… in name only, mind you.

2010: A new year, a new decade. It’s also an opportunity for us to eschew some of the vocabulary that has rotted since it attached itself to the lexicon of the industry over the last few years. We’re all painfully aware of some of the offending terms and phrases. “2.0″, “Smartphone”, “Twitter/Facebook/Google” (as verbs instead of nouns), … and my least favourite of the bunch…

Slap this term onto just about any product and you’re guaranteed to increase its [sales] appeal. Back when I worked in retail, I used to joke with my co-workers about adding the term “digital” to certain items just to see what would happen (we sold recreation/games related items at the time – pool tables, board games and such). People responded to it then, when it largely applied to products. People still respond to it now, as the term has spread like a virus to describe just about anything. You can’t have HDTV unless you have a “digital” cable box. Most billboards are being replaced by “digital” signs. Telcos boast about running their services on “digital high-speed networks” (at least they do north of the border). In fact, the term even defines the industry that I have been a part of for the last 9 years; “Digital” Marketing.

The following is (by and large) the accepted dictionary definition of the term “digital”:

1: (adj) digital (displaying numbers rather than scale positions) “digital clock”; “digital readout”
1: (adj) digital (relating to or performed with the fingers) “digital examination”
1: (adj) digital (of a circuit or device that represents magnitudes in digits) “digital computer”

Going by those definitions one can see that there is, at best, a tenuous connection between the term and how it is applied in common usage. For most, the term digital has come to mean something similar to the following:

“Anything to do with modern technology, gadgetry, computers, circuits, sci-fi, fast cars, outer space, and shiny things.”

Truth be told, this is still how I communicate all that is digital to some members of my family that are … less “with it”, but that’s both for their own good and my own sanity. I digress.

There is an argument to be made for the fact that “digital” (by definition #3 anyways) does in fact describe the mechanism that drives a LOT of the products and services we use. Pulses of electrons – 1′s and 0′s – provide the core syntax of the binary language, and it is this language that was first described as being digital. Thus, any bit of technology that made use of that language also had the unfortunate privilege of being described as such.

It’s time to stop. 1n 2010, using the term “digital” to increase the selling power of anything makes about as much sense as extolling the liquid properties of water. In fact, I would further suggest that if that’s the only thing you can think of to make your widget stand out from the rest, it’s probably not worth purchasing in the first place.

So, following by example, from now on AppTheta will no longer carry the Digital bit in its by-line. I promise to give the associated image a proper edit when I’m in front of a machine that sports something a tad more functional than MSPaint.

…is that (unfortunately) they don’t resonate with the majority of the North American audience.

Now, a few points I need to clarify here:

1) I’m in North America.
2) I’m not calling the general public a bunch of morons. … …
3) I’m not under the impression that this is a ‘new’ idea.

I’ve been going through the archives at http://www.ibelieveinadv.com/ and I just started to notice that whenever I’d smile and nod, savouring that “a-ha” moment that really good ads are known for inducing, it would be due to one of the non-North American teams at BBDO, Publicis, Oglivy etc etc etc… Seldom were those moments the result of an ad that was grown and cultivated here on this side of the pond.

This post however, is not about the differences between the North American market and… pretty much the rest of the world. I just wanted to make a few observations about ads that make me wonder about them for a little while after I’ve seen them, and the effect that has on the brand the ad is trying to represent. It tends to be the rule rather than the exception, that advertisers want their customers to “get it” immediately after they consume one of their ads. Sometimes, that actually works:

There’s an instant connection/spark/kick to the groin upon delivering their message. However if this fails, well then you can always resort to plan B; play the ad 10-15 times an hour, plaster it within view of any moving organism with a pair of eyes and shove it in every paper publication available on the news stand in order to beat your message over the heads of the public.

Or… you can do something like this (click the image to go directly to the IBIA site):

Now I’m completely open to the fact that I may just be obtuse and I didn’t “get it” instantly. But those of you that (like me) looked at it for a bit and went “…what?” will know what I mean. The internal monologue in my head switched on, and I started to wonder about what exactly was going on here.

There’s a shirt, a tie… a rather extreme closeup of said things. Hmm… It’s for Clearasil. They’re an acne cream. There’s not much of the guys face in the ad. “Say hello to the mirror…” What does that mean? … That guy’s collar’s kinda weird. You’d think he would ha-…

Now here’s an ad that just got me to stare at it for about the same length of time as an average television spot, and all it had in it was a picture of a shirt and a tie (and some stubbly dude). Is this going to have the same effect on me as an ad that repeats… *ahem* ad nauseum (sorry), or one that appeals to my sense of kitsch like a cute ol’ grandma wondering about the location of misplaced beef? Perhaps, perhaps not. I suppose the real question is, what kind of brainpower does one need to apply towards perceiving an ad (active or passive) before that ad becomes ‘effective’? Further, if both types of perception result in increased sales, does it really matter?

As usual, leaving you with more questions than answers,… cheers.

At least it was, about a month ago.

It should come as no surprise that “disaster marketing” has just as much impact as any other type of marketing effort that’s out there. In fact, media outlets know that when it comes to selling a story, there is absolutely nothing that will do it quite like news of impending doom.

Once disaster strikes, it’s nearly impossible to avoid coverage of the event in the media. Every outlet sets up some sort of task force comprised of elite, special forces trained… journalists to cover all aspects of the event in order to protect YOU THE PUBLIC. Well, until the next story hits anyways. As far as the media is concerned, it seems that the ability to strike fear into the public only lasts as long as the public’s attention span.

Look at the most recent episode of global fear-mongering: The H1N1 virus, somewhat erroneously identified as “Swine Flu” – which you can also thank the media for. The H1N1 virus is actually a potential variant of a virus that has shown to be endemic in humans and birds (as well as in swine). But I guess the Avian Flu (H5N1) trend was too “2007″, so the decision was to go hog-chic this time around.

So H1N1 was destined to destroy the world. The flu pandemic caused so much fear in fact that thousands of pigs were slaughtered, under the mistaken impression that it would help to stem the spread of the flu, despite a lack of evidence that any pigs were even infected to begin with. Masks were donned, reminiscent of the SARS outbreak a few years ago. Schools closed. Travel stopped. Bacon afficionados wept. News stations promised round-the-clock updates and “front line” reports the minute they occurred. It seemed like we were all in for an era of trepidation not seen since the Black Plague.

Well, until American Idol announced their winner anyways. In fact, even before that, people simply started to lose interest in the swine flu outbreak. At least on this side of the Atlantic. Search inquiries started to drop around the beginning of the month (link). But… how could people be so willing to throw caution to the wind like that? The entire population is at risk! Millions could die!

Well as it turns out, to date less than 100 fatalities have been recorded since the pandemic began (source). In comparison, the flu (multiple strains) kills tens of thousands of people per season (though precise numbers are hard to determine). So, while the spread of the virus still remains a concern, the public’s beginning to see that there really wasn’t as much to fear as they were first told.

In fact, there’s probably much, MUCH more to fear from the still-deepening financial crisis that’s occurring across the globe. But it’s a lot easier to convey the effects of a flu bug to the public, than it is to explain the effects of toxic mortgages, derivatives, and the parallel banking system. Hell, I’ll freely admit I don’t completely understand it myself. I just fished out those terms from Wikipedia.

So I guess if we want our next fear-fix, we’ll have to wait for the next potentially crippling disease, natural disaster, bee dissappearance, or Coldplay album release to make its way to the newswire.

“No,.. it’s the children who are wrong.”

Going over a recent post at Engadget, I was surprised by the recent results of the latest Nielsen report on “The State of the Video Gamer.”  David Hinkle however, seemed to take this in stride (see his review at Joystiq). This caused me to take pause and reflect a little bit about what I thought I knew about the gaming industry. I used to be a very avid gamer, and as one of many hobbyists who still build my own machines, I still like to keep a close eye on the general state of the industry.

After reading the report, a couple of points stuck with me. Firstly, especially after the last 2 years, I’d always thought of the Wii as the undisputed king of the console market. Gauging press, reaction, and the general clamor for Nintendo’s darling, it’s easy to see why. But according to Nielsen, the Wii is trailing behind in terms of popularity and sales. While I’ve always been a fan of the PC as a gaming platform, everything I’ve experienced with the Wii speaks to its superior ability to cater to a market that was crying out for attention; groups of players (in the same space) looking for socially-oriented gaming experiences. No other console is as party/gathering/birthday-friendly. No other console features game franchises that have dominated the lucrative “family-friendly” market forever. And quite frankly, no other console can get away with releasing games that just do not compare to the PS3 or Xbox360 when it comes to pure graphics capabilities. Now these stats were mostly relevant to December 2008, a time when the Wii was particularly hard to find on store shelves, but is that the only reason for this discrepancy in market share?

Second, and this is straight from the report: “Females 25 years of age and older make up the largest block of PC game players…in December 2008.” Now before you fire up your email client, let me clarify that this surprises me for a number of different reasons. Even given my previous assumptions about the popularity of the Wii, it would not have surprised me as much to see a sharp increase in the numbers of female console gamers. The number of titles that appeal to both genders are incredibly vast. Conversely, the number of new PC games has been on the decline in the last 5 years or so. There just isn’t as much money to be made producing new PC titles anymore. Is it possible that MMO titles like WoW and their kin are responsible for holding onto the increased gamerGirl demographic?

These are questions I don’t really have answers for, but I think are still worth discussing. In a climate where everyone’s had to rethink their business models, it would be interesting to get some insight into the marketing plans of companies in industries where we once thought we were comfortable in. Assumptions that were once valid are now worthless. Strategies to capture the right audience are most likely outdated.

Oh, and one final note from the report. The most popular PC game played by both men and women (25-49)? … Solitaire.

I figure the first post on this blog should explain the name, which in turn should give readers a sense of what it’s all about. In the 1998 film Pi written and directed by Darren Aronofsky, protagonist Max Cohen is seen sitting in a cafe explaining to onlooker Lenny Myer that when you divide each successive number in the Fibonacci sequence into one another, the result “approaches Theta.” He then explains that Theta is a Greek symbol representing one of the key numbers in mathematics linked to The Golden Ratio, a mysterious and profound concept that manifests itself across several aspects of our Universe.

What’s interesting is that (like many ideas derived from the movies) this is only partially true. In actuality, the symbol Phi is more closely linked to this concept than Theta. But unless you’re either versed in mathematics or take the interest to research it further (the latter applies to me), you’d be among those confidently distributing “the Theta hypothesis” at your next dinner party.

What I’ve realized is that there are a lot of similarities to this albeit unintended deception in the world of Digital Marketing, a world that I’ve been a part of for the last several years. At some point, we’ve all met a Max Cohen who attempts to explain a concept like Online Segmentation or CPM ad campaigns, but fails to do so because of errors in communication or what have you. We’ve all been in Lenny’s shoes, blindly adopting the explanation and treating it as gospel. In fact as far as the world of Digital Marketing is concerned, I’d wager that there are thousands of Theta hypotheses out there, influencing corporate decisions and consumer behavior.

The important question doesn’t really have to do with the perceived “wrongness” of such hypotheses though. I think there’s a lot more value in examining the responses that are generated as a result. Let’s look at the recent atmosphere surrounding two social networking darlings. Facebook has been receiving seriously negative feedback in light of its new layout, whereas Twitter is positioning itself to be the next emerging giant in the marketplace. Should Facebook focus on figuring out “what went wrong”, in order to self-correct? Should they primarily try to understand what Twitter is doing correctly that’s driving their success? Or is there more value in evaluating the landscape for what it is; constantly in flux. It could be that by the time they’ve re-evaluated their Theta hypothesis and executed a new strategy, consumers will have moved on, even beyond Twitter, to the next greatest thing.

The over-arching theme for this blog involves looking at Digital Marketing from that perspective. Rather than wrestling with the semantic innards of concepts like Social Networks, Microsite Campaigns, Mobile Subscriber Turnover and the like, I’ll be discussing how those concepts drive responses and stimulate change (if any) in an industry that refuses to remain static and easily understood.

There’s also the fact that “Approaching Phi” was a rather unwieldy blog name. But I digress.

Enjoy.