Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

January 23 2015

6681 2586 500

"Put another way, in 2014 iOS app developers earned more than Hollywood did from box office in the US."

January 15 2015

9261 cd77

Why I like Soylent (and

Chris Dixon absolutely nails it in this post, and not just talking about Soylent but also about the idea of products by/for online communities. 

Soylent is a community of people who are enthusiastic about using science to improve food and nutrition. The company makes money selling one version of that improved food (some users buy “official Soylent,” others buy ingredients to make their own DIY Soylent recipe). If you look at Soylent as just a food company, you misjudge the core of the company, the same way you would if you looked at GoPro as just a camera company.

It’s not just that investors don’t understand or appreciate the power of online communities, most marketers and companies don’t really understand how communities form, what unites them, how they communicate or recognise when and how opinion shifts.

Many investors decided not to invest in GoPro because they saw it as a camera company, and camera companies generally get quickly commoditized. However, investors who properly understood GoPro saw it primarily as a highly engaged community of sports enthusiasts, something that is very hard for competitors to replicate.

It reminds me exactly of why I love and all the time and effort that’s been put into distinguishing fact from fiction, collating all the research and RCTs and especially results in humans and their significance. and Soylent (and places like Reddit nutrition) might be talking to a very small group of people who absolutely love nerding over what goes into their bodies, but that’s the beauty of online companies (who also do their marketing and advertising online) over traditional ones - their narrow interests and being helped with a product or service that will make them disproportionately happy:

Traditional food companies are primarily marketing and distribution companies. They blanket the earth with advertising and fight to distribute their products as widely as possible (while blocking the distribution of competing products). 

As far as advertising goes at least, most companies and their ‘mission statements’ are at best bland and at worst absolute bullshit used to fill up space. However, at Poke we simply believe in making things better & making better things. 

Traditional companies and marketing come from a world where you made whatever it is you were good at and used your budget to push out that message. Lovers of Sun Tzu style strategy and the last 20 years of business school thinking seem to be under the impression that modern marketing is about always being cleverer than the competition (or driving them out of business), which just ends up being detrimental to the people you’re supposed to be serving. There’s been no room to ‘make better things’ from scratch. 

What investors can probably get onboard with is that it’s a cut-throat world out there and that results and profits are the things that ultimately matter to them - but it’s a much harder job these days to get through them through sheer brute force. 

January 06 2015

Welcome to the future of advertising, where digital is redundant

Man speaketh the truth, but then agencies will be the last place to organise themselves around ‘user needs’:

"There is not a more meaningless divide and obsession than the notion of digital media. Media channels were once clearly distinguished and named from the physical devices that we used to consume them. Radio ads played on radios and were audio, TV ads played on TV’s and were moving images, newspaper ads were images in the paper while outdoor ads were the images around us. In 2014 the naming legacy is both misleading and of no value. I listen to the radio on my phone, read the newspapers on a laptop, watch YouTube on my TV and read magazines on my iPad. Our old media channels mean nothing yet their names survive and mislead us into artificially limited thinking. We focus endlessly on battles of no meaning like on whether digital is eating TV, rather than unleashing our minds on the new possibilities and how best to buy media and supply messages in the digital age.

We’ve arranged our agency environment around a false divide and two oddly different tribes. In the same way modern consumers don’t go online, they just exist in a world with the internet everywhere, they don’t watch digital or non-digital media either. Whether a TV show is watched on a phone, laptop or TV, and if it’s over the airwaves or over the internet is of huge significance to the agency world, as we’re arranged entirely around the pipes, yet it matters not one iota to the viewer. We’ve spent our time arranging ourselves around silos to create for, supply and buy pipes which increasingly have no meaning.”

Today in tabs I need to close:

January 05 2015

7259 1c0e 500

The most simplified tone of voice guidelines around. Doh. 

January 04 2015

BuzzFeed’s Jonah Peretti Goes Long

The lost art of writing so that everyone understands, especially if you want to have an audience in the future:

"When you think about the media industry, it’s also, “How do you reach people and how do you get people to understand?” If you write something and nobody understands it, it’s easy to be, like, “Oh those are all the dumb people.” Sometimes writing something that’s very sophisticated and difficult and technical for a particular audience is totally fine, but you should be able to communicate in simple language."

January 03 2015

The difference between a startup and an established company

Branding woes: what problems do Fitbit, Jawbone and other activity trackers solve and who are they for?

At work were recently invited to pitch to a wearable device manufacturer with a camera and recording functionality (which shall not be named) and struggled with the question of selling point for a while: from a legal and consumer perspective, what is the proposition (i.e. promise)? Or in even simpler terms, what are you helping people with?

That’s one of the fundamental questions of branding, marketing and communications. What a device does is not necessarily the thing you want to or can advertise to people for a multitude of reasons.

There’s a long and interesting investigation into wearable activity trackers by BuzzFeed:

Fitbit told me that third-party tests have confirmed that its trackers are the “most consistently accurate activity trackers on the market”; Jawbone says the UP is intended to function as “an overall lifestyle tracker” with a goal to “really understand your baseline, and discover things you might not have known, so you can start to make decisions.”) 

Fitbits and Jawbones sell well, but “decay levels,” to use Gandhi’s words, are high, and customer satisfaction, even gleaned from Amazon review pages, is relatively low: The Fitbit Flex and Jawbone UP24 are currently rated 3.5 out of 5 stars on Amazon.

The reason these devices don’t routinely score raves is because they lack a clear promise that they can in turn fulfil. “When you look at the marketing for these step counters, it’s very broad and aspirational,” Gandhi explained. “If you go and read the five-star reviews of Fitbit, they’re largely about losing weight, but if you read their public marketing, Fitbit still has this aspiration of being more of a health and wellness brand than weight loss.”

You will never find a review for Jawbone or Fitbit that says ‘works as advertised’ because no one knows what they’re advertising.”

There are many things happening in the wearable space that are interesting from a communications or marketing perspective. Peter F. Drucker said in 1955, ‘the purpose of a business is to create and keep a customer.’ A lot have been created as far as we can tell, but what for and whether they’ll be staying is a different problem.

If no one knows what you’re advertising but they bought the product anyway, it leads to a lot of possibilities, to name a few:

  • The people who aren’t the audience you intended are now using your thing (for its original, intended purpose). It’s great that they found it without being advertised to directly, but raises all sorts of interesting questions for your business model and whom you should decide to focus on next; who are they, how did they find you and are they the people you want in the future? Are they even likely to stay with you? Sometimes this is deliberate (also known as an influencer strategy, whereby the person it’s intended for is not the person advertised to - e.g. advertising Old Spice to women to get the men in their lives to use it) but when it’s not there are some juicy research questions to be answered.
  • The people who are the intended audience are using it, but not for what you want (or designed it for or thought they needed); if you’re not speaking to them right now to figure out what they’reusing it for, you’d better hurry up. This should help inform, not guide, future actions and communications. If people have discovered a way of using the thing that you don’t condone, it can give a way in to others just like them: they’ve got a use case that is extremely personal and relevant, there are more like them out there, and even better, that’s the key: to make a small audience or market disproportionately happy with your service.
  • Another one is that the audience you intended it for is using it for the right reasons, but probably not as often as you’d like them to. There’s a bit of the first case scenario in here as well: the judgement may have been wrong from the outset and it turns out they’re not the heaviest users. Alternatively they could be heavier users but they just haven’t figured out how. If the ‘thing’ is being used out of the box with not much guidance, setup or on-boarding then people are missing out on features they don’t know they have; you might be getting ‘meh’ reviews or not generating a lot of enthusiasm. The good news is there’s a lot that can be fixed here (especially through relevant messaging). 

In superficial terms for the sake of argument, the Fitbit promises 'the most accurate tracking', which could suggest it’s aimed at people already into the idea of tracking, solving a problem of inaccurate tracking from other devices, e.g. hard to understand metrics (Nike Fuelband) or imperfect technology (mobile apps reliant on having a phone on you). It can help ‘make fitness fun’ (looping into an existing habit but suggesting it’s for people who are not fitness inclined) or let you ‘take charge and energise your day’ (addressing some of the symptoms but not the source itself).

In just as superficial terms, the Jawbone promises to ‘show you things you didn’t know’ about yourself, which suggests it’s aimed at the kind of people who might be making health and lifestyle commitments (e.g. losing weight, exercising more, being in better health - see How fast you’ll abandon your New Year’s Resolutions on FiveThirtyEight). A sizeable audience, but with goals and paths to those goals so different your work has only just begun the moment you landed that customer.

This brings you to the second key question: what sort of people are you for?

In discussing the characteristics of monopolies, Peter Thiel noted that companies with large cash flows far into the future usually share some combination of the following characteristics: proprietary technology, network effects, economies of scale, and branding.” 

Branding (also in superficial terms) happens when the answer to the previous two questions is clear in everybody’s minds.  Do mainstream wearable devices have branding? I seriously question that at the moment. Skinny Bitch Collective and Barry’s Bootcamp have branding that the gym round the corner from you doesn’t have (you know where you stand with them). Wearable devices don’t yet - Beats has more branding in the world of headphones and laptops than all wearable devices put together. 

January 02 2015

Tom Peters and the 21st Century Organisation

On women in management and the (ongoing) importance of face-to-face meetings and hierarchies

"Put more women in management. They know how to do a work-around. Men don’t know how to do work-arounds, because the only thing we understand is hierarchy. That’s an exaggeration, of course, but then again the neuroscientists tell us it’s not that big an exaggeration. The male response is, “I can’t do anything about it ’cause my boss is really against it.” And the female response, by and large, would be, “Well, I know Jane who knows Bob who knows Dick, and we can get this thing done.” They do it circuitously."

From here.

December 31 2014

December 19 2014

During the interview Called by the Universe: A conversation with Neil deGrasse Tyson in 2009, Tyson said: I can’t agree to the claims by atheists that I’m one of that community. I don’t have the time, energy, interest of conducting myself that way… I’m not trying to convert people. I don’t care.
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
7294 50bf



But…but I thought all Muslims were supposed to be barbaric sexists from the Stone Age.

Oh wait.

Love it.

December 10 2014

December 03 2014

4433 a5e5 500

Here’s how I played in 2014.

November 20 2014

A strategy is a cohesive response to an important challenge. It is a set of coherent actions, not to be confused with details of the actual implantation of that strategy (that would be ‘goal setting’). A strategy tells everyone "this is how our organisation is going to move forward".

November 17 2014

4467 3eab 500

What voting looked like this weekend.

"More than 300,000 votes cast by Romanians living abroad, were decisively in Mr Iohannis’ favour when the official count was completed on Monday morning. The government had been criticised for long delays in voting at its foreign embassies in a first-round run-off vote on November 2. In that poll 160,000 Romanians voted abroad, with a strong majority breaking for opposition candidates.”

Iohannis wins Romanian election

November 12 2014

8785 c086 500

12.11.2014 Rosetta

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.