Understand Your Target Market or Die

image courtesy of thescore.ca

When I’m brainstorming ideas for the blog, I frequently axe those that I think will only appeal to me. Sometimes they even get completely finished before I bury them, afraid that I might be the only person in the world to give a damn about the topic. But for today’s blog I said the hell with it – I’ve held this post in for four years, and I think it’s time to spring it on you.

If you’re not a hockey fan, I apologize, but I hope you still take something away about understanding your target market. If you’re a hockey fan, then I think you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about.

Christmas in February

To the uninitiated, today probably seems just like any other, but for NHL hockey fans this one of the biggest days of the year. Trade deadline day is the last chance for teams to swap players before the playoffs start; after today, your team will be set, and you won’t be able to make any moves to get better.

Fans of playoff teams follow the transactions closely, dying to learn what moves their teams have made to bolster a run for the cup. Even if your team is floundering you pay attention because spare parts on your team could be moved for draft picks or young prospects. The day has something for everyone, and although the effect of these trades on the ice can be negligible (Martin Rucinsky anyone?) the ride is still exhilarating.

With so much buzz around one day, it’s no wonder that Canada’s competing sports networks (namely TSN and Roger’s Sportsnet) battle for viewers. Wall-to-wall 8 hour coverage is planned, both on TV and online, and each station gathers a team of hockey’s brightest minds to dissect every move, and even more importantly to break impending deals.

This is the crux of the battle; to be the first to break the news. Anchors and analysts fight like rabid dogs to scoop their rivals, in the hopes of winning more viewership (and one thinks it also must be a matter of pride). Blackberrys chirp and ring around the set as hockey’s insiders pump their network, fighting to be first, as it’s the only currency of the day.

One of the more interesting deadline days of the past decade happened in 2007.  Not so much for what transpired in NHL front offices, but for the curious choice one network made to change their entire approach to deadline day.

Deadline: 2007

TSN was (and is) known for its serious, bordering on melodramatic coverage. All told they brought a stunning 20 personalities together for their coverage, both in their austere control centre and in arenas around North America. Their focus was on the insightful breakdowns their experienced team could provide, as well as their much heralded “trade breakers”, and collection of insiders with connections deep within the game; these men would be on the front lines trying to win the viewership war.

In any other year, Sportsnet’s coverage would’ve been vitrually indistinguishable from TSN’s; they also relied heavily on a panel experts and insiders. But in 2007 Sportsnet had undergone a very significant rebranding in an attempt to make them look younger, cooler, and more accessible than the stodgy folks at the other network. Their anchors never wore ties, didn’t sit behind monolithic desks, and were encouraged to joke and laugh around the set.

More importantly, Sportsnet execs decided that this rebrand should carry over into deadline day coverage. In a word, they were going for entertainment; they were excising what they considered boring, and injecting new life into otherwise bland coverage.

A few highlights of Sportsnet’s new strategy:

• “Trade” or “No Trade” girls on hand (for nothing more than eye candy)
• On-set interviews with the legendary Hanson Brothers of Slap Shot fame
• On-air delivery and consuption of Boston Pizza (carried in by the hottest BP waitresses I’ve ever seen, no less)
• Exclusive in-studio trade rumours from the supposedly well-connected anonymous hockey blogger, Eklund

The Aftermath

So, how did Sportsnet’s bold new strategy fair? Hockey fans on message boards did little to hide their opinions:

“Wow, TSN kicked Sportsnet’s butt.”

– Fred Derf

“I don’t recommend watching [Sportsnet] if you value your brain cells.”

– Brush your teeth

“How can a network that has an NHL deadline day show with cheerleaders, pizza, and Eklund continue to remain in existence?”

– The Human Torch

“In order of interest
TSN
The Score
My toilet
Sportsnet”

– HemskyFreak83

Mainstream media weighted in as well; the Toronto Star was particularily pointed in its comments about Sportsnet’s show:

“This year, it took less than an hour to determine which network was going to carry the day. While TSN was reporting that Buffalo goaltender Martin Biron had been traded, the cast of dozens at Rogers Sportsnet were showing viewers live shots of some game-show eye candy getting their makeup, the Hanson brothers performing their 30-year-old shtick and the back of blogger Eklund’s head as he provided the first in a series of often obvious and even more often erroneous rumours.”

I could go on, but I think a personal anecdote should sum everything up nicely. Before the 2007 deadline, I used to flip channels back and forth between both networks, hoping to chance upon a breaking trade. After 2007, I’ve only ever watched TSN because I was simply disgusted by Sportsnet’s poor showing.

So what went wrong? From a purely objective standpoint there doesn’t seem to be anything amiss with adding entertainment as a means of differentiating your programming. What caused this plane to slam into the side of mountain?

It All Starts with Your Target Market

Think back to what I said earlier about the hardcore fans, and why they pour themselves onto their couch to soak up every detail; they want the news, and they want it first. Time spent fawning over girls or watching stale comedy are minutes spent away from breaking trades, the sole reason people watch the show. Effectively, Sportsnet looked at its target market and strategically decided to give them less of what they wanted.

Adding entertainment is a great idea, but they should’ve done it the right way:

• Hire interesting, engaging personalities to discuss the trades
• Pre-shoot special interest “insider” stories of traded players, to screen during slow periods
• Can the anonymous rumour monger, and find a funny writer to live blog from the set

Each of these ideas doesn’t interfere with the coverage, and would still help position the broadcast in a different way than the competition.

The takeaway from Sportsnet’s (expensive) mistake is to always ensure that you’re keeping the wants and desires of your target market at the forefront of your strategy. Finding ways to differentiate yourself from the competition should be encouraged, but not at the price of sacrificing your core products. Keep your fans happy, and they’ll keep you fed.

Oh, and in case you’re curious, Sportsnet scrapped their deadline “party” concept after only one year. They are still struggling to recover the viewers they lost.

Want to see just how bad the coverage was? Here’s short clip that should clarify things. Keep in mind while they were showing this, TSN was busy breaking trades…

The Best Things in Life Aren’t Free, but They Are Simple & Fun

If you’re ever bored and desperate for something to kill time, ask my friend Hamud (www.twitter.com/hamudm) about his iPad, a surefire 2 hour conversation starter.  There’s something special about the man’s love for his tablet, and I get the feeling if you ever asked him to choose between setting fire to it, or his hockey gear, that’d he throw the match onto his hockey bag himself.

Why so smitten? Simple, because in his words, “it just works”. There’s no crashes, patches, codecs, or any other nonsense; you just turn it on, sit back, and let yourself be entertained. And what’s really funny about the whole thing is that he’s fulfilling his own prophecy about electronic gadgets. Believe it or not, before anyone had even heard of the iPad, Hamud was already seeing the signs of things to come.

The Age of “Good Enough”

3-4 years ago, during one of our weekly late night drives to hockey, Hamud and I got on the topic of the future of gaming. We’re both PS3 owners, and we love them as entertainment centres, but he felt like the real future of games lay in simpler, quicker, dirtier games, like the kind that came packed with cell phones; games like Brick Breaker, or Bejeweled. His point was simple – the games we play in the future will be portable, will be targeted to the casual gamer who’s looking for fun, and above all else they will simple in design.

He argued that the segment of gamers dying for bleeding edge graphics and sound were minute compared to the legions of bored commuters, travellers, or students killing time on their mobile devices. As long as the graphics and game play were “good enough” without being great, people would accept that trade-off for the fun they were having. Simply put, users want to have fun, and they want it now; there’s no room for complications.

Examples of Light Beating Might

Flash forward to today and we see examples all around us of simple, fun, user interfaces competing and often surpassing their more sophisticated competition.  The iPad (and its iOS) is one example from the world of hardware, but there are success stories elsewhere of this paradigm shift in action.

Call of Duty vs. Minecraft

One of the most highly anticipated video games of 2010 was the latest installment of Activision’s pride and joy, Call of Duty, Black Ops. A first person shooter set during the Cold War, months of anticipation driven by a multi-million dollar marketing campaign culminated in 5.6 million units being sold the first day it was released. And for good reason; the game looked absolutely beautiful:

The trouble is, there was a lot wrong with the game. Users found immediate problems with the prized multiplayer mode, and reports of frequent crashes and bugs poured in. In the end, users gave the game a distinctly lower grade than its predecessors, despite the hype and early sales.

Now, compare the story of Black Ops to that of Minecraft. This, is Minecraft:

That blocky pixellated jumble you’re looking at is one of the most buzzed about games of 2010. It’s hard to pin down Minecraft in a single sentence, but essentially it’s a building game centred on the creation and destruction of single blocks. Users have created vast worlds of giant buildings and elegant castles, all the while looking at graphics that look like something an original Nintendo would scoff at.

But, sales of the Beta just recently crested a million downloads; that’s right, the game isn’t even finished and over a million people have paid to play it. This success has flowered from nothing but word-of-mouth; there has been no traditional marketing, no PR campaigns, and no backing from any sort of publisher.

Its success is purely driven by its simplicity and fun. Anyone can figure out Minecraft in two minutes or less, and what you can build is almost limitless; they’ve basically created Lego for adults. It lives in your browser so it’s incredibly stable, and it’s so lightweight that even older machines can run it. PC Gamer was so impressed they put Minecraft on its cover, and a search on Youtube for Minecraft yeilds 730,000 results. You literally cannot buy that kind of exposure.

The trend toward simple and fun doesn’t just begin and end with gaming. Even something as pedestrian as a classified ads website can become legendary.

Kijiji vs. Craigslist

For a while it seemed like the battle between the incumbent Craigslist and the up-and-coming Kijiji would be epic; could Kijiji finally knock its elder competitor from it’s position as classifieds king?

To some American readers, Kijiji is already dead, replaced by eBay Classifieds, but in Canada is near-corpse is still trudging along; yes, the battle is over almost before it began, and Craigslist was the run away victor.

From any rational marketing perspective it makes no sense; Kijiji looked better, had (arguably) better functionality, had a healthy advertising budget, and was backed by old hands eBay. How could it possibly lose to a site that looks like it was designed in 1996? (Oh wait, it actually was designed in ’96).

I attribute Craigslist’s success to being simple, and fun. There is nothing difficult or complicated in posting to Craigslist – I’m confident the average grandmother could have it sorted it out in ten minutes. The site loads quickly, and there are rarely any problems with posting. And it’s fun too! Who hasn’t giggled over The Best of Craigslist? If you haven’t found it yourself, then I’ll bet someone you know has sent you a link or two.

The Value of Fun

There are plenty more examples of the “simple + fun = success” paradigm at work (Angry Birds comes to mind), but I think I’ve made my case; iPad sales alone should be enough proof that the “good enough” generation is here to stay. But I don’t think it’s enough to just make your product or service simple to use (like the iPad). I think going forward we’re going to see more and more businesses embrace the idea of adding fun to their strategy.

At lunch yesterday I was lucky enough to pick Teri Conrad’s (www.twitter.com/TLChome) brain about a variety of issues, and this very topic came up.  We both commented on how underrated fun is in the business world, and how it can be extremely effective in making your offering more engaging, memorable, and attractive. To paraphrase her, consumers are sick of dealing with corporations – they want to see the human side of brands.

Make your product/service simple so everyone can use it, then make it fun so that people enjoy using it. Not only will your product be more accessible to a larger demographic, but it will also put a human face on your company, somethine that’s critical in this age of social media.

There’s nothing more humanizing than fun:

Communicate Better: One Strategy, Multiple Tools

In my previous blog (The Trouble with Social Media ROI) I was lucky enough to have one of Vancouver’s leading social media minds, Jason Baker, leave a comment. He said something profound at the time that has become increasingly relevant over the past week, “I feel there is no such need or thing as a “social media strategy” but rather a “communication strategy” that has digital communication (social, mobile, and online communication tools) goals and objectives attached.”

It’s a great point – why do organizations treat their social media and their traditional communications channels with different voices and objectives? I paid close attention to the online behaviour of few of the companies I follow over the past week, and I’ve found one particularly interesting example that shows just how jarring dealing with two different voices can feel for consumers.

Warriors of Hockey

In 2005 a meandering hockey equipment company was purchased by an established lacrosse manufacturer, and Warrior Hockey was born. They hit the market with a fresh voice that spoke directly (and irreverently) to the youth hockey market. They signed flashy players like Alexei Kovalev and Ilya Kovalchuk to be the faces of the brand, and they’ve since grown to become one of the biggest players in the industry next to Reebok and Bauer.

Their communication’s tone is unmistakable, and it permeates the brand at every turn:

A sample Facebook post:

A sample print ad:

Warrior Print Ad for their Kronik Stick

(curiously they’re not active on Twitter. Maybe I can mark them down as a prospect).

As I said, the Warrior brand speaks with a certain tone and personality; it’s so pervasive it’s obviously driven by strategy and not chance. Their Facebook posts specifically drive consistent messages, with pitch-perfect execution for their target market. I’m going to call this voice Chad (he sounds like a Chad). Chad is relaxed, hip, young, and engaged. He is “the” voice of Warrior, by all accounts.

But recently I received a piece of communication that was most definitely not from Chad. And it really struck a discordant note with the rest of their marketing.

A Contest Gone Awry

Warrior is currently running a contest that lets users design their own stick from pre-made graphics. Designs are posted to the contest website, where anyone can vote for their favourite twig. Whomever’s stick receives the most votes will actually see their design manufactured and used by an NHL’er during a real game, and they’ll receive six customized sticks as well.

The trouble is, some users are gaming the system. It was obvious from day 1 that some form of electronic ballot stuffing was in the works, and it was turning the contest into a sham. Warrior needed to step in and do something to clean it up, and they needed to reassure their community that the best stick was going to be the winner

Enter Uncle Earl

Last night I received an email from Warrior hockey that reads:

“Dear Warrior Fans,

We want to thank everyone that has participated in the Warrior Widow Stick Customizer Contest promotion and the spirit in which most are participating. In some cases vote totals that you see have been deemed fraudulent. We are aware of the issue and have been working diligently to fix this problem and address the vote totals. We have deployed several fixes to the software that have addressed the problem and we will continue to monitor the issue.

Additionally, we have been painstaking reviewing the server logs to see if we can address some of the stick designs that have fraudulent vote totals. To be clear, the overwhelming majority of the participants in this contest have been doing so in the proper manner. A few people have tried their best to affect the outcome and that is what we are specifically addressing. ”

It continues on for another paragraph or so, but I think you can see where I’m going with this;

“the spirit in which most are participating”?

“fraudulent vote totals”?

“proper manner”?

This doesn’t sound like the brand I know; it’s not Chad, it’s Uncle Earl! And the trouble is, since it’s not the voice I’m used to, it doesn’t come off as reassuring. It comes off more like a stern talking to by a high school principal (which, for some reason, I imagine Uncle Earl to be).

One Strategy, Multiple Tools

This comes back to Jason Baker’s point – your overall communications strategy should be unified, not fractured amongst different mediums. How you act over the phone should be how you act in PR, Twitter, or anywhere else. You don’t need a distinct Facebook strategy, you need a viable communications strategy that applies to every touchpoint.

Here’s how I think Chad would’ve written that statement:

“Dear Warrior Fans,

We want to say “thanks” to everyone that entered their sweet design into the Warrior Widow Stick Customizer Contest promotion; most of you have rocked the contest. But, some of our fans have brought to our attention that a few users are trying to cheat the system. We want to let all of you die hard Warrior fans that we’re all over these cheaters like a bad smell, and we’re working right now to make it right. We’ve reworked the site’s software, and pretty soon those bogus entries will be shut down.

We’re also digging into our server logs to see if we can bust some of the stick designs that have shady vote totals. We want to make sure you know how much we appreciate the awesome designs submitted by our core fans, and we’re just trying to keep things fair for everyone. It’s only a few people who are gaming the system, and we’ll be dealing with them right away.”

Now, I’m no PR or communications guy, but I think it’s fair to say that I’ve communicated the same message in a way that’s much more familiar to the community. Their post came off as PR damage control, mine came off as an important update. Your average 16 year old hockey fan doesn’t want to hear from a PR flak, he wants the Warrior he’s used to.

Companies need to leave behind the mindset that you need to act “different” on Facebook than everywhere else. Decide what your brand is, then carry it through across your entire organization. It will make your brand seem much more transparent, and your communication more trustworthy. Build a team of like-minded employees, then turn them loose with a great strategy, and you’ll be scoring in no time.

The Trouble With Social Media ROI

Yesterday I had the chance of  a lifetime to see Jay Baer speak supporting his new book “The Now Revolution” (available from Amazon). One of the topics raised during the panel session was the issue of social media ROI, and the responses of the panelists  got me thinking about the ROI mentality, and why it doesn’t apply to social networking.

There is something intrinsically satisfying about the concept of return-on-investment, something that gives all of us a warm and fuzzy feeling inside. I think we all like the idea of knowing we’ll receive some sort of benefit from the amount of effort we’re putting into a project. It probably evolved from our ancient past – we might not have liked spending extra time honing our obsidian into an effective spear point, but if it helped bag a bigger mammoth then it was worthwhile.

The corporate jungle is not so much different today; executives want to be assured any investment they make will produce the desired result. And I don’t have any problems with this mentality – to borrow a line from Jay, if you’re not doing something to make money, or to save money, why are you doing it? But, lately I’ve run into a number of clients telling me they’re hesitant to invest in social media without knowing cold, hard ROI numbers first.

While I can understand to some degree their hesitation (hell, I wouldn’t want to waste my money either), I don’t agree with it – if you think social media is  some sort of income generation tool, then you’ve just told me how little you understand it. Social media is no more a sales channel than a machine gun is a battle plan – it’s a tool, not a tactic.

It’s Time for a Shift in Perspective

One of the hardest paradigms to break is the idea that social media is some sort of wonderful modern channel for finding clients. Business people have the misconception that it is some kind of brand new way of doing business, but it’s really not. Social media is a set of tools you can use to communicate, converse, and build relationships, not a method of selling.

Twenty years ago would executives quibble about the ROI of buying telephones? Would they hesitate to buy stamps without first ensuring they would see a return? Of course not; phone and snailmail were necessary tools for communicating with their core customers.

Social media is really just an evolution of these communication devices. Forget the idea that you need to “do” Facebook and Twitter; you need to do all the things you’re already doing, but you need to use a new set of tools to do it. Offering customer service via email is not enough, today’s marketplace demands that you create a customer service Twitter account because that’s just how users are communicating today. You wouldn’t do business without a phone in 1981, why are trying to do business in 2011 without social media?

Measurement is Good, Goal Setting is Better

Let’s shift gears a little; attempting to measure the ROI of social media may be foolish, but that doesn’t mean you should approach social media without a firmly defined strategy. I feel strongly that you need to have clear goals and expectations for your efforts, otherwise you’ll never know if you’ve been successful.

If you’re on Twitter because you want to quickly and efficiently spread product news to the masses, you need to be tracking your Tweets to ensure they’re being distributed to the audience you were expecting. If you started blogging because you want to be seen as a “thought leader” in your industry, then you need to be analyzing your blog stats to find out which posts have gained the most traction. This isn’t about ROI, it’s about meeting your goals – there is a distinction between “how much money is this making?” and “have we accomplished what we set out to do?”.

I could write an entire blog about the wealth of social media measurement tools available, but why should I when Jay Baer has already written an excellent one himself? If you’d like to learn about 6 invaluable tools for measuring social media metrics, I recommend reading his post http://www.convinceandconvert.com/social-media-roi/6-critically-undervalued-social-media-success-metrics/.

A Good Carpenter Never Blames His Tools

The other day I touched base with a client I worked with at my old agency. Since I left they’ve scrapped the entire social media strategy I built for them, because they wanted to re-appropriate that budget for other marketing initiatives; they felt they could get more mileage elsewhere.

By now you can surely see my problem with this thinking – blaming social media for not generating enough ROI is like blaming the post office for not delivering enough cheques. Before they tanked the entire program, wouldn’t it have made more sense to analyse how they were using the tools to ensure the strategy was being followed? If your program isn’t doing what you want, it’s not social media’s fault, it’s the fault of:

• unreasonable expectations
• poor (or non-existent) strategy
• faulty implementation

You see a common thread there? They’re all a fault of human error, and nothing to do with the tools themselves.

As with Anything, Start with Strategy

As with any discussion about social media, I have to make this point clear – before you start Tweeting, or posting to Facebook, you need to be certain about what you’re hoping to accomplish. Do not attempt social media without a clear cut strategy first; the amplification of social media is huge, and mistakes made can echo a long way. You need to do social media without getting stuck on ROI, but it’s crucial that you do it strategically. Let cavemen worry about ROI, you just worry about meeting your goals.

From Logos to Lavatories – How Far Does Branding Reach?

When I tell people that Wink offers branding services, I’m frequently told “oh yeah, my company definitely needs some branding”. The trouble is, the vast majority of clients I meet can’t seem to agree on how exactly to define “branding”. To some people it’s their logo, to others it’s their tagline, while there are even those who think it’s some sort of ephemeral magic that marketers weave (which is only partially true).

These people aren’t dumb, the problem is that a lot of marketers don’t take the time to properly explain what branding is. Some might reference logos, or taglines, or a vague history related to cattle, but they don’t go far enough. If your branding stops after the sign on the door, you’re doing it wrong.

The Light Goes On

I was inspired to write this blog during my car ride to hockey last night. I had a late ice time and was driving through the darkened Delta streets when I passed a local youth centre. I went by so quickly that I didn’t have time to make out a logo, name, slogan or any other identifier, only that it was a youth centre. But, even without seeing the usual hallmarks of branding, in a half a second I still picked up a few key qualities about the place; they were fun, open, inviting, warm, caring, and relaxed.

How did I possibly learn all of this without exposure to a website, brochure, or poster? Simple – window coverings. Or, more to the point, a complete lack of window coverings.

As I was driving down this dark road,  there was one building lit up along it’s whole length. The entire front of the centre was floor to ceiling windows, and there wasn’t a single blind, shutter, or curtain in the place. Light blazed forth out of the windows, instantly attracting my attention, and inside I could see kids playing ping pong, and sitting on tables chatting. I’m sure kids walking by would get the same impression I had – this looks like fun! It was this half-second vision that told me everything I needed to know about the place, and the only reason I learned this was because someone was smart enough to keep the windows bare.

Branding is Everywhere

The lesson here is simple – your brand goes way beyond your logo, it encompasses absolutely every point that a customer interacts with your business. From the design of your business cards to the voice you choose for your voicemail, every time a client comes in contact with your company, they’re forming an impression of your brand.

If you’re a savvy business person, there’s probably one word running through your mind right now – opportunity. And you’re right – every day there are a myriad of opportunities to communicate your ideal message to your customers. The question is, are you taking advantage of them?

Your Brand is in the Toilet

Here’s another example of how far your brand reaches. England’s Harrods is well-known for being far more than your average department store – a trip to Harrods brings true meaning to the phrase “a shopping excursion”. And for many years one of their highlighted attractions has been the opulent and well-appointed washrooms. Returning tourists would gush to their friends “oh you have to check out the bathrooms if you’re in Harrods”. Marble floors, gold faucets, washroom attendants, and other luxurious touches are all a part of the experience.

Why would a department store go so far above and beyond the standards for department store washrooms? Simple – because they want shoppers to know they go above and beyond everywhere else too. Everything about Harrods needs to say “out of this world”, or else the illusion of other-worldliness disappears.

Missed Opportunities

There’s a reason that companies like Harrods, Tiffany and Co., Coca Cola, and KPMG have such globally-recognizable brands – it’s by design. They don’t miss opportunities with their branding.

Look around your own company – have you capitalized on your branding?

Are your business cards well designed? Every time you hand them out, someone is forming an impression about you.

Is your shop floor clean, and do your employees wear uniforms? A client who sees your operation will be impressed if they do.

Does your restaurant take time to consider its take out containers? Or do you buy generic Styrofoam packaging?

These considerations go far beyond the realm of what most people recognize as branding, but to a consumer they are just as vital as the name that’s on the front of the building. It is absolutely critical that every touchpoint of your business is aligned with the core qualities you’ve identified for your brand. If you want to be seen as a high end luxury brand, then you need to ensure customers come away with that impression at every turn – no Muzak for hold music, no clutter on your front desk, and no corners cut anywhere else.

Customers don’t just judge a book by its cover, they judge it by the way it makes them feel. Your brand should shine like a beacon in the night, making every feel warm and welcome.

The Goods on RockMelt – Is it The Future of Browsers?

When I find something good, be it a restaurant, video game, or movie, I like to let the world know. That’s why I wanted to spend a 1000 words on RockMelt, a web browser that I think is a step forward in functionality and connectivity.

Now, some readers of an, ahem, “older” persuasion might be wondering why I even care about what browser I’m using – I like to call this segment “Internet Explorer users”. The thing is, I’m loving living in the age of the browser wars. When I was growing up our only choices for browsing were Netscape, IE, or stone tablet, and to see all the choice we have now makes me absolutely giddy. A market that was dominated by essentially two competitors has opened up.

A Little Background

Before we dive into what I like (and don’t like) about RockMelt, I need to give a a little primer on the current state of the web browser market. As I said, a two horse race has developed into a legitimate competition, and I think it’s important to understand the other runners.

First and foremost we have the old standby – Internet Explorer. It’s been shipped pre-installed on every PC since the days of Commander Keen, so for many users it has been their defacto browser of choice. But, what IE has in ubiquity it lacks in firepower. For the past 2-3 years it has severely lagged behind the competition in speed, stability, functionality, and technology. As the internet standard has changed to HTML5 and CSS3, IE has been showing significant cracks in what it can do. The latest version (IE 9) is generating some buzz as a game changer, so perhaps the future is looking a little brighter for IE, but currently it’s starting to show its age.

If you’re at all familiar with the browser wars then you know what a big deal Mozilla’s Firefox has become. It’s an open-source, non-profit browser built to go toe-to-toe with IE. Its adoption has been huge, both on PC and Apple (finally, something they can agree on)  because from day one it outperformed IE and left the competition in the dust. Firefox is currently king of the browser hill, and for a long time it was my go-to browser.

That is, until Google Chrome entered the picture. Google never jumps into a market unless they think they have a product that can dominate, and so far Chrome seems to be a winner. Its speed is unrivaled, leaving competitors chugging along with loading screens while its users are already enjoying content. Its minimalist design put the focus on the web page, instead of big toolbars and search boxes (something IE 9 has worked into its new design). Plus, it has some personalization options like new skins that have proven very popular. When I help friends or relatives set up their computer, I always install Chrome because it’s simply the best option for most users.

So What’s RockMelt?

I’d been perfectly happy using Google Chrome for all my surfing needs, but one night while listening to the TechStuff podcast from Howstuffworks.com I learned about RockMelt, and I knew I needed to give it a try.

RockMelt is essentially Google Chrome with a whole lot of social media functionality layered in. It’s built right on top of Google’s opensource browser coding (Chromium), so there are a lot of familiar touches – the speed, the layout of the tabs, and the search functionality that I enjoy so much about Chrome are all right there in RockMelt.

What separates it from Google’s product is the social media aspect. When you use RockMelt, your browsing and social media experiences are intertwined; in fact, the first thing you do when you fire it up is sign into Facebook. As you can see from my screen shot below, there are two columns running down either side of the screen; one features some of my Facebook friend’s profile pics, and the other lists some of my social media accounts.

The lefthand column lets me control my Facebook chats. I don’t tend to use this feature very often, simply because I don’t chat very often, but it’s come in handy a few times. The right hand side I use everyday – it’s an instant connection to my Twitter and Facebook feeds. Clicking on any of the icons brings up the stream for that account – in the screen shot example I’ve opened my Wink Creative twitter feed. There I can read, write, reply, and retweet without ever visiting the Twitter website – everything is driven by the API right to Rockmelt.

It gets even better – I also get alerts when new Tweets or status updates enter my streams:

This keeps me in touch real-time with what’s happening, and it’s allowed me to combine the functionality of my browser with the convenience of my old Twitter client (Tweetdeck). I don’t have to keep Tweetdeck running in the background since RockMelt handles everything nicely.

Let me channel Ron Popeil here for moment – but wait! That’s not all!

There is an awesome “share” button right by the address bar that lets me instantly send whatever content I’m looking at to Twitter or Facebook. Just click the button, select the account, tailor my message, and boom, I’m done. No more copying links into Tweetdeck, I can do everything from RockMelt.

Essentially, RockMelt has really helped me become more productive; by centralizing my browsing and sharing tools, I’m much more likely to be involved with social media, and it takes up less time to do it.

But There is Area for Improvement

While life is great with RockMelt, there are still some things that need to get worked out.

Like any product in beta, there are a few bugs. I occasionally have trouble getting embedded videos to play. A few times I’ve had mysterious crashes. But these kinds of issues tend to get cleaned up before the product hits the public.

My bigger concerns are based around functionality, things like:

• Making sure “recently closed tabs” are saved after browser crashes
• Tweaking the “share” button to let users post to more than one account at a time
• Getting rid of the 2nd Google search bar (everyone just uses the address bar anyway)
• Allow custom skins for a little personalization

Is this the Future?

All in all, I’ve been really pleased with RockMelt, and if you’re a social media junkie like me, I think you’ll want to give it a try. I’m not one for sweeping proclamations, but in this case I think it’s fair – RockMelt represents that future of browsing. By combining the web and social media experiences, they’ve created a browser that’s more convenient and more fun to use.

RockMelt is currently in an invite-only beta, but I’ve got a few invites left if you’re interested – shoot me a DM on Twitter and we’ll sort something out; www.twitter.com/winktweets.

Super Bowl Winners & Losers

Like many other red-blooded males I was plopped down on the couch watching the big game with some friends on Sunday. The topics of conversation revolved mainly around:

• Which superhero movie looks better? (consensus was Captain America over Thor)
• Why does Adam Sandler continue to make movies, and what was his last genuinely funny flick? (we settled on 50 First Dates)
• Who is watching all of these obscure CTV shows; Flashpoint, The Listener, Blue Bloods? (we have no clue where these shows come from, or how they stay on the air).

Can you tell what’s conspicuously absent from that list? Why, only the most popular Super Bowl topic of all! (No, not was Ben Roethlisberger distracted by a hot coed in the crowd). The commercials of course!

But, alas, we poor Canadians are relegated to the occasional Super ad, mixed in with our normal fare of Dairy Queen and old Budweiser ads (along with a promo for every bad CTV show known to man). That puts me in an awkward position – how to blog about Super Bowl ads  when by Tuesday they’ll already be old news?

And so, instead of dissecting each ad and comparing the pros and cons, I decided since it is awards show season to hand out some trophies of my own. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you – The Golden Apples!

The “Please Euthanize This Tired Premise” Award Goes to: Go Daddy

I’m not sure where to begin with these ads. Not only have they pretty much been unchanged for three years – hot actress with a call to action driving people online where apparently things get even hotter – but I can’t help but think someone at GoDaddy is a little confused about the availability of naked women on the internet; they’re not exactly a rare commodity. However racy they think they are, it’s nothing compared to what men can find with a 2 minute Google search. Time to find a new schtick, GoDaddy.

The Kenneth Cole Award for Sensitivity goes to: Groupon.com

In a year where two group-buying services were going head to head, it stands to reason that the agencies involved would’ve been pitching edgy ads to try and win their client’s some mindshare. LivingSocial went with a gender-bending bit that was memorable, if a little cheesy. Groupon’s reasoned, thoughtful retort was to trivialize the plight of Tibet in some kind of pseudo-activism campaign. The backpedaling and PR ship-righting being done Monday was epic, and only dwarfed by the public’s dislike of the ad itself.

The Shatner Award for Over-Dramatics goes to: Chrysler

Wow. I feel like a mobster just lectured me for two solid minutes. I get the impression that this is supposed to stir some sort of patriotic feelings from viewers, but is anyone outside of Michigan really going to be moved? Does a software CEO in Seattle really get that emotionally invested in the drama playing out in Detroit (or does he even care what Eminem thinks)? I tend to think that BMW USA’s ad did a much better job of convincing viewers that their brand is made in America.

The “WTF Did I Just See” Award goes to: Brisk

Eminem with back to back awards! I’m not even sure what to say about this ad, mostly because I have no idea what was going on. I mean, did Eminem kill a guy at the end, or was that just me hallucinating? At this point, I can’t say with any certainty, because whatever craziness I can dream up in my head would be outdone by Brisk’s ad. You know Lipton, these ads cost like a million dollars. Next year you might want to try something a little more…coherent.

The “I Actually Belly Laughed at this Ad” Award goes to: Best Buy

Now, I have problems with this commercial from a marketing stand point, because I think the message really gets lost. There’s something about a buyback program, but it’s pushed far into the background by the convoluted 4G/5G/6G joke and the Ozzy maddness. So, on one hand the ad probably doesn’t do a whole lot to communicate Best Buy’s new program. But on the other, I burst out laughing at the final line in the ad…”I dunno, kinda looks like a girl…”

Now we’re getting into the serious awards – the best and worst ads.

The Award for the Worst Ad goes to: Homeaway

It was a tough call, because I really wanted to place the GoDaddy ad here. But in the end, there is absolutely no way that an ad attempting a comedic portrayal of infant abuse can possibly escape without being the worst Super Bowl ad of 2011. Even without the grotesque image of a baby’s smashed face rampaging through my brain, the ad still found other ways to be terrible. It begins with a British man shouting unintelligible gibberish at the screen, and somehow the audience is expected to understand the point of the commercial. Somewhere in this mess is a germ of a reasonable idea – an institute where Homeaway researches better ways to give families vacations. But along the way, the ad veered sharply off the tracks into a flaming gulch. And paused only momentarily to kill a baby.

And the “Golden Apple” Award for Best Super Bowl Ad goes to: VW

There weren’t many contenders for the prize this year; I felt on a whole the ads were mostly terrible. Coke’s Wild West Themed ad was fun, and on point. Audi’s ad was fresh and engaging. And, despite negative reaction from other critics, I loved the Doritos finger-licking ad.

But, there was really only one ad that generated the hype and buzz of a classic bowl game ad. From the opening riffs of the “Imperial March” to the subtle reactions of Darth Kinder, to the 360 degree screen wipe homage at the end, the VW ad did all the right things; it had

• cuteness factor
• pop culture references
• light humour
• a clear message

The last point is probably the most important – even with the weight of the Star Wars galaxy pressing on it, the commercial still managed to get across that the Passat is coming soon. It might not be Apple’s 1984 ad, but when people talk about the 2011 Super Bowl ads, chances are they’re only going to remember VW’s.

Or, maybe they’ll remember the ad where a baby was thrown against a window. That’s just the kind of world we live in.

App-easing the Masses – Are Apps The Future of the Web?

I’m a heavy internet user, logging up to 6-8 hours a day connected somehow; between email, internet applications, mobile usage, general surfing and online video, I’m using the internet almost every waking minute of my working day. Right now I’m writing this blog on WordPress, listening to iTunes, with my iPhone beside me to read the emails and text messages that come in.

And I’m not alone.  The World Bank says that almost 75% of Canadians are connected to the internet. According to comScore the average Canadian spends 42 hours per month online, the highest average of any country on Earth. We’re also the #1 users of both Youtube and Wikipedia (per capita). To put it simply – Canadians, like me, love the internet.

So, as an Internet addict in the most connected country in the world, I think it gives me a vested interested when I see articles discussing the future of the web, and recently I read two which give opposing viewpoints as to where we’re headed. They both seek to answer a question that’s a little scary to a person of my generation, but it needs to be asked: is the web dying off?

The Future is What’s In Store

The folks at Wired certainly think so. In a high profile article published this past December, written by Editor-in-Chief Chris Anderson, the prognosis for the web as we’ve come to know it is bleak. Oh sure the Internet will always be around, but the way we view content on the Internet is changing, and the world of Apps is taking over.

The centre of Anderson’s argument is that life spent in front of a browser is soon going to be a thing of the past as users move towards a simpler, more stable experience through apps. Users are willing to pay for a secure, easy-to-use interface as opposed to fumbling through the wild and woolly web. They’re rejecting the clumsy web browser for the simplicity of the app store, where the content you want is only a touch away.

You only need to take a quick look around you to see the change in action; the iPad and iPhone are huge forces in the consumer marketplace, Netflix is forcing video rental stores into bankruptcy, our reading is being done on Kindles & Kobos. More and more users are spending their time in closed, regulated systems instead of the web. These “walled gardens” as Anderson calls them are the future, and it’s a space our current browsers can’t penetrate.

App-rehensive about the Future

Not everyone is so quick to embrace our App-heavy future. At the end of January Peter-Paul Koch presented an alternative view on his site Quirksmode. He’s identified some major flaws in the logic of an app-driven future, mainly that it doesn’t consider the economics on the developer’s side. I’m not half the writer Peter-Paul is, but I’ll try to sum up his argument.

Essentially, he doesn’t deny that Apple’s App store has been tremendously successful, and will continue to do well in it’s own ecosystem. But, the model doesn’t translate well to other platforms. Blackberry, Microsoft, Nokia, and Android all pump up their independent app stores, but they’re not attracting the developers needed to produce products (apps). Developers don’t see the money in pouring time and effort in producing content on a closed system that doesn’t have a large audience; there’s just not enough money there.

His feeling is that the advent of HTML5 and all it’s expanded functionality  will give developers the tools they need to create interesting and engaging content on the open web, outside of the walled gardens. Plus, content will be easier to find since it will be located organically via Google, as opposed to relying on users to hunt though massive App stores.

In Wink’s World, Web Wins

I can’t emphasize enough how great these articles are – if you haven’t read them yet you need to do it right now. But, as much as I think I’m a hack compared to Mr. Anderson and Mr. Koch, I can’t help but present a slightly different opinion. Although I agree with  Peter-Paul’s prediction that closed-system systems are not the future, I think it will be users as well as developers that keep innovation alive on the web. Chris Anderson makes a great case, but I can’t help but think he’s missing one vital point – the growth of the Internet has and always will be fueled by people’s desire to connect.

The problem with apps is that they close us off and shut us in; using most apps is a very insular experience. That’s fine if you’re just taking in one-on-one content (like reading an article, or playing a game), but what about sharing across apps? In my opinion the idea of sharing content is the biggest thing that app stores are missing.

Here’s a simple, relevant example. I just Tweeted the sad news that the White Stripes broke up. I saw the story myself in a Tweet that popped up thanks to my web browser, RockMelt. I did a quick Google search, found an article on the National Post, then shared the news with my followers thanks to the “share” button built right into RockMelt.

Let’s compare that to the same experience in the closed, app-world existence. First, I wouldn’t have seen the Tweet unless I happened to be in the Twitter app, which happens pretty infrequently. Assuming that somehow I found out about the poor White Stripes demise, I would’ve had to open up Safari to do a Google search. Then I’d open the page, copy the URL, and go back into the Twitter app. There, I’d compose my Tweet, paste the link, and send it.

You can see how much more labourous that is; even if you ignore the fact that I probably would’ve missed the news in the first place, there’s a lot more clicking and moving about involved in sharing through apps. There are plenty of other examples too; just the other day I was reminded of this when my brother had to call me to recommend a movie on Netflix, since there’s really no way to pass on recommendations inside its walls.

Maybe It’s a Canuck Thing

It very well could be that I’m biased because I’m Canadian, but I think both of the articles I referenced don’t consider the importance web users place on connecting with one another. We Canucks are dumped under bad weather for at least half the year, so we’ve evolved to stay in touch via the web. Sharing and connecting is facilitated by the open web world, and it’s hampered by closed environments where apps live. For that reason alone I think the web & HTML will continue to be the most important driving force for innovation and consumption on the Internet.

Location Location Location – Facebook Deals vs. Foursquare

Today is a hotly anticipated day in Canada – Facebook Deals is finally here! For those unfamiliar, Deals piggybacks on Facebook’s Places service, which allows users to “check in” at their current location, thereby alerting friends where they’re hanging out. For example, here’s a check-in I posted a few weeks ago:

You can see that checking in not only lets friends see where I am (in this case watching the Abbotsford Heat take on the Manitoba Moose at the Abbotsford Entertainment & Sports Centre), but they can also comment on my status.

Deals adds an additional layer to Places. Pressing the “check-in” button will bring up a list of nearby businesses so I can alert friends to my location, but now certain businesses will be flagged on my screen, letting my know which establishments are offering deals. You can see an in-depth look with screen shots in Facebook’s new note – http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=160818640634482&id=116489971722596.

Deals is a great step forward for Places, and local businesses. Imagine if when I checked-in at the Heat game, that I noticed a pub in the area was flagged, and they had a deal on post-game food. My friends and I could probably be swayed to go there when we might not have before.  Or at least, that’s the pitch Facebook will use to attract businesses to Places.

Facesquare?

If this all sounds a little familiar, it’s because Facebook Deals is essentially borrowing the business model of Foursquare, another location-based service that’s been around since 2008. Let’s do a little side by side comparison:

• Allows users to check-in at their current location? Facebook & Foursquare
• Users post their check-ins to Facebook? Facebook & Foursquare
• Users post their check-ins to Twitter? Facebook & Foursquare
• Businesses can offer deals to users who check-in? Facebook & Foursquare
• Available on iPhone & Android Platform? Facebook & Foursquare

So what’s difference? Well, Foursquare does add another layer of usability to their service; they market their offering as more of a game. Users can unlock certain achievements and badges for checking-in at specific shops, or hitting a predetermined number of check-ins. If they do so frequently enough, they may even be declared “Mayor” of that location. For example, “Danny F.” is the mayor of my local Starbucks, with 21 check-ins. Mayor’s are sometimes privvy to special offers and perks, while some businesses offer special discounts to anyone who checks-in at a certain time or on a certain day.

Besides the addition of the badges/Mayor achievements, there isn’t much that separates Foursquare and Facebook, except of course sheer numbers. The former features around 6 million users, which is dwarfed by Facebook’s 600 million users.

Who will Win the Location War?

The obvious question for local businesses is, which service should they choose? Well, if cost isn’t an issue there’s nothing wrong with exploring both avenues. You’ll spend more time doubling your workload, but at least you won’t miss anyone.

But, if you’re wanting to invest in the company you think will win the location-based war, then I think there’s only one real choice – Facebook.

I love the badges and other achievements, but it’s not enough to overcome their biggest obstacle – convincing 594 million people to create a new account on a separate service.

I have a Foursquare account, but I find it more convenient to open my Facebook app to post my location, simply because it’s become the most centralized app in my life. I communicate with friends there, I post content there, and I check out businesses on there – why would I want another app when I can do almost the same thing in Facebook? I don’t think I’m alone in this sentiment – others would agree that using two apps is always more cumbersome than just using one.

This has nothing to do with size – Facebook isn’t going to win because they’re bigger. Heck, look at the stink-bomb that Ping has turned into; iTunes numbers certainly haven’t helped it get off the ground. No, Facebook will win because it simply “owns” more of users’ time than any other service, and I don’t think the pull of badges of virtual Mayor-dom will be enough to overcome app-nertia.

 

5 Web Predictions for 2011

I’d like to make it clear right up front that I am without a doubt a terrible prognosticator, as evidenced by my:

• terrible Sports Action gambling record
• high expectations for the new Indiana Jones sequel
• 2010 prediction that sales of the iPad would be tepid

So, take everything I say here with a grain of salt, but I feel confident making five predictions for you, because, hey, guessing games are fun!

#1 Augmented Reality will hit the Mainstream

I’m starting with an easy one – the rise of augmented reality (AR) will finally break through to the general population. For those still unaware, AR utilizes web cams to deliver virtual content delivered over top of a real world image. One of the best examples comes from Britain, and the “nearest tube” app that will be available  soon. Users launch the app, then look through the video feed from their camera on the phone’s display. Overlaid on the display are brightly coloured lines directing the user to the closest terminal. You can watch a video of it in action here:

Here’s another great example using Avatar toys:

Other examples of AR are popping up everyday, extending all the way to unlikely products like Cornpops cereal. As smartphones become the norm for users and now that the iPad is (finally) getting a camera, this technology will become familiar to nearly everyone in 2011.

#2 QR codes will get smaller, and more common

We’ve all seen these funny square bar codes before, and some of us might have even used them. They very useful for giving targeted, precise product information to people with smartphones. They’ve been used for ages in Japan, but they’re starting to gain a lot of traction in the West.

I don’t think QR codes are going anywhere, in fact I see them rising in prominence this year, but not before someone in the tech world is going to find a way shrink them.

One of the issues with QR codes is that they can take up a fair size of real estate, depending on your product. Sure you can always find a 1.25″ square space on a cereal box, but what about items that place a great emphasis on brevity? Here I’m thinking cough drops, business cards, gum, or even pop cans; all products where space is at a premium.  Take a look at the space the QR code takes up on this business card:

It’s a safe bet that someone is going to find a way to make these codes smaller, so that they’re more usable in tighter spaces.

#3 Uncertainty in the NFL will Lead to a New Wave of Social Marketing

Those of you who aren’t NFL football fans might not be aware that the league is entering into a period of labour unrest, not unlike what the NHL and its players went through a few seasons ago. While both sides talk of finding middle ground, i’s pretty clear to the common fan that there will very likely be a work stoppage, and the NFL will lock out its players. Without NFL football for a whole year, where will advertisers spend their money?

My prediction is social media. Sure, advertisers could choose to sink their money into other programming aimed at the same target, say the NHL, or NASCAR. But an interesting recent trend has appeared around Super Bowl advertising, that I think will carry over into the lockout year.

For the 2nd year in a row, spending on Super Bowl advertising is falling while investment in social media is up. The perfect example is the Pepsi refresh project – Pepsi specifically eschewed the biggest game of the year to launch the Refresh Project on social networks, and the response has been very positive. I predict more companies will follow Pepsi as they look spend their ad budgets in 2011.

#4 Digg will Close their Doors

Ah Digg, what great memories we have. Always finding great content for me to read, a place where I could promote stories I liked. And who could forget the Digg effect that would swamp unprepared content providers. Digg will surely go down as one of the great early pioneers of social media.

Unfortunately, Digg’s demise will come from the rise of a new breed of social media – Facebook and Twitter. No longer do users head to an independent site to find out what’s hot, they look to their own circle of friends and social connections. Why make the effort of submitting pages to Digg when you can tweet them to your dedicated followers?

To their credit, Digg isn’t going down without a fight. In 2010 they redesigned their entire site to better take advantage of social networks. But I get the feeling the problems with its model go beyond what a makeover can fix. They’re caught in a debilitating circle; users don’t visit the site as often, so new links aren’t submitted as often, which causes the quality of the links to fall, which gives people even less reason to visit. It’s a paralyzing cycle that Digg won’t recover from.

#5 Apple stock will Fall…Hard

Speaking with a couple of friends before I wrote the blog, this was easily one of my most controversial predictions. Let me make it clear that I don’t think Apple Corp. is going to make any big mistakes this year, or release a lemon of a product. No, what I’m unfortunately predicting is the end of Steve Jobs’ term as CEO.

It’s well known that Jobs is not in the best of health; heck the “health concerns” section of his Wikipedia entry is longer than the “personal life” section. As of January 17th 2011 he was on medical leave to deal with undisclosed medical concerns, and there was no timetable for his return.

The last time Jobs was away from his post for a significant amount of time, Apple stock took a hit to the tune of a 23% drop. As much as I like Apple, I’m predicting another similar drop in price this go around, specifically timed when Job announces he will not return to act as CEO, which I would guess is probably sometime near the end of March. He’ll leave behind an amazing legacy, but the company’s stock price will take a hit until his replacement can prove to be up for the challenge.

Bonus – Twitter will Monetize with Paid Tweets

Finally, I couldn’t really call this a prediction since Twitter has all but confirmed it’s happening, but this is the year you will finally see paid distribution Tweets in your Twitter feed. With third party applications like Tweetdeck, Hootsuite, and RockMelt utilizing the Twitter API and driving people away from the Twitter website, this really the only logical step to monetize the service in advance of an IPO.

Here’s to 2011! And let’s hope for my pride’s sake that at least a couple of these predictions come to pass.