
5.11.08
Exploring this map with a bit of sarcasm.

30.9.08
Top Influential People on the Web.
According to Business Week these are the most influential people on the web. What I find really interesting though is that 8 out of the 25 mentioned have businesses or ideas that are under serious threat from somebody or something else.
Craiglist is threatened by eBAY
Google is in danger of becoming the Microsoft of the web or a spin on their Don't be evil becoming exactly that: 'The Evil Empire'
Amazon has reached maturity already and needs to diversify out of the Book Club Ghetto.
Microsoft well their biggest threat is moving from a software business into a web based software business not to mention google docs and the likes
Firefox is under threat from Google's Chrome
MySpace is under threat from facebook and is forced to diversify it's way out of being the poor people's facebook
Yahoo well who wants a directory based portal in a digg world.
Nokia trying to compete in the multi-media hand-held computers, talk about psychizophrenia
For a list showing the webs most influential people it seems to me that over a third of that list are either shitting their pants, laying sleepless at night or simply sweating. Fundamentally because either their ideas have reached maturity already and are in need for diversification / reinvention or they haven't evolved fast enough or simply came up with new ones. Contrast those 8 to the guy who did blogger, tried odeo and recently done twitter, not to mention Apple who is for all intents and purposes a music business as much as it is a computer business. Interesting Indeed.
27.8.08
29.7.08
Irrelevant Experience.
Isn't it funny when recruiting people or being recruited in an industry like ours the people who get the job tend to be those that have done something 'similar', 'relevant' or are 'a bit like us'. I would love to see the day when people are recruited because they have an experience that's nothing like the existing culture. A mixed up world is a more interesting place. But this 'creative destruction' principle is too painful for those who seek to stay in their comfort zone. Any growth out of what puts you in the un-predictable and is painful but so are muscles as they grow. If you can't stretch you can't reach the top shelf :-)
28.7.08
Ryanair - fare without care and soon without profits - serves them right.
I hate Ryanair. It's shit. I couldn't put it any other way. They are definitely the 'fare without care' airline and the thing that I find annoying like hell is that they don't have to be rude. Rude is a policy at Ryanair. It doesn't cost anything to allow their staff to be nice. Like easyjet for example. Today Ryanair have announced that they will be making losses this year. I couldn't have been happier. Because as well as market forces teaching them a lesson in eating humble pie perhaps the fare no care strategy should now come back to haunt them as passengers dessert them not only for price but for nice service.
16.6.08
On types of planners.
'Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one else can see' - Arthur Schopenhauer.
I was thinking about types of planners out there following a conversation with a great planning director and we were debating the virtues of various 'types' of planners. Labels abound of-course, account planner, creative planner, communication planner, digital planner etc. Yet the only types I could come up with were simply two: the first are planners who are brilliant at de-construction: these are the folks who are great at telling you how the world works. Typically because they come from research and curiosity backgrounds / mindsets. The other type are the planners who are brilliant at construction. These are the ones who are into how the world 'could' work. The latter type don't need a curiosity background. Sadly i was say that the latter are the rarer variety. I suppose the difference between the two is what Schopenhauer described between the talented and the genius. Finally, as far as planning processes go wouldn't it be simpler to narrow down the planning cycle to two phases: Deconstruction - Reconstruction. The first is about understanding 'how the world works?' and the second is about 'how it could work?'. If it is one planner who is doing both then he/she would need to swap hats somewhere in the middle but you could always have two planners the de-constructionist and the re-constructionist in charge of each phase.
1.4.08
BRANDED COMMUNITIES ANYONE?
If there was ever a good example of the above can you please link below. Thanks. ss
26.3.08
BOLLOX to the tipping point and think turning points.
Years ago when i was a student i did my masters theses on Everett Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory. Today I am still gob-smacked to see so many mediocre thoughts based around the idea that if you influence the influencers the rest will take care of itself. Glad to see that this rubbish view is finally being challenged. I hated Gladwell as i thought what he was suggesting was marketing porn the sort of shit that lazy marketers looking for quick fix formulas would drool over. Even people like Earls don't talk about the original theory. What Rogers outlined fifty years ago was a number of factors that can make an idea spread. Mostly it is to do with (you guessed it) the quality of what you actually want to spread whether it's an idea or a piece of technology. It has to be innovative in the first place. Secondly once you cracked a mind blowing innovation then the quality of the network in which this idea is meant to flow needs to fulfill a lot of criteria. To oversimplify Rogers like that is a travesty but I will in two lines.
1. You must have a fucking mind blowing new, innovative, valuable and compelling idea first.
2. Then and only then you can start worrying about the quality of the connections between the people you want to take it up.
In other words it's less to do with the people you are influencing and more to do with the content you are influencing them with and the quality of the pipelines between those people. Finally, if you still want a formula here are some ingredients based on Rogers for spreading stuff:
1. Demonstrate considerable advantage to everything else is out there.
(Hardly going to come from your average brand / agency)
2. Show how it is compatible with what the receiver already knows.
(It has to fit in or evolve an existing frame or reference)
3. Reduce complexity show how easy it is to adopt it.
(not only show them and idea show them how they can work it)
4. Encourage trail.
5. Show credibility by showing observable social advantages.
(This actually means you have to KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE and what makes them tick instead of knowing the special yoghurt flavour of the celebrity you just hired to influence people)
There were other pre-conditions for diffusion that I will not go on about here. I cannot be bothered with marketers who buy this whole influence the influencer bollox without thinking first of how they will make a better mouse trap instead of trying to simply trap people like mice.
19.3.08
18.3.08
Fill in the gaps...
Ad planners have the ear of a senior, educated, often with some creative / strategic judgement.
Digital planners have the ear of....
12.3.08
CULTURE IS THE NEW COMMERCE.

11.3.08
It's not enough to be credible, you have to be committed.

19.2.08
It's capitalism stupid.
Most people who have a problem with marketing or advertising often miss the point. It is simply the most visible and of-course designed to be the most attractive part of relentless capitalism. Capitalism built around growth and the mindless pursuit of above average profit is by far the real enemy here. Advertising is just a byproduct of a much bigger economic system that is only about profit. A glimmer of hope appears on the hot horizon though. The imperatives of the environment and the planet may very well force capitalism on the larger scale to change course from profit to plane and companies on the smaller scale will just have to be you guessed it ... more 'responsible'
4.2.08
Things I hate about my job.
1. It's about politics not planning at my level (or any level for that matter)
2. It's about screwing the consumer and spinning their head instead of giving them something meaningful.
3. It's pop culture but hardly culture.
4. Creatives who insist on being inspired by pop culture instead of creating their own.
5. Clients who are more worried about their position in the company than creating something amazing.
6. Living the lie which is worse than believing it.
7. People who do this job to fill deep insecurities about their talent or lack of attention they got when they were kids.
8. It's a fascinating business but it's still a business, some just think it's an excuse for a party.
9. The alternative careers using the same skills look like manna from heaven in the desert for the lost jews.
10. Maybe I don't have a problem with the communication business but the very nature of capitalism itself. More on that later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)