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.