Read the article Designing Identities part 3 on popsop.com.

From the article:

“[The] linear model argues that the process of insight ends before the first idea has been conceptualized, that all the questions have been answered before any real ones have been asked. The problem of similar identities does not start with the sketching of ideas; it starts with the structure of exploring knowledge and discovering insight.”

“If you fill people with rectangular knowledge they are going to create a rectangle, if you give them the idea that we are building a geometric shape, the whole organism of the team will work together to explore opportunities in the width of geometric shapes.”

“We need to include our clients in the articulation of design, if not products will become unsophisticated and conservative (research proves that people not articulate in an expert field will prefer products that they themselves eventually find uninteresting and boring).”

Read the article Designing Identities part 3 on popsop.com.

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.

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.

In the new environment, with fresh ideas, tailored to new behaviors in a post digital / post-shift media landscape, the core challenge is not to have brilliant disruptive ideas….

Ideas are the consequence of insight… and insight is the result of harvested knowledge, put back together in a successful way. The challenge today is on us, on the harvesters and the insight magicians – we need new ways of gathering the first glimpses of knowledge, and news ways of connecting them.

If we don’t change the way we gather knowledge and how we connect it, we won’t change the way we think and we won’t change.

Based on the stuff I’ve read and listened to during this last decade (not very scientific :), creativity is the process of having original ideas that have value (Ken Robinson), and ideas are what happens when two or more stored memory fragments in the brain (stuff is stored in fragments – not in videos or novellas) reconnects and creates something new. Now in order for there to be original insight one has to have original fragments, meaning original pieces of knowledge stored around the brain waiting to be picked out by eager ideas.

In a time where the pressure on creativity to contract, expand, change, stay the same and whatever, it all comes down to you – the first spark has as much responsibility to be trenched in originality, maybe more, than anything else – as it shapes the rest of the process.

Aki Spicer, Director of Digital Strategy at Fallon heads it of with a longer segment, before a range of contributors from all over the world ad their valuable ideas. Luckily I get the honor of ending of the whole thing of (maybe it was the “thank you” :)

Please enjoy..

By request, and in response to the brilliant Spur series by Redscout, hosted by PSFK, I have added my thoughts on the future of planning.

My point being that advertising is getting dangerously close to becoming nothing more than a small niche in the marketing communications portfolio. And, as is pointed out by several of the brilliant people interviewed in the video, it’s business model is looking more and more like an execution model rather than an conceptual overarching strategic model.

It is my claim that if advertising is to regain some of the portfolio it has been losing over the past 40 years, it needs to concentrate on servicing a larger perspective of the strategic sphere of marketing communications, and strategists, or planners, are one of the more important products in this new model.

- And in that process maybe even understand that their main product – the idea – is not as important and valued in this portfolio as it ones was. It is a problem that people still hail the VW ads of the 60s and 70s as the best ever, when they are clearly representing a completely different communications landscape than what we are faced with today.

First, the Spur episode on the future of planning:

And then, my own, and tad uncomfortable, video response.

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:

As a result I wanted to publish it as an own slideshow, a small checklist or inspirational document in case anyone wanted to enjoy it, download it, print it or share it without all the other stuff in the original presentation surrounding it (and with an additional bonus guideline).

In addition to this I’m also thinking of doing the opposite – expanding it, into a more content rich presentation. Including more insights to create a bigger understanding of why each guideline is. And making it more tangible by presenting some known and lesser known examples proving each point.

Inspired by Godin, who said that in the future Amazon will act as a crowd sourced publisher, where if enough people list themselves as buyers of a future novel by a specific writer, Amazon will commission this novel, sell it and distribute it.

So what I am suggesting is that if enough people add a comment to this post, or send me a mention/tweet via @congbo. I will put together the larger presentation and hopefully create a piece of content that would be valuable too both colleagues and clients, planner and brands, marketers and executives.

I’m aiming for about 50 in total, so please comment or tweet if you want it all.

A couple of days back a quite popular and knowledgeable blog wrote, as a small part of their quite smart overview on social media, that some brands don’t belong in it.

I do agree with their statement, but disagree strongly with their reasoning:

” Some brands do not need to engage with their customers online, period. Products like bread or socks, for example, are not the kind of things that people want to have a social relationship with anywhere, forget online. It just makes them look silly.” – madebymany.co.uk

Now to me, both bread:
- Bakertweet
And socks:
- LittleMissMatched (mentioned on several occasions by mister Godin)
have a potential following too them.

In my mind it doesn’t come down to the category. It comes down to the company – if you are boring and uninteresting brand, and never even tried to create something remarkable or interesting in regards to your product. Then social media, as would be the case with advertising, is not a golden ticket, and will either fail or prove you wrong faster – or both.

And it comes down to our imagination. Just because we haven’t seen it done before it doesn’t mean there isn’t a possibility that it might happen – in a way we could never imagine. In fact, having NOT seen it before only proves that there is a market and that it is there for the taking (if my initial statement is correct that is :o).

So, it’s not the product or category that defines a companies ability to connect and grow with its audience and participants. It is its ability to imagine something remarkable inside what to others seems like a lifeless and boring category.

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:

- ”We’ve been to identical, bought cheap traffic at a cost to our brand for to many years.” - Kristin Skogen Lund, CEO, Aftenposten

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

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

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.

- 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.

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.

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

But in order to understand this we need to look beyond the SMS and the text voting, and start exploring the real potential of the platform.

Since the Mobile Abilities Map pdf, published two weeks ago, has received a great deal of interest. I thought it would be a good resource to readers if I collected and published my inspiration and ideas to each topic. Hopefully getting some inspirational juice flowing.

- I’ve added links to each resource on slides where this was possible.

I hope people appreciate the presentation, and continue sharing great links on their own blogs (and link back here) or in the comments section on this blog.