Michael Myers

Today is the one year anniversary of my blog. I started this blog as a collaborative tool and am still working towards this goal. I have been fortunate enough to meet some incredible people because of this tool and it has also served to solidify my thoughts with respect to the future of marketing. I’m someone that needs to have conversations on a subject to truly understand that subject. This blog has really helped me understand what changes are taking place and more importantly; where we are headed. If you frequent this blog; thank you. If you have stumbled upon it; please take some time to read some of the things I have written.

Either way, please stay tuned to see what the blog will become and email me with any feedback. With any luck comments will be turned on soon.

Thank you: Michael

This title of this post comes from a line in Ayn Rand’s 1943 book,The Fountainhead and is from a conversation between a woman and the main character, Howard Roark. Her point was that any attempt to create beauty is futile when compared to the beauty of nature and that we should abandon any desires to create beautiful things. She wanted to rise above nature and create something ugly.

Fast forward to August 1st, 1981 and we saw the Buggles proclaim Video Killed the Radio Star back. The nature of music celebrity had changed. For the first time, the look of the band was immediately known (without them selling millions of records) and for the first time a band’s image was at least or as equally important as the music. It quickly became apparent that image was going to surpass talent with the birth of New Wave. Bands with minimal talent but a new look were thrust into the limelight with a video in heavy rotation. This makes sense since something that is seen and heard is more compelling than something that is just seen. (Less imagination needed but can be more compelling.)

Today music videos are rarely shown on MTV and when they are, the artists are for the most part categorically attractive. (If the artist is not attractive the video is peppered with good looking people. Most rap videos that I’ve seen use this method.) This is especially true of women with almost none overweight. I seriously doubt Janis Joplin (voted the ugliest male at her college) would have made it today. Bands like Steely Dan & Jethro Tull would also most likely have not made it. I’m in no way saying that image did not matter in earlier years. I am saying that for the first time, talent was overshadowed by image. Remember what happened to C&C Music Factory? (Yes. I’m that old.)

Well . . . like all things, we are now deep into a reversal of fortune for those that have a face for radio or at the very least are more talented than good looking. The Internet has allowed everyone to be a niche celebrity if they so chose. (The Internet also facilitates people with no talent.) We are back to looking at people that could be (and very well may be) our neighbors. Beauty will always be valued and yet with an increasing number of overweight people in television ads (for those of you without a DVR) we have come full circle in some sense. This, of course, relates back to transparency and in my opinion it that it can be a good thing. If customers see people that look like themselves representing business they will be more likely to relate and incouraged to do business.

Let’s be Gods. Let’s be ugly.

When I blogged from the MMA Consumer Best Practices Industry Forum back in January, I felt like I had stepped into a circus that was in the middle of a performance but needed to move to a new location at the same time. The iPhone had just been released and it was not really discussed by the attendees as much as I thought it would have been. Of course this was not the focus of the conference so it was not much of a surprise. I felt as though much of the conversation was about “on-deck” functionality and that the existing model was still the focus. It is and was.

I watched the round table discussion put on by TechCrunch yesterday and was encouraged to see the turmoil I felt, verbalized during this meeting. The video is worth watching and I will boil down what I believe the underlying focus of the meeting was.

The iPhone is obviously a game-changer. In my opinion, one that Silicon Valley is focusing on primarily due to the genre of users that are buying the device (and their love for Apple). The market is not yet large enough warrant much attention from the larger players. (They are the fastest growing in some regards and yet still small.) Developers feel that Apples platform is easy to develop on and are excited about creating apps for their tremendous user interface. Nokia and others were there and you could see/feel that they don’t know what they are going to do to handle the challenge the iPhone represents. They know it is a threat and yet with Nokia owning 70% of the overall market it is hard to get too upset about Apple’s move into the space. The interface/web interface is what most feel the iPhone’s claim to fame is; and it is. No one is focused on Android right now as it will not launch until November at the earliest. Michael Arrington went as far to say that Symbian and other operating systems are now pointless. I will be curious to see what Nokia and others do to address the iPhone challenge.

There is a lot of concern that Apple will be the new walled garden, instead of the carriers. The understanding that the WAP experience is abysmal and that the mobile web is only now beginning seems to be lost on those that have been in the business for a long time. WAP is not web and to confuse the two is ridiculous. What has existed under the WAP protocol is a dumbed down version of what the web could be. There simply was no interface that was easy enough to use. WAP is for those that are techincally minded with respect to navigation and it would never pass the Grandmother Test. It was also mentioned that the browser for mobile is the killer app, and I agree with this. Firefox and Skyfire are the latest additions to the race. One person (on a very impressive panel) was offended when someone said that the mobile Internet has just started. He cited the fact that $700,000,000 dollars in revenue had been generated from ringtones, music, etc. Again; not the internet.

In the end Apple and Android are the disruptors the US mobile market needs. The carriers behavior back in January were protectionist at the least and they aren’t going down without a fight. As for the video; its worth watching just to see an Arrington in the wild.

I have spoken about how the Internet is well on its way to being the platform for entertainment, information and communication. This of course extends to the mobile Internet as well.

I also spend a lot of time talking to people about the importance of “how” something is done. The premise is that what your doing is not as important as how your doing it. I then quickly site Star Wars as a prime example of this. The story itself is easily several thousand years old but it was how it was told in 1977 that made me and my mother wait for hours in line to see the movie.

If we focus on how Internet advertising at its most basic level is executed with these in mind we can develop a quick model as to how ads should be structured.

If we start with text based information gathering activities the ads should be text based ads. Some will say that this is a perfect place for a video; something that gets attention. I believe that when people are in the mode of reading, they want to read and don’t want to passively watch a video. I also believe that TV has taught us all to ignore something that jumps out at us; unless we are in that frame of mind. (This has already proven itself out with Google’s contextual text based ads.)

Placing advertising in communications is a bit more tricky. Not sure if this exists but I think it would be interesting to have an ad tool plugged into Skype IM or Digsby IM that looks for text signals as to what a conversation is about and then produces relevant ads off to the side. (Of course you would be able to turn this off.) When I think of the “Do you know anyone that . . . ” conversations that I have had, I wish I had a ad tool like this. For example if I was IMing a friend and I wanted to know where I should stay for an upcoming trip. The system would present a list of hotels for that area. This type of functionality could be extended to audio conversation with businesses/technology like Spinvox.

When people talk about entertainment in regards to the Internet, they think of video. Again, aiming at the frame of mind someone is in, I believe it should be a video or audio (yes audio) ad. I’m sure that people believe their video could get lost and pre-rolls, the last I heard were officially the most hated form of online advertising. I’m thinking of video advertising as movie previews are presented or destination advertising. This is not easy and yet I think it is attainable. (I have spent hours looking movie trailers on Apple’s site.)

The goal is then to promote interaction across all three of these mediums (and embrace contextual methodologies). I am not saying that these “rules” can’t be bent and in fact most online interactions are a combination of these mediums. Based on that, a hybrid ad could/should be created. The point is we need to work with the content and functionality that exists on the pages that are also housing our advertising. This is counter intuitive in regards to how most advertising is done and yet I believe we need to consider what frame of mind people are in when they are online and then mimic/compliment to some degree the medium they are in.

Last night I got to attend a New Denver Ad Club event at the Oriental Theater with guest speaker Jason Fried (freed) of 37signals. I knew very little about Jason and have heard about 37signals from a friend of mine. 37signals is a group that started out as an agency and created products to support internal processes and then decided productize/sell them. Logical progression given the difficulty of managing clients. The focus of the discussion last night was advice for people starting/managing a web-based businesses. We covered the following items during the presentation; many of which I agree with on some level.

• Planning is overrated. Just build it and then tweak as you go. Phillip Johnson said;” You don’t know whether a building is good until you’re in it. I have to say that I agree with this on some level. I also have to say, that this sounds like someone who does not understand the benefit of research. I think some minimal amount of research needs to be done before moving forward. It’s good to have a target.
• Follow the lead of famous chefs. We know who they are (Emeril & Julia Childs) because they teach us. Start teaching now. Out teach. Out educate. Out contribute your competition. Get people to show up first and then sell them something. I agree with this as well and I can’t remember what the point was exactly, but he made is point about not focusing on selling and then quickly followed it up with a “but” which as we all know means that anything said within that sentence before the but is negated.
• Interruption is something to be avoided. Creativity takes long spans of time and working virtually allows for “passive collaboration”. (37signals uses what sounded like a posting wall with messages that people go to when they have time.) This sounds obvious enough and yet the implication is that the open floor plan that you’re so happy with is costing you productivity. Great for collaboration and terrible for productivity which is what the client is actually paying for; to have something delivered.
• Avoid “scarring on the first cut”. Mistakes are a part of the process. When you implement policies based on a mistake that has has happened for the first time, you can cripple the learning process. Agreed. People need to feel as though they can take risks and that a mistake can morph into a discovery.
  
• Err on the side of simple. Create a foundation to build on. Wait to hear from customers and only act on things you have heard repeatedly. You don’t need every customer. YES.
• Focus on things that don’t change. When developing things, think about what things won’t change over the next ten years. Behavior and attributes don’t change. When he was talking about things that don’t change, he was talking about things like “people like to share memories”.
  
• Eliminate abstractions. Work with the real thing and iterate through to the resolution. You can’t know what you are building until you are building it. No documents. No wireframes. Nothing. Start building and get them something that they can “touch” within a week. There is no such thing as an agreement since everyone is speaking a different language. I love the sound of this and am not sure if it is possible for every web project. His point was that no one understands what they are signing off on so documents are almost entirely useless. I am more of the mind that documents themselves are lacking. They are not audience specific. For example;
  

1. The board wants EBITDA estimates
2. The C&V level want EBITDA & ROI estimates
3. Middle management wants cost/time estimates
4. Dev & QA want to know what they are building/testing

I have always said that prototyping is the best way to do things and then use that as a base. The issue that I have with coding from the start is that in my experience, it is very painful to touch/modify existing code; even if you created it. It’s just not something that is easily done. I suspect that the level of coding he was referring to was “coding lite” (aka prototyping that can be built upon).

• Laziness is good. Focus on the small problems that are easy to fix and have an immediate impact. Let your competition solve the big problems and then implement or build on that solution. I i like this and had never thought about it. I gravitate towards the hard problems and may need to rethink this.
• Ignore the details in the beginning. Don’t spend time on details until later in the project as you will surely be changing things many times during the process. Agreed.
• Work less. They have recently gone to a 4 day work week (Fridays off) and people are more refreshed. 37signals also pays for people to pursue their hobbies outside of the office. (They do this instead of just giving them a raise to insure that employees get to do what they want to.) People know they only have 4 days to get things done and tend to focus on getting things done. The level of creativity has also increased because of the external stimulus. If you check email on Sunday night at 8pm, why don’t you go see a movie Monday afternoon? I agree with this as well. I’m better when I’m relaxed.
• When hiring, look for curious people. Passionate people create amazing things and curiosity is a big part of that. Agreed.
• Say “No” before “Yes” to customers. A “No thank you” is probably better. Address the silent minority going forward and ignore the vocal minority. Wait until you have heard the same request from many different sources before making changes. Keeping it simple and on-demand.
• Meetings are toxic. They are costly interruptions and for the most part cover things that could be covered in email, IM or text messages. Agreed if the focus is purely productivity. If the focus is team building then a meeting may be the best way. Actually, a day out with the peers would be the best way.
  
• Avoid using the words; need, can’t and easy. These words have a negative impact in the following ways. When someone says need, the implication is that the entire project will fail if this need is not met. When it is discovered that the need is in fact a nice to have; it dilutes the power and importance of true needs. When someone says can’t the discussion is over. That discussion may be a very important part of the success of the project. When someone says easy it demeans other people’s work. Usually this is said by someone who has no idea of what it takes to perform that task. I agree with all of this and would go on to say that semantics is one of the most important yet underrated things in business. It can either bring about clarity or facilitate complete chaos.
• Transparency is important. Tell the truth and when you make mistake, admit it quickly and move on. I have posted about this before.
• Atomic problems & tiny decisions. Divide up a problem into its constituent parts and then tackle those. This is great for morale and makes issues more manageable. Agreed.
• Less is a competitive edge. It makes you focus on what you can do instead of trying to do everything. Less tech. Less skills. Solve a real problem and then extract what you can from it. Agreed.

It was a great event and there was much food for thought. 37signals also has a book out. You can get it here in a number of formats.

To sum up the Jason’s message from yesterday; Keep it simple and build it now.

I read yet another article in the Wall Street Journal this past week about cable customers up in arms about their online behavior being tracked even though they would remain technically anonymous. Not sure what the big deal is if they can remain truly anonymous. They would essentially see your online shadow, would allow you to turn it on or off and would enable on-demand personalized marketing.

I wish someone would start a company that promised whenever I was online (entertainment, information, communications across standard Internet and mobile Internet), I would only see ads that were relevant to me and where I was. (Browsers are positioned the best for this model.) Of course this is where we are heading. Those people that have not figured out how to turn off advertising in Firefox or have not purchased a DVR yet, still view ads, as intrusive.

This is a paradigm/perception that advertisers/marketers need to help resolve and it won’t be easy. For years we have been annoyed by or at the very least ignored television ads, radio ads and online advertising. The “throw it out there and see what sticks” is dead and the vine is dying as well. I can’t remember what advertising conference it was, but someone at Google was asked (in a room full of advertisers) what he thought was going happen to all them as we move towards a CPA ad model. The persons reply was that there would be a lot less us in the room.

In my opinion, those businesses (advertisers/marketers) that bridge the gap early and partner with the customers to enable offers to be delivered to them, will be ahead of the game. Permissions based marketing is nothing new and yet I’m hoping for more of a collaborative relationship. Businesses should explain how advertising works, works for them and how the success of those campaigns impacts the employees that work for that company. Put faces on that company. This type of empathy and transparency could help build deeper relationships with customers. If this is in place (and the customer cares) then the business will need to educate the customer and then let them make the decision. Good partners always collaborate and teach each other what they know and impart what is important to them. What the customer gets from this relationship should be the promise that the ad will be as taylored as possible to their tastes. Also, if a customer receives an ad that is not a “match” then they should tell the business to help insure an increase in quality. Again, the idea is to create a partnership that helps make a advertising a better relationship.

I have been a fan of Apple for a very long time. The first personal computer my mother owned was a Mac Plus and I became intimately familiar with the cult of Apple and later purchased a 9400 dual monitor set up. I have watched over the years as the company has reinvented itself to incorporate personal electronics and extend the concept of computing to many items. Steve Jobs is a Genius.

Apples products are simply the easiest to use and therefore provide one of the best user experiences. They are elegant very pleasing to the eye. The navigation tool on the iPod is an amazing piece of ergonomic engineering and I love my Nano.

With all this gushing you’re asking yourself; Did I misread the title of this post?

The one thing that Apple and other mobile device makers have never been able to master is the tactile element for their devices. To put is simply; holding an iPhone more than any other phone is like holding a wet bar of soap. (I secretly suspect this to be something they do on purpose to encourage you to purchase as many units as you can drop.) All mobile devices are insufficient when it comes to providing texture to allow the user to secure the device in your hands.

Another miss for the iPhone, is the lack of a slideout QWERTY keyboard. So for those of us that don’t want to look directly at the slippery bar of soap as we type out our cryptic messages are at a loss. It simply is great to look at but painful to use.

I wish Apple would employ smart surfaces into their designs. These surfaces “sense” touch and can change their properties based on touch. So, if the iPhone is sitting on the table it can look like a piece of modern design; sleek and shiny and when a user picked it up the back could take on textural characteristics that improved your ability to grip it. If any business was going to utilize this technology it would be Apple.

I would also like to see them take this one step further and have an on-demand QWERTY keyboard on the face of the device. When enabled, the keyboard, would rise up from the face with backlit letters to enable users to easily type. Something like this called Haptikos has been created by Nokia.

I think if you combined these two technologies (one for gripping the device) and the other for interacting with device you would have something remarkable. As for me . . . I’m going to check out a phone with Haptikos!

I was forwarded the video at the bottom of this post this past week. Some of you may have already seen it and I was impressed at how it illuminated the fact that we are building and refining the online world. Some examples of sites/functionality that embody this are:

1. Sites like Digg or Reddit with its user generated content/voting enables a democratic way of highlighting articles that users believe have value.
2. Google’s image labeler partners users real time to label images.
3. Mahalo is a user generated search engine that allows users to add URLs and information.

I’m excited to see how the mobile Internet is going to create a user generated knowledge base the same way the sites/functions listed above have. With user generated videos popping up on Google Earth and businesses like whrrl & Loopt helping users pinpoint items of interest geographically to share with their friends; location based information/services are going to be compelling. flickr already allows you to place images and movies on a map to share with others the location those items were created in. So what will the end result look like for us? In my opinion we need to tie all of this together. For example, if we took;

1. Our “likes” from del.icio.us
2. Our social graph created by social networks
3. The sum or our experiences on YouTube & flickr, etc
4. Our daily experiences via Twitter and FriendFeed
5. Our daily movements mapped on Google Maps or better yet Google Earth. (The beginnings of this already exists on Twitter Vision.)

These would be the building blocks of our online persona. This identity would be very specific as to who we are without identifying detailed information about us. Now for those of you paying attention, you’re thinking “my social graph” (even more so with the data portability) identifies me. And it does. I’m recommending yet another vessel to act as a personal aggregator. This vessel would not have detailed social networking information. It is essentially your aggregator/shadow. Your own personal Kayak. This would mean that the online persona could receive offers for products/services based on our shadows location and how high the “offer volume” is set. Until then we will have to deal with our shadow strewn across the Internet. The good news is that we are the architects and the engine and making this happen as we speak.