How to translate hip hop music:
Pop Culture Translator
Great marketing too - it's by a college. Of course, I have critiques of how they could have made it a little more effective marketing-wise, but it's cute and fun nonetheless.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Obvious, but useful
When I'm working on a new idea, or a usability issue, I find the best person to ask is a person in your client's target demographic.
It's a simple little trick, and it works like a charm.
Ie, if I say to you (example from MBA accounting class, credits to Dr. Granof):
"I'm interested in bonds."
And you are a:
So... if I find myself trying to sort out "what message" or "what placement of this element" or even "what sites should I advertise on," the simplest thing to do is think of your target demographic, find a few of them, and talk to them.
Primary research can be as easy, and as inexpensive, as a cup of coffee.
It's a simple little trick, and it works like a charm.
Ie, if I say to you (example from MBA accounting class, credits to Dr. Granof):
"I'm interested in bonds."
And you are a:
| criminal | you think: | bail bonds |
| investor | you think: | government bonds |
| baseball fanatic | you think: | barry |
| fetishy type | you think: | you get my point... |
So... if I find myself trying to sort out "what message" or "what placement of this element" or even "what sites should I advertise on," the simplest thing to do is think of your target demographic, find a few of them, and talk to them.
Primary research can be as easy, and as inexpensive, as a cup of coffee.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Intake form for Online Issues
I recently found an "email evaluation scorecard" Forrester put out at the end of last year. Of course, I immediately thought "Wow, wouldn't it be great if clients would fill out something like this for their in-place online initiatives (websites, present marketing, etc.)?" I'm thinking something like an intake form at the dr's office. Short and sweet:
We have these symptoms, we have a history of these things, and we're allergic to this. Here are our test scores (metrics). We got a previous diagnosis of blah, treated it in this manner, and had these results. Ah, the parallels!
I think in most organizations, people tend to know what's wrong but it's often hard to organize their thoughts. And for someone trying to solve their problems, it sure would be helpful to know their "online history."
We have these symptoms, we have a history of these things, and we're allergic to this. Here are our test scores (metrics). We got a previous diagnosis of blah, treated it in this manner, and had these results. Ah, the parallels!
I think in most organizations, people tend to know what's wrong but it's often hard to organize their thoughts. And for someone trying to solve their problems, it sure would be helpful to know their "online history."
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
jakob says, "I'll take mine in vanilla"
I've been seeing a few
posts lately that claim that Nielson is against Web 2.0. I don't really think that's the case... I think he's against most everything when used frivolously (and in his definition, the threshold between frivolous and necessary is reached very quickly).
From his site:
And that's the rub. So many sites are just done so poorly, that slapping some community features in them isn't going to save them or make them places people want to visit.
User first. Bells and whistles later.
posts lately that claim that Nielson is against Web 2.0. I don't really think that's the case... I think he's against most everything when used frivolously (and in his definition, the threshold between frivolous and necessary is reached very quickly).
From his site:
This is not to say that there's no role for new technology. We're currently working with a company that's placing an extremely complicated application online. They can't do this with good usability unless they use several "rich UI" tricks. But that's an application, and a big one to boot. For 90% of websites, it's more important to focus on communicating clearly, whether they're e-commerce sites, corporate sites, government sites, or non-profit sites.
And that's the rub. So many sites are just done so poorly, that slapping some community features in them isn't going to save them or make them places people want to visit.
User first. Bells and whistles later.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
you're nobody unless Google loves you
Remember the New Yorker cartoon - On the Internet Nobody Knows You're a Dog?
Well, as it turns out, they probably do know, and they know what kind of dog you are, and whether you're into tennis balls or squeaky toys. But whether you display first (or someone with a like name) or what displays first is how you want to be known... well that's not always the case. But, how you Google is vital in today's online-focused world.
I've recently been engaged to fix the online persona of a prominent business leader. He wants the online realm to prominently display him and his business when a search is run on his name (not others by the same name, and not irrelevant results about him, ie, 10k race results). Like your business's name, your name is your brand, and that brand has an enormous amount of exposure on the internet.
This article from yesterday's WSJ just reinforces the whole idea: Does Your Name Google Well? . Evidently, parents are actually considering the search engine implications for their children's names - that is - nothing too common or they won't be found in their future lives. Nothing too hard to spell either. Clearly, the internet rules our worlds: 62% of people say they Google people before meeting them - to get an idea of who they are meeting (WSJ poll associated with the article above). Based on that, spending some time on your online persona seems like a good investment. If a first impression is critical, then a pre-first impression must be uber extra super critical.
Get to it. Or call me and I'll help you out.
Well, as it turns out, they probably do know, and they know what kind of dog you are, and whether you're into tennis balls or squeaky toys. But whether you display first (or someone with a like name) or what displays first is how you want to be known... well that's not always the case. But, how you Google is vital in today's online-focused world.
I've recently been engaged to fix the online persona of a prominent business leader. He wants the online realm to prominently display him and his business when a search is run on his name (not others by the same name, and not irrelevant results about him, ie, 10k race results). Like your business's name, your name is your brand, and that brand has an enormous amount of exposure on the internet.
This article from yesterday's WSJ just reinforces the whole idea: Does Your Name Google Well? . Evidently, parents are actually considering the search engine implications for their children's names - that is - nothing too common or they won't be found in their future lives. Nothing too hard to spell either. Clearly, the internet rules our worlds: 62% of people say they Google people before meeting them - to get an idea of who they are meeting (WSJ poll associated with the article above). Based on that, spending some time on your online persona seems like a good investment. If a first impression is critical, then a pre-first impression must be uber extra super critical.
Get to it. Or call me and I'll help you out.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Giving to the community....
In the tag cloud of my thoughts, online community and giving to the community have recently had very bold, very large fonts. (Ok that reference just goes to show you... I am SOOO geeky).
As a result, I found this article very engaging: Consider the Small Things. The author, writing for the online marketing trade site ClickZ, has some really great ideas.
Basically, he goes one step further than the ideas I put forth in this work of my MBA academic prowess, completed in December of 06: The Case for Social Media. In my paper, I suggest that marketers get involved in the online experience, make wiki entries, play Second Life (don't just slap advertisements there), post to blogs, things like that. They should do all this with their brand in mind - not overtly selling, but just keeping in mind that they are representing the brand. They can do this in tandem with overtly sponsoring some online activities/sites/etc.
Chad thinks that we can one up that - by really giving to the communities - not just our two cents - but GIFTS.
Go read the article, it's short, you can do it. This is good stuff - and you can really take his ideas and run with them. Run! Go! and let me know how it goes!
PS: Lots of corporations make a big deal out of sponsoring community (real space community) causes and events. If you can sponsor a community event around your brand... well... isn't that just all the more effective?
As a result, I found this article very engaging: Consider the Small Things. The author, writing for the online marketing trade site ClickZ, has some really great ideas.
Basically, he goes one step further than the ideas I put forth in this work of my MBA academic prowess, completed in December of 06: The Case for Social Media. In my paper, I suggest that marketers get involved in the online experience, make wiki entries, play Second Life (don't just slap advertisements there), post to blogs, things like that. They should do all this with their brand in mind - not overtly selling, but just keeping in mind that they are representing the brand. They can do this in tandem with overtly sponsoring some online activities/sites/etc.
Chad thinks that we can one up that - by really giving to the communities - not just our two cents - but GIFTS.
Some of the most active blogs and forums relevant to your brand and products may be run as a hobby by a single or group of passionate consumers....
While these sites may accommodate advertising, consider something different, such as sponsoring a user prize-giveaway contest. How about asking site operators what features they would like added, then provide those services to keep the site humming along. A rounding issue for your marketing budget could go a long way for an online community.
Go read the article, it's short, you can do it. This is good stuff - and you can really take his ideas and run with them. Run! Go! and let me know how it goes!
PS: Lots of corporations make a big deal out of sponsoring community (real space community) causes and events. If you can sponsor a community event around your brand... well... isn't that just all the more effective?
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Ethics, Connections, and Power to the People
I just spent 3 days in an MBA seminar designed to teach us things we should know in our future careers but weren't important to appear in the regular class curriculum. Guess what one of those classes was? No come on, don't read ahead. Guess. You got it, right up there with "Executive Wellness" - we had a fluffy seminar on business ethics.
You get a B!
It quickly became clear that many of my classmates don't spend a lot of time either thinking about or pondering ethics. This may be because they don't encounter ethically challenging issues very often. Or, it may be that their religion gives them a code to live by. Whatever it is, the time we had clearly wasn't enough - as one classmate shouted out the spine chilling proclamation, "well if it's legal, then it must be ethical." That's pretty par for the course in business today. Well actually - it's more like "it's ethical if you don't get caught and you can rationalize it to the people that need to know what you're up to." "Legal" is just a technicality.
Ok, watch this. Now I'm going to connect this to Web 2.0. No really, I can do it. Hang tight!
In a world where horrific ethical breaches barely make your stock price waver (HP) and you can clearly get away with a lot for a long time and get very rich doing so (WorldComm, Enron), and just about everyCorp is under investigation for accounting creativity of some sort or another... it PAYS not to get too connected to people. It pays to only see the numbers. Creativity in the books means someone is getting more while someone is getting less. As long as you can keep it "us" and "them" and you don't see the people you're screwing around as people with lives and their own financial pressures (I'm seeing those Enron people walking to their cars holding their boxes of possessions), then well, you can do whatever you want to to "maximize shareholder value." But it's the connections that really are the rub.
And the Web 2.0 world allows us to bring those connections to bear in some important ways.
1. It's no longer just the companies that have a voice on the internet. We all do. The presses are in the hands of the people! If you screw me over, or I think you're doing something you shouldn't, I might blog about it. I might comment on someone else's blog about it. And then people will know. And we'll all talk about it. And the media will know... and then you'll be asked some hard questions... and then....
2. Because everyone has a voice, and they talk about what happened inside their companies, we can identify cues that something bad might be happening to us.
3. Because we all have a voice, companies hear us. The marketplace hears us.
Whether companies choose to connect with "us" or not, Web 2.0 has allowed "us" to connect with each other. And that's made us stronger. A blogger onslaught can have the strength of a financially mild yet immediate and VERY public class action suit. And that hurts companies where they feel it most.
Connections = power. Connections in business = good. Connections make it easier to get things done.
Tune in tomorrow, when I talk about Burning Man again.
You get a B!
It quickly became clear that many of my classmates don't spend a lot of time either thinking about or pondering ethics. This may be because they don't encounter ethically challenging issues very often. Or, it may be that their religion gives them a code to live by. Whatever it is, the time we had clearly wasn't enough - as one classmate shouted out the spine chilling proclamation, "well if it's legal, then it must be ethical." That's pretty par for the course in business today. Well actually - it's more like "it's ethical if you don't get caught and you can rationalize it to the people that need to know what you're up to." "Legal" is just a technicality.
Ok, watch this. Now I'm going to connect this to Web 2.0. No really, I can do it. Hang tight!
In a world where horrific ethical breaches barely make your stock price waver (HP) and you can clearly get away with a lot for a long time and get very rich doing so (WorldComm, Enron), and just about everyCorp is under investigation for accounting creativity of some sort or another... it PAYS not to get too connected to people. It pays to only see the numbers. Creativity in the books means someone is getting more while someone is getting less. As long as you can keep it "us" and "them" and you don't see the people you're screwing around as people with lives and their own financial pressures (I'm seeing those Enron people walking to their cars holding their boxes of possessions), then well, you can do whatever you want to to "maximize shareholder value." But it's the connections that really are the rub.
And the Web 2.0 world allows us to bring those connections to bear in some important ways.
1. It's no longer just the companies that have a voice on the internet. We all do. The presses are in the hands of the people! If you screw me over, or I think you're doing something you shouldn't, I might blog about it. I might comment on someone else's blog about it. And then people will know. And we'll all talk about it. And the media will know... and then you'll be asked some hard questions... and then....
2. Because everyone has a voice, and they talk about what happened inside their companies, we can identify cues that something bad might be happening to us.
3. Because we all have a voice, companies hear us. The marketplace hears us.
Whether companies choose to connect with "us" or not, Web 2.0 has allowed "us" to connect with each other. And that's made us stronger. A blogger onslaught can have the strength of a financially mild yet immediate and VERY public class action suit. And that hurts companies where they feel it most.
Connections = power. Connections in business = good. Connections make it easier to get things done.
Tune in tomorrow, when I talk about Burning Man again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
