Famine City

Digital behaviors follow you and privacy is dead

 

About a week ago, my seven year old son asks me at breakfast "dad, what is sexting?" Though I wasn't prepared for the question, I did manage a good response.  At a larger level what stood out as my future challenge is making the digital behaviors an issue that my kids should take seriously. It's a stark new reality. Our young people may not understand or appreciate the lasting impact of their digital behaviors. Digital behaviors follow you and there is no such thing as privacy. Privacy is dead. 

First and foremost, your digital behaviors follow you. Behind every text, every search and tweet is a little digital footprint, some of them self-disclosed, some of them not. As I was preparing a presentation recently, I thought I'd go investigating some of the most recent posts from TextsFromLastNight.com. This site basically is a submission site for funny, risque text messages that are often related to alcohol, drugs or sex. Within a span of about fifteen minutes, I was able to find the originator of at least 4 comments with minimal effort. In fact there is no guarantee these individuals consented to sharing this content, but I still found them rather easily. The message is clear, digital footprints will always lead back to originator. As organizations, we are expected to take the privacy of our patrons very, very seriously. As consumers in a digital world, we are willfully giving up our privacy more so than ever.

The problem isn't just limited to messages and pictures that we send through our phones. It's also our location. A recent site has received a bit of attention, www.pleaserobme.com. This site basically scours Twitter and posts individual's locations that have been self-published via FourSquare. The notion of the site is to raise awareness on our own self-disclosure or our current location, which may not be at home. While good companies of the world are finding new and innovative ways to offer goods and services to our potential consumers, there is a contingent that will use these services for ill. Be ready. 

So far, we've covered text messaging and pictures. However, those are quickly going to take the backseat to full streaming video. Web video is the future and it's here today, complete with cameras in our netbooks, laptops and mobile phones backed by high speed networks. I am very concerned about this growing digital behavior. You might be concerned about adult websites and the YouTubes, but I'd put those on the backseat. It's not those websites I am worried about. Enter Chat Roulette that was created by a 17-year old digital native that wanted to chat with people around the world. The site basically allows you to randomly chat with whoever is connected to the service. Daniel Tosh, comedian, recently had a skit on it that seemed about right; about every chat seemed to be some guy with genitalia in front of his webcam. With the media hyping this site, which is having the exact opposite effect of what they are reporting, the site's popularity has grown to 881, according to Alexa (US). No age checks, no verification and just about every computer made today is equipped to participate. Check please, call me "officially" scared.  

Not all privacy disclosure is necessarily bad. As I mentioned previously, people are willfully giving up their privacy and we're going to continue to see this behavior grow. In fact, we're going to be incentivized to give up more in the future. Places like Mint.com offers a service for us to give up some of our privacy. They give us financial modeling and in return we provide them with our consumer transaction behavior. We also see this with our loyalty cards in most of our grocery stores. We let them track us and they sell our data to marketers/researchers. In return they provide us with lower prices (not sure about this) and custom coupons. My expectation is this type of tracking will soon make it's way to health insurance companies too. Insurance companies will incentivize us to disclose our health related data, they'll sell this data. In return we'll get free prescriptions, lower premiums or some other cross subsidy. I welcome things like this because scale data of that sort can ultimately lead to better outcomes for patient care (if used properly). It's a win-win in my book. Not all privacy disclosure is bad. 

This piece isn't just about privacy. It's about what to teach your digital natives about technology and unforeseen outcomes of changes in the digital space. Here's my quick guide:

• Transparency: I quite hate this term, but I'll use it anyway. Mark Zuckerburg recently said, “public is the new social norm”, ergo there is nothing private. As I explained to my seven year old, our lives are open books, let's embrace it (leveraging it when we can). There are good consequences to our behaviors and bad consequences to our behaviors. Let's make a choice to make sure there's a lot more marks in the good consequences column. Aside: Good blog piece on this subject from Critical Mass. 
  
• Connect online to offline: In the not so distant past, digital behaviors were separated from our offline existence. This is no longer the case. Your digital behaviors can have severe impact online and offline. 
  
• Long lasting effects: Once data is digitized, it is stored, cached, recorded, emailed, texted and so forth. The implications of one's behaviors can have lasting repercussions.
  
• Teach it: You can't escape the society that we live in. We're officially connected. I think this might be as important as teaching a kid about drugs or alcohol. 

I realize that my family is inundated with technology as it is part of our livelihood, maybe more than most. I cannot nor want to escape this. I want to deal with this upfront. I think it will position my kids for success in the future. Therefore I try to teach the right behavior at every opportunity possible. I want to reinforce our other values so that their online and offline behaviors are consistent in the new reality where privacy is gone and our digital behaviors are with us for a long, long time. 

follow me on twitter @marty_b

The future of the small screen: Part IV

This is the fourth part of a series of blog posts. You can find the previous blog posts at:

• Birth of the small screen
• Birth of the small screen: Part II
• Triumph of the small screen: Part III
  

At this point within this series of blog posts, we're going to take a look at the future of the small screen. The modern day catalyst has been the mobile phone. However, the beginning started in the 1950's with the transistor radio delivering choice of content, convenience and portability. It is these three principles that continue to dominate the core principles of the devices. Soon enough, the transistor radio was followed up in the 1970's & 1980's with the Walkman, then gaming devices. However, the modern day addition to the core three principles has been personalization. Now that we've caught up to today, it is time to look at the future of the small screen?

First, the most important thing to take away from the series of posts is this: The screens where we consume the majority of our media aren't going to be on the screens that at the most beautiful, HD capable or anything like that. The screens that will be the most important to our lives will be those that are the most convenient. Instead of focusing on the devices as we know them today, I will just call the future screens of convenience because these will continue to change in the future. 

The hardware changes.

We are seeing major advancements in hardware all the time. I really believe some of our most valuable advancements are going to be in the area of display technologies. In terms of size, portable screens are probably going to net out somewhere between the current iPhone size and a netbook. These are probably just about the largest portable, yet useful screens. Meanwhile,  I do anticipate that we'll see similar advancements like the Kindle's screen technology, which may be used to handle portable reading and for preserved battery life. However, the real advancement that I'm anticipating is projection and eyeglass wear with screens. Check out these devices from Wowwee, amazing. Connecting to larger devices is going to occur, but experiences will originate from the small screen. 
 

Consumer behavior is already changing. 

Consumer behavior is already heading to the small screen and we may not have even thought about it. For example, my kids, which are seven years old and less, will never have televisions in their bedrooms. Their main source of content will be the computer and mobile phones. Unknowingly, their adoption has already began. Think the portable DVD player in the car that is already smaller than a netbook screen. Yes, both of my children know how to use my wife's iPhone to access content or play games. And our digital millennials are already connected to their iPod touch, mobile phone or computer. In a conversation with another 30-something friend, he tells me that he seldom watches the television with his laptop in hand anymore. He's traded it for an iPhone, a behavior that will continue for many more of us. 

The television won't die. It will transform. 

Television will still be around, it simply is transforming and will be more of an event based medium. Families will gather around the television to actively watch a movie, sporting event or live events (think American Idol). However, passive engagement on the television will go down. We'll set our Tivos in the house and stream content to our convenience devices. If there is programming from television that we want to watch that may not already available on hulu, Fancast, YouTube, NetFlix or peer-to-peer file sharing services. 

Confluence will continue. 

Up to this point, we had separate devices for separate utility. The devices, especially those of the small screen, are advanced enough to handle multiple applications and utility much more gracefully than just a few years ago. Phone technology is simply an application. YouTube is simply an application as well. As our phones are getting more complex, with memory, bandwidth and processing power, the more functionality that will be available to us.  The advancement is eliminating the time that we spend with other devices, this is a trend that is here to stay.    

Globalization will continue. It will explode in the coming years. 

The small screen will connect our globe in ways no other technology yet to accomplish. If we thought the television was a game changer, watch out because devices of convenience will dwarf the reign of television. Most importantly, the entrance into the global market is the mobile phone. Mobile phone penetration has already dwarfed internet penetration by upwards of 2.5 billion. People that make less than $2 a day are adopting mobile devices. Simply upping the ante with better devices is a much simpler proposition AFTER the devices are in their hands. They will have the internet, social networking, mass media, communication devices AND entertainment in their hands. This makes the possibility of true global brands a much better reality. 

The guiding principles are already in place. 

Throughout the series of blog posts I already cover the defining characteristics of success. They are choice of content, portability, convenience and personalization. However, I think there is one  more principle driving force outside of these. Compression. 

Our lives will continue to compress. 

As you begin to create new markets, opportunities and increase information globally, our lives are going to continue to compress. Competition increases and with that the amount of information we need to consume then rises. Compression in this case simply adding more content into our lives. The need to do this requires us to ignore more, do more and consume more. Screens of convenience are the perfect compliment for this task and compression is the key to driving adoption of the small screen from a convenience to need. The need will be that quick moment of content, entertainment, escape or extra-work that we need to fulfill one of our human needs, as it relates to Maslow's hierarchy. It is this human condition that will continue to transcend cultures and economies. Ultimately, being the final key to driving us to the small screen and why it will triumph. 

As a marketer, what to do? 

Don't stand pat. You can consider what happened in the last ten years with the internet and consider what you would have done different to get your message in the right place today. 

• Be global: realize your audience and growth of your brand is going to be global. Do you focus your time and effort on getting people to switch to your product or people that never have experienced your product.        
• Be mobile: audiences around the world are going to experience the internets and all of it's offerings on mobile devices well before traditional media. You may say hey, they aren't buying products today. However, what did Microsoft do when they realized that they were getting ripped off in China?
• Be opportunistic, adopt early: Don't try to create the magic bullet. Follow trends and hedge bets early, like with the iPhone apps for example. 
• Think long tail: Placing your flag in many internet services and outlets may be the winning model at first. There simply isn't going to be a magic bullet for every society globally. However, information, much in text form, may be the first step for most. Simply having your content available might be the most important first step. 
• Follow human needs: Human need transcends culture. We have a need to communicate, connect and safe. This is the basic building block of the mobile phone. It is also why mobile devices will continue to flourish. 
• Keep an eye on soft product industries: Soft product industries, those like software or music, will be required to figure out the small screen and global presence first for survival. Learn from them. 
• Untapped minds: Perhaps the biggest brain trusts on earth will be interconnected via the small screen. How should you take advantage of it? 

Summary

I cannot believe what started as a lunch conversation has occupied so much of my time the past three weeks. Throughout this process, I've done a lot of research and may publish a more formal paper with research citations as well. For the non-reading types,  I'm going to evolve this into a presentation on SlideShare. Clearly, I'm excited about how the majority of our content consumption will be on the small screen. There are many opportunities and implications abound. I love the unknown. To think that it started with the transistor radio, but was propelled into worldwide penetration by the mobile phone is an astonishing consideration. However, the real driving force simply is a corrollary of all of modern technology, compression. It is this need, a human need, that crosses borders, economies, and language. Human need fostered by technical evolution will continue driving us to the small screen on a global basis in the future. It isn't what we've done in the past that is so exciting, it's where we're headed in the future. 

find me on twitter @marty_b

Triumph of the small screen: Part III

In my previous two posts I cover where I believe the small screen was born and how it has developed in the last roughly fifty years, specifically outside of the realm of mobile phones. From transistors to portable gaming devices, the small screen is going to continue to be the dominant form of where we consume most of our content. In other words, we're going to consume more content on screens of convenience, than on televisions or desktops computers in the future. We establish four principles that have lead to screens of convenience dominance: choice of content, portability, convenience and personlization. 
 

We set the stage for the entrance of the mobile phone revolution. The mobile phone covers the aforementioned principles and then simply extended a known technology. Both of these factors have helped with the mobile phone success, but why do mobile phones have widespread success across so many cultures and economies? 
 

The phone is a killer application. A killer application is one that is so readily apparent that its value cannot be disputed. I like the example of email in the 1990s. Everyone understood email, saw its value and raced to sign up for internet service providers because of it's innate value. The phone shares this value, it's a killer application. 
 

The telephone, when Alexander Bell invented it, was immediately understood. He knew exactly the possibilities of it sans explanation. People immediately understood the concept that you could communicate with someone in a distant place immediately. We connected our worlds with telephones. 

It's a powerful medium. It doesn't need to be rationalized, it simply works. We all begin life with a need to communicate. This basic innate need to communicate and experience relationships hasn't changed, nor will that need change. It's widely adopted and it's value innately understood, appreciated. It appeals to everyone of all incomes and in all societies. 
 

The basic function of the phone hasn't changed too dramatically, it still transmits voice at the heart of its function. However, the ubiquity of the networks that provide the service have grown dramatically. With that growth, the marginal cost of using telephone services has never been lower. 
 

Mobile phones in developing countries has been made available because the infrastructure to support them is wireless. It's much cheaper to turn on a tower and transmit phone services than running cable to our homes. Quickly, this network designed to transmit wireless telephone traffic became the groundwork for a global communication grid in data form, meaning both telephone and data (internet) services. It makes perfect sense as data is much easier to handle than phone traffic. Additionally, once the call becomes a data service the long distance costs become largely too cheap to meter and we can connect to people wherever, whenever, all for the same cost. Remember long distance? The cost of providing a wireless tower to an area is much less than physical cable and today we have connected vast reaches of the world with mobile technology. Yes, still reception can be spotty, but the infrastructure is largely in place for at least 4.1 billion of us. Even those that make less than $2 a day see value in communicating with people in distant locations. Clearly, the phone is a killer application. 
 

The telephone is also a lifeline. Most people leave their homes with their keys, phone and purse/wallet. Our mobile phone is almost always with us. The reason mobile phones appeal to us is simple, it ladders up our pyramid of needs as humans. 
 

The telephone transcends multiple levels of our  hierarchy of human needs. That's what makes it an especially powerful medium. Remember the power of the transistor radio: music, talk and connection changed generations? The telephone has done no less. As we revisit Mr. Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the telephone can cross the top four needs of the pyramid. We take our telephone to be safe. In fact, it's generally why most parents give them to their children. To build our relationships fueling our sense of connection. Achievement is handled by the status symbol that started with just owning a phone, and today the most advanced phones appeal to actualization. It's the appeal of the iPhone, our sense of potential and creativity. It's an outward reflection of our inner selves (we hope). And the devices are planted into our psyche and on our person. And we are ingrained into upgrade paths (see previous post for more explanation). And services are more ubiquitous than ever. And mobile devices keep getting, faster, more sophisticated and have greater potential everyday. 
 

The raw computing power or potential that mobile devices serve is exploding. Let's first revisit Moore's Law (courtesy of Wikipedia):

Moore's law describes a long-term trend in the history of computing hardware. Since the invention of the integrated circuit in 1958, the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has increased exponentially, doubling approximately every two years.The trend was first observed by Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore in a 1965 paper.

The net result is that we have mobile phones that can offer way more meaningful experiences than computers from 10-15 years ago. Quick trip back to 1994, a computer purchased for college had a processor that was 25 MHz. It had a 20MB hard drive. Comparatively, the iPhone has 16gb of storage or 800x larger, just 15 years later. The 620mhz ARM processor in an iPhone is approximately 25x the speed of this college computer. The pipe to the internet was very fast at a 14.4kb. The iPhone has reputation of pulling 384kb or 27x the average dial up computer in 1994. With this growth in computing power, the potential of the mobile device has exploded. 
 

Because of mobile computing capabilities have grown at a rate consistent with Moore's Law, we're seeing that smart phones, iPhones and the like are providing computing experiences that rival desktops. Meaningful services are creating value for our consumers that were not before possible. Today, we are seeing applications that are providing clear value to the consumer and we have a marriage of capability, bandwidth and value for consumers that is driving adoption globally, quickly. 
 

The most important aspect of all this extra computing power has been applications that can be installed on our phones that serve a greater range of our human needs. Some of the extra computing power has been dedicated to things like Facebook which can serve actualization, love and belonging or self-esteem. Meanwhile, we can txt to our friends to build our sense of connection. Meanwhile, I can watch YouTube, all on the same mobile device. This is why mobile devices are here to stay. They handle a range of basic human needs at a much higher level than television, especially in developing economies. Even the prized iPhone will have a knock off that will be accessible to people in rural China within a couple of years. That's powerful. 
 

Now that they have crossed the threshold of being a basic need, they can ladder up to more meaningful experiences. However as we've built devices that handle our meaningful experiences, they have also become platforms of convenience. It is that aspect that is serving our more compressed lives today better than ever. These devices, with all of their extra computing power, broadband connection and global penetration, will be the dominant devices of the future. It is where we will consume most of our content. In the last post of this series, I'll look at the future of screens of convenience because our mobile phones have evolved well past the point of simply making a call. 
 

follow me on twitter @marty_b

Birth of the Small Screen: Part II

In my previous post, I covered why I believe that the transistor radio is a direct parent of the small screen. It had all of the modern day components that create success: portability, choice of content and convenience. Following in those footsteps, where the transistor left off, the Walkman took it to the next level, personalization. 

The Sony Walkman debuted in 1979. It really took the next form of personalizing the experience with audio cassettes. However, Sony really wasn't the first. A portable personal stereo audio cassette player, called Stereobelt, was first invented by the German-Brazilian Andreas Pavel in 1972. Pavel filed a patent for his Stereobelt in Italy in 1977, followed by patent applications in the U.S., Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan by the end of 1978. Later, a lawsuit filed and ultimately won by Pavel rumors an award of more than 10-million dollars. Nevertheless, all the glory belonged to Sony who continues to market personal music devices under the Walkman name.

The most important thing facet the Walkman brought with it was personalization. Personalization is different than choice of content. Choice of content is the ability to choose from a range of predetermined content. Personlization is choosing and experiencing your content. The Walkman allowed personalization and a 1:1 experience, created by you. It simply extended the path that was created by the transistor radio. Can anyone say mix tape? 

It wasn't just music. All types of industries were beginning to see the opportunity of the smaller screen. 

While people were experiencing the music of choice, other technologies were starting to emerge on the small screen. Portable gaming devices were beginning to explode in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The first version of Mattel's Classic Football came out in 1977. They weren't expecting many sales, less than 100k. By mid-1978, they were selling about 500k per week. The small screen was coming of age and the range of personalization and choice was being delivered by the gaming industry from home consoles, like the Atari 2600, to even watches of the time. Admittedly during this time, portable gaming personalization was fairly limited. Most portable devices were single game devices, ie a single game on a single device. Yet, they were still crazy popular. 

What may have taken the portable music world greater than 20-years to hit mass, the gaming industry would hit in about 10-years. In 1989, the first Gameboy was introduced in Japan. Soon after it was introduced in the US and soon it sold over 32-million units. This was a major advancement, like the Walkman, that allowed convenience, choice of content, portability and personalization. 

Music and gaming were clearly contributors to the small screen, but they were also doing something else. They were grooming an economic model that still exists today. You pour out dollars for the system, but the real dollar spent is spent on content after the initial investment. These devices were not cheap (they still aren't). I still remember buying the first version of Major League Baseball in 1988. As I recall, it was $74. Adjusted for inflation, that is over $130 today. Arguably, you could say that records laid the groundwork for content model here. However, I think gaming really raised the economic bar significantly and also groomed consumer behavior for more frequent upgrades, think Atari 2600 to NES. 

At this point, consumers are beginning to expect all the principles that are driving to the small screen, personalization, choice of content, portability and convenience. They are used to shelling out a good deal of cash and getting used to more frequent upgrades. However, up to this point, we're talking about about largely developed economies and cultures. You're not going to find portable gaming in the rural parts of China or Africa in the mid-1980's. Heck, you probably won't find a TV at that time and still may not even today. However, all of that changed with the mobile phone.

In my next post, I'll explore why the mobile phone is the "killer application" and why mobile phones appeal to people that live on less than $2 a day. 

follow me on twitter @marty_b

Birth of the small screen

Convenience is changing what screen/device where we consume most of our content. Convenience delivers on a higher human need than form, meaning that we'd rather watch content on a device that delivers on choice of content, timeliness and portability than pure form (think high definition programming versus YouTube). As I have recently started writing a lengthy piece on this subject, I've pondered the question when the rise of the uber-personal or convenience device era began. 

Nintendo DS, PSP, iPhones, iPod Touch, iPods, netbooks, Gameboys, Nokia N95, Apple Newton, Blackberry, Treo, portable DVD players, GPS... The list goes on and on. There is one trend that is consistent. The screens where we consume content are getting smaller and smaller. And there is no going back to bigger screens. Where did this all start? When did this transition begin? 

To my surprise, I've ended up back in the 1950's with the transistor radio. The transistor radio really began the modern day personalized experience. Oddly enough, the transistor radio was about the same price as an iPod when it first came out. The Regency TR-1, announced on October 18, 1954 by the Regency Division of I.D.E.A (Industrial Development Engineering Associates of Indianapolis, Indiana) and put on sale in November 1954 was the first practical transistor radio made in any significant numbers. It cost $49.95 (roughly $364 in 2006 USD) and sold about 150,000 units-Wikipedia. Like any device that begins to develop mass, the economics of falling price floor will soon follow. The convenience device era was born, followed soon by ubiquity/affordability.

You could say that the transistor isn't even a screen. However, I don't think that matters. You see I didn't even really describe the medium as much as the principles that made it great: choice of content, convenience, tlimeliness, and portability. These are the principles that made the transistor radio successful, along with many devices that followed. Convenience is something that transcends overall enjoyment. Provide me something when, where and a choice and the device on which it is delivered or form is completely secondary. 

This trend began to shift consumer behavior and expectations. Behavior in this case began to develop a new market, convenience. This continues today in many forms, from cell phones, personal gaming devices to television. It is at the intersection of consumer behavior and human desire in this case that elevates over for. We shifted behavior over time and these principles are living today. Soon enough, a high definition experience will be available on demand in the palm of our hands, the range of content is or choice is more infinite daily. The device may be the iPhone, it may be something else. One thing is for sure, the conversion to the smaller screen is a trend that is here to stay.

When did the shift begin to happen? It all started with the transistor radio. The dawn of the personalized device era.

This is part of a larger project that I'm working on around the small screen revolution. I'm looking at gaming, economics and global adoption as well. The centerpiece for modern day is the mobile phone which serves as the catalyst of this revolution and the killer application. I'd love to hear your thoughts, ideas and opinions on the subject. Please comment, find me on twitter or converse if you wish. You can only improve my thoughts.


follow me on twitter @marty_b

Radio giant Clear Channel making changes?

The other day I was doing my presentation on how video services are changing in the face of the web. You can find that presentation onli Slideshare. After my presentation, one of my co-workers came up to me and pointed out www.iheartradio.com, launched in June. I had not checked it out, but the past couple of days I've been poking around the technology. I find it somewhat interesting on a lot of levels, but I'd be surprised to see it take off to great success, but success maybe not what I would think (traditionally). 

Why I find it interesting? 

- I find radio to be a local medium/media channel. Radio for the most part is so largely homogenized on a national level that local personalities are the driving force. To this end, were I out of town, I would log on to listen to local news/information on the web. I think this serves as a great loyalty model for transient consumers location (think office or out of town listeners). 

- Clear Channel, radio giant, is finally at least taking steps to figure out the web. I commend then for at least finally making an attempt to monetize the library of stations and material they stream. I do find value in aggregation of the stations. 

- This might be largely a long tail model. They already are serving the content over the air. Why not simply add on-line to their packages? They already have advertisers, but a hard time showing numbers. This helps solve that business problem. Thus, I think that providing an additional channel is increasing consumer value and FINALLY being able to provide some sort of real metric is innovation in the world of radio. 

- Along with the long tail model of getting a users here/there, they can do affiliate models with iTunes purchases and search marketing. I don't think this is the main source of revenue, but incremental revenue here can help fund the effort. Again, it's not like they are creating a new technology. They are simply re-channeling what they are already doing.

- They have both iPhone and Blackberry device support. Personalization in terms of location shift is important to consumers. In fact, most of the blog posts that I found were about getting the technology working on their mobile phones. 

- They are using this as a platform to help facilitate HD radio knowledge. While I do know about HD radio, I can't fathom a reason to actually subscribe to HD radio--great education platform. If they can transition user behavior, that could be labeled a success. 

- I believe there is a direct link between the revised streaming model that Pandora helped facilitate (statutory) and their roll out of iheartradio.com. I believe they probably had this plan for a while, but was sitting on a it a bit until that legislation passed.

Points of uncertainty 

- If you drive people to web for radio, I think it will actually help other radio services, like Pandora or Grooveshark, more than anyone else. Although I think that IHR is great for local content, if I'm searching out music content, I'll expect more of a customized radio/content approach. 

- In my last fifteen active years using the web, I can only recall twice looking for a radio station on the web (WFNX) and trying to listen to the Reds on the radio. I can listen to WFNX now, but the last time I tried to listen to the Reds on the web, it simply did not work or required a subscription model. Listening to ballgames on AM radio is nostalgic and very Cincinnati to me. WFNX is still awesome. 

- HD radio, not sure about overall penetration yet. In my circle of techies and early adopters, I just don't that many people that actually use it. However, as I mentioned here, if they begin to transition the user behavior of users, perhaps people may consider HD service. 

In my personal life, I help out with some local organizations and I help purchase radio media. So I see the potential as an advertiser (we get great results from radio, but hard to measure) and applaud the foray into the space. Whether or not it changes user behavior or not, I don't know. Although I do love this as a loyalty strategy, I'm in a bit of wait and see mode. However, I think change is good at any level. It's still too early to tell. 

Are you listening to web radio? If so, what technologies are you using? Comment below. 

follow me on twitter @marty_b

Pandora Meetup in Cincinnati

A couple weeks ago I went to the Pandora meetup in Cincinnati. It was a very good experience. I took bunches of notes and shared them with some folks at work, so I'll do the same here. I'll add a couple things before the raw notes start. I've been in communication with the Pandora team since for work reasons. They've been very responsive and helpful. So my expectations have been raised overall. 

I think of their model of advertising more like behavioral targeting, not like a pure CPM buy. You should too, read on. 

Setup

Tim Westergren, one of the Pandora founders was in Cinti, OH. He had a meetup at an independent theatre and it was largely informal. Throw questions and he responds. He was down to earth, super-smart and had some great stories for us. He handed out some t-shirts too. Nothing makes a geek go ape-sh&* like a t-shirt. He wasn’t in a hurry and we went for about 2-hours. My cliff notes:

-   Tim was in town speaking at UC and P&G. He also hit the Cincinnati Social Media scene that morning. 
-   Biggest growth has been in iPhones in the last year. People are moving from primary listening device being on PC to iPhone. Really interesting, it’s net effect has changed listening hours. People are taking the iPhone and plugging it into the home stereo system.
-   Best story of the night, story of Will. Will was a triple major--CS, math and physics. He sort of just got it. The Pandora genome has about 400 characteristics in it, you like arpeggios, viola, minor notes, 7ths, and so forth. So they approached will one night with this problem for the Pandora genome. The next day he returns with the algorithm that they use today. Let’s all hate Will right about now. Smart guy. Sometimes hate and jealousy are separated by minutia. 
-  Every time that you click thumbs up/down, they reapply the algorithm and give you a new advertisement and song choice. Zero waste is the concept towards advertisement. 
-  They have about 23 million listeners and are signing about 45k per day.
-  They are trying out audio ads on the iPhone, but if you want to opt out, you can pay a service fee. iPhone app is very, well awesome. 
-  They get kick backs if you buy/link to Amazon or iTunes. They get a cut on the total transaction.
-  They have about 600k tracks.
-  iPhone traffic is not between 10-15% of traffic on any given day. Average length of listen is 1.33 hours.
-  70% of the tracks are from unsigned artists
-  They add about 10k tracks per month. People personally listen to them and choose the characteristics before they are added. Amazing. 
-  They do not have licensing agreements with any specific label. They operate under the Digital Millenium Copyright License. They caused a raucous on Capital Hill two years ago by having folks reach out to their congress folk. There were over 400k faxes sent to local congress reps. It took the fax machines in DC down for two days. Funny.
-  Interesting idea about unicasting versus broadcasting which is the future of radio/tv whatever. That was the most important addition to my personal lexicon.
- Lastly, all ads are targeted. Not one ad is broadcasted to anyone. 

If I got something grossly incorrect or my notes are wrong, please do add a comment and I'll revise accordingly. Certainly more of a utilitarian post, but really interesting. 

~marty

Post a message to our Wiffiti board

by Marty

I really like this technology, Wiffiti. I've been following this for a while now and it's catching on now. The website and ability to share this now is hitting mainstream. Just remember, I'm claiming that I was preaching this gospel about 1.25 years ago.

To leave a message, type @famine + message to 25622.

Widgets Get Wasted

by Jason

I refuse to be one of those ad-industry blogs that reviews and trashes the work of other agencies. So I'm not going to share a specific example, but wanted to highlight a consistent problem.

Widgets, you see, are not a singular tool. They're a channel--a beast--that must be fed.

Once you do the work to make consumers aware of your brand's widget, and convince them to download it, you have to give them a reason not to rip it off their homepage or desktop.

Otherwise, the consumer uses your widget for a few days or weeks, gets rid of it, and your investment is wasted. So the next widget-friendly content or promotion you have will require a whole NEW investment to get the same  consumers to download again...which they'll be less likely to do  after you've burned them the first time.

Think of every widget as opening a channel on your consumer's homepage or desktop. Now that the consumer has the channel available, what will you fill it with? What's your editorial calendar? What's your sweeps-week hit? What will give them a reason to keep it on their desktop or homepage day in, day out?

If you don't know, your widget is...well...wasted.

Looking for comments here, what brands are doing it well?