Feeding the Puppy

A short rant at eBay (and some Jedward love)

2009-11-16T10:33:57+00:00

Dear eBay

Hi, how are you doing? Oh, not well?

Well yes, I kind of gathered that from the fact that at the beginning of the month you started to send me (no doubt as part of some sort of 'lapsed customer re-engagement program') an email EVERY SINGLE DAY...

....under the snappily titled 'Daily Deals'. Yeah, I spotted that they were daily. Nice.

Every day. Every single day, without me asking for them. Thanks for that.

Just quickly, I thought I'd list down what actually may be wrong with this...

...partially for you, and other companies, to think about when looking at big email databases full of emails (including mine) and wondering what to do with it...

...and partially as a cathartic rant from a new dad who had five hours sleep last night and just needs to VENT.

1. It's just spam

No matter what sort of relationship you've had with customers before, if you start emailing them more than they deem 'socially necessary', you take the 'relationship' and turn it into 'advertising'.

Which may be what you want to do. But to the customer, it just becomes more spam clogging up their inbox.

Use advertising as advertising, and use emails as the opportunity to start a conversation.

PS. There are Nigerian Princes who would consider sending you emails daily as overkill...

2. It's not even targeted

I've used eBay a fair few times... I'm not any sort of power user, but there at least 25+ transactions that may give you a hint about the sorts of things I like. Guitars, gadgets, and other random micselleany.

I imagine you have all this saved up against my profile, and could use it to target the 'deals' you show me a bit more cleverly. Instead, the things you've told me that I can buy (and therefore think I may be interested in) include amongst other things...

5-1 Disney Hair Styler
WWE Smackdown 2010 for Xbox OR PS3
Stila Make-up set and bag
Mega Bloks Streetz Construction set
Jedward T-Shirt
Hannah Montana Sleepover pamper kit

I don't know what I did in the past to persuade you that I was a Disney fixated, crossdressing wrestling fan who was supporting Jedward in this year's X-Factor, but I'm now kind of worried.

Either that, or you're just sending me a random list of shit that's available to buy in eBay.

Oh, it is the latter? Phew. I can't let people know about my Jedward fandom...

...on which matter, now that we're talking about it, I'd like to confirm that Jedward are the single most likely entity to save music...

...as it's entirely possible that when they win X-Factor this year on charm and showmanship alone, it'll bring every eccentric in the country out of the woodwork and into audtions, and next year's competition and all those after it will simply resemble the clown school that the X-Factor actually is...

...which means people might actually having to look elsewhere to listen to music. We can but hope, anyway. Meanwhile, back to the point...

3. It's NEVER-ENDING

...ok, I exagerrate slightly. It can be ended, as you helpfully point out near the top of the emails. But rather than an instant 'if you don't want these emails, click and we'll stop', it instead has the following message:

"If you no longer wish to receive our Daily Deals emails, no problem,
just click here and you will be removed within 4 working days."

Oh eBay, I worry about you for two reasons.

Firstly, you've clearly got such awful automation in your system that if someone does click on the link, of of your guys at eBay has to manually look through the database and switch off the link. There's no other excuse for it taking four days.

Which means that secondly, if someone does think (like I did) that they really don't want to get an email with two pointless offers every day, then they have to go through another four emails of something they clearly don't like or want. Which isn't really a great way to make people like you.

So, eBay, please understand that yes, you were kinda fun and useful once, but now that you have taken to treating me to daily spam, I shall from hereon in have to reciprocate with growing indifference, annoyance, and an increasingly small likelihood to ever use you again.

Kindest regards 'n that

John

PS. Say hi to Boo.com when you see her...

Is Idea Bounty our 'Myspace'?

2009-11-13T15:06:10+00:00

There was all sorts of kerfuffles kicking off over on Amelia's blog yesterday in response to her post on the whether "Crowdsourced Advertising can work"... the chief protaganists in the story are Idea Bounty and the Peparami brief that Unilever famously put on there...

You should go on over and have a read of all of the points of view that people contributed around the issue... it's clearly one that, unsurprisingly, has niggled away at a fair few people.

My contributution wasn't really to do with the ins and outs of how the crowdsourcing works in this form, who spots the best idea, asking people to create a derivation of existing agency work and all those sorts of things.

It was more of an overall thought, and thinking about where this trend might end up...

What we do know about digital information on t'internet is that whenever things become digital, they lose 'value', no matter that they cost the same to 'produce' as they did before.

Music tracks being a prime example, of course.

And if there's a place where these newly digitised pieces of information can be gathered at almost no cost to the creator, that place will become swamped with stuff that just crosses that threshold of 'good enough'.

Like Myspace, for instance. The home of a million 'ok' bands (mine and yours included).

...so...

...do we run the risk of making the main thing our industry has to sell (the 'ideas') into our equivalent of MP3s? Hosted in the idea equivalent of Myspace?

Or does it not matter, because every advertising/media/digital agency could never monetise 'the idea' anyway, it was always about product/commission/build etc?

It's been gnawing away at me for the last day or so too, so I thought I'd take the comment, put it on here, and see what you all think.

If we digitise the 'ideas' part of the industry, and create an open, democratic, myspace-esqe platform open to all ideas, will we indeed drive the 'price' of ideas down like MP3s did to music?

And what happens to 'quality'?

When the process of submitting ideas is as quick and painless (and most importantly as CHEAP) as this, will it just encourage many environments around the internet to spring up and become 'the home of OK ideas...'?

Or is it the turn of agencies, like record labels, to realise that the world has changed and the way that they once made their living isn't as viable as it once was..?

3rd Year Physics and the problem with Google Wave

2009-11-13T11:21:00+00:00

Ain't this the truth?

(Via Zoe P)

Huge, almost feverish anticipation swept the internet when Google wave was announced. The reality some weeks later is that people seem to be:

i) waiting for an invite

ii) have an invite, but haven't had the time or inclination to stop what they're doing and 'wave'...

iii) have an invitation, have tried it, but found no-one they want to wave with for any real purpose, so stopped using it

Why? Well, I don't think it's a 'product' thing...

What is Google Wave?

Ok, a quick recap and opinion on what Google Wave is... having tried it (I'm part of iii above), it's clearly going to be a useful improvement on email.

Going back to my third year physics, conventional email is essentially a series circuit. If one bulb goes, the whole circuit stops working.

(pics from here)

In terms of email, to maximise collaboration between 4 folk you'd send it to someone, who forwards it to someone else, who then sends it to someone else, and it arrives back in your inbox with input from everybody. Then everyone's input is included.

If someone doesn't send it on, the circuit breaks, and nothing happens... until, like Christmas lights, the bulb is replaced.

In comparison, parallel circuits don't need every bulb to work in order for the others to keep working. The others keep on working until you eventually replace the dud bulb.

If you attempt to make traditional email systems a 'parallel circuit' (usually by including everyone in the email all at once), then you undoubtedly end up with a disparate set of people's input strewn across different emails...

You get multiple iterations of the email, sometime simultaneously, which isn't really all that collaborative... and more often than not, he who shouts first shouts loudest in email chains...

Anyway, it's clear that Google Wave has been created to get over this problem, and it's clear we could do with something to help us over it... but why hasn't it taken off?

A fairly rubbish launch strategy

Google have launched things very successfully before using the 'limited invites' method... just think how precious Gmail invites were, and the great word-of-mouth that the service received from those who had it.

But why is it not yielding similar success for Wave?

Well, of course, it needs everyone to change system. If you were on Gmail, you could still talk to people in with work, hotmail, yahoo or other email accounts. Gmail spoke the same 'universal language' as the other systems, so still let people connect.

Wave's not like that. It demands that everyone signs up to Wave in order to do stuff together.

And here's the problem... if you have a limited invite system in place, but need everyone in any group that want to 'Wave' together to have an invite in order to make it work properly, then there's going to be an issue...

...essentially you've designed a beautiful parallel circuit, but you're only letting one bulb use it at a time...

Fixing the problem

So, how can they rectify this issue? Obviously they don't want everyone testing it at once... I'm sure there's all sorts of load testing issues and refinement stuff they're up to.

But perhaps they should change the way they distribute invites, or change the language they use to do it?

Ask people something like 'want to collaborate with others on Google Wave? Then write a quick outline of the project, give us the emails of the peopel you want to collaborate with, and we'll invite them for you...'

Rather than inviting people as individuals, invites teams of people as 'projects'.

And then all of those people will be able to see what Wave can really do for them...

Bonfire Builders: Jake McKee

2009-11-11T08:56:29+00:00

I had a thought a couple of weeks ago about the Bonfires & Fireworks analogy...

If, as I believe, it's going to be through cross-disciplinary effort that we build successful, conversational communications between people and companies, we should get all sorts of different perspectives from across the board on the principle of bonfire building.

So, to that end, I decided to start asking a few folk whose opinion and work I think highly of about the principle, and their perspective on it.

First up, I'm delighted to say we've got Jake McKee, of Ant's Eye View, Community Guy and Lego fame...

Let’s start with something social… tell us about yourself…

I'm Jake McKee, co-founder and Chief Ant Wrangler at Ant's Eye View (www.antseyeview.com). I've spent my entire career on and around the Web trying to help businesses use new tech, people, and processes to improve the way that customers interact with the company.

At AEV, our focus is the same: helping clients improve customer experience and drive customer engagement by building strategies that tap into those new technologies, as well as age old improvements in people and process to truly improve the bottom line.

Outside of work, I'm an amateur photography, infrequent mountain biker, and a proud dad of an insane smart and funny 3 year old.

How did you get started in bonfire building?

I actually went to college for traditional 3D product design. Even in high school I was fascinated by the idea that people got paid to think about how people used things and to design products accordingly. I graduated about the time the Web started taking off and brought that product design thinking to Web development.

When I joined the LEGO Company in 2000, I lucked into working for a boss who encouraged me to own the relationship between LEGO and the adult LEGO enthusiasts. That led to a full-time gig at LEGO doing community work, helping to form the community development team, speaking about community work, and blogging at CommunityGuy.com.

How do you persuade others of the need to build social bonfires alongside setting off advertising fireworks?

The answer to this question is a bit different if you’re talking about being an employee of a company working inside the enterprise towards change versus working as a consultant helping those folks see change through to completion.

Looking at the work that needs to be done inside the organization (since that's where the buck stops), I've always talked about the strategy of "Success by 1000 paper cuts". Start with the smallest element you can effectively do with minimal budget, little managerial approval, and minor legal team approval.

Nothing breeds acceptance like success. Even tiny successes excite people to see more. Succeed, expand your efforts a little, succeed again, rinse and repeat. Before you know it, you'll be launching huge programs but with far more support than if you tried to launch a big program straight away.

Where do you see the balance between the bonfires & fireworks at this point in time?

Well, there's probably not much of a "balance" at this point! I think largely we're still seeing a vast majority of the social efforts being funnelled through the traditional marketing/advertising lens. With a sadly rare exception, most business people are struggling to get past their own training - we're all programmed to believe that protectionism is a huge business value.

That mindset was passed along in school, and backed up by nearly every business dealing we've had in our careers. Getting past that mental training is going to some time and some serious effort, but it will happen. With an entire generation being raised to expect a direct connect relationship with the companies they do business with, it's seriously only a matter of time.

That said, I don't think we'll ever get away from seeing fireworks. In fact, I hope we don't. Fireworks can be a lot of fun, and can do lots of great things... IF they are a component of a larger, social-infused strategy.

Finally, what do you foresee in the future for the bonfires and fireworks?

It's not terribly exciting, but I think we're going to continue to see the same progression we've been on for the last few years, just with an increasingly accelerated pace.

Companies and consultants alike are certainly still struggling to get to a more social-minded place, but the pace at which things are moving is picking up speed.

Success is leading to success, and we'll be seeing a lot smarter, bigger, more successful campaigns over time...

...success by 1000 paper cuts.

Thanks Jake :)

TV on the iPhone

2009-11-10T08:35:47+00:00

Ahhh, handheld TV... the dream of civilised society since... well, ever since I can remember:

(Thanks, Sir Clive...)

Anyway, as with seemingly everything these days, handheld TV devices are being replaced with... with...

...go on, you can probably guess...

...yes indeed, it's the mobile phone again... at the moment best represented by the iPhone, of course...

The excellent TV Catchup service delivers you the core BBC/ITV/Channel 4 & Five channels, via a streaming service via the iphone.tvcatchup.com website...

...it's not even an app, you just point your mobile browser to it, pick the channel, and off you go; wherever you've got WiFi, you can stream TV, and the quality is pretty astounding, too...

And last night, Andy sent me a text saying that Sky were offering a free 3 months subscription to Sky Sports on the iPhone; you just download the app, and enter the promo code.

I'm sure it's just a tempting hook with a whacking great subscription charge after the three months is up, but it's certainly nice to have for three months. If you've got an iPhone, just text SKY to 2020.

So it's good to see the land of TV embracing new technology, rather than pretending it's going to go away and everyone will just keep on doing what they've been doing for years (Yes, music industry, I'm looking at you...).

What about measuring it though? If the BARB system is barely robust enough to accurately measure viewing on existing TV platforms, and that's the currency used to work out how much advertisers pay for spots, then how are they going to measure this sort of viewing.

I guess the interesting thing for TV about this sort of viewing is that because it's delivered through a very, very measurable digital platform (with TV Catchup, for instance, they should have access to the same sort of robust metrics you'd have on ANY online streaming video), then they can report real viewing numbers, not just numbers worked out using a proxy panel system...

...though whether that sort of accuracy about viewing figures is desired by the TV companies, we'll just have to see.

Perspective... filtered through the media lens

2009-11-10T07:50:44+00:00

The perception we always have of the beginning of the 20th century is very much framed by the way in which we see it recalled through the media used to capture it.

So by and large if you think about the 1920s, you'll start thinking in black and white, stuttery images... it's hard to think of it being a time when people even lived in colour.

Which makes this colour of London in 1927 fascinating... it's a weird juxtaposition of the clothing, transport and the like we know is of the period, but it clashes with our perception of that world being 'black and white'.

(via Schmutizie)

And it works the other way around too. There's an iPhone app called Camera Bag which allows you to add a filter on top of your digital photos to give them a more earthy, dated feel.

For instance, here's a shot of my Dad and James sleeping on the sofa...

...and here's the same shot but using the '1974' filter...

...which now, to me, makes it much more of an evocative 'family' shot... probably because I'm used to thinking about the boxes of old seventies & eighties photos that make up the photographic records of my childhood... bleachy, harsh colours, and little white frames around the edge and the like.

I wonder what we'll look back and think of this era as, photograph & film wise?

Read the book? Or watch the film..?

2009-11-09T09:58:33+00:00

The IPA's Behavioural Economics workshops are being held the week after next (16th-20th November), and a select few PHD'ers are heading along.

(If you want to find out more about the workshops, you should speak to Victoria at the IPA...)

In preparation we're all reading / rereading two books; The Paradox of Choice, and Nudge.

But of course, the way that you sell a book these days is you talk about it to as many different audiences as possible.

And the people who invite you to speak may choose to film these talks.

And if the people who've invited you to talk are Google, then they'll probably film them, and upload them to a Youtube channel, in a series of talks they've invited authors to give at Google.

So, courtesy of Google, here's Richard Thaler from last year talking about the ideas behind Nudge...

...and Barry Schwartz from 2006 talking about the Paradox of choice...

I guess the only choice you have now is whether to read the books, or just watch the movies...

A Gazillion Different iPhones

2009-11-06T13:34:22+00:00

So, Mashable reported recently that there are now 100,000 approved apps for the iPhone.

Which is a big number.

But not as big as the number I think is more interesting, and maybe more important.

How many different combinations of iPhones are there with 100,000 available apps?

We can get the average number of apps per iPhone from reports like this from networkworld)

It's about 18, apparently (10 paid for, 8 free).

So from 100,000 apps, how many possible combinations of iPhone are there?

To work this out, I asked my brother, Andrew, who has a PHD in engineering and works at our sister agency BrandScience.

Needless to say, he has a better grasp of numbers than I...

This is what he worked out:

No. of Apps / Total Combinations

1        100,000
2        4,999,950,000
3        166,661,666,700,000
4        4,166,416,671,249,980,000
5        83,325,000,291,662,500,000,000
6        1,388,680,567,360,800,000,000,000,000
7        19,837,103,521,810,800,000,000,000,000,000
8        247,946,436,557,054,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
9        2,754,740,009,356,990,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
10       27,544,920,827,561,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
11    250,383,330,322,534,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
12    2,086,298,234,634,990,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
13    16,046,522,144,975,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
14    114,603,114,979,263,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
15    763,913,803,621,103,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
16    4,773,745,103,441,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
17      28,076,360,613,085,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

...18:

155,953,264,621,004,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Yep; if you select just eighteen apps from the app store, you are selecting one of the 1.56E+74 possible 18 app iPhone combinations.

Which is a very big number indeed.

To put it in context, if you multiply the number of hydrogen atoms in the galaxy (5E+68) by 311,907, then you get to the number of possible iPhone permutations.

(EDIT: This is an update on the maths from Andrew... I misinterpreted original email)

Interesting? Maybe, depending on your take on what 'interesting' is... but it's certainly important.

Why? Because it represents just how unique and customisable the iPhone platform has become... the chances of you ever running into someone who has the same iPhone as you are entirely remote.

...which means that not only is your iPhone unique, it continues to be a social object even when everyone around you has one, because you're always likely to have something new, different and interesting to show each other.

So next year, when the Orange and Vodafone iPhone deals have really kicked in, it's not like everyone in the UK is going to have the same phone...

...they're going to have the most unique phone they've ever owned.

It's just they're all going to have the same case for it...

A day for building social bonfires

2009-11-05T16:57:18+00:00

Yes indeed, lest we forget it's Bonfire night, and given the history of the Bonfire & Fireworks analogy on Feeding the Puppy, it would have been remiss of me not to post the latest thoughts I've been having on this more fitting of days...

(As a brief reprise, for those who haven't seen or have forgotten it, skip through this again...)

Advertising Fireworks, Social Bonfires

View more presentations from John V Willshire.

So, what now?

After the IPA Social Event (which I first started writing about Bonfires for), we all thought it'd be a good idea to keep the momentum behind the project going... build on the success, keep the bonfire burning as it were.

After all, it was just the end of the beginning.

Rather than a formal evening organised event, though, we wondered if holding three concurrent conversations over coffee, somewhere in London, would mean that people could spend half a morning dipping in and out of different conversations... sharing experiences, results, case studies and the like.

How best to make it happen?

It's not just an 'advertising' issue

Largely every type of agency and communications company going are all looking at this area, whether they're involved in advertising, PR, corporate comms, internal etc.

The shift in the way the world communicates has affected many industries, not just the one that you or I happen to find ourselves working in.

At its simplest, I think everyone can take the graph below, look at their own industry as say 'yep, that's happening to us, and we're not totally sure how to deal with it /create it / measure it / value it / charge for it yet.

So we'd love to see folks from across as wide a spectrum as possible... the sharing of results & case studies is something that the Measurement Camp guys have been doing a great job every month, so we'd love to see them down there.

Then there's all the folks interested in making businesses internally social too... Enterprise 2.0, or Social Business Design. I found the Corporate Social Networking Forum earlier this year a fascinating insight into how other industries are harnessing the available tools to add significant value to their businesses.

And I'm quite sure that I'm missing out folk too... so in order to make an 'easy to manage' list of folk to tell about it, I've made my first twitter list...

Making a list, checking it twice...

We'll get on with confirming a date, thinking a bit more about the format & subject matter... just generally firming things up a little more.

And you?

Well, if you think you'd be up for meeting up one morning for a couple of hours in early December and sharing some social insights over coffee, then just add your twitter name TO THIS LIST HERE*.

Happy bonfire night... see you all soon I'm sure.

(*fingers crossed that I've got the list thing working OK...)

As Mary Poppins would say, 'The Job's a Game'...

2009-11-04T22:46:19+00:00

Last year, when I was doing the IPA Excellence Diploma, I wrote an essay on the use of real time data to create daily, game-like interactions.

You can read it here, if you're off the mind to...
A Spoonful of EasyJet

Ever since writing it, I've been particularly interested in creating work systems that incorporate elements of games.
Because as the principle behind 'spoonful of sugar' would have it, if you add an element of fun to a job, the job becomes a game. And we'd all like it a lot more if our jobs were a bit more like games, yeah?

So I was very excited to find out about this forthcoming book...
Total Engagement
Using Games and Virtual Worlds to change the Way People Work and Businesses Compete

Of course, I can't tell you owt about it, as I've only just ordered it from Amazon. But the blurb certainly sells it to me...
"Implementing components of multiplayer computer games in the workplace will address a host of age-old problems. Games can not only stem boredom and decrease turnover, but also enhance collaboration and encourage creative leadership. Games require extraordinary teamwork, elaborate data analysis and strategy, recruitment and retention of top players, and quick decision making.
Recreating some elements of games - such as positioning tasks within stories, creating internal economies, and implementing participant-driven communication systems - can not only boost employee engagement but overall productivity."

Sounds really interesting, doesn't it? I'm very much looking forward to reading it
(thanks to the tip off from the guys at Natron Baxter, an Applied Gaming outfit over there in that there USofA...)

Anyhoo, I think that it appeals so much because, as kids, my brother and I were big fans of 'God Games' like Civilisation, Populous et al, and like most blokes my age I've lost days to Championship Manager.

If you're not familiar with the principles of such games, they are based upon an absolute mountain of data... with tens, hundreds or thousands of different characters, units and the like all needing your care and attention on a turn by turn basis.
You've got a set objective at the end, of course, but the only way to win the game is to set that big objective aside, and deal with the game on a turn-by-turn basis.
So whilst your overall big strategy is there, it's actually much more important to continually pay attention to the thousands of smaller tactical decisions.
The big strategy is as simple as 'win the space race' or 'defeat the other competitors'. The methods you use to do that constantly change and evolve depending on the circumstances...

Is it possible to do it for companies? Well, I believe so already... let's see what interesting examples and ideas the book brings when it arrives next week.