

Meanwhile Bing, an alternative Search Engine from Microsoft,  is winning some market share to google. If both become some kind of duopoly, content will be king again and drive the war. Why? Because guys like Murdoch can make a partnership with Bing while blocking Google access to it.

Murdoch doesn’t want to block google. Murdoch want to sell access to their content to Google, and is bargaining on a unique time on the web where finally demand (Search Engines) is  starting to leverage the existing supply (content).

Murdoch is freaking smart and probably very well advised by some good people behind him.

Jason Calacanis discussed this precise issue with a guest recently and it makes all sense.

The Fashion Industry and Dove are both experts on it, changing (or trying to change) the perception of beauty.  But Dove is doing it in the opposite direction. By fighting against Fashion stereotypes, Dove position themselves as a brand for the real people (which in the end of the day is what their customers really are).

The following video is quite a statement of it. The Dove campaign (“Thank you”,Dove Canada) plays an important role in Dove’s Triple Bottom Line, where Corporate Social Responsibility can flow alongside profits and marketing objectives. Kudos for that…

It’s all about perception

Beauty is about perception as another ad from the same campaign shows.

Below a great TED talk by Rory Sutherland, from Ogilvy UK. Here perception in Advertisement is described trough interesting facts in a very engaging and funny way. Enjoy.

Source: TED

It was a nice finding to complement some current reading on buying behaviour (“How customers think” and “Why customers buy things they dont need”). It’s macro vs personal behaviour (two somewhat opposite sides of spending) but interesting nevertheless.

Transportation accounts for 17,6%

Time to rethink modern life? Does commuting make sense? Could economic incentives to companies strongly address it? Why do companies in Silicon Valley have to be mostly in Palo Alto for instance leaving employees with communting or high housing costs for instance? I keep recalling from my old commuting days that 2 hours in traffic per day is 10h/week (one more day of work)… One of the advantages of moving to Copenhagen was exactly this (even if i had my bike stolen recently).

Housing is 34,1%, of which 20% is for shelter only

Wow, not a surprise but makes you think if it could be different? I’m average here.

Source: VisualEconomics

2 Million views in Youtube only, these ads reportedly cost 15% of a normal budget (with actors being actual employees of the company).

1) The downsize of the story is that Air New Zealand doesn’t support equal opportunities in their workplace since fat people are not allowed. Shame on you (ie, thank god!).

2) I love that accent

3) I always wanted to go to New Zealand…

4) I can think of some flights i’ve taken where i did NOT wanted this to happen hehe

Behind the scenes here.

At 11 I run out of the office sick, with a strange feeling of…. i don’t even know what… After a nap I ended up being bored. Veeeeery bored. As usual I don’t watch TV and computer would not be a choice today. So i end up thinking… a lot…

The Spagethi Incident version of it follows…

The web is all about establishing conversations. A conversation triggers/unblockers are key: they are that kind of stuff you say to random people in random places, stuff that’s just an excuse to start talking. It’s talking about the weather while in the elevator with an hot girl…  These triggers drive conversations that seem to be short-lived in today’s fast-paced medias, specially on web.

While conversation’s life-cycle are short, it also has huge potential because they now happen in channels that are based on interests, on relations, pull and many-to-many. Twitter, Facebook, youTube and others are making  the web real-time and I’ve been thinking how corporations can leverage this with subjects that can be relevant and engaging to users, while bridging to their key message.

This shorter life-cycle makes all the sense for some of today’s advertisement campaigns which are shorter as well. Focus on activation is here hugely relevant, as recent trends have been showing.

My key thoughts went primarily into how brand monitoring and trend analysis has happened and will happen in the future. Brand awareness analysis tend to be more  meaningful in the long long-term but i found some interesting examples that can engage in monitoring brands in real time, reacting in an immediate (and maybe automated) way… And by reacting i mean a lot of things that lead to driving sales in different forms… hummmm…

Good stuff coming out, but still confusing… I’m taking notes and thinking about it in the following days.

I feel i’m on caffeine today…. but dinner is served, then back to bed… again…

(Sorry for the clumbsy text: may come back one of these days to polish it a bit…)

Online communication ( if not all communication!) stopped being one-way long time ago[1]. Email is still top activity in the web (along with search). Email is an open door to my own attention, it is Permission Marketing because I allow them to send me their stuff. It is interest based because I did allowed them to do so based on some common subject of interest. It converts better because of all that!!! (conversion means “more money”, if you like…)

Stop using excuses and talk with your customers if they want to talk to you!

Companies have email as an key touchpoint opportunity but few fully leverage it. “We have no one to reply to the emails” is the same as saying you don’t have people to answer your phones. More, email is hassle free which make users more willing to initiate some conversation with you (how value is that?). Some of them will be your friends forever.

So, why do organizations fail to leverage it?

Cross-departmental cooperation may be one reason. Often the people that spend the money on Websites, Email Marketing (newsletters), etc… are usually to detached from the Sales guys for instance (Sales guys talk more with the clients because they have bigger incentive to do it).

Lack of understanding why it is important… No Freaking way… Call me and i will advise you on that.

Why “smart” Email Marketing (or Customer Service for that matter)?

Think about one great service you enjoy on the web. Now, how is their customer service? I’m pretty sure 99% of people will say “great”, “hassle-free”.

Customer Service doesn’t have to be complex. It should actually not be complex. It should be direct, honest, open, fair. Zappos.com is one of my favourite. I’ve already mentioned before and will do it again: They will recommend one competitorto their clients if they cannot offer what they need. Why? Because client satisfaction is first and on that case client satisfaction means giving clients what they are looking for… Simple…. or maybe not….

PS: Not everything was good in that email. I noticed him because it went to my SPAM folder (not many have that honnour).

NOTE

[1] I guess they call one-way communication a monologue.

Google’s reply to search with Google Wave, may be what Radical Innovation is all about… Amazing: Twitter says: Hey world, real-time is possible and search is now, not a few hours ago. Google’s reply takes email into what real time may actually mean.The smart thing might be the fact that email is still the big activity on the web and they are building on a huge asset, set by GMail. This can be huge, because they’ll jump into a user base of 100 Million users, more than Twitter may have by now[2].  If you think product activation, this is huge. Google will be able to engage their search assets and skils into it very fast and do they know how to do it!

But a question arrises:

Are young people still using email? Some research and direct observation suggests No. They seam to be using mobile and Facebook, not email… This may be important in the long-run since youngsters are early adopters on experiencing and living in the web [3]

User Experience

Google Wave is web (huge trends here, everything is going to move into the browser). But it is also very cluttered and that doesn’t feel like Google anymore. Google is slick, it’s to the point, it’s getting in and out in 0.7 seconds. Google Wave is a massive load of stuff into the window, as never seen in Google aps before. This may hopefully change as the product matures ‘do.

NOTES

[1] I have to say, engaging but too much of the old talk. The subject is just plain simple IMHO
[2] I estimated a while ago that they be close to 90M pretty soon, against TechCrunch’s 50M.
[3] Just because they lack legacy, ie, they start using the web without being bound to old paradigms

1.6 Million views in youTube, marginal cost: simple math…

If you organization tries to be viral, look inside, try to find what makes you unique and share that with the world. If it’s interesting, it will be viral. Other companies leverage Culture into Branding:

Zappos.com, an american online shoes company, takes client sattisfaction to a different level, recomending competitors if they cant offer what client wants for instance. Their brand manual, employee driven, is great (i have one sent by the CEO himself .

Innocent is another (i still remember their job ad im Maldives… ohhh boy i could work for free there…).

The final quote on the video is just genial: “you won’t get that on United Airlines, i guarantee!!!”

Some thoughts:

• Culture and brand: hand-by-hand
• Culture are not about guidelines. Culture is the people: let them play the culture game
• Your brand is unique: Mention your competitors and make clear what distinguish you
• KISS (Keep It Simple).
• …more, keep it raw: don’t try to make a blockbuster out of it

With lower budgets, low profiles, lower expectations and attention they do have more fun and with that attract broader audiences effortlessly. Like viral, fun works when it’s natural, spontaneuous and unique…

Ericsson 3 is the second team, full of Nordics. They share their fun fun on odd situations frequently. Their “old” skypper Magnus Holson leads the way, the guy is just freaking hilarious.

Same happened in the Vendee Globe. No sail enthusiast can ignore a non-stop, singlehanded race around the world. Now put on top of this a hot girl that keeps having fun (Sam Davies) or Steve White, a guy that placed several mortgages on his house to be able to race (AND finish). These guys are unique.

Sailing and New media: Ridiculous use of the Web, with such an wasted opportunity when introducing extensive coverage onboard. Videos cannot be embeded for instance… Web 2.0 slang is getting too used up, but some basics still apply my friends… Puma is a good example here. Mr VOR, call me

A final note to remember Hans Horrevoets, who die at Sea in the last edition of the race during the same leg across the North Atlantic. It was impressive to follow , both from an human and also from a team perspective. No sailor can ignore situations like those.

To make sure this meant something, i set myself to track and ask 2 renowned brand experts, trying to find out what google means to normal people… Welcome the every-day-life brand experts: my mom and my gramma!

My mom: “Google is something that your sister opens, then she puts a thing and she gets several sites with that thing”

My gramma: “I dont know child, that’s something from the internet that they spoke on the TV”

Quotes are not very strick, but the meaning is there. It has to be said that web literacy don’t exactly rime with my mom and my gramma: and that’s the power of it! A brand to be powerful has be an utility, like electricity. The few  who don’t use it know what it is. It has to be embeded in everybody’s lifes, even if they are not aware of it.

Interesting the generation gap on these… HUUUGE can’t really describe it. I wonder how the next generation will kick our buts

Congrats Google