storytelling

May 14th, 2013

Ok.

This TV commercial will not be for everyone. But it is exactly for the audience it was designed to talk to. Teens and young people will be bored. It is slow and unfolds and … well … it tells a story.

Older people <old as well as aspiring old> … will enjoy. Get a chuckle.

Oh.

And the good news? It is for a household cleaning product.

Oh.

More good news? It is from a staple household brand with gobs of heritage <been around for gobs of years> so it is relevant to whom they are <and subliminally kind of reminds you that they have been around for gobs of years thru a really nice hyperbole-stretched reference>.

Clorox Makes Cleaning History: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdXxcoo8L-w

The commercial is about this new ‘no waste’ cleaner pump spray they have. Not only is it a nice product/packaging idea but it is a nice storytelling way to talk about it.

Relevant to today <no waste, efficiency, good value, best expenditure you could make, etc.> but they also suggest that the idea has always been relevant.

Why is that important? Well. First. People who are saving money don’t really want to feel like today’s circumstances are forcing them to save money. They would like to feel they are just being smart … and being smart is timeless. Second. People don’t want to feel cheap. Cheap as in “that last little drop really does matter to me.”

Now.

That is a wonderful little insight … and that wonderful little insight <which apparently I did not come up with> was utilized in this little TV commercial.

And I bet research was used … and I finally get to talk about how research can be used well <because I am guessing this is a good example>. Here is my guess on what happened.

- Trivial out loud, aggravating inside

They <researchers> probably had to work pretty hard to get people to not only talk about this … but admit it. it sounds so trivial <the last spray … or … the last little drop>, petty and cheap. People probably didn’t really want to admit it.

You’re cleaning, spraying … it spritzes a little … and then the next squeeze of the trigger … nothin’. Nada <insert thought bubble of ‘crap’ over users head here>. You shake the container and … hey … there is still something in there <albeit just a smidge>! So you point, squeeze and … nothin’. Nada. You know it is, at best, one more use … maybe even a halfhearted spritz remaining … but it is aggravating <on a variety of levels … you didn’t get to finish cleaning to the level desired - a lack of completing objective – as well as ‘I paid for it’>.

Whew. Even typing this it sounds trivial. Saying it out loud? You sound cheap and petty.

C’mon. It’s just the dregs at the bottom of the bottle. Yup. BUT. Aggravating nonetheless.

Good use of research.

Next.

- It’s not the 1000, it’s the 1 I didn’t get.

This may seem obvious after what I just wrote in the first point … but it is a nuance that has to get recognized <and you would be flabbergasted – I just wanted to use that word – by how many professionals would miss this important nuance>. So it is only obvious if you don’t ignore it.

This is a well forgotten Life and marketing truth.

It ain’t the first impression that matters … it is the last.

The practical <hack> brand manager is likely to think … “great value … they got 1000 efficient uses for only $x … that is only pennies per pull!”

The insightful brand manager thinks … “they aren’t happy with the product … well … they are feeling less than satisfied as they throw it in the trash <and listen to a little sloshing as it drops into the trash can> … their last impression is tinged with a sense of aggravation or dissatisfaction. Hmmmmmmmmm …. They are defining the product by the one spray they didn’t get rather than the 1000 they did get.”

Does that make an irrational consumer? You bet.

Does it matter anyway? You bet.

Perceptions don’t always match up to reality. You have a choice … manage the perceptions or change reality. Clorox was smart. They changed reality. They eliminated the ‘one I didn’t get.’ Smart.

Good use of research <and someone who could actually decipher it>.

<note: detergent manufacturers should take note of this insight because all the new ‘free flow’ liquid containers leave an aggravatingly large amount of detergent left sloshing around that you cannot get out>

Regardless.

I like this commercial for a number of reason.

Good insight(s). it’s smart.

Meaningful product enhancement <addresses a user problem>.

Heritage. Clorox has been around forever. In a nice understated way they remind you they have been around since … well … a long frickin’ time.

They make the user feel smart.

They even have a slight chuckle at their own expense <we did think of this a long time ago but lost it>.

And it’s a simple execution … but entertaining. It doesn’t have any of those flashy production techniques nor any of those quick cuts back and forth between random vignettes … but rather it is … well … a story.

Stories are timeless when told well.

Marketing people should remind themselves of this on occasion.

Well done Clorox.

cell phones and 8 year olds

May 14th, 2012

“Adults — digital natives or not — can’t imagine what a childhood mediated by mobile, social technology that didn’t exist 10 years ago is actually like.” – Senior editor The Atlantic magazine

I admit.

Technology has created a significant new challenge to parenting. I struggle to think of anything since the printing press that would affect parenting as much as technology <smartphones, cell phones, i-pads, etc.> is doing.

Television was different (it’s not portable).

Cars was different (cannot drive until 16).

Anyway.

3^rd grade children are, on average, eight years old.

20% of 3^rd grade boys and 18% of 3^rd grade girls already have a cell phone <2011 Massachusetts study of elementary, middle, and high school students>.

By the time children reach 5^th grade, 39% of the kids have cell phones.

More than 83% of the students have a cellular device by middle school.

I have mixed feelings.

And frankly its not because of kids having access to this technology at too young an age … its more because of the quote I began with … we <older folk> cannot imagine a childhood mediated by technology.

And because we cannot imagine it … we have a propensity to limit it.

We all focus on ‘my kid is attached to their cell phone’ or ‘all they do is text’ or <fill in the blank>.

Is that wrong?

Geez. Parts of it doesn’t sound wrong and yet parts of it does sound wrong … because they are already living in a world I struggle to even imagine.

And <to increase the challenge> I cannot even come close to imagining what their adult world will look like.

Part of me thinks it is silly to restrict their usage of something that is already integral to today’s world.

Another part of me understands that we adults <including teachers and the overall education system> are not set up to manage their usage (unless we use guidelines from our own youth … which seems unbelievably silly).

Regardless.

I have another post where I will note the increasing % of children below the age of 5 using computers <there are even kindergartens that have this now> to learn.

I have had multiple debates with other TED participants with regard to the ultimate effect on cognitive learning <I am on technology’s side and I am in a minority>.

It is a whole new world.

And while we older folk may try and keep up with the technology we run the risk of not keeping up with our children’s’ world.

No. I don’t have an answer.

Yes. I do believe we adults need to come up with an entirely new set of ‘rules’ that will make us feel incredibly uncomfortable in dealing with our children.

Here is what I do know.

It will not be long before that 83% having cellular devices will be at the 3^rd grade level.

It will not be long before over 80% of ALL children (any age … including less than 5) will have access to the internet.

We either need to accept it and do something to take advantage of it or we run the risk of creating the largest generational gap <and ensuing friction> since maybe age of the printing press.

Oh.

One day after I published the first version of this post I received the new Economist and had to add the following letter to the editor to my post:

SIR – Your special report <the third industrial revolution> is a warning bell for America’s outdated education system. Digital technology surrounds every facet of our lives. But when children walk into school they are usually told to give up the tools that power this new digital revolution and travel back in time to the days of Henry Ford’s factories. Indeed, classrooms in 2012 would seem normal to students in 1912: a teacher at the front, a board behind her to write on, two dozen children lined in rows who come and go as the proverbial steam whistle lets them know their shift is over.

We left that world a long time ago, and the customised and innovative tools of digital learning are long overdue in our education system. The disruptive nature of the digital revolution may bring more prosperity than either of its predecessors, but if the West cannot change its 19th-century model of education we will cede this wealth to others.

ADAM PESHEK

American Legislative Exchange Council

Washington, DC

True, so true. We need to leave a world behind and need to make the changes that will make us feel uncomfortable … but needed.

augmented reality

May 14th, 2012

Augmented reality is … well … a reality.

Augmented Reality: engineers are pulling graphics out of your television screen or computer display and integrating them into real-world environments. This new technology, called augmented reality, blurs the line between what’s real and what’s computer-generated by enhancing what we see, hear, feel and smell.

On the spectrum between virtual reality, which creates immersive, computer-generated environments, and the real world, augmented reality is closer to the real world. Augmented reality adds graphics, sounds, haptic feedback and smell to the natural world as it exists.

Ok.

And I will be the first to admit, as a quasi-marketing person, marketing is already making a hash of it <abusing it, misusing it, etc. it>.

Regardless. I see lots of possibilities with augmented reality mostly in that it provides an opportunity to add dimension to whatever story someone is telling.

The story could be a children’s story.

It could be a ‘product’ story. It could be a presentation story. It can enhance ANY story.

With that in mind the following link takes you to an incredibly appropriate use of augmented reality to enhance a story. Please don’t be fooled that it is so good just because it has to do with magic … the idea can add magic to any presentation and/or story.

Imagine any presenter, doesn’t have to be a CEO, presenting with this type of presentation.

Imagine a marketing message being given this way.

Imagine a class being taught this way.

Here you go (this is awesome):

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/marco_tempest_a_magical_tale_with_augmented_reality.html

Hope you enjoyed.

And hope you recognize that augmented reality technology is here … now.

Enlightened Conflict

Tag Archives: augmented storytelling

storytelling

Enlightened Conflict