The Emerging Times

How strategy kills a brand like the New York Times

How strategy kills a brand like the New York Times
If a premium brand or product all of a sudden starts advertising with 'intent'—it never really works out very well. (When I say intent, I mean an advertisement that simply says, 'Do this'. 'Buy now!')

"Become a digital subscriber."

That's how The New York Times is advertising itself these days. It's a real shame to see such meaningless advertising from such an influential company in American media. The New York Times is the 'thought-leader', the superior brand—there's only one. That's the perceived reality of their brand.

Their advertising should be as intelligent as their content. It's a shame it isn't (and it's someones fault it's the way it is). I hope that someone comes across this note some day.

Meaningless, noise-making work like this simply ruins my perception of who they really are. Are they a newspaper comprised of brilliant writers? Or are they just another news source who's asking me to pay for content I can get anywhere else?

Well at least I know what their advertising is telling me—and I'm not buying it.

Sure they have a strategy to sell digital subscriptions, but today there's more than 2-billion ways to skin a cat. Maybe they should let their writers run the advertising department. Who knows, maybe that will help them get their voice back.

Minisode. Websisode. Digisode.

No matter what you call it—if it reaches your audience in a way that's worth passing it just might succeed in the digital space—where young consumers spend most of their time. The main challenge with digital video is in how we make this content more relevant to the medium it appears on. From the computer to your mobile.

How is your idea different than the TV and advertising they already spend time ignoring? Use the advantage of online culture and give people what they already seek out. Breaking through online takes risk.

Droid Retrains Our Brains

Droid Retrains Our Brains

The path we took
The last decade of personal computing in the Unites States brought forth a unique situation where everyone eventually owned a laptop by the end of 2010. (That is a very broad consumer generalization. I hope you don't mind.) And as computers made it into almost every classroom, homes and businesses across America were wired or in some cases re-wired for high speed internet.

At around 2003, while we were playing with wires and laptops, a wireless revolution was happening in areas like the UK, Australia, and South America. Want to know what exactly happened? Generally speaking, while the US simply upgraded their cable technology with fiber optics, the world was taking-more to satellite technology. We didn't necessarily 'miss the boat', but rather we got on a different boat all together.

These countries, and their consumers, have been emailing and surfing the web at 3G speeds, taking 10+ mega-pixel photos, and watching videos from their "phone" twice as long as the US consumer market today. Some would even say that mobile in these markets has even matured already. They got a big head start on mobile computing while we we're plugging into high-speed lines while the wireless routers got installed.

Building the perception of tiny-little machines
Now think about this. Imagine your a teenager in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and your first interaction with the internet, your first video, your first digital photo, and your first email are all made possible by a tiny little computer you hold in your hand. Would you call it a phone if you knew it did all these other things? Most likely not. You'd perceive it much more as a machine than you would a phone.

Most average, middle-class homes outside of America had homes that shared one computer. In fact, most countries didn't get the laptop boom nearly as big as we did. So as we started to carrying laptops around everywhere as our preferred on-the-go tool while countries like the UK and that teenager I mentioned we're doing their mobile computing wirelessly their mobile device. Sure it wasn't as pretty. No it didn't have amazing flash animations. But what it also had that people really liked was the entertainment factor. It has the video camera, the digital camera, the email, the music player and the games all put inside of one small device.

In markets outside of the United States consumers generally buy less (shocker huh). Computer and consumer electronics companies are challenged with putting everything into one. Companies like SonyEricsson obviously have had the opportunity to learn directly from the Japanese hotbed of Mobile culture. They very much understand consumers in these fast developing mobile markets.

Altering consumer perception
Changing consumer behavior. Re-developing the products we make. What Droid does is attempt to establish an accurate portrayal of what these perfect little machines actually are—tiny computers made for creating and consuming media and messages. And furthermore, does it really make a lot of sense to buy so many devices? A digital camera, a cellphone, a laptop, and a desktop computer? I didn't think so.

Hopefully you can see where I've been going with this topic of analysis.

At the end of the day, companies, manufacturers and marketers of cellphones, computers, camera lenses, CCD chips, SD cards and the internet and cellular service providers have to somehow work together in as we approach this convergence. The all-in-one mobile consumer mindset will certainly arrive this decade, and using a name like Droid is a fun first step.

C'mon. Who doesn't like an androids?

{ My post today may have touched on a few points that need further explanation which I expect to deliver over the course of this week— so If you liked this article then come back tomorrow for more goodies specifically on mobile culture, advertising and media. }

Evolving Industries—Publishing

Evolving Industries—Publishing
-A little brainstorm on the future of publishing.

I hope you enjoy this great piece of content about the future of publishing. It's a part of a series called INSPIRE - A publication from the Adobe Experience Design team.

For people in the ad and media business, I hope you find it insightful to see how a parallel industry approaches content distribution. I wish I was able to embed the video here. But I can't. So you'll have to click here to see it*.

*FYI this video only works in a web browser:(

Games That Never End

Games That Never End
-What makes Massive Multi-player communities tick.

 Two facts that summarize the casual gaming 'scale' in the year 2010.
   
    1. Over 11.5 million people pay $15 a month to play World of Warcraft.

    2. FarmVille has more monthly users than the population of France. More data.

Two reasons why they're so big:

1. They never end
These 'games' are not like Tetris or the other typical games you grew up with. There isn't a traditional score board, nor a series of levels that get more and more difficult. These games rely on a different formula—non-linear, winding story lines that go never seem to end. Instead, these games are more inviting to play with. More casual. Your plant only gets bigger, your character a little stronger each day. If you stop playing, the game continues...without you. It has the key, emerging element of easy "pickup and playability". Can you really put an end to a war between two races? Or an end to an herb garden? See MMO.

2. They're Relationships
The game needs you to work and you need the game. Warcraft has redefined what it means to have a solid partnership with consumers by developing the best subscription-based partnership in the business. As users jump in and out, the game changes based on their individual roles and interactions. Much like the real world. In essence the game is never the same two days in a row so to speak. The players create the experiences, the game simply provides the environment or gateway for participation and constant evolution.

7 Reasons I Hate Watching TV On Television

7 Reasons I Hate Watching TV On Television

1. When I'm watching TV, I can pause my show but I can't continue watching it on the train ride to work. (mobile portability)

2. TV gives me less access to "other" cool stuff like games and social media. (multi-media/interaction)

3. On TV I rent movies, I don't own them. (ownership of your content)

4. TV DVR menus are slow to load, poorly designed, and slower to navigate than YouTube and Hulu. (interface)

5. The internet knows me better than my TV. TV doesn't suggest other videos I might like. It has no recommendation engine. (innovation)

6. At home, TiVos and DVRs let me save my show. With the internet and my iPod my show's always there from anywhere. (anywhere accessibility)

7. The internet gives me more opportunities to share what I like with more of the people I like. (social environment)

Why do you hate watching TV on television?
Shout them out. Have fun with it. Email them to michaelferrare@gmail.com

On The Radar: The Future Kings of Content

The Future Kings of Content

With the near-release of Apple's new Tablet, along with a (rumored) subscription based model/service for publishers and content providers, giants like the Food Network have one of the biggest opportunities out there. Depending on which cable network you ask, the Food Network contributes to nearly 40% of the cable TV unit's revenue annually. Meaning, they are one of the most highly valued networks among cable providers and viewers.

We know that content is king. But do we all really know what that means? In this case more content means more hours of engagement for their viewers. More joy.

So how can content via digital distribution help giants like: ESPN, Bravo, and the Food Network compete in the next decade? Well, it won't be the show formats or the new hosts, instead the opportunity is in how they serve up their content. The way they: organize (interface + interact), distribute (access points + devices) and monetize their content.

More and more entertainment devices are coming into the digital marketplace from companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon. And as a result, major content providers such as Harper Collins, CNN, The New York Times, ESPN, and the Food Network have some monster opportunities going into the next decade—starting right now.

Let's take a quick look at the Food Network. Essentially, they have the opportunity to create an entire search engine of cooking content that spans thousands if not millions of hours of recipes and videos—that's a million hours of cooking joy, and more content than any one person can consume in a lifetime. In the previous decade, the internet offered new opportunities for networks (like the Food Network) to redistribute their content and drive online revenue through banner ads and pre-roll commercials.

However, at the end of the decade (and moving into the next) TiVos and the App Store boom have started to prove that consumers want their content when they want it. And even more, I think that avid viewers can become avid subscribers to content. Yes, I do think that your biggest fans are willing to pay a small premium to get JUST the content they want. And with the success of the app store model, it's proving that consumers are becoming more and more inclined to do so.

The risk for content publishers is primarily based on these key factors:

    1. Is your consumer (really) dedicated to your brand or content?
    2. Can you create a valued, personal experience that takes advantage of the new portable
        "Entertainment Devices" available on the market today?

I think the opportunity can be immediately simple—provide dedicated viewers with an even easier, more direct way to access all of your content. The reciprocal effect will allow you to "touch" your customers and create a better experience with even more value. Another way giants like The Food Network can succeed is (hold your breath) by offering their entire content library as a subscription-based service—a relationship-based service. Can you imagine being able to distribute and monetize your content without a heavy dependency on advertising? Just imagine this for a few seconds...

So how is your network, brand, or publication going to take advantage of this new media?

By understanding where the consumer mindset is shifting and anticipating change, we have the opportunity to guide or even direct change. And as new devices come onto the market everyday, they empower marketers with a huge opportunity to offer better experiences that are directly customized to the consumer. Content and a service that if offered correctly, can be worth something.