andydidyk.com

Advertisers can get such a bad rap in the name of trying to better the world, can’t we? A recent CNN article details some innovative (and presumably cost-effective) new ad placement technologies that Microsoft is developing for online applications. Of course, because it has to do with advertising and with Microsoft, all new technology must be “scary”.

What they are talking about actually sounded really cool to me. Check out this excerpt regarding the new role of advertising in streaming video going forward:

Microsoft — along with Google Inc. and other competitors — is also hard at work on new ways for companies to advertise their brands to Web surfers watching video clips.

One crunched a clip, looking for the most appropriate stretch of time and spot on the screen for an advertiser’s “bug,” or logo. For example, if a car company wanted to show its logo for 10 seconds in the bottom-right-hand corner of the screen, the computer program would find the 10 seconds in which the logo interferes least with the action in the video.

Another used speech recognition to make a transcript of a video, then served up ads — in the demonstration, they were text links — alongside the video. As the topics discussed on screen changed, so did the ads.

The third program scanned a video for surfaces where ads or product images could be inserted later. The demo showed how the same frames could display a Coke ad one moment and a Pepsi ad the next, without having to reshoot the video.

This isn’t scary to me…it’s exciting for a couple of reasons.  First, inserting bugs or other visual content into videos is already highly annoying, so any technology that reduces how obtrusive those elements are is great with me.  Second, we’re all looking for ads to be more relevant to us - both advertisers and consumers.  Most people are at best disinterested in an ad that is irrelevant to them, at worst they are downright offended.  I remember watching an episode of “Dirty Jobs” online at Discovery.com, and every single online ad was for a “regenerating facemask”cream that I had absolutely no use for (this did, however, confirm for me that there must be a lot of middle-aged women watching Dirty Jobs, or there was a totally inept media buyer for the facemask company.).

How much better would your media consumption experience be if it were personalized to you?  Every other aspect of consumerism is heading this direction, and with good reason, because we’re all unique as people.  Ads finally catching up with this isn’t “scary smart” to me, it’s refreshing.

A recent study completed by the Social Science Research Network confirms another quirk of human behavior that is sure to get marketers’ attention. Evidently, if something is priced with an exact dollar amount (e.g., $1174 vs $1100), people are much less likely to debate the price. Indeed, the study found that if the price were “precise”, retailers and sellers could raise the price and people would be more likely to pay it without debating than if a round number were selected instead. People will actually pay more and ask fewer questions if the price isn’t a round number!

This, however, is my favorite part of the study (which, by the way, could benefit greatly from a table of contents and a better layout…ahh..science):

“These results have important substantive implications for buyers and sellers (and their agents). Buyers (and their agents) should be more cautious in their price magnitude judgments in light of our results. Sellers (and their agents) can strategically “precise up” their prices, i.e. choose a higher precise price rather than a lower round price.”

Behold the power of the information age. This is one case where knowing more will really pay off. I know that I certainly won’t look at a price of $150 the same way again.

High-five to these guys for bringing the study to my attention. Thanks!

In the world of marketing, you can score a double-play whenever you can create a promotion that is so noteworthy that more attention is drawn to your methods of promoting than to the promotion itself. A few months ago, the alternative music group (an overly simplistic label on my part) Radiohead released its first major album after parting with its record label. The album is available for download for whatever price its listeners are willing to pay, which was and is an amazing concept for artists and marketers everywhere. Check it out…it’s an interesting site and a great listen.

Of course, this model is only truly economically viable if you are fairly confident that you already have a strong, loyal audience that will carry the majority of the financial burden.

Steve Thorson, one of my friends and a co-worker from a previous life, is a designer for Paste Magazine’s website, and he let me know that Paste is using the same model to sell a year-long magazine subscription - you pay whatever you feel the magazine is worth to you. 11 issues, plus 11 full-length CD’s full of the latest and greatest music for progressive tastes. What’s great about this promotion, is that it’s also a gauge of the loyalty of its current subscribers, as Paste is allowing renewal subscribers to get the same deal. As an added incentive, Paste is highlighting those who pay more than the $19.95 for a standard subscription rate (although Steve tells me this experiment has yielded an unexpectedly high number of subscriptions at $19.96 by those who just want to be featured in the magazine).

This is a great deal for consumer, and a great deal for Paste, as they can expand their subscriber base to uber-frugal people like me that wouldn’t normally pony up the 20 bucks for a magazine about music (yes, guilty, I paid a dollar, but I know that Paste will make it up in ad revenues). Asking people to pay what they want is the next best thing to giving it away for free, and it offers the added benefit of giving you, the marketer, a very real picture of what your value is to your customers.

>>UPDATE: Steve just let me know that the slew of subscribers at $19.96 was inaccurate (and third-hand) information.  So far, only one person has done that.   On the upside of things, he said the highest price someone has paid so far is $70.  So now, I can officially feel less guilty about only spending a dollar.

Have you ever had the experience of working on a project or presentation, and you can’t really get any momentum until you get a draft of the document done first and can “shoot holes in it”? For me, this book has summed up what I’ve always felt but haven’t been able to express succinctly: “form follows failure”.

I’m about 3/4 through this interesting book, which as a history junkie, I initially picked up to satisfy my need to read something fairly dry before heading to bed. What I discovered is a rather entertaining essay on the evolution and science of design. Henry Petroski uses case studies on how common objects (the paper clip, zipper, fork, masking tape, etc.) have been developed over time as a background for his overall thesis, which is that form does not follow function, but rather failure.

What he means by this that rather than necessity being the “mother of invention,” failure of a product or service to perform in some way is what drives an innovator to develop a solution. In short, being annoyed with stuff that doesn’t work is what motivates us to create something new that fulfills our personal or collective expectations.

What’s exciting to me about this argument, although penned by Petroski in 1994, is that it absolutely supports the “always in beta” development model that is the current standard for progressive web sites and applications (such as Gmail, iStockphoto, etc.). You throw something out there, listen to people complain about what doesn’t work, and then you innovate, and repeat the cycle ad infinitum. What is fantastic about the internet age is that this cyclical development process can occur in real-time, and the benefits to clients and users are conveyed at the same lightning speed.

I can’t mention this topic without paying homage to David Armano and Critical Mass for their inspirational “always in beta” website and experience at the 2007 Forrester Consumer Forum (I had the privilege of being interviewed live by David at the event). The website is now evolving (who would have thought?) beyond it’s original intent of a “new idea” at the Forum into a real-time communications portal for Critical Mass.

To tie this all together, offline projects, and really all design challenges that an agency tackles, are subject to the rule of “form follows failure”. At an agency, we listen, we create, our internal reviews and client feedback tell us what’s wrong with our creation, and we continue to hone and refine until the final design accomplishes all that it can.  I guess adding “routinely and adeptly fails on all initiatives” is a great line to my resume after all.

After a semi-long absence, I’ve decided to go a little Seth Godin on you and post a picture from my camera phone.

Sure, as a photographer this image makes me cringe, but my trusty Treo was all I had on hand. While on a client pitch in NYC earlier this week, I spent a few minutes in a lobby with a DHL drop-off box. I was inspired by the simplicity of the answer for a very important question that anyone about to drop a package in the box may have, “Have they picked up packages here yet, or not?”.

The large, block letters in all caps that indicate if a package has been picked up or not are not sexy, or even all that interesting, but they are 100% functional. I think that can be a hallmark of great design. DHL could have gone with a really slick system of lighted buttons, color-coded tabs, or whatever, but instead they chose the direct route. If I can walk up to the drop-off and see immediately that the packages for the day are “NOT PICKED UP”, I can drop my package with confidence and not have a second thought, which I would bet is exactly what the drop-off box designers were going for. Bravo DHL.

My life has finally slowed down enough to be able to write again and, perhaps more important to my long term health, to be able to exercise regularly. The modest route that I run through the hills of East TN takes me the long way around the biggest public high school in our area.

An interesting thing that happens when you run a route regularly at 6:30 in the morning; you tend to notice the rhythm of everyone around you. Since most people work jobs or attend classes that have fairly consistent schedules, you tend to see the same people doing the same things. You see the same people driving the same cars, including the guy that really needs to have his exhaust system serviced. You get to know who will have their lights on, who will still be asleep, and who will have already left. You also get to know the personalities and quirks of those around you that are out doing the same thing. Some will smile and greet you enthusiastically, some will be guarded and stare at the ground, while others will be somewhere in between. Even though you only get a few seconds in their presence, you can learn a lot from them.

I find that I rarely make time for that level of immersion with my clients, or better still, with my client’s clients that I market to on their behalf. Like most agency folk that have been in the business for a number of years, I’m well versed in marketing best practices and I feel as if I do a good job of understanding my clients. But I wonder about how much more effective I could be if I were to take a walk through my client’s customer’s environment, be that a manufacturing facility, home office, or boardroom. With a few consistent visits, I’m sure that I could pick up some very, very valuable information.

It’s good to be back!

I’m a regular reader of Time magazine and of Time.com (especially their super-friendly mobile edition). Naturally, I was quite interested to see that they had put out an article that highlights the top 50 websites and top 5 “Worst websites” on the internet today. Their criteria is much different than the design community would use, so I anticipated some head-scratching while I read the article.

However, I was totally shocked to see that the number 1 “site to avoid” (also the number 1 worst site on the web) was eHarmony.com. From a design and functionality standpoint, eHarmony isn’t anything to write home about, and it’s probably not going to be at the top of the buzz lists for Web 2.0 applications. It is, however, a solidly designed and functioning site. According to Time magazine, the reason that everyone should avoid eHarmony is:

“Our main beef with this online dating site is its power to cause utter despair. eHarmony claims its more “scientific” approach to matchmaking differentiates it from competitors — its users complete extensive personality questionnaires, in order to connect them to others based on compatibility. In early 2006, eHarmony announced that more than 16,000 couples had married during the previous year as a result of meeting on the site, citing a 2005 Harris Interactive poll. That’s about 90 people finding love every day, a track record bound to inflate expectations. On a more typical dating site, where users are prone to making snap judgments based on photos and sketchy profiles, if you don’t find that special someone you’re less likely to take it personally. It’s easier to shake off because, after all, that’s hardly the real you up there on that site. But if you’ve taken the time to answer eHarmony’s 436 compatibility survey questions and paid its premium charges ($21 to $60 a month, depending on how many months you prepay), and the site then delivers terrible recommendations — or worse, rejects you as unmatchable — what do you tell yourself then? The company’s advice, to stick with it for several months to improve your odds of finding a soul mate, sounds all too self-serving (the longer you use the site the more you pay). The site also discriminates against gays.”

If you read the “discriminates against gays” article, you’ll see the real backbone of Time’s issue with eHarmony and how utterly absurd of an argument it is. The author even acknowledges at the end of his rant that’s it’s perfectly within eHarmoy’s rights as an independent company to choose not to provide services for men seeking men or for women seeking women. The author is gay himself, and he does a thorough job of pointing out that there are many sites that provide dating services for gays only that do not include services for straight people.

Time, normally a trusted source of objective news about what’s going on around the world, has really let their readership down by choosing to publish this article. To be clear - I’d just as quickly blast Time if they were saying that a site for gays was discriminating against straight people by now providing services for them. It’s not like eHarmony is a public institution, or holding back vital services from a particular community…it’s a dating service! People generally want something that is tailored to their particular tastes when it comes to a dating service. It’s no secret that eHarmony is a more conservative site for people who are trying to find that special someone. But so what? Imagine a dating service that did nothing to be selective - how would that do anything to increase the odds of like-minded people getting together?

Rather reviewing eHarmony using objective criteria (or even subjective criteria that is somewhat rational and consistent), some disgruntled writer at Time who evidently has had some bad luck in the dating arena has chosen to take out their personal frustrations on eHarmony.com. The review has nothing to do with site functionality, its impact on the online movement, or anything else. I’m very interested to see if there is any public backlash, as well as how eHarmony will respond.

Thanks for braving my rant!

Let’s be honest, companies of every size struggle with managing people well. The groundbreaking book, “First Break All the Rules” surveyed 80,000 people to come to the same conclusion that most everyone knows already - one of the top reasons people leave a company is because of poor management.

Of course, in a capitalistic society no opportunity can be left unexploited. CNN Money just posted a very interesting article on an upcoming trend: employee management software. Now, I’m the first one to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to management software that takes every bit of data possible to give you a clear picture of business. SAP and SalesForce for example, and I love any project management software that does the same thing (Microsoft Project, Creative Manager Pro, etc.).

But what companies such as SuccessFactors are doing is creating software that provides the same services for the often murky and subjective realm of employee performance. The software is designed to let managers rate employees on a multitude of skills, attitudes, and the like, as well as to document specific instances of achievement and/or failure. The goal is twofold - first, to objectively evaluate an employee’s performance to determine what “value” they bring to the company, and second, to provide the employee with a real time picture of the company’s vision and goals for them.

It’s pretty difficult for me not to greet the arrival of this software with a bit of cynicism. If a manager isn’t effective enough to tell an employee how they are doing, it’s hard for me to believe that the arrival of new software could transform them into Super Manager. I know that the numbers are very hard to argue with, and that there are plenty of companies using the software “successfully”. However, I don’t know how I’d personally feel about working under such a system. Would I be motivated by why the company had in store for me on my 2-year plan, or would I despair when I saw that I was number #367 on a list of 1000 for a promotion?

I’m sure managers are trained on how to give the right data at the right time, and I know that proven metrics are the future of ALL business, not just advertising (who will be considerably affected by that shift over the next 10 years). But I’m not sure if I’m ready just yet to have my worth to the company generated by a composite score.

What are your thoughts on this? I’d love to get some different perspectives.

I always like to experience visual ways of displaying complex data when the visual displays simplify and inform. The “Death and Taxes 2008” poster is a great example of this. Would I ever take the time to try and sift through the 2008 federal budget? Heck no. But would I spend 20 minutes browsing through this interactive piece? Absolutely.  Regardless of what your position on the issues may be, this provides an at-a-glance view of where budgetary changes could be occurring (it was easy to spot things like new submarines being favored instead of housing for the elderly, for example).

This is more breakthrough that it may appear on the surface…what if government textbooks were replaced with interactive learning modules in high schools across the country?  How much could retention rates improve?

If you click on the link, you’ll be redirected to the site where you can zoom in, zoom out, etc.