You may of seen the latest trailer for the film 'Step Up 2-The Streets' on TV. But what I didn't know about that the first movie 'Step Up' and in fact the latest one, is that their success is down to the social networking site 'Myspace'.
In 2006 'Step Up' movie marketers and in fact creators created a community around the film. Online. At Myspace. The trailer says
'In 2006 the Myspace community made the movie 'Step Up' a phenomenon'. In 2007 you get to help us make the sequel'
asking for the public to upload their own video's, either performing dance moves with your crew, dancing solo, and singing. Obvious the best ones got chosen. They got the chance to perform their own dance moves in the movie and sing on the 'Step Up 2- The Streets' soundtrack.
I would presume they asked to do the same for the first movie as well judging by the quote above.
Heres the trailer asking for new moves and songs for the current movie in 2007:
What a way to get some much possible content for the movie, thousands of videos, and a lot of talent. An online casting convenient and easy for everybody involved. Defiantly the brand.
What does this do for the brand? well bang, they have created a community which gets everyone talking within. Taking advantage of their fans social communities. Placing their brand where everyone is, making it easier to target their desired audience. Quickly and directly.
Again the push to pull idea, they provide an web presence that we want to use. We go to them. Once we are there, we can them be subject to more information about the movie, more advertisements, and to register. Taking our email address which they use for future promotions.
We pull them in. It engages us interactively. Its a fun, enjoyable, and potentially rewarding experience. Creates a community around the brand. Takes advantage of social networking, broadband and more compotent users? Sounds like a web 2.0 application to me
Friday, 21 March 2008
Thursday, 20 March 2008
Are virals an example of web 2.0?
So how do virals relate to web 2.0?
Mash-Ups
Firstly It takes advantage of social networking with the ability for us to easily communicate with each other over various channels, and broadband connections with more competent users, people know how to attach something and send it on.
Virals use social networks and include a new application built for the new web. These are mash-ups, these are new applications that have ability to retrieve data from one source and place it within another. By using mash-ups, the brands viral ad can be placed anywhere, anytime. It can have a much wider reach to its audience, spanning over all the different social networking channels. Like a virus, it starts to appear everywhere allowing the brand to get endless amounts of publicity, good and bad.
To show an example, I have done it above, placed YouTube videos within my blog. Users can now view videos without having to go to the direct source. I will explain a bit more about mash-ups hopefully later on.
From user to participant
Its fun, enjoyable, they do something, they become active. instead of just reading content. they are almost writing it. user generated content. What we want to see, not the brand.
Architecture of participation
It demonstrates the 'architecture of participation' it gets the user to do something, in this case easily send something on, with minimal effort, but with maximum results.
All these things make up an excellent brand recognition for the product or service, intentionally or not. Its different in the way the brand isn't pushed in our face, its ambient approach to selling the brand allows us to enjoy these ads. And it this enjoyment, shock, or humor thats makes us unaware that we are marketing the brand subconsciously ignoring the face that its an advertising campaign.
People have the power
In web 2.0 brands are realizing the importance and power of internet users. Each and everyone one of us can see our friendship and communication trees expanding. Mainly through social networks. More information and data can be passed around far more quickly if it comes from us. allowing the brand to get more publicity over a wider audience.
But I think the main advantage we have is that we become the marketer for the brand. The advantage of this is that people receiving messages from their friends or people they know, respond more favorably than being targeted directly by a business. It has more credibility if we recommend it to others. We are unaware we are being targeted by an advertising message because it has come from someone we know. Like I mentioned in a previous blog entry, we are more media savvy than ever, and brands must find and devise equally savvy techniques to market their brands which we do not recognize as an advertising message. Otherwise it will get ignored. And i believe viral advertising gets across brand recognition in a very interesting way. Only if done correctly.
Push to Pull
Viral video's don't push the brand upon us, they don't wave it in front of our faces. They simply pull us in. The laughter and controversy gets everyone talking, either way your going to want to see it. People want to see what the fuss is all about, and go to the website or try out their products due to what they have just seen.
Theirs no direct sales pitch from the brand, it simply works on laughter. The fact its sent to us by a friend, we don't even see it as an advertisement so we don't ignore it. therefore watching it and eventually passing it on again and again.
It's up to us to go check out the brand, either through buying products, or going to their website, but we don't mind doing it because we had a laugh with the brand and find them more human.
Mash-Ups
Firstly It takes advantage of social networking with the ability for us to easily communicate with each other over various channels, and broadband connections with more competent users, people know how to attach something and send it on.
Virals use social networks and include a new application built for the new web. These are mash-ups, these are new applications that have ability to retrieve data from one source and place it within another. By using mash-ups, the brands viral ad can be placed anywhere, anytime. It can have a much wider reach to its audience, spanning over all the different social networking channels. Like a virus, it starts to appear everywhere allowing the brand to get endless amounts of publicity, good and bad.
To show an example, I have done it above, placed YouTube videos within my blog. Users can now view videos without having to go to the direct source. I will explain a bit more about mash-ups hopefully later on.
From user to participant
Its fun, enjoyable, they do something, they become active. instead of just reading content. they are almost writing it. user generated content. What we want to see, not the brand.
Architecture of participation
It demonstrates the 'architecture of participation' it gets the user to do something, in this case easily send something on, with minimal effort, but with maximum results.
All these things make up an excellent brand recognition for the product or service, intentionally or not. Its different in the way the brand isn't pushed in our face, its ambient approach to selling the brand allows us to enjoy these ads. And it this enjoyment, shock, or humor thats makes us unaware that we are marketing the brand subconsciously ignoring the face that its an advertising campaign.
People have the power
In web 2.0 brands are realizing the importance and power of internet users. Each and everyone one of us can see our friendship and communication trees expanding. Mainly through social networks. More information and data can be passed around far more quickly if it comes from us. allowing the brand to get more publicity over a wider audience.
But I think the main advantage we have is that we become the marketer for the brand. The advantage of this is that people receiving messages from their friends or people they know, respond more favorably than being targeted directly by a business. It has more credibility if we recommend it to others. We are unaware we are being targeted by an advertising message because it has come from someone we know. Like I mentioned in a previous blog entry, we are more media savvy than ever, and brands must find and devise equally savvy techniques to market their brands which we do not recognize as an advertising message. Otherwise it will get ignored. And i believe viral advertising gets across brand recognition in a very interesting way. Only if done correctly.
Push to Pull
Viral video's don't push the brand upon us, they don't wave it in front of our faces. They simply pull us in. The laughter and controversy gets everyone talking, either way your going to want to see it. People want to see what the fuss is all about, and go to the website or try out their products due to what they have just seen.
Theirs no direct sales pitch from the brand, it simply works on laughter. The fact its sent to us by a friend, we don't even see it as an advertisement so we don't ignore it. therefore watching it and eventually passing it on again and again.
It's up to us to go check out the brand, either through buying products, or going to their website, but we don't mind doing it because we had a laugh with the brand and find them more human.
Is Viral the way?
Millward Brown points out an excellent section in his POV again. Viral advertising isn't for every brand. Excellent ending to his article. Although Virals can be a success. They can also be a failure if not executed and presented in the right manner.
I recommend you read this article.
Is Viral the Free Ride Your Brand Needs?
'For the right brand, viral advertising offers a powerful means to reach target consumers for little cost. But despite the growing interest among marketers, viral may not be the right strategy for every brand. Unless carefully thought through and executed, these "experiments" may do as much harm as good. Free exposure online will be valuable only when the execution fits brand objectives, resonates with the target audience and does not offend viewers outside the target group. If a viral campaign can't work within those parameters, an advertiser would be well advised to pass it up rather than pass it on.'
I recommend you read this article.
Wednesday, 19 March 2008
Dove-Evolution-The Campaign For Real Beauty
The video demonstrates an example of how the fashionistic world often creates unattainable images of beauty that real women feel pressured to live up to. Illustrating how our perceptions of beauty are manipulated and distorted. Finally showing what goes on behind the scenes making us aware that these model pictures are not 'real'.
Viral ads- Once its out, it aint coming back!
Obviously viral marketing has its disadvantages, its not all fun and games, and doesn't necessarily work for every brand. If its not very well thought out and executed it does have the potential to ruin the brands image. Millward Brown points out.
Close to the bone
Ok, the ads maybe humorous or whatever, but did the advert actually increase the sales of the Sports Ka? yeah it got people talking, and reached millions, but did it help Ford?, or did it ruin the brand for many others. I suppose as it was so cheap to produce, they are not to worried about their bank balance, but did it potential wipe away potential buyers after the ad was released? and be to close to the bone for some.
The wrong crowd
Also with a viral ad going to so many different people all over the world, a brand may start to attract the wrong crowd, and communicate to the wrong people. They may not even want to be associated your brand. Ok, this is not the end of the world, because you rely on the millions of other people it reaches. Its very much like bait, some fish bite it, and others swim away.
Brand Dilution
Another key point is 'Brand dilution' viral marketing depends solely upon the public, not the people involved in your brand to do the "selling" for you. The brand lets go, and they decided to let us make it a success or not. Thats why if its not done properly, like the examples you seen, then more than likely it won't be passed on. Dissolving, instead on evolving.
Forcing Sales
I think the success of the 'good' viral ads i have shown in this blog, all demonstrate one thing. The brand comes second. As i mentioned before, the transition from push to pull marketing is evident with some viral ads. I have mentioned it before, and I will mention it again as I think its important. A good viral campaign will not push the brand in front of the consumers eye. It won't wave around sale discounts, brand logo's, or product prices. They are so successful because their commercial sales pitch is so ambient we don't realize it. Normally a small logo at the end or brand name appears, but its at the end, and by this time we watched the ad.
Its successful elements of shock, humor, edgy, or successfully communicating the brands service or products comes first, overriding the second (the brand). This is what makes us pass it on, unaware that we are subconsciously selling the brand to the next person, and unaware subconsciously that we have been subject to an advertising message because it comes from our friends first. The brand second.
Media Savvy
If the brand image is not ambient enough within the message, it becomes just another advertising which ultimately get rejected, ignored and worst of all, not passed on.
We as consumers are becoming extremely media savvy, we are starting to know, if not already how the media works. We are becoming more and more savvy of what we are being fed, we can chose what we want to digest, but also what we leave on the plate.
If a viral ad becomes like any other traditional advert, more than likely we will go starving
Close to the bone
'Viral does have a downside: the potential to damage brands. In trying to develop ads with sufficient shock value to capture attention, agencies may stray too far over the line of acceptability'.He goes onto to explain about the Ford Ka adverts.
'For example, an ad for Ford SportKa portrayed a cat being decapitated by the car's sunroof, with the tagline "Ford SportKa: The Ka's evil twin." Ford denied authorizing the release of the ad and claimed to have rejected the concept. A partner ad, which featured a pigeon getting whacked by the Ka's hood, did make it on air in the U.K. but was pulled because of viewer complaints. Without doubt, these two ads differentiated the SportKa from the Ka, which was perceived as a mundane little runabout. But many potential buyers, even those not in the market for a SportKa, may have taken exception to the ads and been put off the idea of buying a Ford'.
Ok, the ads maybe humorous or whatever, but did the advert actually increase the sales of the Sports Ka? yeah it got people talking, and reached millions, but did it help Ford?, or did it ruin the brand for many others. I suppose as it was so cheap to produce, they are not to worried about their bank balance, but did it potential wipe away potential buyers after the ad was released? and be to close to the bone for some.
The wrong crowd
Also with a viral ad going to so many different people all over the world, a brand may start to attract the wrong crowd, and communicate to the wrong people. They may not even want to be associated your brand. Ok, this is not the end of the world, because you rely on the millions of other people it reaches. Its very much like bait, some fish bite it, and others swim away.
Brand Dilution
Another key point is 'Brand dilution' viral marketing depends solely upon the public, not the people involved in your brand to do the "selling" for you. The brand lets go, and they decided to let us make it a success or not. Thats why if its not done properly, like the examples you seen, then more than likely it won't be passed on. Dissolving, instead on evolving.
Forcing Sales
I think the success of the 'good' viral ads i have shown in this blog, all demonstrate one thing. The brand comes second. As i mentioned before, the transition from push to pull marketing is evident with some viral ads. I have mentioned it before, and I will mention it again as I think its important. A good viral campaign will not push the brand in front of the consumers eye. It won't wave around sale discounts, brand logo's, or product prices. They are so successful because their commercial sales pitch is so ambient we don't realize it. Normally a small logo at the end or brand name appears, but its at the end, and by this time we watched the ad.
Its successful elements of shock, humor, edgy, or successfully communicating the brands service or products comes first, overriding the second (the brand). This is what makes us pass it on, unaware that we are subconsciously selling the brand to the next person, and unaware subconsciously that we have been subject to an advertising message because it comes from our friends first. The brand second.
Media Savvy
'Yes, absolutely. But as we exist in a media savvy world, so the stunts have to be equally savvy. They need to have a style and humor that makes sense with the brand they are related to, rather than just being a stunt for a stunt’s sake'
Kevin Murray, Chairman of the Bell Pottinger Group, the Public Relations Division of Chime Communications
If the brand image is not ambient enough within the message, it becomes just another advertising which ultimately get rejected, ignored and worst of all, not passed on.
We as consumers are becoming extremely media savvy, we are starting to know, if not already how the media works. We are becoming more and more savvy of what we are being fed, we can chose what we want to digest, but also what we leave on the plate.
If a viral ad becomes like any other traditional advert, more than likely we will go starving
Tango's spoof- Better than the original!
Another great example of a viral ad campaign. Bloody excellent!!
Viral marketing- It must have that little something special
An article from the Guardian explaining how viral ads have to be 'smart, edgy, or genuinely funny'
otherwise it wont be noticed as commercial advert.
Backs up a few of my points
Check it out here
otherwise it wont be noticed as commercial advert.
Backs up a few of my points
Check it out here
Virals without the interaction- Shock Value
Viral ads don't just work because they are humorous. Some work on shock value or have a certain edge to them. Some don't even make on TV because of the extreme controversy it created when it passed through our inbox.
You have probably seen it before, the Volkswagen Polo Suicide Bomber advert, sent around virally just over the internet creating a massive stir all over the world. Volkswagen are still adamant that they are nothing to do with it. Now the London based ad agency, Lee & Dan are taking the credit for the 30 second viral. There website states ' Lee & Dan Special Projects is only interested in pushing boundaries' and it's exactly what they done.
An interesting article at Computer Arts - Viral Infection- quotes:
I do think somehow the two had some form of understand with VW and maybe pulled of an excellent publicity stunt. But forgetting all that, VW got people talking in a different way. The controversy surrounding the clip created a buzz, although some people objected to it, and whilst many others sent it, the uproar and controversy made people check it out for themselves. People offended or didn't think its right, had to see it in the first place. Like it or not, the ad got watched by everyone. Intrigued to see what everyone was talking about, people watched it. And sent it on. Creating one of the best viral advertising campaigns to date. Excellent work boys.
Here it is Volkswagen 'Small But Tough'
Another viral ad that created controversy was 'Ford Sports Ka's evil twin' ads. With the normal Ka, being so called 'cute' somehow they has to show a contrast in the Sport Ka, its evil twin.
Ad agency Ogilvy and Ford both have distanced themselves from any involvement, and say the Ad was never got the go ahead to released. Bollocks!
Working on the same principle as the Volkswagen ad, it created controversy worldwide, some say it was cruel, sparking protests from animal rights personnel. But it worked. Another great viral marketing effort.
Ford Sports Ka- The Ka's evil twin- The Cat Killer
The Pigeon Killer
I like this one because I bloody hate pigeons! and for those cat lovers, Its not real! Ford maintains:
What both Volkswagen and Ford have realized is power of virally advertising their brand. Both demonstrate a certain shock value and absorb controversy. But this is exactly what triggers us to send it on, and on, and on, and on, you get the message! Once it is out its out. And if its good enough it will get around pretty damm quick. Do we pass? or do we pass it on?
You have probably seen it before, the Volkswagen Polo Suicide Bomber advert, sent around virally just over the internet creating a massive stir all over the world. Volkswagen are still adamant that they are nothing to do with it. Now the London based ad agency, Lee & Dan are taking the credit for the 30 second viral. There website states ' Lee & Dan Special Projects is only interested in pushing boundaries' and it's exactly what they done.
An interesting article at Computer Arts - Viral Infection- quotes:
'Lee and Dan claim they were making a “spec ad” to add to their show reel and had no plans for its wider circulation. They also say that they created the whole thing without any input, financial support or consent from Volkswagen. Once the piece leaked out onto the net, however, the pair ended up at the wrong end of a libel and cease and desist lawsuit from VW and, eventually, were forced to hand over their source material and make a high-profile apology'
Say sorry boys! Kiss and make up!
But as they say in the industry 'Any press is good press'
I do think somehow the two had some form of understand with VW and maybe pulled of an excellent publicity stunt. But forgetting all that, VW got people talking in a different way. The controversy surrounding the clip created a buzz, although some people objected to it, and whilst many others sent it, the uproar and controversy made people check it out for themselves. People offended or didn't think its right, had to see it in the first place. Like it or not, the ad got watched by everyone. Intrigued to see what everyone was talking about, people watched it. And sent it on. Creating one of the best viral advertising campaigns to date. Excellent work boys.
Here it is Volkswagen 'Small But Tough'
Another viral ad that created controversy was 'Ford Sports Ka's evil twin' ads. With the normal Ka, being so called 'cute' somehow they has to show a contrast in the Sport Ka, its evil twin.
Ad agency Ogilvy and Ford both have distanced themselves from any involvement, and say the Ad was never got the go ahead to released. Bollocks!
Working on the same principle as the Volkswagen ad, it created controversy worldwide, some say it was cruel, sparking protests from animal rights personnel. But it worked. Another great viral marketing effort.
Ford Sports Ka- The Ka's evil twin- The Cat Killer
The Pigeon Killer
I like this one because I bloody hate pigeons! and for those cat lovers, Its not real! Ford maintains:
"The action in the video clip was totally computer generated, and we would like to assure you that no animal was harmed in its making."
What both Volkswagen and Ford have realized is power of virally advertising their brand. Both demonstrate a certain shock value and absorb controversy. But this is exactly what triggers us to send it on, and on, and on, and on, you get the message! Once it is out its out. And if its good enough it will get around pretty damm quick. Do we pass? or do we pass it on?
Facebook- The Dark Side
I recently stumbled across this article online at the Guardian. Written Tom Hodgkinson. Facebook, a perfect example of a web 2.0 application and has had tremendous success in its operation. But this article explains another side to Facebook, which is frighteningly true. Check it out here. It has changed my thoughts. Excellent article.
Virals without the interaction-Funny one's!
With the cost of TV advertising skyrocketing, and potential consumers being over a variety of different channels, by this I mean, more TV channels are being created, therefore creates a diversity amongst your potential target audience as they view different channels at different times, making it harder and much more expensive to advertising over many TV channels.
Ok, a well conducted piece of market research into where your consumers go, and what they do may limit the cost, but still, advertising to your potential audience at the right time in the right place seems more trickier than ever, leaving your budget looking very low.
I have noticed many brands are moving towards the internet to advertise their products or services. But not straight away. Brands advertise themselves of various traditional advertising mediums first, mainly TV. Without the advert on traditional mediums the is pass along and recognition is minimal as Millward Brown points out in his POV in his article 'To Pass Or To Pass On: That Is The Viral Question'
Firstly the ads are communicated via traditional advertising mediums such as TV, then brought to they web. Once on the web, it can be sent around via mash-ups, emails, and on applications such as YouTube via a simple link and for free eliminating media space costs and potentially reaching out to vasts amounts of people, which you couldn't reach via the traditional approach.
The success of many viral ads has been increased due to social networking.
Social networking increasing + the increase of people online = More people connected with each other. The success of viral ads depend on us being able to pass it on within our social network. It has to remarkable, amusing, have shock value, and even interaction.
Lighting Bug
a viral advertising specialist show that is not just simply putting a TV ad on the internet, and expect it to work.
It needs to have that little something special in order for it to be a viral success. It has to have an element that gets the user to pass it on.
I have found a few examples which work on humor:
Cadbury's 2007 advert
Ikea's Pig Advert- Time to leave home? use Ikea to furnish your new home!
Budweisers Magic Fridge - Played during the Superbowl in 2006
John West Samon-Bear fight
All of these viral ad campaigns work on the fact the clip is so funny, funny enough for one to send on via a link or email within our social network of friends.
If the brands make to much of a corporate approach, the message dies before it has lived. With these examples they don't push the brand upon the consumer, the humor is the main ingredient. At the end their brand is visualized, but its still up to us if we what to find out more about the product. Humor sells.
Ok, a well conducted piece of market research into where your consumers go, and what they do may limit the cost, but still, advertising to your potential audience at the right time in the right place seems more trickier than ever, leaving your budget looking very low.
I have noticed many brands are moving towards the internet to advertise their products or services. But not straight away. Brands advertise themselves of various traditional advertising mediums first, mainly TV. Without the advert on traditional mediums the is pass along and recognition is minimal as Millward Brown points out in his POV in his article 'To Pass Or To Pass On: That Is The Viral Question'
'Viral campaigns rarely reach significant numbers of people unless prominently featured in traditional media, packaging and other promotional materials. Therefore, viral ads need a clearly defined role in the overall marketing plan, and it may be difficult to evaluate these ads fairly unless they are considered in their overall context'
Firstly the ads are communicated via traditional advertising mediums such as TV, then brought to they web. Once on the web, it can be sent around via mash-ups, emails, and on applications such as YouTube via a simple link and for free eliminating media space costs and potentially reaching out to vasts amounts of people, which you couldn't reach via the traditional approach.
The success of many viral ads has been increased due to social networking.
Social networking increasing + the increase of people online = More people connected with each other. The success of viral ads depend on us being able to pass it on within our social network. It has to remarkable, amusing, have shock value, and even interaction.
Lighting Bug
a viral advertising specialist show that is not just simply putting a TV ad on the internet, and expect it to work.
'Although viral video has proved to be the most popular viral marketing format, putting a TV ad on the internet does not constitute a viral campaign. Although there have been successful instances of this, what works on TV often does not work on the web. Because people have to actively choose to view it the viral campaign allows, demands even, a different approach. Viral advertising needs to be contagious, unlike TV big companies can not buy audience attention, it can only be captured by providing content people want to see'
It needs to have that little something special in order for it to be a viral success. It has to have an element that gets the user to pass it on.
I have found a few examples which work on humor:
Cadbury's 2007 advert
Ikea's Pig Advert- Time to leave home? use Ikea to furnish your new home!
Budweisers Magic Fridge - Played during the Superbowl in 2006
John West Samon-Bear fight
All of these viral ad campaigns work on the fact the clip is so funny, funny enough for one to send on via a link or email within our social network of friends.
If the brands make to much of a corporate approach, the message dies before it has lived. With these examples they don't push the brand upon the consumer, the humor is the main ingredient. At the end their brand is visualized, but its still up to us if we what to find out more about the product. Humor sells.
Tuesday, 18 March 2008
Richard Adams - User to Particpant
Another marketing shift Richard Adams pointed out was USER - PARTICIPATION.
A massive amount of web 2.0 works on participation. Places like Facebook, Myspace and Flickr all require some form of participation from the user, who participate to create user generated content which the brands love. They put O'Reilly's point of the 'architecture of participation at the core of their design.
Dion Hinchcliffe's points out in his web 2.0 blog suggests its not a relatively new idea, but its how society is on the web today and how we are using the internet now.
"And yes, of course, none of this is actually new, it's really all about the sea changes in the way people are using and designing for the Web, much more than the Web itself. So it's less a technological change (though there are a few of those too) than a change in mindset and habit. Yet it's having a very real effect on the sites that people visit and how they produce and consume information on the Web. At the core of all this is collective intelligence, the user contributed information on a site that is its powerful draw; if it's the information they want that is. This can be user contributions in the form of text, images, audio, video, etc"
User generated content is created. Content which we want to see and something we love to contribute. Web 2.0 has made it easier for us to be able to participate much more frequently and easily, both through technologies and our own skills. We are becoming far more competent as users online, so uploading forms of text, images, audio, and video etc is made simpler even for the most of novice of users which encourages them to actually make a contribution.
Dion Hinchcliffe's ends his article on 'Architectures of Participation: The Next Big Thing' very well, explaining how this idea of allowing participation could become extremely popular for brands in the future.
And viral advertising works on a similar model. They rely solely on participation from the user. As Hinchcliffe pointed out, we like to be a participant some way or another, and technologies and user skills have made it easier for us to do this. This allows viral video is be far more successful as users know how to send it, and have far more possible ways of even sending it.
A massive amount of web 2.0 works on participation. Places like Facebook, Myspace and Flickr all require some form of participation from the user, who participate to create user generated content which the brands love. They put O'Reilly's point of the 'architecture of participation at the core of their design.
Dion Hinchcliffe's points out in his web 2.0 blog suggests its not a relatively new idea, but its how society is on the web today and how we are using the internet now.
"And yes, of course, none of this is actually new, it's really all about the sea changes in the way people are using and designing for the Web, much more than the Web itself. So it's less a technological change (though there are a few of those too) than a change in mindset and habit. Yet it's having a very real effect on the sites that people visit and how they produce and consume information on the Web. At the core of all this is collective intelligence, the user contributed information on a site that is its powerful draw; if it's the information they want that is. This can be user contributions in the form of text, images, audio, video, etc"
User generated content is created. Content which we want to see and something we love to contribute. Web 2.0 has made it easier for us to be able to participate much more frequently and easily, both through technologies and our own skills. We are becoming far more competent as users online, so uploading forms of text, images, audio, and video etc is made simpler even for the most of novice of users which encourages them to actually make a contribution.
Dion Hinchcliffe's ends his article on 'Architectures of Participation: The Next Big Thing' very well, explaining how this idea of allowing participation could become extremely popular for brands in the future.
"This is what is called innovation at the edge of the network, and it's an amazing phenomenon that all of us are learning to tap by crafting the designs of our sites with an effective architecture of participation. And I'll go on record, given the results so far, building competitive architectures of participation is almost certainly going to be one of the biggest topics in software design for the rest of the decade.
It's almost like an arms race, but soon everyone will have the tools and techniques. What will happen after that? Equilibrium?"
And viral advertising works on a similar model. They rely solely on participation from the user. As Hinchcliffe pointed out, we like to be a participant some way or another, and technologies and user skills have made it easier for us to do this. This allows viral video is be far more successful as users know how to send it, and have far more possible ways of even sending it.
We sell the brand now
What seems apparent so far is that we are pretty damm important for a brand to succeed online today. One way brands has looked to the consumer to help is through viral marketing. With so many of us now being able to contact almost anyone through email, and social networking sites, viral marketing works on the idea of ourselves sharing interesting and entertaining content.
With so many people online and communicating everyday, brands see viral marketing as cost effective way of marketing their brand. The reason why its so cheap is that all that is needed for the next person to see the content is to click a URL, normally sent via social media networking channels like email or Facebook. Quick and easy.
The rate in which is can be spread today is rapid, and so the cost and effectiveness of a viral campaign seems appealing to many marketers.
We can't just create any old viral campaign, as Millward Brown points on in his P.O.V
The email was sent by Carmex, but addressed from my friend. 'A kiss from Sarah' was in the subject box and the email read:
Hi Adam have you been kissed today? Certainly not like that: (the link was pasted here) Best wishes Sarah PS: Don't forget to turn up the volume!
It was such a funny thing to receive, and had me in stitches, at the end of the movie, they give you a chance to send someone a kiss from you!
It works purely on humor and the recommendation from your friend, and the timing as it was sent near valentines day! Carmex don't push their brand in front of you, they never have. Carmex have grown purely by word of mouth, and practically used no advertising. The microsite is so enjoyable and humorous for the consumer, they pass it on.
I think this captures the essence of web 2.0 perfectly, firstly for the consumer:
And for the brand:
Again its the 'architecture of participation' from O'Reilly, its somehow a way of getting the the user to do something, and do something with it.
check it out, give someone you love a 'Carmex Kiss'
With so many people online and communicating everyday, brands see viral marketing as cost effective way of marketing their brand. The reason why its so cheap is that all that is needed for the next person to see the content is to click a URL, normally sent via social media networking channels like email or Facebook. Quick and easy.
The rate in which is can be spread today is rapid, and so the cost and effectiveness of a viral campaign seems appealing to many marketers.
We can't just create any old viral campaign, as Millward Brown points on in his P.O.V
If a viral campaign is to be effective, significant numbers of people must view and spread the content. People must be being willing to work on behalf of a brand. Therefore, marketers must understand what motivates someone to send an ad or link to another person. People pass along ads for the same reasons that they pass along jokes, stories, and recipes. It is a means of staying in touch, of making a connection, of sending the message "I'm thinking of you, and I hope you'll enjoy this."Their success relies on a few factors. The first is humour, if they find it funny enough they will pass it on, you want others to have a laugh as well. One example i found was Carmex Kiss, its been round for a while now.
The email was sent by Carmex, but addressed from my friend. 'A kiss from Sarah' was in the subject box and the email read:
Hi Adam have you been kissed today? Certainly not like that: (the link was pasted here) Best wishes Sarah PS: Don't forget to turn up the volume!
It was such a funny thing to receive, and had me in stitches, at the end of the movie, they give you a chance to send someone a kiss from you!
It works purely on humor and the recommendation from your friend, and the timing as it was sent near valentines day! Carmex don't push their brand in front of you, they never have. Carmex have grown purely by word of mouth, and practically used no advertising. The microsite is so enjoyable and humorous for the consumer, they pass it on.
I think this captures the essence of web 2.0 perfectly, firstly for the consumer:
- It involves user generated content getting us to do something
- It allows us to pass on our enjoyable experience (in this case someone we love!)
- It's fun
- Easy to use and send, not time consuming
- We have the chance to see what the brand is all about if we want. Buy products etc. The brand is not pushed upon us.
- Its personal, it connects emotionally, makes us feel important and welcomed
And for the brand:
- It has a relation to the products functions (who wants a kiss from someone with dry lips! especially on valentines day!)
- Creates positive brand associations through user participation, subtly. Not pushing brand, but instead an enjoyable experience
- It's cheap and reaches a vast amount of consumers
- Has more credibility as it comes from a friend or someone we know. Not the brand.
- An example of pull marketing, getting the user to come to the brand, not pushing the brand to them. If they want to find out about the brand they can. if not the next person might.
- Allows the consumer to co-create the success of the brand, with the brand. Making them feel apart of the brands service.
Again its the 'architecture of participation' from O'Reilly, its somehow a way of getting the the user to do something, and do something with it.
check it out, give someone you love a 'Carmex Kiss'
Pull Marketing- Pandora
In the video Marty Collins talks about creating relative content the users want. And I agree. We are only going to pull what we want from the internet. So what we really want must be available.
So there are a few key points I have learn't about pull marketing:
An example would be Pandora-Radio Music from the Genome Project- An online community where music lovers uploads any music files they have to the database, music they love, or simply want to share. Users enter a song or artist that they enjoy, and the service responds by playing selections that are musically similar. Users provide feedback on the individual song choices — approval or disapproval — which Pandora takes into account for future selections.
Also users can talk to each other about their musically interests, and chat with others who share that same passion and build relationships with each other, and the brand as its so unique and what they have always wanted.
It helps you find the sort of music you are looking for, you may not listen to music online, but it could be useful if you want to purchase the physical product offline.
Existing users can invite and recommend the service to a friend if they like it.
So it shows a perfect example of 'pull marketing'. It's a service which the consumer wants or needs, it builds a community of users around the brand allowing the talk, and recommend the service to others, (Viral Marketing) . So their consumer database grows simple on recommendation from friends to others. Friends trust friends. And it seems the brand trusts us as well!. We define the content, we define the audience. We define its success.
So there are a few key points I have learn't about pull marketing:
- Make it relevant to what the consumers want and need
- Allow people to talk about you to others
- Create a community around your brand (blogs, Forums, podcasts)
- Get existing users to push your brand for you
An example would be Pandora-Radio Music from the Genome Project- An online community where music lovers uploads any music files they have to the database, music they love, or simply want to share. Users enter a song or artist that they enjoy, and the service responds by playing selections that are musically similar. Users provide feedback on the individual song choices — approval or disapproval — which Pandora takes into account for future selections.
Also users can talk to each other about their musically interests, and chat with others who share that same passion and build relationships with each other, and the brand as its so unique and what they have always wanted.
It helps you find the sort of music you are looking for, you may not listen to music online, but it could be useful if you want to purchase the physical product offline.
Existing users can invite and recommend the service to a friend if they like it.
So it shows a perfect example of 'pull marketing'. It's a service which the consumer wants or needs, it builds a community of users around the brand allowing the talk, and recommend the service to others, (Viral Marketing) . So their consumer database grows simple on recommendation from friends to others. Friends trust friends. And it seems the brand trusts us as well!. We define the content, we define the audience. We define its success.
The move from push to pull
The next point Richard Adam's pointed out was the shift from push to pull marketing.
Although not completely ignored 'push' marketing is a traditional strategy used to push to brand or service in front of the consumer such as email, or banner ads. As consumers we probably don't want to see the advertisement, or simply we haven't asked for it, it's not particularly what we are looking for, therefore it is ignored.
The internet is very much a 'Pull' medium, you only click on what you want, so it does rely on elements of the push idea. You can't simply make the consumer find it for themselves, you have to put it out there, but it depends on exactly how you push it out their, in order to pull your consumer in.
The concept of the pull technique works on creating a way of allowing the consumers come to you. Again it relates to to idea of O'Reilly's point on the 'architecture of participation'. Many examples of pull marketing allow users to talk about their brand to others, getting them to promote your service or product.
Or online communities where users can talk with each other, and invite others. Once a community of users is set up, hardly any advertising is needed. Simply word of mouth from existing users generate new customers. No forceful advertisement is needed. You don't need to create and place banner ads everywhere, but instead you offer a service which is needed, so they go looking for it.
Has anyone ever seen a advertisement for Facebook? YouTube? probably not as they work on the same principle, existing users invite others to join Facebook (Word of mouth), and if we want to watch a video then we normally go to YouTube. We know its there if we want it.
It doesn't come to us, instead we go to them, IF we want to.
One interesting aspect about the pull technique is the power of the people, we almost become marketers for the service or product. Word of mouth is very powerful. I think the product or service has a higher credibility level if its suggested to us by the people we know.
More than often we would open and email if its from a friend, rather than a brand.
Getting the consumer to advertise and promote a brand is an extremely cheap and effective way to create brand awareness surrounding a product or service.
So in order to pull your customers in, you must find a subtle way to push the brand upon them.
Viral advertising has always had this element. Like i mentioned in the previous post, the brand itself doesn't wave their brands in front of our faces, they don't get us to buy anything, they simply work by pulling us in as we enjoy the experience we just had with the brand. Either were cracking up, or we could of co-created something with the brand, either way we want to sometimes go further and check out the brand as we had such an enjoyable experience and a relationship is formed. A relationship of trust. We not forced to go look at the brand, we do it by our own accord. We wonder what is this brand all about then? what do they do?.
Although not completely ignored 'push' marketing is a traditional strategy used to push to brand or service in front of the consumer such as email, or banner ads. As consumers we probably don't want to see the advertisement, or simply we haven't asked for it, it's not particularly what we are looking for, therefore it is ignored.
The internet is very much a 'Pull' medium, you only click on what you want, so it does rely on elements of the push idea. You can't simply make the consumer find it for themselves, you have to put it out there, but it depends on exactly how you push it out their, in order to pull your consumer in.
The concept of the pull technique works on creating a way of allowing the consumers come to you. Again it relates to to idea of O'Reilly's point on the 'architecture of participation'. Many examples of pull marketing allow users to talk about their brand to others, getting them to promote your service or product.
Or online communities where users can talk with each other, and invite others. Once a community of users is set up, hardly any advertising is needed. Simply word of mouth from existing users generate new customers. No forceful advertisement is needed. You don't need to create and place banner ads everywhere, but instead you offer a service which is needed, so they go looking for it.
Has anyone ever seen a advertisement for Facebook? YouTube? probably not as they work on the same principle, existing users invite others to join Facebook (Word of mouth), and if we want to watch a video then we normally go to YouTube. We know its there if we want it.
It doesn't come to us, instead we go to them, IF we want to.
One interesting aspect about the pull technique is the power of the people, we almost become marketers for the service or product. Word of mouth is very powerful. I think the product or service has a higher credibility level if its suggested to us by the people we know.
More than often we would open and email if its from a friend, rather than a brand.
Getting the consumer to advertise and promote a brand is an extremely cheap and effective way to create brand awareness surrounding a product or service.
So in order to pull your customers in, you must find a subtle way to push the brand upon them.
Viral advertising has always had this element. Like i mentioned in the previous post, the brand itself doesn't wave their brands in front of our faces, they don't get us to buy anything, they simply work by pulling us in as we enjoy the experience we just had with the brand. Either were cracking up, or we could of co-created something with the brand, either way we want to sometimes go further and check out the brand as we had such an enjoyable experience and a relationship is formed. A relationship of trust. We not forced to go look at the brand, we do it by our own accord. We wonder what is this brand all about then? what do they do?.
Monday, 17 March 2008
Interrupt to engage
Moving more towards marketing and advertising, In a recent lecture from Prof. Richard Adams, Digital Strategy Director at the Chemistry communication group he explained a few key shifts that are emerging within online marketing and web 2.0 Here is the first
Interrupt - Engage
Tom Chandler explains this concept extremely well in his article
'Leveraging New Online Media Tools: The Argument for Engagement' .
An example I found was at Clip Star.com
An example I found was at Clip Star.com an online Pop Idol if you will. With many people dreaming of to be a pop, rock star, movie star etc, and wanting their talent noticed one way or the other, Clip Star offers the chance for users to upload their videos of themselves singing, dancing, acting, comedy stand up, or an animation piece for a chance to win an amazing $1,000,000 for the top talent winner.
Its different to that of YouTube in the way it has a purpose for each video instead of just for people to upload for others to watch, in this case you upload your video to win the competition. It demonstrates Chandlers points very well, it engages with their passions, people want to be a star and be stinking rich, they want to be noticed either by other users or potential recording or acting contracts, or for future employment within that industry.
It's a place where people can talk with other users about the things they love who share the same passions or values. This is offered in the form of a community and blog section on the homepage, registered users can create a personal blog about themselves allowing others to talk to them about certain common interests.
The community allows registered users to set up certain interest topics allowing everyone to make a contribution someway. Building a community of users around a brand. Building those long term relationships, as the registered users keep coming back to upload video's, chat with other users, and add to debates and discussions.
Everyone begins to talk about what they just love to talk about, and why not give us the chance to talk, its what we do best.
Excellent example of web 2.0 i think, it demonstrates the 'harnessing of collective intelligence' as we add a video, the services get better, for everyone as their are more video's to watch.
It also demonstrates the 'architecture of participation' its just one way of making the user do something, getting them involved, and allowing us to make a contribution of some sort. Its got the ability to be a rich user experience, and potentially a rewarding one and an enjoyable one at that.
Another shift was Authority to Recommendation. We as online user are beginning to recommend much more things to our friends instead of the brands. because of the participative web we can choose the authority we like. We can all upload, publish, collect and send links, so we make the recommendation of what we want to see instead of the brand showing what they want.
Also we don't just recommend to the brand, we recommend to the our friends online. Friends trust friends more than they trust brands. Therefore we are more likely to actually watch it, play with it, add to it etc. This happens especially with WOM (word of mouth advertising) or should I say 'word of mouse' within in the online world.
This is a survey from eMarketer.com who published a study that more than three-quarters of people trust consumer recommendations over any other type of ad.
''In the survey below it shows that 56% of respondents trusted editorial content''
As we become more connected with everyone online, Word of mouth would seem to could become the best selling tool on the internet.
Viral Advertising is an excellent example of this shift. We pass around virals through email or though mash-ups within our social networking sites such as Facebook. We tell our friends to 'watch this' or 'play with this'. When it comes from a friend we trust it, it has more credibility. We don't really see as an direct sales pitch from the brand because it comes from our friends, therefore we don't ignore it. Subliminally the brand advertises behind the humor, controversy, and fun interactive of the viral.
'Leveraging New Online Media Tools: The Argument for Engagement' .
Don't Interrupt – Engage.This sums up this point perfectly, users don't want to be interrupted when online with unnecessary content which they don't need. Brands are starting to build environments which share the users passions which they know the users will enjoy. They show they also share a passion for the same thing, which the user can relate to and will enjoy.
Today's two-way media channels offer a unique benefit; instead of marketing at customers, you have the ability to engage with them, building powerful brand loyalty and a mile-wide conversational pipeline.
How? The strongest connection you can create with a consumer is to engage with them via their passions and values.
Demonstrate that your organization shares their passions and values, and suddenly, you're connecting via the emotional spaces surrounding your products and services.
Engagement marketing represents a powerful connection – one that builds long-term relationships, and sidesteps the "always uphill" battles of interrupt marketing techniques.
An example I found was at Clip Star.com
An example I found was at Clip Star.com an online Pop Idol if you will. With many people dreaming of to be a pop, rock star, movie star etc, and wanting their talent noticed one way or the other, Clip Star offers the chance for users to upload their videos of themselves singing, dancing, acting, comedy stand up, or an animation piece for a chance to win an amazing $1,000,000 for the top talent winner.
Its different to that of YouTube in the way it has a purpose for each video instead of just for people to upload for others to watch, in this case you upload your video to win the competition. It demonstrates Chandlers points very well, it engages with their passions, people want to be a star and be stinking rich, they want to be noticed either by other users or potential recording or acting contracts, or for future employment within that industry.
It's a place where people can talk with other users about the things they love who share the same passions or values. This is offered in the form of a community and blog section on the homepage, registered users can create a personal blog about themselves allowing others to talk to them about certain common interests.
The community allows registered users to set up certain interest topics allowing everyone to make a contribution someway. Building a community of users around a brand. Building those long term relationships, as the registered users keep coming back to upload video's, chat with other users, and add to debates and discussions.
Everyone begins to talk about what they just love to talk about, and why not give us the chance to talk, its what we do best.
Excellent example of web 2.0 i think, it demonstrates the 'harnessing of collective intelligence' as we add a video, the services get better, for everyone as their are more video's to watch.
It also demonstrates the 'architecture of participation' its just one way of making the user do something, getting them involved, and allowing us to make a contribution of some sort. Its got the ability to be a rich user experience, and potentially a rewarding one and an enjoyable one at that.
Another shift was Authority to Recommendation. We as online user are beginning to recommend much more things to our friends instead of the brands. because of the participative web we can choose the authority we like. We can all upload, publish, collect and send links, so we make the recommendation of what we want to see instead of the brand showing what they want.
Also we don't just recommend to the brand, we recommend to the our friends online. Friends trust friends more than they trust brands. Therefore we are more likely to actually watch it, play with it, add to it etc. This happens especially with WOM (word of mouth advertising) or should I say 'word of mouse' within in the online world.
This is a survey from eMarketer.com who published a study that more than three-quarters of people trust consumer recommendations over any other type of ad.
''In the survey below it shows that 56% of respondents trusted editorial content''
As we become more connected with everyone online, Word of mouth would seem to could become the best selling tool on the internet.
Viral Advertising is an excellent example of this shift. We pass around virals through email or though mash-ups within our social networking sites such as Facebook. We tell our friends to 'watch this' or 'play with this'. When it comes from a friend we trust it, it has more credibility. We don't really see as an direct sales pitch from the brand because it comes from our friends, therefore we don't ignore it. Subliminally the brand advertises behind the humor, controversy, and fun interactive of the viral.
I agree with Tim O'Reilly
Without anyone being to explain this new so called phenomenon, Tim O'Reilly, the founder of O'Reilly Media and well associated with web 2.0 conducting some excellent conferences both online and off line sums up web 2.0 just perfectly I think in his article 'What is Web 2.0'
I am not going to go into detail, as he explains a lot of aspects that are to some extent irrelevant to my research about web 2.0 online advertising and marketing.
But he makes a few really interesting points that can be seen online in the marketing world.
The first point, he describes 'the web as a platform' .We are beginning to build applications that take advantage of the webs capabilities, not creating their own networks of data, but instead build applications that works by extracting information data which is already availible, accessible and movable from other providers.
An example would be GoogleMaps, their database is accessible by anyone, and many other companies place the data on their own web presences, generating more interest to themselves.
This also helps Google as the service is provided over a much wider area, not just their own site, creating more recognition for themselves, without too much effort.
The next point that I feel relates to online marketing is Harnessing Collective Intelligence
This means the ability to collect and collaborate user activity, everytime a user makes a contribution to the web or application the service improves for everyone.
An example would be Nike's 'Put it where you want it' campaign
A place where users upload their own content to the web, as one makes a contribution, in this case a video, more content becomes available to interact with, allowing for user generated content which the users want to see.
O'Reilly quotes
Google is another example, everytime someone adds a new website, that URL is then added to the internet's database, Google find this information and allow their users to use it. As more websites get added, their are more possible results for other users find to find, thus become smarter and more improved as users make a contribution
YouTube works in the same way, the more videos added by users, the more content their is for others.
His final point is the Architecture Of Participation, and for me its the main point for marketing and advertising online. Its about somehow, someway of getting the user to interact and participate with the online presence. Its about finding ways of involving the user, getting them to do sometime, getting them to pass sometime on, getting them to say something, add something, getting people to talk, creating an enjoyable for experience for the user.
What seems apparent from O'Reilly's point is that us, the users are becoming the most important thing, web 2.0 seems to be very much about the user, and a lot of its success is down to how we contribute and interact with online presences. Finding new innovate ways of somehow involving the user and getting them to do something fun and rewarding, but most importantly the brand or company must do something with the data and make use of it for the next person.
I am not going to go into detail, as he explains a lot of aspects that are to some extent irrelevant to my research about web 2.0 online advertising and marketing.
But he makes a few really interesting points that can be seen online in the marketing world.
The first point, he describes 'the web as a platform' .We are beginning to build applications that take advantage of the webs capabilities, not creating their own networks of data, but instead build applications that works by extracting information data which is already availible, accessible and movable from other providers.
An example would be GoogleMaps, their database is accessible by anyone, and many other companies place the data on their own web presences, generating more interest to themselves.
This also helps Google as the service is provided over a much wider area, not just their own site, creating more recognition for themselves, without too much effort.
The next point that I feel relates to online marketing is Harnessing Collective Intelligence
This means the ability to collect and collaborate user activity, everytime a user makes a contribution to the web or application the service improves for everyone.
An example would be Nike's 'Put it where you want it' campaign
A place where users upload their own content to the web, as one makes a contribution, in this case a video, more content becomes available to interact with, allowing for user generated content which the users want to see.
O'Reilly quotes
'Hyperlinking is the foundation of the web. As users add new content, and new sites, it is bound in to the structure of the web by other users discovering the content and linking to it. Much as synapses form in the brain, with associations becoming stronger through repetition or intensity, the web of connections grows organically as an output of the collective activity of all web users'
Google is another example, everytime someone adds a new website, that URL is then added to the internet's database, Google find this information and allow their users to use it. As more websites get added, their are more possible results for other users find to find, thus become smarter and more improved as users make a contribution
YouTube works in the same way, the more videos added by users, the more content their is for others.
His final point is the Architecture Of Participation, and for me its the main point for marketing and advertising online. Its about somehow, someway of getting the user to interact and participate with the online presence. Its about finding ways of involving the user, getting them to do sometime, getting them to pass sometime on, getting them to say something, add something, getting people to talk, creating an enjoyable for experience for the user.
What seems apparent from O'Reilly's point is that us, the users are becoming the most important thing, web 2.0 seems to be very much about the user, and a lot of its success is down to how we contribute and interact with online presences. Finding new innovate ways of somehow involving the user and getting them to do something fun and rewarding, but most importantly the brand or company must do something with the data and make use of it for the next person.
Web 2.0 its a peice of jargon!
With having no real definition of web 1.0, its hard to explain just what exactly is web 2.0.
Many feel its a buzz word that is used everytime some new technology or idea happens online, and a phrase which could eventually mean nothing as its so overused.
Berners-Lee, the man responsible for the invention of the world wide web, has dismissed Web 2.0 as useless jargon nobody can explain and a set of technology that tries to achieve exactly the same thing as "Web 1.0."
In a recent IBM developersWork podcast Berners-Lee explains that the web was always about connecting people, nothing has changed, web is an interaction between people and always will be, and were just building on what web 1.0 gave us.
Web 2.0 is about a critical mass of users and the bandwidth to let them do things, AND developers who are ready to give away tools for building, you can dismiss all you like. But its happen, and happening in a big way. Now.
Many feel its a buzz word that is used everytime some new technology or idea happens online, and a phrase which could eventually mean nothing as its so overused.
Berners-Lee, the man responsible for the invention of the world wide web, has dismissed Web 2.0 as useless jargon nobody can explain and a set of technology that tries to achieve exactly the same thing as "Web 1.0."
In a recent IBM developersWork podcast Berners-Lee explains that the web was always about connecting people, nothing has changed, web is an interaction between people and always will be, and were just building on what web 1.0 gave us.
I would agree with Berners-Lee comment about the web's function which is to connect people. But although its hard to to define it, we must be able to demonstrate its transition. Hype word or not, Its obvious things are changing, were are connecting to each other on a completely new level, in a completely new way which is is exciting, new, and innovate resulting in a greater online user experience. If Berners-Lee is calling what we had before web 1.0, and its now been upgraded, why not call it web 2.0?. I do agree it has built on what we had before in web 1.0, but like with everything, things get upgraded to the latest model from the previous don't they? we're not changing it's function simply improving it for everyone.LANINGHAM: "You know, with Web 2.0, a common explanation out there is Web 1.0 was about connecting computers and making information available; and Web 2 is about connecting people and facilitating new kinds of collaboration. Is that how you see Web 2.0?"
BERNERS-LEE: "Totally not. Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I think Web 2.0 is of course a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.
Web 2.0 is about a critical mass of users and the bandwidth to let them do things, AND developers who are ready to give away tools for building, you can dismiss all you like. But its happen, and happening in a big way. Now.
Introduction
This blog was designed to help understand and realize the transition of online advertising and marketing that is currently happening. A so called new phenomenon has been branded around, many believe this is the new web, and by the looks of it, a better web.
This current buzz word is 'web 2.0', and a period online at present where advertising and marketing one's brand online seems to be changing, and for me, the better for both the brand and the user.
For many years we have been merely spectators on the web, surfing the web, but only reading it. This one way communication resulted in a period of poor user experiences on static HTML pages. We were not priority, we were not really considered. Our experience online was dull and unexciting, subject to 1000's of annoying banners ads and pop-ups as brands try to marketing themselves online as we move around slowly but surely on slow connections.
-Web 1.0
But we as users, and brands themselves couldn't do much else, lets not forget the constraints the web had which didn't allow us or itself to do much else, both society and technology.
Incompetent users were one, we didn't really have the skills to explore, and to some extent we didn't need to as there was nothing to see. If there was something new, it took time for the online user to find it and when they got there, even use it.
Don Hinchcliffe's blog on web 2.0 and 1.0 illustrates the idea of incompetent users very well. We weren't used to new ideas, so it was hard for web 1.0 to get people to visit, stay and interact.
'How long did it take the lowly editable Web page (aka wikis) to be popular and widespread? Nearly a decade. The fact is, most of us know that innovation is all too likely to race ahead of where society is'
Another problem was internet connections, many web presences ran on a 56k modem, limiting the content and overall usability of the web page. Uploading and inserting any element apart from low res pictures took an eternity to see, resulting in the users getting fed up and eventually leaving.
With only having limited connections when online, developing new web technologies which could enable a richer user experience were difficult to introduce. The web couldn't handle its introduction and we were left with a disappointing user experience. Developers wanted to create and implement new technologies but couldn't do this a 56k modem.
HTML markup languages were what we had, and what we could only have. Static, boring, web pages built for reading by writers.
With the internet being such an unimaginative place where the user didn't really gain much, both through technological issues (slow internet connections, no broadband) and our attitudes and ability, the web didn't have as many users. Targeting a certain audience became difficult when online as they simply weren't their.
The change in society and technology
Currently online we have seen most the above slowly fade away, now we have broadband allowing us to access information more quickly and efficiently, interact more deeply and richly in a way that we gain a far greater, more positive and rewarding user experience.
Our richer user experience when online has also been improved new by web technologies such as Ajax, a development which enables improved interaction web applications. It involves XML which allows ourselves to add our own content such as Gmail, and YouTube.
This all happens behind what we see on screen, data is continuously transferred between servers behind the scenes allowing the users to access content without waiting creating a far greatly improved user experience.
As broadband is now in most homes, and the internet being a place where many visit , the internet has seen a massive growth of online users. We are beginning to see what the world wide web can do, and eventually where it can take us.
(Image courtesy of National Statistics Online)'In 2007, nearly 15 million households in Great Britain (61 per cent) had Internet access. This is an increase of just over 1 million households (7 per cent) over the last year and nearly 4 million households (36 per cent) since 2002'Another aspect that has improved with the online world are our skills. We are beginning to be more competent online as we now use the internet regularly. As we spend more time online, we like to search around, try different things and therefore find different things to do. For example many are now uploading their own video's, pictures, comments, suggestions and reviews online. New web based applications make it easy for user to simply upload their content such as sites like YouTube, Flickr, Facebook, and Myspace.
So with better technology availible, more users online, and more competent users at that the web is gathering serious potential for online marketing and advertising. Brands are beginning to visualise the potential the online world has, both the web and its billions of users.
New advertising/marketing techniques and methods are becoming apparent, and some truly innovate web experiences are being created as online advertising heats up. Brands are now finding new ways to sell and publicize their brand to us, involving the most important thing. Us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)