Revolutionary Measures

Why ARM’s acquisition shows that Cambridge is changing

The official logo for the ARM processor archit...

Like a lot of people I was initially shocked by the recent £24 billion takeover of ARM by Softbank of Japan. Not only was it the biggest acquisition ever of a European IT company, but it was also widely seen as the jewel in the crown of the Cambridge/UK tech scene.

A few years ago Cambridge had three stock market listed companies worth over a billion pounds each – ARM, Autonomy and Cambridge Silicon Radio (CSR). All have now been acquired, with varying degrees of success – HP, Autonomy’s purchaser is still suing the previous management about alleged overstating of accounts.

At the same time a large number of the next tier of Cambridge companies, such as Jagex, cr360 and Domino Printing Sciences, have also been bought, leaving many people wondering where the next tech superstar will come from. This is particularly true as an increasing number of earlier stage businesses in exciting markets have been acquired by tech giants – Internet of Things startup Neul was bought by Huawei, Evi by Amazon and Phonetic Arts by Google. And that’s just the acquisitions that were announced. I’m sure that in many cases promising technology has been snapped up without making it into the press, as the deal size has been relatively small.

So, as someone involved in the Cambridge tech scene, should we be worried? Is Silicon Fen going to turn into an offshoot of Silicon Valley – a bit like the tech towns around Heathrow, but with a bit more IP? Thinking about it more rationally, there are two main reasons for the flurry of acquisitions, particularly of smaller businesses.

1          Cambridge’s reputation
All of these acquisitions are actually recognition of the strength of the Cambridge tech sector. Big companies are attracted to the area because of the talent and innovation on show, and are increasingly willing to take a punt on earlier stage businesses to get in first and lay their hands on new technology and IP. They’ve realised that not every acquisition will work, but that the wins should outweigh the losses. So, Cambridge’s PR has worked in attracting the largest tech companies to the area.

2          Changing mix of companies
Traditionally, a lot of Cambridge startups were built on biotech, science and engineering, either from the University or the innovative consultancies that differentiate the city from many other clusters. As Cambridge grows, a greater number of companies are software-based, which means that developing their technology is faster than when trying to commercialise a product from an interesting piece of lab research. Therefore, they are likely to have a steeper growth curve, and potentially a shorter lifespan as they reach maturity (and acquisition) quicker.

A further reason for optimism is given by the new Cambridge Cluster Map, which lists the nearly 22,000 businesses based within 20 miles of the city centre. With a turnover of £33 billion, the map demonstrates the range of companies and the strength of the local economy. A third of this turnover is made up of knowledge-intensive businesses, employing nearly 60,000 people. That’s a lot of innovation, whoever ultimately owns the companies concerned.

Looking back, I think commentators will see that the ARM acquisition is part of a change in Cambridge as it matures and becomes a recognised part of the global tech sector. The economy will continue to grow, but more of the capital will come from outside the city. While this means we will have fewer ARMs and CSRs, and more outposts of Amazon, Apple and Google, it won’t stop growth and innovation, which means the Cambridge Phenomenon is likely to go from strength to strength.

July 27, 2016 Posted by | Cambridge, Startup | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Marketing your brand with Pokémon GO

25914117692_5d42261ac7_zThe success of Pokémon GO has been unprecedented. Around the world people of all ages are playing the game, in many cases spending more time on it per day than on Facebook. When the game’s servers go down players feel lost and distraught and there have been countless warnings to people to be careful when hunting Pokémon – the latest about wandering into minefields in Bosnia.

The business impact has been equally huge. Nintendo’s share price has doubled since the launch of the game, while spending on in-app purchases is estimated to be running at $1.6 million every day. Bear in mind that a substantial chunk of that goes to either Apple or Google as owners of the respective iOS and Android app stores and you can see there are a large number of beneficiaries of the craze.

However, you don’t need to be a big business to benefit – one of the beauties of the game is that there are opportunities for organisations of all sizes to market themselves. Here are five to begin with:

1          Exploit your location
Pokéstops, where players collect items, can be any sort of prominent building, including pubs, leisure centres and churches. If your premises have been designated a Pokéstop it means you are likely to have more visitors. This is the perfect opportunity to boost your business – welcome Pokémon hunters into your shop, restaurant or bar with special offers. The same goes for gyms, where Pokémon are trained and fight. Also, be smart about it – if you deploy a Lure, which attracts local Pokémon for half an hour, you are likely to also receive more visitors. Activate these when you are less busy and you can bring in visitors in quiet times as well.

2          Get people walking/cycling
To hatch eggs, players need to walk or cycle for a set distance between 2 and 10km. And you can’t cheat by driving as your speed needs to be below 10 mph (slow for many cyclists). This is the perfect opportunity to get people exercising – towns and organisations such as the National Trust should look at setting up trails that players can follow, while the NHS and the Department for Health can try and incorporate Pokémon GO playing into people getting healthier.

3          Be Pokémon friendly
One of the biggest issues to playing the game in the countryside is the lack of a reliable 3G/4G signal. I’ve been close to catching numerous Pokémon, only for the critters to escape when the signal vanishes. Again, this is an opportunity for businesses – if you offer free wifi, make it available to players and you’ll gain their goodwill and custom. Given that people are focused on their screen when playing set up a safe area, away from traffic, where they can hunt, particularly if you have a Pokéstop in your location.

4          Bear in mind this is just the start
Pokémon GO isn’t the first augmented reality (AR) game, and it certainly won’t be the last. In fact, it isn’t really that complex or advanced in terms of technology. So even if this is just a craze, there will be many more AR apps coming on the market seeking to replicate the game’s success. So anything you set up to cash in on Pokémon GO’s success is likely to be equally applicable to other apps down the line. Be AR ready.

5          Use your brand
For bigger brands, particularly those creating their own apps, there are two lessons to learn from the game’s success. Firstly, it is built on being incredibly simple to use, setting a benchmark for user experience that everyone should aim to follow. Secondly, think about how AR can benefit your brand. If you are a visitor attraction such as a castle or historic ruins, you could bring the past to life with an AR app that shows people what your building looked like in its heyday. For consumer brands or retailers, can you create compelling AR experiences that help engage shoppers – or even guide them to specific locations in your shop to find what they are looking for.

Pokémon GO’s combination of usability, nostalgia and clever technology is driving huge success around the world. Whatever size of business you are, make sure you are exploiting the opportunities it offers to your brand.

With thanks to Lucas Measures for additional ideas for this post!

July 20, 2016 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is sports sponsorship worth the money?

 

Sponsoring a successful sportsperson or team should be a no-brainer for brands. Provided they pick one that appeals to their key demographic, they can benefit from their success, use them as a spokesperson, boost their brand and generally engage more deeply with potential and actual customers.

The Parc des Princes, which was hosting the fi...

However, if this is true why are many of the biggest companies in the world conspicuous by their absence from sports sponsorship? I may have missed it, but I don’t see the logos of Google, Apple or Facebook on footballer’s shirts, F1 cars or advertising hoardings in athletics stadiums. They simply don’t see it as a good use of their marketing budgets it seems.

Looking deeper, this is part of a retrenchment over the past few years, with commercial sponsors replaced by trade suppliers in many sports. In Formula One, the biggest sponsor of Lewis Hamilton’s Mercedes is, err, Mercedes, while Red Bull is a hybrid owner/sponsor. In cycling a large number of teams are sponsored by bike manufacturers and equipment suppliers and in athletics the likes of Nike and Adidas have a huge profile. In football seven of the 20 Premiership teams were sponsored by online bookmakers over the 2015/6 season, and a further two (including champions Leicester) by their owner’s companies.

So, why are consumer brands less visible when it comes to sports sponsorship – and what can clubs, teams and sportspeople do about it? I think it boils down to four factors:

1. The threat of scandal
There’s always been a chance that your brand’s chosen ambassador will go off the rails and get you publicity for the wrong reasons. But in an age of constant scrutiny the slightest indiscretion is now plastered over the front pages before your brand has the chance to react – look at Tiger Woods as a good example. As testing technology improves, more and more drugs cheats are being caught, even if, as in the case of Lance Armstrong, it is years after their offences actually took place. And that’s before you start on the impact of corruption within governing bodies on public and business perceptions of a sport. Many brands simply don’t want to take the risk of involving themselves in a crisis down the line.

2. Value for money
Sports sponsorship obviously covers a huge range of budgets and opportunities, but generally is becoming more expensive. Global competitions, such as the Premiership and F1 have a worldwide reach, meaning that only the largest brands have the budgets to spend on sponsorship. And to get any value from your sponsorship you need to make sure people know about it, using other marketing activities to make sure that your target audience feels involved and included, and that you maximise the impact through advertising, corporate hospitality and other add-ons.

3. Saturation
We’re coming up to Euro 2016 and the Rio Olympics, meaning sports fans will see a procession of sponsor logos over the next couple of months. By the end of it all, will people really remember who sponsored what? Was it Nike or Adidas that provided the match balls for Euro 2016, or had pride of place on the stadium hoardings? I’m sure, if asked, many fans would claim to have seen adverts for brands that weren’t even there, such is the level of advertising saturation we are subjected to thanks to wall-to-wall TV and internet coverage. Demonstrating this, over half of the brands that consumers associated with Euro 2016 in a poll were not even sponsors of the tournament.

4. Other opportunities
Put simply, brands have a growing number of places where they can spend their marketing budgets. From online advertising to supporting good causes, they are all opportunities to boost a brand and engage with audiences. In many cases these channels weren’t there 10 years ago – and equally some sports have been hit by what you can and can’t advertise. One of the reasons for the growth of F1 for example was the enormous sponsorship from tobacco companies – they had nowhere else they could advertise in most countries, so could focus their budgets on one sport. F1 is in many ways still coping with the hangover, with high costs and a cultural desire to outspend rivals – but not the budgets to support it.

Digital channels in particular make it much easier to measure the results of marketing in terms of click throughs, visits and sales, whereas measuring the impact of sports sponsorship can be more difficult.

So, is sports sponsorship doomed? Not completely, not while we are still able to be moved by amazing feats of sporting prowess on the field or track. However, brands need to be more careful on what they spend their money on, and activate sponsorship more cleverly if they are to stand out from the crowd. And teams, players and governing bodies need to focus on getting their own houses in order, removing cheats and corruption and remember that the reason that brands sponsor them is to reach the fans – put them first and you’ll build loyalty that will deliver return on marketing investment, whatever sport you are in.

May 25, 2016 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is there space for Google Spaces?

Google

Today our internet use is dominated by just a few tech giants – Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple (GAFA) in the UK and US, with the likes of Baidu, Tencent and Alibaba leading the way in China.

What is particularly interesting is that generally each of these is good at one thing, or group of things. We turn to Google for search and email, Amazon for ecommerce, Facebook for social and Apple for mobile apps. There is obviously some competition – Google’s Android versus Apple iOS for example, but in general each giant has stuck to its knitting.

That’s not for want of trying – Google has tried to get into social media several times with projects such as Wave, Buzz and Google+, while Apple tried to launch Ping, a music-focused network. All failed, although Google+ limps on as everyone with a Google account automatically has a logon.

It isn’t all Google’s fault – the most successful social media networks tend to start small and grow from there, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and WhatsApp. Users are attracted by the features, rather than the brand name, and then it grows exponentially through the network effect – essentially the more people who join, the more value everyone involved gains from being part of it. Social media starts at the grassroots, and that’s one of the reasons that people join particular networks. Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook understands this, hence splashing out on Instagram and WhatsApp rather than trying to develop clones of them from scratch. This neatly neutralises the competition while keeping users within your orbit when it comes to the time they spend online.

So that’s why Google’s latest attempt at a social media network, Spaces, looks like it is unlikely to take off in a big way. Described as a cross between WhatsApp and Slack, it allows users to have conversations and share information around specific topics with groups of people, avoiding, Google says, the need to hop between apps or cut and paste links. The trouble is it means installing/learning another app, and as far as I can see there’s no compelling reason for this to make it to the mainstream in its current form. Sure, people will use it to share information, such as when planning a holiday or big event, but it is hardly a threat to WhatsApp or Slack at present.

What would be more interesting is if Google used it as a basis for more complex, artificial intelligence driven services, such as bots that could be sent off to gain information. So, keeping with the holiday idea, you agree where you’d like to go and use Google to collect and sift relevant information, such as accommodation, weather and flight times, and present it in a single place. Given how long it can take to find all of this normally, that would attract users – and of course provide Google with much deeper data on what users are looking for, enabling them to sell more targeted advertising and hence boost overall revenues.

It is early days for Spaces, but it looks like it needs a bit more of a wow factor if people are going to use it seriously. Google has been burned before on social projects that have been well designed, but fallen short when it comes to getting consumers excited – so time will tell if Spaces joins the likes of Buzz and Wave in the failure column or carves out a loyal user base. However at the moment Spaces risks being seen as neat, but non-essential – hardly the best way to attract us from existing applications.

May 18, 2016 Posted by | Social Media, Startup | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Will the FBI take a bite out of Apple?

Apple has built itself into the largest quoted company in the world by being different. From the early days of the Macintosh computer, through the iconic iMac and onto the iPod, iPad and iPhone, its products have challenged the orthodox approach with a combination of design and features.

English: The logo for Apple Computer, now Appl...

It has extended this into the virtual world. Unlike competitors such as Google and Facebook, which have built businesses essentially based on collecting and selling personal data to advertisers, Apple has positioned itself as a champion of privacy. In a speech in 2015 CEO Tim Cook stated, “We believe the customer should be in control of their own information.

This approach extends to protecting personal information stored on Apple devices and within iCloud. All iPhones and iPads are encrypted by default, meaning that even Apple itself cannot access the data on them. This obviously gives an unprecedented layer of protection for personal data, which has been particularly welcomed after Edward Snowden’s revelations of widespread snooping by intelligence services on electronic communications.

However protecting normal citizens against hackers, criminals and terrorists is one thing, but what happens when the iPhone in question actually belongs to a terrorist? This is the current case, being hotly debated in the media and on social media. Following the San Bernadino terrorist shootings last year, the FBI recovered one of the perpetrator’s iPhones. Obviously this is locked with a 4 digit passcode, and simply cycling through all possible combinations is impossible – after a number of failed tries iPhones are programmed to erase all data to combat this type of brute force attack.

Consequently, the FBI has asked Apple to help, removing the erase feature from this specific phone and allowing it to try and guess the password electronically, rather than having to type in the potential 10,000 combinations. It has refused, rejecting a court order and issuing an open letter stating that it will not ‘hack itself’ and create an insecure back door into its products that could be exploited by others.

In many ways Apple has a point – even without the Snowden revelations, governments have a poor record of keeping backdoors safe. This was demonstrated by the US Transportation Security Administration, which mandated that all luggage manufacturers created a skeleton key that could be used to open any suitcase. A photo of the master key was accidentally printed in the Washington Post, allowing criminals to model and create it using 3D printers.

At the same time, the FBI is adamant that it is not asking for access to the backdoor itself – it says it is happy for Apple to disable the erase feature itself and provide access to the data, without telling the Feds how it was done. Essentially Apple is putting itself above the law, which has potentially chilling ramifications given its size, number of users and global reach. It isn’t the plucky underdog it was when the Mac first went up against the PC.

The high profile nature of the case, and the fact that it involves a proven terrorist further complicates matters – most right-thinking people would want to help the government in this scenario. Perhaps the wisest words have come from Bill Gates, who is calling for a wider debate on the balance between privacy and accessibility, irrespective of the case in hand.

As I’ve said before, a reputation for protecting user information is a central part of the Apple brand – and is only becoming more important as the company branches into payments (Apple Pay) and personal health data. Therefore its principled stance makes perfect sense from a marketing point of view. It may well have to eventually comply in some way, but it will have lived up to its promise to fight for privacy, keeping the rest of its community happy, and consequently protected its brand. However what the whole case shows is that we need a grown-up, rational debate about who has access to our personal data, under what circumstances and how they can access it.

February 24, 2016 Posted by | Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Google, tax and PR – do no evil?

On the PR side it has been a busy couple of weeks for Google. Firstly, it casually announced at Davos that it had agreed to pay £130m for ten years of UK corporate taxes, although obviously without any admission of guilt. Cue a storm of protest that this was nowhere near enough for a business that reputedly made £7.2 billion of profits over that period, essentially meaning it paid 3% corporation tax. Much of the vitriol came from other media companies, particularly newspapers, that have seen their own advertising revenues decimated by the search advertising giant.

Google Quick Search Box

Then earlier this week Alphabet, Google’s holding company, became the world’s most valuable company by market capitalisation, helped by strong financial results and worries about previous number one Apple’s future growth prospects.

Given the closeness of these two events, it would be easy to draw the conclusion that ethically debatable behaviour leads directly to outstanding corporate success. But has it actually made any difference to Google’s reputation in the UK? I’d argue that overall it hasn’t affected its business in any way, for three main reasons:

1.The public doesn’t buy from Google
For the majority of people Google is a utility – providing them with the ability to browse or search the internet, watch videos, manage emails and documents or run their mobile phones, without charging them a penny directly. What people don’t understand is that the price of this free stuff is that they become the product – Google has built its very lucrative business on selling this data on our activities and preferences to advertisers. In contrast Starbucks, another perceived tax avoider, sells physical products direct to the public, giving consumers a vested interest in seeing the right levels of tax paid out.

2.Google does no evil
It will probably surprise a lot of people that Google is as enormous as it actually is. From its beginnings it has cultivated a laid-back, anti-establishment brand, epitomised by its corporate slogan “Do no evil” and heavy investment in moonshot projects such as self-driving cars and research into cures for cancer. Despite its growth, it is still seen as a Silicon Valley upstart successfully battling the likes of Microsoft (search, browsers, productivity applications, operating systems) and Apple (with Android).

3.Is there an alternative?
Obviously you can use different search/email/operating system providers, including those that make it clear that they won’t either track your online behaviour or use it to target adverts based on your browsing. But how many people actually make the effort to go out and switch, particularly when Google makes it so easy to just carry on using its services. The figures speak for themselves – it has nearly 86% of the UK search market, which hasn’t changed much since the first mention of its tax affairs.

So, while as a PR person I agree that it has handled the whole tax situation badly by trying to claim that it is doing the right thing when its activities are ethically dubious at best, I don’t think it will have a major impact on the corporate brand. This is echoed by an (admittedly small) poll in PR Week, where 51% of PR professionals said it would leave its reputation unchanged – and 11% thought the tax settlement would improve the brand.

However, where it may cause issues, is by attracting further attention from regulators at the European Union, which have previously shown that they have more teeth when dealing with tech giants than national governments. Time will tell, but with the media already setting its sights on Facebook for potential even larger tax avoidance, I think Google will feel that the £130 million it spent is worth every penny.

February 3, 2016 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

What follows Twitter?

The press and Twittersphere have been in tumult this week concerning the unexpected departure of five key senior managers from the microblogging site. Shares fell by nearly 5% as investors worried about the company’s strategy for growth, while CEO Jack Dorsey was forced to take to the social network to reassure the world that the departures wouldn’t overly impact Twitter.

English: Biz Stone and Jack Dorsey, co-founder...

Given that user figures stubbornly fail to increase beyond 300 million, and that the share price has dropped by 67% since last April, the executive exodus is seen as symptomatic of wider issues – particularly an inability to make money on the scale of rival Facebook. Bold ideas trumpeted to revive the network include extending the lengths of tweets from 140 to 10,000 characters, but it doesn’t seem clear how this will increase revenues. In a month that saw social media pioneer Friends Reunited finally close, is it possible that Twitter will eventually go the same way?

Twitter does have a number of problems – many of which revolve around the original structure of 140 character messages, all displayed in real-time. It is easy to meet messages of interest given the sheer volume of content on the site and the user experience is not as immediately friendly as the likes of Facebook (which has also done a much better job of collecting and monetising data on its users and their habits.) When I was in Singapore last year I was told that no-one really used Twitter as they didn’t see the point, and it is true that in the UK and US much of network’s high profile comes from its use by commentators, journalists, experts, and Donald Trump.

So, is Twitter doomed, and if so what will take its place? First off, it does seem strange suggesting that a business with 300 million users is on its last legs, but we live in a world governed by network effect and the likes of Facebook have much larger user bases. And of course, none of the 300m is paying to use the service. Twitter seems like a network that doesn’t have a clear purpose – people tend to use Facebook for personal social contact, and LinkedIn for business. Both of these have bulked up their offerings, with Facebook pitching itself as a channel for customer service, with Facebook Business on Messenger, and LinkedIn’s ability to write and share blog style content providing a channel for business insight. Essentially Twitter is being squeezed, and for many people has become just a signposting tool, pointing to content hosted elsewhere. I tweet all my blogs, and it provides a steady stream of traffic to my posts – although not as many as LinkedIn.

However, I do think Twitter has a role to play – but it needs to be simplified, made more user friendly and above all clearly monetized. Which brings me to a potential suitor/solution for the service – Google. There are three reasons for suggesting it would be a good fit:

  • Google is a master at collecting user data and turning it into a saleable commodity. You may hate the fact that it knows so much about you, but it has built an enormous business on its stated aim of collecting all the world’s information
  • Despite its relatively friendly and sensible design Google +, its own social network, has failed to gain any traction, and merging the two will bring the best of both worlds together. There are allegedly 500m Google + users, mainly because registering for other services automatically adds you to the network, providing a ready market for Twitter – and that’s before you start looking at the hundreds of millions that use Google search or YouTube.
  • Other tech companies, such as Facebook, Amazon and Chinese rivals Baidu and Tencent are offering more and more services. Google therefore risks being left behind in the long term as consumers choose to spend more of their online time with fewer providers.

So there is logic behind a deal – though I’m not sure what the new entity would be called. Gitter or Twittle anyone?

 

January 27, 2016 Posted by | Marketing, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

CES goes mobile – the lessons for marketers

Amid all the excitement and hype of last week’s Consumer Electronics Show (CES) – products demonstrated included a games console for dogs and a smart belt (unfortunately called the Welt) that monitors your waistline – there are some big trends that will potentially affect us all.

English: Jari-Matti Latvala, winner of the Nes...

While last year was all about wearables, CES 2016 was focused on travel and transport. In fact, there was more noise about cars than at the once dominant Detroit Motor show held a week later. GM announced a $500m investment in Lyft, as well as launching its latest Bolt electric car. BMW showed off a concept car controlled by gestures (taking giving the finger to another motorist to a whole new level), while Ford talked about its progress in self-driving cars. There was even a hoverboard or two – though not something that Marty McFly would recognise from Back to the Future.

What’s interesting is that it shows that the traditional car makers are waking up and fighting back hard against tech companies in the battle for future motoring. As cars essentially transform into computers on wheels, manufacturers risk becoming relegated to providers of hardware (the car chassis), with all the value and ongoing profit going to the tech firms providing the software that makes them intelligent, self-driving, more efficient or more comfortable spaces. Allied to this, there is a lot of talk about the Uber effect, with younger consumers turning away from car ownership and instead just hailing one when they need it or renting on an ad-hoc basis.

So car manufacturers are worried – fewer people buying their products and margins squeezed as the profits go elsewhere. Personally, I don’t think it will be as bad as some naysayers predict – younger people have been hard hit by the recession, so don’t necessarily have the money to buy and run a car. And owning your own vehicle isn’t absolutely necessarily if you are one of the 54% of the world’s population that lives in a city. For those living in the countryside without Uber or buses, the picture is very different.

But what is interesting is how the car giants are changing their behaviour. They have realised that they are up against a smaller, more agile foe – but one that has access to new ideas, brands well known for innovation, and no preconceptions about the business. They have to market themselves better, embrace technology and work together to convince consumers that traditional car makers have what it takes to meet their future needs. Hence investments in start-ups such as Lyft, car clubs and the joint purchase of mapping firm Here by a consortium of VW/Audi, BMW and Daimler.

But both sides face significant marketing obstacles. Aside from a few supercar manufacturers, the majority of car companies are not sexy – and VW’s issues with faked emissions tests back up the view that they can’t be trusted. Cars are expensive to buy, depreciate quickly and require ongoing maintenance and fuel. I’m not saying that tech companies are angels, but the majority of people pay nothing to use Google’s services, even if that means that they themselves become the product. So tech companies need to convince consumers that they combine style and innovation with security and safety, and that they won’t have to reboot their self-driving car before driving away in the morning. Essentially the incumbent needs to show a bit of excitement, while the new player needs to demonstrate a bit of gravitas – a classic marketing dilemma.

As the battle moves from the phony war to full on combat, and new companies (such as Apple) join the market, then expect a much greater focus on marketing from both sides – as each one aims to convince us of their benefits in the brave new motoring world. My money is on whoever develops a proper hoverboard first…………….

January 13, 2016 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The death of the pub quiz?

A Trivial Pursuit playing piece, with all six ...

500 years ago, during the Renaissance, it was possible for one person to know pretty much everything across a wide range of subjects. Leonardo da Vinci, for example, was a painter, anatomist, sculptor and inventor, designing objects as diverse as an early helicopter and an adding machine. A little later polymaths such as Isaac Newton were leaders in fields as different as mathematics, physics and optics, while still believing in alchemy and experimenting to try and turn lead into gold.

In the late 20th century the place of the Renaissance man shifted again, moving from laboratory and academia to the hallowed pub quiz. This was the foremost place for polymaths to show off their knowledge, particularly if their family and friends refused to play Trivial Pursuit with them anymore.

But, in the same way that the days of a da Vinci or Newton are gone, I fear that time has been called on the pub quiz. And it is all down to technology and the way it is shaping how we learn and retain facts/useless information. Nowadays we can access all the knowledge in the world instantly with a smartphone and Google (except in my village, which only has 2G coverage). I remember as a ten year old memorising the capital cities of Europe (including mastering the trick question of what the capital of the Netherlands was), but am now sorrowfully realising that I may have been wasting my time.

Shared experiences and the herd mind
This means that rather than priding themselves on learning and retaining information, my children are much more focused on how to find it in a hurry. While this is good in a way – there’s no way you can know everything, so why try? – it is also disheartening in others. We relate to other people through shared experiences – whether that is knowledge of the same events, watching the same TV programmes or attending sports matches. And if you erode that – such as through the explosion in viewing choice, the plethora of pay-TV options and rising ticket prices at sports events, you take away much of how we relate to others.

Why is that important? Essentially because mankind is a herd animal, and a lot of our choices are not based on being rational, but fitting in with those around us. So take away our shared offline experiences and we won’t know how to behave, meaning we will start trying to find new herds to potentially join online. At its most extreme this can lead to the bandwagon jumping you see on Twitter, when everyone tweets/retweets on a particular topic or trend, without thinking, or at its worst joining radical organisations that provide a sense of belonging, however misplaced.

It also provides opportunities for marketers – good and bad. Marketers can position their brands as essential to the lifestyle and experiences we want to share, but this opens them up to charges of psychological manipulation if they are simply using PR and are not genuinely delivering what they promise. It is a balancing act – consumers are both more susceptible and more cynical at the same time – and are also apt to forget your brand in the wider noise if you don’t keep communicating with them.

So, while pub quizzes will never be the same, the need for shared experiences remains: as humans we should remember this and ensure that we find them in the physical as well as the online world. And that means making sure we still retain enough useless trivia to interact with those around us – and of course to dominate at Trivial Pursuit.

January 6, 2016 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR | , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Being a fox, not a hedgehog

In a famous essay based on a fragment of Greek poetry, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin divided writers into two groups – hedgehogs (who essentially know one thing in depth) and foxes (who know many things and see the world through a variety of experiences). This classification can be equally applied to all of us.

A Red Fox on an Evergreen, Colorado's porch.

As human knowledge has grown, and professions have become more specialised, people have been encouraged to be more hedgehog, and less fox. After all, the time, dedication and skills needed to become a brain surgeon, mean it is unlikely that the same person could train as a rocket scientist. So, since the Renaissance, where the likes of Leonardo da Vinci were equally adept with science and the arts, we have been pushed down the path of specialising and knowing one thing in depth.

This has obvious advantages – no-one wants to be operated on by a brain surgeon who only did half their training, but it also very limiting. As hedgehogs, people tend to view the world through the prism of their own experiences. Hence you might find that someone in the police force is by nature suspicious and on their guard, or a primary school teacher talks down to adults, treating them like children. These are obviously extreme cases, but we’ve all met someone and been able to correctly guess their profession due to what they say and how they say it.

More importantly, at a time when pretty much all the knowledge in the world is on the internet, and digital technology is changing how we work, live and play, being a hedgehog is also out of step with today’s reality. Sticking to what you know, rather than looking to acquire new skills limits everyone’s potential – it is no accident that the most enthusiastic and fearless users of new technology are children, who are naturally foxes as they learn.

However, becoming more fox-like is not easy. Like anything new, it involves giving up long-held, cherished beliefs and taking a risk. It can also be more difficult than it looks. The internet overloads our hedgehog brains with too much information, making it hard to see the wood for the trees. For example, when Spotify has tens of thousands of tracks how do we choose what to listen to? The safest bet is just to stream what we know about already, confirming our hedgehog tastes. Artificial intelligence that learns what we like automatically suggests more of the same, rather than throwing in a curve ball – “you like Puccini, have you tried Taylor Swift?”

So, how do we encourage our foxiness, but without losing the focus that a hedgehog brings? I think it comes down to three things:

1. Communication
It is easy to sit in our hedgehog silos, blaming other groups when things go wrong. Companies are full of inter-departmental feuds, with sales complaining about marketing who criticise engineering who grumble about accounts, until no-one is happy. Much better to actually sit down and listen to what everyone does, why they do it, and then try and fit it all together for the good of the wider organisation. The same principle applies in relationships outside work – understand the mindsets of those around you if you want to be able to talk their language.

2. Turn the internet on its head
In the same way that the internet encourages silos, it also provides almost limitless scope for new experiences. Rather than just extending what we do offline onto the web, use it to find new things to do, new skills to learn and new people to talk to. Type a random idea into Google and see what comes back (though be careful what you wish for), take up a new hobby or subscribe to the magazine used in the Missing Words round of Have I Got News For You?, for example. Obviously make sure it is legal, and while you may hate it, at least you’ll have had a new experience.

3. Don’t smother fox learning
As I’ve said, children are naturally foxes in how they pick up experiences from all around them. But at a certain age this stops, and they are focused solely on what they should be learning, at the expense of letting their imaginations wander. I’m not advocating dismantling the education system completely, but schools and universities should make sure they are teaching a balanced curriculum, and ensuring that students remain curious about the wider world. Why not get astrophysics students to read French literature at the same time?

When the Hedgehog and the Fox was written in 1953 there was no internet, smartphones or tablets and in many cases the solid, reliable, trustworthy hedgehog was the ideal to aspire to. Times have changed, and we all need to encourage our inner fox if we are to thrive in the constantly-evolving digital world.

December 9, 2015 Posted by | Creative, Social Media, Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers