See Change Happen

Involuntary genius

Yesterday, as I was waiting for my plane to take off, I watched this guy load about 50 cases of Miller Lite onto the plane. I don't think it was a guerrilla advertising stunt but it should have been.

Good intentions, bad design?

There have clearly been a lot of advancements in socially beneficial design. Handicapped ramps, for example, once impossible to find are now ubiquitous. Hearing aids are now small enough to be hidden inside the ear. Challenge Aspen (an unbelievable organization) helps disabled people race down ski slopes and be active in entirely new ways. So, for the most part, it seems that a lot of good is being done.

But, one thing I’ve noticed, that doesn’t make any sense, especially from a design perspective, is the use of Braille.

I'll preface this with, I don't know anyone who is blind. So, I could be totally wrong but as someone who isn't blind, I can't seem to find any sort of rhyme or reason to the use or placement of Braille. And it makes me think that if anyone deserves consistency or standardization, it is someone who has to navigate the world without his/her eyesight.

In hotels, sometimes the Braille numbers are to the right of a door, sometimes centered on the door. Yesterday, I stopped at a gas station and noticed this diaper changing unit. The English instructions were in the logical place, at the top and around eye level while the Braille instructions were at the far bottom in the corner, around waist level. Which means they were almost impossible to find. (And I'd assume most people who need the instructions are also holding a baby.)

Is Braille a legal issue? Do companies have to put Braille on equipment and therefore just slap it wherever they want? If so, how come there isn't a better system? One that ensured that if I was looking for Braille, I'd know where to find it. And why don't things like street poles use Braille? I'd think more people would want to know the name of a particular street than the instructions for using a diaper changing unit in a Texaco station.

My mom and I were recently talking about a blind couple she met at an outdoor event. The couple was trying to find the main tent but were having trouble navigating the crowds and because the event was temporary, there was no signage in Braille to help them find bearings. Our conversation led to an idea to invent a new way for people to navigate a space.  What if someone developed a wallet-sized magnetized card and instead of randomly placing Braille instructions on objects, product designers, city planners etc could embed a chips all over the place. When triggered by a wave of the credit card, the chips would provide audio information such as a street name or instructions for use, somewhat like those headset tours in a museum. It would work perfectly for temporary events. Or even for someone who wasn't blind but just had a bad sense of direction. (e.g. me, my mom)

Would it be expensive or difficult to implement? I'm not sure. But it seems like any system would be better than looking for information by running one's hands along a dirty bathroom wall.

Great Visualization

I came across these photos a few months ago but just discovered them again and remembered
how amazing they are. Each shows a redrawn world map, altered to visually to show trends
such as alcohol consumption or HIV/AIDS rates etc. These visualizations are a great example
of how images can be significantly more powerful that a bunch of statistics.

Here's the link to the site and a couple of great examples.

WAR AND DEATH, 2002, Africa dominates the entire map

ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION 2001, Asian and Western Europe really dominate this map.
Based on my college experience, I would have thought the US would have been higher or at
least blown up around Georgetown University. Hmm. The relationship between poverty
and alcohol is also interesting - not very popular in Africa but hugely popular in
Russia- guess culture does make a difference.

I also love the wealth of nations 1500 vs wealth of nations 2002. Great reminder that without
careful governing and responsible citizenry, power can be short lived.
Hello subprime loans and unnecessary wars.

Did grown-ups kill the question?

Last night, as I was getting off a plane, I saw a young kid. probably about 4 or 5 years old, standing in the cockpit chatting with the pilots while the rest of the passengers disembarked. As I passed by I overheard the kid earnestly ask "how do you know where you are going when it is dark outside?" Which I thought was a pretty good question.

As I walked away, wondering the answer, I thought, why are kids allowed to be publicly inquisitive but adults aren't? Had I stopped by the cockpit to learn a little about flying would the pilots have accommodated my questions? Kicked me off the plane? Politely directed me to "Flying for Dummies?" The point is, I'm not sure I would have asked.

Undeniably, asking questions is a positive. But the older or more experienced one becomes, the less likely he/she is to risk revealing not having all the answers. This is especially true in business settings.  Which is unfortunate because not asking questions may minimize risk but it also drastically limits experimentation and long-term ultimately, success.

I'd love to see the results of creating an office "question culture" and see whether that culture could lead to a more innovative workplace, one where where risk taking is more common and mistakes more accepted. Some initial thoughts: What about beginning a meeting with a questions session instead of putting it at the end? Or start a "Dumb Question" blog where people from different departments can share information in an non-threatening way?  Random fact Thursday lunches? Kind of like adult show and tell? Or designate a day each year for an aspirational off-site? Go see how something other than your product is made think about whether it is possible to apply the findings to your own brand.

My point: sharing knowledge is undeniably powerful. We really shouldn't have to carry a lunch box to do so.

(Incidentally, the photo on this post is of my friend, Crystal, sitting in the cockpit of a plane. Asking a couple of questions got her a free ride in the front.)

 

Fuzzwich is cool

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to attend the D-Day event for Paul Graham's YCombinator . If you haven't heard of it, YCombinator is an amazing program that provides seed funding for startups. It's absolutely incredible what can be built by small groups of entrepreneurs over a 3-month period. Which definitely led to some thoughts about my own efficiencies...

But anyway, I was introduced to many great ideas but one I particularly loved was a company called Fuzzwich. It's a really simple application that allows users to make "minivids," a short, animated video created by choosing from a variety of pre-loaded backgrounds, characters and music.

The user creates a custom animated short by picking characters, determining where the way the characters move within the scene and adding text bubbles. It's incredibly easy to create and share a minivid and I think Fuzzwich is a perfect example of an app that requires minimal time investment yet provides very entertaining results.

What is also cool is that there are a couple of ways Fuzzwich can monetize their business model. Most obviously, by partnering with brands and creating product placements within the videos. But another more interesting thought would be to partner with advertising agencies so they can create content together. The result could be a very interactive and entertaining viral media idea.

Click on the image to see the custom minivid these guys made for me. Awesome.

The Death of the Ad Agency?

I'm in Aspen this week, sitting in on the Aspen Institute's FOCAS conference on communication and society. Today's discussion compared old vs new media and the impact of the web. I often feel this topic has been overplayed, but the panel included some heavy hitters like Michael Eisner and Ariana Huffington, so was definitely fun to watch.

One subject that sparked my interest was when Lynda Resnick, the marketing guru behind such brands as Fiji Water and POM Wonderful pomegranate juice, spoke about building the POM brand over 4 years with a $14m marketing budget, which to contextualize, is nothing compared to most new product launches.

So, how did Resnick create a successful launch, on a small budget, with no agency, for an unknown and relatively expensive product? (around $4.50/bottle) Apparently, she did her advertising in-house, meaning, no agency fees, no flying to meetings, and no time explaining what the product was all about. She, therefore, left herself more time to act and to innovate (developing a reusable glass, expanding the product line, researching the medical benefits) and less time negotiating and explaining all of this to an agency.

Which is smart because most of what Resnick did to launch her product wasn't really advertising. Primarily, she distributed the product widely and for free, like the old supermarket sample model. She also created a compelling PR story by leveraging the medical benefits of the juice. She eliminated a step. Consumers didn't have to go to POM, instead, POM found the consumer.

Is this type of thinking going to eventually outsmart the big advertising agency? Already, marketing budgets are being cut. TV spots are being replaced by interactive, viral, guerrilla and content distribution through social media platforms. But to take it a step further, do companies even need an outside source to market a product? For one, no one outside of a company will understand or care about a brand/product to the extent of those working for a company. In Resnick's case, she truly loves and believes in her product. Secondly, isn't a lot of the technology required to market becoming readily accessible to the masses?  YouTube quality videos are rapidly becoming legitimate sources of information and can be created at virtually no cost while a TV spot requires about $1m to produce not to mention the mess of hiring the film crews, casting agents etc. And that's all before it even airs. Plus, consumer demographics are changing. As today's teens grow up, a generation bred on immediacy and user generated content, will they acknowledge or trust content created by third parties? Do they need slick presentation?

So, my question is: are traditional agencies on the way out? And for now, I'd say, probably not. At least not yet. But, to compete with the Lynda Resnicks of the world, finding ways to to become more nimble, more media and PR saavy and certainly more willing to work with smaller budgets is imperative.

Goodbye month-long TV shoots in Paris, you sure were fun.

 

Really? You still smoke?

My friend Chris and I have been talking a lot about how to use conventional marketing techniques to promote socially responsible causes and products. For some reason most non-profit/cause based advertising is virtually invisible. It's not that the ideas or products these companies are trying to market are less compelling but rather that "responsible" businesses seem to steer away from the persuasive and sometimes manipulative marketing techniques used in the mainstream media.

Admittedly, I don't understand that sort of thinking.

Why is it that a 2 second shot of swirling ice cream at the end of a Dreyer's Ice Cream ad will send me wandering into the kitchen looking for desert but I've never seen an equally persuasive ad that makes smoking, a well documented, life-threatening habit, look unappealing or even disgusting?

It seems that both should or could be marketed with equal effectiveness.

Crispin Porter + Bogusky has produced a lot of fantastic anti-smoking work as part of their "Truth" campaign but none of it was as persuasive as the results of this "Ghetto Science Smoking" clip from YouTube. (thanks Chris)

The only bummer about the video is that it took so long to get to the results: a visibly stained tissue is a pretty powerful image and made me start to wonder how that image alone could be used to tell the whole story. And would that story be effective enough to change behaviors?