Take It Face To Face

The first, of what will likely be a couple, branded pizza-ordering application is now available for your iPhone.  Pizza Hut has achieved the coveted “first mover” advantage into this space, with an app offering that allows users to order pizza and play the “Hut Racer” game while they wait.

Pizza Hut's iPhone application

While iPhone has only 11% of the market share, its tech savvy users are an ideal target for Pizza Hut because it’s very likely these people will actually use the application.  Using a phone application to order food creates a certain “cool” or “cutting edge” feeling that will be both contagious, and addicting, for its users.  It also gets rid of a few problems.

Ordering food happens to be one of my favorite things to do.  I would go as far as to say I’m an expert (specializing in the NW DC area).  I love to order food because it’s delicious and I don’t have to cook it for myself.  However, I also hate ordering food because it’s often difficult to communicate your order to the vendor and mistakes are sometimes made in the ordering process.  The emergence of  online ordering, and now phone application ordering, eliminates this human error (and interaction..).

Along with the application, consumers can also text and “Facebook” (verb) orders to Pizza Hut to place them.  I’ve already written about Twitter-restaurants and am sitting here wondering what the next step could possibly be.  Is there a good chance that picking up a phone to order could turn into a thing of the past?  Probably.  Unless you’re picking up the phone to order through an application, of course.

Have you been keeping up with the food-ordering trends?  Would the Pizza Hut app be something you would use?  What’s your favorite way to order?

Author’s Note:  Having been born and raised on Elmhurst’s own Roberto’s pizza, I feel bad for anybody that has to order from these chains, but this application should help ease your suffering.

Author’s Note #2:  Go Cubs.

Unless you are one of the few Team USA soccer fans, you probably don’t know about the Confederations Cup currently being played in South Africa.  The tournament acts as a World Cup tune-up for global soccer powerhouses, and normally public humiliation for American soccer fans.

Team USA advances to play Brazil in Confederations Cup Final

A six-goal swing in the standings after quarter final play allowed the Americans to advance to the Cup semis, played this afternoon, where the United States beat Spain (who was on a 15 game winning streak, and 35 game unbeaten streak dating back to 2006) 2-0.  This stunning upset could be considered a “Miracle on Turf” and has led ESPN.com to ask fans the anti-climatic question, “Do you care?”

Its poll currently says 80% of the 35,000 respondents care “A Lot”, while only 7% have said “Not at all”.  Yes it’s early and the game only ended an hour ago and people responding to the poll now probably watched the game, but if there’s so many die hard soccer fans in the United States, shouldn’t the MLS and its affiliates begin to pour marketing dollars into its product?  Strike while the iron’s hot?  Turn things around (since Beckham sure didn’t work)?

My answer is no, please don’t.  While it is closing in on that time that comes every four years, when the World Cup is played, that soccer makes it on to ESPN (rather than ESPN2) and the bandwagon fans slightly turn their attention to the sport, it is no time to go overboard.

The MLS, while not at the level of many European leagues, is a good (not great) product.  There is a large percentage of American children that are growing up playing soccer in some form, whether it be AYSO or club teams, that should be growing up to be MLS fans.  This isn’t the case, and it’s not necessarily the MLS’ fault.

The problem lies in its “packaging.”  Soccer, similar to hockey, is a great sport and even better sport to watch live.  However, the speed, excitement, and violence of the sport is dulled in a TV broadcast.  Regular season MLS games don’t carry the same excitement as World Cup games for viewers, and don’t receive near the ratings of other televised sports.

Rather than go overboard trying to force feed the sport as it currently is, the MLS needs to find a way to liven the broadcasts.  Whether it be different camera angles or finding a way to get closer to the action, something needs to be done.  The market is there, the excitement can be generated through the World Cup or Team USA success, but unless its presentation can be changed, it will continue to be a second tier sport in the United States.

The diehards won’t be discougared though, and as one fan puts it, “Soccer can’t be that bad, the rest of the world is on the bandwagon.”

At FaceTime, we are a forward thinkers and do our best to focus on innovative marketing techniques. That said, it’s also fun to take a look in the past every now and then.

In this case, the topic is beer advertising. Beer advertising is everywhere, and it has been there for a very long time. Long before “drinkability”, color-changing cans, or walk-in fridges, there was….

and if you’re really feeling crazy….

Yes, those are brutal. The combination of cheesy jingles and themes make any viewer wonder what the ad’s creator was thinking. But, during their time and place, they were effective. This begs the question, what is it about beer ads?

Is there a prerequisite that all beer ads have to be slightly, or not so slightly, over-the-top and border on extremes? Regardless of the time period they air, beer advertisers always find a way to tip toe the fine line between really funny, and really bad. But, when those really funny ads come around, they definitely make putting up with the bad ones worthwhile. The following clips are current beer ads, and show how much beer advertising has changed.

I believe the following ads, from Bud Light and Heineken, are some of the funniest beer ads that I have ever come across. Their stabs at humor don’t come off as a stretch, and are subtly hilarious.

And have Jennifer Aniston…

…Dude.

..and my personal favorite…

What are your feelings towards beer advertisements? Are you influenced by their ads? Or are you loyal to a particular brand? What are your favorite beer commercials?

Cheers.

Apple has recently announced the release of its new iPhone, the iPhone 3GS. The updated version is essentially an iPhone on steroids, with more memory (16 or 32 GB offerings), faster downloads, and added amenities such as video editing. As Apple continues to be on the cutting edge of smartphone technology, what does it mean for marketers?

The answer is simple: more opportunities. Another stage during the constant “out with the old, in with the new” world of technology we live in. The increased speed and memory will likely result in a new wave of apps and advertisements for iPhone users. Static mobile advertisements could be turning into a thing of the past, making way for new video and video game ad offerings.

Apple, and the iPhones, will also become a much more appealing channel for marketers. During the same conference as the release of the 3GS, Apple also announced the price of the previous version of the iPhone will drop to $99, making it much more affordable. This lower price will allow a much larger demographic to purchase the iPhone, creating more viewers for ads ran through the iPhone.

With this newest smartphone offering, one can only imagine what the future holds for consumers and marketers alike. Will smartphones eventually replace computers? What will happen to traditional advertising channels and methods? Regardless, companies that are currently active in developing applications and advertisements for smartphones undoubtedly have an advantage that will only continue to grow in the future.

Do you own a smart phone? If so, which kind? Which phone applications are your favorites? Are you interested in purchasing the new iPhone 3GS?

Everyday we use Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). At the office, in school, at home, you name it. We use email, text messages, blogs, videoconferencing, audio conferencing, instant messaging and blackberry messaging. With all of these different mediums, not to mention face-to-face (F2F) communication, are we choosing the best medium for the tasks at hand?

When using a CMC medium, you produce fewer remarks over a period of time, it takes longer to complete a task, less relationships form, but there is greater equality in participation, reduced normative social pressures, and less attitude change.

I wonder how many people could benefit from thinking about the advantages and disadvantages to using certain mediums. I recently started learning about this, and how much of a difference choosing the right medium makes.

Think about all of the new social media tools at our disposal. We have YouTube, Podcasts, Flickr, Blogs, social networking sites, like Facebook, and so much more. All of these advancements are more ways of helping us communicate, but are they distracting us from choosing the correct medium to get the job done in the most efficient way?

What do you think? What mediums work best for you, your company, or your group members?