30 seconds was all I needed between speakers, to check my messages and emails. 30 seconds to make sure nothing was going to disrupt my attention from what the next speaker had to say. 30 seconds to scan and prioritise my next hour. 30 seconds to feel in control. 30 seconds in a world of my own, where no one could get in.
So it went for an entire day for 60 to 70 people as speakers and panel experts came and went between tweets, emails, voice messages and the occasional Facebook update. We were attentive delegates whenever the Blackberries and iPhones were holstered but we were technology gun slingers at other times, firing off messages and opinions to anyone willing to listen.
Some of the speakers made light of the attention span deficit, telling anecdotes while people finalised their mobile frenzy. While others adjusted their presentation to the resignation that we are now in a different world of connectivity, where some of us are always on call and we like it that way.
Still in its infancy screen etiquette is developing into two camps, where one has the view that sharing is not caring, especially in confined spaces like elevators where we don't need to be involved in every nuance of your conversation or tweet. On the other hand we have everyone under 30 who belong to Web 2.0, so succinctly described by MG Siegler in a TechCrunch essay entitled “I Will Check My Phone at Dinner and You Will Deal With It".
It's difficult to ignore a pulsing, glowing phone in your hand or pocket and people being curious tend to get distracted, especially when there is no reason to stay connected to their current environment. So conferences, office meetings, parties and the dinner table are now rife with multiple conversations not being carried on face to face but with a data stream of people all over your town, your city, your world. Of course you are going to choose the most interesting one.
Mobile devices make us more mobile while attached to a data leash we can never cut. When something really important shows up in our inbox, even that needs to take a ticket, while we finish polishing up our onscreen personality with extra connections and valuable insights into that night's schedule. Many technology pundits think we are not made to be in the moment and hold our attention because we are not made that way. No doubt that thinking comes from the manufacturers themselves as they develop the next mobile device capable of handling the next Mars probe.
Where the future saw freedom from the shackles of the desk, the computer, that one person to avoid at the party and listening to your Mother, it really ended up as a form of social imprisonment. It has turned into a great social conformity as you reach for your mobile device while your best friends answers their phone, after all what else is there to do?
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Who's In Charge?
There seems to be a shift in the nature of authority that is sweeping the web as people look to find someone in charge they can relate to and trust. If you asked people they would have difficulty in identifying who they thought was in charge. The need for this authority is caused by the avalanche of content and attention required to find what you are looking for from a creditable source. Steve Rubel of Global Strategy and Insights for Edelman, in a recent Mashable seminar discussed authority on the web and used the short history of the web to reach his conclusion. He pointed out the three main web timelines from early commercialisation, where businesses ruled web pages, through to democratisation where social sites rule to finally arriving at the validation stage requiring authority and getting away from what he called the "friending arms race" pervading our online activity today.
With too much content and only the same amount of time and eyes and ears as before the avalanche, we find ourselves looking for authority figures of trust, who we know more than just as a Facebook connection. With the New Oxford Dictionary's word of 2010 being "unfriend" we see a shaking out of the collective collection. Validation relies on trust and Edelman, who publish a yearly trust barometer of attitudes towards trust in business, media and government in 23 countries, shows a trend towards academics, thought leaders and technical experts becoming the most trusted source.
The authority of peers, long the domain of the Facebook and Trip Advisor generation has seen a notable decline in the last two years. It's this shift in authority that Rubel sees as the validation stage and people are looking for the light at the end of the content tunnel and wish to hang onto the people and sources that matter most to them. This is the beginning of small niche networks where people are closer aligned in thinking, caring and agreement on knowledge based on and passed on by figures of authority. The people that used to know everything and who we had the most trust in used to be Mum and Dad. When was the last time you asked your Mum for advice?
A lot of the authority figures can be seen in the analogy of a curator, who decides what's best seen, read, heard and validated for the group. Becoming curators and thought leaders is available to companies as well as for individuals, as long as they are willing to lead on behalf of their clients. Curating becomes as important as creating when you look at some of the web statistics today. According to Rubel and Edelman, we read 20% of a webpage before moving on; 57% of us never come back to that page; and we spend 15-20 seconds on a webpage before we move on. We are a global planet of fruit flies and the best way to keep our attention, is to give us platforms of engagement, trust and credibility, with maybe a lot less writing and more pictures.
So who are your web authorities? Who would you trust with your decisions? Who do you trust to curate and then disseminate information that matters to you? Who does it for you without an agenda other than being the right person in the right place for you?
All questions people are asking themselves as they look to "unfriend" themselves from the crowd and find relevance in their online lives.
With too much content and only the same amount of time and eyes and ears as before the avalanche, we find ourselves looking for authority figures of trust, who we know more than just as a Facebook connection. With the New Oxford Dictionary's word of 2010 being "unfriend" we see a shaking out of the collective collection. Validation relies on trust and Edelman, who publish a yearly trust barometer of attitudes towards trust in business, media and government in 23 countries, shows a trend towards academics, thought leaders and technical experts becoming the most trusted source.
The authority of peers, long the domain of the Facebook and Trip Advisor generation has seen a notable decline in the last two years. It's this shift in authority that Rubel sees as the validation stage and people are looking for the light at the end of the content tunnel and wish to hang onto the people and sources that matter most to them. This is the beginning of small niche networks where people are closer aligned in thinking, caring and agreement on knowledge based on and passed on by figures of authority. The people that used to know everything and who we had the most trust in used to be Mum and Dad. When was the last time you asked your Mum for advice?
A lot of the authority figures can be seen in the analogy of a curator, who decides what's best seen, read, heard and validated for the group. Becoming curators and thought leaders is available to companies as well as for individuals, as long as they are willing to lead on behalf of their clients. Curating becomes as important as creating when you look at some of the web statistics today. According to Rubel and Edelman, we read 20% of a webpage before moving on; 57% of us never come back to that page; and we spend 15-20 seconds on a webpage before we move on. We are a global planet of fruit flies and the best way to keep our attention, is to give us platforms of engagement, trust and credibility, with maybe a lot less writing and more pictures.
So who are your web authorities? Who would you trust with your decisions? Who do you trust to curate and then disseminate information that matters to you? Who does it for you without an agenda other than being the right person in the right place for you?
All questions people are asking themselves as they look to "unfriend" themselves from the crowd and find relevance in their online lives.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Fly Me To The Moon.
And let me play among the stars. The strains of Frank Sinatra float through the cabin of the private jet heading to Las Vegas as his "Rat Pack" cohorts are served by long legged hostesses in high boots with booze and cigars while the rest of the world looks on in envy. Unfortunately the hostesses are long gone to that Las Vegas in the sky but the ability to fly "private" is now more than ever a reality and US companies like Social Flight are taking advantage of the consolidation and aggregation attitude of the web.
They are betting that people would like to self organise and more often than not end up with the same destination in mind and the ability to bypass the myriad of hubs and fly direct in the confines of a private charter jet. Social Flight is betting you are willing to pay the same or less for a private jet filled with other self organisers that may not fly to the regular timetable or destination of the airline conglomerates. It's not just the weekend getaways they are looking at but the business travel sector where a lot of time is spent in transit and airport lounges in the labyrinth of the hub and spoke commercial airline model.
So it sounds like a sophisticated car pool without the traffic jams, a shopping list that fills up with all your favourite destinations as time goes by and an ability to fly with like minded people. Social Flight calls them affinity groups or "Travel Tribes" and sells the concept with the tag line "Fly like the Rich", something we all aspire to. The ability to fly to non commercial airports gives the concept a wider scope and creates opportunity for "Travel Tribes" to fly to events and occurrences rather than just destinations.
On any given day, charter companies in the US have 60% of the country’s 15,000 top-rated charter jets grounded and of the 40% in service a third travel empty during one of their legs, points out Social Flight CEO Jay Deragon. This is where the CEO sees the web giving his company the ability to cut down on waste and as such, charter companies are now beating a path to his door.
Like innovative consolidators before him Deragon is building a brand around the tribal concept of togetherness and exclusivity, Apple comes to mind. If there is a profit to be had, then all the better for the future of such social consolidators. The critical mass to build Social Flight beyond weekend getaways and sporting events will take some time and I'm sure the commercial airlines do not even have Deragon and his "Tribes" on their radar. Yet if enough people get tired of airport parking lots, waiting in lines, invasive security and flying somewhere else before they get to their destination, then Social Flight has a chance to change the aviation landscape.
Especially if he can give the charter flights a feeling of yesteryear romantic, "fly like the rich" and why not be Dean Martin style.
They are betting that people would like to self organise and more often than not end up with the same destination in mind and the ability to bypass the myriad of hubs and fly direct in the confines of a private charter jet. Social Flight is betting you are willing to pay the same or less for a private jet filled with other self organisers that may not fly to the regular timetable or destination of the airline conglomerates. It's not just the weekend getaways they are looking at but the business travel sector where a lot of time is spent in transit and airport lounges in the labyrinth of the hub and spoke commercial airline model.
So it sounds like a sophisticated car pool without the traffic jams, a shopping list that fills up with all your favourite destinations as time goes by and an ability to fly with like minded people. Social Flight calls them affinity groups or "Travel Tribes" and sells the concept with the tag line "Fly like the Rich", something we all aspire to. The ability to fly to non commercial airports gives the concept a wider scope and creates opportunity for "Travel Tribes" to fly to events and occurrences rather than just destinations.
On any given day, charter companies in the US have 60% of the country’s 15,000 top-rated charter jets grounded and of the 40% in service a third travel empty during one of their legs, points out Social Flight CEO Jay Deragon. This is where the CEO sees the web giving his company the ability to cut down on waste and as such, charter companies are now beating a path to his door.
Like innovative consolidators before him Deragon is building a brand around the tribal concept of togetherness and exclusivity, Apple comes to mind. If there is a profit to be had, then all the better for the future of such social consolidators. The critical mass to build Social Flight beyond weekend getaways and sporting events will take some time and I'm sure the commercial airlines do not even have Deragon and his "Tribes" on their radar. Yet if enough people get tired of airport parking lots, waiting in lines, invasive security and flying somewhere else before they get to their destination, then Social Flight has a chance to change the aviation landscape.
Especially if he can give the charter flights a feeling of yesteryear romantic, "fly like the rich" and why not be Dean Martin style.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
No Pocket Money.
Last year I wrote a blog called "Who will I talk to now?", lamenting the demise of the airport check in as it was being replaced by self serve check in kiosks and I wondered how long other industries would take before they too decided to take out the middle man. Seems that the globe's, favourite burger place, McDonalds, is about to replace the world's teenagers with automation in the form of touch screen terminals and swipe cards.
When talking to the experts it seems there is a common thread running through the thought process. "The customer perception is that it's a better experience," said Christa Small, the McDonald's director heading the test. "It's the perception that you have control over the process." "It's about time and lines," said Harry Balzer, vice president with food market research firm NPD Group Inc. "We are looking for the easiest way to feed ourselves."
Like airports where waiting in line has become a tedious chore for most travellers, fast food outlets need to live up to their name and long waiting lines are the opposite of what they promise. So your son or daughter hoping to put themselves through university or even take away your burden of providing pocket money, will be back on the couch with you, because McDonalds and the other fast food conglomerates who will follow the kiosk lead, will no longer provide work opportunities.
In the beginning, fast food was provided quicker by the mere production line cooking processes and the customer showing up at the window instead of waiting at a table. The smiling 15 year old taking the order, has not increased the speed significantly and there was still margin for error in getting those burgers and fries mixed up. So the end is nigh for the high school drop out to work their way up the McDonalds' ladder from cashier to drive through window manager.
The kiosks will be connected directly to the kitchen and the screen will have pictures plus multi lingual text and verbal prompts for "fries with
that?" They may even let you customise that Big Mac for when you arrive after a heavy night and need more cheese and pickles to soak up the night before. Of course the kiosk will ask you about those ubiquitous fries after every entry, which McDonalds says could add 10% to 20% to the value of the end transaction.
The costs of the kiosks range from $10,000 to $20,000 but will pay for themselves quickly as the benefits out way the cost as time and error are taken out of the equation. The other advantage will be the customer information that can be gathered and analysed quickly per store, so that the next time you come in, the last item that wasn't available is now in stock as the kiosks provide rich data on consumer behaviour.
Like the airports which said staff would be strategically realigned ( isn't that a great euphemism for being made redundant ) McDonalds have indicated that staff would be deployed for better delivery of service and technological help if needed. After all it will be difficult to tap a picture of a Big Mac and swipe your phone/credit card - NOT!
When talking to the experts it seems there is a common thread running through the thought process. "The customer perception is that it's a better experience," said Christa Small, the McDonald's director heading the test. "It's the perception that you have control over the process." "It's about time and lines," said Harry Balzer, vice president with food market research firm NPD Group Inc. "We are looking for the easiest way to feed ourselves."
Like airports where waiting in line has become a tedious chore for most travellers, fast food outlets need to live up to their name and long waiting lines are the opposite of what they promise. So your son or daughter hoping to put themselves through university or even take away your burden of providing pocket money, will be back on the couch with you, because McDonalds and the other fast food conglomerates who will follow the kiosk lead, will no longer provide work opportunities.
In the beginning, fast food was provided quicker by the mere production line cooking processes and the customer showing up at the window instead of waiting at a table. The smiling 15 year old taking the order, has not increased the speed significantly and there was still margin for error in getting those burgers and fries mixed up. So the end is nigh for the high school drop out to work their way up the McDonalds' ladder from cashier to drive through window manager.
The kiosks will be connected directly to the kitchen and the screen will have pictures plus multi lingual text and verbal prompts for "fries with
that?" They may even let you customise that Big Mac for when you arrive after a heavy night and need more cheese and pickles to soak up the night before. Of course the kiosk will ask you about those ubiquitous fries after every entry, which McDonalds says could add 10% to 20% to the value of the end transaction.
The costs of the kiosks range from $10,000 to $20,000 but will pay for themselves quickly as the benefits out way the cost as time and error are taken out of the equation. The other advantage will be the customer information that can be gathered and analysed quickly per store, so that the next time you come in, the last item that wasn't available is now in stock as the kiosks provide rich data on consumer behaviour.
Like the airports which said staff would be strategically realigned ( isn't that a great euphemism for being made redundant ) McDonalds have indicated that staff would be deployed for better delivery of service and technological help if needed. After all it will be difficult to tap a picture of a Big Mac and swipe your phone/credit card - NOT!
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Trader Who?
I love Trader Joe's in the US. I like to idly browse the shelves, spend time over the fruit and vegetables and chat with staff over the deli counter. Yes Trader Joe's is a supermarket, although super suggests it is set up like a Woolworth ( US, no S ) when in fact it feels much closer to what we all want in our shopping day, a warm reception on entering, staff that believe you really are the customer and an eclectic, surprise me with your weekly specials personal kind of store.
One of my favourite things at Traders, are the hand drawn price tags, no not the black marker pens used at JB Hi Fi, although they do have personality all their own, but artistically drawn tags that attract the eye and your attention. How much easier and cheaper would it be to just have them all digitised and printed en mass, but that gives you no personality or scope to entertain and bemuse while selling your wares.
Yes Traders is working on being that grocery store from childhood memories. That little corner store where you knew the manager and he would always treat you right because he knew how important every customer was and what one disparaging remark could do to his local trade. Traders has a few more customers to worry about and while Mr Jones on the corner had a few hundred items to mark and know, Trader Joe's has approximately 4000 items changing across 350 stores US making the price tags an even more perplexing and costly decision.
In rough maths, it equates to nearly 1.5 million price and description tags, many changed weekly, that Traders provides for the pleasure of its customers. Not provided from a factory somewhere in the urban wasteland but by artists employed by individual stores. Artists that work with the local community in their endeavors to high light produce and products that vary across the country. Without a doubt, this gives Traders that unique small town grocery feel we'd all like to encounter in our amped up lifestyle of how quickly can I get out of this warehouse supermarket and onto the lounge.
Trader Joe's has decided to forego the traditional trappings of global conglomerate providores and has embarked on a winding road bringing back personal charm and effective sales service to what is a factory setting where you race through the aisles grabbing the bare necessities and speaking to no one. They carry specialised items branded with their own style like Trader Jose mexican, Trader Mings chinese, Trader Giottos italian etc etc, all the way to Trader Darwins vitamins, to give you the feeling they are making them just for you. Also known for the amount of wine they carry, Traders started out testing thousands of wines and ended up famous for their $1.99 Charles Shaw wines fondly known as "two buck chuck". A sense of humour no doubt.
Having said all that, Trader Joe's still needs to make money, which it does in truck loads, over $8 billion per year while keeping 5,500 employees happy and content. So there you have a Fortune 500 giant with thousands of employees feeling like they are your local grocery store with all the emotional attachment that brings and still able to satisfy shareholders.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of Trader Joe's, is its ownership by the giant German supermarket chain responsible for over 8,000 Aldi stores worldwide. That last fact should give all companies hope that they can humanise and connect with their customers no matter how large or small they are.
One of my favourite things at Traders, are the hand drawn price tags, no not the black marker pens used at JB Hi Fi, although they do have personality all their own, but artistically drawn tags that attract the eye and your attention. How much easier and cheaper would it be to just have them all digitised and printed en mass, but that gives you no personality or scope to entertain and bemuse while selling your wares.
Yes Traders is working on being that grocery store from childhood memories. That little corner store where you knew the manager and he would always treat you right because he knew how important every customer was and what one disparaging remark could do to his local trade. Traders has a few more customers to worry about and while Mr Jones on the corner had a few hundred items to mark and know, Trader Joe's has approximately 4000 items changing across 350 stores US making the price tags an even more perplexing and costly decision.
In rough maths, it equates to nearly 1.5 million price and description tags, many changed weekly, that Traders provides for the pleasure of its customers. Not provided from a factory somewhere in the urban wasteland but by artists employed by individual stores. Artists that work with the local community in their endeavors to high light produce and products that vary across the country. Without a doubt, this gives Traders that unique small town grocery feel we'd all like to encounter in our amped up lifestyle of how quickly can I get out of this warehouse supermarket and onto the lounge.
Trader Joe's has decided to forego the traditional trappings of global conglomerate providores and has embarked on a winding road bringing back personal charm and effective sales service to what is a factory setting where you race through the aisles grabbing the bare necessities and speaking to no one. They carry specialised items branded with their own style like Trader Jose mexican, Trader Mings chinese, Trader Giottos italian etc etc, all the way to Trader Darwins vitamins, to give you the feeling they are making them just for you. Also known for the amount of wine they carry, Traders started out testing thousands of wines and ended up famous for their $1.99 Charles Shaw wines fondly known as "two buck chuck". A sense of humour no doubt.
Having said all that, Trader Joe's still needs to make money, which it does in truck loads, over $8 billion per year while keeping 5,500 employees happy and content. So there you have a Fortune 500 giant with thousands of employees feeling like they are your local grocery store with all the emotional attachment that brings and still able to satisfy shareholders.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of Trader Joe's, is its ownership by the giant German supermarket chain responsible for over 8,000 Aldi stores worldwide. That last fact should give all companies hope that they can humanise and connect with their customers no matter how large or small they are.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Near Death.
Travelling at 240 kilometres an hour along the straight in an AMG Mercedes 63, with my flesh stretching away from my cheek bones, I felt as safe as if I was sitting on my lounge watching TV. Sure my lungs and other major organs were being pressed into the seat and my eyes couldn't focus on anything to the side of the car but my safety was never in doubt. How is that kind of safety communicated successfully when under normal circumstances your knuckles would be white from fearfully gripping the dashboard? A recent visit to the Mercedes Driving Academy gave me an insight into a different kind of service mentality based on an undying belief in a product. A belief that sees what would normally be a near death experience for most people, just a drive to the shops for the Mercedes driving staff and their all too willing passengers.
The drive in the 63 was the culmination of expectations exceeded as the product was put through its paces by the sales staff come driving instructors. They were able to show their product in extreme situations to give the participants ultimate confidence in their own ability to test the product to the limit of their abilities. How many products do you know that deliver beyond expectations? Okay so Apple is working in that arena but as a rule it would be difficult to find products that work so well regardless of the skill behind the wheel, so to speak.
A recent list of the top 100 global brands looked at what is required for such levels of excellence and highlighted companies like Amazon, Google and Facebook in the technology service sector but also companies dependent on producing a physical product such as Dell, Coca Cola, Zara, Subway and of course Mercedes. Products produced under intense competition yet still able to deliver beyond expectations. How many companies are willing to let you put their product through the most brutal tests, usually reserved for the crash dummy hangar? It's when a company gives you the confidence to test their product to the limits of use that you become an advocate because you have seen behind the screen to reveal no secrets, only more of the same.
The beyond expectations level, for most products is a small dot in the distance but if achievable, would give the sales team the easiest of jobs by simply placing their product in the hands of consumers, asking them to try and take it beyond their normal use pattern and knowing they will pass any tests thrown at them. This is how products become icons, become ubiquitous and hold market share no matter the competition. How many people go to work knowing their product is beyond reproach, beyond doubt and beyond anything the consumers can throw at them?
Personally my list of products for which I am an advocate is small and like most consumers I am disappointed more often than I care to remember. So how do you get to the stage where your product becomes ubiquitous with service, reliability and innovation? I think it's unremitting, unrelenting and passionate belief that the end result is attainable. 80% works for most people but that won't get you advocates or in the case of Apple, zealots.
So if you have the opportunity to influence your work and your product to take it to iconic levels, what are you doing ready this blog. Go make another AMG 63.
The drive in the 63 was the culmination of expectations exceeded as the product was put through its paces by the sales staff come driving instructors. They were able to show their product in extreme situations to give the participants ultimate confidence in their own ability to test the product to the limit of their abilities. How many products do you know that deliver beyond expectations? Okay so Apple is working in that arena but as a rule it would be difficult to find products that work so well regardless of the skill behind the wheel, so to speak.
A recent list of the top 100 global brands looked at what is required for such levels of excellence and highlighted companies like Amazon, Google and Facebook in the technology service sector but also companies dependent on producing a physical product such as Dell, Coca Cola, Zara, Subway and of course Mercedes. Products produced under intense competition yet still able to deliver beyond expectations. How many companies are willing to let you put their product through the most brutal tests, usually reserved for the crash dummy hangar? It's when a company gives you the confidence to test their product to the limits of use that you become an advocate because you have seen behind the screen to reveal no secrets, only more of the same.
The beyond expectations level, for most products is a small dot in the distance but if achievable, would give the sales team the easiest of jobs by simply placing their product in the hands of consumers, asking them to try and take it beyond their normal use pattern and knowing they will pass any tests thrown at them. This is how products become icons, become ubiquitous and hold market share no matter the competition. How many people go to work knowing their product is beyond reproach, beyond doubt and beyond anything the consumers can throw at them?
Personally my list of products for which I am an advocate is small and like most consumers I am disappointed more often than I care to remember. So how do you get to the stage where your product becomes ubiquitous with service, reliability and innovation? I think it's unremitting, unrelenting and passionate belief that the end result is attainable. 80% works for most people but that won't get you advocates or in the case of Apple, zealots.
So if you have the opportunity to influence your work and your product to take it to iconic levels, what are you doing ready this blog. Go make another AMG 63.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Re-Branding
Virgin Blue, the cheeky, the innovative and low cost airline rebranded last week and is now called Virgin Australia. Did they just grow up or are they after something else with the new name? They announced their arrival in the tumultuous times of 911 and the Ansett collapse a decade ago and a lot of people thought the only reason they survived the early day was this fortuitous timing. No one believed they had a chance, had both Qantas and Ansett been around to squash their ambitions. After all, the runways were littered with the carcasses of start ups like Compass 1 and 2 along with Ausair, Horizon and others who failed to grab the imagination of the travelling public and who had come up against the opposition yield managers making sure their business strategy became linked to a cost sensitive public.
So a decade later Virgin Blue becomes Virgin Australia to the strains of multiple marketing videos and tweets espousing the virtues of the new entity. It's a marketing plan aimed squarely at the corporate market with new livery, new business class configuration and aspirations of taking the high flyers from Qantas. Without a fight, I don't think so, and it will be interesting as both heads of the airlines square up and fight this battle in the media. After all it's not always about the hardware in the air or on the ground, it's often about the emotional bias of brand recognition and who the traveller relates to and wants to be seen with. Not forgetting the ubiquitous nature of the frequent flyer programs which will no doubt find ways to offer up new incentives to stay.
Not all rebrands have worked regardless of how much money has been thrown at them. Think about Anderson's change to Accenture which meant nothing to any of their clients and cost an estimated $100 million in lost revenue. Even one of the world's most recognised brands, Coca Cola got it wrong with their "New Coke" causing consternation among the faithful, having to finally get back to the "Classic Coke" to appease the crowd. My favourite amongst the rebranded screw ups was the SciFi Channel rebranding to SyFy and finding out in most parts of the world SyFy was a shortening for syphilis.
So will the "Big Red" perform better in all white? Will the staff take on a new culture of corporate appeal versus the old Branson cheek? How will Virgin Australia measure if the change has been successful? Which company will bring onboard the first big testimonial of changing from the old Qantas guard to the crisp white opposition?
Branding is a tricky thing and the scope of meaning, influence, emotional attachment and success will ultimately lie with the product and the people behind it. The big question will be if Virgin Australia has made a big enough change within it's own workforce to encourage a big enough change in the corporate workforce to embrace a new player at the front end?
Perhaps Virgin Australia can take heart from that little Macintosh company that changed it's name to Apple. In the latest Millward Brown global Brandz list of the top 100 brands, Apple has overtaken Google as the number one global brand with a brand equity worth $157 Billion. That's a lot of business class seats.
So a decade later Virgin Blue becomes Virgin Australia to the strains of multiple marketing videos and tweets espousing the virtues of the new entity. It's a marketing plan aimed squarely at the corporate market with new livery, new business class configuration and aspirations of taking the high flyers from Qantas. Without a fight, I don't think so, and it will be interesting as both heads of the airlines square up and fight this battle in the media. After all it's not always about the hardware in the air or on the ground, it's often about the emotional bias of brand recognition and who the traveller relates to and wants to be seen with. Not forgetting the ubiquitous nature of the frequent flyer programs which will no doubt find ways to offer up new incentives to stay.
Not all rebrands have worked regardless of how much money has been thrown at them. Think about Anderson's change to Accenture which meant nothing to any of their clients and cost an estimated $100 million in lost revenue. Even one of the world's most recognised brands, Coca Cola got it wrong with their "New Coke" causing consternation among the faithful, having to finally get back to the "Classic Coke" to appease the crowd. My favourite amongst the rebranded screw ups was the SciFi Channel rebranding to SyFy and finding out in most parts of the world SyFy was a shortening for syphilis.
So will the "Big Red" perform better in all white? Will the staff take on a new culture of corporate appeal versus the old Branson cheek? How will Virgin Australia measure if the change has been successful? Which company will bring onboard the first big testimonial of changing from the old Qantas guard to the crisp white opposition?
Branding is a tricky thing and the scope of meaning, influence, emotional attachment and success will ultimately lie with the product and the people behind it. The big question will be if Virgin Australia has made a big enough change within it's own workforce to encourage a big enough change in the corporate workforce to embrace a new player at the front end?
Perhaps Virgin Australia can take heart from that little Macintosh company that changed it's name to Apple. In the latest Millward Brown global Brandz list of the top 100 brands, Apple has overtaken Google as the number one global brand with a brand equity worth $157 Billion. That's a lot of business class seats.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
150.
I just checked my Facebook Friends and a chill came over me as I discovered I had 150 friends in the side column. I know what you are thinking, how lame, only 150, no doubt you passed that number in the first week you set up your site and are now heading towards 1500 friends. I barely have time to call my Mother once a week let alone keep up lively discussions and banter with 150 of my closest friends, so how do you manage your numbers?
The above chill was caused by esteemed social anthropologist Robin Dunbar who was the first to comment on Facebook numbers when he indicated that 150 is the maximum number of friends you could have and still remember their names, their Birthdays and where they live. Actually he was talking about a time before Facebook showed up and he was talking about a "theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom you could maintain stable social relationships. Relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person."
Dunbar was talking about village and town life without technology attached. I don't know anyone who lives in a village nor a small town for that matter, yet I am a part of the Global Online Village but I don't think that's what he had in mind. Dunbar's number is about knowing people well enough to have them on your Christmas card list, inviting them to your big decade birthdays and maybe even to your second, third and fourth marriages. It's about knowing those people well enough, to not sit some of them together at those weddings because you understand their intertwined social patterns.
Even Facebook is saying the average number of "Friends" is approximately 150, so maybe Dunbar was onto something. Does this mean, this is it for me and the "Big F"? Does this mean I need to look for an alternative site to gather another 150 friends? What happens if I meet a new friend today and they ask me to send them a Facebook friend request? Can I fit them in? Maybe I could cull my friends list somehow? Let's see, who is off the Christmas card list.
Luckily I found research leading on from Dunbar by anthropologist H. Russell Bernard and Peter Killworth who have come up with an estimated mean number of ties for social engagement being 290 when taking into account today's technology. After all I don't have to remember everyone's Birthday or significant events as Facebook will do that for me. I can certainly read comments and likes for distance friends and relatives to be able to work out their foibles and food requirements should I need to invite them to the next wedding.
So I guess I can relax as I'm only half way to the optimum number of people I should know. Or should I be worried that I'm not gathering "Friends" at a fast enough pace and I'll never reach the 290 mark?
Anyone out there want to be my friend?
The above chill was caused by esteemed social anthropologist Robin Dunbar who was the first to comment on Facebook numbers when he indicated that 150 is the maximum number of friends you could have and still remember their names, their Birthdays and where they live. Actually he was talking about a time before Facebook showed up and he was talking about a "theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom you could maintain stable social relationships. Relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person."
Dunbar was talking about village and town life without technology attached. I don't know anyone who lives in a village nor a small town for that matter, yet I am a part of the Global Online Village but I don't think that's what he had in mind. Dunbar's number is about knowing people well enough to have them on your Christmas card list, inviting them to your big decade birthdays and maybe even to your second, third and fourth marriages. It's about knowing those people well enough, to not sit some of them together at those weddings because you understand their intertwined social patterns.
Even Facebook is saying the average number of "Friends" is approximately 150, so maybe Dunbar was onto something. Does this mean, this is it for me and the "Big F"? Does this mean I need to look for an alternative site to gather another 150 friends? What happens if I meet a new friend today and they ask me to send them a Facebook friend request? Can I fit them in? Maybe I could cull my friends list somehow? Let's see, who is off the Christmas card list.
Luckily I found research leading on from Dunbar by anthropologist H. Russell Bernard and Peter Killworth who have come up with an estimated mean number of ties for social engagement being 290 when taking into account today's technology. After all I don't have to remember everyone's Birthday or significant events as Facebook will do that for me. I can certainly read comments and likes for distance friends and relatives to be able to work out their foibles and food requirements should I need to invite them to the next wedding.
So I guess I can relax as I'm only half way to the optimum number of people I should know. Or should I be worried that I'm not gathering "Friends" at a fast enough pace and I'll never reach the 290 mark?
Anyone out there want to be my friend?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
There's an app for that.
I have always been fascinated with great architecture and as a child I could never figure out why all the old buildings were without balconies. Until someone explained the concept of leisure time for people to actually spend time on their balconies. We built machines in the industrial revolution to take away the need for manpower and I'm sure people thought it might give them some time off work but they ended up working longer hours producing more. So as a concept, leisure time is relatively new and wasn't really embraced until the post war years and even then it's probably only the last 40 years that we have taken advantage of that time provided by better business efficiencies.
Now that we finally have our time to spend on balconies, it seems we want to fill it up with technology to try and find even more time. The simple act of using a phone, albeit one not attached to the wall anymore, to make a dinner reservation, get in touch with a friend or even call in sick has been replaced by an app. Okay the last one you still have to do but I'm sure an app is on the way. Seems there are so many apps vying for our attention that our leisure time is now taken up with finding new ones to supposedly give us more time. Time for what, finding more apps?
In the world of apps everything we do is looking to be aggregated, assimilated, converged and merged into simple tasks to make life easier and time efficient. From games we used to play with people, that we now play against computers to simple apps for dinner reservations we are finding more ways to occupy our time with apps that supposedly save us time. So much so, that I'm now looking for an app that can aggregate all my aggregated apps and save me time while looking for that particular app that is supposed to save me more time.
Okay so slightly OTT but you get the drift. There is a whole world of apps developers who used to make other stuff, not sure what, but who have now dedicated themselves to providing us with more apps than we can use in a million years. What I'm looking for is that ultimate app for every task and thought process in my life. I know it's somewhere in the Apps Store, I just need the right app to find it.
Who so ever comes up with that app will be the Mark Zuckerberg of apps and will no doubt end up with their picture on Time as apps person of the year. There will be apps Oscars, apps Emmys and eventually they'll have to give out apps Pulitzers because people will stop writing, reading and performing and just build an app for whatever people want to see and do.
James Cameron is probably working on an actor app as Avatar no doubt whetted his appetite for replacing real people with something from the Apple app store. Is that where we are heading? If so you need to put down that phone or tablet and go sit on your balcony and enjoy the day before they develop an app for that.
I can feel a bit of a headache coming on, now where is that "sickie" app?
Now that we finally have our time to spend on balconies, it seems we want to fill it up with technology to try and find even more time. The simple act of using a phone, albeit one not attached to the wall anymore, to make a dinner reservation, get in touch with a friend or even call in sick has been replaced by an app. Okay the last one you still have to do but I'm sure an app is on the way. Seems there are so many apps vying for our attention that our leisure time is now taken up with finding new ones to supposedly give us more time. Time for what, finding more apps?
In the world of apps everything we do is looking to be aggregated, assimilated, converged and merged into simple tasks to make life easier and time efficient. From games we used to play with people, that we now play against computers to simple apps for dinner reservations we are finding more ways to occupy our time with apps that supposedly save us time. So much so, that I'm now looking for an app that can aggregate all my aggregated apps and save me time while looking for that particular app that is supposed to save me more time.
Okay so slightly OTT but you get the drift. There is a whole world of apps developers who used to make other stuff, not sure what, but who have now dedicated themselves to providing us with more apps than we can use in a million years. What I'm looking for is that ultimate app for every task and thought process in my life. I know it's somewhere in the Apps Store, I just need the right app to find it.
Who so ever comes up with that app will be the Mark Zuckerberg of apps and will no doubt end up with their picture on Time as apps person of the year. There will be apps Oscars, apps Emmys and eventually they'll have to give out apps Pulitzers because people will stop writing, reading and performing and just build an app for whatever people want to see and do.
James Cameron is probably working on an actor app as Avatar no doubt whetted his appetite for replacing real people with something from the Apple app store. Is that where we are heading? If so you need to put down that phone or tablet and go sit on your balcony and enjoy the day before they develop an app for that.
I can feel a bit of a headache coming on, now where is that "sickie" app?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
