A new way to engage and inspire

After seeing the movie Minority Report, it seems that the future might be even cooler than expected. Everything is executed via touches and gestures; it's not mind reading, but it's awfully close. HP is the closest in terms of using really futuristic graphics and visuals into their TV commercials; I wonder who will use this technology and ascend to the next level of visual stimulation. In a perfect world, IBM would transition from their STOP TALKING. START DOING message and bridge it solely to cool and efficient ways of doing. e.g. START DOING. [LIKE THIS or WE HAVE]


g-speak overview 1828121108 from john underkoffler on Vimeo.

What's left for Coors Light?

Is there anything left for Coors Light to do? They have the "freshness liner," the color temperature indicator, born on date, and now the vent. I think Coors Brewing Co. has a think tank that sits around and tries to find new ways to make the can cooler. It's scarily akin to Steve Jobs at MacWorld where he says "One more thing." It feels like Coors Light makes a new debut of their can every quarter. Their latest modification, "the vent" is clever for two reason. One, it allows Coors Light to brag about its new design and improved "drinkability," and two, the vent allows more beer to exit the can at a faster rate so more beer gets consumed. Luckily, the alcoholic beverage industry has created the word "drinkability" to mask the truth. If I were in the Coors Light think tank I know what my next suggestion would be. "Shotgun enabled cans!" The can would have another tab on the side of the can, so the consumer can shotgun the beer without ever stabbing a knife or pen into the side. All the Coors Light stunts seem so silly. I would never be more compelled to buy the beer. In fact, all the superfluous additions aggravate me and make me want to find the least expensive and innovative beer on the market. Someone should invent "Party Beer" and market it as such. Coors Light, Bud Light, Miller Light and all the other light beers except for Amstel should be in the "party section" of the supermarket. There is nothing about their taste that is interesting, and they serve no purpose other than low calorie intoxication. If you ever compare one of the aforementioned beers to something of substance like Dogfish Head the difference is incomprehensible. Therefore, Coors Light should exploit their party audience and make their next can a pinata. When you finish it, you can bash it with a plastic bat and little pieces of confetti appear. I like it.

Victoria's too sexy! What a paradox.

As the economy enters a recession and all things seem to be hitting the fan, we have to deal with another crisis..."Victoria Secret CEO Sharen Turney says the chain has become 'too sexy.'"

WHAT?! I never thought I'd hear the words "too sexy" and "Victoria's Secret" in the same sentence, but stranger things have happened. After the initial shock and seemingly paradoxical statement, I sat back and realized that it's true. I recall my tween days of mall shopping and seeing a clear mix of customers in Victoria's Secret. The typical 15-20 year-old, youthful 40 year-old and single 30 something, but now it seems that you need a lower back tattoo to enter. The mannequins used to have 90's era sexy underwear, and now they barely have enough fabric qualify as lingerie. No wonder they're losing their 40 something demographic. Women at that age no longer feel the need be skanky, they just want to look better than bland.

When an article of clothing has less material than a cocktail napkin, something went wrong. The store didn't get too sexy, it got too skanky and dirty. They followed the trends and unfortunately it led them into a corner. So when did this look become popular? A few years ago girls started wearing clothes that deliberately revealed their thong. Thongs became the only acceptable mainstream underwear. So how did this start? Who do we credit for being the trend setter of skank? I say Sisqó.

That's right, you heard me, Sisqó. He was the pioneer of thong thought. His song "The Thong Song" was an anthem for everybody of the Carson Daly TRL generation. He made it loud and clear, "Thongs are a man's dream. The only way to show a man that you are truly sexy is to wear a thong." I'm not going to argue his point, I just want to credit him with the explosion of mainstream thongs and sexy underwear.

It's funny that a brand is suffering from a sexy image. Who would have ever thought "sexy" would be a problem in a lingerie store? Most companies try to convince you their product will make you sexy and now Victoria's Secret has to deal with a whole new marketing problem...becoming un-sexy without losing its image altogether. This might be the greatest advertising dilemma ever. Victoria's Secret has been the guinea pig for all other brands that might walk a fine line between west village fantasy sex store and a legitimate clothing store. Maybe as a society we've finally reached the point where we've gone overboard. The income statement has spoken, and it says "make some less skanky lingerie so the 40 year-olds will feel comfortable in your store."

Next fall... "Body by Victor Victoria" The Julie Andrews Line.

I'm really diggin' the AVIS spots

It seems that AVIS rental cars kicked off one of the funniest campaigns in years immediately after their stock tumbled. Maybe the ads have been airing prior to the crash, but I only started to see them recently. Either way it's got to be tough to differentiate yourself among rental car companies. At the end of the day, who really cares about their rental car? For the average annual or semiannual vacationer I find it hard to believe that anyone cares about the car. I know from experience, price is my only concern.

However, AVIS decided to solely focus on their core competencies...business travelers. Their TV spots feature a boring, sad, long term parking lot with an ugly late model 90's car. The VO is from the car's POV and imitates a sad, lonely wife whose husband is out "traveling" but in reality, cheating on her. The copy is perfect and the visual works beautifully. It's funny, easy to get, and clearly makes you think AVIS is hot, young, and exciting. I cannot think of another way to get that point across without insulting the audience. Bravo AVIS, Bravo.

New DVD Formats are already obsolete

It doesn't matter that Blu Ray is becoming the new accepted DVD format because it too is already old news. With ability to download HD movies and TV shows without ever leaving the comfort of your home, Blu Ray will live a very short life. People love to make the argument that "we" material westerners always love tangible things, and that there will always be a desire to physically "own" the movie. This notion is false. Of course there will always be a group of people that need to touch their possessions, but for the rest of the material westerners, we'll put the movies on our peripherals. The peripherals are the desired material item, not the content.

There is nothing physically cool about a DVD. The content may be cool, but the actual device does not say anything about who you are other than your taste. A Blackberry however, speaks volumes. A Blackberry lets the people around you know that you think you are important. It tells people that you know how important business is, and you need to be in touch with the world at every second. Even swankier than a Blackberry is an iPhone. Oooooo! An iPhone really lets the world know who you are and what you truly value. For those who want an iPhone strictly because "it's that damn functional" have to catch all the flack for being similar to the superficial iPhone users. Just like sports cars, there are true enthusiasts and then there are truly insecure wealthy people.

DVD's are different. A bookshelf full of DVD's will never impress people the way it used to. Too many people have access to the content. It might be hard to imagine, but one day your neighbor with "all those movies" is going to look "old school" because you have all your content on a little pocket sized flash drive. Good bye Blu Ray, I am committed to never buying one single Blu Ray or HD DVD. The future is already obsolete.

WAP it. WAP it good.

WAP is great. E-mail, Google, CNN, Facebook, ESPN or whatever you want right in your palm. As most "great" things go there is a catch. In this case, the catch is a mobile internet addiction. "Hi guys, my name is Ian, and I'm a WAPaholic." WAP is a drug, and to be quite honest I'm surprised the DEA hasn't created a new department to adddress it. As scary as it may sound, the first thing I did upon crossing the border from Canada to the US was check my e-mail. I was driving home, still had hours to go, but couldn't resist the temptation of checking my e-mail. I don't know what I was expecting to receive on a Sunday afternoon that could have been that pressing, but I love to check the mail. I hate that I need to check my mail all the time, but I do. I think it is an epidemic with my generation. We've learned from past experience that most e-mailers expect timely responses. Therefore, we've created a situation where it is "0kay" to check the mail whenever we wish. I know this pathetic dependence on technology will somehow rear its ugly head in my life at a later date, but what about the people that cannot afford WAP? This is where the rift exists. What is going to happen when people assume everyone has their e-mail all the time. Currently, I pay $45 per month to get an unlimited data plan from Verizon Wireless. Are these astronomical rates going to persist? Is bandwidth going to lose its value? Is a company like Google going to make WAP free as long as you allow yourself to be inundated with ads? I am so confused.

High speed mobile internet will one day be available to the masses. It has to. I've read about the future, I've seen movies about the future, I've even postulated my own future, and it always has people with WAP. So what is going to change to make WAP cheaper. In my mind, the only thing holding companies like Scanbuy, Slingbox and every company that uses the internet as a delivery method back is the lack of WAP proliferation. Will this expense just be something that people add to their list of essentials? I think that is the only way. I know that WAP will come down in price, but by how much?

Let's imagine it's 2020, everyone has a smartphone. Cellphones have been dead for 8 years. Everyone is logged on all the time. Exclusivity concerning the internet or WAP for that matter is dead like a Dodo. Everyone has access. If everyone is checking their e-mail all the time, and 85% of the country finds out about the newest celebrity overdose within 2o minutes are we all addicted to WAP? If everyone uses WAP are we all addicts? Were we addicted to radio and newspapers before TV? Were we addicted to landlines before cell phones? Yes and no. Yes because you can probably classify much of human behavior as "addictive," but no because unlike real drugs, there isn't physical repercussion when refraining from WAP. We're in a time of transition, where the "haves and the have-nots" are separated. As time marches on, we'll all be on an even playing field again, where WAP is as common as a car radio. I don't know how it's going to financially occur, but I know it will. I just know it.

Websight?

People are getting Flash happy...way too Flash happy. I fully appreciate the UI benefits of Flash programming and am all for it. However, too many websites are getting cluttered with stuff. Whether it's news updates, concert tour information, or RSS feeds, many websites are becoming hard to navigate cluttered. I'm having trouble navigating through all the hubbub. CNN.com does a good job with "BREAKING NEWS" but everything else is so annoying. You have to search what you are looking for opposed to have it cleverly presented to you. I assume at every large company there is specific person in charge of maintaining the website, and that person is gets nervous when seeing empty space. I understand how addicting it can become to fill all empty spaces with 'stuff' but after a while it all becomes a blur. Does anyone remember why Google.com became so popular? I do. I remember hearing that it was a better search engine and that it didn't have anything on the web page. To be honest, I was never disappointed with my Yahoo! searching experience , but I was intrigued by the Zen style Google homepage. I know that I was able to convince myself to switch based on 'quality' but I assure you that was not the case. The general populous will credit Google's superior algorithm for searching, but they're lying to themselves. It's the aesthetics of Google. Google was very clever with iGoogle, as it came into effect far after many people has switched. Google won because Google was cool. They changed their little logo everyday like a Simpsons intro, and it worked. Although the acronym gets too much airtime in recent years, KISS (keep it simple stupid) is a great policy. It's time that websites merged design and content into an 'easy to navigate' experience. For now, I'll just continue sifting.

Why local ads have to look like local ads

The other day I was watching TV and noticed a local commercial with extremely high production values. I was really confused. It looked like a national ad, felt like a national ad, made me laugh like a national ad, but it was for a local business. I didn't know how to feel. To me, this local business was unreal. How can a local business brand themselves as a local business while their commercials look professional? They can't! I never thought this would happen, but I finally understood why local commercials have to be aesthetically low budget. I always hated local ads because they were so cheap and lame, but now I get it. I understand why they use 1990's looking video/graphics, and why the jingles are so pathetic...because that's what local ads are. Local ads, by definition, are more than just local businesses advertising themselves; it's local businesses branding themselves as LOCAL BUSINESSES. I never fully appreciated the beauty of local ads. Everyone across the country has their own " Bob the Mattress Guy" "Mario the Baker" and "Billy the Used Car King." These local businessmen and women are pseudo celebrities. I really would distinguish between "Loretta the Real Estate Guru" and any other casual passerby. Local ads bring people back in to the real world and far away from the beautiful Maui 'Cialis' sunsets. As corny as they may be, local ads help me appreciate where I'm currently living. There will be a time where the technology becomes cheap enough that local ads will step up their aesthetic and production values, but for right now, I'm liking them just the way they are.

Have you ever seen a website completely naked?

The title of this blog comes from an inexplicable feeling I get when I see a website without any ads. In case you are unaware, there are plug-ins and 3rd party software that strip a website of their ads. Software such as Greasemonkey performs this task. A year or two ago my "super-tech" friend turned me onto some ad removing software, whether it was Greasemonkey or not I cannot recall, but I tried it immediately and was quite impressed. NYTimes.com, Facebook.com and ESPN.com were all stripped naked! I knew that this miracle potion was supposed to "make my day," but I found it to be lonely. I have become so accustomed to surfing the web with ads, that their absence didn't sit well with me. I never disclosed to him that I reverted to my "old way" of surfing, but I did. Within a day or two, I removed the software/plug-in and went back to the pedestrian method of Internet perusal. Recently, I've stumbled across a Firefox plug-in called Stylish v. 0.5.3. Supposedly, it allows you to restyle the page so you don't have to "suffer" the way I did a couple years prior. I'll give it a try soon and see if it alleviates the lonesome feeling of surfing without ads.

It's clear that people enjoy looking at familiar things. Whether it's their computer's desktop icon arrangement, or the picture frames on their dresser, everyone likes things a certain way. I'm not used to seeing an 'ad less' website. I felt left out when the ads were gone. Although I rarely am interested in the featured product, I like knowing that I am privy to and current on all that is advertised. I don't want to miss the chance that a new Subaru WRX STi or Slingbox ad might be featured. I somehow consider an ad to be the 3rd cousin once removed of 'real news.' Maybe, we the consumers, are subconsciously hoping to stumble across the next great "must have" item of the year. Maybe not.

Why GM Cadi-lacks Cool

In case you haven't seen the new 'swanky' Cadillac TV spots let me provide a critical summary. The commercial opens with some person driving and speaking to the non-existent audience/passenger. The soliloquy's try way too hard to be cool, sexy and sarcastic. "In today's luxury game, the question isn't whether or not your car has available features like a 40 gig hard drive...or pop-up navigation etc..." Then, with a down shift and copy like "when you turn your car on, does it return the favor?" the commercial 'kicks in' the ill fitting, over dramatized hard rock music and drives all the way to the cheese factory. (Probably in 3rd gear) The reason this ad is so unbelivably lame is because it appeals to no one. In an attempt to appeal to too many dems, it falls incredibly short. I read an article explaining how Cadillac's new campaign was heavily rooted in market research. This may be true but read the endless list of demographics this ad hopes to reach are...• Loyalists – those who already own Cadillac’s • Boomers – the group turning 60 who really don’t like Cadillac • Alphas’ – tech types who search for information • Hot Moms – not your prototypical soccer mom • Move Ups -- young adults without preconceived ideas. I understand all the listed demographics are highly sought after, but you cannot use the same ad on 'Alphas' as you do on 'Hot Moms' and 'Boomers.' BABY BOOMERS and ALPHAS in the same 30 seconds???? That is an utter paradox. In their attempt to be 'hip' Cadillac really misses the mark. The ad needs a 'hip replacement' along with their boomer demographic. I am not sure where they are steering the brand, but I know it's the wrong direction.

2D Barcodes: So much potential

Potential is the word I use to describe the 2D Barcode, physical world hyperlinking, burgeoning industry. It really makes sense. Just the idea that you can buy, or learn more about whatever you want with the click of a cellphone button is so swanky and futuristic. People in Japan have been scanning 2D Barcodes for years now, and relatively no one has in the US. It's not that hard to believe because the US has a reputation for lagging a little behind in cellphone technology, but I am surprised no one has launched a really tremendous campaign using 2D Barcodes. Recently, Scanbuy and Sprint teamed up, placing Scanbuy's EZcode's in both Billboard and Car & Driver Magazine. This is definitely a big step in the right direction and hopefully the PR follow-up will continue to fuel discussions. However, I think something bigger is needed, something so big that Jay Leno, SNL, and every YouTube wannabe spoofs it. There needs to be a big celebrity endorsement. Whether it's a direct promotion e.g. (Jay-Z does a 30 second spot) or something more product placement-esque where Brett Michaels buys his contestants' flowers through a "Joe's Flower Shop" 2D Barcode tag on Rock of Love. There are so many impulsive purchasers in the world that can't wait to find another avenue to spend money. Even if the promotions are "over the top" just getting people talking about this technology will help adoption and usage. However, banking on "adequate carrier support" might be more a dream than reality.

Microsoft "Can Can" Shop Rite style

For those who have yet to hear, Microsoft will soon be at a Shop Rite near you. Microsoft's new venture with MediaCart Holdings Inc. will allow customers to make shopping lists at their homes and then upload them to a screen on the shopping cart. But that's just the beginning. Not only will the shopping list populate on the screen, but you can pay as you place the items in the cart. After scanning and paying for the items they are "checked off" on the list. And you thought that was enough technology for one trip to the grocery store, right? They also have a location based coupon system that can present coupons for the items in your vicinity. I wonder if this Jetson-esque shopping style will soon be the statues quo. I appreciate the benefits of this system, and would definitely give it a try, but I'm not like most people. I'm an early adapter. I would take the time to go online, make my shopping list at Shoprite.com, enter my user information, and then swipe my card on the cart screen. The exercise of simply describing the process scares people. I am not sure whether there is going to be an enormous backlash against this kind of technology. I wager no. It seems that these companies pushing their "life efficiency" technologies think the world will soon be a Visa credit card commercial. Everyone dances, shops and swipes their credit cards like they're in a Fatboy Slim video. Amidst all the "Big Brother" gadgets that accompany this system, there is one HUGE benefit, no checkout. If people could casually stroll out of a Shoprite without waiting in a line to unload, pay, and package their groceries, they'd do it. This is why Wal-Mart's testing of RFID tags on items makes perfect sense. Until the internet/technology generation becomes the "Grocery store demographic" this technology will fizzle. I know it's coming, I just don't know when it will be accepted.

Banner Ads: Only for the already informed

Banner ads, or any internet ads, never seem to stop me. Considering I spend a sizable amount of time surfing the web, reading articles, shopping, etc... I never notice or even consider clicking on an ad. Since 1997, the year I started exploring the internet, I can count the amount of ads that I've actually clicked on two hands. The only, and rare occasion that I have clicked on an ad is when I am well versed on the featured item and I want to learn more. Most the time, I find the ads are appropriate given the article I am reading, but never appeal to me. Also, just like billboards, they only work when they are simple. I consider most ads to be too busy. They have excessive copy and graphics, and my eyes ignore them altogether.
Hands down, the most obnoxious and abhorrent ads are the pop-ups that float over the page, obscuring my vision. On principle, I will never follow these ads. I am less offended by the 5-10 second ads that pop up before loading your desired page, because they have a quick "Skip this Advertisement" button. Being someone who is a fan of gadgets, I clearly remember clicking on a Slingbox ad. Although I've been using one for over a year, the ad was so aesthetically pleasing and promoted a NEWER Slingbox, I had to investigate further.
So...how do we get people to click on more internet ads? One, treat them as billboards. Since we are still in the nascent stages of internet advertising, we are trying to use every special effect and trick available to draw people's eyes towards the ad rather than making it easy on the eyes. I know from speaking to friends, we all try so hard to ignore them that our line of sight is extremely narrow. Two, if there is going to be movement within the ad, let it be a simple transition from one "billboard" to another, like the backstop ads at a Baseball stadium. Lastly, never forget that the consumer is not on the internet to be barraged by ads. Most people don't like to be accosted by salespeople when they shop in real stores, why would they want it on the internet?