Michael Myers

I just saw this video on MobileCrunch. It’s a demo of how the Firefox mobile browser could work and it looks pretty amazing.

As of today people’s mobile Internet behavior is markedly different from terrestrial use. I’m excited about this type of functionality as it will help us shed some light on what people’s behavior will be if they are holding a window to the Internet instead of a very limited WAP based tool. Currently the factors that shape people’s mobile online Internet behavior are:

1. Limited screen real estate
2. Being in an open environment
3. Interface limitations (screen navigation, keyboard, etc)

Even if browsers get better the first item is still going to be an issue as we want a mobile phone to be . . . mobile. There could be options to resolve those moments when you must have a larger screen and yet it is a condition of the medium. The second factor could potentially make it more of a fractured experience and yet it does enable location based services to happen; and with a better browser, those experiences can be more robust. The third issue is most likely one associated with age or experience level and I have offered a potential solution for these interface limitations.

It will be interesting to see how search will be impacted by these newer more enabled browsers. As of now when people search for something online they are doing it through a WAP enabled portal. As a consequence, most bookmark things and then look for more detail when they get to a better screen. I’m not sure if this is an issue with navigation or screen real estate or both. Many would site the use of mobile video as a sign that people will use the Internet as they do on a terrestrial connection and yet it is important to realize that video is passive and search is active. Of course text messaging is active.

All that I’m sure of is that we will know more soon about how people use the mobile internet.

I was recently having a conversation with a client about digital signage and how this could be used in different types of venues. Everything from retail to hotels could easily find a clever usage for this technology as it is.

We then started to talk about the potential of digital signage as the “anchor” for location based services. In brief, these are marketing efforts provided by businesses to your mobile phone, based on your physical location. Steve Jobs just talked about the potential for these types of applications at the release of the new iPhone and I agree that these services could provide compelling offerings. I also believe that the user should be in complete control of whether they receive offers based on the online persona they have built.

I brought up businesses like Whrrl and Lightpole that are allowing users to geotarget products and services to share with their peers. This could be thought of as user generated marketing or at the very least user facilitated marketing.

I then started to think about how location based services could interact with user generated geotargeting. For example:

A person is in a store and they see a book that their friend would like. They go to their Lightpole application on their mobile and start to create a geographical marker. They then receive a notice from that bookstore that they can select from a number of items that can be personalized. Such as a video or a photo. The person selects the video and then records an audio message onto the video and then saves the marker. A text message is sent to their friend letting them know about the recommendation with a map showing how to get to that location. Also, the next time the friend is within 1/2 mile of the book an alert will be sent to their cell reminding them about the book.

Of course a person could do the video or photo on their own and this makes geotargeting so powerful with respect to marketing. This concept is not new and was first mentioned back in 2006 as user generated marketing. This personalized marketing through web enabled word of mouth could also be thought of as another aspect of the corporate social graph. No matter how you define it, the potential is obvious.

I have been keeping a list of what functions I want on my cell phone in the very near future. The list as of today is:

garage door opener, car alarm, remote control, drivers license, credit card, quality camera, HD recorder, audio recorder, watch, geo-targeting tool, MP3 player; with wireless headphones, alarm clock, organizer, mouse/computer and a phone. All of this with a full QWERTY keyboard and a 16×9 ratio screen.

Many of the things on the list beg the question of security. I really don’t want anyone walking around with my cell charging things to my account or stealing my car. I also happen to have recently received a new IBM ThinkPad with the fingerprint scanner which I’m finding is a very handy thing and would be even more essential on a cell phone.

I then wondered if anyone had out a put a fingerprint scanner in a cell phone; yet. And of course, they have. The Toshiba G900

I have been thinking about how product placement might play itself out in a mobile video environment. Screen size is the obvious limitation and I’m not convinced that short-from video will be the primary form of accepted video. I have mentioned in the past some of the amazing things that Japan has done on the mobile phone and the potential future that mobile discovery holds (which is another form of “product placement”).

I was trying to think of ways that businesses may be able to utilize product placement on the mobile phone and this is what I came up with.

• Verbally address the product being supported since you cannot rely on someone seeing the product alone. Now we all know how cheesy this can sound (like Laura Linney in The Truman Show) and there is definitely a right way to do it.
• More creative filming. I can’t remember which Charlie’s Angels movie it was (as I never saw any of them) but I did catch some footage of one of the Angels on a motorcycle and they turn the motorcycle around to face their adversary right in front of a huge Pepsi sign (or was it Coke). It may have been both, with the adversary in front of the competing soft drink. This didn’t feel very creative to me. I’m thinking of something more subtle like the logo of a company on the bottom of a snowboard as a trick is done in the half-pipe.
• Interview the actors to find out what products they currently like and make this apart of the video extrase. In this day and age of transparency, what celebrities really like carries much more weight than what they sell.
• Use the product as the “tool”. The Bourne Ultimatum featured Audis and Volkswagens being destruction resistant as the cast hurtled themselves through scenes. This is a great way to show the product and you would still need to be creative with cinematography to highlight the brand.
• Use the product as an anchor for the story. Remember Elaine’s love for the IUD in that Seinfeld episode. This could potentially be thought of as destination advertising such as BMW films.
• Voting or rating a product featured from your cell while watching a video (on your cell). This type of interaction is growing in popularity and will only become more prevalent.
• Do not re-purpose content intended for a larger format. Simply does not work.

To wrap this up I thought it would be good to see what film director David Lynch thinks about product placement and watching films on a cell phone. (If you’re easily offended, do me and you a favor; don’t watch either video and rest assured that Mr. Lynch frowns on these sorts of things in general.)

I have been talking about the Internet as the delivery mechanism for entertainment, information and communication. I now also think of these as the core of the Corporate Social Graph (CSG). But I also I recently realized that I had left out one of, if not the most important elements that the Internet affords, which is interaction. When I talk about interaction within this context, I’m really talking about the maximum level of interaction a business can attain within entertainment, information and communication.

I don’t really feel the need to define entertainment and information. I do however understand that there is a lot of confusion about whether communication should be thought of as interaction. So I went to Merriam-Webster and looked up the definitions. At its most basic this is what I found.

Communication: an act or instance of transmitting

Interaction: mutual or reciprocal action or influence

There is an obvious difference. When companies set about creating their CSG they need to consider:

1. how/where/when they should entertain
2. how/where/when they should inform
3. how/where/when they should communicate
4. how/where/when they should interact across their entertainment, information and communication

Note: The ‘what’ is the business units message whatever that may be.

Some examples are:

• Creating a YouTube video (flickr photos) featuring your employees having fun at a company function; providing some transparency.
• Providing information on a given subject in Wikipedia to position yourself as a subject matter expert (link to your site in the references section).
• blogging about the company’s goals and place within the market.

Of course not all companies are going to entertain as much as others and yet Blendtec did a fantastic job with thier Will it Blend series and continues to do so with its blending of Weezer’s new CD, Pork’n Beans. A company needs to challenge itself to utilize all three of these with a focus on interaction that the user can control.

I met with a potential client last week. He was telling me about their business goals and how they needed their online marketing to increase their revenue over the next two years. We talked about SEO/SEM, social media, preroll advertising and what was going to happen with mobile advertising. He was interested in all of it. I then started to ask about their site and what they felt like the needed to be done. The CEO looked at me and told me that they have gone through a complete redesign last year and that they felt like they were covered.

Now, I of course had looked at their site prior to the meeting and was pretty sure they would need to scrap it. This of course coming from an online business perspective and not a “I don’t like the color” perspective. Their site has numerous issues (including an awful color scheme) and I felt that if we conducted usability studies we would find that any chance of an online transaction would be slim at best.

Now, I knew they weren’t going to pay for that and I really did not want to irritate the CEO and yet when we do business we do it as a trusted partner and not a whipping boy. So I started to explain how online marketing worked from an “atomic” perspective.

I told the following story: A user is looking for a product or service and they go to Google to begin their search. They type the term in and Google brings back results. Now, if their site is optimized the results will bring back their page that features that specific product/service and move forward with the transaction. This is of course preferred as the customer gets exposure to the brand (if the page is done correctly) and the business gets the revenue. If the business has entered their products into Google Base, that product will show up in the results and the customer can move forward with the transaction. If their site is not optimized but their home page is, it will come up in the results and the user will be dumped off on the home page left to their own devices to find the product. This is how most sites are.

Now at this point they have already used search to get them their and are probably not very excited about having to use another search to find what they want. Some will. Some won’t. I have seen in usability studies that at this point, most people start to use the site navigation to find what they are looking for and this is where the problem lies.

My favorite definition of marketing is:

Marketing consists of the strategies and tactics used to identify, create and maintain satisfying relationships with customers that result in value for both the customer and the marketer.

Most relevant to this discussion (with respect to the definition) is tactics and specifically; usability. One of the key elements to successful relationships of any type is helping that person. Usability is akin to providing an accurate map for a friend to a desired destination. Online businesses that don’t understand usability, don’t understand marketing. You’re site is not just to share information. It’s to market your business in such a way that value is created for you and your customer. This is difficult for many businesses as they tend to focus inwardly when they need to see their business through their customer’s eyes. (I see this issue daily.) This does not mean that every online business should focus solely on usability and ignore look and feel. (I thoroughly enjoy showing customers Jakob Nielsen’s site after they tell me that usability is the only thing that matters to them.) However, it does mean that if usability is not addressed, the marketing efforts of an online business will suffer.

For many years we had been told that content was king. Quality content was the thing that online businesses must create to keep the attention and develop the loyalty of users. Then in 2006 Chris Anderson chimed in and let us know that content was no longer king; context was. The quote is from Rob Reid of Listen.com and his point is that in a world of infinite choices with people peers acting as filters, the context that content is shown in is more important than the content itself. This has been one of the key ingredients in thinking about personalized marketing and the recommendation economy.

I’ve been talking with clients about this for the last two years and have been thinking about the transition of the Internet to the primary form of all entertainment, communication and information. I have also been thinking about how people collect and process all three and have come to believe that not only is context king, content is as well.

The important distinction here for content is between what the content is and how the content is transfered. Every time I look at Wikipedia, I can’t help but think that this content would be much better if it were in a video format. Not sure how feasible this would be but it would be much better for my learning style. Can’t remember where I read it, but video is the number 2 thing people do online behind casual gaming (e.g. solitaire) and above social networking. I really don’t think this is the last vestige of a TV era. Online video is very different from television content and it continues to change into something else. With respect to Wikipedia , HowCast is a great example of educational (instructional in this case) video.

For years I have been having my how conversation. I use Star Wars as my example of why how is more important that the what of something. Star Wars is the oldest story in the world and yet its success if because of how the story was told and not what the story itself.

As we begin to expect to receive entertainment, information and communication via the medium of our choice (mobile video, text on PC, audio GPS instructions to the mobile) specific to context; content is again getting its own thrown.

I have been writing about the corporate social graph since February and have discussed its impact on search and how to move towards accurately measuring it. One of the main issues with the developing a CSG is its impact on brand equity.

For those of you keeping score the focus of the CSG is to have companies create as much interaction utilizing Internet technologies and Web 2.0 venues. This complex landscape has enormous potential. In order to do this you have to have subject matter experts (SMEs) who may or may not be employees representing the business within this venues. The obvious issue is how to maintain brand equity when you don’t control every aspect of the company persona within that venue.

Of course some would say, “I do control everything and I can work with the SME to create guidelines as to what they can say and do.” For those that think this way, you have missed the true nature of the changes created within the Internet over the last several years. Interaction is inherently unpredictable and therefore a recipe will simply not work. People now, more than ever want to hear a human voice behind the businesses/sites they frequent.

The next obvious question for a business is: Can we successfully build a CSG without reducing brand equity. The answer of course is: It depends. If a company has transparency built into its DNA then it is obviously an easier (an in fact required) to empower the SMEs to interact with its customers. For a company like Coke, it may not be so easy.

Although a reduction in brand equity is possible; a transition is much more likely.

There is a new wave of democratization within business, fueled by Generation X & Y and their lack of regard for authoritative leadership. WorldBlu is an organization championing this new type of business model which organizations like Dreamhost (my hosting company) and 1-800-GOT-JUNK?. For businesses like these, building the CSG will be relatively easy.

What do you do if you’re Coke? That’s a good question and as it does for any company building their CSG, really boils down to the trust you place in your employees. This is not an easy thing and as a business you have to remember one thing. Employees will participate in online interactions with your customers whether you like it or not.