Monday, February 13, 2012

Trust in 2012: 4 Implications for Social Media


Edelman recently released the results of its 2012 Trust Barometer survey. Given the events of the last year, it’s hardly surprising that trust is decreasing pretty much across the board.
That is, except in Canada.

Results of the 2012 Canadian Trust Barometer

Today we announced the Canadian results of the 2012 Edelman Trust Barometer at an event in Toronto. A few highlights from the Canadian survey:
  • “A person like me” and regular employees both saw the biggest increase in trust in Canadian Barometer history. “A person like me” in particular has re-emerged as one of the four most trusted spokespeople behind academics and technical experts.
  • Trust in social media increased by 175 per cent in Canada, and trust in other online sources rose by 20 per cent. These increases are consistent – but larger – with those in the US.
  • CEOs are now the least credible spokespeople in Canada. While trust in business as an institution remained steady, business is not meeting the public’s expectations when it comes to building trust in companies.
  • Unlike in other countries, trust in media remains steady; in fact it was the only institution to see trust rise in the last year in Canada; possibly partly because the definition of “media” is changing and because the media is beginning to be seen as leaders in breaking news, rather than followers in reporting it.

Implications for Social Media

So what do this year’s results mean for companies in Canada, and those using social media in particular? Here are four social media implications from the results of the 2012 Edelman Trust Barometer.
1. Transmedia storytelling is critical
The continuing rise of trust in social media and online sources is a clear signal that companies need to think beyond text when it comes to communicating. However, trust also increased in the Canadian media (and remains higher than other sources) – a signal that proclamations of the end of traditional media were very much premature.
Companies need to consider the complete media cloverleaf – traditional, owned, social and hybrid media, and to use them together effectively in order to communicate effectively.

2. Social media is not the end goal
While trust in social media has increased, and in Canada has more than doubled, it still lags well behind that of other sources. However, trust in “a person like me” is through the roof. There’s a dichotomy here, quite possibly because “social media” means different things to different people – plenty of people think of Twitter as a bunch of people talking about their lunch; I think of it as my industry peers discussing trends (and the occasional LOLcat).
The dichotomy of trust in social media means we can’t think of social for its own sake. Gaining new fans on your Facebook page, or followers of your Twitter account, won’t solve your business problems. Companies with a primary social goal of adding new fans/followers, or of gaining views on a video, are missing the point. To drop a cheesy line, it’s not the size of your community but what you do with it that counts.
3. Use social media as a conduit and a connector
If trust in social media, although on the rise, is still low, what does that mean for us? It means we need to think of it as a conduit rather than a destination.
Just as search engines are a conduit to useful information, social media is a conduit to connecting with other people – both those inside the company (e.g. regular employees) and to “people like you.” As a starting point, stop thinking about social media in the same way you think of traditional marketing campaigns, and start thinking in terms of bringing people together around a common interest. However, that’s just the beginning. What do you do with (and for) them? What do you enable from that point forward?
4. Enable and amplify advocacy
Experts and “people like me” are among the most trusted sources of information. One of the most interesting uses of social media is in enabling and amplifying the advocates of your company. Become the enabler – provide your organization’s fans with the information they need to speak in an informed way about the things they’re passionate about, and provide them with the opportunity to do so. The recent partnership between Bazaarvoice and Buddy Media is a great example of a key piece of this puzzle.

Quantifying our lives will be a top trend of 2012


The Quantified Self is one of the big trends of 2012, as we noted in our recent summary of the Consumer Electronics Show.
As everything analog shifts to digital, we can collect a huge amount of data about ourselves. As I noted in our earlier story, the trend was spearheaded by researchers who wanted a “quantified self,” or self-knowledge through numbers that measure things such as how long we sleep or how many stairs we can climb in a day. Most people don’t have the patience to sift through all the data that they could collect about themselves. But a number of new devices are making it easier to do, bringing us the opportunity both to improve our lives, have more fun, and think more about privacy issues.
This shift to quantified self gadgets is also coming with a change in attitudes about privacy, or at least it seems that way. The technology is racing ahead, before we really decide whether we prefer personalization over privacy. Webcams, camera phones, and motion-sensing systems are just the beginning of this technological explosion. Used in conjunction with the cloud, or web-connected data centers, the quantified self movement promises to capture a huge amount of information about ourselves and contribute considerably to the Big Data infrastructure that enterprises are creating to safely store all of this information. In that sense, the Quantified Self really enlists just about every technology company imaginable in the service of recording our daily lives.
For the narcissists among us, this is like heaven. WordPress.com, which hosts our VentureBeat blog, reported that in 2011, I wrote 1,787 posts consisting of 1,097,692 words. Now I know my goal for this year is to do 1,788 posts with 1,097,692 words. However, it was worth noting that I was the least efficient writer at VentureBeat, with 614 words per post and the least traffic per post compared to my fellow writers, who were less wordy and had higher average traffic per post.
A lot of this trend started in video games, which have taken it to an extreme. In Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3, for instance, I know everything about my performance in multiplayer combat since the game launched on Nov. 8. I have played the game for 27 hours and 39 minutes and achieved a multiplayer rank of Lieutenant Colonel II, or 58. I’m about 72 percent of the way through the multiplayer ladder and have 80 wins and 120 losses. In the multiplayer combat matches, I have 1,375 kills and 3,213 deaths, for a 0.427 kill/death ratio. I’ve had 93 headshots and 366 assists with a 9 percent accuracy rate.
To my non-gaming friends, my dedication is impressive. Of course, other players know just how bad I am. My total score is 162,490, which places me at No. 5,518,786 in the overall Call of Duty multiplayer universe. On average, I score 826 points a match, which is kind of pathetic compared to my performance in Call of Duty Black Ops from last year. But that game had some much easier ways to kill, such as the remote-controlled exploding car, rewarded after I could get just two kills in a row.
In the virtual world of the game, it’s easy to record digital stats. But with the proliferation of new devices that measure non-computer activities, we can measure so much more. The history of this behavior goes as far back as 1955 to Jerry Davidson, who has obsessively recorded his life. Kevin Kelly blogs about The Quantified Self and all things related to self-surveillance.
“Unless something can be measured, it cannot be improved,” Kelly wrote. “So we are on a quest to collect as many personal tools that will assist us in quantifiable measurement of ourselves. We welcome tools that help us see and understand bodies and minds so that we can figure out what humans are here for.”
Alexandra Carmichael, co-founder of CureTogether, records 40 things about her daily life, including “sleep, morning weight, daily caloric intake, mealtimes, mood, day of menstrual cycle, sex, exercise, and other things.
Now I can move on to more important measurements such as how much activity I engage in during the day. The Striiv “personal trainer in my pocket” tells me I am walking an average of 9,968 steps in a day, or about 4.7 miles. I burn 1,053 calories in a day for about 106 minutes in the day. That earns me 40,425 points in a day which I can use to play the Striiv game and motivate myself. My personal best was 17,983 steps in a day, or 7.8 miles, walked at CES. I burned 1,806 calories that day. I can compete against other Striiv users through daily challenges, which “gamifies” the exercise activity by making it into a social competition.
You can get more information back from the Basis Band from Basis Science. Basis gives you a wrist band that tracks your heart rate, skin temperature, ambient temperature, and your galvanic skin response (GSR, or how much you are sweating). The sweat and the heart rate gives the added information about how stressed out you are. If you match this up to your Google Calendar, you could figure out which person stresses you out the most or how much your heart rate leaps when you are stuck in a traffic jam.
Basis also has a web site that you can use to see the results of your daily activities, such as calories burned, the number of steps you have taken, the hours of sleep, and the points you have earned. All of that data can be quantified and analyzed over time on the Basis web site. You get positive reinforcement in the form of points for your activities.
“There is a lot of interesting stuff happening in the quantified-self movement,” said Jeff Holove, chief executive of Basis Science, in an interview. “It is understanding ourselves better and measuring ourselves better and, in the case of health, using that data to inform our decisions on how we live our lives. We are gathering scientifically meaningful data and then translating it to a much broader audience than the people who have the knowledge and stamina to deal with lots of data.”
Basis boils the metrics down to things that can be easily understood, though “quantified selfers” can dig into the data further if they wish. Nike, FitBit, Jawbone and a number of other companies have similar devices. As far as self-measurement goes, Microsoft’s Kinect motion-sensing system is pretty good at capturing your whole body. Bodymetrics (pictured above) uses Kinect to understand your body shape so it can tell you where clothes will be tight or loose on your form as you go virtual shopping.
With sleep monitors like Gear4′s upcoming Sleep Clock (pictured left), you don’t even have to wear a wrist band to get more information about yourself. The Sleep Clock will use a Doppler radar to detect your breathing and movement during the night.
It can calculate the exact number of minutes you slept in a night, how many minutes it took to fall asleep, and when is the ideal time to wake you up. It can tell the difference between when you are in a deep sleep, when it isn’t good to wake you up, to a light sleep. After a year of such data, it will be much easier to wake up at exactly the lightest point in your sleep cycle.
There are downsides to knowing so much about ourselves. The problem is very similar to people “oversharing” information about themselves on social networks such as Facebook or Twitter. If the federal authorities got hold of your GSR data, they could figure out if you were lying during an interview, since GSR can be used in lie detector tests.
George Orwell, the author of 1984, the seminal novel about Big Brother watching you, couldn’t have planned a better way to capture everything that we do in a day. But because of the potential benefits, many people seem eager to be measured, as long as their privacy is protected. The space where you can operate privately is becoming more and more constrained.
If you want to fly, for instance, the Transportation Security Adminstration airport scanners can now collect extremely detailed imagery of what you look like under your clothes. The full-body scanner data is supposed to be used for safety purposes only, but it’s certainly spooky. But wouldn’t it be great if the TSA could tell you, “you’re thinner this time.”
Steve Jobs, the former chief of Apple, created some of the key technology for monitoring our lives with the iPhone and the iPad, which can measure our location, our movements, our cell phone usage, and other deeply personal kinds of data. Yet he railed against reporters who invaded his privacy by disclosing information about his deteriorating health.
Will Wright, the world famous game designer who created The Sims and SimCity, believes that all of the Big Data collected about our personal lives can be used to create new kinds of mobile-based games which he calls “personal gaming.” Personal gaming is a game that is customized for each individual player, taking into account real-life situations surrounding the player that make the game more interesting to that player.
“How can we make a system that understands enough about you and gives you situational awareness?” Wright said in a recent interview. “It could take into account what time of day it is, where you are, how much money is in your pocket. Imagine if you could open Google Maps and it shows you things that are interesting to you on the map.”
Although he realizes many people are guarded about privacy, he notes that the younger generation is more comfortable sharing information about themselves. And they will willingly share it if they could be virtually guaranteed a great deal of entertainment in return. If you entice people with enough game-oriented entertainment, they won’t mind sharing that information, he said. Wright has created a company called HiveMind to execute on this vision.
“It blurs entertainment, lifestyle, and personal tools,” Wright said. “With that data, the world and the opportunities for entertainment within it become more visible to you.”
“If we can learn enough about the player, we can create games about their real life,” Wright said. “How do we get you more engaged in reality rather than distract you from it?”

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012 Brand Websites Create Retail Store Buyers According to a new Accenture/comScore/dunnhumbyUSA research study, highlighting the potential for brand websites to become key drivers in building customer loyalty and preference for CPG brands, visitors to CPG brand websites spend 37% more than non-visitors on the brand in retail stores. And, brand website visitors are heavier buyers within a brand’s product category, spending 53% more than non-visitors on the category in retail stores. To help CPG executives better understand the link between consumers’ usage of brand websites and their brand purchases in retail stores, the research was designed to accomplish three objectives: Quantify the retail sales value of the visitors to various brand websites Identify the most valuable features and content that can be provided on CPG brand websites Provide insights and opportunities to further explore online destinations where Internet marketers can best reach their brand buyers and prospects Comparison of In-Store Performance Metrics for Website Visitors and Non-Visitors (Indexed Such That Non-Visitors = 1.0) Average Minimum Maximum Monthly Brand spending 1.37 0.83 2.05 Category Spend 1.53 0.79 3.19 Brand Units 1.48 1.05 2.00 Category Price Per Unit 0.97 0.70 1.59 Source: Accenture/comScore/dunnhumbyUSA research, 2011 The study found that to maximize impact, the most important website features include compelling brand value messaging, frequent content updates, and engaging content such as promotions, philanthropic appeals, product demonstrations, surveys, and downloadable applications and games. According to the report, CPG brand website visitors were highly engaged, valuable customers and frequent purchasers of the brand. CPG brand website visitors spend an average of $2.86 per household, $0.72 more than non-visitors, and on an indexed basis they purchase 48% more units of the brand. Absolute Differences in In-Store Performance Metrics In-Store Performance Metric Website Visitors (Average) Non-Visitors(Average) Difference Monthly Brand Dollars $2.86 $2.14 $0.72 Monthly Category Dollars 6.86 4.83 2.03 Numbers of Brand Buying Occasions in Six MonthPeriod 3.2 2.3 0.90 Source: Accenture/comScore/dunnhumbyUSA research, 2011 Some observations about engagement from the report include: Engagement with the brand does not translate to exclusivity, as brand website visitors are also highly engaged in the category and are more likely to be heavy category buyers than non-visitorsl Compared with non-visitors, brand website visitors spend 53% more category dollars and purchase 58% more units in the category Brand website visitors have more purchase occasions than non-visitors for both the brand and the category, making 35% more purchase trips for the brand and 39% more in the overall category Despite greater engagement with the brand and the category, website visitors pay 8% less per unit than non-visitors. It is likely that these visitors were visiting websites to download coupons, opines the report. Interestingly, says the report, website visitors paid 2% more per unit than non-visitors for two of the ten CPG brand web sites. These two web sites had a web content strategy focused on “brand value messaging” rather than “coupon downloads” To gain insight into the online behavior of consumers who buy CPG brands in retail stores ( “Brand Buyers”), several analyses were executed to identify how Brand Buyers differed from the average U.S. Internet user across three variables: Website reach or unique visitors per month (“Reach”) Minutes per visitor (“Time”) Number of pages viewed per visitor (“Pages”) Another metric (called the “Intensity Index”) was then the primary metric used for describing the Brand Buyers’ web behavior relative to the general web population, with the average Internet user defined as 100. Over-indexed reflects a greater orientation than average to a particular site or site category. Conversely, under 100 means means less oriented to that site than the average Internet user. Several key findings surfaced using this approach, says the report: The Beauty/Fashion/Style website category exhibited by far the strongest Intensity Index among website categories Brand Buyers over-indexed in Intensity, Pages and Time within the eCards, and Community website categories Brand Buyers in particular over-indexed in number of Pages consumed in the Food Community category (such as recipe sharing sites) Brand Buyers were also very active in content-rich categories such as News, Portals, and Weather; they were particularly attracted to AOL, MSN, Weather Channel, WebMD, Gannett, and Demand Media sites Brand Buyers spent over two times more minutes per visitor with the Politics site than the average Internet user Brand Buyers were relatively experienced users of the web, with strong indices exhibited across all metrics in Technology, Online Trading/Banking, and eCommerce website categories The length of time that visitors spend on a brand’s website was the key determinant of their likelihood to purchase that brand in the store according to the report. As time on the brand website increases, brand purchasing in the store increases. Given the strong correlation between time spent on the site and in-store purchases, the research team examined the factors that influence whether visitors spent more time on the site. Overall, four website attributes correlated most closely with a higher brand purchase index (greater brand spending in-store for website visitors than non-visitors): A compelling brand value message that provides a persuasive reason, other than a coupon, for a website visitor to buy the brand Fresh content updated at least weekly to encourage visitors to engage and participate and return frequently Content that creates an engaging online experience such as a pulse survey on the home page, or an opportunity to rate a new product or product attribute, or user generated content like recipes or weight-loss planning Well designed site navigation that is intuitive, uses simple menus and has clear site maps Consumers, visiting the best of the ten CPG brand websites evaluated in the research study, spent over 200% more on the brand in stores than non-visitors. And, the price paid per unit of the brand was 2% more than for non-visitors in brand. The report concludes by suggesting that most CPG companies are missing the opportunity to influence brand engagement and brand buying behavior on their brand websites simply because not enough consumers visit their site. To the extent that this study quantifies the potential of websites to influence brand engagement and in-store purchase, CPG company efforts to increase traffic to the brand website offer tangible return on investment. Average Monthly Visitors to Top 25 CPG Brand Websites (Defined by Buyer Penetration) Number of Monthly Unique Visitors (000) % of Brands Under 100 64% 100-199 24 200-299 4 300+ 8 Source: Accenture/comScore/dunnhumbyUSA research, 2011 For more about this study, and access to the PDF report, please visit comScore here.

Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012

Brand Websites Create Retail Store Buyers

According to a new Accenture/comScore/dunnhumbyUSA research study, highlighting the potential for brand websites to become key drivers in building customer loyalty and preference for CPG brands, visitors to CPG brand websites spend 37% more than non-visitors on the brand in retail stores. And, brand website visitors are heavier buyers within a brand’s product category, spending 53% more than non-visitors on the category in retail stores.
To help CPG executives better understand the link between consumers’ usage of brand websites and their brand purchases in retail stores, the research was designed to accomplish three objectives:
  • Quantify the retail sales value of the visitors to various brand websites
  • Identify the most valuable features and content that can be provided on CPG brand websites
  • Provide insights and opportunities to further explore online destinations where Internet marketers can best reach their brand buyers and prospects
Comparison of In-Store Performance Metrics for Website Visitors and Non-Visitors (Indexed Such That Non-Visitors = 1.0)

AverageMinimumMaximum
Monthly Brand spending
1.37
0.83
2.05
Category Spend
1.53
0.79
3.19
Brand Units
1.48
1.05
2.00
Category Price Per Unit
0.97
0.70
1.59
Source: Accenture/comScore/dunnhumbyUSA research, 2011
The study found that to maximize impact, the most important website features include compelling brand value messaging, frequent content updates, and engaging content such as promotions, philanthropic appeals, product demonstrations, surveys, and downloadable applications and games.
According to the report, CPG brand website visitors were highly engaged, valuable customers and frequent purchasers of the brand. CPG brand website visitors spend an average of $2.86 per household, $0.72 more than non-visitors, and on an indexed basis they purchase 48% more units of the brand.
Absolute Differences in In-Store Performance Metrics
In-Store Performance MetricWebsite Visitors (Average)Non-Visitors(Average)Difference
Monthly Brand Dollars
$2.86
$2.14
$0.72
Monthly Category Dollars
6.86
4.83
2.03
Numbers of Brand Buying Occasions in Six MonthPeriod
3.2
2.3
0.90
Source: Accenture/comScore/dunnhumbyUSA research, 2011
Some observations about engagement from the report include:
  • Engagement with the brand does not translate to exclusivity, as brand website visitors are also highly engaged in the category and are more likely to be heavy category buyers than non-visitorsl Compared with non-visitors, brand website visitors spend 53% more category dollars and purchase 58% more units in the category
  • Brand website visitors have more purchase occasions than non-visitors for both the brand and the category, making 35% more purchase trips for the brand and 39% more in the overall category
  • Despite greater engagement with the brand and the category, website visitors pay 8% less per unit than non-visitors. It is likely that these visitors were visiting websites to download coupons, opines the report. Interestingly, says the report, website visitors paid 2% more per unit than non-visitors for two of the ten CPG brand web sites. These two web sites had a web content strategy focused on “brand value messaging” rather than “coupon downloads”
To gain insight into the online behavior of consumers who buy CPG brands in retail stores ( “Brand Buyers”), several analyses were executed to identify how Brand Buyers differed from the average U.S. Internet user across three variables:
  • Website reach or unique visitors per month (“Reach”)
  • Minutes per visitor (“Time”)
  • Number of pages viewed per visitor (“Pages”)
Another metric (called the “Intensity Index”) was then the primary metric used for describing the Brand Buyers’ web behavior relative to the general web population, with the average Internet user defined as 100.
Over-indexed reflects a greater orientation than average to a particular site or site category. Conversely, under 100 means means less oriented to that site  than the average Internet user. Several key findings surfaced using this approach, says the report:
  • The Beauty/Fashion/Style website category exhibited by far the strongest Intensity Index among website categories
  • Brand Buyers over-indexed in Intensity, Pages and Time within the eCards, and Community website categories
  • Brand Buyers in particular over-indexed in number of Pages consumed in the Food Community category (such as recipe sharing sites)
  • Brand Buyers were also very active in content-rich categories such as News, Portals, and Weather; they were particularly attracted to AOL, MSN, Weather Channel, WebMD, Gannett, and Demand Media sites
  • Brand Buyers spent over two times more minutes per visitor with the Politics site than the average Internet user
  • Brand Buyers were relatively experienced users of the web, with strong indices exhibited across all metrics in Technology, Online Trading/Banking, and eCommerce website categories
The length of time that visitors spend on a brand’s website was the key determinant of their likelihood to purchase that brand in the store according to the report. As time on the brand website increases, brand purchasing in the store increases.
Given the strong correlation between time spent on the site and in-store purchases, the research team examined the factors that influence whether visitors spent more time on the site. Overall, four website attributes correlated most closely with a higher brand purchase index (greater brand spending in-store for website visitors than non-visitors):
  • A compelling brand value message that provides a persuasive reason, other than a coupon, for a website visitor to buy the brand
  • Fresh content updated at least weekly to encourage visitors to engage and participate and return frequently
  • Content that creates an engaging online experience such as a pulse survey on the home page, or an opportunity to rate a new product or product attribute, or user generated content like recipes or weight-loss planning
  • Well designed site navigation that is intuitive, uses simple menus and has clear site maps
Consumers, visiting the best of the ten CPG brand websites evaluated in the research study, spent over 200% more on the brand in stores than non-visitors. And, the price paid per unit of the brand was 2% more than for non-visitors in brand.
The report concludes by suggesting that most CPG companies are missing the opportunity to influence brand engagement and brand buying behavior on their brand websites simply because not enough consumers visit their site. To the extent that this study quantifies the potential of websites to influence brand engagement and in-store purchase, CPG company efforts to increase traffic to the brand website offer tangible return on investment.
Average Monthly Visitors to Top 25 CPG Brand Websites (Defined by Buyer Penetration)
Number of Monthly Unique Visitors (000)% of Brands
Under 100
64%
100-199
24
200-299
4
300+
8
Source: Accenture/comScore/dunnhumbyUSA research, 2011
For more about this study, and access to the PDF report, please visit comScore here.

Monday, February 6, 2012

Correlating Social Media Success with Marketer Usage


FEBRUARY 6, 2012

Some successful techniques nonetheless show decreases in marketer usage

FBLI
The 2011 update of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Center for Marketing Research’s longitudinal study on social media marketing usage among the Inc. 500—the 500 fastest-growing private companies—indicates they are continuing to increase their usage of some social media tools, while pulling back from others.
Facebook usage was up in 2011, along with usage of Twitter and foursquare. The study also examined several services and techniques for the first time, some of which already have high usage. Nearly three-quarters of the companies studied were using LinkedIn in 2011, and almost half had adopted YouTube.
Compared to 2009–2010, the usage of blogs, online video in social media, message/bulletin boards, podcasting and Myspace were all down. There was also a 50% decrease from 2010 in Inc. 500 companies who said they used no social media marketing tools.

Social Media Tools Currently Used by Inc. 500 Companies, 2009-2011 (% of respondents)

But some of the tools marketers are abandoning are still reported to be highly effective—at least for those companies that continue to use them. Message and bulletin boards, along with blogging, got the highest success ratings of any tools, among companies that use them for marketing.
While a strong majority of respondents indicated they were having success with Twitter (86%) and Facebook (82%), this was lower than several other, less-popular services.

Social Media Tools with Which Inc. 500 Companies Have Had Success, 2009-2011 (% of respondents)

The research could suggest that marketers are abandoning techniques that work. However, it could also be a sign that marketers who have mastered these techniques are sticking with them, while those that have seen less success in these areas are pulling back from their efforts. Those marketers who continue to blog are likely the ones who have seen the most blogging success, for example, while those who found blogging’s return on investment too low have likely moved on.
In addition, the overwhelming popularity of Facebook among marketers means that those with less social media marketing experience or sophistication are likely using it, perhaps pushing success rates down.

The Brainstorming Process Is B.S. But Can We Rework It?

Feb2, 2012

 Two recent articles argue that brainstorming doesn't make people more creative. So how might we remake the brainstorming process, given what science tells us?

The business practice of brainstorming has been around with us so long that it seems like unadorned common sense: If you want a rash of new ideas, you get a group of people in a room, have them shout things out, and make sure not to criticize, because that sort of self-censoring is sure to kill the flow of new thoughts.
It wasn’t always so: This entire process was invented by Alex Osborn, one of the founders of BBDO, in the 1940's. It was motivated by Osborn’s own theory of creativity. He thought, quite reasonably, that creativity was both brittle and fickle: In the presence of criticism, it simply couldn’t wring itself free from our own minds. We could only call our muses if judgments didn’t drag us down. Osborn claimed that this very brainstorming process was the secret to BBDO’s durable creativity, allowing his ad guys to produce as many as 87 ideas in 90 minutes--a veritable avalanche. "The brainstorm had turned his employees into imagination machines," writes Jonah Lehrer in a long, excellent article in The New Yorker. But as Lehrer argues, the only problem with all this is that brainstorming is total bullshit.

You’re More Creative Working Alone

As an opening salvo, Lehrer lays out a devastating experiment, conducted in the 1950s, which found that when test subjects tried to solve a complex puzzle, they actually came up with twice as many ideas working alone as they did when working in a group. Numerous studies have since verified that finding: Putting people into big groups doesn’t actually increase the flow of ideas. Group dynamics themselves--rather than overt criticism--work to stifle each person’s potential.
Lehrer doesn’t quite explain why that happens. But in a nice coincidence, Susan Cain tackles that very problem in her upcoming book, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking. As she explains in The New York Times, groups don’t encourage creativity because of the social pressure they bring to bear:
People in groups tend to sit back and let others do the work; they instinctively mimic others’ opinions and lose sight of their own; and, often succumb to peer pressure. The Emory University neuroscientist Gregory Berns found that when we take a stance different from the group’s, we activate the amygdala, a small organ in the brain associated with the fear of rejection. Professor Berns calls this “the pain of independence.”

Criticism Improves the Brainstorming Process

Those findings all probably make sense to anyone who has sat in a brainstorming session and wondered why Debbie from accounting suddenly became the world’s most vocal expert on car design. (Here, I’m referencing a real-life experience I got sitting in on a brainstorming session for a major car company.) But Lehrer goes on to point out that other studies have shown that the presence of criticism actually increases the flow of ideas. One experiment compared two groups: One which brainstormed with a mandate not to criticize, and another which had the license to debate each others ideas. The second group had 20% more ideas--and even after the session ended, the people in the second group had far more additional ideas than those in the first.
Why is that? Lehrer doesn’t really say, and neither do his sources. But this idea makes sense. The problem with traditional brainstorming is the assumption that good ideas can spring up unbidden. In real life, the process is more interesting than that. Usually, inventions often begin when an inventor spots a problem. Good ideas usually don’t hang by themselves, unattached. They come about as solutions. Thus, allowing criticism into a room full of people trying to brainstorm allows them to refine and redefine a problem. Adding more and more complex problems to the mix doesn’t stifle creativity--it actually gives the mind more to work with, simply by demanding that we find better and better answers.

Creativity Is About Happenstance, Not Planning

Lehrer then goes searching for better models of the creative process, and finds a couple. One comes in the form of a professor who was able to study how the relationships within a group affect the quality of their work. Brian Uzzi, a sociologist at Northwestern, found that on Broadway the worst-performing productions were the work of two groups: Those that had worked together too much, and those that had worked together too little. Too much familiarity bred groupthink. Too little meant that they didn’t have enough chemistry to challenge each other. The most productive groups were those with a baseline of familiarity but just enough fresh blood to make things interesting.
But there’s a serendipity involved that you can’t fake: Studies have shown that the most successful groups of scientists also work in extremely close physical proximity. Just being around another creative person is vital to the process, because so many ideas happen as a result of water-cooler chatter and passing contact. The best support comes by anecdote: Building 20, a famous hothouse of ideas on the MIT campus. It worked because its design was so crappy and haphazard. It was nothing more than a sheetrock box, but in its maze of corridors and cramped offices, scientists of all stripes often found themselves happening upon conversations with others from wildly different fields. It’s no accident that so many breakthroughs came from that building, including radar, microwaves, the first video games, and Chomskyan linguistics.
Increasingly, companies such as Vitra are designing workspaces designed to blend intense solitude, shown above, and relaxed, freewheeling sociability.

Can We Rework the Brainstorming Paradigm?

I laid out all of these details from Lehrer’s article because each of these findings suggest that the brainstorming process might not be totally hopeless after all. We know that breakthrough insight likely requires intense, individual reflection. We also know that criticism unlocks creativity. And finally, we know that creativity can be fostered by a certain type of physical space.
Each of these findings, taken together, is cause for optimism. For one, the brainstorming might work better if it focused not on finding solutions, but rather identifying problems. What if, during a brainstorming session, people weren’t asked to simply throw out ideas, but rather problems as well. Granted, you’ve still got the annoying problem of groupthink. But the fact is that people are usually better at finding fault than they are at finding answers. Properly harnessed, that could be a good thing. Let’s say, for example, you’re trying to invent a new computer UI. It’s much more productive to find what drives people nuts and the features that keep them from doing what they want to do than it is to find out what sort of computer they’d like to have in some idealized fantasy world. Solving such a complex problem as UI design demands a certain subtlety and depth of thought. But those solutions only begin flowing when the problem becomes interesting enough to demand new ideas. My point is that by reframing what we expect to gain from some technique such as brainstorming, we might make it far more useful.
Finally, the fact that office design can so dramatically affect the work we produce means that designers have the wherewithal to affect a company’s core mission. Designers really can make a company smarter, if they embrace the chaotic reality of creativity, rather than trying to create spaces where every last function and possibility has its place. In other words, there might be room for a new design paradigm that embraces both limitations and flexibility. You can create offices where accidental encounters are encouraged. And you can create offices where nothing is ever fixed. The smartest office isn’t perfect, and it isn’t permanent.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

GE Study Proves Consumers Respond More to Shared Content Than to Paid Placements

Sharing Created Significantly Bigger Lift in Brand Attitudes

Marketers have long assumed content shared by friends or other influencers carries more weight than paid placements. Now GE has some proof.
'The GE Show' on Buzzfeed
'The GE Show' on Buzzfeed
Working with social-media site Buzzfeed, the company commissioned digital-advertising measurement firm Vizu to test a campaign last fall in which the marketer distributed "The GE Show" video through Buzzfeed both in paid display placements and sharing, then tested how attitudes changed among people exposed each way.
People exposed via sharing had a significantly bigger lift in positive attitudes toward GE -- associating the brand with such things as creativity and innovation -- than people exposed via paid placements.
Overall, the "brand lift," which measured the extent to which consumers said they saw GE as "creative," was 138% higher for consumers exposed to via sharing through Buzzfeed than those who didn't see it at all. Specifically, 17% of people found GE creative after viewing the content via sharing vs. only 7% of people who made that connection without having seen the advertising at all.
Consumers exposed via sharing were also 83% more likely to rate GE "creative" than those exposed to the content via paid advertising on Buzzfeed.
The brand lift was calculated based on short online survey responses to the question: "What comes to mind when you think of General Electric (GE)?"
In all, thousands of people responded to short online surveys as part of the study, which broke them into groups exposed via paid media, exposed via sharing or not exposed at all to the content, said Jeff Smith, chief marketing officer of Vizu. While his firm has done numerous studies on brand lifts from paid digital ads and social media, it hasn't previously compared the two for the same content.
Overall, 42% of the responses about GE from people in the control group that didn't see the content were positive, compared to 55% of responses from people exposed via paid advertising and 77% for those exposed via sharing.
Obviously shared media has the advantage of being "free inventory," said Paul Marcum, director of global digital marketing and programming at GE. But he was also interested in knowing whether it actually has more impact on consumers than paid media.
"We all would intrinsically think that if you see something your friend has shared or a community you're part of has shared, you're more likely to value it differently" than paid placement, he said. "But no one we could find had actually tried to quantify the difference."
Though the study found earned media packs more punch than paid, Mr. Marcum acknowledged it's still hard to get one without the other. Marketers, he said, still "need to dial up the paid and hope the earned goes with it."
But for GE, the study was a lesson on "the value of advocacy, and that absolutely will inform marketing decisions," Mr. Marcum said.
Platforms GE has tried recently, including Buzzfeed and Instragram, "just have so much passion around them," he said, which should help stoke social sharing.
The value of earned media suggested by the study, of course, gives digital platforms that can demonstrate higher rates of sharing more value than those with lower rates. ShareThis late last year launched a program with Starcom MediaVest Group to rate online media based on the extent to which their content is shared through the sharing platform.
"A study like this where you can actually measure the perception lift from social sharing," Mr. Marcum added, is a "step in the direction" of determining the financial return on the media investment, but he acknowledged GE needs more research to determine the full ROI implications of sharing.

Mobile Payments: The Consumers’ Future Favorite?


mobile-payments-on-fire-top.gifAs mobile commerce continues its rapid adoption by more and more companies, consumers’ comfort with paying by mobile will become increasingly important.
An interesting infographic released by mobile banking solution provider Intuit provides an informative look at consumers’ current payment behavior and preferences, and how these are evolving towards mobile payments.


The much of the world today is clearly moving from cash to non-cash forms of payment such as credit and debit cards. Currently, the use of cash is expected to decrease by some 4% per year in the US, and will be only about $1 trillion by 2015. At the same time, Intuit’s infographic explores a additional trend towards “cardless” payments such as mobile, online, and NFC. Amounting to about $740 billion revenue in the US today, these alternate payments are expected to explode to about $2.7 trillion by 2015, dwarfing the amount of cash transactions.
At the moment, mobile payments represent about 5% of purchases, but they are growing quickly.
The infographic provides several key reasons why consumers today might not use mobile payments and found:
  • 64% had security issues
  • 61% prefer other payment methods
  • 46% only use their phone for calls and e-mails
The key thing for any new technology is to convince consumers that it will make their life better. The infographic suggest that while only 9% consider mobile payments to be mainstream today, 83% expect it to be by 2015. Furthermore they expect that consumers using mobile payments will increase from 1.8 billion today to 2.5 billion by 2015.
mobile-payments-on-fire-complete.gif

For a larger view, visit the original infographic site.