Year: 2011

Huff or puff?

What to read into AOL’s acquisition of The Huffington Post for 32 times earnings? Another sign of a social media bubble? A bid for respectability by the corporate that, for many, has defined the unsuccessful merger? Just as importantly, I’m struggling to get my head around the brand compatibility. Huffington Post – smart, sassy, informed. AOL – huge (though nowhere near as big as it was), dial up, looking to get back some high ground. Seems like Huff is looking for scale here, while AOL is looking for the quality they believe will drive advertising sales. I hope this doesn’t turn into a bun-fight between resources and returns. I’d also hate to see Huff Post’s integrity and feisty character compromised by the juggernaut. And while Arianna Huffington herself may have done this partly because she’s worried that the Post is erring towards “the innovator’s dilemma” of sticking too closely to its strategy, I’m sure I don’t need to remind her that corporate history is littered with the wrecks of brands who tried to be too …

New words and altered meanings

Sue sent through a list of new words and altered meanings from a competition run by The Washington Post. These were my favourites: Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time. Ignoranus : A person who’s both stupid and an asshole. Intaxicaton : Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with. Giraffiti : Vandalism spray-painted very, very high Sarchasm : The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn’t get it. Inoculatte : To take coffee intravenously when you are running late. Decafalon (n.): The gruelling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you. Glibido : All talk and no action. Coffee, n. The person upon whom one coughs. Flabbergasted, adj. Appalled by discovering how much weight one has gained. Abdicate, v. To give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach. Negligent, adj. Absentmindedly answering the door when wearing only a …

7 lessons from the Sevens

Mickey Mice, surgeons, musclemen, vampires, men in tutus … yes, it’s Rugby Sevens weekend in Wellington. And that means teams of people dressed thematically and wandering the streets of the CBD. Welcome to a brand of rugby where the games themselves are virtually the backdrop for the actions and celebrations going on in the crowd and beyond the stadium. But there are also some important lessons for the marketers amongst us. Here are my seven out-takes from the madness: Sometimes the event is strongest when it carries the name but isn’t actually the focus. In other words, it becomes the platform or prompt for a wider circle of participation. That wider circle may be where the money is. As per yesterday’s post – if you change the format, you also challenge the expectations of what must take place. In the case of Sevens, the change of game format has evolved into a social prompt for an audience-wide costume-party. If you give people genuine permission to behave differently, the initial hesitancy will give way to an …

The real power of endorsements (and other opinions)

The purser on the plane this morning reminded us as we landed that the airline had just won two industry awards. She didn’t name them but the point was made. Endorsement brings that extra degree of confirmation that we as consumers have made a good choice. It plays to our collective wish to make wise purchases. It tells us we got it right. The lack of specifics doesn’t matter. Schemas – the snapshot opinions that we form of people, places, things – are hugely powerful influencers. They help us navigate too many choices, too many questions, too much conflicting information, too little time. They motivate us to engage. Without realising it, we form schemas for almost everything. Some are positive. Some are negative. Some are unjustified, either way. But the most common one is actually blank. It says “I don’t know what to think”. People literally don’t have a clue. The reason is simple. You didn’t provide one. Your website looked the same as everyone else. The email you sent them was formulated and vanilla. …

That’s a wrap

Format is really just a polite word for expectation. The way something is meant to be packaged. Years ago, they told The Doors they’d have to recut “Light My Fire” to make it a single because it didn’t fit the format – too long. It was an OK single I guess, but it was nothing like the real thing. Change led to compromise. The original didn’t cram into a single for a reason. It would be like trying to make a 3 minute version of Bohemian Rhapsody. What are you going to leave out? But the reverse is also true – works that may have one or two good ideas, repeated and padded to try and make them look and feel more substantial, to make them extend into the format. Here’s the reasoning behind that action – if it’s a book, it must be 180 pages, so 180 pages it will be. Otherwise it’s not a book, it’s an extended essay or a long article or a something else. It must be that long in …

How do you value a crowd-based brand?

What is the value of global friendship and can you actually assign a price to it? Facebook’s own stats say that the site now has more than 500 million active users, and that 50% of them log on to Facebook in any given day. That means Goldman Sachs’ implied valuation of $50 billion suggests every active user is worth around about $100. Is that a lot? I actually don’t think it matters. The much more interesting question is: $100 – to whom? Users are not paying money to talk to their friends, post their photos and catch up on what’s going on as they generate content on Facebook, but if Goldman Sachs is right, then that’s what their millions of activities will generate for someone else. So who’s anticipating the $100 of value, and just as importantly, how? Investors, yes. But based on the production of what? There have been any number of comparisons between Facebook and Google – but to me, they overlook a fundamental difference. Google does produce something: a very powerful search …

Refreshing the connections: a perspective on The Pepsi Refresh Project

It’s great to see Pepsi deciding to spend money over a year in communities instead of splashing the lot on the Super Bowl. It certainly makes sense at one level. Conscientious consumers are asking corporates more and more questions about where their money is being spent and how committed they are to the people who buy their goods. On that score, this is huge. And it certainly lays down the gauntlet in terms of challenging corporates to think about where they put their money. Top marks for that too. The ultimate Pepsi challenge. It’s a move that has huge feel-good. Let’s face it, what’s not to like? Pepsi’s given away more than $20 million in grants to causes that otherwise would struggle to find the money they need to make a difference. Touchdown in that regard. And there’s been incredible traffic online. So a huge participation win. A lot of people talking over an extended period of time. But there’s one other thing I think they still need to do for this to really work: …

Pass the salt

Once, salt was one of the most valuable commodities on earth. Usual supply and demand dynamics: plenty of need because of its preservation skills versus hard to find. Over the centuries, it’s been a form of treasure, a trading currency, the cause of wars, a builder of empires and, in the case of Ghandi, a catalyst for protest. Today, it sits on a shelf in our supermarkets and we’re warned not to include too much of it in our diets. We don’t give it a second thought. The modern equivalent of such a rarity is probably time. Ask anyone how much free time they have these days. Most will tell you they don’t. They haven’t got time to do this or watch that or attend something else. They have so much to get through. And yet, according to Fast Company, Americans are spending more time on Facebook and Twitter than ever before: more than 2 hours a month on Twitter; more than four and a half hours on Facebook. It’s fine. It’s enjoyable. It’s part …

Work in progress

Didn’t work – Something was tried, and for reasons known or unknown, results were disappointing. Doesn’t mean that the same outcome would happen again, or that whatever is being proposed shouldn’t be tried again. This is a statement of history, often made blithely without the investigation of context, input, resource, influence or wider climate. It presumes a track record of past and therefore continuing disappointment. Won’t work – Doesn’t mean it can’t work or that it hasn’t worked or even that it’s not working now, only that it will not work in the future in the way it is being framed or the way things are projected or with the allocated resources. In other words, it could work but it may require revision going forward. Can’t work – Unfeasible. You’d have to be a fairly confident person to be making this statement. It states categorically that something will not work no matter what happens in the market, with customers, to the business, within any timeframe. Never. No debate. No right of appeal. Will never work …