Google gets the Chrome polish out

(image courtesy of onstartups.com)

(I authored this for BJL, who kindly allowed me to re-publish here).

Yesterday saw two significant launches from Google. The ground for both had been well prepared, with pre-announcements, and slight delays probably designed to heighten anticipation.

The most significant (expected) move is Google’s unveiling of it’s own Operating System (OS) – Chrome OS. This sees ‘the big G’ take on Microsoft, Mac, and Linux in providing a software operating system that is targets both large enterprises, and individual PC users. Interestingly Google will be sticking with the successful Android platform for both mobiles and tablet devices.

The key feature of Chrome OS is that it is entirely web based. The first Chrome OS machines (from Acer and Samsung) will be cloud computing devices, with no spinning hard drive. A key advantage of this is that users will have the option to always stay connected (with 3G and wireless connectivity built in.)

As is ‘de rigeur’ these days, the OS is open source, and Google are actively encouraging hackers to adapt it as they see fit – on their own devices. Google will use what they call Google switch to test any hardware hacks, to ensure they are compatible with the parent OS, before allowing access.

In their understated way Google are hailing Chrome as the ‘first viable competitor’ to Windows and Mac, which will come as a big surprise to Linux fans.

The second launch is arguably more interesting from a communications viewpoint – the ‘Chrome Web Store’, originally announced in May of this year.

Google has already developed its own range of apps Google docs, Calendar, Groups, Voice etc.), and now they have gone open source on this too. The online service is designed to let Chrome and Chrome OS users find, install and potentially buy web applications, similar in concept to what Google has done with its Android Market and to what Apple has done with its App Store.

Within hours of the opening of the Chrome Web Store, there were hundreds of apps available to use, the vast majority created by ‘non-G’ developers. Some are merely bookmarks to existing web apps, but there are already a number that really push the boundaries of what we expect from a web app.

2 prime examples stand out on day 1.

SlideRocket lets you create robust, rich-media presentations in your web browser; and build these collaboratively with other users (if they are in your Google address book). Being web based, you can access real time feeds and integrate them into your slide deck, and you can ask questions or conduct polls within a presentation.

Vyew bills itself as “Beyond web conferencing”, and as a collaboration app it’s pretty impressive. The thing about collaboration, is that you sometimes do it remotely in real time, but more often in your own time, for other people to pick up and add-to or comment. Vyew enables you to ‘share your view in a continuous meeting room in real-time or any time’.

One can see many uses for this app, from ’collaborative war room for businesses , or an ‘always-accessible virtual classroom’ to an ’all-purpose collaborative organiser’. You can upload almost any type of file, and leave edits/comments, or video/tele-conference to discuss content.

Vyew is not new (ooh that rhymes!) but its appearance as an app will hopefully move it out of the shadows, where it has likely remained property of a well-informed few.

What is the significance of all this for communicators?

These Google initiatives are both Cloud based, and point towards a future where we will have 24/7 access to all our data, ultimately via almost any device.

This ‘always on’ phenomena is likely to have an impact on how we all live and work (blurring still further the division); but more importantly from a marketing viewpoint it will mean that consumers will increasingly be able to choose to access (or not) an infinite amount of information/entertainment from anywhere at anytime. We are only just beginning to get a glimpse of the degree of audience fragmentation this is likely to lead to. The challenges for brands to attract and maintain consumer engagement will get harder. Increasingly the ad industry is exploring the importance and power of storytelling. Even (indeed especially) in this digital age, the human need and love for stories, and the instinct to engage with and retell them, is being identified as being key to how brands express themselves.

Given the plethora of devices, platforms and sources, it is perhaps not surprising that, in what Henry Jenkins describes as our ‘Convergence Culture’, brands are beginning to recognise that the opportunity for transmedia storytelling, where

‘stories unfold across multiple media platforms with each new text making a unique and valuable contribution to the whole’ (Jenkins) provides a great opportunity for consumers to engage with a brand’s story and potentially help shape it, or engage with other consumers around/through it.

Transparency and freedom of information are a current hot topic with Wikileaks making headlines almost every day. This issue will again prove a challenge for communicators. We no longer trust many institutions and brands, as much as we used to, preferring the advice and recommendation of our peers, who rarely repeat our carefully crafted brand mantras. This openness will be exacerbated by our greater always-on access to information that has hitherto not been available.

Web apps, such as those mentioned above, facilitate and encourage collaboration, which until more recent times may have been confined to an organisation. Now ‘collaboration’ is becoming a clarion call for progressive marketers. Brands are called upon to work with their consumers in developing anything from product to messaging – Crowdsourcing seems widespread in marketing circles. Such collaboration is becoming easier and less costly, and this is likely to be better facilitated and quicker with ‘the cloud’, particularly through slimmed down and simple to use apps.

In summary it’s essential that developments such as those announced by Google, are not seen purely as technological developments, but ones that reflect, and to an extent, will help shape our positive human social instincts, that Mark Earls describes so well in Herd, to be connected, to be part of something that we admire.

It’s time for brands to get out their own tins of polish, and start buffing.

What do you think?

A real Love Brand

There's an increasing amount of stuff being written these days, which points to the future of branding becoming more about actions, as opposed to just words and brand platitudes. There are a myriad of reasons for this - diminishing trust in brands, increased transparency ....yadda yadda.

One of the markets where trust and transparency are most hoped for (by its participants) is online dating. A brand cannot easily influence this at a personal level (if I say I am 5' 10" whose to know I'm exaggerating?). However one brand has found a way to explore the information provided by their members for the good of all.

OKCupid is one of the most successful online dating operations in the USA. It is consistently outspent by its competitors in traditional advertising terms. You probably wouldn't be surprised to know that the ad spend in this category is over $100m! Yet OKCupid focus their budgets efforts on social marketing and in particular their blog, and as result generate both massive media coverage and word of mouth.

The secret of their success? It's not case studies and testimonials - its statistical analysis!

They use the data generated by their own members and present the information to them in a blog which helps members improve their performance, and therefore usage of the site. These posts get broadcast and re-syndicated widely.

As the Head of Zeus Jones says " It’s a completely circular, yet brilliant example of how an internal asset can be used as marketing, and of how value – generated by your customers – can provide even more value to your customers".

For those in the dating market, there's a great post here on "The Big Lies People Tell In Online Dating", one of which is that guys exaggerate their size (i.e height) by 2 inches.

For those about to enter, there are some interesting 'factoids' here about the photograph you submit, one of which is that it's better to shoot with a low "f setting". (Hence pic at the top).

Don't just stand there.......

Picture courtesy of Kenny Maths

One of the frustrations I have with social media is the term itself. A lot has been said and written about the concept and the term. SM is recognised as having the potential to positively contribute to a whole range of business areas, from customer acquisition to loyalty building, customer service, collaboration and PR. This is part of the problem for some people. They can't categorise it, put it in a box, or understand it in relation to other 'media'.

This is the nub of the issue for me. Social Media is a misnomer. I'm by no means the first to say this, but it bears repeating. When we think of 'media' we think of vehicles or channels through which we can send 'our messages'. It's surprising how many brands' Facebook pages are just a means of them sending out messages about special offers to the limited number of fans they have managed to attract.

Is there an alternative? Well some may say drop the word 'media' but that probably provides different problems to overcome, from the point of view of comprehension and budget allocation (most, if not all clients reallocate SM budgets from other media). Does Social Networking do it? It helps to describe what's going on, and in that sense is valuable, and helps identify that this is a medium where attention can not easily (or wisely) be bought - it is earned. But maybe it feels a little bit more of a challenge to brand owners, than an opportunity.

As Faris Yakob points out in his post here, the term is already suffering from some wear out due to its misuse.

There are some good points in this short presentation of his

Be Nice Or Leave: IRL Edition

View more presentations from Faris Yakob.

Two stand out for me. 1. His description/explanation of SM as "people doing stuff that creates conversations and relationships online".
This is interesting in that there are 2 equally valid interpretations of this:

"people doing stuff online that creates conversations and relationships", or

"people doing stuff, that creates online conversations and relationships ".

The former may lead us to see SM as separate and standalone channel, that is not necessarily integrated with a brand's broader strategy. Something we have to be involved with or be present in.
The latter opens things up more. It recognises that online is both a place consumers are increasingly comfortable to engage in conversations and relationships. It's also a place where we as brand's have the opportunity to join in and (with a light touch) help shape some of those conversations. It also points to the fact that those conversations can be (and are often) shaped by what we do offline - whether that be a stand-out (or poor) TV ad, or great or bad, customer service, for example.

This leads us to the 2nd of Faris' important points :

2. "I think the lesson we all learn, from the need to constantly feed social media without endlessly hawking our brands and ourselves - to constantly communicate as befits an always-on world - is that the best way to create content is to do awesome stuff in the world".

That's the challenge for clients and agencies. It's no longer about producing ads, promotions, PR releases etc. It's a fantastically exciting and challenging time that takes us into areas that we may not have hitherto felt comfortable. It's a world in which theory and best practice is evolving on almost a daily basis; an area of communication where there are few things we can be absolutely certain of, except that there is no going back. Not everyone will want to grasp the nettle, and for those reluctant one's its important that we talk in a way that helps them 'get it'. For those that just don't want to, maybe its best to just "be nice, and leave".

Delivering Happiness

Today sees the official publication of Delivering Happiness, Tony Hsieh's story of the growth and ultimate success of Zappos (arguably the world's most successful clothing e-tailer). It's an easy read, as its written in a relaxed non-business tone; and traces a line from Tony's early childhood attempts at being an entrepreneur through to the point where Zappos are 2 weeks from going under, and to their ultimate successs.

This book represents the next stage in Zappos efforts to share the culture of their business with the world. Interestingly they seem to be doing this not only because they understand the commercial benefits it brings them (it is very rare to talk to anyone who, once they are exposed to the Zappos culture, does not spontaneously fall for the brand - many wishing out loud that they worked there - i.e. it generates enormously positive WOM about the brand), but also because they genuinely believe that it is a business model that could be successfully followed by others.

Probably the most intersting aspects of the book is the humble style in which it is written. It seems pretty transparent about the issues/crises they faced, the mistakes they made and the luck they had. Tony identifies as one of his key influences as being Good to Great by Jim Collins which, as he says, highlights "...that great companies have a greater purpose and bigger vision beyond just making money and being number one in the market". That this come up in a conversation with one of his partners whilst discussing a customer email praising them for upgrading his delivery for free, (and as they are approaching the real crunch time for the business), and that over lunch they turn this thought into a strategy of delivering the very best customer service, is perhaps a little overstated. Though it does add to the mytholgy around the brand. Whatever the circumstances, maybe even the Zappos folk were surprised at the impact this had on their business from a repeat sales and recommendation perspective. This, allied to the decision to stock and deliver all their merchandise was the catalyst that changed things around.

Undeniably one of Zappos biggest achievements has been to recognise the importance of the culture within the company. The now famous 10 core values started off as 37 core values which over a year were whittled down to 10. Both these and the annual Culture Book were built from within after input from employees.


Again, as part of spreading their culture the Culture Book is free to request from Zappos.

The culture and the passion that exists and seems to perpetuate in within Zappos is exemplified by the inclusion of their individual examples or interpretations of each of the values towards the end of the book. This is when the story really comes to life.

What can other companies learn from reading this book

That there is another way to commercial success seems obvious, but the Zappos way is very challenging to most companies. Here are some other, perhaps more attainable, lessons.

1 In the brave new world of empowered and ever more demanding consumers, service is likely to play an ever more crucial role. It is unlikely to be sufficient to compare or compete on service levels within your market sector, even if that is discount or low cost. Consumers will not differentiate between service levels across sectors, if they ever did, particularly when companies such as Zappos are raising the bar for everyone. How long before free delivery becomes the norm in online shopping?

2 Much has been written about the demands that Social Media is putting on brands to be authentic, human, transparent etc. Arguably Zappos could be singled out as the example par excellence of this approach, from both a content viewpoint and the extent to which it opens the company culture to scritiny. Crucially what they also are fun and 'a little weird', which makes it all the more likely that people want to engage with them.
Obviously this approach will not suit all brands. It will frighten the life out of the majority! What is important though is that Zappos has a crystal clear sense of who it is and what it stands for. Yes, this has always ben the hallmark of great brands (when they are consistent with it), but it is becoming ever more important. God knows how many brands have entered the Facebook arena, for example, but what we do know is that the overwhelming majority are bland, pale and nigh on invisible because they don't have a viewpoint or anything interesting and engaging to say.

3 I find that one of the most useful concepts for explaining how social networks, and hence social media work, is that of Social Objects, which Hugh Mcleod explains well here. This is clearly a concept that Zappos have a perfect grasp of. Whether its their Culture Book, the whole Delivering happiness initiative, of which the book is just a part, their company tours, their multiple blogs and twitter accounts, the often times zany videos of the goings on within the company, their weekly live streaming of their "happyhours", they are continually making social gestures and owning the conversations that they have decided define who they are.

Finally, what is very obvious about the Zappos culture is that everyone is highly motivated to deliver on the core purpose. This video from RSA Animation helps clarify why that is, and is well worth taking 10 minutes to watch. It may help you be a little braver in the way you approach business.



Oh, and you can buy it here .

Is the iPad really a game changer?

The Wall Street Journal's annual conference - 'D - All Things Digital ' was held at the beginning of this month. This year it was D8 .Speakers included Steve Balmer of Microsoft, John Donahoe of eBay, Ron Garret from Dell, and topping the bill - Steve Jobs (you know where he is from!).

The conference coincided with the recent announcement that Apple had overtaken Microsoft, in terms of its market capitalisation, in part due to the sale of 2m iPads in less than 2 months. Not surprisingly therefore much of the discussion was around the iPad, where it fits in the market, and what the future holds. In the following video clips you'll see the above gentlemen expressing their views.

Steve Jobs is his usual confident and (seemingly) open self (who wouldn't be in his position), and talks here of how the iPhone actually arose out of work being done around a brief to develop a tablet computer.
Interestingly he sees tablets as heralding the end of the PC era, and sees them as being more like 'trucks' (presumably vs. more nimble and numerous cars). His response to the final question as to how long the post PC era will take to arrive suggests that he, like many, sees the iPad as a game changer. Steve Jobs makes some interesting observations about how he thinks the iPad can act as a positive stimulus for publishers, particularly in the magazine industry.




John Donahoe (CEO of eBay) certainly indicates here that he believes smart phones and tablet computers (more specifically here the iPhone and iPad) have prompted eBay to look at how their website is structured and how content is provided.



It is also interesting to see the reaction of Steve Balmer (of Microsoft) to the iPad. Whilst he may have a point that a tablet computer is another form of PC, it does come across as being particularly defensive, and maybe points to a further flaw in the strategy behind the 'I'm a PC’. It's never a good idea to let a competitor's strategy define your own, particularly when you are tying yourself to a technology form, which will eventually be usurped by others. If Microsoft = PC, and vice versa, what happens when the technology or the vocabulary changes. We will have to wait and see.




A glimpse of this may be seen in Dell's launch of it's 5" tablet - The Dell Streak, using the android OS. But then again, I think not.
This device seems particularly utilitarian, when compared to the concept of the iPad, particularly when you bear in mind if you buy it unsubsidised from Dell.Com it would be the same prices as the entry level iPad. One could be forgiven for thinking that in trying to create something that's as portable as an phone, but as legible as an iPad, Dell have created something that does neither job well. Watch the reaction, when Ron Garrett puts it to his ear. And it doesn't bode well when asked what they call (categorise) it, Dell say they'll 'let the market decide' or when pushed Ron gives it the catchy name "an internet device you can put in your pocket" - where's the 'wow' in that?



If we accept at the fact that (according to Gartner forecasts), mobile phones will overtake PCs as the most common Web access device worldwide by 2013, and that already our ability to create information has far exceeded our ability to manage it; it's not difficult to foresee that we will adapt new ways of interacting with the web. And it's this perspective that makes the launch of the iPad particularly interesting.

Sarah Rotman Epps, a Forrester Analyst, it this way:

"There is something very significant about the iPad beyond how many units it will sell: it's changing how we think about the PC. The iPad creates a use case for a device that doesn't do everything your laptop does, targeted at a consumer that uses devices more for consumption than production. The iPad ushers in a new era of personal computing that we call "Curated Computing"—a mode of computing where choice is constrained to deliver less complex, more relevant experiences. Let me repeat that, because it's the essence of the Curated Computing experience: less choice; more relevance".

See Sarah's full article.
This raises a number of points:

> 1 The iPad is the best example so far, and surely there will be better to come from both Apple and others, of a device that helps us experience the web, and these devices are likely to be distinct from those that help us manage it.

> 2 Too much (and an ever increasing) choice, is something that, in the developed world, we are all struggling to deal with. The web helps us manage those choices, but also feeds their proliferation. Branding has always been about creating something that audiences will choose, increasingly in a cross category context. If particular devices and environments are developed that encourage us to access particular types of content on the web, it stands to reason that different types of content that are relevant to those environments and user experiences, will be necessary. I don't think its as simple producing a website and a range of apps. It's probable that brands that see themselves as multi-faceted (in John Grant's brand molecules sense) and are already developing a variety of social media content across a range of platforms are going to be best placed to adapt to this scenario.

> 3 Many agencies are struggling to define their role in this post-digital world, and it’s likely that developing apps for the iPad will be there next immediate step. Without doubt such skills will be a basic requirement and offer the opportunity for developing alternative revenue models. There is also an opportunity to take a strategic stance. The iPad represents a new technical platform, which is very exciting in itself. But the value for clients will come from an understanding of how its appearance will change consumers web behaviour - how they access and interact with it differently. Time taken to understand this relationship and the iPad's role will pay dividends.

Throwing streamers at revolutionaries

The Guardian opens up access to its content

I am a bit late to this (well 3 and a bit weeks - though there seems to have been surprisingly little coverage in the Marketing and media press). Particularly bearing in mind I could lean out of one of the agency windows, and even with my useless throwing arm, hit the windows of the Guardian's offices. Not with a stone you understand, but perhaps more appropriately a streamer.

Rupert Murdoch's pay-wall approach to online newspapers, particularly bearing in mind his comment in 2006 in Wired, seems even more Luddite in the context of this Guardian initiative.

"To find something comparable , you have to go back 500 years to the printing press, the birth of mass media....technology is shifting power away from the editors, the publishers, the establishment, the media elite. Now it's the people who are taking control".

After 18 months of development and experimentation, the Guardian are doing the complete opposite to News International - opening up their content for anyone to use. The Guardian are the first major news site to offer all content to developers / the public at large through APIs and the new Open Platform frees Guardian content from the limits of the main Guardian site.

The Guardian's Open Platform is open for business

View more presentations from The Guardian Open Platform.

This follows on the back of their success at harnessing user power to decipher the MPs expenses files, and numerous examples of where the willingness of readers to and collaborate in the editorial process has resulted in innovative story angles.
Add to this the track record of the iPhone and Facebook (to name just 2 examples) when they opened up their API, and it seems that the Guardian might be more in tune with where things are headed. The opportunity for the Guardian's content and hence its brand to spread across the web, particularly when others are walling theirs in, should also work in their favour. Who knows, just as Mr Cameron and his colleagues have been able to take on some liberal values, maybe some of the readers of Rupert's quality brands may find themselves warming to the Guardian, particularly with its wider visibility to them.

For more detail go to the Guardian's Open Platform site, and there's a blog post about the launch from Matt McAlister the projects lead developer here and a range of comments and perspectives here and here.

The opportunity is now for clients and agencies (and particularly creative agencies) to grasp this nettle (because it's bound to get a bit itchy for some).

Push-me Pull-you Pt 2

One of my earlier posts referenced Mark Earls and his observation that Social networks are not best understood as channels down which folk send things; social networks are webs from which members pull down learning (from each other). (My emphasis not his).

In this post, Neil Perkin references JP Rangawamis post that the current (push)business models, that many are trying to maintain, are premised for the desire for predictability. From his (JPR's) analysis of the The Power of Pull, he lists a number of assumptions on which (let's call them) traditional (push) ways of doing business are based

• There's not enough to go around
• Elites do the deciding
• Organisations must be hierarchical
• People must be molded
• Bigger is better
• Resources can be allocated centrally
• Demand can be forecast
• Demand can be met

He (NP) observes that in their attempt to maintain predictability, businesses sacrifice what one might argue is one of the fundamental requirements in this brave new world we find ourselves in - agility.

We have all heard of how in the past we have used previous technologies to frame new ones (TV is radio with pictures etc.) and we look like being equally guilty of framing the new demands on marketing and communications in similar terms - scaling a new solution born of the same thinking - as Sir Ken Robinson says in this TED talk on the need for a new type of education.

As he says (actually is quoting Abraham Lincoln) in regard to developing new ways to educate, the challenge is to 'dis-enthrall' ourselves from the old ways of thinking in order to rise 'with' (not 'to') the new challenges we are facing.

The challenge is huge, particularly when you bear in mind that there are few marketers around that have the breadth of experience, perspective and skills required to evolve strategies that at least for now will combine old and new practice, and increasingly span areas of a business that were outside of the Marketing Director's remit. . In this Social Media Today post Adam Vicenzini lists just a few of the skills that today's marketers need to implement SM successfully:



As he asks - how many people do you know that

a) have experience in all these areas, and
b) have managed aggressive agencies
c) can pull people together internally whilst massaging considerable egos
d) have the technical appreciation for what is involved
e) can handle a crisis competently
f) can be forward thinking enough to sell creative concepts across the business
g) have the time management skills to pull this all together?

Clearly brand owners and agencies alike are faced with many significant challenges, and as we know, it will require us all to learn as we go - often from the consumer who at this stage at least is showing us the way from an agility perspective.

Returning to Sir Ken's TED talk, perhaps one way to view the challenges is to think more in terms of an agricultural/organic approach, rather than the industrialised/linear one to which many brands are still bound.

(To spread this blog a little wider I am just pasting in a little link - mitchado.gooruze.com)