HeaderImage

The creative business problem

What is the creative industry selling? Ideas… The time when ideas had currency is long gone.

The question is if this is an issue of profound gravity, or if it is a packaging problem? I would suggest it is the latter, and more precisely it’s a business problem.

The arguments:

    1. Lack of creative thinking

    In his talk at 99% (found at the bottom of this post), Yves Béhar suggests that business models in the creative industry are so unimaginative and simple that a sixteen-year-old intern could run any business. The problem is the way we sell our ideas; by treating creative people as consultants – as an expense, not an asset – to the brand that hires them. This leads to, as Béhar explains, companies wanting to get rid of the hired hands as quickly as possible. Which again makes it impossible to deliver on the most important thing when it comes to creativity and innovation: 99% persistence. The time, effort and stamina of proper creative handcraft are not applied to the product, and it comes out as a mass manufactured cliché. (This last bit is my own words, not Béhar).

    2. There is no stickiness in the current relationship between an agency and a client.

    Ask yourself this: How can a brand switch agencies every two or three years without it having any consequence on the effect of their marketing or communication? Is it because we are so damned good at following or leaving behind a strategic roadmap, or is it because the creative product only runs skin deep?

    Has the creative product become a commodity?

    The way we are packaging and selling creativity today is creating too few reasons, other than personal chemistry and exceptional individuals, for clients to acquire and stick with us as partners.

    3. Is creativity more or less valuable today than yesterday?

    Measured in the hourly fee I’m under the impression that a creative consultant today is worth far less than only 15 years ago. This is because while the value of everything else has gone up, the cost for one hour of consultancy is about the same. This stagnation, or decrease in value, is not mirrored in other industries, and is a very good indication that we need new, better, more effective and important products than the ones we are peddling at the moment. (It doesn’t matter if people are the same today than 50 years ago, corporations and media clearly aren’t and the creative industry is at an impasse when it comes to reflecting this.)

      A local / Norwegian example: Four years ago the IT industry averaged around 75-80% of what could be charged hourly for a creative consultant, today this ratio is 120-125%. A red flag if there ever was one.

The creative industry is so hung up on their deliverable: the creative product, that they are not seeing that it needs to be packaged differently today than 50 years ago if it is to remain an interesting product for brands to keep investing in.

Where should we start to look for solutions?

This is not black magic, we’re probably already half way there by admitting that this is a problem and being flexible enough to see that the way things are done today might not be the best solution forward.

And figuring out that the solutions are not more creativity on new hyped up networks or apps. It is rethinking the content and packaging of the core product – what are we helping companies achieve?

Two simple suggestions:

    1. Explore long-term strategic partnerships with clients. Brands are asking for positioning – a living, breathing, transforming strategy – not a static one-off, ad-hoc solution to a brand or marketing investment. If the creative output is only skin deep, than this is not the right tool for helping with the clients strategic challenges. Positioning is broader and deeper than what could be bought and flogged on a surface or through a channel (or presented as a final product in a ten page powerpoint), it’s a cultural concept, it is a journey for the brand to undertake that includes innovation, learning and adaption. Most brands understand and implement on this. Most agencies only deliver to parts of this.

    2. We must explore collaborative business projects with our client. Investing a split share in the product and a split share of the revenue.

    We need to build stronger ties with the strategic direction of the company or product and we need to find a position where our investments are not viewed as an expense, but as an investment in future capitalization.

This is not a new problem or new solutions. It is stepping outside the bubble and looking at what is happening without blinders.

And ask this question: Has the creative product become a commodity?

- Yves Béhar at the 99% conference on the creative business model (starts at 16 minutes).

The cliché

Due to its narrow formats, traditional advertising relies heavily on the cliché for impact. But online, only tactical advertising makes good use of standardization and formats; they are tactical tools not creative ones.

In 2008 Tom Himpe published the book Advertising Next, on the new age of communication, in it he writes about traditional advertising:

    “Advertising hunger for impact explains the heavy usage of clichés and jokes throughout its history. The reason is simple: Clichés allow immediate recognition and require little exposition; jokes are short and can get a point across very effectively. It is rare for advertisers to construct deeper, more meaningful stories, as time is simply not on their side” – Tom Himpe, Advertising Next

Now, if we put aside the small portion of advertising made each year that makes a difference, and look at the volume of advertising being produced, I suggest that most advertising is based around a handful of clichés. This is also argued in an Italian study, which found that most creative advertising were based on the same patterns.

As Himpe suggests, this doesn’t mean that advertising necessarily is unoriginal, it has to be viewed in its context. But it means that most advertising is forced into formats not suited for conveying an idea and by that ends up following a standard set of guides and rules for getting as much as possible out of as little as possible.

And this works for the old formats.

But does it work for digital – where there are no formats? (Where there is no need to limit the communication to formats that is..)

The limitations concerning digital are completely different from the ones affecting traditional advertising. We are set to find, build, design and distribute our communication in any way we seem fit. Any way that is best suited to convey the idea and the company/organization behind it. Digital is asking for as much creativity to be put into the distribution of the communication as the idea itself.

The cliché, which is almost a necessity with traditional formats, has come to mean the opposite online. Where the technology and the distribution is as much a part of the idea as the story is. Chopping of so much of the creative work by limiting the thinking to within the boundaries of a cliché only makes for a much simpler creative process, but seldom a good creative product.

The bottom line is: clichés are shortcuts found to do a good job in some circumstances, but it is important to know that they can be obstructing the creative process as much as helping it.

The information layer / the fifth dimension

In 1872 former Governor of California Leland Stanford commissioned Eadweard Muybridge to settle a popularly debated question: Are all four of a horse’s hooves off the ground at the same time during the trot? (wikipedia.org)

To settle this question Muybridge, a photographer, went on to record the trot by capturing its entire sequence using multiple cameras set of by wires strung up across the horses track. Setting of each new camera as it went along.

This produced a series of images permanently capturing each phase of the horses trot enabling viewers to clearly conclude that at one point all for legs where off the ground.

What Muybridge was able to do through his invention and use of photography was access a layer of information that had always been there – but had been inaccessible. Muybridge used technology to capture this information and make it accessible and usable and thereby offering additional value – or service.

140 years ago this simple, but genius, idea was used to settle a rather straightforward question. Today, this same kind of thinking, catapulted through the use of highly advanced, diverse and sophisticated digital sensory and recording technology. Enable us to access not only one question at a time, but a whole new world of information.

Now forget digital as just media, forget the World Wide Web. If we are to see some of the really new an interesting things technology is offering us today, and the reason why we are only at the beginning of something bigger, we need to start seeing modern technology through the lens of Muybridge’s photography.

Today we have reality, meat-world or in real life, all terms referencing the physical and touchable world. What digital is offering is not an alternate reality. What we are experiencing is access to information that is produced by the real world but which has been inaccessible to us because lack of technology or inventiveness in finding, recording and using it.

    In his book Designing interactions Bill Moggridge references time as the fourth dimension – in addition to the three spatial once. The information layer might represent the fifth dimension.

    This is also close to what Kevin Slavin talks about in his presentation: This platform called everyday life from 2007, where he says (and I am paraphrasing): If you think that the phone is interesting because of what’s happening on the phone you are living in the nineteen nineties. The phone is the thing that connects you to everything else – And I would say this means connecting us to the information layer, the fifth dimension of the world we are living in.

“In an era of Smarter Analytics, it is imperative that businesses leverage the massive quantities of data available to them. In order to remain competitive, data must be transformed into insight and integrated into business” – IBM

When the marketing becomes the product

What happens when marketing becomes a part of, or eclipses, the product? In a world were products and brands become more and more similar, will products end up as commodities, as invitations in to differentiating services and added value offered through the marketing relationship? And how will this affect marketing?

A couple of days ago I was asked by Caleb Kramer (@calebkramer) about the inspiration behind my presentation When the Marketing Becomes the Product, this is an extended version of my response.

First, the presentation, from slideshare.net.

And these thought leaders are the main inspiration behind the presentation.

1. Purple Cow by Seth Godin – on merging conversations with products
http://www.sethgodin.com/purple/

2. Baked In by Bogusky and Winsor – on merging marketing with products
http://is.gd/Qkfu78

3. Russel Davies – on real life
http://russelldavies.typepad.com/

4. Clay Shirky – on culture and habits
http://watch.usnowfilm.com/

5. Rafi Halidjan – on interaction without screens
http://open.sen.se/


Rafi Haladjian "Let ALL things be connected"… by liftconference

6. Jeffrey Cole (USC Annenberg) – on the transformational effect of online
http://www.digitalcenter.org/

7. Jan Chipcase – on anthropology
http://janchipchase.com/

8. Kevin Kelly – on technology
http://kk.org/

9. Kevin Slavin – big inspiration, disrupting the common mindset on digital on an almost daily basis
10. Matt Jones – immaterials and a larger perspective
http://berglondon.com/



1. Timo Arnall – on touch and the physical connection between digital and the real world
http://www.nearfield.org/

12. Tom Himpe – on the future of advertising
http://www.chroniclebooks.com/titles/advertising-next.html

13. Adrian Ho – on the relationship ( or difference ) between services thinking and advertising
http://www.zeusjones.com/



In addition to all these resources, there is also the way I think about the way I think:

    1. I’ve always had an interest in connecting ideas, trying to understand why things that might seem unrelated, at some level is. Reading stuff on the fringes of what we do, and trying to understand this in the context of what we do has brought about several insights.

    2. Ideas in digital, marketing, media, branding etc. is similar to ideas in science: We only know it hasn’t been proven wrong yet. As Steve Jobs put it: the world today is what it is because people no smarter than us said it was so. Knowing we could change that is an immensely powerful idea. I challenge everything because an idea is just a product of someones thinking (not a godly intervention), and today we might be fifty or a hundred years on from when it was originally thought. Which means we should have great respect for the original thinking, but we, in many instances – and especially media and technology, live in completely different times.

Two thousand and fourteen

    The future is already here – it’s just not evenly distributed.
    —William Gibson, quoted in The Economist, December 4, 2003

The question we need to ask ourselves about the future is not if it will be digital, there seems to be a unison agreement that it will – the question is what digital means? There are two scenarios:

    1. In the future things stay the same. Digital is a platform and not more to it. Clients favor digital as a hub for their marketing and branding, but design, identities or advertising doesn’t change. Digital only means that the output will be on additional interactive surfaces of different sizes and for different situations.

    Our knowledge and wisdom as we know it today stays untouched by the new digital stuff. The core principles of our disciplines remain the same. Scoping and designing an identity or unfolding a marketing campaign in 2014 is the same as in 2004.

    Scenario one argues that you can digitize the hell out of anything you want to – but it doesn’t change the fact that design is design and advertising is advertising. Things stay the same and all digital does is ad more touch points.

    2. The second scenario suggests a generational shift to how we think – brought on not by the digital platform, but by the abilities of digital that no longer remain niche, but become mainstream.

      The democratization of media has created thousands of media sources lead on by different channels and curators on youtube.com. TV is no longer linear to the mainstream – there are other ways of having choices made for you than relying solely The Head of Programming at a TV station. Communication is not necessarily about information, but just as much about activities. PR has become a software industry of systems, surveillance and technology, where talking to journalists have become niche replaced by the process of igniting ideas into communities, generating thousands of synchronous conversations. Design and identity has become a tool for product and services innovation rather than figuring out what logo, font or color scheme to apply.

    2012 was a bubble. It was the last year of the first generation, where digital was designed to accommodate the old way of thinking about communication.

    But by the beginning of 2013 this started to change. Business started to see the real impact of digital and implemented changes in everything from how they innovated and designed things, shipped them, retailed and marketed them – to consumers and collaborators. This effected how business is run and the role of marketing in business.

      In 2014 the Facebook timeline seems draconian and people laugh at how dehumanized Twitter was. Visually, content brands have disappeared from handsets, which are designed to create unified experiences from Nokia, Apple and Ericsson.

    In this second scenario, do we still have the same communication disciplines, and how have each discipline changed? If you are in the design industry today – what will you be doing tomorrow?

Of course these two scenarios have been an exercise of the mind. But, which one of them is most likely to be true?

You probably don’t work in advertising (part 2)

Permanence or permanent presence – having a strategy that enables the brand to connect and generate something meaningful 365 days a year (as referenced in part 1), is not an extension of advertising, as Fisk here tries to make, it has got nothing to do with advertising – neither is slightly related.

Peter Fisk on the future of advertising. Loving the lingo, but is he describing the future of advertising or something new, bigger and different – something outside advertising?

Advertising is a set of clearly defined skills inside a very defined box. And all this new stuff is not an addition / expansion of this box, it’s a range of industries trying to figure out a new extension to the universe of communication merged with business.

Trying to put all this new stuff into the advertising box will only limit how we are thinking about all the other stuff. Advertising needs to identify its role, and be damned good at it.

But don’t’ try to put all these other ideas into one specific way of thinking about communication. Because saying that new stuff is related to the old stuff will colour the stuff on the outside of the box to look like what’s inside the box – and it will all take us nowhere.

Technology

Everything human made has at some point been technology. Examples of this are asphalt, waffles, language, pencil, science and the kitchen. Lately we’ve had advances in electronic engineering, which is often what people are thinking about when they use the term technology; the PC, mobile phone, the Internet and analytics.

    A large part of the influence and reference in the first part of this article is based on the book: What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly. Albeit; these are my personal interpretations. If you are interested in understanding more of technology, I recommend reading this book.

Think about that; everything is in effect technology, but at some point we stop referencing it as technology, why is that?

Let’s start with two definitions of technology (source):

    ”Technology is everything that doesn’t work” – Danny Hillis
    ”Technology is anything that was invented after you we’re born.” – Alan Kay

These quotes are wonderful depictions of how something goes from being a technology to becoming something invisible/ubiquitous, a part of our way of life, like the alphabet or a loaf of bread.

So, what happens? What is it that turns technology into everyday things, from something people are trying to understand before use, into something they just use?

As soon as technology becomes a part of our daily routines, habits and ways of expression, as soon as it is no longer a black box, or no longer a barrier between people and what people want. Then technology disappears and becomes regular stuff.

As an example: The faucet; do you think about its mechanics every time you use it? Or email; do you ponder what really happens when you archive an email in a folder on your PC?

What is it that physically happens when technology disappears or changes form into something common? It is usually how it is designed and how it is used.

When technology is born it is usually raw, hard to use, communicates badly, if at all, its benefits. And it tries to impose as an awkward replacement to what we are already using – by demanding a new behavior for the same result. But, what happens is that technology slowly redesigns itself to accommodate use patterns and eventually becomes an extension to our existing – or creates new – habits.

What does this tell us about the future? It means that everything that is technology today will disappear/transform and become invisible/integrated into our everyday life tomorrow. It will become extensions to what we do, which we just use and think little of – and then there will be new things, which will become new technology and create new challenges.

As designers of technology, the people who are supposed to change the world, what is important is:

    - To know that we haven’t had technological evolutions and revolutions for a hundred thousand years to end up with wheels on our suitcases and salt on our food. We are in perpetual motion and continuously have to swallow down waves of technology, which we understand little off, just to forget that it even exists.

    - Don’t dig to far into the new stuff, because that is how people get stuck and stop seeing how the rest of the world sees it. (Most online ideas created at the end of the nineties is still on par with brilliant ideas today, because fifteen years ago people dared to dream, while as for the last five years most of what we are doing is realism, protectionism and safeguarding existing systems).

    - Try to understand the temperature of ordinary people in relation to technology, begin by seeing who they really are, and stop calling them users. We consistently underestimate people and their abilities.

In order to understand technology, we need to stop understanding it and rather look to the habits, and even more interesting the potential habits that it might ignite. The technology itself is the least interesting part of this.

Thinking doesn’t start with digital, but digital has changed how we think … (part 1)

People who understand digital get how it has changed how they think about the role and reach of communication. It is a deep and structural change. But, this new thinking doesn’t turn out to be very digital – in fact, digital has very little to do with the digital things we do.

Let me try to explain this: Thinking doesn’t start with digital, but digital has changed how we think …

We view problems and projects differently today than we did. And try to work with clients differently. We used to have an ad-hoc mind-set. Sure, we buildt long-term strategies for communication, but the creative output was almost exclusively pulses.

Which, when you think about it is really strange: Why is strategy long-term and creative short-term? It doesn’t make any sense – it has just been the thinking behind everything that has been produced for the last half-century, and it has shaped the creative products that we output.

    It has probably got to do with this:

      - Originality / freshness, which is only a limitation if the chosen media is static and unable to create new versions or impressions of itself.

      - Cost of media spend, which is only relevant if you choose to invest your money on surfaces where you have to pay to have a presence and if this presence comes at an extreme cost.

    But none of these are absolutes; they are all changeable or exchangeable ideas.

A quote from the Apple boardroom in 1984 reads: “Everything we know is wrong”. And this might be true; everything we know is based upon facts and ideas from people no smarter than us, and we can change those truths. (As Steve Jobs points out here).

If we are to see where we are going, we need to stop looking backwards (As Mcluhan points out and which still is a very valid statement).

Sure the past is proven and safe, and the future is, I don’t know – and nobody does. Looking into pitch darkness or a glaring burn-out of white is the most interesting thing about it.

Short-term solutions are artificially excepted, but seldom a good answer.

If you are truly considering solving the problem, it is not solved in a week – or six. It demands attention from the brand long-term, with permanence. Which means intelligent, diverse communication often – but not always – integrated into the business decisions.

Even the strongest brand impression through pulse-based advertising does not stand the test of time. There are plenty of examples where huge dents have been made to brands through faulty business decision, but where the brand fades back into place within a matter of months or years – and this would also be true for pulse-based advertising.

Anything created within a week, or six, is temporary. It is only through permanence we are able to create a valid and lasting difference. (See Adrian Ho’s take on this here).

Digital is not in the business of helping companies short term, digital is in the business of helping them long term.

It is more than digital advertising or digital design – digital integrates into every aspect of communcation, and as such grows up to (finally) become the one tool that connects it all.

In the words of Angela Ahrendts, CEO of Burberry “… [it] has fundamentally changed every single thing that we do…”.

The next 80% (manuscript)

The following text is the manuscript to my presentation The next 80%.

View more presentations from Helge Tennø

Intro / gap

- According to Microsoft people have moved on, they have explored and adopted online communication / connected technologies to such a degree that they’re online habits are almost unrecognizable compared to only five years ago.

- Think about that, five years ago most people didn’t know what either Facebook or smartphones were.

- We have to understand that people have an adoption mindset and culture – our history is a history of embracing technology, and then having the technology adapt to us. People have always been on the move, and will continue to do so.

- Contrast this to companies who calculate and protect. Businesses aren’t people, but they have to operate within the same world, they have to understand individuals and apply to their way of thinking and doing. This is where the gap begins, and especially these last five to ten years.

- Today, in the connected environment business can’t hide behind walls and buy their way into peoples lives. They have to connect, react and adapt themselves. And by nature this strides against their very foundation. They are losing control, they are searching for rules and maps that aren’t there anymore. They are trying to adapt the new to the old school and they are having difficulties knowing where to look in order to find tested and proven answers. Instead of embracing the connected business models…

Three things

- In this talk I want to make visible what changed in the last five years and what is interesting about these changes. I’ve categorized it into three parts: simple, meeting place and 20/80.

Simple

- One reason large parts of the corporate Internet is out of tune with its customers – and increasingly the business itself – is that we are unnecessarily complicating it. The Internet should be one thing: simple.

Let med demonstrate with a couple of examples of how even minute tasks get unnecessarily complex online.

- Trying to log into the on-board wifi on the NSB train service you are asked to fill in eight – EIGHT – pieces of information. Why?

- This is the beta demo version of my online bank. Of which only 15% is dedicated to my personal banking. 85% of the real estate goes to marketing, navigation and completely uninteresting bank/crm stuff … Are banks in the business of media channels and marketing, of navigating paying customers away from their core service?

- These are just two small examples, but they are very descriptive of a lot of online strategies. Too much of the stuff we do online is on autopilot, and nobody stops to even ask one question to challenge the status quo.

Paraphrasing Steve Jobs: things look like they do today because people, no smarter than you, said it to be so. The minute we understand this, and that we are in a position to change it, great things happen.

- The Internet is simple, and should be simple. Unfortunately we are thinking of it with the wrong mindset; as something complicated, something that doesn’t work, something we don’t understand: As technology. But, how much do we really need to understand?

- Take a look at other pieces of technology: bread, asphalt, language, bicycle, chairs, faucets. Now do you think about these things as technology? They work and they are, no questions asked. But this is not the case with the Internet, why?

Understanding the nuts and bolts of the Internet is as important to a business as understanding the complexities of the mechanics that goes on inside a faucet when we need lukewarm water to wash our hands.

- Unfortunately the fog of technology diffuses the process of building something meaningful by trivializing the discussions and spending too much time focusing on irrelevant details. When we think of the Internet we are not thinking business models, identity and brand value. We are thinking users (what is a user?), HTML5, responsive design (why would you offer the same service in every situation?), apps or clicks.

- The Internet is fascinatingly simple, if we just stop referencing it as technology and start thinking of it as a loaf of bread – because our customers already are.

Meeting places

- What we have done up till now is limit our thinking of what online can do based on a narrow view of what marketing can do. But what happens when marketing changes, or grows into something bigger?

- Traditional advertising and design has one goal: to deliver a promise, either based on what the consumer wants to become, or what the brand wants to become.

All traditional marketing, advertising and design is built around this core idea: the transmission of an idea creating anticipation towards the use or consumption of a product or service in a given situation.

- Inside this mindset digital offers some abilities that are new, and speeds up some abilities that are old. But in essence digital is nothing more than a technological option – a choice between newspaper, billboard, TV, radio or Internet etc.

- Now, what is interesting is not how digital supplements traditional marketing, but how we create something new outside what is already there.

Online has added a new concept to the marketing universe; the ability for marketing to start proving on its own promise, delivering on expectations – and that is an immensely powerful idea.

- The short black and white version:

Traditional marketing delivers a promise to the consumer, but has never been able to deliver on this promise – this responsibility is handed to the product and business design team.

- But, this has all changed – and we haven’t been able to see it, because we are stuck in a vernacular describing what we create as platforms and technology rather than the consequences of them.

We are not creating websites, applications or services – those are just objects – and this vernacular hides the insight and understanding of how we ad new value to the marketing platform.

- What online has done is something much bigger than offer new extensions to media, or surfaces – it’s creating presence – in peoples lives – we are designing and building meeting places between the brand and the customer. Equal in importance to the product design itself.

- Meeting places are not web services, they are tools to fit different target groups specific needs in order to meet with the promise the brand has made to the person at the other end.

- So, my online bank is not a media platform. It is a connection between the bank and my banking needs. Designed to deliver on the customer promise – to create an unmistakable, recognizable and valuable banking experience…

- The Lego Life of George example understands this. Here Lego uses the online platform to be even more relevant. Giving them selves the opportunity to take part in the design of the situation where the product is being used and enjoyed.

Lego is not treating this as a media platform, but as proof of the Lego-experience.

Eighty percent

- When 80% of what people do online today are things they didn’t know existed five years ago, what are they doing differently? What are their new habits and activities?

I’ve divided this into three parts: net, relationships and activities.

- First; the web is not the net. In fact they are quite different things. The web is similar to what the Internet offered in the mid-nineties; which was a slow burning information super highway. Where the exchange of information was key to all activities and hyperlinking between documents where the fois gras.

Today a large part of the media based Internet presence has become high paced entertainment, content rich hubs, where consumers a whisked around by the grit of their teeth from videos to headlines, photos and comments.

- The Internet is nothing like the dry, factual, controlled and distilled version it was – even if some of it still remains. (The old Internet is still there)

- As an example of this many companies misunderstand the role of their online presence. Treating it as if it was comparable to a physical address. That their presence online has to conglomerate into one destination serving everybody and every purpose.

- Misunderstanding online as destination instead of presence, and not differentiating between information strategy, sales tactics, branded communication or meeting places hinders many companies from seeing success from their online investments today.

For relationships

- The Internet was originally, and still is, a great mechanism for direct response. Being instrumental to a lot of the business value generated directly from the net today.

But, at the same time as it is changing sales and market presence world wide, it is also turning out / developing abilities positioning it as one of the best arenas for connecting and offering a valuable, relevant and present relationship with customers.

The Internet has grown into a platform for cultivating and capitalizing on a new generation of customer relationships.

- To see this we need to understand that the Internet anno 2007 was something added on top of existing business models, business was still similar to the last 100 years of business – just more efficient and global.

But, technology offers to change this. To rethink how any company earns its money, by making available a range of new ways of capitalizing on products or new services offered by the technologization of its offer and the context in which it ads value.

- The New York Times reported on to this back in 2009. Writing on how subscription models where taking over for more conservative buy/sell business models. And how this was a mindset not specific to a certain type of business, but any company willing to creatively rethink how it earned its money.

- Kevin Kelly points to this in his work: That people are starting to realize that what they need is not to own something, but to have access to it. And if business is able to find a way to offer this accessibility people are more likely to pay a smaller, but recurring, fee for it instead of obtaining the object permanently through a one-time costly acquisition.

- The music industry is a great example of this. Where the digitization of content has completely changed the product, from something physical, an object and a symbol on your shelf, to something invisible and abstract. Music has acquired a due-date. And people have become more aware of the cost connected to something as short lived and potentially random. People are increasingly more willing to pay for the access itself, rather than the musical product.

- In the Bakertweet example people are signing up as members of the The Albion Cafe’s tweets in order to gain access to the product when it’s as its best: hot and right out of the oven.

- Nokia Push Burton is creating a digital information and gaming layer on top of the physical snowboarding activity. This is achieved through adding a range of sensors to the clothing and snowboarding equipment, and then connecting these to the Internet and your personal device (mobile or PC). If a snowboarder has generated millions of points, and are competing fiercely with her friends on this online platform, how can she buy a different brand the next time she plans to update her wardrobe or kit?

- What we are seeing here is a solution to the fatigue of the current rational end emotional system of brand loyalty. Caused by indistinguishable offers and brands built on category language not individual personality and disruption.

A solution offered through the digital services portfolio designed to deliver on the brand platform, to identify unmet customer needs and distinguish itself from the competition. A brand proof, not promise: functional loyalty.

Activities

- Thirdly, the Internet, since the beginning, has been all about information; “content is king” and all that. But this is no longer necessarily true. The Internet is only partly an information platform. In fact, as an information platform it even has some clear and present weaknesses.

The more interesting question is not how we can make the Internet better at information, but at seamlessly improving our everyday life? And information is seldom the solution to this, it is much more interesting to look at how the Internet can help us do stuff, our activities.

- We have to question two things:
The screen might be the worst presentation technology for reading. Research has demonstrated that people spend almost twice the amount of time reading stuff on screen compared to paper. At the same time people are less patient and less systematic online. They skip, scan and skim text. Reading fragments from all over the page in no particular order, putting it together into their own system and understanding – rather than the chronologically designed way of reading it that has been laid out by the brand.

- How do brands connect to people? Does it have to be through information? Or can activities and experiences be just as valuable. Do people have to read things to feel connected to a brand, or can doing stuff be just as, or even more, effective.

Online is offering a different way of thinking about marketing. Moving it from a classical information and quantitative approach (where the more time you get with a consumer equals more immersion in the identity and stronger brand impression) to an activity and qualitative approach (where the quality of the interaction is far more valuable than the length of it).

- Dominoes concluded that they did not have the capacity to offer the best tasting pizza and decided on a different positioning strategy: The best at delivering it. Demonstrating their commitment to this promise not by writing about it but proving it through an online delivery application tracking the pizza through the value chain and all the way to the customer.

- Museum of the phantom city is not a brochure, leaflet or book presenting all the imagined ideas and architectural concept for New York that were never built. But an application that lets you walk around the city and see it with your own eyes, through an augmented reality layer on your smart phone.

- The owner’s manual of the new luxury range Exuus from Hyundai is so much more than just a manual.

- Instead of promising superior sound quality through its brand communication Pioneer is (also) proving it through an application helping people achieve it.

Summary

Summarizing this I’ll bring you back to my initial presentation of the three abilities that lie at the root of how the Internet has changed. And hopefully this will allow for us to think and build ideas for an Internet with a broader set of abilities than the ones we built for just five years ago.

  • The Internet is simple.
    Meeting places, not web sites, proof, not promises
    80%, from destination to presence, response to relationships and information to activity
  • - We are not at an end point, we have not evolved for millions of years just to reach the point where we are today. We are continuously changing and adapting.

    We need to understand that even if we are still working with the first generation Internet, changes happen all the time, and how people use the Internet in 2012 is radically different from what we did only five years ago – and futurists are predicting even more changes the next three years.

    We are at the light bulb stage of the Internet and we are at the beginning of something beautiful…

    Innovation strategy as brand strategy

    Brand strategy is changing: From creating a unique story around a generic experience to designing a unique experience that tells its own story.

      In a recent panel featuring four of Norway’s most prominent CMOs, there was an agreement amongst several that their brand strategy was increasingly becoming an innovation strategy rather than a communications strategy.

    This is only logical, as a consequence of the changes we have been seeing in the media consumption and digital communication landscape the last years:

      - As the cost of having a story adopted through media – in a landscape of increasingly fragmented media consumption – is getting more and more expensive.

      - As digital communication has been recalibrated to create products, not campaigns, experiences, not stories.

      - As products and services has become something that updates, changes, tailors, perfects and redesigns itself digitally without the “physical” costs of scale, distribution etc.

    What the four CMOs are saying is that the story and the media platform is no longer seen as the best place to invest if the goal is to create a unique experience that people value.

    This is not a bad thing; it is a very good thing. For agencies adverse in digital communication and the design of services this is the best thing that could happen. No longer are they at the helm of traditional communication, trying to emulate the effect created on analogue surfaces. Finally we are seeing what digital is offering that is new and interesting outside the traditional formats of messaging and stories.

    Companies are both tiring from investments in touch points that are disconnected from the product experience and seeing that marketing and brand strategy is an integrated part of the product design.

    Companies are seeing that massive investments in the brand promise is of little value if the product itself fails to deliver.

      - And, the fact that historically brand communication was invented as a cheaper alternative to redesigning the product itself. Which no longer seems to be the case.

    - From promise to proof
    According to Amanda Mooney what companies need to start doing is deliver on the promises that they have been serving their customers in the past:

    Digital is helping us rethink our business / brand strategy. From promise to proof, from stories to services, from disconnected to integrated.

    In several categories businesses are decreasingly meeting their customer through physical locations. Meeting places are being moved online, and it’s in these that the business is given the opportunity to design experiences that helps them live up to the promises delivered in the past – and present.

    If the cost of redesigning the product experience becomes lower than the cost of having the market adopt our storytelling. If the product can communicate its own story and media starts failing in conveying its adapted version – then the foundation of brand and communication strategy is shifting, and we are moving brand strategy to an innovation strategy and away from a media strategy.

    Next,

    Presentations

    Visit on Slideshare.