interesting things that are going on

I'm working on a presentation for someone right now, I'm going to share some first thoughts with them tomorrow, on the general theme of 'interesting things that are going on'. They're a fascinating company with some great brands, which do some really smart things - but they seem to  want to know more about what's going on 'out there'. What 2.0y things should they be thinking about?

Isn't this always the case? - it's the interesting companies that want to know more. The dull ones are just happy to stick with what's worked so far.

Anyway. The plan tomorrow is to share a list of the kind of things that might be interesting to talk about and make sure I'm heading in the right direction and I couldn't  think of a better way of putting that together than just sticking it here. Links from PowerPoint is still kind of clunky. So here it is. I'm also trying to lump things into useful conceptual chunks, just so the whole things a bit more comprehensible.

The Challenge Of Openness

There's a whole interesting saga in the Coke/Mentos story. I think I should talk about that. Starting here. And contrasting this reaction and this.

Which then leads into talking about the goodness and badness of The Coke Show. Which of course I can't link to, which is part of the badness.

I guess the big point to this section is the general demand out there for openness. And the way that brands can use that well or can find themselves caught completely off-guard. I guess the more practical point is that something unexpectedly good or bad can happen overnight, and you need to create an organisation and some communication habits which can cope with and ideally exploit the unexpected. Because the idea of a secret brand organisation, lurking in the background, which no-one thinks about, has well and truly gone.

Then I thought I'd talk about some of the good and open things that people have done - splendid wholesome things like peas, smoothies and mothers. (via Chroma).

I was also wondering about touching on the way openness is going to impact the way marketing people do their jobs - not just the relationships they build between brands and consumers. This is a great example. As is, I guess, the fact that I'm writing this.

Does that make sense so far?

Community, Collaboration and Co-Creation

(God, I wish there were better words than 'community' 'collaboration' and 'co-creation').

I found a fantastic thing to talk about yesterday (via Beyond Madison Avenue and DailyFix). The Fiskateers. A community and blog project created for Fiskars by Brains On Fire. (Though maybe created is the wrong word, it seems artificial then, and the joy of this thing is it's not artificial.)

And actually I think community is a strong, often overlooked point about Run London. The best campaigns were the second one (I'll do it if you do it) and probably this year's. Both of them are about running as a communal activity. It would also make sense to talk about joga at this point. And The Chain. The interesting thing about them, to me, is the delicate balance you have to strike between giving people a framework to play in and not interfering with their play.

Mind you, I was also thinking about creating a chunk called Marketing As A Service - and I'd put RunLondon in there too - especially the RouteFinder.

The community aspect that doesn't get talked about enough though is the collaboration brands need to do with other brands - the little worlds and affinity groups they need to create amongst themselves to offer interesting experiences to people. This was brought home really strongly to me at Fruitstock this afternoon. Just smoothies and music would have been one thing, but by bringing in all sorts of like-minded brands it became a bigger, more interesting thing. Brands need to think about what other brands they want in their world, or more tellingly what brand-worlds do they want to be in? and do they deserve to be there? Should/could your brand fit in here?

Interestingness

There's still a place for Big Ads in the world but something has changed. They have to be any good. They have to be interesting. And if they are interesting that means you can build stuff around them. Two good examples here - one, for Bravia, is a brand exploiting the interest it's created, the second for Honda, is an example of what can happen when you make something people are interested in.

A Different Mindset

I wanted to talk a little about  the need for brands and brand-owners to get comfortable with a slightly different mindset when dealing with the modern 2.0y word. It's a world  where creative fecundity trumps tight control and where lots of little ideas are better than one big one.
My favourite illustration of creative fecundity is always ZeFrank. So we'll have a bit of him.

And a great illustration of a little moment of that's-interesting-captivation (as opposed to bash-you-over-the-head-re-appraisal) is the 'Your Collection' stuff they did at Tate Britain. Or, a lovely little touch from Fruitstock - innocent hung tags on the bikes of people who'd cycled there, to thank them for cycling.

And Mat talks about a nice example of the opportunistic small idea here.

Your Consumers Are Funnier Than You

Not a very clever title, but I wanted to make the point that nothing's sacred; great movies, dumb ads, whatever. It's all going to get messed with, mashed-up, remixed, and the fact that regular people don't have CI guidelines, compliance departments or legal advice means they get to have more fun, and be funnier than you do. And when they decide to have fun with you, you need to decide is that a good thing or a bad thing? (Darth being a smartass via BoingBoing/Wonderland)

Head-On remix via Consumerist.

Media In A Sensitised World

I wonder if I should mention the problem of Urban Spam - the thin line between engagement and annoyance. I guess the coke and pepsi examples make the point pretty well.

I think the larger point here is about the changing face of interuption. No-one really thinks of an ad in Coronation Street or The Simpsons or The Sun as spam. Because we're used to it. We, collectively, made that deal a while ago. So while we may no longer be looking at those ads we're not actively annoyed by their mere presence. It's when advertising gets into new places that it risks being seen as spam. Because when we see it somewhere new we naturally think about whether we want it there. And very often that's a deal we're no longer willing to make - because the trade-offs - entertainment for attention or something - aren't being made attractive enough. It's not enough to bounce up to someone in a branded t-shirt with a free voucher for something, what else are you going to do for me?

So, that's about it for now. I'm conscious that it's a bit of a stream of incoherence but tomorrow's meeting should help to sort out what I should keep and what I should add. (I'm feeling it's all a bit too online to start with, but I can correct that.) I'll keep you updated with progress and if any of y'all have any thoughts or suggestions I'd love to hear them.

Comments

[Rob Mortimer]

Looks really good to me.
Dont know if its anything useful, but as a non-web point I like the following:

In gaming, in-game advertising keeps being muted as the next big thing. Its already, there, but how is it going to grow?

Its interesting how putting an ad on an in-game bilboard is usually seen as ok. But an 'in your face' ad on screen is disliked. But with PS3 and Xbox 360 driving the cost of making games upwards, its something that is almost certainly going to be experimented with a lot more.

And the web angle on this... consoles are increasingly developing their own online services. Are we going to see banners/virals/etc supporting those costs?

Another good example is the downloadable add on packs for Wipeout Fusion on the PSP. I downloaded a pack with Puma sponsored ships in. It didnt bother me about the advertising because it was free extra content... branded game content as the gaming equivalent of 2.0 perhaps?

[Kirsty]

Looks superb to me, really interesting stuff and a good mix, thanks for sharing.

[Gavin Heaton]

I am really interested in the last section you have about the nature of interruption and how it has changed. I think that this is about the TYPE of media and the FORM of interruption. For example, in those media (say web or Pay TV), we view interruption as spam because our form of engagement is interactive/linked with a fee (ISP or subscription) ... whereas free-to-air advertising is tolerated.
And as the Famous Rob says, in-game advertising is going to be interesting because it can be seen as a form of subscription, but if the EXPERIENCE of the game is solid, and worthwhile, then a certain amount of branding will be permissable.
So in a way, we do place a greater weight on our interactive experiences, and are less inclined to permit interruption ... unless it is entertaining (which is why viral campaigns can be so hit and miss).

[Seb]

I agree with Rob that it looks really, really good. Interesting stuff. Think it's okay to have a focus on the web because nothing is influenting life more than the internet.

In-game-advertising is a very good point as well, Rob. Interesting how far it will go someday and the influence advertising has on games. I mean in sport games like FIFA Soccer advertising makes the game more realistic. Because it has become part of real-life football. Or companies producing video games the consumer pays for. Like LEGO Racers.

Another point possibly could be companies starting activities that have absolutely nothing to do with their products. Only to communicate the way the company thinks or what they believe in.
A good example it the Hotel Fox in Denmark by Volkswagen (http://www.hotelfox.dk/). Or the Camper Restaurant and Bar in Barcelona by Camper Footwear.

That are my points so far. Perhaps there is something interesting in there.

[Rob Mortimer]

Thats a great point about the football games actually Seb.

In them you look for ads around the grounds because it makes it more realistic. Just like in racing games you look for real manufacturers, real parts companies, and real sponsors of racing teams.

This was true even before in game advertising was ever talked about as a form of media.

[Seb]

True. But somehow it is weird that advertising that mostly bores us to death between our favourite tv show gives us a feeling of reality when playing a video game.

Another nice example is Tony Hawk's Pro Skater. Where you can add logos of skate-brands like Vans or other brands like Nokia to the shirt of your skater. And you do it for a more realistic feeling.

Or FIFA Street where you can equip your soccer-hero with the latest Nike or Adidas sneaker.

The list is endless, I think.

[Rob Mortimer]

I think that feeling is shrinking now though, as people are starting to feel like the games are pushing advertising rather than simply being realistic. However:

I still think that branded content is going to become huge with Xbox Live/PS3/Nintendo Connect. Its like virals, you get something interesting and exciting, and for that you are happy to see the ad component.

[Seb]

Another point that somehow feels like the ugly stepchild of agencies is mobile marketing. I think there is a lot of potential using mobile phones not only to spread TVCs.

There are some nice ideas to use mobile phones as a bridge to involve the consumer. A good idea is here http://www.stanchin.com/lions/adidas1.htm for adidas, using an interactive billboard. Another nice example is here http://www.canneslions.com/winners_site/outdoor/win_3_1_00084_2.htm

Until now it seems like there are only a few companies using this mobile marketing apart from just sending TVCs via MMS or just stupid ad-SMS.

But why not use mobiles to navigate via your voice on websites? Or have interactive TVCs you can influence via SMS?

For me it seems that mobile marketing right now has the most unused potential.

[Rob Mortimer]

The problem with any form of message marketing on phones is that it feels SO intrusive. The art to getting results from phone ads will be making the consumer feel like they want to see it.