Revolutionary Measures

Brand safety on the wild internet

The internet has always had contradictory roots. The infrastructure may have begun as a DARPA-funded project to create a network with no single point of failure, but its first major users were counter-culture Californians who launched bulletin boards on the back of it. And the World Wide Web itself was created by Tim Berners-Lee when working at CERN, essentially to allow different researchers, with different IT systems to share information seamlessly.

pexels-photo-266246.jpeg

This contradiction is still present in the titans that currently dominate the online world. The likes of Facebook and Google may try to publicly position themselves as entrepreneurial start-ups with more in common with the California hippies when talking to users, but in fact they are now enormous corporations with correspondingly huge power.

As we’ve seen with the scandals surrounding Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, internal systems and data protection haven’t grown as fast as the need for control of user data. And this follows concerns about adverts being run next to unsuitable content on the likes of YouTube, leading to brands such as Under Armour pulling their ads.

The issue is one of brand safety – companies want to protect their reputation as well as reach the right audiences. In an always-on world with ever more complex (and opaque) ad-buying systems and increasing personalisation being sure your messages are reaching the right audiences through the right channels is vital. This isn’t just applicable to the internet – I’ve recently seen lots of adverts for household cleaning products on kids TV channels, although you can argue they are more targeted at parents watching alongside their offspring.

The latest challenge to the big internet companies goes beyond poor ad positioning though – focusing instead on unauthorised use of a brand to essentially front a scam. Martin Lewis, founder of MoneySavingExpert.com and consumer finance guru, is suing Facebook for running adverts that use his image to market high risk or fraudulent services, implying that he has endorsed them. Facebook counters that as soon as such adverts are reported, they remove them, only for them to pop up again with slight changes.

Given Lewis’ whole reputation is built on delivering honest consumer advice to save people money, it is no surprise either that he’s been targeted by scammers or that he is going to court to protect his brand image. As he says, he doesn’t do adverts, and that with their image recognition technology Facebook should be able to block anyone trying to use his photo, before it goes live. Lewis isn’t alone in having his details hijacked – we’ve all had emails and calls allegedly from Microsoft, BT or our bank trying to get us to handover control of our PC or account details. But the difference is that no third party is making money out of these activities – unlike in the case of Facebook.

By coming out against Facebook so publicly, and by promising to donate any damages to charity, Lewis is adding to the concerns around Facebook and its business model of publish first, remove later if necessary. It’s a great PR strategy on his part – a classic David vs Goliath move. I’m sure it is also being closely watched by other celebrities and organisations worried about their brand safety online.

All of the current concerns around big tech are part of a wider worry – from consumers to governments and advertisers themselves, people are waking up to the fact that their data is out of their control, and that companies are making large amounts of money from it. I think that 2018 is going to be a watershed year for the online giants – it is time for them to change how they market themselves and become more humble if they want to rebuild and retain our trust. The question is, can they win us back?

April 25, 2018 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Will Facebook take over the world?

 

Facebook logo Español: Logotipo de Facebook Fr...

Last week Facebook announced that on Monday 24th August 1 billion people logged into the social network. That’s 15% (almost one in seven) of the world’s population using Facebook in a 24 hour period. And given that over half of the globe still isn’t online, the percentage of actual versus potential users is actually much higher – closer to 33% of the 3.195 billion internet users.

The announcement begs three big questions:

1.Is it a good thing?
It is difficult to find a parallel in history for a single entity being used by so many people across the world. There have been monopolies in the past of course, particularly in telecoms before deregulation, but these operated at a country level, and you didn’t have a choice. You wanted to make a phone call and you had to use BT or AT&T. When it comes to control over how people communicate the only example that comes to mind is organised religion, such as the pre-Reformation Catholic Church where all of Europe was subservient to the Pope. As yet, Mark Zuckerberg hasn’t branded any Twitter users as heretics, for which we should obviously be grateful.

Critics will argue that having one company central to how we communicate with friends and family, find our news and even shop is a bad thing. On the other hand, Facebook fans will point out that you have a choice – other social networks are available and the past is littered with previously successful companies (such as MySpace) that failed to evolve. This does ignore the impact of the network effect – as more and more people are on Facebook, it becomes increasingly necessary to be on there if you don’t want to miss out. Technically it is very easy for anyone to create a new social network, what is difficult is enticing enough people to join to make it necessary for their friends to also jump aboard.

What is definitely true is that Facebook, like other international online giants, does need to scrutiny that matches its power and reach. I’m not talking about regulation per se, but any organisation that has Facebook’s combination of personal demographic data and ability to analyse it on a grand scale has to meet the highest standards of behaviour.

2.What about the other 85%?
The obvious point that many people have made is that if 1 billion people were on Facebook on a single day, the remainder of the world (85% in fact), were doing something different. As we’ve seen, Facebook has captured a large percentage of the online population, which is why the company’s efforts are being put into increasing the number of people with access to the internet in some form. Its main vehicle for getting people online is Internet.org, which provides free basic internet services in areas where it is either non-existent or unaffordable. Some of the ways Internet.org is looking to extend coverage include high altitude planes beaming a signal to a particular area, lasers and satellite technologies. However Internet.org has attracted criticism for only providing access to a walled garden of services, including (surprise surprise) Facebook itself.

Clearly if Facebook is to grow it is easier to expand the pie of internet users and reach the currently unconnected, rather than target the refuseniks in countries where it already enjoys high penetration rates. Expect more efforts to extend internet access – probably not just within developing countries but also within ‘notspots’ inside existing markets, thereby encouraging people to use the service even more.

3.Where next for Facebook?
Facebook has already overcome two major hurdles that have defeated its rivals. It has successfully transitioned to a mobile-first world (87% of access is from mobile devices), and is generating growing profits. As well as extending its reach to new victims (sorry, consumers), it also needs to increase engagement – i.e. ensure people still log on and use the service, and do it more often and for longer. The big bet that Zuckerberg has made here is on virtual reality, with the $2 billion purchase of Oculus VR expected to spawn headsets that deepen the experience of using Facebook and interacting with your friends. This, for me, is where things start to get more than a little creepy – if people are addicted to Facebook now, just imagine the time they’ll spend online if they can essentially experience reality without leaving their screen. Plus, with the current size and design of headsets, everyone will look like they are part of Daft Punk.

So, to answer my three questions, I’d say we should be wary about Facebook’s might, keep an eye on its efforts to reach the other 85% to ensure there is a level playing field when it comes to access, and be sceptical about the advantages virtual reality can actually bring us. After all, you could just pick up the phone and talk or, heaven forbid, chat to someone down the pub……

September 2, 2015 Posted by | Creative, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Making the future real

Rocket Belt pilot Dan Schlund at the 2005 Melb...

I had the chance this week to see an old copy of BT’s Technology Journal, published at the time of the millennium. To give you an idea of how long ago the year 2000 actually was, the cover trumpeted an interactive version of the journal on CD-ROM that delivered a multimedia experience.

What was most interesting were a series of technology timelines, across areas as diverse as health, home and entertainment that predicted what the world would be like in 2020 and beyond. By now (2013) we should all be watching 3D without glasses, using robots in the kitchen and the police will be equipped with phasers (as seen in Star Trek). Looking forward by 2015 we’ll be able to pleasure ourselves with the Orgasmatron (though I’m sure that was in a 1960s Woody Allen film).

It is really easy to laugh at predictions made 13 years ago, particularly as they spectacularly failed to imagine things such as tablet computing and Facebook which have changed our lives and disrupted industries. I remember Tomorrow’s World back in the 1970s happily demonstrating the jet packs we’d be using to get around by the turn of the millennium. I’m still waiting for mine to arrive.

The reasons that futurologists get it spectacularly wrong are two-fold. Firstly, progress is not linear. Moore’s Law may apply to computers, but not to everything. Creating artificial organs does not mean that we’ll have artificial brains ten years later. Research simply doesn’t work like that and is much more stop start. Even now, eureka moments can move things forward rapidly or development can hit a dead end.

The second, and most important factor, is about user acceptance – and this is where startups and innovators need to pay most attention. Just because technology can do something doesn’t mean that people will want to pay money for it. I’ve talked at length about how startups need to cross the chasm and create products that the mass market wants, rather than just early adopters. This is where a lot of the innovations predicted by BT (and plenty of others) fail. There simply isn’t a compelling reason for people to either change their behaviour and/or fork out significant amounts of money to take a risk on a new innovation. Understanding consumer behaviour and designing products to meet their needs is vital if new innovations are going to make it out of the lab and into the mainstream. Yes, we can create 3D TVs that don’t need glasses, but the cost is currently prohibitive. We could probably even build jet packs, but the legal framework isn’t there to control their usage.

So the lesson is clear – innovation, blue sky research and predicting the future is all very well, but think about the problem that you are trying to solve. Is there actually one? Do people care enough to change their behaviour? Will they pay money for it? Otherwise you’ll be left with a warehouse full of rusting robots as consumers spend their cash elsewhere. Though I do think the Orgasmatron probably has a decent chance of success…………

July 10, 2013 Posted by | Creative, Startup | , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

BT’s Premier League own goal?

Michael Owen - Real Madrid
Image via Wikipedia

Despite a high profile advertising blitz, BT’s plans to sign up customers for its new Premier League TV channels are apparently not delivering, according to one analyst at least. The £30 million spend is predicted to only add 60,000 customers to the BT Vision service by the end of September.

OFCOM forced Sky to offer its rivals wholesale cheap access to its sports channels, allowing BT to move into sports broadcasting.

Obviously the figures are conjecture, but here’s the top 5 reasons I think BT Vision may not be pulling in the punters:

1. Sky’s marketing muscle
Sky’s marketing response has been powerful and emphasised how little you get from BT Vision compared to the ‘full’ Sky Sports package. A case study in defensive marketing.

2. Satellite TV isn’t just football anymore
Sky may have been founded on football but the market has matured. People now sign up for a whole range and package of channels – Sky has realised that and changed its marketing to target the higher revenue family market.

3. BT Vision is difficult to explain
People understand how Sky, Virgin Media and terrestrial TV work, and how they sign up. To get cheap football you need BT broadband and line rental as well. Why go to the hassle of changing everything, particularly as telecoms companies aren’t renowned for getting service spot on.

4. The adverts themselves
I know there was a World Cup on so recognisable footballers were thin on the ground, but little Michael Owen is hardly A list anymore. And the inability to use team strips makes the adverts look like he’s playing for Bolton Wanderers.

5. BT is not a media brand
Convergence of networks and content has been talked about ad nauseum and people understand they can bolt on broadband to lots of other services, like TV. But the brand they trust is the media one – Sky is simply stronger than BT when it comes to delivering content.

We’re obviously less than a week into the new football season and jumping to conclusions is a favourite media tactic –Blackpool for the Champions League anyone? Come November, when BT announces subscriber numbers things may have changed, but time for BT to strike back if it wants to score with football.

Enhanced by Zemanta

August 16, 2010 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments