HeaderImage

A wider digital perspective (part 3: new business models )

How does digital communication affect business outside marketing?

    In this three-part article I will try to explain the changes I’m seeing in the convergence of emerging digital communication, branding and business.

Read part 1 here.
Read part 2 here.

I’ve divided the future of digital, the way I see it, into three concepts. In the process I have purposely left out the natural extension of traditional digital communications as it is already accepted, debated and in excellent shape.

And I’ve focused on “emerging” concepts. I’m guessing most of these are already familiar, but I’m hoping that setting them in relation to each other will give additional inspiration in regards to how they can be utilized.

a-wider-digital-perspective

3. New business models
We need to change our perception of what a service is, from thinking of it as marketing, to becoming an integrated part of our business models:

    From part two:
    “The main thing though is not … trying to better the experience by adding a service to the product. But the perception of what a service is: From thinking of it mainly as a cost to becoming a direct means for generating income.

    The problem with marketing is that it is perceived as a cost. And as long as digital communication is perceived as a marketing tool it is inevitable that it will be perceived as a cost as well:

    “I also suggest that the problem with most [digital] initiatives today is that they are designed as marketing and by that inevitably will be perceived as a cost. If we are to see more money and more innovation being put into the digital and connected activities, we need to start helping companies identify, design and benefit from new business opportunities, not new marketing opportunities.” – http://www.180360720.no/index.php/archive/connect-everything-else/

In short: Digital communications needs to move from selling products to being products.

How can we accomplish this?

    The communications industry perspective:
    First of all, we need to create a new discussion and movement around digital. That discusses how to generate tangible value FROM brands, not intangible value FOR brands.

    I’m not arguing that the latter is less meaningful, but that digital communications should start partaking in processes further down the business value chain.

      “We need to get people to pay for products and services, not just talk about them”.

    Secondly, we need to change the current impression that developments and investments in marketing technology is concentrated on finding new creative ways to hand out free stuff (http://is.gd/1NVVGc).

      It’s as if digital’s own brand has become “FREE [stuff]“.

    We need to prove that the platform is mature enough to support a business model, not a coupon model.

    And doing this by demonstrating the value from acquiring members, not freeloaders, and understanding what real value these people will be willing to pay good money for.

    As Tim Malbon states in this clip interview with Edward Boches:

      “When people think about digital in traditional advertising agencies, … basically what they think about is communications first. … What is the coms idea? … We’ll actually they are missing the biggest opportunity, which is often: Can we create a new business here? Can we create entirely new revenue? Can we change the business model of the company that we are helping? Can we help them by bringing people in making their product and services better?”
      - Tim Malbon of Made By Many interviewed by Edward Boches

    The client perspective:
    Going back to the second part of this article, I suggested that there was two ways of looking at the goal of any business:

      Traditionalist mindset: Lowering the cost of customer acquisition.
      Services mindset: Increasing the value of each customer (member).

    From this we can take that the goal of the services mindset is to increase the long term value of a customer, most often by offering them an opportunity to pay by subscription.

    The New York Times wrote about this back in 2009:

      “EVERYWHERE you look these days, businesses are selling subscriptions. Cable television, Internet and cellphone services are sold that way. So are business software, office printing and car rentals like Zipcars. … Marketers like them for good reason: Convince someone to take a subscription, and the revenue flows in for months to come.” – http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/business/11every.html?_r=1

So how does a company used to selling physical objects move on to sell abstract intangible software solutions, or services?

In my mind the solution to this challenge lies in the core of each company. Going back to the origin and idea behind the value of the original offering. Something often forgot by marketing departments, accountants and CEO’s as the company moves from its idealistic first stages and into the conformity of big business.

In the presentation When marketing becomes the product 2, I give this explanation:

    A product is worthless. It is not before it is introduced to a situation where it offers something valuable that the object becomes meaningful and valuable to people. This is the origin of most business: Some dedicated individual[s], seeing an opportunity to create and offer something valuable to people. That is how we got the toothbrush, the toilet brush and the air brush – they were all designed by people who identified a need or an improvement. Designed the solution and implemented it into the market.

This is the core of any business – understanding how to ad something valuable to a situation. And this is the core of the services and subscription mindset: Understanding the businesses core value and how to modernize, strengthen, increase or extend on it.

View more presentations from Helge Tennø

Trying to make this more tangible I offered four/five simple directions (at the very end of the presentation Connect everything else) where companies could start looking for products and services to increase the value of their situations:

    1. Fixing broken models
    In the first direction companies are urged to look for broken models. These might not be obvious at first, as we are used to working around them or accepting them. But they are often there and finding digital solutions to simplify them or avoid them completely might create an opportunity for the business.

    As an example hotel checkouts are often crowded and an unnecessary wait for regular business travelers. Mobile applications allowing for direct checkout via your phone might help customers skip the whole reception area and walk right into the waiting taxi – ordered automatically by the same service.

    Imagine car-sharing schemes. Having to go to two physical locations in order to pick up the car, the first one being the physical keys, the second the car itself. Zipcar solved this problem by removing the unnecessary stop at the key depot. Every driver could just download the car key app on their mobile and concentrate on finding the car.

    2. Combining digital and real world initiatives
    The real world is filled with limitations. What would happen if we employed a non-physical layer with the ability to record and personalize data? The goal would be to enhance the physical experience by the opportunities offered by digital.

    This is the kind of thinking that went behind the Nokia Push / Burton project explained in part two. Where adding sensor technology to the snowboarding clothing and equipment boarders will be able to not only make radical jumps, but also collect points for awesomeness and compete against their friends by comparing scores in the evening (or live on their phone).

    3. Adding services / Extending the experience surrounding the product
    Where the second direction is saying that the real world experience could be changed by combining it with a digital layer. This direction is saying that the real world experience is the same, but we need to ad additional stuff to it – in order to expand it.

    An example of this is how the Albion bakery, in London, made sure, through Twitter, that every potential (and subscribing) customer on the closest city blocks got a message when Albion’s products where best served – steaming hot directly from the oven.

    A second example is the National Railway in Norway. Who not only put Internet connection and WIFI on their long distance trains, but also wanted to ad digital services to this connection. They ended up building a content portal where travelers could download anything from music, to videos or games. All adding to the already paid for product (and with the opportunity to further monetize.)

    4. Thinking in terms of relationships – when people are more important owning and using your product, than thinking about buying it.

    Do you treat your customers as members? Ask yourself this: what can I offer my customers every day, or every week, which would increase the value of the situation I’m designing my offer for?

    It needs to be understood that inviting your customers to become members is not a one time thing. It demands a program and a system that is able to offer them subscribable value.

    Spotify is a good example of this, where they understood that as soon as music became something that got hidden away on your hard-drive – as opposed to decorating your bedroom wall. Music would stop being something worth treasuring. It would turn into a commodity you listen to and then throw away. Spotify understood how digital changed the music experience and started designing a business model for it – a subscription model.

Connect everything else
View more presentations from Helge Tennø

These were all generalizing ideas to kick start an ideation process in order to figure out how to monetize digital opportunities in your company.

If you are still stuck, and if all else fails, then ask yourself these final questions.

    - How do we create members – not customers.
    - How do we create loyalty to our brand that nobody can take away from us?
    - How can we earn money doing things that didn’t exist five years ago?

Now, get to work!

A wider digital perspective (part 1)

How does digital communication affect business outside marketing?

    In this two-part article I will try to explain the changes I’m seeing in the convergence of emerging digital communication, branding and business.

We try to place every advancement or innovation within the context of what we already know.

    “We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards into the future.”
    - Marshall McLuhan

This rear-view mindset instantly frames discussions and ideas inside boxes belonging to old technology and old solutions. One of the indicators of this is how we give new stuff new numbers (2.0 or 3.0) instead of new names.

rear-view-mirror

A point already wonderfully articulated by Breakfast:

    “Some people call what we do “the Internet of things” or “web 3.0.” In our opinion those sound a bit silly. We simply think of ourselves as inventors who are trying to take all the amazingness of what can be done online and bring it into some sort of device or experience in the real world.” – http://breakfastny.com/what-we-do/

(And yes, I am as guilty as anyone else…)

Consequently this is making it hard to understand and see the opportunities offered by digital and how these can have different effects on business. And of course, seeing how digital communications has moved on from being exclusively a marketing tool to a critical part of the business toolbox.

I’ve divided the future of digital, the way I see it, into three concepts. In the process I have purposely left out the natural extension of traditional digital communications as it is already accepted, debated and in excellent shape.

And I’ve focused this article on “emerging” concepts. I’m guessing most of these are already familiar, but I’m hoping that setting them in relation to each other will give additional inspiration in regards to how they can be utilized.

a-wider-digital-perspective

1. Experiential brand design
Ironically “the brand” has run into the same problem it was designed to solve; helping consumers differentiate between companies and offers. Where brands are designed to diversify the offer in the market without changing the actual product, the strategies for shaping and designing brands today are so similar and so universal that we are creating brand categories, not brand identities.

Brand building in a recession: Richard Murray from D&AD on Vimeo.

Brand Building in a recession: Richard Murray

As a perfectly timed response to this digital is maturing into branded experiences in the form of services, applications and tools: A designed experience being a much more powerful branding tool than psychological storytelling.

Unfortunately there is a cleft here, because even if digital is ripe, we are not taking advantage of this maturity.

I’ll support this with a marketing classic: “Nobody sells tires, they sell security”.

Isn’t this true? You don’t buy a set of winter tires (with spikes) because you need new tires. You buy them because sliding around on icy and snowy roads on summer slicks is extremely dangerous.

tires-not-security

Now all branches of marketing know this, and every brand comes up with a unique value proposition that is communicated thoughtfully and consistently in every interaction with the customer. With one exception: Online.

Often the most important interaction between the customer and the brand destroys or ignores all the effort and investment put in by the other initiatives.

An example:
People travel between two cities. They can either travel by plane or by train. The train takes double the amount of time and is as expensive as the plane – why would you choose to ride the train? The National Railway of Norway were faced with this dilemma and wisely decided on a brand platform suggesting that when it comes to the train it is the journey itself that is the destination – the train ride in itself is a valuable product – as opposed to the plane which is just herding cattle.

The company invested heavily in this story on a range of surfaces and channels. But what happened when people came online to their website – possibly the most important interface in the interactions between the brand and the customer? Online the story was hidden. What people met where a ticket purchasing application/calculator mistakenly similar to the one offered by any cattle herding airline.

The National Railway were communicating and selling “security” on every channel and surface, except for online – where it was selling “tires”…

nsb-no

This is the challenge and the immaturity of digital. And as we outgrow it we will also see the potential of online as a brand building platform and experiential branding (branded activities and services) as the solution to the “similarization” of psychological brands.

Differentiating the brand from its competitors by designing branded experiences delivering on the brand promise is the first emerging concept.

End of part 1… Part 2 to be published.

Stop talking about people

In research just made public by one of the major banks in Norway, businesses where asked why they were investing in an online presence. The answers presented a bit of a revelation.

The top three answers were all connected with consumer demand, which are all OK points to make, but when compared to the three least popular responses, all linked to business incentives, it seems the focus has been turned a bit up-side-down. It seems businesses are more focused on doing what their customers say, at a cost, rather than doing it for themselves – doing stuff where the company has identified a direct business advantage from having a presence online and want to take advantage of the opportunity.

- This cost-driven strategy might also explain the dreary state of Internet offers today. Where most companies find being just as good as every other brand in their category is good enough – there is no money in it!

THIS IS IMPORTANT, because we are overly focused on talking about people and staring into this black box of consumer habits and behaviors. With extensive demands being added by social media, demand that only a few companies find interesting enough to take on. (It’s more “Lets avoid a mistake”-thinking than “This is an opporuntiny”-thinking as Jon Steel would have said)

But this is hopefully all about to change…

The next generation of online activities will be inherently linked to business advantage, rather than consumer demand. And by that we should also see the real money being poured in, not just marketing pocket lint.

Interesting? This is a good start: Business Model Generation.

New Business Opportunities in Retail

Digital’s introduction to retail, be it a slow one, will accelerate as the understanding of the width of web and mobile broadens from being all about destinations, to integration into every aspect of business:

Find the presentation below or at slideshare.net/helgetenno.

As always find the individual slides under CC-license here: flickr.com/everythingnewisdangerous

I’ve included the part of the script describing the three areas of retail I’ve concentrated on; product, in-store and business opportunities:

    Product opportunities
    The product is not just a “brand” living on a shelf or being consumed by a member of the public. It is a character, which within the framework of a strong identity changes its characteristics to fit different roles through the stages of its own lifecycle; from the initial idea, the spark, to its realization (design), its distribution, shelf life, shared product experience and recycling (sustainability). Digital amplifies the characteristics, and helps the identity adapt at each stage.

    In-store opportunities
    The retail outlet is the most important arena for public choice. It is intense in its range of decisions, and numbing in its range of (similar) products. Inside this arena there are limited opportunities within frameworks. Frameworks put in place by the non-digital, non-organic world of cardboard and floor space. Digital transcends the limitations of the shop infrastructure, serving communication through personal devices controlled by a digital brain in “the cloud”.

    In the advertising mindset the retail communication belongs to the “call-to-action” category. But this limits itself both in its expense on resources (financial and labor), scarcity of real estate and limited time span. In the design mindset the goal is rather strength through identity, creating a long lasting top-of-mind preference through establishing an interesting story, sharing values, creating memberships and avoiding the retail rock concerts of advertising.

    Business opportunities
    There are new business opportunities to be explored and discovered through the extension of digital and organic platforms. From engaging the crowds to taking the store to the world – not limiting access to it by physical destination. In categories where products follow patterns and become remarkably similar, it is digital and organic platforms that not only invite customers to explore and discover new, unique experiences. But also develop more layered identities, establishing thicker product relationships, and unwrap new business opportunities.

A special thanks to PSFK which as with a stroke of coincidence launched their brilliant PSFK Future of Retail Report just last week, adding a whole section to my presentation – I’ve been extensively referencing the source.

PSFK Future of Retail Report

I would also ad these brilliant people and publications as they all helped in filtering the cases and surfacing the best ones:

springwise.com
popsop.com
mashable.com
rubbishcorp.com
adverblog.com
Ingmar de Lange
mobilemarketer.com
digitalbuzzblog.com
Zeus Jones
storefrontbacktalk.com
cpbgroup.com
techcrunch.com
Seth Godin
Richard Murray (for giving us the best insight on retail)
and for his brilliant and extensive posts, *Supercollider at geoffnorthcott.com.

Understanding variability

In an online world full of nuances and variables, is the universal mindset of mass media affecting our ability to make people deliriously happy?

Mass media forces brands to find one consistent voice, communicating one story or one set of values to a large part of a population. This mindset is valuable for the mass media industry, which is fine. But online/organic/cloud based services’ and applications are not mass marketing, not media, and by that needs, or demands, a different mindset.

Where as display advertising survives on a marketing relationship approach (generic and universal) services and applications for organic platforms need a more individual and personal product relationship approach. This means that any destination – from your online web site to your smart phone application or a participation / dialogue initiative has to be built for the niches, not the idea of universals.

Malcolm Gladwell, at TED in 2004, talks about Howard Moskowitz, a psychophysicist that reinvented spaghetti sauce with the result of making the American people happier. Moskowitz can be attributed with discovering that there are no universals in the food industry. That reality is too diverse and can’t be identified by one or some universal principles.

a_massive_disservice

At the end of the presentation Gladwell references one example with coffee, where he says that if he was to design one brand of coffee to fit everybody, it would rank at a bout a 60 on a taste satisfaction ranking from zero to a hundred. But he was to divide us into coffee clusters of three or more, he could tailor coffee to each cluster, which would heighten the rank to about a 75 to 78. The difference is “coffee that makes you wince, and coffee that makes you deliriously happy”.

“When we pursue universals in food, we are not only making an error, we are doing ourselves a massive disservice” – Howard Moskowitz

As Gladwell also notes: Moskowitz introduced to the food industry what people in science had been working with for a long time; the move from the search for universals to the understanding of variability.

understanding_variability

In our eagerness to understand online marketing we have borrowed a range of shortcuts from the different industries. Many of them have been interesting and valuable choices, especially in the parts of online that resembled traditional media, but a lot of them have been failures.

My point is that we need to approach online marketing with an understanding of variability. That we can’t see online / organic marketing as mass media, but as individual relationships. That both individual devices, destinations and dialogues demand personalization and tailoring built in as fundamental features.

future media

A presentation on the future opportunities in media, turning threats into insights into opportunities.

The presentation future media – no more middle men, is an accumulation of a range of relevant thoughts from this blog, put into system.

It’s built as a master slide set (to pick and sort from), but I tried to ad some structure to it by identifying six major “forces” affecting media, and then a short final chapter summarizing a suggested future mindset.

I’ve also chosen to ad a lot of the explanatory text – not just the headlines – into the slides this time, hopefully this will create more context for the people reading the thing online.

Find individual slides available for download under a CC license on my flickr.com account everything new is dangerous.

Find the presentation below, or on my slideshare account slideshare.net/helgetenno.

View more presentations from Helge Tennø.

Marketing and business model thinking

If marketing is to become a more integrated part of the product experience/context, baked in and/or eventually become more important than the product:

    “Marketing becomes the value people want to connect with, the product is merely an invitation into this relationship”. – link

Then it means a different set of demands needs to be put on marketing.

an-invitation

Digital services can’t be measured by downloads, clicks, uses or other advertising-type measures. Marketing integrated with the product needs to be measured by its ability to create value in and business from the relationship with the participant. Marketing needs to be measured by its own business model.

When the marketing becomes the value provider in the company/participant relationship, it needs to define its idea, value proposition, revenue stream and how this is going to measured. Not merely how much attention and use it has generated from being available.

In short, marketing initiatives need more business model thinking integrated into their design process. (And of course this is not exclusive – forcing the BM-ideas to collaborate or grow from narrative ideas creates an environment set to earn from the combination of both worlds).

businessmodel

Expanded version of Seven actionable marketing trends

After publishing the slideshow Seven actionable marketing trends about a month ago, I asked if there was an interest in an expanded version of the slideshow. Elaborating on each trend and including some references and quotes from the insights behind them.

    Unfortunately it has taken me some time to put this together, and I do apologize for the delay. But now the deck has been published via slideshare.net.

I would like to state that the goal of the document is not to work as a coherent presentation, but rather using the slideshare format to comprise and present a collection of valuable ideas that I felt was/is relevant in regards to each trend.

I hope you find the presentation useful, and that there are stuff/slides in there that proves to be inspirational.

As always, if there are any questions or comments, please contact me and I will do my best to reply.

Also, find most of the individual slides available under CC license on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/everythingnewisdangerous

Find the presentation below, or here:

View more documents from Helge Tennø.

Online advertising is changing because the media business model is changing

Online advertising will change fundamentally during the next year to four years. The reason is more unexpected, and with larger consequences, than anticipated.

I’ve written previously on how both the competition to the online ad product (ie. earned media) and our citizens’ change in online behavior should be forcing online media to innovate its advertising and marketing products. Now it seems these symptoms where only the tip of the iceberg: a change in the fundamental business model of the media industry.

In 2009 media has been failing, and it’s failing fast. All hands are on deck and the ability to think disruptively, not only incrementally, has invited people to rethink the whole structure of their business model. This will affect their income strategies and the companies sponsoring these income strategies.

In other words: online advertising is changing, because the media business model is changing.

This is the case I’m trying to make:
Media has been stuck for some time, but the scalability of the online advertising real estate, and the enormous market has kept the ball rolling. Not sensing that the drive for traffic and the drive for more ad space lessened the editorial product and made the media brands invisible.

As Kristin Skogen Lund, CEO of Aftenposten, one of the biggest newspapers in Norway said at a talk last week:

Scott Karp, editor of the Publishing 2.0 blog ads another argument:

    “most newspaper websites sell SPACE for commodity advertising — display ads and classifieds — and thus are hard pressed to compete with ad networks that specialize in selling commodity ad space by the megaton”Scott Karp, Publishing 2.0

amftenposten_skogen-lund_brand

The result is that the display advertising model works just fine for media buyers, but for brands they are receiving a decreasing amount of effect – and compared with the effect from earned media the investment at times can seem as a complete waste. At the same time media companies have brought a knife to a gunfight, they are competing against the networks, a game they can’t win, and are destroying their most valuable possession – their brand – along the way.

So something has got to change!

An incentive for change:
Two important facts where laid out by Skogen Lund at a conference last week:

- Only 5%
Skogen Lund stated that Aftenposten’s online revenue only represented 5% of their total revenue. Scott Karp confirms this as representative for the whole industry:

    “That’s why the newspaper industry is worth about $60 billion offline but only $3 billion online — they only have about 5% of the pricing power that they did when there was only a finite amount of space in for printing ads.” – Scott Karp, Publishing 2.0

scott-karp-5percent

Online advertising in it’s current form is not a big revenue model for media companies, which would incentives innovation. If only one believed that online customers where better customers… Are people worse customers online? Hardly, FEED: The Razorfish Digital Brand Experience Report / 2009 states:

    “Brands that use digital to drive awareness also drives sales: 64% of consumers report making a first purchase from a brand because of a digital experience”FEED 09

So there is nothing wrong with the platform, there is nothing wrong with online, it’s how we’ve utilized it for advertising, and as a business model, that has been completely of the mark.

completely-of-the-mark

- Advertising decreasing, subscriptions increasing
A second interesting fact presented by Skogen Lund was a graph showing how advertising has represented a sharp decline in revenue, while subscriptions a sharp increase this last year. This at the same time as we are seeing niche newspapers, with strong brands and identifiable products, increasing their subscriptions in contrary to the mainstream newspapers which are declining. This tells us that there is an interest in a strong media product, and people are willing to pay for it.

My conclusion is this:
Media is a product (a membership), has always been a product and will continue to be a product. But somewhere along the way someone found that sponsoring it with advertising was a god idea. (Brilliant video for Norwegian readers to be found here (Thx. Freddy)). Which it was, to some extent. But the consequence was that the drive for traffic became more important than building a strong brand and a unique product.

Today when advertising sponsorship is failing as a business model, media has to start charging for something. But since they are left with a generic product it is impossible to charge for content that can be found for free ten other places.

(which is probably why Murdoch is shutting out Google, and also the argument of Mathias Dophner here. They want to protect it before they create it.)

So I anticipate that blood will continue to flow in the Media industry – because there is not enough money to finance all these institutions, and there is not enough strong brands to charge for their product.

Which leaves us with advertising: Advertising online will change because the media business model will change. Media brands seeing that they either don’t need to garbage their stories with competing stories, as Scott Karp says:

    “advertising isn’t more valuable when placed next to premium content because display advertising has so LITTLE value to begin with. In fact, display advertising creates so little consumer value that it actually SUBTRACTS value from high quality editorial content when placed next it.”

Or because they find that people reading their publications are there because they get provided a value, and that brands in a lot of instances can co-produce this value. That NEW BRANDS are value creators, and that NEW MARKETING IDEAS are about creating additional value – not a competition between the attention of stories. And that this value, and a relationship built on trust between the media, the brand and the participant, will create a new, valuable, membership based content system.

brands-can-coproduce

That brands, as Forrester already has anticipated, will sponsor niche arenas where they can build direct relationships with their participants and members. What these arenas are, how large, small, niche or commercial, content, conversation or context based is completely up to our own imagination and creativity.

Companies sell stuff, people buy stuff

Presenting at the iab Interact 2009 in Amsterdam at the end of November, I have been asked to talk about new marketing under the theme of the conference: “It’s the people stupid”.

As my bio states:

    “…As technology becomes invisible, the opportunity for companies to connect with participants arises from its understanding of its fundamental ability to ad value to situations in a persons life.”

The presentation tries to identify the difference between traditional attention based advertising (company centric) and new marketing (human centric). Proposing some challenges/opportunities regarding the former and exploring some of the major mindset changes regarding the latter.

The big idea being a continuation of one of my earlier presentations: That marketing becomes the product, adding additional value, eclipsing it and making it unique.

Marketing being the value provider and products being invitations to next generation memberships and subscription models

View more documents from Helge Tennø.

Next,

Presentations

Visit on Slideshare.