As most of you know, yesterday, Facebook launched “Facebook Places” (their foray into the location based app marketplace). And even though Places is currently “coming soon” to “my region” (which is the tiny town of Los Angeles by the way), I can promise you that I’ll soon be done with Foursquare and moving forward with Places. And my guess is you will too. Here’s why: My friends and family are already on Facebook. It’s that simple. At the end of the day a community site, just like an offline community, is about the people. The power of these apps is not the “game-play” it’s the people/community and the experiences that they are subsequently able to facilitate. Imagine checking in to a restaurant, and seeing that an old friend and his wife just checked in at the bar across the street. Wouldn’t you meet them for a drink? Which would be more important: Minor details in the way the app functions, or the access it gives you to your community? I think for most people, it will be the later.
As we’ve seen, community sites take years to “tip” and unfortunately for Foursquare (and their competitors) they just didn’t have a large enough window. Will some people stick with the app they’re currently using? For the time being, probably. Will the “masses” adopt one of those apps now? Doubtful. Why would they use another application when the same functionality (in their eyes) is built in to an app they already have (let alone, most people currently have no idea what the heck Foursquare and Gowalla are…)?
I think we’ll see an exodus, as people that use a different app migrate to where the people are, Facebook. And while Foursquare was a brilliant idea, my guess is that it will soon be remembered fondly… the location based “Friendster” if you will.
Mobile augmented reality (AR) apps get a ton of press. There seems to be a love affair with them. And while we definitely believe that mobile AR will be absolutely gigantic one day, we think the current fascination is premature. Sure mobile AR seems amazing on the surface, when you first read about it or see it, but over time we don’t think it provides the every day utility/experience it currently promises. I mean, are you continually using an AR app over competitive services (e.g. google maps)? That said, we’ve been wrong before, so we thought we would set up a little informal poll to see if people are actually using Mobile AR applications (repeatedly, not just reading about them in the trades and thinking they sound cool), or if they are just checking them out because of the novelty (and their ability to impress one’s colleagues)… a one and done type scenario.
Now, let’s be clear about what I mean when I say “Mobile AR”. I mean these applications that layer information on top of your smartphone’s video screen. They use your phone’s GPS and Compass to (allegedly) tell you what direction the nearest McDonalds is, or the like. Yelp’s Monacle would be a good example.
Please fill out the poll below, and let us know your thoughts in the comments. I’d love to get some dialogue going on this issue (or you can hit me up on twitter https://twitter.com/jack_benoff).
I found a pretty interesting chart (via Nick Parish) this afternoon. It breaks down (by age) the choice people would make if they had to eliminate either the Internet or TV from their life. If you look at the stats though, it clearly seems as though TV’s “days are numbered” (should people ever actually have to make such a sadistic decision) as the majority of people under 44 would choose to eliminate their TV.
As I thought through the survey I started to wonder if the main question itself isn’t a touch flawed. It’s really not about choosing between TV and the Internet, is it? It will ultimately be about choosing between the Internet and Cable/Satellite providers. Just this week I set up my Netflix account to stream video through my PS3 (if you haven’t done this yet, I can’t recommend it enough. It’s life changing). That means I’m watching content from the Internet on my big, beautiful HDTV. In essence, my TV is now the most expensive computer monitor I own. Granted, the vast majority of people aren’t doing this… yet. And maybe that’s why the survey below is relevant today, but I think in the future survey’s like this won’t be a “TV or The Internet?” question. It will be a “Internet or Cable/Satellite” question. At the end of the day, the TV is just a box that displays the content…
So, that’s enough out of me, I’d love to know what you think…
So, your agency is pitching you on an Augmented Reality (AR) execution. And as much as you’d love to move forward with something, the fact is you might not know that much about AR. And why should you? It’s rather “cutting edge”, especially in terms of its marketing implications, and you have a ton of other things to worry about.
As a marketing agency (Zugara) that also develops our own proprietary AR technologies (and seeing as how it’s the holiday season and all that jazz) we thought it might be nice to arm you with some important questions to ask your agency. This way, you hopefully don’t end up paying for an agency to simply have an AR execution that looks great on their reel, but never actually engages a consumer. Noted below, are a few questions/issues you should be cognizant of, and the reason they should be included in your thinking. HAPPY FESTIVUS!
The Question: Will this be built in Flash (if online)?
The Reason: One word: “Downloads”. We’ve harped on this before, proprietary technologies require downloads and a significant number of consumers drop out of a process when faced with one. So why do it? Flash’s install rate is nearly 100%. If you’re going to put your budget and time into AR, the least you can do is give your consumer the opportunity to enjoy it. Below, you’ll see a tweet that was sent to me. I track the term “augmented reality” on Twitter, and whenever someone tweets that term, I see it. @woscholar tweeted about an unpleasant experience he was having with a Avatar cross-promotion that McDonalds is running. I engaged him in a conversation, and here’s his feedback regarding the download that AR execution required:
The Question: Why aren’t we just creating this experience within the browser (i.e. Why isn’t this just a traditional web site?)?
The Reason: Is the idea you’re being pitched to just have a 3-D model pop out of a marker and essentially push your message to the consumer (be it via a key-ed out video or the like)? If the AR doesn’t truly add anything to the experience, why put the budget against it and limit your campaign’s potential reach (due to the need for a web cam)? Ask your team if you’re using this technology just to use it. Think about your goals. Think about your objectives. Think about your consumers. If AR can be a natural extension of the story you’re trying to tell, then perfect! If not, just keep it in your arsenal/thinking.
The Question: Will you walk me through the entire consumer experience?
The Reason: Taking the time to answer this question can expose fundamental flaws with the concept. Sometimes an idea can sound fantastic on the surface, but when you go step by step through the consumer experience you begin to realize something: no consumer would ever do everything it takes to participate (e.g. you may realize that the user would need to put their computer or web cam on the floor to get the necessary camera angle). Seeing as how you want consumers to “do stuff”, this can be a good way of vetting ideas.
The Question: Why do you think a consumer would do this? What is their payoff?
The Reason: Obviously, the days of the consumer sitting there patiently listening to your entire message/ad are long gone. It’s the consumer’s world, and we’re just living in it. They need a compelling reason to interact with your engagement… to give you their time. One good litmus test is to put your “consumer hat on”. Odds are (unless you’re working for Nike, Apple, or a few others) most of your consumers “like” your brand, but aren’t passionately fanatical about it. So, think about a brand you “like” (not yours), and think about whether or not you would interact with it if they launched an execution similar to the one you’re contemplating. If the answer is “no”, then think about what it would take to make you participate. If you can’t find anything to make the offering compelling, perhaps this execution is not “the one”.
The Question: Why are you pitching me a mobile idea, versus an online idea?
The Reason: A mobile execution would be cool and cutting edge, granted. But for the near term, it’s limited in its reach (do more people have computers or iphones/blackberrys?), and functionality. Although not widely publicized, the fact is the hardware running on smartphones is not ready to deliver the consumer experience you’re expecting (I wrote more about this back in June), and the much beloved iPhone’s API still remains mostly closed to developers (which means you can’t have an iPhone read a marker like online unless it’s been jail-broken – which most consumers would never do). Not to mention, there’s apparently no rhyme or reason as to how Apple accepts/declines apps for the app store… so there’s the potential for your investment to never see the light of day. To be clear, in our opinion mobile AR will be huge in the future, it’s just not there yet.
The Question: What’s the experience for the consumer that doesn’t have access to a webcam?
The Reason: There aren’t any publicly available, industry standard metrics on web cam penetration rates. This much is certain though, as of today, a significant number of your audience doesn’t have a webcam and you can’t ignore them because they will come to the site looking for an experience.
The Question: Are you sure this is even possible?
The Reason: Odds are, you’re being pitched by someone who’s not an expert in the technology. They’re creative, and smart, but most of the time their ideas just flat out aren’t doable (either in the near term or without a ton of R&D). Before you get your boss excited about the idea, it’s probably prudent to make sure that it’s technologically feasible.
So, what do you think? Agree? Disagree? Are there other questions that brand managers should be asking their agency? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Let me preface this post by saying I take no pleasure in the demise of an industry. When businesses fold, people lose jobs and the results can be devastating to the individuals and families involved.
That said, the reality is, print is in big big trouble. I wanted to draw your attention to a blog post that was written yesterday. It’s an interesting post, and while I agree with it’s content, that content in and of itself is not the interesting part. It’s the “what was written” coupled with the “who wrote it” that makes it fascinating to me. John A. Byrne, Founder of C-Change Media Inc is the blog post’s author. Now, maybe you haven’t heard of Mr. Byrne so let me give you a little bit of his resume. Until recently (and by “recently” I mean yesterday), he was the editor-in-chief of Business Week where he wrote 58 cover stories. He’s also held the position of editor-in-chief of Fast Company. In the print world, I would think that this guy has some “street cred”, and that he would be seen as a thought-leader.
So, why is this titan of print walking away from such a prestigious position to start his own company? You can read his whole post here, but bulleted out below are a few key quotes from Mr. Byrne:
I passionately believe that the future of media is digital.
Most of traditional media remains in a complete meltdown, dragged down by high costs, old ways of thinking, and legacy work processes.
Print advertising will never come back.
Users will not pay for content, unless they’re convinced it has immediate and tangible value. Very little journalism meets that standard today.
Obviously, that last bullet is one that Rupert Murdoch would disagree with (personally, I fall on Mr. Byrne’s side of the fence on this one), but what do you think? What’s going to happen to print? Will future generations see magazines the way I view the 8-track? Do you still spend on print and if so, why? Do you spend more on print than on interactive? I’d love to get your thoughts and insights below.
For those of you tracking the Augmented Reality (AR) space, I thought that this might interest you. Today our CEO (well my CEO, not yours), Matt Szymczyk, gave a presentation on AR at the IAB conference in Poland and demoed (for the first time) a new piece of technology that we’ve built called ZugSTAR.
ZugSTAR (Zugara Streaming Augmented Reality) allows for multiple people to share an AR experience via their video stream. In essence it’s a live video conference where you can see the data (or the image) that the other person is interacting with. The rest of the web is social, and now AR is too. It’s no longer a solitary experience.
This tech has potential for numerous verticals, but for the purpose of the demo, we’ve coupled it with our existing online AR shopping application, The Webcam Social Shopper. As you can see in the picture below (via @deandonaldson), Matt is onstage in Warsaw giving the presentation. Behind him (on the large screen, which is just a duplicate of what Matt is seeing on his laptop’s screen), my colleague Aaron is in his home in Los Angeles (at 3 in the a.m. local time mind you, so props for that) “modeling” a shirt. If you look at the bottom right corner of the video area in which Aaron is standing, you’ll notice the picture in picture, where you can see Matt with the image of the shirt he was “modeling” still up. AR is now two way, and it’s social.
Think about the opportunity that this presents for just the online retail space alone. Moms can shop with daughters away at college; Grandparents can shop with grandkids in another state; teenage girls can shop together on a weeknight; men can get articles of clothing “approved” by their girlfriends/wives while on their lunch break… etc. etc.
Admittedly, this blog post is just going to serve as a bit of a teaser. In a few weeks, we’ll have more details and more to show you then just a picture, but we’d love to know your initial thoughts on the tech below.
(NOTE: The following post originally ran in Agency Spy as an OpEd on 10/30)
What’s the buzzword du jour?
It’s the buzzword of the day…
Mmmmmm that does sound good. I think I’ll have that.
So, as most of you are aware, the buzzword du jour is actually Facebook AppsTwitter “Augmented Reality” (AR). And this week, a Wall Street Journal article regarding Esquire Magazine’s use of AR in an upcoming issue was getting passed around. In essence, they are taking what Popular Science and GE did this past summer and attempting to turn it up a notch by integrating several interactive videos as well as an ad from Lexus.
I applaud Esquire for the effort, for getting their hands dirty. It’s no secret that the print industry (like the music and movie industries) is getting absolutely turned on its head thanks to the digital landscape and consumer media consumption habits. They have to try something to garner interest and maintain revenues. I don’t think that this is going to help out their January sales, but maybe December’s will see a bump. And to be honest, their execution and the subsequent WSJ article is for the most part par for the course if you follow the AR space. But there are two elements of this article that I felt compelled to weigh in on, here’s the first:
“It is a gimmick, but we’re an entertainment medium,” says editor-in-chief David Granger.
Now, this is a first. Someone had the stones to admit that their execution is gimmicky, let alone be proud of it. So kudos for that but let me say this: AR doesn’t have to be a gimmick. In fact, it shouldn’t be. Your executions should be providing real value to the people that read your magazines and buy your goods your consumers. Now, I’m not saying that the “value” provided can’t be entertainment in nature, but I am saying that it should provide value outside of what a person can already do in their browser. Otherwise, why put the barrier of needing a webcam between a person and your content/offering? All you’re really doing is giving people a more complicated user interface.
Of course it’s easy to sit here and rip on someone else’s work without providing any real value, so here’s an idea: what if Esquire’s “fashion spread” allowed people to overlay images of an article of clothing on themselves ( for example ties) so that they could match (or in my case, learn how to match) them with their existing wardrobe. Editorial content could provide tips, tricks and insights. Now, that might provide some real value to consumers looking to make a purchase (not to mention the brands that sell those articles of clothing) and would be an execution that could be updated and utilized all year long (that is, Esquire could sell the space to various retailers each and every season).
Now, on to the second item that I wanted to address:
“Mr. Nordstrom says that Lexus could do AR ads in other places but that consumers have to download a piece of software to make the technology work.”
People do not like downloads. It’s just another barrier between them and your content, and people will drop off. Now, I don’t want to get too techy, but if you are advising a client to do an online AR execution you should seriously consider building it in Flash (at the very least, you should have a compelling reason why Flash is not the proper solution). Flash 10 has a 93.5% penetration rate (Flash 9 is at 99.6%) in mature markets, and Flash development is relatively fast and cheap. When you throw on the consumer benefit of no downloads, it becomes a pretty compelling solution. Now, the counterargument may be that Flash does not allow for the sort of rich 3-D image modeling that a proprietary plug-in will allow for (I’d argue that it doesn’t matter how beautiful the image/asset is if people aren’t seeing it, but that’s just one man’s opinion). Well, that’s all about to change in 2010 when Flash 10.1 hits the streets.
So, what do you think (note to trolls: please keep the ripping of my grammar and spelling to a minimum)? What are some of your favorite AR executions? How do you wish the technology was being used? Would you be willing to download a proprietary plug-in to experience an AR execution you’ve never seen before?
If you want to take this conversation to twitter, you can find me at http://twitter.com/jack_benoff
One Apple fan-boy seems to have taken a fair amount of offense to those anti-iPhone Droid ads that came out last week… So, he took the time to fight back, and created his own spoof ad (via Mashable). What do you think of the video?
In case you haven’t seen the original, here ya go:
Anyone else a touch disappointed that you aren’t at the Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco? You should check out the conference’s Twitter hashtag (#w2s). So many conferences have a hashtag these days, and it turns out that they are a great resource both for attendees, and people who couldn’t make it. I’ve been keeping an eye on Web 2.0’s hashtag yesterday and today, and was able to get some pretty interesting information, and insights, in real time. For example, here’s a link (from yesterday) to Mary Meeker’s presentation on Economic & Internet Trends (it contains some great data on the mobile space, and Apple’s dominance).
In case you missed the link above to the conference hashtag, here’s another one: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=w2s. Check it out and let me know what you think about “attending” a conference this way. It’s obviously not the same as being there, but a pretty good “Plan B” in my opinion.
We Are Organized Chaos (WAOC) is Zugara’s (www.zugara.com) interactive marketing and advertising blog where we’ll be featuring some great projects and discussing upcoming trends in the digital world. Work — good and bad — will be critiqued. Hope you’ll enjoy reading our insights and thoughts on interactive.
