DraftFCB | 2010 Agency of the Year

Changes We’d Like To See

// May 26th, 2011 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

• * Someone with a little more intellectual rigour than Lady Gaga becoming the next person to  attract ten million followers on Twitter
• *  Earphones with a visible sound-level meter, so we know how loudly we will be assaulting our senses before we plug them into our ears
• *  Social sharing software that allows us to easily identify and make direct contact with those who have similar tastes in music, movies or books
• 
• *  An intergenerational music service which can scan the contents of our iPods and (for Boomers and Gen X) recommend today’s artists we might like or (for Gen Y and Z) recommend classic offerings that might not offend our musical tastes
• *  An independent ranking of journalists, commentators or columnists that evaluates their relative objectivity, knowledge and credibility, so we know in advance the likely merits of a given contribution
• *  The appointment of a style counsellor tasked with helping The Family avoid fashion faux pas on grand occasions
• *  Books with RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chips that can access our Kindle or iBook libraries and indicate how likely we are to enjoy this new book based on our current collections
• *  A Powerpoint plugin that screams if we attempt to put more than seven words on a single slide

A Picture Sells A Thousand Words

// May 26th, 2011 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

Every so often, media companies like to demonstrate the efficacy of their medium by running fake advertisements and subsequently testing consumer recall of the fictional products featured in the ads. They then report the results to advertisers and trumpet the power of the medium being used.

Such experiments may actually demonstrate the power of the creative execution instead. A recent study by Priyali Rajagopal and Nicole Votolato Montgomery, “Imagine, Experience, Like: The False Experience Effect” (reported in the Journal of Consumer Research) suggests that the more vivid the advertising, the more likely we are to convince ourselves that we actually consumed the product:

A hundred volunteers looked at print ads for Orville Redenbacher’s “Gourmet Fresh” popcorn. Some subjects saw an ad with a vivid description of the brand’s “big white fluffy kernels.” Others saw a less evocative ad.

A week later, subjects who saw the vivid ad were twice as likely to believe they’d tried this product as were subjects who saw the plain ad. In fact, the believers were as confident that they had tried the popcorn as were people who actually ate popcorn after seeing the fake ads.

Just one problem — Orville Redenbacher’s “Gourmet Fresh” popcorn doesn’t exist. The researchers made it up.

The study’s conclusion: “Exposing consumers to imagery-evoking advertising increases the likelihood that a consumer mistakenly believes he/she has experienced the advertised product, and subsequently produces attitudes that are as strong as attitudes based on genuine product experience.”

Food advertisers (and foodie magazine editors) already understand this instinctively — the more appetising the imagery, the greater the appeal.

Beep! Beep!

// May 26th, 2011 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

In the marketing world there are those who define themselves as creative — or at least admit to the label when pressed — and those who would not normally claim that title (or even perhaps would loudly reject the notion). One doesn’t have to look too far to see examples of creative and non-creative clashing in the pursuit of business.

Yet, in the perverse way that the universe works, the tension between the two is often essential for bringing forth the best of both. In a recent article on PSFK (http://bit.ly/igEB4K), frog design enlists Wile E Coyote and the Road Runner to make an interesting observation:

So, what exactly does a cartoon character teach us about creativity? You would probably argue that Wile E.’s creative intelligence (CQ, in homage to IQ) is much higher than Road Runner. In fact, he probably generates more inventions per broadcast minute than any other character in popular culture. While Road Runner just, well, runs away. But would Wile E. be anywhere near as creative without Road Runner? Would his inventions emerge out of his own faculties unprompted or only in response to a situation? His relationship with Road Runner is a dynamic that constantly pushes him farther, faster, and (unfortunately in most cases) higher than he imagined.

The reality is that we can’t just assess and hire people with high CQs and expect them to do their creative magic. Creativity emerges out of relationships; it’s the tension between different ideas and perspectives and so it is risky to define it as an ability that we inherently possess. Wile E.’s inventions always fail because he has no one to collaborate with, only Road Runner to inspire them. And all Road Runner ever does is beep beep and zoom off.

Just as intense pressure turns the most ordinary carbon into priceless diamond, so too the conflict between business and creativity can breathe life into the impossible. Comfort yourself with that notion the next time your creative genius drives you to the wall with her way-out-of-the-box thinking or that implacable stick-in-the-mud straightjackets your ideas.

The Game’s The Thing

// May 26th, 2011 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

Social gaming is hot, with gamemaker Zynga leading the charge. Games such as CityVille (88 million monthly users), Farmville (44 million) and even Texas HoldEm Poker (35 million users) have helped Zynga to the top of the Facebook application stats — and, though individual game popularity waxes and wanes, the company’s collective portfolio makes other businesses green with envy.

Gaming isn’t only about games, though. Gamification — the introduction of game-like characteristics to other online activities — is catching on fast. Researcher Gartner estimates that by 2015, more than 50 percent of companies that manage innovation will gamify that process.

One sector that is particularly interested in gamification is Health & Wellness. Organisations concerned with our wellbeing, faced with the age-old challenge of encouraging us to adopt behaviours that are good for us (rather than those that merely feel good), are seeing positive results by applying game mechanics to improve consumer engagement.

One Boston-based startup, MeYou Health, has developed the Daily Challenge:

We send you a quick email once a day (7am) with some small “challenge” for you to do some time during the day. If you do it, click DONE in the email. If you don’t do it, you will get a reminder (4pm). Rolled up in that are opportunities in a social layer (for support and motivation), and a game layer (for progress).

In preparing the Daily Challenge, MeYou Health drew on the findings of game researcher Richard Bartle, who discovered that four key Fulfillment Mechanics lay at the heart of successful online games. According to that research, players operate in four distinct modes while playing:

• Explorer – in this mode, players get satisfaction from exploring their virtual environment, uncovering secrets, learning new things and becoming rich sources of knowledge (which they can then share with their friends)
• Achiever – this mode taps into players’ urge to acquire stuff (e.g. trophies, badges) which can then be displayed to confirm their prowess
• Socialiser – some like to talk, form groups and otherwise interact, in formal or informal structures
• Killer – and some just like destruction or at least the chance to compete, display skill and ultimately win

The most successful games tap into all four modes — and so should those aiming to gamify their products for commercial benefit.

The Perils of Modern Life

// May 26th, 2011 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

When distracted by emails or phone calls in the workplace, we are, according to a story carried by BBC News some years ago, likely to suffer a fall in IQ more than twice that found in marijuana smokers. A research study carried out at the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College in London found that excessive use of technology reduced workers’ intelligence by as much as 10 points.

That story, picked up by many other mainstream media (including CNN, the Times and the New Scientist) and hundreds of websites and blogs, seemed to confirm our worst fears: the constant onslaught of emails, text messages, phone calls and status updates is draining our intelligence. And what of our children, exposed to the cacophony of modern life since birth? What chance do they have when every cellphone beep signals another assault on their IQ?

Journalist David H Freedman decided to dig a little deeper. He tracked down Dr Glenn Wilson, author of the study, and reported on the encounter in his 2010 book “Wrong: Why experts keep failing us – and    how to know when not to trust them”:

“When I asked him about the study, Dr Wilson … explained that the entire affair had been the bright idea of a marketing executive at the PC manufacturer Hewlett-Packard … a bit of paid research into the effects of multitasking. … Encouraged by his sponsor at HP to keep the budget extremely low, and ensured there was no pretence of trying to obtain scientifically valid, peer-reviewable, journal-publishable results, Wilson dragged eight students into a quiet room one at a time and gave them a standard IQ test, and then gave each of them another one – except that the second time he left either a phone ringing continuously in the room or a flashing notification of incoming email on a computer monitor in front of them. And what do you know? The students scored a bit lower while hounded by the constant noise or flashing light. ‘It didn’t prove much of anything, of course,’ Wilson told [the journalist]. ‘But Hewlett-Packard seemed happy with it and I thought that was the end of it.’”

Except that the story took on a life of its own, fuelled by an HP press release that gave no hint of the crudity and tiny scale of the experiment – and wildly overreached in its interpretation of the results (including a bizarre but headline-grabbing comparison to the effects of marijuana). Dr Wilson’s phone rang hot with reporter enquiries but despite his best efforts to straighten the record he had little luck in doing so. Eventually even HP became alarmed by the extent of the coverage and asked Dr Wilson to decline further comment. By then the damage had been done and the supposed ill-effects of technology had entered corporate folk lore: at a recent conference business guru Julie Morgenstern grimly cautioned her audience, “We used to think multitasking was efficient, but now we know it causes brain damage.”

Freedman’s book is peppered with similar examples of conclusions improperly drawn from research, erroneous opinions offered by experts or professional studies based on inadequate, inappropriate or incomplete hypotheses:

Can Vitamin D supplements help fend off cancer?

No, said a 1999 study

Yes, said a study in 2006 – it cuts risk up to 50 percent   

Yes, said a study in 2007 – it cuts risk up to 77 percent  

No, said a 2008 study

So what should we believe and what can we safely ignore?

Freedman offers up some useful characteristics of expert advice that has a higher than average likelihood of being wrong:

• The conclusions are simplistic, universal and definitive
• It’s supported by only a single study or many small or less careful ones
• It’s groundbreaking
• It’s pushed by people or organisations that stand to benefit from its acceptance
• It’s geared towards preventing a future occurrence of a prominent recent failure of crisis

On the other hand, we can feel more confident with expert advice if:

• It’s a negative finding
• It’s heavy on qualifying statements
• It’s candid about contrary opinions and conflicting information
• It provides context and perspective
• It provides candid, blunt comments

For a healthy, sceptical view of today’s expert-guided environment (and some rather frightening examples), check out “Wrong”.

Not So Hidden Persuaders

// May 26th, 2011 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

A recent issue of WIRED magazine (May 2011) highlights increasing interest in the field that’s been dubbed Persuasion Profiling. It’s a technique that’s almost guaranteed to attract the attention of the guardians of personal privacy – but the new field also promises useful insights into consumer behaviour and particularly how individuals might best be encouraged to make purchases, especially online.    

At least some of the current studies in Persuasion Profiling are based on the six principles of persuasion as identified by Professor Robert Cialdini a decade ago:

• Reciprocity – People tend to return a favour.
• Commitment and Consistency – If people commit, orally or in writing, to an idea or goal, they are more likely to honour that commitment because of establishing that idea or goal as being congruent with their self image.
• Social Proof – People will do things that they see other people are doing.
• Authority – People will tend to obey authority figures, even if they are asked to perform objectionable acts.
• Liking – People are easily persuaded by other people that they like.
• Scarcity – Perceived scarcity will generate demand.

In a 2010 research paper Maurits Kaptein of the Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands showed how ecommerce stores in particular could use those six persuasive principles to shape the way that products are pitched to consumers:

1. Reciprocity: Online stores hand out a small gift to potential consumers before presenting their products
2. Scarcity: Online stores promote special discounts or limited time offers.
3. Authority: Online stores use expert endorsements or (positive) critical reviews to promote products.
4. Commitment and consistency: Online stores try to make consumers more committed by acknowledging product preference — e.g. add to “Wish list”.
5. Consensus: Online stores often show how many people already bought a specific product.
6. Liking: Through social media online stores use friend recommendations to increase conversion.

So far so good — and nothing too privacy-intrusive there. But Kaptein’s paper (http://bit.ly/lCm3OY) shows that sales can be significantly increased by identifying the particular persuasion triggers to which an individual responds — and then applying that same persuasion principle to subsequent transactions.

A similar study, by Dean Eckles of Stanford University, found that people respond to the same type of argument in multiple circumstances. In other words, if you figure out how to sell someone books, you can use the same technique to sell them clothes. And if that finding holds, your persuasion profile will have a pretty substantial financial value.

Watch for a new breed of tracking tools that attempt to cash in on persuasion profiling — but be wary of a potential backlash if the information is misused. As the Wired article notes, persuasion profiling potentially offers quick, easily transferrable targeted access to your personal psychological weak spots.

The Changing Face of the NZ Internet

// May 13th, 2011 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

The news passed swiftly across our desks last month and thence into oblivion (or at least into the Wayback Machine at archive.org): Telecom was getting out of the web portal business, selling its 49 percent share of Yahoo!Xtra to Yahoo!7.

Telecom declined to say how much it received from the sale of its Yahoo!Xtra stake, but said it wasn’t material and wouldn’t change the phone company’s guidance to investors.

There was a time, back in the nineties, when such a sale would have been heretical. It was the accepted wisdom at the time that an internet service provider such as Telecom’s Xtra needed somewhere for its new users to go — a place where they could enjoy the rich treasures of the WWW locally without going WW. The notion seems quaint now — that users need a local playground before they’re ready to venture out into the cold, cruel world.

Times change. Nielsen tells us (Online Retail Report 2010) that 57% of regular Internet users are Online Shoppers — and that more of us are buying stuff more often online than we were just a year ago. Facebook reckon that we can reach 1,897,140 Kiwis through their pages. TVNZ reports show that more than half a million of us regularly watch television online and on demand – and (at times such as after the Christchurch Earthquake) that number can spike to more than 1.1 million.

Clearly we no longer need training wheels when it comes to Tiki Tours of the Internet.

New Zealand by the numbers

// May 13th, 2011 // No Comments » // Uncategorized

• 50%: percentage of Kiwis who tuned in at some time to the Royal Wedding of William and Kate
• 54%: percentage of us who caught at least some of the wedding of Charles and Diana thirty years ago
• 74%: positive approval of the Royal family (in a UMR Research poll conducted just after the Royal Wedding), compared with 60% in July 2002 when the question was last asked
• 77%: percentage of New Zealand homes now watching digital television (Colmar Brunton survey for Going Digital)
• 95%: percentage of NZ business decision-makers who agreed that customer satisfaction is the key to growth and success (iStart-Microsoft Customer Experience Survey)
• 38%: percentage of NZ businesses that undertake research to determine whether their customers are happy or otherwise
• 66%: percentage of online New Zealanders who receive e-mail alerts from daily deal websites (Nielsen Online Retail Report 2010)
• 40%: percentage of online New Zealanders who have made a purchase from such a site in the past three months (Nielsen again)
• 22,292: average daily unique Kiwi browsers of BBC Sport for March 2011, enough to make the website NZ’s fourth most popular sports site for the month (according to Nielsen NZ Market Intelligence)
• $34 Billion: projected increase in spending power for those Over 65 over the next four decades (Ministry of Social Development report “The Business of Ageing”)