Perspectives on Consumers

A few days ago, I got the wind knocked out of me with one of those rare “aha” moments.  A headline caught my eye:  “The State of Linked Data in 2010” by ReadWriteWeb.  Being a curious sort, I read the blog post, and then spent the next few hours (days) exploring what Linked Data is.  OMG.

Now I realize this may be old news to some, just as the WWW was when I got on board in 1993.  But in 1993, I bought the first Mac built for online connection, and the good folks at Apple took days to successfully get me online as it was still such a novelty.  So I’m thinking that Linked Data (also referred to as the Semantic Web) may still be an unknown idea to many of you as well.

Last May I was wowed by the concept behind Wolfram|Alpha, and I wrote on it here as it was launching.  Since then, I haven’t heard that much about it (it’s a private effort), and I personally don’t believe it works that well.

Linked Data, an open-source movement, is more likely to be the real start of the answer of how inter-relationships between data can be seen and accessed on the Web.

Simple, one-dimensional searches are fine today, but what happens when your query is complex?  Here’s an example I saw about football (I know, how unlike me!):  you want to know which football players went to the University of Texas, Austin and played for the Dallas Cowboys as cornerback.  What you’re really asking is that two databases – UT and Cowboys – talk to each other.  But unless they’re connected in some way, they can’t talk.  And that’s what Linked Data is all about – forming those connections through shared databases.  (To see more – for those of you who are tech-inclined – visit this link.)

Today, it’s a little cumbersome to “code” the data for these linked databases, but when it becomes more automated, it will be quite powerful  and I think more people and organizations will participate.  Currently,  the US government allows all federally collected data – data that we as taxpayers pay them to collect – to be shared across departments.  It’s early days, but visit www.data.gov to see what the US government is doing.  The Brits are also committed to this effort.

A company called Talis has a great example of how its platform is working for the BBC and I believe if you watch the short video, you’ll get excited about the potential of this new movement as an end-user.

What are the implications for other types of businesses? I can’t imagine they will share their proprietary information, but I do imagine that there will be “intranet-like” Linked Data resources where queries will merge public data with their private data and data from their vendors (such as agency media buys).  Internal politics regarding who “owns” which data sources may be the biggest hurdle for full adoption.

I know that there will be more to write on all of this over time, but I would highly recommend a blog post by Scott Brinker.  In his visual (below), you can see that he lays out seven business models going from indirect-to-direct revenue models and from ‘raw data’ delivery to ‘as an application’ delivery.

Are you as wowed as I am?  What are your thoughts?

Since the start of the year, clients have been preoccupied with “innovation” and how they can be (or become) an innovative brand.  During this period, the consumers I’ve spoken with have consistently identified three innovative brands:  Apple, Google, and Nike.

Client interest in this subject got me thinking:  Has innovation become a component in the consumer value equation?  Is this why brands are so interested in owning this association?

The value equation has evolved over the years.  At its core remains three components:  quality, time and price.  But if innovation is an element which is becoming more central to consumer-perceived value, what is it exactly?

Here are my thoughts.  Innovation requires three things:

1. Initially, its “newness” must be tangible or something understood.  (If something’s too esoteric, consumers may have trouble connecting with the product or service.)
2. It needs to be something used (frequently) or easily integrated into a consumer’s life/lifestyle.  (Interaction is key to believing there’s added value; a consumer needs to notice their life is better/different day-to-day.)
3. It needs to be available or accessible to the market it’s targeting.  However, for a brand to get high marks for innovation, it needs to get there first.

Does a brand need to “invent” in order to “innovate”?  No.  Apple is the classic case history for this.  It didn’t invent the MP3 player or the cell phone or the tablet computer.  But clearly, Apple innovated technologies based on a belief that it could create a better user experience coupled with its “rebel with a cause,” anti-establishment attitude.

Google has been an innovator (and some might say inventor) from the start.  But lately I’m hearing the most about Google Apps and the new Google Droid cell phones – innovation not invention.  Along the way, it has become a more mainstream consumer brand (vs. a mere verb for finding things on the Web).

Nike has a history of “inventing” new technologies, borrowed heavily from other industry applications, and building them into its shoes and other gear.  Between its sports endorsements (don’t celebrities always want to wear the latest and greatest?) and selling at somewhat of a higher price for the newer models, it is most often viewed as the most innovative in its category.

Dell had an innovative selling model at the beginning:  they built each computer to order using high-quality components.  At one time, that innovation had value; a computer was a significant purchase.  As computer costs came down, and more known/mainstream/trusted players entered the market, the uniqueness of its selling model became something of an impediment.  So Dell took its products to retail.  An established name, but a brand I no longer consider an innovator in its field.  (They are doing a good job leveraging social media as a selling tool, however.)

While innovation may be playing a larger role in the consumer value equation, my caution is this:  innovation without brand loyalty is meaningless.  What a brand doesn’t want is to  have the cool, hot, innovative product or service of the moment, only to have early adopters flock to another brand who offers the next level in innovation.  How far a brand pushes with innovation should be consistent with its branding, its place in the competitive marketplace, and the short- and long-term dividends that innovations will pay – both to the bottom line and with consumers.

Since the beginning of the year, I’ve had a working theory that the social media buzz of last year is fundamentally changed.   I’m not suggesting that social media is dead – no, it’s here to stay.  Rather, there’s an evolution to its usage; it’s something of a maturing market. Over the past week, several news headlines have caught my attention:

MySpace looks to the past for its future.  The social networking site plans to return to its roots by pushing entertainment content and jettisoning portal-like features.  (3/10/10, LA Times)

Facebook and Twitter join the location wars.  Facebook and Twitter are each rolling out geo-location services designed to link updates to users’ current locations. Twitter’s feature uses Google Map overlays to show users’ whereabouts, while Facebook plans to introduce a location-based service at next month’s f8 conference.  (3/10/10, Smart Brief on Social Media)

At SXSWi, Twitter may finally have met its match.  No question Twitter is still huge here, but Foursquare and Gowalla have to be considered a major part of people’s organizing principle.  (3/16/10,  CNET.com)

Surprised?  It was only a matter of time before end-users started asking – and expecting answers to  – the question:  “what’s in it for me?”  (We saw the same thing with Internet adoption in the mid-to-late 1990s.)  The economic downturn of last year, in my opinion, helped fuel interest in social media (people had more time on their hands), which may have accelerated the questioning of social media’s value/investment.

A  Barracuda Labs’ study of 19 million Twitter accounts supports this idea, at least in part.  Interest in Twitter peaked during the first two-thirds of last year, the height of the economic downturn.

This study reported on in MediaMemo, also did an interesting analysis:  they defined “True” Twitter users as those who had at least 10 followers, were following at least 10 people and had tweeted at least 10 times.  Using that definition, only 21% of Twitter users were “True.”

Furthermore, “in terms of tweets, the report estimates that 34% of Twitter users hadn’t tweeted even once, while a whopping 73% of Twitter’s users tweeted less than 10 times. That means nearly all of the tweets on the social network were coming from about 1/4 of the user base.  Power users dominate.”

If the 80-20 rule applies, that means that around the world, around 5% of Tweeters are generating the content.  In all likelihood, that’s not very engaging or interactive for most people.

So the evolution in social media isn’t all that surprising.  People want to be noticed for their efforts and geo-location services get them noticed.

If you’re a marketer who’s still wondering about social media and its payout, particularly if you have a retail presence, look into the geo-location services and design retention and promotional programs around them.  (They will be especially effective with your younger target and should be eminently measurable.)

If you’re into social media, keep an eye out for the aggregation services (tweets posting to Facebook; the centralization of content).  This way, if you decide to take a “short-cut” you don’t lose your reach with your audience.

Want to learn more?  There’s a great piece from Mashable called “9 Killer Tips for Location-Based Marketing” which you can find by clicking here.

We’ve been hearing a lot about the “new” mixed-method or hybrid market research techniques called “Quant/Qual” of late.  Truth is, if you’ve been around marketing research for any length of time, you know that we’ve been doing “quant/qual” or “qual/quant” for decades.

What’s different – and noteworthy – is the way technology is being leveraged.  Two companies come to mind, yet I’m sure there are others:

iModerate – Fields a larger quant study and then pulls off certain participants to have a one-on-one follow up with a professional moderator.  As their site says:  Research>iMpact provides a hybrid approach in which online qualitative sessions are incorporated into virtually any online survey, giving you qualitative insight that enhances and clarifies the quantitative data.

Invoke Solutions – Seemingly more quantitative in orientation, Invoke is leveraging their technology to obtain richer and deeper open-ended responses.  They say that it’s like a focus group experience, but I’m going to need to learn more before I’m convinced.  Having said that, I’ve seen enough that I’m intrigued and I want to learn more.  The client-interface portion looks very powerful.

But are either of these “new”?  I started this topic thinking, “No, they’re not really new at all.  Just a new twist on an old approach.”

But the more I think about this, the more I believe these might be new approaches.  The dividing line for me lies in the definition of “qualitative research.”

• Qualitative research explores.
• Great open-ended responses in quantitative research explains.

For now, I’m going to continue to think of these newer approaches in these ways – and make client recommendations accordingly.  And, as always, I’ll continue to seek out more info.  If you’ve got something to share on this subject, please do!

Maybe I’ve missed something, but with mobile marketing being so “hot” these days, why hasn’t an ad delivery network teamed with a mobile carrier to offer a newer, less costly phone-service option?

We have monthly phone plans, unlimited data plans, and pre-paid phones, but what about a service that says if you agree to view two ads a day on your mobile, you’ll get X off your monthly carrier changes, and five ads a day you’ll get Y off your charges?  Or extra minutes?  Or free text credits?

Certainly, marketers love the platform because people are literally attached to their phones at the hip.  And, if like TV programming viewed on the Web, a person couldn’t get their messages unless they saw the 10-15-second ad first, theoretically, they would be more attentive to the ad.  At least this form of mobile advertising is more opt-in than any other.  The consumer makes an agreement with their cell phone provider and by extension the ad network:  I’ll agree to watch you ads if you lower my bill.

Are we so entrenched in the cable TV model that we’re not thinking outside the box?  I think there could be an opportunity here.  What do you think?