"Cinescent has successfully tested its scented-ad technology in German theatres for Nivea, with 60-second ads showing a sunny beach scene while the aroma of Nivea sun cream permeated the theatre. Exit polls showed a 515% rise in recall for the Nivea ad when compared to moviegoers who saw the spot without the scent.
Smells are pumped through the cinema's air conditioning system in a way that minimizes the allergy and irritation problems associated with previous attempts to dispense aromas via boxes places among the audience."
the most interesting things I noted from the recent developers
presentation of Google Wave was that they have built in functionality
that allows you to start generating a response before the person you're
communicating with has actually finished their reply.
This effectively replicates one of the least useful characteristics
of human communication i.e. a speedy response rather than a considered
one, that takes into account what has been communicated, not what you
think is going to be communicated."
Reminded me of this quote that I really liked in Herd: Just one of things that you never really thought about, but when someone points out creates a little spark.
Just came across this amazing cardboard 'city' by Ana Serrano. Worth checking out her site to look at the detail pictures. Reminded me of some show from my youth with royalty and a presenter with the Queen's English (can't remember for the life of me what it was called).
I walked past this shop window this morning. It could just be me (it often is), but I thought it was a Boots poster (it's a Dollond& Aitchison btw).
Assuming that I'm not being weird and D&A are indeed using Boots look and feel, then is that genius or stupidity? On the genius angle, do people just walk in because they think its Boots and in terms of stupidity, well where do you start?
As a caucasian, you dont necessarily understand why something could be perceived as racist because you've never been on the receiving end of that kind of prejudice. So, when the ad is being reviewed there's no one there going, 'uhm, that could be taken the wrong way'.
Race is a pretty tricky topic and if I got into my view on the world, I would be here a long time. Just out of interest, does anyone find this offensive?
I had a rather lovely Saturday over at Lift @ living room, an informal satellite of the Lift conferences. For some bizarre reason I didn't take any photos, but here is Amanda's picture of Charlie giving his talk, so you can get an idea of what it was like: As always, a couple of bits that I found interesting:
One of the themes of Charlie's talk was about how we can incorporate the charm of patina/analogue into digital services. It is starting to happen (Flickr's hello in different language, the awesome Handbrake piña colada visual, phone software which responds to the time of day), but much of service design is currently so focused on the functional that there is no room for stories.
He also talked about the shift to an intelligent networked city, which bought up some interesting ideas about privacy from the group. Namely:
The generation behind us don't have the same privacy worries that we do
If everyone has a certain type of information about them in the public domain, you become conspicuous because of an absence of this information
Without privacy, will behaviour change to become more socially acceptable?
Stephen Molloy spoke about craftsmanship and how it is losing out to mass production. It's a shame that craft is a luxury proposition because of a dearth of craftsmen. Someone evoked a future scenario where outsourced production ceases to be cost-efficient meaning that furniture production, etc, would have to bought back home. The demand would result in a boom in the number of craftsmen to address the need. There were some questions raised about immediacy, and whether demanding consumers would be prepared to wait, but I think that as consumers we're very understanding of the fact that bespoke takes longer. We can see examples of people waiting to have something bespoke to them already, from Bodymetrics jeans to Tossed salads to Nike iD.
There was so much other amazing conversation, will post again soon. Thanks to Charlie for inviting me and to Felix for organising. Was an awesome day.
Since IPA Social, I've been thinking thinking a lot about how we are still trying to use social media to do broadcast marketing. Hell, I'll admit that I've (misguidedly) used the word 'advocate' in a presentation. Then I picked up Herd last night for the first time in weeks and realised that that Mark Earls had articulated what I was thinking about quite neatly:
Will wrote a really good post last night about being anti-social (you can read it here). I've been thinking a lot about social media bandwagon recently, and whether sometimes we should be advising not to get on (despite shooting ourselves in the foot fees-wise). Anyway, back to Willsy (am I allowed to call you that?). It was a good post because it generated good comments, from which two points really struck me.
Firstly, Katy made a really good point about there being another way to be social, and something that is actually key for most to all companies/brands. That is listening, rather than talking. I quote: "A brand who listens to me is being a damn sight more social, because
being social is about two-way exchange. Being social isn't about social
media, it's about social behaviour".
You don't have to have a Twitter account (with 7 followers that all work in the marketing department), but you should be searching Twitter to see what people are saying about your brand.
Secondly, Michael Gross made the point that "I would be even more radical and say that a lot of the stuff that
social media gurus suggest during those conferences can be actually
dangerous for a lot of brands". This is particularly relevant in the luxury arena: "I don't want [luxury brands] to talk to me, they don't want to talk
to me - that's part of the whole deal, that is what makes them
extremely admirable, holy and unreachable".
The IPA Social discussion last night was a massive improvement on January's report launch, in which I seem to remember resorting to drawing funny faces in Jamie's Moleskine. Well done to the lovely Jamie, Katy, Mark, Neil and all the rest of the gang for starting the right kind of discussion about social media. If I came away with one thing yesterday it is that it is still uncharted territories and everyone is finding their feet, working out what works and learning from each other. Just as importantly, I have lots of ideas, questions and *cards* from interesting people.
What follows is a collection of thoughts, in no particular order, in the spirit of being part of the conversation:
Measurement There was a lot of talk about justifying the value of social media, defining its ROI in order to keep clients happy and prove effectiveness. Amelia Torode spoke about work they are doing with the IAB to assess the importance of social activity on the Meerkat work, and I'm sure everyone is looking forward to seeing it if Amelia makes it public. On the subject of the Meerkat, Debbie and I were talking this morning about whether there is a way of measuring the impact of social media on the longevity of the campaign. You can't discount the role of TV in driving the massive numbers that VCCP have delivered for Compare The Market, but if it had been TV-only would it have had the same mileage?
Sitting it out I rather foolishly nominated myself to host a conversation rather late in the day despite wanting to get involved in the conversation that Amelia was hosting. Bless Katy for joining me and a girl from the IPA (sorry, forgotten your name) in a discussion about whether there were brands that shouldn't get involved in social media. A couple of points:
Some brands, e.g. Apple, don't use social media to no detriment (I know they are a very peculiar case study, but I'm just saying...)
A lot of brands want to use social media for the sake of it, jumping on the bandwagon, what Katy called the 'e.g. Facebook' brief
If there isn't a role for social media, there's no point doing it
Are you a brand I actually want to speak to socially?
You might be better off spending that money on improving customer service (lots of successful case studies of brands using social in this space)
Responsibility We then swiftly went and joined Nick's conversation - I think the title was about which discipline was best placed to manage social. An interesting point was raised about whether responsibility for social should sit with the client or the agency. And actually, is the marketing department (a dept concerned with selling) the best placed to manage that relationship. Maybe customer service is a better bet?
Dirty words Someone asked a question towards the end about whether 'campaign was such a bad thing?' (UPDATE: It was Nicola Davies - thanks Amelia!). She made the point that they are involving, participatory and rewarding, and actually sometimes you don't want an ongoing conversation with a brand, which I thought it was a good reality check.
Anyway, lots to think about. Disappointed that there wasn't more participation in the mexican wave, but looking forward to the forthcoming conversation and the next meeting.
P.S. Best quote: 'Fabergé eggs? I eat them for breakfast' - Aleksandr Orlov.
One part truth, two parts mixer is a digital notebook for Priyanka/@pristyles. Yes, you've reached another planner's blog - but it's mainly full of random thoughts and pretty pictures.
If you're reading, hello - it's nice to meet you.