Take It Face To Face

Some lessons being taught at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival this week (June 21-27) are that bigger is not always better, and that doing more with less deserves to be rewarded.

CumminsNitro, an Australian ad agency, took home the coveted PR Lions Grand Prix and Direct Lions Grand Prix for its “Best Job in the World” campaign, created for Tourism Queensland.  The basis of the campaign, with a budget of only $1.2 million, was a want-ad for the role of “Island Caretaker” (aka “Best Job in the World“) for the islands of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia.

Despite its simple approach, the campaign received massive feedback.  Tourism Queensland received roughly 35,000 applications for the position from over 200 different countries, on top of an estimated $100 million worth of media coverage during the campaign.  Not bad for a glorified want-ad.

The “Best Job” campaign, while rooted in the want-ad, also received help via traditional and non-traditional methods.  The ad was a popular topic and was covered by news channels in several different countries, providing the strong, traditional reach of the campaign.  However, the applicants were required to submit a 60 second video clip as their application, and these were YouTube hits.  This balanced coverage provided a nice blend of new/old for the campaign.   CumminsNitro also capitalized on the timing, launching a want-ad when jobs are hard to come by, and people around the world are searching.

All in all, CumminsNitro’s campaign far exceeded expectations and has put Tourism Queensland on the “map”.  The winner of the contest has recently been selected, and will be recording a blog during his tenure as Island Caretaker.

What simple campaigns have you come across?  Do you know of any that have experienced success far greater than anticipated?  Would you apply for a job similar to the “Best Job in the World”?

Technology has helped us reach a new level of globalization. Globalization comes with its ups and downs like anything else. Communication lines opened up, people are able to travel all over the world and keep their friends and family close to them in their pockets or through the use of Internet cafes. I went to Costa Rica for a summer and even though I was in the middle of nowhere there were still Internet cafes and computer or telephone access. Although communication has opened up, globalization has also opened up opportunities for outsiders to get inside.

Technology has consequences just like anything else. But does that mean that it is wrong? Making things easier does not change the fact that people can build explosives without the lab research and the proper resources. Materials found in all sorts of technology can be used for and against people.

The U.S. Army Battalion 304 put out a report documenting the possible use of Twitter and GPS systems to change the world. GPS coordinates and Twitter’s instant communication could make it easy for terrorists to target certain places. With a combination of the two, the military could have, build and detonate explosives while communicating it in an instant. This does not mean that we should stop inventing and expanding into the global market place, there are just consequences like there are for anything else.

The U.S. spends hundreds of millions of dollars on technology like precision munitions that contrast the use of IEDs by insurgents. However, everyday people come up with easy and inexpensive ways to communicate and in a sense to kill.

What should we do? Stop inventing new technology or stop using it?

Hello Demographic M25-54

Couldn’t help but post about this. A few days ago the Guardian had an article about two Dunkin Donuts in Buffalo NY which are using facial recognition software to analyze their clientele and serve contextual advertising to them based on their demographic appeal, and possible current or past purchases.

The article mentions Minority Report and it is the first thing I thought of.  Does this look familiar to anyone?

I don’t think I’m the only one who considers this creepy.  I’ve always had an interest in economics, and as my career has progressed I have found it interesting to see marketing’s role in an economic system.  In a perfect market, all information is distributed freely and instantaneously.  This allows customers to know exactly what kind of service, options, pricing, products, etc are available and how they match with their own personal values.  When product A reaches a point where it will deliver more utils (an economic term for units of satisfaction) than product B the consumer will purchase product A.

I believe marketing’s function, to a degree, is to spread the message about your company’s product or service and how it fits into the marketplace.  Maybe its the lowest cost option, highest quality, longest lasting, lowest maintenance, best tasting, healthiest, etc.  This arms the consumer with the information and validation they need to move forward with a purchasing decision.

There are a number of widgets and programs available that help accomplish this now (some we’ve even built.)  They range from the Southwest Ding to a standard threshold buying profile on any MLS program.  This allows me, or you, to set our buying thresholds - I’m interested in buying product A or a reasonable alternative, for X dollars.  And when a product or service that matches that threshold is available, it lets you know, and you can move forward buying it if you like.  To me, that is helpful.  It saves me time, and helps ensure I am getting a deal I am interested in.

Camera 4 Sees Ad Revenue!

My concern with the contextual system put in place at these Dunkin Donuts is that they will simply make guesses based on your demographic profile.  Sure some taste will overlap among people, but for the most part this feels like an invasion of my privacy which doesn’t benefit me.  The cost of my privacy is X dollars to the advertiser interested in reaching MALE DEMOGRAPHIC 25-45.

I don’t mind being marketed to, but if you want me to be responsive and embrace your company and product, them market to me on my terms, not yours.  Am I alone here?

The recent controversy with EA and its DRM with highly anticipated Spore and Red Alert 3 illustrate a much larger situation facing society as a whole than the simple battle between user satisfaction and freedom vs piracy and theft. It is a manifestation of the fact that the concept of ownership as we know it is changing. It is evolving and adapting to new innovations in technology and communications.

Movies, music, books and video games are at the center of this change as they are the most widely digitally distributed media.  In the past, in order to really have control of a release (without a time limit) you had to purchase a physical copy of it.  Whether it be a novel, a CD, a tape or record or DVD you had to have it in your possession to use it at any time.  The exceptions are of course libraries and rental stores like Blockbusters and such - but those include a time limit and you must go physically retrieve the medium.

Now you can gain access to any of these mediums through a number of means, from online streaming and downloads, to mobile services or peripheral devices like Ipods and media players.  The biggest catch with these methods being pricing, payment and profits.  The world is still feeling out these models and how they are going to work.  It’s going to take time to see how these models evolve, and some of the biggest influences on them are the companies designed around this concept already.

Some popular businesses built around online distribution of music are Pandora, Last.Fm, and Project Playlist.  And I’m sure you know some of the businesses built for video - YouTube, Hulu and others.  Each of these offers a slightly different take on distributing and “owning” media.  Some introduce new content, some allow you to access content on demand.  Some are on a pay per basis, some based on advertising, and yet others are still looking for the revenue model that will work for them.

Some more terrestrial or hybrid businesses adapting to new ideas of ownership are Netflix, BookMooch, and ZipCar.  Netflix turned the movie rental business on its head, and is now partnering with Xbox to provide streaming video as well as through their on demand online channel.

BookMooch is essentially a platform that allows book worms like myself to exchange books we’ve already read for those we want to read.  My new profile is woefully underused, but the system itself is a lot of fun and a great alternative to Amazon and the like.

One of my favorite adaptations of this shared ownership platform is Zipcar.  They make car sharing easy, and are very useful for cities in which having a car is more of an inconvenience than not having one.  They are quite popular here in DC and a multitude of other urban markets.  The concept itself is extremely simple, use a car when you need it.  You sign up, get a Zipcard and can go online to register a vehicle near you - like the Impreza 5-door Interiano which is right outside the door to my office.  You don’t have to worry about gas or insurance as it’s all included.  It’s also nice when you need wheels fast and have metroed into the city and generally cost much less than a taxi.

I’d like to know what other business that have adapted to this new concept of access over ownership, do you know of some I’ve missed?

I have very strong political beliefs. I don’t talk about them at work because my beliefs are my own and I never want to alienate people. I do love talking politics when it comes to innovation and communication.

Regardless of what you think about him Barack Obama knows how to use technology. Not only can you sign up to receive a text alert about who the Senator will pick as a running mate, you can download a host of other tech goodies. Regardless of what you think about McCain it can be said without a doubt that he cannot.

All I can say is wow. This is a great move for Senator Obama for two reasons. The first is the mobilization of voters. According to one post I found it could cost around $1.70 for a company to send out a SMS message to a potential voter. Compare that to the cost of sending someone door to door or even a direct mail flyer. If a $1.70 can turn into a potential voter, that is money well spent.

The second reason is much more devious. The legality of solicitation via cell phones is something that lives in a bit of a gray area. A marketer cannot call a cell phone to solicit unless the owner of that phone has given the marketer permission. By subscribing to Sen. Obama’s text alert you are opening up to receive more solicitations from his camp.

I am almost certain Sen. Obama has no mal-intent with is email and I am actually glad to see politicians tying to engage their constituents with new media. Do you think Obama announcing VP via text is a good move or a bad move? Do you think this would be a good move for any other clients?