Mascots, the Olympics, and Audiences

Yesterday the world was introduced to Wenlock and Mandeville, the mascots for the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The two were fashioned from drops of molten steel that spilled during the pouring of the last beam for the London Olympic stadium. They magically sprung to life, began to learn the Olympic and Paralympic events, and now roam throughout the world on a rainbow, teaching children about the games.

Or, at least, that's the story that is shown in this short film about the shiny, jiggly creatures.

In reality, the two friends are creations of London agency Iris. The one-eyed, bipedal, androgynous creatures were chosen as non-human, non-animal beings that would appeal to children, and whose "skin" could be changed to reflect different nations, events, etc. The orange light atop the head of each represents the lights standard on London taxicabs; while the single eye can be used as a camera to facilitate social, video, and interactive marketing.

The names point to the contributions that the U.K. has made to the modern Olympic Games: Much Wenlock in Shropshire held games that inspired Baron Pierre de Coubertin to found the modern Olympic movement in the 19th century; Stoke Mandeville in Buckinghamshire was the location of the first "parallel Olympics" in 1948 for World War II soldiers with spinal injuries.

Within a day of their introduction, the London 2012 Wenlock and Mandeville are quite active in public interaction - each is on Facebook (I am Wenlock and I am Mandeville) and Twitter (@iamwenlock and @iammandeville), and, of course, they have their own website. And together they are visiting schools to encourage children to live active lifestyles.

Photo from the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG)

Also within the past 36 hours, the duo have received much flak (disdain, scorn, disbelief, derision, contempt) from online audiences. One journalist compared them to a cross between Sonic the Hedgehog and Mike Wazowski; one design critic called them "computerised Smurfs for the iPhone generation."

The London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (LOCOG), on the other hand, hopes that the mascots will "chime with children," "connect young people with sport and tell the story of our proud Olympic and Paralympic history," and "help inspire kids to strive to be the best they can be."

It would seem that many adults (or at least, many vocal, online adults) fail to see the attractiveness of creatures. We've yet to hear the voice of the children on the matter.

If the main audience for Wenlock and Mandeville is adults, LOCOG may have missed their target. If their main audience is indeed children, they may have hope yet.

Note to marketers: create for your audience.

Designer Turned Marketer?

MediaPost's Marketing Daily last week published an interview with Dodge president and CEO Ralph Gilles. Gilles took the driver's seat (pun intended - sorry) at Dodge last October, after 16 years rising through the ranks of Chrysler's design team.

Yes, the design team. Not the marketing team.

It doesn't seem that shifting gears (yes, another pun) from product design to marketing is a typical career move for most. And yet the articles and quotes that I've found online seem to indicate that Gilles has a good head for business. So this got me to pondering: what - aside from his MBA from Michigan State - can lead a design guy like Gilles to have potential for success in marketing, or vice versa?

His biggest advantage, I think, is that years of design work breeds a passion for excellence in product quality. Designers** have an intrinsic love for great design - in the case of product designers, this love encompasses aesthetics, certainly, but also engineering, performance, and product features. More marketers would do well to absorb some of their designers' passion for an outstanding product. When marketers become so focused on marketing communications, distribution channels, pricing tactics, and strategic partnerships that they forget about the product, they run into problems. A drive to continually turn out an excellent product (and services) must be the foundation for good marketing.

Conversely, a marketer-turned-designer would bring another key ethos to his design team: a commitment to customer-centricity. Marketers** constantly think about how they can serve customers. What does the customer need and want? What delights the customer? What frustrates the customer? Marketers create products and plan strategy with the customer in mind. More designers would do well to adopt their marketers' dedication to the customer perspective. When they think about the customer's needs first, designers build products to fit the customer's preferences, not just the tastes of the designer.

So yes, moves from designer to marketer or marketer to designer can provide some distinct insight for each of these realms of the business. We would do well to operate with both worlds in mind.

**Note: I almost said "Good designers" and "Good marketers," but I felt that that would be inaccurate. When I refer to a "designer," I mean someone who designs because design was born in them; a "marketer" is someone who does marketing because marketing was born in them. A person doesn't become a designer because she does design work; a designer does design work because a designer is who she is. She loves design; she is good at design; design is her passion; she couldn't imagine doing anything else. Likewise, a person doesn't become a marketer because she does marketing; a marketer does marketing because a marketer is who she is. These people are the true designers and true marketers, and their design work and their marketing is good, and is naturally done from these mindsets I described. I would assert that "bad designers" or "bad marketers" are bad at what they do because they aren't really meant to be designers or marketers at all. Thus, the word "good" is unnecessary to distinguish the designers and marketers to whom I refer in this blog, because true designers and true marketers are good at what they do, and naturally operate from the mindsets I describe.

Creating for Your Audience

Ad Age published a white paper this week called "Shiny New Things", exploring the influence of those customers known as the "early adopters".

The term "early adopters" was introduced in 1962 as the valued second category in Everett Rogers' diffusion of innovations theory. The theory asserts that all consumers can be grouped into one of five categories - innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards, consecutively - according to their willingness and quickness to adopt new ideas and products.


Rogers' diffusion of innovations curve. From the Wikimedia Commons.
For a good, brief online explanation of these five categories, I recommend ProvenModels.com/570.

Of these five categories, the early adopters are the consumers whom many marketers seek to impress when they release new products (hence the motivation behind Ad Age's white paper). Early adopters are revered as the consumers who can "make or break" a product's success. They are the ones who will tell the rest of the world whether the product is worth buying or not. They tell the world this by their words (increasingly so, in the days of social media), but also by their actions (are they seen actually wearing and using the new product or brand?). And they are the ones to whom the rest of the world listens.

(Of course, very few brands or products would do well to target the early adopters exclusively. As Seth Godin is quoted as saying in the Ad Age white paper [and in his blog], "if you want to stick around for a while, you need to make the difficult sales to the middle of the market or have a ready supply of new stuff ready to entertain the never-satisfied early adopters.")

The Ad Age white paper expanded on Rogers' theory by sharing findings from a study done for Serena Software that dissected the diffusion of innovations curve beyond its original five categories. The Serena Software study broke the "early adopters" segment into five micro-segments of its own by characteristic (rather than by adoption rate):

• Alphas - "These are the tech elite, immersed in technology. Alphas see technology as having a significant, positive impact on their lives and ability to communicate. At work, they are delegators, developing solutions to hand off."


• Accidental - "Not as comfortable with technology as Alphas, Accidentals still have a deep understanding of how technology can improve their lives. With a less direct approach at work, they consider technology a tool to solve problems, but not the key to everything."


• Practical - "Using all the technology that most other types are excited about, but they are less enthusiastic about the devices. They typically report to the Alphas and Accidentals at work, but are focused on implementation."


• Balanced - "Although similar to Accidentals, they do not place technology or work at the center of their lives. Approaching their jobs as a means to fund other things they enjoy, this group leads more relaxed lives than other types, and are hesitant to adopt emerging technology until they see how it relates to their personal lives. The most likely to be students and the least likely to be workaholics."


• Lite - "The most resistant to adopting new technologies before they are mainstream, they are less likely to take risks, actively solve problems or create efficiency. At work, they may adopt a new process once it is proven effective in another department. The most risk averse segment in relationship to technology, their work life, and at home."

These five micro-segments intrigue me. I want to discover how I can reach these customers - that is, how I can design products that fit their needs (rather than trying to convince them to buy a product that they really don't need - a much more difficult and much less honorable sell).

If I were to create a product with these five groups in mind, here are the steps (and priorities) that I would take:

1. Build for the Accidental. These are the consumers who see technology as tools, not as toys. Accidentals expect new technology to solve a problem. They will be my most valuable critics - the ones who tell me whether a new product is actually worth the materials from which it is made. They will tell me if a product actually meets a need in consumers' lives. If my product is going to be worthwhile, it needs to work for the Accidentals.


2. Support for the Practical. The Practicals are the ones who implement the technology, and are responsible for making sure that it works for their (or their organization's) needs. They use all the new technology, but they rarely get excited about it - they have to work around all the bugs, and make the solutions work for their supervisors or clients. Having technical support - especially, letting them tell me where all of the quirks and faulty solutions are, and then working my hardest to correct those things - will be key for these folks. The Practicals will be the ones who tell me how to make my product function the best.


3. Design for the Alphas. The Alphas get excited about technology, and are most likely to agree that technology has a positive impact on the world. If a new product has some new, better feature, and if some group of fanboys say that the product will be the next great thing, the Alphas will eagerly adopt the product, expecting great solutions. For this group, products should have good functionality, but also good form. Sleek design and intuitive user interface, added to great features, indicate quality to Alphas. If I care about design, I should design products that Alphas would be proud to carry.


4. Connect for the Balanced. These guys care about life, relationships, and well-being outside of work. They will adopt new technology if it improves the quality of their personal lives and social interactions. If my new product is a time pit or an end in itself, the Balanced won't accept it. My product should help them to simplify their lives, or connect with friends, or save time for the important things. If my product can possibly benefit people in a personal or social context, I should look to the Balanced to see how I can make it happen.

If I can create a product that meets these consumers' demands in terms of functionality, support, design, and connectedness, then I can sleep at night feeling that I've created a product worth buying. If my product satisfies the needs of these four micro-segments, and if the rest of my marketing mix can deliver my product to the world, then my product has a chance of being adopted by the other groups from Rogers' bell curve.

Perspectives from Inside the Organization

To read today's post, see my guest blog post on the Abilene Startup Blog, hosted by my friend @chadhutchins.

- Haley

The Tools Need Someone to Use Them

Pablo Picasso once said, "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."

Granted, Picasso (who died in 1973) made this statement at a time when most computers were sophisticated calculators or analog machines used by corporations, universities, research labs, and military intelligence. This was before personal computers, before Apple, before graphical user interface, before 99.99% of humans knew what the "Internet" was, before MS-DOS, before the World Wide Web, before the dot-com bubble, before Web 2.0, before Adobe Photoshop and digital video and social media and Google and online news channels and - gasp! - blogs.

But even despite Picasso's assumed ignorance of the world of functionality that computers would one day offer, he makes a worthy point. Computers are tools. The Internet is a tool. Social media is a tool. Tools are useless until they are put into the hands of somebody who will use them.

Computers (software, networks, Internet, and other technology included) can provide you with information. Worthwhile information - about news, sports, politics, events, entertainment, products, services, advice, companies, customers, supply and demand, what customers want, how people live. They can connect you to people. Create channels of communication. Give you eyes, ears, and a voice to the rest of the world.

But computers can't make decisions for you. The entire Adobe Creative Suite can't create brilliantly designed marketing materials for you. The Internet and email and blogs can't build your brand for you. Social media can't generate followers for you.

You are the human. You are the one who has been designed to create. You are the one who generates ideas. You are the one who builds relationships. You are the one with the responsibility to add value to the world.

So use your tools. They are no good without you, the driver and creator and inventor and communicator and painter.

Landing Page or Launch Pad?

At the end of his Mobile Insider blog post today, Steve Smith posed a question that bears repeating:

"Why is a 'landing page' a 'landing page?' Shouldn't it be a launch pad to a [story]? Why would you want to have your audience lean back to watch a clip, when they could lean in to interact with a visual story?"

Well put, Steve. Intuitively, we know that a website landing page is not meant to be the final resting place of the viewer. It is meant to draw the viewer into your website. A landing page is akin to the cover of a book, or the trailer of a movie. It attracts attention, gives a preview of the content, and draws the viewer in. A landing page should do three things:

• intrigue the viewer


• inspire curiosity


• generate involvement

Intrigue the viewer:
A landing page should convey the personality and purpose of the brand in a creative way - without using gratuitous, flashy animation and sound. As the adage says, "form follows function." A landing page can feature a cool Flash animation, but not simply for the sake of having a cool Flash animation. Design for the sake of the viewer, not for the sake of the designer's ego. Be tasteful. If you must use sound, include a sound on/off button; don't build something that takes forever to load; create your design with a purpose that serves the viewer and makes him want to continue.

Inspire curiosity:
A landing page should give the viewer a hint of what on the site is interesting and relevant to him. The viewer wants to know why it is worth his time to continue to browse your site. So convey information about "what's inside". And allow some mystery to remain - make your viewer want to continue through your site to "find out more."

Generate involvement:
Make your landing page interactive (as the rest of your site should be). Help the viewer to customize his experience on your site. Show him where he can explore relevant (not gratuitous, remember) videos, or photo albums, or virtual tours on your site. If you use animation, let the viewer control what he sees; use mouseovers, hotspots - something to let him click and direct and see more. Allow the user to comment on something, or build a sample, or take a poll. Make him feel like he is engaged with the brand, and make him want to continue that active relationship.

Let your landing page be a launch pad to your brand's story.

Marketers, just do work.

One month ago, I graduated from college. With a degree in marketing. Wanting to do interactive advertising.

Which means that, over the past few years (and even more over the past few months), I have been digging through job postings, prowling through lists of "The Top ___ Ad Agencies," and trekking through dozens of agency websites. I was quite impressed with the first several ad agency websites I explored - especially those for interactive* agencies. [for those of you not quite sure what "interactive" means, see my definition below]

Beyond the "coolness" factor of the clean or eclectic, minimalist or avant-garde, always esthetically pleasing, full-of-white-space-and-streaming-video, often Flash-driven sites, I especially loved the inspiring "our philosophy" sections that I would discover on these sites. Wow! these agencies "got it" - they understood things that we had been talking about in my marketing classes. They understood that marketing isn't just about shouting messages at consumers and convincing them to buy stuff so that companies can make money. No, it's about building relationships, and creating value, and partnering research with creativity, and having an integrated strategy, and being remarkable, and earning fans, and starting conversations, and developing trust and transparency.

I was so excited to discover that agencies have this fresh and original look at marketing!

Until, a few days ago, after wading through the millionth obligatory "marketing philosophy" page, I reached an exasperated conclusion: ALL of the advertising agencies that are worth their salt "get it" already. ALL of them understand the current approach to marketing, such as I described above. ALL of them have, basically, this same core philosophy. THEY'RE ALL SAYING THE SAME THING. Which means that none of them are really original any more. They don't need to keep saying the same thing that everybody knows already.

So, my fellow marketers and advertising professionals, quit talking and just get back to marketing. Take your lofty philosophies (most of which I agree with, by the way), and use them! Do marketing! And do it with excellence and effectiveness, and be remarkable, and earn fans for your clients, and stop trying to use your philosophy to prove that you're different. Just do great work.

Yesterday I stumbled upon this article on MediaPost.com, describing the website of NC-based agency Boone Oakley. Boone Oakley seems to be saying the same thing I've been thinking (just in slightly different words than I would have chosen). And actually, their "website" isn't a website at all, but rather an interactive (haha) YouTube video. Check it out: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=107402

*definition of interactive advertising (by Haley) - advertising that involves two-way communication between a company and its customers, rather than the traditional one-way communication found in media like tv commercials, radio spots, billboards, magazine ads, etc. To do this, interactive advertising agencies often use tools like public relations events, customizable products, Internet ads, company websites, online contests, customer review sites, microsites, blogs, text-messaging, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, iPhone applications, etc. Hence the website of any agency that does any interactive work at all is typically very creative and...well...interactive.