Availability can not be underestimated, two reasons for this:

1. First, a minor mindset thing:
People want to choose their own arenas, not be forced into one because the company finds it sufficient to only make their stuff available in one place.

2. Then the bigger thing:
The missing link between something being a tool and something changing our behavior is its availability (link):

Clay Shirky’s famous quote:
“A revolution doesn’t happen when society adopts new tools, it happens when society adopts new behaviors” – Clay Shirky, Us Now

Which, linked with availability, in a tools and services perspective could give this:

“The goal would be to make the service so easily available that it as a technology becomes invisible but contextually becomes valuable.” – Bridging the gap between technology and behavior

Pushing Shirky a bit, we could say that technology is tools, but services are behaviors. And that tools only become valuable services as they are made available within the context where the person naturally adopts them.

- That in order for people to adopt something within their everyday life, it has to be designed based on human and contextual abilities, not just to fit into technological or informational frameworks.

- Or, that publishing stuff only gives people new tools, but if we make sure the stuff becomes available to the point of becoming invisible it will change peoples behaviors in the situation surrounding the product – and that is the interesting shift when marketing stops demanding exclusive attention and starts becoming valuable (which means shareable).

Which, if I’m right, would also be very close to this; Purple Cow, and this, Baked In.

Now there are two types of availability:

1. Being where the niche is (Jonathan MacDonald). The old saying that everything is only one click away on the Internet is outdated. Today, hiding stuff away behind walls of technology or website cartography is as good as not publishing it at all. We have to make the stuff available so that different people in different contexts find their “natural” way to engage with it and become a part of it. (Tim Brown)

2. Design. At a seminar two years ago the brilliant people at TAT presented some insights into the fact that the visual presentation layers has to be tailored to the activity we want the participant to perform – not the economical preconditions of the technological framework. That design is one very important part of a service’s availability, and should not be underestimated.

(Also supported by Michal Tchao, presenting Nike+ at Picnic08: These things already existed, but we designed it in a whole new way, so that people were able to use it.)

This is what I’m trying to say: Just because the stuff is available on a companies website doesn’t mean people will find it or use it. It needs to become available on platforms and arenas that fit into peoples everyday life. Which means that we need to fragment our marketing much more (“light lots of small fires” – Mark Earls), and tailor it to fit into the participant-product context.

I’ve been invited to do a five minute presentation on Context at Paris 2.0 this Tuesday. Working my way through the script I decided to put the whole thing into the presentation and upload it. Love to get some feedback on this before Tuesday :o) Thank you in advance.

(View slideshow at slideshare.net)

The script:

The immersion of digital stuff, making the accessibility of media-, communication- and social technology almost ubiquitous, has led to a behavioral change in our everyday lives

- (it will mean so more next year, and more the year after that) – Kevin Slavin….

This is interesting, not because we think this means that marketers can reach people all the time, they can’t, but because people can reach marketing all the time, which is much more significant.

Brands now have the opportunity to be reached, by people, when people want to.

This turns marketing up side down….

Marketers used to be the people that reached the people (the customers), now the people (as participants) are the ones who reach marketers.

The great shift is this:
When marketers were controlling the situation, marketing was done blindly through media channels, affecting people’s anticipation of a situation outside the situation itself, manipulating their feelings about it. We were telling people how to feel at a point in time when they didn’t feel anything. (Who cares about shaving while enjoying a 2pm break from boring work routines?)

Today marketing is accessible inside the situations, so the job changes.

When marketing exists inside situations the brand’s own story is irrelevant, the experience itself will always be stronger.

(why would I stop doing what I’m doing just to listen to your version of what I’m experiencing right now?).

Marketers stories become irrelevant inside situations because they are different from peoples own stories.

So marketing changes …

The only reason for people to access marketing inside situations is because they gain something valuable.

And if marketers can’t tell their own story, the goal becomes making the participants story better.

So how do you make it better?

By understanding the context, and adding value to it.

This is the new marketing economy:
The goal of marketing is not to win the battle of stories (as is the case for traditional media marketing), but to understand the abilities, emotions and activities of a situation – the context – and add deliberate value to it. Making it better, becoming indispensible as a value provider, and gaining ownership to people through direct relations with them over time…

To understand this we need to accept that products are worthless. And only become valuable as they are introduced to a situation where they are relevant. That brands aren’t product providers, but value providers, something they have always been – marketing has only spent its time distracting our focus from this and done its most to become unwanted.

Products are worthless:
A toothbrush is worthless outside its context, taking up much needed space in the bathroom, but when it comes to tooth hygiene, it becomes indispensible.

The New Marketing economy says that the context is larger than the product, much larger, and that marketing is about increasing the value of this context – and growing the context itself.

As Whirpool found when they went on to increase their value by launching a podcast about the American family – not talk about their home appliances..

Or Fiat as they use personal environmental initiatives to create value – not brag about their car.

Or Wasa, as they help you get a nutritious breakfast – not sell their delicious bread/cracker things.

Or BakerTweet – making sure you enjoyed the product in its best possible context – when it’s steaming hot…

Brands need to see themselves as value creators, adding value to contexts where their value is appreciated and needed. They need to investigate and explore these contexts, surrounding their brand and products, and take ownership of them.

The next marketing arena isn’t similar formats in similar media, it’s becoming the most valuable brand inside the experience surrounding the product and the brand.

The marketing currency is not about attention, interruption or interest. It’s about creating deliberate value. Building direct relationships and great marketing through connected services, utilities, arenas and stuff.

The new Marketing economy is about understanding context and adding deliberate value…

Understanding the challenges affecting digital media as a marketing platform introduces some new creative challenges. What we are seeing is very solvable, and they are triggering the start of a much more diverse and interesting time for marketing and advertising.

There are four main challenges disturbing the effect of marketing investments on digital media [DM]. Understanding their abilities, and why they are doing a much better job than DM on doing what DM originally did gives insight into what DM needs to offer in order to regain its value. (Sorry about all the DM’s :o)

The important thing is not to copy these abilities, because that would not be bettering digital media, it would be destroying it. We need to find the solutions within the context of the existing value creation of the digital media body. And this is where it introduces some great creative challenges for strategists and creatives.

The four horsemen in this case can seem very threatening; on the other hand, sometimes innovation needs to be forced by inescapable realities.

The Four Horsemen:

1. Earned media. We are increasingly seeing earned media outperform paid media and becoming the main driver of traffic to marketing initiatives.

2. Middle men. Media needs to build down the barriers between brands and participants online, today the artificial divide media offers are lessening the value compared to brands own initiatives.

3. New behaviors. Increased accessibility to tools and technology not only boosts media consumption, but also changes how the use integrates into our daily lives. Advertising models tailored for a more traditional media consumption looses effectiveness.

4. Brands as competitors. The competition is no longer between digital media channels with similar products; it’s between media channels and the brands own initiatives.

Looking at the larger picture there are already two visible solutions:

1. Media channels need to offer arenas where brands with shared values can build direct relations with the participants through offering deliberate and relevant value over time.

2. Exploring and understanding Media’s new role in online activities – defined by its abilities. And build products that fit better to this part of the online marketing eco-system, or create a new role all together.

Lets look at the horsemen, where are the opportunities?

1. Earned Media, this is simple. Earned media is earned, which means it finds and links to stuff that is valuable. (In effect this isn’t relevant to any advertising campaign that people don’t want to share. On the other hand…). If the advertising is valuable, then the media channel needs to offer the space for where the content resides. If brands build stuff on media channels that earned media links back to, you create a win-win situation. Simple :o)

2. Middle Men, a bit more complex. Media needs to get out of the way. At the same time they need their presence as they are dependent on not becoming invisible themselves. This creates a situation where brands and media need to collaborate. We already know that both brands and media channels are value providers, and it is the interfaces where they create shared value we are looking for. Media opens to such a collaborative opportunity through its development of arenas specially tailored to niche interest and niche brands.

3. New behaviors. Increased accessibility to information-, media-, and social technology first changes our tools, then our behaviors. What we are seeing now are people not only changing how much time they spend with media channels, but also how they use them. The jury is out on this one as the changes in behavior have just started, but both Transmedia, synchronized media activities across platforms and content enrichment through participation carries some very promising and clever inspiration.

4. Brands are the new competitors. As brands can create their own media channels and direct relations arenas, the need to use media as a vehicle for messaging decreases. This means that the competition for marketing dollars is not exclusively between the media channels but between the media channels and the brands own initiatives. What media needs to do is both understand how they can facilitate and increase the value of these arenas, by offering a new property tailored to each brands initiative. Top of mind this might be “free” traffic, but better and more unique values will be more connected to synergies gained from shared values.

Summarizing this into seven simple bullet points, digital media needs to do the following:

1. Start seeing themselves as value providers, not content providers.
2. Understand that advertising moves from just being messaging to becoming something useful and valuable.
3. Start selling long-term initiatives, helping brands build direct relations with people, and connect with them over time.
4. Produce content that is stealable and multipliable.
5. Build a portfolio of unique values – not unique content or formats.
6. Offer clear values as a part of a marketing eco-system, facilitate larger parts of this system.
7. And finally, offer brands marketing abilities that they are unable to offer themselves.

What are the challenges for FMCG brands in today’s post digital landscape? Especially, how does Digital Media facilitate good marketing opportunities in the Every Day Life?

The five ideas / suggestions presented are the following:

1. Marketing online has to impact how people feel about the brand. (it’s about ideas, not technology).
2. Build direct relations.
3. Be a conscious and active part of the every day life ecosystem – from at home, and out there, to in store.
4. It’s about them, not you – create contextual value.
5. Confusing social media with media.

…

It’s title and content is strongly influenced by the Brand Building in a Recession lecture by Richard Murray at D&AD earlier this year. A much recommended video.

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

The relationship between media and social media is like the relationship between egg and eggplant: They share a couple of the same letters, but they are not in the same taxonomy.” – Kevin Slavin, Area/Code

This post is an exploration of a quote by Kevin Slavin from the Storytelling Throwdown panel at the CaT conference in 2009. The reason being that I find the comment so insightful and interesting I felt it deserved some increased attention. (video below)

Traditional media is a battle between stories. Where the reader, viewer or listener is already engaged in a story, the main story, the content. And the goal of the advertising is to create an even more interesting story so that the engagement switches focus. It’s a story competition.

In social media we are not engaging in stories, we are engaging in the exchange of ideas. Be that a conversation between friends, or the need to define ones identity or role in a group by sharing something. Social media is not a competition of stories, it’s a competition for the attention to each other.

In social media the relationships aren’t short, superficial, cliched or stereotypical, quite the opposite. People spend more and more time, delving deeper and deeper in into each other, connecting more and more.

This setting is very difficult to displace with storytelling in its conventional sense. What we need are narratives and systems that engage and work within this context of attention between people. Stories that accelerate or facilitate increased exchange of ideas, increased connections.

Our stories need to increase the social fabric between people, understanding the systems and drivers that come in to play when people connect to each other and help them continue strengthening their relationships.

“One way to think about it. It’s like the relationship between media and social media is like the relationship between egg and eggplant. They share just a couple of letters but they’re not in the same taxonomy. That it’s a fundamentally different experience.

And that it used to be when you where storytelling, that what you were competing for attention against where other stories. It’s sort of a story competition.

And the attention we are competing for now is the attention to each other.

That basically what we are doing during the day these days is spending more and more time, deeper and deeper connected to each other. And that’s very difficult to displace through storytelling in the conventional sense of storytelling. And I think its important to figure out how to think about narratives as systems that can engage that, and can sort of work within that type of attention rather than to pull away from that exclusively.”

- Kevin Slavin, Storytelling Throwdown at CaT

(I’m having trouble with displaying the video due to a security error, please find it here.)

Malcolm Gladwell can be quoted saying, “When you take the unconscious seriously you undermine virtually all quantitative market research and its focus.” In a similar sense it is in place to question quantitative website analytics when it comes to understanding or proving the success of social, brand or other emotional activities online.

[A recommended presentation by Malcolm Gladwell on PopTech from 07]

Borrowing some terminology from Jenkins we could say that the accumulation of visitors’ actions, measured by the web analytics tool, represent the value of an activity.

- Value gives an appropriate indication of whether or not the mechanics of the solution has attracted and kept the attention of enough visitors for a satisfying amount of time, or persuaded them to travel along a predefined path.
- Value is a reference to the success of an activity before we know if it has created any effect.
- Value is a quantitative.

On the other hand, the emotional effect of the interaction represents the quality of it. Borrowing from Jenkins again this could be defined as the worth of the activity.

- Worth confirms whether or not the visitor has adopted the idea, and to which effect the idea has been transformed, or as Jenkins defines it; multiplied.
- Worth is the effect of the activity after participants have been exposed to the message, absorbed it, multiplied it, made it their own and are ready to share it in order to confirm or disconfirm it in their own networks.
- Worth represents the transformation of a companies idea into a persons self. The idea has become something meaningful. This meaningfulness is the goal of the activity.

Today we measure mechanics and quantity inside the experience, as it is happening, and leave the qualitative measurements to some time after. I reckon this is not because we think ideas need time to “sink in”, but because our tools for measuring quality are expensive and limited to just a few performed pre- or post activity. In any case we most often want the totality of our activities to be finished before we try to find if it has been successful or not.

This is where the change is needed. In recordable media there is no need to wait for ideas to “sink in”. Ideas are best preserved if recorded before the weakness of the brains memory system manipulates the feedback the visitor is able to give.

What we need is to start tailoring solutions for immediate qualitative feedback, designing them to record adoption and transformation as it is happening. And to understand the worth of the communication, the meaningful stuff, before and without it being manipulated by visitors’ post-rationalization.

When attention and engagement becomes less important in advertising and marketing, things are going to get a whole lot healthier.

1. This, the last from a series of posts I’ve published during the last week questioning some of the terminology we use as advertisers and marketers. (narrative, content, individuals).

2. It’s an idea, and hopefully, during the next couple of weeks, I will be able to elaborate and present examples that prove my point: That the terminology we use needs to change if we are going to build better, healthier marketing in a new brand landscape. Where we are allowed access to peoples personal lives, and where positioning a brand means something completely different than telling a story about it.

The problem with attention is that it becomes a reference to quantity, not quality, often leading to success metrics’ related to time or clicks. Which bears little relevance to positioning the brand or product in any way. Brains don’t make their minds up based on how long or how much they engage with an activity, they build their impressions on quality not quantity. read more…. (Although, quantity has always been kind of a life west for bad communication).

The opportunity we get from thinking outside of attention and engagement is that it opens the advertising to a much healthier degree of brand and product positioning. Because we can say that the goal of the advertising is to create value, in a way that puts no demand on stealing time away from people, keeping people interested long enough to tell a full story, or limiting our marketing to those who are interested enough in our advertising to actually spend a lot of time with it.

As I’ve noted before to marketers: “People don’t care about your brand all the time, they care about it sometimes.”. We (the advertising business) need to keep in mind that people don’t care about advertising, at least not advertising the way we see it. And that making stuff interesting enough to create attention isn’t a decisive element of positioning.

Thinking outside attention and engagement also opens up the strategic and creative process for the new brand landscape, the Everyday Life, saying that the goal of any advertising or marketing activity is to create something valuable – without limitations on what form or format this will take. Be it a story, an exchange of ideas, an object or a utility etc..

If we remove the inherent need for time or narrative from the process – where would our ideas go?

- Let me use social media as an example. Our focus on attention and engagement frightens marketers as they see SM as something very time consuming, but this very seldom needs to be the case. SM presents a whole range of abilities that companies and organizations would find valuable outside the metric of attention and engagement: Authenticity, relevance and trust being some of them.

My question is simple. Even though attention and engagement have become simple buzzwords for labeling advertising, are they creating a useful reference for success? Or are they distorting the picture?

Storytelling is packaging, a vehicle designed around an idea in order to increase its effectiveness in communication.

According to Al Ries, advertising is storytelling:

“Without a story, no advertising, no matter how brilliant, is going to work.”

Is Al Ries still right, or does this mindset belong inside the limitations of the message based advertising landscape?

It raises two questions:

1. Is advertising to focused on stories? On the brand representing an idea cocooned in a narrative?

2. In a wide interpretation of the word “story” a lot of things could fit in, but does the limitations of the terminology limit us from exploring opportunities outside the mechanics and dynamics of “the story”? Which is vital in the every day life mindset.

In the case where there is no need for advertising to interrupt, engage or entertain. Is there a need for story? Does a utility serve the purpose of the story or the idea?

The message based media model is changing from THE way to advertise to A way to advertise, alternative opportunities are surfacing. Where the story produces some great qualities, these are there to convey a meaning inside a given format, as this format changes the qualities change as well.

As transmedia on the one hand is doing a great job in exploring stories in a new converged participatory culture, is there also emerging a new form of “story-less” advertising?

This last year has seen logarithmic changes in marketing, fueled by different concepts like Utilities, AR, The Collective Exchange of Ideas, Transmedia, Digital becoming ubiquitous, Mobility and more.

I have tried to be a part of some of these discussions online, and have as a result of other peoples shared and collective wisdom published a range of posts, presentations and tweets on the subject.

What I wanted to do before leaving on a short summer vacation was recombine all the best ideas, into ONE Post Digital Marketing 2009 presentation. Summarizing all the major thoughts finding its way to my “ideas”-folder this last year.

View presentation below or here.

Hopefully it will both be interesting and inspiring to some, and the format introduce what Erin McKean defines as Serendipity:

“Finding something you weren’t looking for because finding what you are looking for is so damn difficult.”
- link

Please enjoy, and have a nice summer (winter).

Best Regards
Helge

If you want to know what the future might look like, start tuning your antennas to the ideas of Kevin Slavin of Area/Code. In this talk he explores some ideas on “the new livingroom”, where TV and online participation converge into a new experience, where viewers and participants reconnect.

In the talk, which Kevin is holding at the 5D Immersive Design Conference, he is as disruptive as in his last presentation at PSFK: “The mobile eco-system”.

Not to spoil it, but to give you a heads up, Kevin talks about games and the convergence of TV and Participation through simultaneous online activities. (The new Livingroom):

“Games with computers in them” (not the other way around)
“Televisions amazing, because it’s an event”
“Viewers and users are the same people, and the question is how to reconnect them again”

“We forgot what was so great about television, that it was something we all did at the same time, and it was kind of amazing. There was something that happened, something we all experienced that we could all talk about the next day. We had this kind of common conversation that was provided by it. And this goes away when you start time shifting, but it is actually really magic. And if you start thinking of television as something that we are all huddled around, for half an hour at a time, like all of us. It’s actually really magic. It’s something that only television could do.” (a tad rewritten :o)

Via offworld.

5D Conference : New Television Pt 4 – Kevin Slavin from Dave Blass on Vimeo.