What if we could have 1 camera kind of like the Oppo but a bit smarter... Come on NOKIA
Tuesday 2 September 2014
Why do all smart watches look like... well watches.
For quite some time I have wondered why every smart watch released or imagined looked like a watch. Is it because we keep referring to them as 'Smart watches'?
It doesn't need to be round or square, we need to move away from the idea of it simply being a digital replacement of what has come before. Imagine what could be rather than what is.
If we were to call them say, 'connected utility bands that also tell the time' would they look vastly different and actually give us something new?
Surely we should be looking at something more like a wrist band, a kind of Fuel Band on steroids. It can show me more than just the time before I have to swipe. The battery MUST last for more than a day, ideally powered by our daily activity.
It doesn't need to be round or square, we need to move away from the idea of it simply being a digital replacement of what has come before. Imagine what could be rather than what is.
If we were to call them say, 'connected utility bands that also tell the time' would they look vastly different and actually give us something new?
Surely we should be looking at something more like a wrist band, a kind of Fuel Band on steroids. It can show me more than just the time before I have to swipe. The battery MUST last for more than a day, ideally powered by our daily activity.
Sunday 19 February 2012
Follow us on Facebook…What on earth for?
Turn on the TV these days and you'll find almost every advert is asking you to 'like them on Facebook'.
Whilst the fact that many of these companies are now seeing the importance and value of social media is a positive step, their execution however, is often still way off the mark in my opinion.
With the exception of a few, the majority of companies simply want you to like them. No reason for it, no engagement. It's a real shame as many of them are running great campaigns that could be enhanced by using social media in the right way.
A simple example would be if during the 'here come the girls' ads Boots asked the women to share their stories of when they have had to be superwomen because the men in their lives have forgotten a birthday, Christmas or anniversary gift. I have no doubt that they would have been inundated with stories keen to point out just how useless men are.
It would also help to build a 'Boots' community of people sharing these stories rather than a bunch of random people stating that they like Boots products. You could even run a mini competition. Best story wins Boots vouchers, make up or a pampering session. It could be as simple as that.
Lynx do a better job with their Lynx 2012 campaign. They have understood that there needs to be a reason to follow a company. A pay off as it were. Not simply because they ask you to.
The question I find myself asking when I watch these Ads is, 'What's in it for me'.
Play any console/ app game these days and sharing is often at the core of the experience, Win extra songs by sharing your videos on Facebook in Dance Central, Create custom cars in Forza 4 and auction them for virtual cash. This isn't limited to Facebook either, Richard Branson runs mini competitions through his Twitter account.
So why is it that many of the biggest companies out there are still not onboard? It is such a shame as done right and through integrated Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc…Ad campaigns have the ability to enhance their brand more quickly through social media interaction than any channel that has gone before it.
So if any of you happen to read this Mr Boots, all I ask is this;
Please give me a reason to like you, don't think that I will because you have stuck a Facebook icon at the bottom of an Ad.
Whilst the fact that many of these companies are now seeing the importance and value of social media is a positive step, their execution however, is often still way off the mark in my opinion.
With the exception of a few, the majority of companies simply want you to like them. No reason for it, no engagement. It's a real shame as many of them are running great campaigns that could be enhanced by using social media in the right way.
A simple example would be if during the 'here come the girls' ads Boots asked the women to share their stories of when they have had to be superwomen because the men in their lives have forgotten a birthday, Christmas or anniversary gift. I have no doubt that they would have been inundated with stories keen to point out just how useless men are.
It would also help to build a 'Boots' community of people sharing these stories rather than a bunch of random people stating that they like Boots products. You could even run a mini competition. Best story wins Boots vouchers, make up or a pampering session. It could be as simple as that.
Lynx do a better job with their Lynx 2012 campaign. They have understood that there needs to be a reason to follow a company. A pay off as it were. Not simply because they ask you to.
The question I find myself asking when I watch these Ads is, 'What's in it for me'.
Play any console/ app game these days and sharing is often at the core of the experience, Win extra songs by sharing your videos on Facebook in Dance Central, Create custom cars in Forza 4 and auction them for virtual cash. This isn't limited to Facebook either, Richard Branson runs mini competitions through his Twitter account.
So why is it that many of the biggest companies out there are still not onboard? It is such a shame as done right and through integrated Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc…Ad campaigns have the ability to enhance their brand more quickly through social media interaction than any channel that has gone before it.
So if any of you happen to read this Mr Boots, all I ask is this;
Please give me a reason to like you, don't think that I will because you have stuck a Facebook icon at the bottom of an Ad.
Tuesday 5 April 2011
I shared by who cared?
I mean, with all of the social networking sites these days I never know whether I am meant to have Facebook, twitter, hi 5, linkedIn, net log, tumblr, delicious,... open to see what my 'friends' are sharing!
I always felt that the whole idea of sharing was to be able to go to one place and see what everyone was up to. The default used to be Myspace and the the titan that is Facebook. Now days I am constantly missing catch ups with friends because twitter is now 'the' place to be when arranging these things. It's like being a teenager again. You and your friends, watching MTV, trying to seem hip and cool, only the latest bands have been replaced with buzz words and names of social networking upstarts that you just 'have' to be connected to. So long Facebook, you're only good for high school reunions and trying to get a date in your mid thirties, LinkedIn, pah, an index for recruitment agents. But Twitter...that's where it's at...For now at least. But watch your back, the next big thing might be closer than you think. The Justin Bieber of Social Networking perhaps...here to rock your world.
Don't get me wrong, I think all of this is great, but why do I have to work so hard to see what all of my friends want to share with me. It seems so fragmented now. Different friends on Facebook to Twitter to LinkedIn.
Then you have the 'serial sloggers' (social networking bloggers) those addicted to documenting, who often have multiple accounts. Several accounts on twitter for example. One professional, one social, one for beer, one for dinner, one for watching tv, one for the wife, one for the kids....okay, so maybe not that many but I'm sure you get my point.
I kinda see the future of the whole social scene as being a big mash up of all of these things.
If you came across a site of interest, or even a tv programme, you could maybe edit the video on the fly so that you could grab that 30 seconds of it you found interesting. Then you could select some of the content you had been reading and add it all to a lightbox.
When done you would be given the opportunity to post it to a virtual environment where you could comment and add your twitter, Facebook etc...contacts and send them a link to the page which you could then all comment on, maybe in real time. You could all then watch the video, read the content and comments made by your friends.
Sure it's not as quick as here is a link look at it, but it just feels like I'm looking at a friends link page and what's the difference between that and everyone having a webpage with MY LINKS as the title.
So there it is. I shared but really...Do you care? And how did you get here or find out about it? Happened to be logged into Twitter...
though so. :-)
I always felt that the whole idea of sharing was to be able to go to one place and see what everyone was up to. The default used to be Myspace and the the titan that is Facebook. Now days I am constantly missing catch ups with friends because twitter is now 'the' place to be when arranging these things. It's like being a teenager again. You and your friends, watching MTV, trying to seem hip and cool, only the latest bands have been replaced with buzz words and names of social networking upstarts that you just 'have' to be connected to. So long Facebook, you're only good for high school reunions and trying to get a date in your mid thirties, LinkedIn, pah, an index for recruitment agents. But Twitter...that's where it's at...For now at least. But watch your back, the next big thing might be closer than you think. The Justin Bieber of Social Networking perhaps...here to rock your world.
Don't get me wrong, I think all of this is great, but why do I have to work so hard to see what all of my friends want to share with me. It seems so fragmented now. Different friends on Facebook to Twitter to LinkedIn.
Then you have the 'serial sloggers' (social networking bloggers) those addicted to documenting, who often have multiple accounts. Several accounts on twitter for example. One professional, one social, one for beer, one for dinner, one for watching tv, one for the wife, one for the kids....okay, so maybe not that many but I'm sure you get my point.
I kinda see the future of the whole social scene as being a big mash up of all of these things.
If you came across a site of interest, or even a tv programme, you could maybe edit the video on the fly so that you could grab that 30 seconds of it you found interesting. Then you could select some of the content you had been reading and add it all to a lightbox.
When done you would be given the opportunity to post it to a virtual environment where you could comment and add your twitter, Facebook etc...contacts and send them a link to the page which you could then all comment on, maybe in real time. You could all then watch the video, read the content and comments made by your friends.
Sure it's not as quick as here is a link look at it, but it just feels like I'm looking at a friends link page and what's the difference between that and everyone having a webpage with MY LINKS as the title.
So there it is. I shared but really...Do you care? And how did you get here or find out about it? Happened to be logged into Twitter...
though so. :-)
Friday 18 February 2011
What's your worth
A good friend of mine got me thinking the other day.
What is the value of creative design and how much should it cost. This is something that is both valid but also quite a mystery.
I don't think there is a hard and fast rule really.
How good are you at what you do? Let me rephrase that. How good do you think you are at what you do, more importantly, how good do the clients that you work with think you are.
Do they respect you, believe in you whole heartidly? Surely your past experience when interacting with clients is a better gauge of your worth than any spread sheet.
Who have you worked with in the past could be another measure for you when trying to understand your worth.
Will your client/employer understand the value of your contribution? This can change from project to project and from job to job.
I have seen some equations that look great and I am sure help those that need to try and put the way a creative designer works minute by minute into a neat little box but is that really the point? Does it help?
If I were a famous contemporary artist who had been told to be specific maybe my quote would read something like this:
Contemplating my next piece
2 years
Setting up canvas
1 day
Applying oil based paint
30 days
Adding my signature
30 seconds
Reputation
priceless
Cost
£3,000,000
Reads like an ad for MasterCard doesn't it.
Not at all representative but you get the point.
There is no real conclusion to this thread of mine.
Just a jumbled collection of thoughts. I think I'll have to come back to it.
What is the value of creative design and how much should it cost. This is something that is both valid but also quite a mystery.
I don't think there is a hard and fast rule really.
How good are you at what you do? Let me rephrase that. How good do you think you are at what you do, more importantly, how good do the clients that you work with think you are.
Do they respect you, believe in you whole heartidly? Surely your past experience when interacting with clients is a better gauge of your worth than any spread sheet.
Who have you worked with in the past could be another measure for you when trying to understand your worth.
Will your client/employer understand the value of your contribution? This can change from project to project and from job to job.
I have seen some equations that look great and I am sure help those that need to try and put the way a creative designer works minute by minute into a neat little box but is that really the point? Does it help?
If I were a famous contemporary artist who had been told to be specific maybe my quote would read something like this:
Contemplating my next piece
2 years
Setting up canvas
1 day
Applying oil based paint
30 days
Adding my signature
30 seconds
Reputation
priceless
Cost
£3,000,000
Reads like an ad for MasterCard doesn't it.
Not at all representative but you get the point.
There is no real conclusion to this thread of mine.
Just a jumbled collection of thoughts. I think I'll have to come back to it.
Thursday 7 October 2010
The ipad and other tablets really could change the face of computing
Lets stick with the ipad for now though...:-)
Having seen the upcoming clamcase for the ipad I suddenly had a thought...
(For those who haven't have a look here (http://clamcase.com/products-page/products-for-ipad/clamcase-for-ipad1/) It's a case that you slide your ipad into which includes a keyboard, turning it into a simplified 'net book'.))
Imagine a case like this, for arguments sake let's call it a 'base station'. It could hold the hard drive, CD drive, graphics card etc... and a slot for your screen where you would add your ipad.
When you arrive at the office you could simply put your ipad in and sync it, very much in the same way you do now except that there would be no annoying wires sticking out! . As a user you could then go about your every day life doing all of the same processor intensive work you do on your macs/pc's now.
At the end of the day you could simply sync your ipad again, adding any movies, books or tunes you might want to listen to on your journey home, pop out your ipad and off you go!
When you get home you might want to simply flop down in front of the tv and continue to browse, or you could slot it into your base station there and continue working on whatever you had moved across.
Perhaps in the future you could have base station cafes set up and when traveling you could stop of anywhere in the world and connect up via this little device you have in your bag.
It really could be something quite special in my view.
Having seen the upcoming clamcase for the ipad I suddenly had a thought...
(For those who haven't have a look here (http://clamcase.com/products-page/products-for-ipad/clamcase-for-ipad1/) It's a case that you slide your ipad into which includes a keyboard, turning it into a simplified 'net book'.))
Imagine a case like this, for arguments sake let's call it a 'base station'. It could hold the hard drive, CD drive, graphics card etc... and a slot for your screen where you would add your ipad.
When you arrive at the office you could simply put your ipad in and sync it, very much in the same way you do now except that there would be no annoying wires sticking out! . As a user you could then go about your every day life doing all of the same processor intensive work you do on your macs/pc's now.
At the end of the day you could simply sync your ipad again, adding any movies, books or tunes you might want to listen to on your journey home, pop out your ipad and off you go!
When you get home you might want to simply flop down in front of the tv and continue to browse, or you could slot it into your base station there and continue working on whatever you had moved across.
Perhaps in the future you could have base station cafes set up and when traveling you could stop of anywhere in the world and connect up via this little device you have in your bag.
It really could be something quite special in my view.
Wednesday 6 October 2010
Corporate Communications. Are we conveying the right message?
The digital landscape within corporate communications is an interesting place right now. With more and more sites being designed to a higher standard, providing more and more content, with bells, whistles and a few interactive cherries on top, I find myself wondering whether the important messages are being lost.
How does a company stand out? Does it really come down to who has the highest share price? If so, then why not just have a site with a huge share price on it and nothing else? You could even compare it to other companies share prices to show how much better your company is doing when compared to everyone else’s...Oh, but we already have one of those don't we. It's called the FTSE 100.
A share price on the homepage? Great when a company is doing well, but when things go wrong and the share price falls it causes panic and the first thing an investor sees is their investment going down the toilet rather than any kind of communication around how the company are going to resolve the challenges they are facing and why you as an investor shouldn’t take your hard earned money elsewhere.
With such a focus solely on a clients return via highlighting results, profitability and share prices, are they not setting themselves up for a fall?
As we have seen with BP, all it takes is for something to go horribly wrong and investors start selling their shares faster than the ipads “sold out” on the Secret Sales website a few weeks ago (But that’s another story!). Where is the brand loyalty? Is there such a thing within the Investor community? This got me thinking...
An investor is still a person, they will have brand preferences when choosing their clothes, their car, their watch, even when they buy their sofa. So, why not the companies they invest in? Are consumers and investors so different?
We must try harder. Not every company is Apple, or should that be Steve Jobs.
I believe that communicating with investors when attempting to convince them to invest should be based on the same principles as when they are promoting their brand to everyone else. After all, investors are also consumers; consumers companies have to answer to. It is for this reason I believe the brand message to be just as important when reaching out to investors, employees and the wider audience.
They need to buy into a company, its brand, strategy and aspirations. To understand that, it’s going to take time to achieve all of its goals. To care about the company, to believe in what it stands for and focus less on short term returns and more on its potential and the direction it is heading in. This will of course take time, as this is the way it has been for a long time.
Therefore, the message I believe we should be trying to convey is not "why you should invest in us", but "why you should believe in us".
There are some agencies out there that seem to have started thinking around this. The question is, are these agencies actually asking these questions and providing answers or is it just something they say to win the work, with the output being nothing more than a website designed to a higher standard, providing more and more of the same old content?
Just a thought
Leon
How does a company stand out? Does it really come down to who has the highest share price? If so, then why not just have a site with a huge share price on it and nothing else? You could even compare it to other companies share prices to show how much better your company is doing when compared to everyone else’s...Oh, but we already have one of those don't we. It's called the FTSE 100.
A share price on the homepage? Great when a company is doing well, but when things go wrong and the share price falls it causes panic and the first thing an investor sees is their investment going down the toilet rather than any kind of communication around how the company are going to resolve the challenges they are facing and why you as an investor shouldn’t take your hard earned money elsewhere.
With such a focus solely on a clients return via highlighting results, profitability and share prices, are they not setting themselves up for a fall?
As we have seen with BP, all it takes is for something to go horribly wrong and investors start selling their shares faster than the ipads “sold out” on the Secret Sales website a few weeks ago (But that’s another story!). Where is the brand loyalty? Is there such a thing within the Investor community? This got me thinking...
An investor is still a person, they will have brand preferences when choosing their clothes, their car, their watch, even when they buy their sofa. So, why not the companies they invest in? Are consumers and investors so different?
We must try harder. Not every company is Apple, or should that be Steve Jobs.
I believe that communicating with investors when attempting to convince them to invest should be based on the same principles as when they are promoting their brand to everyone else. After all, investors are also consumers; consumers companies have to answer to. It is for this reason I believe the brand message to be just as important when reaching out to investors, employees and the wider audience.
They need to buy into a company, its brand, strategy and aspirations. To understand that, it’s going to take time to achieve all of its goals. To care about the company, to believe in what it stands for and focus less on short term returns and more on its potential and the direction it is heading in. This will of course take time, as this is the way it has been for a long time.
Therefore, the message I believe we should be trying to convey is not "why you should invest in us", but "why you should believe in us".
There are some agencies out there that seem to have started thinking around this. The question is, are these agencies actually asking these questions and providing answers or is it just something they say to win the work, with the output being nothing more than a website designed to a higher standard, providing more and more of the same old content?
Just a thought
Leon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)