Strategy Standing on the RIM of greatness

RIM has been in the news a lot lately, and [...]

read
Design Your brand is your user experience

There’s a lot to be said for the growing field [...]

read
Digital Are you obsessed with Pinterest? read
Culture Big Orange Valentines

We’ve all got that special someone in our agency: Your [...]

read

Big Orange Slide

Thursday, February 23rd, 2012

Google+ us?

June 29, 2011 by Leilah Ambrose


The black bar above your Google browser? Yeah, that’s a thing.

Yesterday, Google launched Google+, a service considered to be its greatest challenge to Facebook – and indeed, one of its most ambitious projects to date. Yes, there are the requisite bells and whistles to get “social media experts” and webgeeks a’Twitterin. However its major strength may lie in whether it can reposition Google from being a massive conduit of information into something with personal, social value. In some ways, Google+ can be regarded as a rebranding experiment.

This is obviously not the first time Google has taken a stab at the social circuit. Projects ranging from Orkut to Wave to Buzz experienced varying degrees of popularity, with Buzz coming under particular fire for privacy issues. And while Google themselves are still careful to indicate rough patches in terms of user experience and bugs, they are drawing the line in the sand. Instead of emulating Facebook’s approach to batch socializing, Google is attempting to reposition the future of search through heavy personalization. In their words: by “bring[ing] the nuance and richness of real-life sharing to software. We want to make Google better by including you, your relationships, and your interests.” In doing so, its possible that they could tip the scales of being perceived as a utility to a natural social hub.

Google+ is made up of a few different methods of social communication. But just as some telcos allow you to create small groupings for free calling, it is fundamentally based on “Circles,” or groups of relationships made up of contacts you define yourself. Google recognizes that you presumably wouldn’t share the same information about yourself with your parents as, say, with your closest group of girlfriends or coworkers. The other features are tailored to a user’s location, convenience and personal interests. “Hangout,” for example, allows users to engage in a video chat-and-share with others who happen to be kicking around the web. “Sparks”encourages users to input their interests for the purposes of receiving relevant news and content, and “geeking out” with other users who share those interests. Mobile users can “Huddle” in group chats on their mobile devices.

A quick poll around the office pointed out a possible hurdle to the success of this project: namely, that Google is a hugely prolific innovation lab. Ironically, their greatest asset can also be considered their biggest tripping point. A rough scan of the lab’s project list yields an exhaustive list of things that calculate, formulate, organize and reorganize. Lots of stuff. Useful stuff. But still, lots of it. Google has hung its hat firmly on the peg o’ utility. And while they do it well and energetically, it remains to be seen if their social project can redefine the trajectory of the company or simply get lost in the shuffle.

The second threat is, well, Facebook. Where users go, advertisers go. And while Facebook’s ad revenue was counted in the billions last year, their privacy settings set off a chain reaction of user drop offs in North America. So the major gambit that Google+ has to overcome, apart from visibility, is the valuation of their users’ privacy. At the moment, the service is available in beta, and only by invitation at that. But their perceived threat can be judged by how heavily Facebook rebutts with the privacy card – a thinly disguised bid to curry public favour and therefore marketing dollars.

So will Google+ be a success? Hard to tell in such early and rarified days. But the point is, they’re going for the gusto. They want their users to feel personally implicated in their services. They want you to use them as a lens through which you broadcast what you care about to who you care about. The question is whether we believe them enough to do it.

How to save TV

June 28, 2011 by Jacoub Bondre

Illustration by Brian Ross

The format of consuming entertaining moving picture content is changing. In some ways, the name of this article could be “how to save broadcasters” or “how to save cable providers” or “what the TV industry can learn from the fall of the music industry.

Media companies that focus on TV sales have released articles about how TV is still the preferred method of media consumption. On the other end of the spectrum, digital agencies, and digital conferences prophesize the impending death of entire industries due to their attachment to the format TV provides. The reality lies between these two absolutes. If you were to ask the average person on the street if they watch TV, they would respond in the affirmative. But what if you were to ask them how they consume TV? You’d receive a much more varied response.

We all still consume television content, but we no longer consume it through the same venues, or in the same manner we did 5 years ago.

The TV Industry

Do you run home to watch your favorite show or do you rely on your PVR? Do you consume television through Netflix? Do you buy your TV one episode at a time through iTunes? Do you skip content provided by the larger networks and cable companies and stick to YouTube?

The way that major providers offer up TV is fundamentally inconvenient. The consumer can always find a better way, and no amount of bandwidth taxation will make them forget.

Canadian telecoms should take a lesson from their neighbors to the south. In 2009 Hulu, a Comcast property, surpassed Time Warner Cable for viewership. At that time, Time Warner Cable was the largest TV service provider in the United States. If you are a Time Warner subscriber you now have access to an iPad app that lets you watch shows from your Time Warner service anytime, any place.  These innovations are being received overwhelmingly well by consumers.

The Ad Industry

One of the outcomes from this shift in how we consume TV has been the rise of the long format commercial. Hulu provides its viewership with an option: watch this 2 minute long format spot from brand A at the beginning of your show, or watch 4 – 30 seconds spots interrupting your programming. As it turns out, 61% of consumers prefer long format.

If anything, this should prove how online TV consumption gives advertisers even more opportunity to stretch their creative legs. But there are other examples. Executions like Goodby’s YouTube-based “Wario Shake” and J.K. Rowling’s recent announcement demonstrate the elasticity of long format video content. Flash developers have been using cue-points in video for years to add more layers of content to video.

Whether we call it “TV” or not is inconsequential. The value of the term is shifting anyway. Once we decouple the idea of “TV” from the screen and service providers, a wealth of opportunities present themselves. I can’t wait to see how the next generation of ad creatives channel their enthusiasm for motion entertainment into new, intriguing content formats.

What was your favourite Cannes win? Or, do you even care?

June 27, 2011 by Big Orange Slide

Please leave your response in the comments section below

Big Orange Banter – Volume 3

June 24, 2011 by Big Orange Slide


As part of our video series from FITC 2011, we posed the following question to some of this year’s most provocative speakers: “How has technology changed your life in the past 5 years?”

Are advertising award shows dead? (Or am I, after writing this?)

June 23, 2011 by David Crichton

Illustration by Julia Morra

First, let’s start with what may be a revelation for some: Award shows are a business. They don’t exist to celebrate your creativity or because they believe in what you’re doing. If you can fill out an entry fee, and write a cheque then you are a creative genius. In some cases, they are just advertising themselves – to promote a medium, a parent company, or even to inject some tourism dollars somewhere. They are a business. You are their client. And you are making them rich. When Emap bought Cannes in 2004 for £52million, it reported profits of £7million on revenues of £12million. 58% profit. All made on entry fees and delegates.
So what else are they? Well, some would argue they build agencies, and their reputations – even their value for preparation of a sale. They certainly, right or wrongly, help build careers. And they probably help some lazy Creative Directors recognise what is creative and who to hire. Don’t get me wrong, I have benefitted from award shows ranging from Communication Arts to Cannes. And so has Grip – even though we have only entered a handful of shows and did not enter any for 7 of our 9 years. No, this sentiment isn’t borne from sour grapes. It’s simply a statement of fact.

Advertising award shows have lost their relevance. At least in their current form. Much of this can be attributed to the internet. Long before a show is staged, or an annual is printed, we have already been made aware of great advertising. Or have been subjected to it virally, or searched it out. And sometimes the books confirm it. But much later. Performance-based shows, while appearing to be about business results also have their flaws for similar reasons. But that’s a blog for another day. We’ll stick to the creative shows for now.

Back in February, 111 million Americans tuned in to watch Super Bowl XLV.
7.3 million watched in Canada. And 3.5 million turned on their telly in the UK.
At some points, during the telecast, US numbers were as high as 163 million.
It was the highest ever audience for a US tv show.
If you were an advertiser, these numbers would make your $3m per 30 seconds seem like a pretty good deal. Especially, if a large number of people were already eagerly waiting to see your spot go “live”…

Almost a week before the broadcast, Volkswagen bucked convention and released their Darth Vader (“The Force”) Super Bowl spot on You Tube.  Within a day, it had 1.5 million views. After just 2 days, it had garnered 5.6 million. When the spot finally aired, the numbers jumped exponentially again. And that’s not taking into account the free advertising the spot received by way of the press.

All this happened before the May 27th Communication Arts advertising deadline, and the Cannes deadline of April 8th.

Will this spot get into Communication Arts? Of course it will. And we know this, before the Annual hits stores 6 months from now. Gold at Cannes? Absolutely.
And if this spot doesn’t win in either show, we will shake our heads and mutter “bullshit”. Because we KNOW. And the masses have spoken, and THEY know.

And it’s not just advertising; how many of us have known a great movie before it won an oscar, tuned into a hit tv series long before it wins an Emmy? What about products? Does a car need an award before you’ve already been drawn by the design, and rationalised why you have to have it? Does the smart phone you chose come with a Gold Effimobipenlio?

Just as we know when something will win, we also know when something should not win.
We know ads get ‘revised’, and cleaned up for entry. We know when an ad is just spec work, and may have been for something entirely different but was never bought, or even asked for by the “client”. We know they are not real ads, with real problems to solve, where real parameters had to be adhered to. We know when it’s run just once in a tiny market or been posted on an obscure web site somewhere. But award shows have long had a reputation for politcs, illogical results, and in some cases, even dishonesty.

As well, when you have seen one or maybe two of the bigger show annuals, you’ve pretty much seen all the top global work there is to see that year (Most shows are just too regional, or small for their winning work to play on the world stage). And keep in mind, that’s just the work where time and money were spent to enter. There is a whole breadth of creative out there that either can’t be categorised by traditional award shows, or doesn’t even show up on their radar. Take Orabrush for example. Go to the site, watch the story. Then watch the ads. Some not good. Some weird. Some pretty out there. And some that would most likely win. None went to air, or was in traditional media. The whole experience is oddly addictive. And be sure to check out the masthead and take note of the views and fans. Our clients would kill for those numbers. And those people aren’t watching because they’re seeking a tongue brush. You’ll see what I mean.

So, does all this mean award shows are dead? Not if you believe the numbers. Entries are generally up. Cannes had a 19% increase in entries this year. Developing countries like India and China are going to help push those numbers much higher in coming years as they strive to be recognised.

The fact is, Award Shows are still serving a business purpose rather than being truly about what they should be – celebrating creative. That part has pretty much been distilled down to a book, or DVD. It amounts to the equivalent of the past summer’s dance hits on a compilation CD. And just like that compilation CD that is being left in iTune’s or Spotify’s dust, it may be a good reminder and “nice to have” but it’s already been replaced by something that is going viral as you read this.

In memory of a creative pioneer

June 22, 2011 by Randy Stein

Illustration by Joel Holtby

The Cannes Lions advertising festival is back. And while most people think of the festival as a celebration of world-class creative, schmoozing, and expense accounts, I always associate the festival with my friend James Lee. I would suggest the same of you – especially if you are Canadian.
In 1999, James was the first Canadian to win a Gold Lion in the Film category in twenty years. Twenty years! Think about that for a moment. His TV spot for Finesse shampoo (a packaged good no less) won Gold and ended Canada’s drought. And just to prove it was no fluke, James won another Gold in the film category a couple years later for Bud Light. That is to say, James took home the Gold in the single toughest category against such global beer heavyweights as Guinness and Stella Artois. He was a giant. A pioneer.
It’s no surprise that James went on to win countless more Lions in several different categories. And I’m not using the term “countless” lightly – I lost count.
If not for his untimely death in 2007 at the age of 37, I have no doubt he’d have many more Lions collecting dust in his closet.
So as Cannes continues to roll around from this year to the next, I’d suggest that we in the Canadian advertising industry give James – and his spectacular work – at least a moment of thought. I’m not suggesting that Canada couldn’t have won a Gold Lion following that first one for Finesse. But someone had to be the first. Someone had to raise the bar just a little higher for all of us.  And that person was James Lee.
So this year, as Canadians stand on the podium collecting their Gold Lions, look real close. You may notice that they’re standing on James’ shoulders.

Brand Everything or: How I stopped worrying and learned to love the Rickroll

June 20, 2011 by Steven Hudak

Illustration by Nancy Ng

Mobile continues to become an essential part of our lifestyle. Naturally, we as advertisers (and developers) are always looking for new ways to engage the end user on their mobile device. In my opinion, our best current option is via QR codes, which have become an instant, simple gateway from real life to the virtual world.

When polled, 19 of the 25 people (76%) in Grip’s interactive group reported that they had at least one QR code reader on their mobile phone. Projected on a employee base of 150 people, that would indicate roughly 114 people could participate. So some months ago, I decided to conduct a little experimental game in which the QR code acted as both the action and the call to action.

The big problem is that QR codes by themselves are like URL shorteners: in most cases you have no idea where the destination is, and have to put a lot of trust in the QR creator to take you to the right spot. My solution was to create QR codes that visually bound the action to the gateway content by overlaying the codes on top of the Grip Limited logo, and placed the first QR code at reception at 4:44 PM on Wednesday.

Overall, I considered the first round a moderate success, given that it generated the following statistics:

Experiment Statistics
- The first individual to scan and find all the QR codes did so at 5:54 PM on Wednesday. This user actively searched for 19 minutes.
- In the first 5 days the QR codes were scanned over 150 times involving 26 individual user sessions that scanned more than one QR code, identifying them as an active participant.
- All but 1 of the devices used to scan was an iPhone, the outlier was a Blackberry 9780.
- The earliest scan was at 7:54 AM and the latest scan was at 9:04 PM.
- The highest participation day was Thursday (69 scans), and the lowest was Saturday (10 scans).

All in all, the game had a rough participation rate of 23% of our population set in 5 days. Bear in mind that the only CTA and driver were the QR codes themselves. My only regret is that I didn’t have time to build in a redundant status tracker and maintenance system to turn this into a full-fledged contest with prizing.
The time came for my second round of testing, where I capitalized on the crowd gathering to celebrate the 7th floor expansion at Grip. In this case, I made the codes somewhat smaller to get a feel for range of usability, and removed the Grip logo from the background. To compensate I strategically placed them in the context of the old codes, and in places where people congregate.

Throughout the night I was checking for updates on the activity – which were unexpectedly low. I was so perplexed I spent the majority of the party verifying that my codes were still intact. It’s at this point that I came across an outlier. Someone had placed their own code in a prime location between the food zone and the seating area. I had personally assessed that location as being too obvious, but someone else had staked their claim. Scrambling to scan this alien addition to my QR experiment, I was directed to a short code from youtu.be.
And then it happened.
The loading screen gave way to the red, amply coiffed hair of Rick Astley. The opening strains of “Never Gonna Give You Up” snaked into my ears. I had been Rick Rolled by my own game.
The worst part was there was no way to tell how many people had been trapped by this rogue QR code, and how many people had been turned off my game. My experiment had been scuttled.
I was never able to confront the evil genius that Rickrolled me. But I was able to salvage a few decent lessons from the process.
1. Always brand your QR codes. Anyone can make them, make sure yours stand out.
2. Know your venue. Know where the high traffic areas are and how they change. Most smart phones don’t have flash, so ensure that your QR codes are in well lit areas.
3. Keep them at eye level. They have to be seen before they can be scanned.
4. Make them big. Earlier versions of smart phones do not have auto focus cameras. The larger they are, the more likely a blurry picture can be rendered into text by the phone.
5. Keep the information small. The fewer characters you need to display, the fewer squares you need to represent the data – which makes it more likely that the code can be scanned successfully.
6. Think beyond print. QR codes can be printed because they are static, but they don’t have to be. Be creative with how you display them.
Have anything you can add to the list? Suggestions? Comments? Thoughts on the identity of my new arch nemesis?

New mob rules

June 17, 2011 by Daniel Gerichter

Illustration by Julia Morra

“A mob’s always made up of people, no matter what. Mr. Cunningham was part of a mob last night, but he was still a man. Every mob in every little Southern town is always made up of people you know–doesn’t say much for them, does it?”Harper Lee

In the past year, two Canadian cities have taken a PR hit for succumbing to the ugly side of mob mentality. Last year’s disastrous G20 summit in Toronto put the destructive power of a mob and the thuggish desperation moves of Canadian police forces on display. This time, vicious, fast-paced, history-making playoff hockey came to an end Wednesday night. A fact quickly overshadowed by the afterparty.

Until then, Vancouver had cultivated the pleasant image of a laid-back, worldly metropolis, only to see it downgraded by thugs.

From an advertising standpoint, it could be argued that a few brands took a severe hit here. The Canucks, NHL and its players have understandably attempted to distance themselves from the violence by condemning those who have “embarrassed” the community. But what about the city’s brand? The City of Vancouver itself has taken the largest hit of all. Its long-enjoyed image of an oasis of clean living was ruptured for senseless reasons. The public’s verdict on Toronto’s G20 chaos was that there was more than just one side at fault. The notion that a city’s citizens are willing to tear their own home apart in the name of a hockey game is just ugly.

But thank G-d for brand ambassadors. In this case, defiant citizens bent on damage control. Almost immediately, thousands of outraged Vancouverites took to Facebook to begin cleaning up their city – physically and socially.

Just a couple of days ago, Trev Gourley detailed the dangers social media might pose to privacy. The other side of the equation comes when anonymity comes at the cost of an entire community. The largely disgusted public have also launched entire Facebook groups to pluck rioters from the realm of anonymity. The senseless violence on display has been documented from several angles, and is currently making its way into police hands. RCMP spokesman Sgt. Peter DeVries has himself indicated that community action is making their job that much easier in the wake of all of this.

Attacking the anonymity of the culprits is strategically sound. By identifying individual perpetrators, the citizens are helping to takes the onus of blame off an entire city, and refocuses it on a specific group of deranged characters. The few are pilloried. The whole is saved.

Just as shockwaves from the riots travelled across the planet, the effort to restore Vancouver’s brand needs to begin at home, and once again resonate globally.

I’d love to conclude with a statement about social media making us all a bit more civilized, but I’m not sure that’s true. What I can say is, contrary to the absurd arrogance and actions of the rioters, the Vancouver brand is somehow stronger for having its own population rise to the challenge of defending it.

Which new category would you add to the Cannes Lions Festival?

June 16, 2011 by Big Orange Slide

Please leave your response in the comments section below

All’s well that’s Orwell

June 15, 2011 by Trevor Gourley

Illustration by Brian Ross

“I am well acquainted with all the arguments against freedom of thought and speech. Also, Aldous Huxley is a dickhead” – George Orwell*
*citation needed

The Internet has long been regarded as the last bastion of true anonymity, but maybe not for long. There has been a recent legislative trend that suggests even the online masses might not remain faceless for long.

A British court has recently forced Twitter to hand over the registration information of a number of accounts, on the basis that they were committing libel against the local government of Tyneside. Twitter’s records lead back to the e-mail address and phone number of Ahmed Khan, a south Tyneside counselor who allegedly shared information about other government figures and engaged in character defamation. In addition to using his own Twitter handle, Khan allegedly used a number of anonymous accounts. The landmark case involves the private and public sectors, two countries and a myriad of legal and ethical quandaries.

In a similar invasion of Internet privacy (if such a thing exists), the Tennessee state legislature (the same one that has made it a jailable offense to share your Netflix password with a non subscriber) has passed a law banning the sharing of distressing images. According to the new law, anyone who should “reasonably know” they are sharing an image that could cause “emotional distress” could be sentenced to months in prison along with thousands of dollars in fines. And how to do they intend to enforce this? By being able to access your Facebook inbox without a warrant, of course.

Now don’t get me wrong: I’m no pinko. I try and beat up at least one hippy a week, (if I can do it while destroying a rainforest that’s just gravy,) but this seems to be going a little far. It would appear that we’re at the precipice of online privacy and the boiling frog effect seems to be at play. While we stream Keeping Up With The Kardashians and add to the ever expanding lolcatz body of work, are the truly revolutionary and impactful aspects of the Internet in jeopardy?