Viral effect

This video was popping up the internet some days ago.

And I think it’s just so cool.

Because it’s a perfect piece to explain what viral is and how/why it commonly happens.

As Faris usually says: “viral is a thing that happens, not a thing that is” and here we can see this effect.

Something just happening.

What I love about the video is that in the beginning you have one guy original and authentic enough to come up with a different behavior from the context (no judgments here, please).

So, another guy comes and makes the different action kind of fun and acceptable.

A third one comes into it, making it playful and enjoyable.

And then, it just happens.

The ones who were not part of that action, but part of the context, just get into it too, endorsing and wanting to make part of that movement.

People now act like herd.

Suddenly, nonsense dancing becomes one cool thing done by many.

And, oh, the spirit of collective hysteria takes the main role.

Just DO it

When it comes to the modern ways of brand building, I believe there is nothing so strong as establishing conversation. The ones that are real, interesting and enduring.

This presentation from John Willshire is absolutely fantastic to understand, in a few minutes, how brands need to evolve their marketing approach to really connect to people in this world ruled by interesting things to talk about.

Great way of showing and proving how actually doing things for people (remember this from Adrian) makes lots of difference on how brands can get closer and relevant.

Unfortunately, I bet there are lots of us still trying to convince some clients not to pointing their finger – the way slide 31 reproduces – while people are having some nice conversation.

Advertising on the Edge – The Economist

This is interesting.

Some people are posting this presentation, but I want to add some words on.

When you first see it you immediately think it’s a good material about marketing and business investments during recession periods. And, the first slides are really about it.

A clear and well written point (not to mention the beautiful graphics) on why brands need to keep investing – how this leads to market share gains, how you can beat competitors in the long term, the golden opportunity for brand building.

But, then, it kind of reveals the real intent.

You just feel uncomfortable when reading a chart that says: “New media are less effective at brand building” (strange, isn’t it?)

The reason is that this presentation is not a conceptual piece about advertising, but a selling effort from a magazine.

And the thinking reveals a fallacy in order to sell ad spaces.

Anyways, I think it’s a shame.

The Economist could have stand the voice on how deeply they understand about brand building during hard recessive times, positioning as a reference. But, instead, they just tried to push something and lost credibility.

Just feels like a missed opportunity to make a broader connection.

Good micro site advertising

Contagious is a very inspiring source for me and I really like the way they cover what is happening in the communication’s world. A while ago, I sow an analysis of four automotive micro sites and decided to put two of them here. Because I think they illustrate well what I consider a good and not so good usage of a micro site as a medium for advertising.

The first case is the micro site of the New Ford Ka launching in Brazil where I felt like if I had wasted my precious time going to the site. I found a difficult navigation; I was lost and had to play games I didn’t want to; I didn’t know where to find information about the car and when they appeared they were like specs not translated into benefits. I wonder what kind of reaction the possible prospect of the car had with it…

The second case was different. I’m talking about the Smart micro site in UK. At first, it shows what it is all about – Smart truths. This site involves who’s there.  Easy to understand and navigate, intuitive and entertaining. The benefits of Smart For Two are directly and funny pointed out. Not just the experience was pleasant as I wanted my peers to take a look into that.

For me, what makes the two examples so different is the way they where thought for the consumer. The first case is the replication of the old advertising approach. The second is the application of a conversational approach. I’ll put it simple as that:

• Case 1 – message.
• Case 2 – message + MEDIUM EXPERIENCE.

 

I believe that when brands think about people’s experience they tend to get a good response. On the other hand, when they just want to communicate without thinking on the other part, they tend to get nothing.