Digital Hive

Photos of the recession - NYT project & Flickr too

Ali Considine turned me onto this wonderful NYTimes project where consumers submit photos (with annotated comments) representing how the recession is impacting their communities. It's a bold, unvarnished look at how real people (not policymakers or spokesmonkeys) are noticing, perceiving and reacting to the recession. Great stuff!!

And, Alyson Stevens shared a link to an analogous initiative on Slate.

Repurposing: the new purchasing?

I found an interesting article on WSJ.com  that I wanted to share. It's about taking older fashion items and repurposing them in new ways to mirror current fashion trends.  The video from the piece helps give you an idea of what this is about.

The overall point about not buying new stuff initially got my attention, but I think a bigger point (unaddressed in the article) is what brands can do to respond to this. On one level we're talking about people not buying as much stuff as they used to, and why on earth would we want to encourage that. But I think there's opportunity in tapping into the notion of working a new purchase into what you already have, helping the consumer get the most from his/her overall collection of items, buying something will stand the test of time and go with lots of other things, etc.

This is a great time to revisit the idea of brands adding value for consumers. If what they want is the ability to make their dollars go further, let's help them with it. And not just by discounting the uber-trendy.

Instead of just pushing new for new's sake, I wonder if a new spin on purchasing would work better in these troubled economic times.

Consumers' changing attitudes about consumption: learnings from American Greetings

Check out this great article in the online WSJ about how American Greetings has been tracking consumer sentiment about spending and revising their expansive product line (3,000 cards!) to reflect what they're learning. A few interesting quotes from the article:

An early clue to the new direction: During brainstorming sessions held late last year for the 2008 holiday collection, nostalgia for simple holiday traditions like cookie-baking, walks through the snow and tree-trimming kept coming up among the writers, artists and trend experts in attendance. Then, amid the glitzy, festive tone that dominated last year's holiday-card designs, American Greetings noticed that traditional cards with heartfelt messages were selling surprisingly well.

By early this year, as the housing downturn accelerated and gas prices rose, the Cleveland-based company's research showed that consumers, spending more time at home, were focusing on personal relationships and reminiscing about happier times together.

The product implications are interesting:

A definite no-no this year is expecting too much from Santa. "The cards with a lot of shopping bags or gifts piled high, the excess we thought was so cute last year, doesn't work now," says Candace Corlett, president of New York consulting firm WSL Strategic Retail. "We don't want to be reminded of our aggressive consumerism."

So the greeting-card giants, never known for radicalism, are playing it especially safe. Nontraditional holiday shades, such as pink and light blue, are being used sparingly. "This year you could add accents of pink with red or green, but you need traditional icons, like trees or snowmen, to do it," says Ms. Sliede of American Greetings.

The text is deliberately long-winded. Before, cards had shorter, snappier messages. "Now people want longer copy," says Rochelle Lulow, creative director of American Greetings' editorial studio. "During difficult times, we see people wanting to connect on a deeper, emotional level that goes above and beyond." Another executive said: "We started seeing that at Mother's Day."

Embedded in the article is a great slideshow of some of their latest designs that reflect these insights.

Insights from search data - finally some progress

Thanks to Read Write Web for this great post about Google's new flu tracker. Google.org has the details.

As you've probably heard by now, the basic idea is to look at Google search data as a leading indicator of key developments in public health. Searches about flu indicate increasing flu activity. Pretty simple stuff.

"So why bother with estimates from aggregated search queries? It turns out that traditional flu surveillance systems take 1-2 weeks to collect and release surveillance data, but Google search queries can be automatically counted very quickly. By making our flu estimates available each day, Google Flu Trends may provide an early-warning system for outbreaks of influenza."

I have no intention of entrusting my information to Google health, but I think this is pretty cool stuff that doesn't quite yet cross the line into violating user privacy (but could pretty easily).

In the meantime, flu activity in Massachusetts is currently low. Whew.

Nice job ConAgra - The Working Lunch

Thanks to AdWeek for a head's up about some great new work from ConAgra. Healthy Choice online experience is here. Quoting from article:

ConAgra vp of marketing Mike Locascio said the campaign's concept came from a recent Omnibus survey of 2,181 U.S. adults, which showed that 60 percent of workers ate lunch at their desks. The respondents also expressed interest in eating healthier meals. A separate Nielsen study found that consumers 25-54 spend 90 percent of their total Web time during working lunch hours: 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.

"What we've really tried to do here is talk to [consumers] when they're most receptive to the message," Locascio said. "They're really craving for entertainment during the few minutes break they get every day."

The Working Lunch, via interactive agency Bridge Worldwide, Cincinnati, features actors from The Second City improv troupe, and picks up where TV spots for Fresh Mixers left off. Through Nov. 25, ConAgra will air live, streaming videos between noon and 4 p.m. on the Fresh Mixers microsite. The episodes take place in an office meeting-type setting, where viewers can vote on the agenda or content they'd like to see. Viewers can also access the sketch comedy series via the MSN home page.

Will be interesting to see how/if social comes into it - couldn't find a FB group for the campaign.

Convention speak tag cloud

In case (like me) you guys missed this NYT tag cloud of the words and concepts used in the political conventions, definitely check it out (I found it on FFFFOUND!). Particularly interesting at first glance: Democrats spend a lot of time talking about McCain, but Republicans don't talk about Obama.

If you want insights, you'll have to unclench

The always brilliant (and incredibly adorable) Alina Koyfman shared a fantastic New Yorker piece about where insights come from (download it below). In it writer Jonah Lehrer consults the leading scientists in the field and learns some startling, helpful things.

Most interesting to me: "the insight process is an act of cognitive deliberation - the brain must be focused on the task at hand - transformed by accidental, serendipitous connection. We must concentrate, but we must concentrate on letting the mind wander."

I particularly enjoyed the reference to my favorite contemporary physicist, Richard Feynman, "who preferred the relaxed atmosphere of a topless bar where he would sip 7UP, watch the entertainment, and, if inspiration struck, scribble equations on cocktail napkins." (NOTE: it's not clear whether Feynman himself was topless or just the entertainers)

Lehrer at one point observes that the "clenched state of mind may inihibit the sort of creative connections that lead to insight breakthroughs." Particularly in today's economically challenging times where clients are cutting budgets and expecting us to do more with less, I think it's critical to learn how to unclench your mind, and unclench the minds of your team-mates. It's only when we're all unclenched that we can wander optimally to the biggest idea.

Download lehrer_insight_new_yorker1.pdf

Spreading random happiness - what a refreshing idea

Thanks to Cool Hunting for the tip about a groovy new site experience called You Look Great Today.

It's an incredibly simple concept: use one of the "thumbs up" visuals available on the site (see photo) to turn a run of the mill photo opp of someone into an endorsement of their hair, eyes, or overall attitude and appearance. Post the photo to the site to get others' opinions, and vote on their submissions. Digg/Facebook what you like, etc. (there's a full range of the usual content distribution options).

The creator of this concept is The Happy Corp; I can't exactly tell what The Happy Corp is (where is easier, Broome Street in NYC), but here's what they say they do: "Improving gross national happiness through the invention, management, and maintenance of progressive brands and ideas." (note to self: what a great positioning for an agency)

Happy Corp says YLGT is "dedicated to finding and capturing greatness in the wild." But what I found most interesting about this concept is the random positiveness of it:

Observe greatness. We often forget to tell our friends how bright they shine, let alone total strangers. Bedroom eyes, perfect smiles, clean hair, and sweet outfits. Together we decide what looks good. Who looks great today?

The un-self conscious positive energy of this idea really makes me smile. It strikes the right balance between sweetness and simplicity. It's not too too cloying (is the pepto pink too much?), neither is it too involving for either subject or submitter. A simple way to bring some positive energy into your life and others'.

Customer experiences that give people a stimulus (an excuse?) to spread positive energy around are (in my humble opinion) all too rare and particularly relevant in today's times of Wall Street meltdown, subprime mortgage hangover, Iraq debacle, falling dollar, etc. HELLO PEOPLE, time for a little positive energy. Would be a great idea for a brand to co-opt. (Kodak?)

Will be interesting to see how much traffic the concept generates.

Go out there and spread some happy, people!

The Land of Luxury?

Okay fashionistas and luxury brand fanatics – pop quiz: What brand comes to mind when I say Hamptons Signature Satchel? Bleeker Duffel? Heritage Stripe Tote?

Did you guess Coach? You smarty pants – you are correct.

Where do you think that Hamptons bag was made? Think again.

I have recently begun an arduous program of using every gift card, gift certificate and store credit I’ve ever been issued.  Reason number one being many of them will be eaten by their issuers at a charge of $2.50 to $5.00 per month if not used. I fear some companies may go out of business altogether, so hey – I’m shopping.

This weekend I was only up for one mall store visit so I chose Coach as I had a $100 gift card to burn. (That one has been hanging around for a while because there is not much at Coach in the $100 price range.) Now I need another handbag like I need another arm, but one cannot let gift cards evaporate.

To spare myself the agony known as retail clerks, I hit the website and made my selection on line, carefully memorizing the name of the product.  “I would like the Hamptons Signature Tote Capacity Wristlet in black please” I practiced in the mirror.

Luck was on my side because as I entered the store I spied the exact item hanging on the front wall. I snatched it up and walked directly to the register. To wait in line. Ugh. The economy may be struggling, but not, apparently, in the luxury leather goods market.

A young woman with a palm pilot-like device approached asked if I’d found what I was looking for as she tapped some information into the device. I showed her my selection and proudly declared “I would like the Hamptons Signature Tote Capacity Wristlet in black please.” “Yes,” she sniffed, “I got that.”  I don’t think I received an ounce of credit for memorizing the name. I was informed that someone would be out with my bag shortly and directed to pay the young woman behind the register.

I paid up and then wandered the store for 5 minutes until someone in the back room wrapped the bag in tissue, applied a sticker and delivered it to me out front. I perused the featured bags ranging in price from $798 to $7000. Yikes, step away from the display table. Before I could do any damage fortune smiled and a young lady stepped from the back room and called my name. I grabbed my bag and ran.

When I got home I unwrapped my new bag and when I finished removing the Coach branded tissue from inside the bag I found an interesting surprise – a country of origin label. MADE IN CHINA. Are you kidding me?

For all of the counterfeit goods seizures in the news, Coach sent its patterns to China? I bought a $98 thingy and it wasn’t even made here? I dragged out a few bags from my luxury closet (okay, a basket in the regular closet) to see where they were made. Prada: made in Italy. Groom: made in Paris. Il Bisonte: made in Italy. Coach, what are you thinking?

Is a luxury brand still a luxury brand if the country of origin is better known for counterfeit luxury goods?

Operators are standing by and I’m dying to learn your opinions on this one.

You've been warned: the internet is evil!

I came across an interesting WSJ.com interview with author Lee Siegel I wanted to share.

The WSJ summarizes the premise of Siegel's new book (pictured here):

"In his new book Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob, Mr. Siegel [a cultural critic and senior editor at the New Republic] rails against the worst aspects of the Web, which he views as a vehicle for commerce that devalues serious thought in favor of 'page views.' The Web, he suggests, nourishes a youth-focused culture that prefers gossip and buzz to reporting."

Well that got my attention.

The Q&A which follwed in the article (Qs from the Journal's Jeffrey Trachtenberg) reveals more of the author's thinking, much of which seems pretty far out of touch with how we are seeing people use the web:

"WSJ: Is it possible that you've overstated the significance of the Internet mob in dumbing down daily life?

"Mr. Siegel: I don't think so. You can see the leveling of culture in every aspect of culture. You have a situation now where the audience is so exalted and catered to that at the end of a Broadway play you will have the actors applauding for the audience, and the audience will take a bow. That's the power of the Internet, where consumers are seen to have such powers that they must be heeded. What this masks is a crude commercial pitch. Getting people to participate is just a way of getting people to consume (emphasis added)."

This is the same line of reasoning which would tell voters to stay home on Super Tuesday because it's rude to demand they be heard.

I must ask, why is this phenomenon bad? Haven't marketers been in complete control of their interactions with consumers for quite long enough? We think it's about time that consumers had a say in the relationship, indeed started to drive it. We love the internet because it levels the playing field.

Also, I think more than ever before participation is culture - people have many more ways to touch and feel what's happening in the world, and share it. Yes that could result in a purchase of some kind, but quite often it results in a non-commercial action like sharing an opinion or discovering someone you can relate to and learn from. There is a way for participation to be a good thing, and the internet makes it possible.

Siegel continues: "Popular culture has given way to popularity culture. Popular culture draws people to what they like. Popularity culture and Web culture draws people to what everybody else likes. It used to be that Big Brother is watching. Now it's Big Brother is watching, oh, really, when, and how can he watch more? Big Brother, what's his cellphone number?"

I see the author's point here - but is the web a driver of this phenomenon (culpable for creating in) or merely instrumental in its spread (an enabler of what people want)? I would argue that the web is to be commended for enabling people to take their passions and interests (regardless of what they are) to a new level.

Many find the web's bounty overwhelming, and thus "shortcut" to the choices their friends make (in buying a new product or selecting a hotel for a trip, for example). The web creates a problem in offering too much choice. But this is a good problem, and preferable to having less choice.

We love the internet because instead of forcing people to think one way or another, it gives them many more choices and options, with the added advantage of perspective from their friends, peers, even experts. If it's done nothing else, the web has given the consumer much more control (and choice) than ever before (not less!), and therefore the ability to reach better decisions. What they choose to do with their newfound choice is up to them. If they choose to like the same thing, that's their right.

"My book is really about what it means to be online. The Internet is the first social environment created for the asocial individual. There is no signal of a real presence: not a voice not a face. Just words on a screen."

To this I can only say - bollocks. Ask any teenage what MySpace means in their lives (or Facebook) and you won't be able to shut them up - it's their entire universe, it's how they express themselves to their peers, it's how they experiment with aspects of their evolving identities. Or, check out the stories patients share with each other on illness discussion boards. The web is not just a real presence that morphs and evolves to reflect the user's life, it's a whole new dimension for expressing yourself and connecting to others.

If you have a WSJ.com subscription, check out the video accompanying the article. If you don't, download the article: Download author_qa_wsj.com.pdf