Be brave and tell the truth

I don’t know why I was thinking about an obscure Dudley Moore film this morning. The only thing I can think that might have prompted this was the fact that he came to mind whilst I was eating cereal at breakfast. There are a number of cereals that use midgets in their imagery – I’m thinking ‘Snap, Crackle, Pop’ and ‘Frosted Lucky Charms’. The latter disappeared from UK shelves pretty quickly after its introduction – probably due to the fact that British kids (at the time) found the idea of a small Irish midget quite threatening, conjuring up images of terrorism rather than ‘magically delicious’(TM) breakfast thoughts. When you think about it, who wants to eat a food which promises ‘if you eat me, you’ll grow up… but not much’?

I digress, but not too far, because ‘if you eat me, you’ll grow up… but not much” would be a more truthful statement than ‘magically delicious’ and, who knows, maybe Frosted Lucky Charms would still be on the market today in the UK if they’d been a bit more honest. Anyway, the premise of Dudley Moore’s 1990 movie, Crazy People, was that Dudley’s character (an Ad Exec) has an epiphany and decides to be honest. In doing so he comes up with the strapline, “Volvos, yes they are boxy, but they’re safe” , his boss takes this as a sign he’s had a breakdown and Dudley is packed off to a mental institution where he finds love. In the meantime the advert accidentally gets published and is a smash hit, so Dudley has to come up with even more honest ads. Sounds great doesn’t it? Okay, it’s pretty poor – think a poor man’s ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’ without the lobotomy at the end and you’ll get the picture. That said, Dudley’s character does come up with some great concepts:

New York tourism campaign: Ad concept #1 “It’s not as filthy as you think,” Ad concept #2 “There were fewer murders last year.”

United Airlines: “Most of our passengers get there alive.”

Greek tourism: “Forget France – Come to Greece. We’re Nicer.”

Crazy people make for rubbish movies

The fact is that, there is a lot of truth in the premise. For brands to work they have to behave in a similar fashion as to how they wish to be portrayed if they are going to be successful. In short, they need to be honest. If you want to be a premium brand then you need to behave in a classy way and your product needs to live up to the quality promise. If you position yourself as different then you need to be different. It’s quite simple.

Currently, the most truthful brand out there is also the most hated. Ryanair and in particular its honest chief exec Michael O’Leary (there is a definite Irish midget theme to this post today) is a brand built on honesty. For example, here’s Michael on the subject of refunds: [source] “We don’t fall over ourselves if they say… my granny fell ill. What part of no refund don’t you understand? You’re not getting a refund, so F**K off!”

Ryanair doesn’t promise you anything and so it is never going to fail to live up to an expectation it has set, because the only promise it makes is that you’d better not expect anything other than getting to your destination. They might as well load you into a giant catapult and fire you towards your destination and we all know if they were allowed to Ryanair would do just that.

But guess what, it’s also one of the most successful and certainly one of the most profitable airlines in existence.

Not so special offers

The internet is the consumer’s best friend. It has brought us the power of comparison. That might not be the power you’d want if you were challenged by Superman to an arm wrestle. Also, if I order the same dish as someone else at a restaurant I can’t help but take a look at their plate just to check that my steak (I always order steak) isn’t smaller than theirs. So in that instance the power of comparison just reinforces my perception that I am usually unlucky when it comes to being dished up the small steak with the apologetic looking green beans on the side.

In the hunt for the bargain though, the power of comparison is the power you want. The ability to take a product and quickly and easily find out who is selling it at the best price is pretty nifty. Especially when it doesn’t matter that the seller is the other side of the world and not in your local high street (unless you care about the ozone layer, that is). So, you’d think the onset on new technology is going to bring more and more bargains for us consumers. But, putting on my futurologist hat, I don’t think that we’ll be the sole beneficiaries of new technology developments.

Take geolocation, that clever piece of technology that passes on your physical location to the websites you interact with. That has got to be great for us consumers doesn’t it? Vouchercloud is a great example of where the addition of geolocation makes for more useful offers. If I am looking for a deal on restaurants then it makes sense for those deals to be on restaurants (that sell great steak presumably) where I might go and eat at and therefore if they are on the other side of the world it does matter.

So geolocation is going to be great for us consumers then… Unless of course the people that are selling to us aren’t complete idiots and can also cotton on to the advantages of geolocation and other clever little technologies.

If I was a restaurateur I’d be wondering how best to get people through the door at Greatsteaks (got to work on that name!) and I might try a little offer. Now, the easiest thing would be for me to come up with a nice and simple offer. Something like ‘Enjoy steaks, great! Dine before eight and enjoy a free glass of wine.’ (got to work on that too).

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, steak.

My offer might entice a few people through the door, but it’s going to cost me wine in the process. So, what if I used geolocation and other clever internet technologies, could I get smarter and use a little intelligence so that I was able to offer as little as possible and still get the same results?

If it’s 7pm and I know the person is in the vicinity of my restaurant (on their iPhone) and I’ve only got a couple of spare tables available then I might not be so interested in enticing someone through my doors at a cost to me. If I know a customer has been to Greatsteaks before and they didn’t have any more drink than the free glass of wine I gave them (the tight gits!) then do I want to make a future offer to them? If I know that ‘Pieceapizza’ has recently stopped his offer of free desert then do I need to be as generous with my offers?

Sellers are becoming more savvy and in doing so are able to offer smarter offers, which aren’t necessarily better offers for us the punters. The technology which is currently getting us great deals is also giving the seller a better insight into us, the customer, and what they can get away with and still get our business.

So, on the downside, I predict that these technologies will result in a shift back towards the seller online. On the upside though, I think there might be a bit of mileage in Greatsteaks!

When good banking turns bad

I used to have no reason to moan about using my bank online. I never had a reason to cheer about it either. The experience was *fine*, which was fine. After all, I don’t really need to be wowed by nice graphics when I’m paying a bill, I just want to pay my bill with as little fuss as possible. Who in their right mind actually enjoys interacting with their bank account? I suppose I might if I win the lottery, but with odds of 49x48x47x46x45…x2x1 :1 I know, even with my limited maths, that it’s never likely to happen – which is a shame. And, even if I did enjoy looking at my bank balance, which I don’t, what Lloyds Bank has just done to their online banking website would strip the fun away pretty quickly.

So, why am I moaning about Lloyds Bank? As I’ve already mentioned the old experience was fine, it worked. It wasn’t pretty, but it made sense, was quick to use and of critical importance, it worked! I could make a payment in full confidence that the payment would happen. Then they improved things…

They launched their new site and on my first interaction with it, probably a week or so after it launched, it quickly became apparent that they had done something very wrong. Presumably they had tested the site before launching it on their customer base, but on the evidence of my experience I suspect they might have cut the budget for the testing phase of the project. I can’t imagine they tested the site in a more scientific or rigorous fashion than I might test that the contents of my wine glass is actually wine and not grape juice – or in this instance gripe juice.

The problems are many. First of all, I couldn’t log in. The site would time-out, which isn’t very reassuring if I’m honest. Then if, on the fifth attempt, I did manage to log in half of the images would be missing and if I clicked a link then I would be rewarded with a blank page. Was I going to attempt to make an important payment (my credit card) using their new improved site – not a chance! A week or so later I used the site again and actually managed to log in, although it was a bit like wading through concrete, I even managed to look at my statement. They had turned it upside down! Why would they do this, were they trying to make me think that my balance actually goes up every time I take money out? It’s not that big a deal, but neither is the idea of switching around the pedals in a car, but I wouldn’t say it’s a great idea.

Is there a lesson here? In short, yes. It’s simple – when you design something you need to put the ‘user experience’ at the heart of every decision. You also need to test what you’ve done and ideally test it with people that resemble your audience. Going into the wilds of the Amazon and asking a tribe, painted from head to toe in the innards of a wild bore, what they think about your new site will get you some answers, it might even get you eaten, but it’s unlikely to get you the right answers. I can’t imagine Lloyds tested their site with any existing customers, and in isolation if you’d never used the old site, you might think the new site makes sense – but you have to understand people’s existing experience and expectations and include that in your thinking.

Am I going to change my bank because of this, no I’m not, but I’m not going to recommend them either.

Don’t just take my word for it, here are some other people’s views on the changes. In marketing terms, I am just doing my citizenry duty of being a ‘problem mushroom’.

p.s. At lunch I saw this advert:

So, I just tried to sign up for the Lloyds mobile banking app and got the message:

“We are sorry but your Apple iPhone is not compatible with this service. To use Mobile Money you may need to upgrade your phone. We support most recent phones, for more information please visit monitise.co.uk”

Need I say more? iPhone’s are not current enough for Lloyds mobile banking app. What do you need, an iPad?

Selling on the Internet doesn't mean you have to be cheap

We all like a good deal, and the constituents of a good deal are a lot more than just the price. When we shop online however, we do seem to forget that and focus solely on price. It’s no surprise really, the Internet is the perfect place to compare, sites like Google Shopping [iPhone 4 example] allow you to compare on various different elements so that you can always find the best price. Does that mean that there is no room for a business strategy on the internet other than cost-leadership?

This is a bit of a conundrum for brands that have ‘premium’ ambitions. Does your product have the same cache if your supply chain includes a dodgy looking website that uses clipart to convey your carefully crafted brand message? So, what can they do when we have a free market and you can’t easily stop people from selling your product?

An example of a search for a Bang & Olufsen TV

I think we’ll see far more effective and collaborative digital supply chains that allow brands to get involved in the messaging and even the service throughout the supply chain. The reason that the etailers will let the brand get involved in their site is that through this partnership they will be able to offer a better, more credible service to their customers and of course there will most likely be a financial incentive to do so from the brand.

Will that make us, the consumers, buy from them though? I think it will if the value is tangibly there from these ‘chosen partners’ over their cheaper counterparts. Value will be derived in a number of ways. It could be the experience and advice that you get through these etailers which you wont get from the ‘stack-em-high-sell-em-cheap’ brigade. It could be the service in terms of delivery, aftercare, returns etc. It could be the little touches that you weren’t expecting that make all the difference, or it could be tangible benefits such as a better warranty if your product is purchased from a selected reseller (the brand could argue because they’ve vetted the reseller they know the product has been handled properly and installed etc to get around the legalities).

The point is that the brands are responsible for their products throughout the supply chain. If someone has a bad experience through an online trickster then it damages the brand. Lots of companies are scratching their heads trying to work out how to stop price erosion (which makes their products less attractive to sell) in their market – and most of them are still arrogantly blaming the resellers for the problem when it’s their own problem!

The technologies are there for better collaboration online, for example, semantic web technology could allow brands to create truly integrated channel campaigns. Enlightened brands could offer pre-sales support through their etailers, or intelligent and measurable offers through this framework. There are a lot of good reasons for the brands to ensure that their premium brands are not eroded by the web and there aren’t many excuses, so maybe we’ll start seeing some more inventive strategies online which mean we won’t just be looking for the 50p difference next time we’re on the hunt for a bargain.

What might make you buy from one etailer over another? It would be interesting to know… More moans from Neil

We've joined the race

The race is on to design, engineer and build the fastest car on Earth. Events are happening faster than they can be captured but the journey towards the goal is as important as achieving the goal itself.

Bloodhound has to engage the British public on pretty much every level; as a human interest story, an example of the British spirit of adventure, a feat of twenty-first century engineering... but most importantly it has the power to inspire the next generation of British scientists and engineers at a time where our country’s future economy depends on such a workforce.
We have been tasked with devising and implementing the digital strategy for communicating this journey and taking the British public along for the ride.

The Bloodhound project is pushing the limits of what is possible in science and engineering and our approach mirrors this.

The major innovation will be the full use of a semantic framework to publish all information, be that news, data, images, schematics, resources, and documents, semantically. We will use visualisation and analysis tools to display this data in several ways – for example showing timelines of progress, graphs of results etc.

A semantic framework allows us to do more with the data gathered during the project. If, for example, a qualitative statement of progress or mood is applied to each item posted, a timeline can then be created showing the feelings within the project or the perceived level of progress or set back - and that’s just for starters...

Currently in the implementation stage, the new Bloodhound SCC website will be blasting through our rigorous testing procedures and onto a browser soon.

Break the rules like Banksy

BANKSY breaks all the rules.

He is a vandal. He doesn’t commercialise his product- the outside art at least, which is free (obviously). He won’t reveal who he is. Need I go on?

You put these rule breaks together and what do you get? A global phenomenon.

This is a piece off Park Street in Bristol

It just goes to show that sometimes you need to turn things on their head and approach things from completely the opposite direction to convention. If Banksy (presumably a one-time art student) had taken a normal route to being promoted he’d have found an art dealer who would have assisted him for a big % of his income. The promoter would, no doubt, have put on a show or two, worked his/her connections and if Banksy’s art had been in the right place at the right time he might just have made it… maybe.

By taking his art onto the street he demanded attention – he didn’t ask if you wanted to see it, if you’re that way inclined (i.e. a gallery attendee)- he demanded you saw it. It had a huge amount of stand out, especially given what we are used to seeing on our streets – his work is inventive, clever and above-all very creative – most graffiti is done by vandals, not artists and is therefore, erm – rubbish. He benefited from “first mover advantage”- nobody had done this before, so he beat his contemporaries to market. Ultimately his approach was the epitome of guerrilla marketing. The lesson which marketers looking to do viral marketing is simple. It’ll only work if you’ve got compelling content and if you’re doing something different – there’s nothing worse than a thinly veiled, poorly executed viral piece… it’s a bit like your dad coming home one evening with an earring when he’s been an accountant for forty years, it doesn’t make him suddenly cool.

Banksy is now able to commercialise his work and has sold work for six figure sums, not bad for a Bristol vandal. He has now become conventional, in the sense that there a lot of people now doing the same as him (see link at the end of this post), so it will be interesting whether he changes his approach. I really wouldn’t be surprised if he turned the art world on its head and completely reinvented himself. That’s the trouble when your brand is all about being unconventional – if you are successful it’s pretty hard to stay unconventional.

Bristol Street Art catalogues the street art in Bristol (I didn’t realise how worryingly similar my site looks to theirs – complete coincidence!) Have a gander.

Apps, apps and more apps

The world and its dog (dogs are well serviced here) seems to be getting on board with the app revolution. It shouldn’t be a surprise. We are a throw-away culture, everything we consume has followed the same path over the years and that path is all about reducing our time spent in consuming and the pursuit of consumption so that we can move on and consume again more quickly than before… except for telly. We even design products with built-in obsolescence as a selling feature – we must be mad!

Its taken the software industry a while to catch up with the rest of the world, but catch up Apple certainly has. With the iPhone and now iPad they are showing more and more that they are not an IT company, they are a marketing company. The whole idea of apps is to nurture this throw-away impulse and give consumers lots and lots of reasons to part with their cash in small amounts, which adds up to lots and lots over time.

So, to the future. Apps are the future – in software anyway. Microsoft had better get this point or they have reached their own point of built-in obsolescence. We, the consumer, want to drop in and out of things quickly. We don’t want to have to learn software – what a ridiculous concept that will become… So, going forward my prediction is that our world will become app-based, or rather mobile based. The current latest tellies already include apps (although not necessarily useful yet) but really that’s kind of missing the point. Allowing your phone to interact with the content of the TV and in fact be the control device for the TV is a better idea.

There’s an app for everything will at some stage be a truth. Of course that goes against what Intel and Microsoft want, they would dearly love to keep progress along Moore’s Law going ever-onward, forcing us all to have extremely powerful machines with increasingly complex software from which they can continue to make a lot of money. In fact, my prediction is that the opposite will happen. We’ll have (relatively) smaller, more nimble devices with far less complex software.

What do you think? Will the app revolution kill Moore’s Law?