innovation playground Idris Mootee

Millennials Are Disrupting Media Again. Media Companies Now Need To Play Catch-up.

Digital disruption to the media began early in the days of the Internet throwing every media company into a crisis mode. Now this is happening again - this time, even homepage viewership is on the decline. I am not saying this is the death of the webpage, having a webpage or content site is simply not enough.  Content is now distributed and stories are best shared and read through new platforms such as Facebook’s Instant Articles, Apple News, Buzzfeed, the Starbucks mobile app or through Reddit, a bulletin board platform that doesn’t sound like something new since the early days of the Internet. It is an entertainment, social network, and news website where registered community members can submit content, such as text posts or direct links, making it essentially a crowd sourced news channel.

Today all Millennials are gravitating to social networks and news media sites and assume everything is free. This generation, (confident, always connected, ramen-eating, ultra short attention span, impecunious, underemployed, some over-educated, gaming obsessed, and so forth) millennials are not only the largest generation in US and world history, they’re on the cusp of commanding the largest influence and voice of our consumer culture. They expect technology to work and simply-work and if it doesn’t, you will have a big problem. They are tech-loving consumers but have unrealistic expectations that technology needs to be seamless (thanks to Apple) with a new standard of intuitiveness. They align themselves with the latest technology and will try anything new and cool and quick to critic and quick to find workaround. Computers don't crash and smart phones should be able to handle everything.

Millennials don’t watch TV (and others are following) and they sleep with their cell phones next to them perhaps 9 out of 10. Probably 10 out of 10 have no landlines and no interest in watching TV. Smartphone is the most important tool in their lives and when people are saying the smartphone is becoming a commodity. It is not. How can it be when it is the most important tool or digital companion? Smartphones are not doing well because the expectation is rising and Smartphones have replaced the cigarette (good thing) as things to do in those odd moments, lonely moments or simply filling up every minute of downtime. It is replacing newspaper, cigarette, chewing gum, calculator, wallet and many other tools…. hookups, meet-ups or start-ups. 

There is no online or offline, social is social and other opinions matter. They get along well with their parents and even have friendship with parents, which didn’t happen in the older generation.  They actually influence what products their parents buy, what apps their parents use and where to travel. They have a  “we can fix it together” mindset and “we can change it all” attitude. That’s why they love working for start-ups and game changing companies with a purpose.

More millennials than non-millennials integrate their beliefs and causes into their choice of companies to support, their purchases, and their day-to-day interactions. They put the money where the mouth is. Millennials also care about what’s genuine and authentic. They are looking for somewhere between a retro aesthetic and a search for honesty and authenticity.  Something advertisers are still struggling with. For many millennials, they prefer to climb the Himalayas then corporate ladder. They are raised to believe they can do whatever they want and they are hitting the realities as they enter the society.  Millennials are hard to catch. Media companies are not getting it. You need to work harder.

 

 

There Is A Difference Between Business Turnaround and Business Transformation. It Is Easy To Tell Which Is Harder.

All companies go through some kind of crisis at some point but what does it take to get out of it? There aren’t many successful turnarounds in large companies and the bigger the company and the longer the history, the more difficult it is for any turnaround and its success rate is lower. 

Harley Davidson in mid-life crisis when Richard Teerlink joined the company in 1981 as CFO, the company had US market share of 15% and reported a loss of $15m. The company was killed by its strong Japanese competitor led by Honda. In 1989, he took over as CEO and returned the company's focus to increasing quality, improving service and producing world-class heavyweight motorcycles. In the end it is the product that turned the company around. Harley Davidson recovered its U.S. market share to 50% and posted annual sales of more than $1.7 billion. Teerlink left his post as CEO in 1997, and served on Harley Davidson’s board of directors for another 5 years. He did a great job as a turnaround manager.

The story of IBM’s brush with bankruptcy is another greatest business comeback of all time. IBM’s problem was that it was quickly becoming irrelevant and experiencing zero growth. The company had also made some bets that didn’t work out. Lou Gerstner took control in 1993 and created more focus in the company. He did a great job as a transformation manager.

One lessons here is not mix up a turnaround with a transformation. It’s very important to distinguish between a transformation and a turnaround.  A turnaround involves a company that has fallen off the rails and has executed poorly and still competing in the same product/market space. It takes a tough driven executive to make it work.

A transformation is truly a lot more difficult and takes a lot more deep wisdom with execution playing a secondary role. The company must fundamentally change its mental and operating model. It is a reinvention and companies who are used to doing things their way find it difficult to start doing things differently. This is not a 3 or 6-month initiative. It’s very, very strategic, foresight driven and problematic.

For any successful transformation, it takes leadership rather than management. “I hire people brighter than me and I get out of their way” as Lee Iacocca puts it. I am not sure who said something like “Inventories and supply chain parts can be managed but people must be led.”

I’ve both architected and supported quite a few successful turnaround behind the scenes as strategic consultant in my career, my simple advice for transformation leaders is people don’t just care what you know unless they know that you care.  You need to earn that by caring and then knowing.  It takes inspirational motivation to motivate managers to commit to the vision of the organization no matter how hard it is to achieve the vision. It also takes intellectual stimulation to foster innovation and creativity to challene the groupthink or yesthink. It is as much an intellectual undertaking as much as an executional exercise.

The world is not ending. Winning for tomorrow requires a vision. Brilliant strategies don’t show up spontaneously particularly for complex and fast moving industries. It comes from strategic dialogues, strategic foresights, options, even failures and mistakes. The ability to see the problem as a whole and then integrate a variety of perspectives and not simple quick fix. There is no simple quick fix.

Eight Most Common Marketing Mistakes That You Should Avoid Making.

Every one is an expert in marketing these days. And with social media, everyone is an ad critic. Not entirely a bad thing, but as marketers you need know how to filter the noise. People need to understand the difference between STRATEGIC MARKETING, MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS and CHANNEL MARKETING. These are three very different things. The first one is strategic and is tightly linked to business strategy and decisions are made based on what and how to invest, the second one is about advertising (there is no social only advertising or no advertising only social..either way that's where we're going) and the third is about activations and promotions in the field.

I am writing this blog post while shopping at a Prada store. It is a good place to write about marketing because luxury goods companies such as Prada understand building brand equity, communicating brand desire and staging customer experience. I bought my new Prada briefcase and shoes for three reasons in the following order: 1/ Brand 2/ Product 3/ Experience. I see many great design but their brand is never part of my consideration. Product is great and I need to like it. The experience makes me feel like buying more stuff.

There are many myths in marketing despite it is a relative mature practice and companies are still making the same common mistakes. Every senior marketers and CMOs can benefit from reading this:

Marketing Mistake #1: Marketing is all about driving sales. 

Many people still confuse marketing with sales. Selling is only a part of the marketing function, but marketing is much broader than selling. It is not one is more important than the other. Marketing begins before a company design or conceptualize an idea or design or engineer any products or services. Marketing continues throughout the whole product’s lifecycle. Its mandate is the continued discovery of new ways to create, communicate and capture value. Marketing is not and should not be considered a cost; in fact it is an investment. Imagine if a business stops investing? If marketing cost is linked as a ratio-to-sales, them company will eventually enter a stage of stagnation and eventually decline (I am not saying there shouldn't be discipline in marketing resource management). But like any investments, it must provide a clear idea of how and when it will deliver a return on that investment. So marketing is a number of strategic investments and not just a cost item. The truth is any marketing dollars that are linked directly to sales improvement most likely are sales promotions that leads to discount and sometime brand erosion. The best marketing build brand equity and create demand. Field promotions, discount programs, sales incentives etc. are not marketing, these are sales operation expenses.

Marketing Mistake #2: Marketing is a department.

This is another common mistake that marketers make and that is to view it as a department within the organizational structure. And therefore marketing is the sole job of the marketing department. It is true that marketing is a function that’s organized within a marketing department. But if marketing thinking only happens within this department, I believe the company would not do well. Marketing is far too limited if it is left only to the marketing professionals. Progressive companies need to get all their departments to be customer oriented and focused. Marketing must be an integrated part of the entire organization, rather than a specific function. Successful marketing is the true integration of marketing, engineering, design, customer service, community management and operations beyond simply putting a multi-disciplinary team together. The team must be supported and managed effectively in an environment where each discipline respects and appreciates the perspective of others. Look at some of the most successful companies today and see who in the organization sets the marketing direction for those companies. More and more, it’s the CEO who’s also becoming the CMO while not officially although they do not usually carry that title.

Marketing Mistake #3: Marketing is all about the big idea and the marketing mix.

Marketing is often being marginalized to just coming up with the big idea and then managing the marketing mix and communications. Gone are the days of the Big Idea (Leo Burnett’s in the 80s). Many executives today still believe that marketing is about getting the “big idea” from their agencies and spending money effectively on the advertising and promotional mix. In another words optimizing your advertising dollars, will lead to a successful marketing campaign. It doesn’t matter what products they are marketing, many executives believe that the key to a successful campaign is to work with their advertising agencies to come up with big ideas to differentiate their product in the marketplace and win a few advertising awards along the way. The traditional marketing model is obsolete and many clients and agencies are still operating this way. Marketing is not about mix, it is about telling your story in the most authentic ways and the best way to do that is from their leaderships. The big idea is not about the advertising, the company itself should be the big idea! They missed it completely. And the marketing mix is not about the media, it is about orchestrating both mass and individual social conversation at scale.

Marketing Mistake #4: Try as hard as you can to sell.

For brands to sell they have to stop selling. Unless you’re on DTV or doing a tactical DM campaign. For brands to win the hearts and minds they so crave and to engineer brand desire, they must first earn those hearts and minds and tell people who you are and why you’re here. What is your purpose? Where does your company’s passion lie? What are your greatest capabilities, and what do you have to offer? What need do you see in the world that you are operating in? And you must earn your relevance through a view of the world and a perceived role within it that is a clear break from the bygone advertising practices of the 80s. Sell hard by selling less. Any advertising that tries too hard to sell will not work.

Marketing Mistake #5: Listening to your customers.

Today’s technological advancements have given companies the ability to target and talk to customers in a more precise manner. Yet, the new technologies allow us to listen to whatever is going on out there. Failing to use these tools effectively will result in companies totally disconnected with their customers. Social listening is not an option; it is the core of marketing intelligence. Don’t waste money on useless focus groups.

Mistake #6: Not listening to your customer.

This is the key difference between “Market Drive” and “Market Driving. Customer input is valuable in helping companies develop incremental innovation. However, customers are usually unable to conceptualize the benefits of revolutionary products, concepts and technologies. No market research will tell you what’s the next big idea. And no customers or your trade partners can tell you how you should do your marketing. Your customers can tell you the things that are broken and they want you to fix it. Listen to them. Make sure they know you are listening and make them happy. But they won’t create the future roadmap for your product or service. That’s your job. No you listen to your customers but you should never ask them what they want. They will tell you they want a car that self-drive and can fly.

Mistake #7: Making everything a CMO problem.

The average tenure of a CMO is 12-16 months these days and is getting shorter. No one wants the CMO job. The shortness of the typical CMO’s tenure is a tangible manifestation of corporate management's frustration with the inability of marketing to create economic value let alone the inability to drive change and transformation. Good marketing not only transforms customers but it should first transform the organization itself. Many CMOs are traditional marketers who are usually great advertising tacticians. Trained for years in traditional advertising, their primarily focus was in marketing communications activities to build brands. Many lack the strategic thinking and CMO must also relentlessly focus on unifying the disparate functions of marketing, operations, sales, service, and technology. For most companies, such integration suggests an unholy alliance of warring fiefdoms and silos, and that's precisely why the C-suite needs an individual with the power and authority to deliver the results. Marketing is about the customer experience.

Marketing Mistake #8: Marketing is a pure science.

Marketing can become over obsessed with logic and lost sight of the magic. Marketing has always aspired to be an “accurate science” status and has been searching for the best formula. Sometimes people are using fake science although data is becoming more and more important for marketing these days thanks for big data. Even with those data, we should not lose sight of the most important of marketing: magic, mystery and mastery.

 

It's a Bird! It's a Drone! It's Amazon's 3-D Smartphone? It Displays 3D Images, 3D Maps And 3D Gaming!

Amazon has been working on a number of cool devices for a while. The temptation of playing the hardware game has always been there beyond just the e-reader. This month they will finally be unveiling a new device and there are plenty of rumors out there on what it actually is.

It is most likely going to be a Smartphone. Mostly made by Foxcom. Most like not producing any profits for Amazon. Most likely supported by a suite of Amazon Cloud based services. Most likely to be below the standard set by Apple, Samsung or HTC. But it will be a Smartphone that has some distinctive features, including 3D capabilities projecting 3D objects as part of its interactions. It will be using gyroscopes, accelerometers and other sensors to power the experience. Most likely mid-range specs such as Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 processor and 4.8 inch display (keeping cost down) and many advanced camera functions; likely using 3-4 cameras and a Sony sensor. It will be a futuristic experience with 3D gestures controls. Gimmicky or not, we will have to see.

Smartphone adoption has reached its maturity but everyone is pushing new ways for consumers to use mobile devices. Average prices will drop a further 15-20% and the top end will come under pressure. Android market share will stabilize around 70%-73%. Amazon certainly thinks it is not too late to play the game. Every player will not give up on it and will try innovative ways to jump-start a new S-curve for the Smartphone. Even Apple is struggling. What new applications and new interaction paradigms can they think of that are considered unthinkable today? We are working hard 24x7 on these ideas.

Back in 2010 there were around 180 Petrabytes a month of data moving through the networks from a single user and it was mostly voice, and today with streaming video, social media use and mobile gaming - now averages 1,900 Petrabytes a month and is expected to grow at least 40%-50% every year thanks to additional wearable devices. It means by 2020, in a week’s time, five Exabytes of information will be sent by the average Smartphone user. Traffic problem ahead.

On June 18th we will find out. And suddenly everything makes sense.

Will 2014 Be A More Exciting Year For Consumer Electronics? Consider 2013 Was A Disappointing One. More Next Week.

2013 was a disappointing year for consumer technologies. The 3D television push was as I've expected a disaster and who on earth would walk around at home with 3D glasses and the lack of 3D programming etc. created all barriers necessariy for mass adoption. And for smartphones as there were lack of any real innovation from the industries.

Perhaps the dominant design pioneered by Apple is really reaching the end of its S-curve, even the iPhone 5S has only incremental changes (ok a better processor) in design and software. I am ready to bet that the fingerprint sensor will be dropped within 3 years. What is so great about a fingerprint sensor? It is so old school whether it is finger print or facial recognition. The iOS still remains the most polished, stable, and well-designed operating system for smartphone. May be people aren’t even expecting more from smartphones at all. The camera needs some improvement for sure. And the screen size is an interesting discussion.

China is watching and Lenovo is gearing up for the next game or the world game. Lenovo, currently the second largest smartphone vendor in China and aspire to become market leader. Apple is at threat and at this point they may not be afraid of any. They are at its peak. And they are busy with the new headquarters, refreshing the retail experience, designing the iWatch and finding the next color for iPhone whether it is blue silver or rose gold.

Android now accounts for more than 80 percent of smartphone sales, while iOS is down in the mid-teens. Apple need to change the game or someone will. Smartwatches is still a toy category. But that could change when Apple fixes many of the challenges. They will and can. And it will cost $300-$350 and people will buy. It is easy one from a strategy perspectives but also a lazy one. Have they run out of industries to reinvent? At the Consumer Electronics Show this week, I think Samsung will have the biggest, most new products and most populated booth. Apple’s main threat is Samsung, Microsoft, Google and Lenovo are all attacking Apple from behind. The whole wearables will be driving the new game and 2014 will be a more excited here. I do believe that we will see wearables showing signs of becoming mainstream this year, and we've been monitoring and prototyping all kind of ideas for 20 months. 2014 I expect te see different dominant designs emerging, there will be no winners anouncement this year, not until 2016 earliest. But I already know who definitely won't work.

What Do You Want A Smart Watch To Do For You? Or Do You Really Need One?

So you’ve bought yourself a Pebble and you're showing off to your friends. May be you’re even one of those thousands of people who crowd funded them for over $10m in pre-orders last year. In that case you will be among the first to receive $150 slim devices that you can read e-mail, text and Facebook messages that sent from your Smartphone.  I really can’t think of a good reason to get one.

I’ve seen dozens of different smart watches and most of them are cool at a glance, but very limited in function and I can’t see them becoming mainstream. There are others playing the game including Apple’s iWatch, ConnecteDevice (Cookoo watch), I’m Watch, and Sony’s SmartWatch and many others. I’m pretty sure, though, that people saying smart watches will replace smart phones at some point are way too optimistic, it is hard to predict the technology dynamics and how our behavior will evolve, but I am quite confident that it won't be a watch. Sorry Apple.

Apple probably have over 150 engineers and designers working on the development and hopefully to bring something to the market in 12-16 months. It will be the first post-Jobs product/platform and everyone is watching. People will buy because it is an Apple, but can it sustain itself and becoming a success is indeed a big question? I don’t like the watch idea for a number of reasons. First it is purely a novelty and too gimmicky. It is a totally new behavior to read text messages or email from your watch and no reason I need to alter my current behavior. Ok it has a touch screen, big deal. My smartphone is just fine. The smartwatch is at best a niche category.

Any innovation needs to anchor on unmet needs, not cool technology. Apple needs to decide what problem it is trying to solve. It might need to switch to a new interaction paradigm to see the opportunity differently. Apple is too stuck with the world of Apple. I believe there’s no stopping the trend of wearables and but don’t expect to see a clear winner anytime soon. The market potential is huge.

While analysts are expecting people to purchase about 15 million wearable devices this year and growing year after year, but they can’t tell you what that device looks like. We need to examine different adoption barriers and drivers that impact how wearables could bring along next platform wars. It goes beyond sensor and interactions into voice play. Mobile voice recognition, one of the thousands of artificial-intelligence applications, could reach one billion in 2017 from $73 million today, according to ABI Research. AT&T has devoted more than 1 million hours of research to develop AmI technology that can convert speech into text, and deliver responses to spoken questions. The future is exciting. And the future is here. And the future is unknown.

Apple's Magic Is Not Repeatable. Innovation Means Reinvention. Not Taking A Page From Someone's Playbook. Here's The Proof.

Apple magic is not repeatable. And even if you think by poaching senior talents from them. The same can be applied to many great companies large and small. It is too simplistic to think that stealing talent from great companies larger or small can help a company to repeat the magic.

Here is a good example when Ron Johnson, former head of Apple retail joined JC Penny as CEO, his plan was to reinvent the company. From when Johnson took the reins Nov 1, 2011, the stock price dropped in half. He received $53.3 million in compensation for 2011 and his pay package for 2012 was $1.9 million, no bonus after the company booked a $1 billion loss for the year. Yes a $1 billion loss!

Johnson's strategy to bring some Apple Store magic to JCPenney was not innovative or strategic. His strategy was to move away from price and he started by taking off any discounts and introduce a store-within-a-store design that emphasized experience over value. According to him,"Inherently, department stores have significant advantages compared to all other retailers." I don't agree with that statement with the exception in some markets such as China, Korea and Latin America.

When he took over the job of the CEO, he said that successful retailers will be "the ones that start from scratch and figure out how to create fundamentally new types of value for customers" by asking "how do we reinvent the store to enrich our customers' lives?" Good questions to start with but did they end up with the right stategy? JCPenney’s business model needs reinvention, not just the retail format or taking a page from Apple’s playbook.

It takes more than that to transform a very out-dated business model. It was a bad idea in the first place to abandon the discounting that customers had come to expect, it’s a behavior they are not going to change. Instead they should embrace the idea of “discounting” and innovate around it. JCPenny wants their customers to feel "special" about discovering these discounts. And not getting rid of it. Reinvent it! Make it fun! Make it social! I can give you 10 ideas of how to innovate around the “discounting”. The backlash against this tactic was so strong that Johnson was forced to bring back sales and discounts last quarter. That was a big mistake. Innovation needs to be strategic. Design without strategy is useless.

JCPenny needs to rethink the needs of these middle-class shoppers that are shrinking in both total size and wallet. It should move down to aim at the expanding highest of the lower income group.This is where the opportunities are.

Retail is a tough business overall and there weren't a lot of innovation happening. Those giant interactive screens, talking mannequins and RFID tags are bringing the virtual into ‘real’ retail spaces and tablet computers are turning up at pos’ from independent boutiques to multi-national chains. There are also companies working on virtual ‘touch’ for users to ‘feel’ the texture of products they want to buy. While still in development stage, the innovation would address one of the main problems of shopping online. Shopping is as much a tactile experience as a visual one.

In a creepy addition to the tech enabled retail experience, mannequins may now be watching you as you browse. Via built in cameras and facial recognition software mannequins are now able to collect data on your race, age, gender and shopping habits to assist retailers in their marketing strategies. While it’s not quite new, retailers have been using in store cameras to collect data for years, the addition of facial recognition is making it a simpler process. Big brother/sister is watching you shop!

How Imagination Can Create The Future? Start With Those Old Comic Books and Sci-Fi VHS Tapes From The Flea Markets.

For centuries we show our human spirit with stories about our glories,hopes, desires and dreams for a better future, one filled with modern machines that enable us to do things we long to do from being invisible or traveling in flying cars or telepods (may be not telepods as I always worried that something would go missing during the transmission). These stories manifested itself in art, comics, fictions, movies and even science discoveries.

What was known as “futurism” is the artistic movement that began in Italy and Russia that fast-forward us to the future of the machine age into progressive state of mind. Futurism also championed speed, technology, science, youth and also a lot of uncertainties. It's mantra was that the answers to humankind’s problems lay in the future driven by technology – and not the past. The main literary work of the movement was Filippo Tommaso Marinetti’s Futurist Manifesto, published in 1909, and generally considered the beginning of Futurism. I still enjoy reading that once in a while.

To invent the futures that we desire, business and government leaders need to see things in new ways that trigger their imagination to dream of new possibilities. Many of them are too "stuck" in the present. That’s when Design Thinking comes into play. Design Thinking is not just about understanding  people's needs.  It can also be used to bring people's imagination to propel us into the future. To see the future, Design Thinkers are equipped to creating guidepost for developing strategic foresight. It is called Future Casting.

Future Casting is how people from the past thought of the future. I remember visiting an exhibition in Prague where artists from the former USSR were imagining how the future was like with its futuristic art of space vehicles. Those Russian Futurists were fascinated with the optimism, speed, and restlessness of modern machines and urban life. They were actually performing Future Casting for the public.

I grew up watching Thunderbird and Ultramen and as a boy and they were the only things that were available for me that I could use as a guidepost for imagination. Funny enough, Ironman is like an unfinished prototype based on Ultraman design with the same battery problem. Ultraman highlighted the bottleneck of all technologies decades ago which is the battery. From iPhone to the latest Boeing 787 we still have not solved the battery problem.

We have always tried to look into the future and try to figure out what comes next. Sometimes we create fictions, fantasies of what may come. Will some of these fictions ultimately become real? There is no scientific evidence for this, I suspect the percentage of fiction becomes real is way higher that some thought our research based predictions that never made it close to become real. These materials open a window into the past and in term a perspective of the future… how the future should have been or their fears of how they were afraid it would turn out.

The realities of tomorrow are the fictions of today. If you want to have good strategic foresights, don’t hire designers or futurists. Hire Sci-Fi writers! And pair them up with behavioral economists and anthropologists and you will get good foresights.

The latest issue of MISC The Gadget Issue which has a special design feature Project 2020 about the future of sex, social and beauty. There is also the main feature How New Technologies With The Power To Evolve, Disolve, Disrupt and Democratie Industy which is fun to read. MISC is now in bookstores in 26 countries. And you can get it from Amazon too.

The Future Of Retail Is Full Of Challanges As Well As Opportunities.

Retailers are goign through strutural changes as many proven formats are out dated and "showromming" is impacting many. The massive pentration of smartphones are driving showroomers for comparing prices and features. Amazon has even given users of its mobile shopping app the ability to simplify price lookups on its site by letting them scan product bar codes using their smartphone cameras. So we end up having 1/ the Amazons of the world where they have full range of products at a super competitive price of 2/ Experience-based stores that people that offers more than making a purchase. They provide a very different kinds of retail relationships with different brands and it is Cirque du Soleil meets Nordstrom.

There are no shortage innovations happening in the word of retail design. Most aim to integrate online retail with the traditional ‘bricks and mortar’ experience. Giant interactive screens, talking mannequins and RFID tags are bringing the virtual into ‘real’ retail spaces and tablet computers are turning up at pos’ from independent boutiques to multi-national chains.

Stores such as Tesco in the UK have introduced a ‘scan as you shop’ system that allows shoppers to bypass checkout lines; SK Telecom, a South Korean mobile tech company, are trialing a ‘smart cart’ a trolley complete with wi-fi enabled tablet computer that provides product information and collects data as people shop; Nordstrom, Harrods and Target are all trialing in-store navigation smart phone apps to give product location and stock information.

And for those who don’t like trying on clothes, there’s now a virtual answer: The AR Door prototype. UK high street store Top Shop introduced the virtual change room to shoppers in Moscow last year. Using Kinect motion sensor technology together with an Xbox console, the prototype allows shoppers to see how clothes will look without trying them on, via a full-length mirror/screen. There are also companies working on virtual ‘touch’ for users to ‘feel’ the texture of products they want to buy. While still in development stage, the innovation would address one of the main problems of shopping online. Shopping is as much a tactile experience as a visual one. 

Mobile payment systems are also infiltrating retail spaces. US hardware giant, Home Depot introduced PayPal to almost 2,000 stores last year. Square, the mobile payment system, that streamlines point-of-sale payments, has recently partnered with Starbucks to implement a smart phone app allowing Starbucks customers to pay via QR code or NFC-tap.

It’s not just bricks and mortar retailers breaking down digital barriers in retail, online retailers, such as the online grocery store Peapod, are establishing a physical retail presence. Product images and QR codes line the walls of transit stops in the US, shoppers can simply scan items to order while they wait for their train.

In a creepy addition to the tech enabled retail experience, mannequins may now be watching you as you browse. Via built in cameras and facial recognition software mannequins are now able to collect data on your race, age, gender and shopping habits to assist retailers in their marketing strategies. While it’s not quite new, retailers have been using in store cameras to collect data for years, the addition of facial recognition is making it a simpler process. So watch out for those mannequins!

 

What Are The Least Understood Innovation Tools? Here Are The Results From Idea Couture Recent Survey (Part 3 of 3).

Here is a picture of our reception floor of our new office in the Idea Couture building. We're al least 4 weeks away before we can we are done with the place. This is the final of the three part series. We surveyed to find out what are the most popular innovation tools and the least understood innovation tools,  if you don't know about any of these tools on the list, you are not alone because there are many others like you.

Why are these the Top 5 least understood? Think about it, innovation is an emerging field. Therefore, at any given time, new tools are being developed, tested and refined in response to new kinds of problems, advances in technology, or as older methods are upgraded or mothballed. Other reasons include:

• Lack of exposure
• Newness of tool
• Has been recently adopted from another discipline
• Requires a unique skill set to execute successfully
• Requires rigorous adherence to a structured methodology

1. SIGNAL SCANNING Is a method of identifying and interpreting ‘signals’ from a variety of social, cultural, technological and/or business contexts to help inform, influence and inspire a product, service, marketing orother opportunity. Signal Scanning collects information, interprets information and gives meaning to information, thus helping teams build awareness, organize uncertainties, and re-orient perspectives and assumptions.

When to use it: Scanning is basic research that happens at the front end of any innovation engagement. It sits within the Insights and Inspiration Phase. It can be conducted in tandem with ethnographic and/or co-creation research. It help shape the kinds of questions that are explored in ethnographic and/or co-creation research. It can also be an ongoing process that increasingly builds internal knowledge and awareness on any specific field of research.

Why use it: Where most businesses are enamoured with watching and analyzing the trends of today, scanning provides a competitive advantage by helping organizations to better envision tomorrow. With a focus on the ‘emerging’, scanning empowers teams to more deeply, analytically and imaginatively consider the factors that might play a role in shaping future business opportunities.

2. CONSUMER CO-CREATION is a tool (it is a tool but also a research/design apporach) that directly involves consumers in an iterative process of designing and refining the concepts that will best fit into the context of their lives and needs. By acknowledging the value of customer input in the early stages of development, co-creation turns the top-down orthodoxy, of undifferentiated brand offerings on its head and offers a much higher likelihood of bringing relevant products and experiences to market. The reason this is not so well understood is that it is not a common practice for companies to include customers as part of the value chain.

When to use it: It can be used in the early stage of ideas generation to the final stage of idea validation.

Why use it: Like ethnography, Consumer Co-Creation should be used as a way to cultivate empathy for consumers. Co-Creation is used to:

• Better understand social, cultural and behavioural drivers of use & adoption when ethnographic research is not recommended or possible.
• Gather consumer/expert/lead user input into the design of a product, service or experience
• Explore potential tangible outcomes in packaging, ingredients, communications, display, retail, naming, CSR, service etc.

3. SENSEMAKING is the activity of framing observations and situations, and grounding them in meaningful ways, that help people understand and gain insight into an activity, behavior or system. In short, Sensemaking is the process by which people give meaning to experience. Many times problem spaces can be described as either informationally scarce, working at a deficit, or working from an overabundance of information. Ofthen there is  an overabundance of market research information, requiring a more focused and convergent approach to information and pattern definition. In both cases, recognizing and revealing the patterns are essential to developing insights and making sense of the research landscape.

The reason that Sensemaking activities are difficult because it is dealing with many conflicting and unstratucred data. Providing opportunities for people to Sensemake and infer meaning from unstructured information, allows them to hone their pattern recognition skills, contributing to their professional growth, and the professionalization of the organization.

When use it: Typically used as part of the opportunity mapping stage.

Why use it: It is an effective way to synthesize information into somthing people can understand in terms of the what and how value is being created.

4. STRATEGIC FORESIGHT is about preparing, not predicting. It is about establishing well-informed future oriented perspectives that fuel, guide, and inspire innovation processes, planning and decision-making. It helps organizations better understand, imagine, anticipate and prepare for change by equipping their teams with the tools and resources needed to ask provocative questions, challenge dominant logic, test assumptions, rethink opportunities, reset goals, and explore meaningful alternatives.

The reasons why Strategic Foresight is difficult to understand and execute is that it requires rigor and adherence to a set of steps and methods, beginning with problem definition, and scope.

When to use it: It can be used at the front end of innovation as a way to uncover relevant and pertinent research questions and define the problem space. It can be used to fuel innovation processes, and as a post innovation exercise to extend future contexts or to verify validity of strategy, products and services.

Why use it: The process allows people to ask provocative questions, challenge dominant logic, test assumptions, rethink opportunities, reset goals, and explore meaningful alternatives, to many possible futures. 

5. CREATIVE COLLISIONS Gives research and design teams a tool to intentionally, creatively and playfully collide (draw inferences) different, product, service and consumer culture experiences that are not normally considered together. Innovation is often born where these normally disparate categories intersect; a deliberately counter-intuitive methodology, which forces people well out of their comfort zones and challenges them to override their left-brain, analytical bias in favor of a more open-minded acceptance of contradictory, illogical ideas.

When to use it: Opportunity mapping phase or before/during ideation 

Why to use it: To leverage zones of opportunity, flesh out sub-ideas, and to get you outside your ‘box’ or mixing 'boxes'.

 

Have You Noticed The Emerging of Professional Visual Anthropology? Now You Can Be An Anthropologist Even If You Can't Read And Write!

I carry my camera (Leica) for 2 reasons. One is to capture pictures that remind me of what I've experienced or just something for inspiration and two is to share with others what I am doing. A picture can often tell a story better than a thousand words. Photography can capture the pure spirit and beauty of life, to tell a story to tangiblize humanity or to create a real (or fake) personality and to communicate an idea. I called it the practice of visual anthropology. Does it mean I am now an anthropologist?

Photographers such as Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Dorothea Lange or Steve McCurry have made their names by using photography to help us see the lives of so many that we may never be exposed to. They are more than artistic expressions, they are creating social meanings and codifying our cultures through the use of photos. As Cartier-Bresson said, “Pictures, regardless of how they are created and recreated, are intended to be looked at. This brings to the forefront not the technology of imaging, which of course is important, but rather what we might call the eyenology (seeing).”

There are many known social scientists and anthropologists who focus on the social meaning of photography including Elizabeth Edwards, Pierre Bourdieu and Jay Ruby to name a few. This is still an emerging field but will continue to add a creative layer of analysis to many existing methodologies. Visual anthropology and ethnographic photography do not currently have a well-articulated theory or method but is an explicit theory even needed? In the beginning, the primary function of photography in anthropology was as an aide-de-memoire, like written field notes, photography served to help reconstitute events or aid in writing. Now we're all using Instagram.

This includes all aspects of our culture that are visible, from nonverbal communication, objects, light, texture, ritual, ceremonial performance, expressions and movement. The study of photography has been dominated and also limited by art historians.

The notion that visual anthropology is a means of scientific research may not be commonly accepted, the camera becomes the main visual anthropological tool. It helps many viewers to see things they would not normally be exposed to; it captures the scene around dialogue; and it depicts the mood and state of people in their natural context. The photos become “ethno displays” capturing moments of observation. There has always been a natural relationship between anthropology and photography - called it "anthrophotography" and I just invented a new term.

As Henri Cartier-Bresson said, “In photography, the smallest thing can become a big subject, an insignificant human detail can become a leitmotif. We see and we make seen as a witness to the world around us; the event, in its natural activity, generates an organic rhythm of forms.”

Visual anthropology can also be used in persona development, adding a tangible element to the identity of a customer. As the camera emulates the anthropological principles of participant observation it makes all things real. Events unfolding in front of the camera, reveal insights by showing – not telling – a specific truth about specific people. An important discipline to master as a photographer is not interfering with the subject; being there by trying not to be there.

When faced with a camera, a photographer will often get one of two very distinct reactions. One is interaction. The camera becomes the point of conversation and people respond by reacting – they come up to you and sometimes even pose for you. The other reaction, is people suddenly become aware of the camera, change their behavior or even retreat away from the interaction.

A point of debate is whether the anthropologist can separate their point of view from that of the camera. Can you capture and analyze? Can both perspectives exist during fieldwork? Each perspective brings different things to the forefront, and it is the combination of these perspectives that give shape to visual anthropology. With a camera, both the expected as well as the unexpected are captured. And it is with the unexpected that analysis becomes interesting. The rapid proliferation of visual media coupled with our already rich visual cultures expands the opportunity for visual anthropology immensely. As culture evolves in tandem with the technology of capturing culture, the field becomes an even richer place of study. Just look around at those who are taking photos of themselves using their iPhone.

Article first appeared in MISC Magazine speicial 'Insight' Issue.

10 Big Reasons Why Most Innovative Products / Services Fail? How Many Of Them Are Avoidable?

Why innovative new products fail? Because marketers believe they know the industry, the product market and the customer and their needs.  And after going through cycles of input gathering and any orginal innovative ideas were ultimately turned into something that a lot like their existing products with minor improvisation. Sounds familiar?

Too many firms “innovate” with very few real insight about the market, their customers, or customers’ aspirations, needs or wants. Rather than go out and understand what customers need and expect, they rely on anecdotal evidence and market research, or simply perform some "ethngographic" study performed by traditional marekting research companies. "ethnographic" field work performed withour an anthropologist is like goging to bungee jump without an instructor.  This is a ley failure point of the first order, like jogging on the rooftop blindly down a path that ends off the building.

What leads some innovative products and servies to succeed and others to fail? The answer to this question encompasses a number of different factors. In some cases, the product cannot deliver the promised performance, capability or attract sufficient interest.

Even if potential can be demonstrated early on, it may take a substantial amount of time to reach the projected adoption figures. Or the product’s innovative feature is being replicated by an existing product as an added function and there is no need for a stand alone new product. Or the economics of the new product is not attractive enough and cannot hit a critical mass. Insight into the minds of the early adopters can greatly reduce the risks of failure, which is generally due to one or more of the following reasons:

1. The innovative new products are not shown in the right user context thus creating a misunderstanding of the applications
2. The new technologies behind the innovative product are not linked to an exciting and worthwhile market opportunity or are too niche
3. The innovative new products are not positioned within any product category and also fail to open up a completely new category
4. There is insufficient knowledge and resources for marketers to drive consumer adoption
5. The core functions of the innovative new products cannot support themselves as stand alone products and only work as features.
6. The promised performance of the innovative new product does not materialize and does not provide enough customer value
7. The innovative new products were distributed through the wrong channel and compromise the value propositions
8. The innovative new products perform only a small function and can be included by others in other products as an additional feature thus diminishing the demand
9. The expectation of consumers adopting the new products is over estimated
10. Products are pushed to a skeptical customer group and fail to neutralize the perceived risks associated with the new product.

The innovative new products require an ecosystem of support which did not exist or were not built fast enough. Determining the suitability of market research for innovative new products or services is a challenge. Insights are not only needed in the early phase of ideas gathering, it is equally critical at the pilot stage. Many traditional market research methods are inherently more tactically focused (orientation on the customers of today) and lead to the development of small improvements in existing products and the big ideas eventually diluted. Read more of this in the next big INSIGHT issue of M/I/S/C available in bookstores in 28 countries.

We Have Proved Once Again That Brand Marketing Can Drive Social Change, Further Customer Engagment And Build Brands. And Won A Gold Award For Best Financial Service Marketing.

Aviva Canada just announced winners to Aviva Community Fund with half a million dollars payout to programs across the country. This is the second year of a very successful campaign created to use brand to drive social change. The Aviva Community Fund, a unique competition designed to lead, empower and support positive change in communities across the country, was first launched in 09 when we presented the idea to the client.

The idea is an open source idea platform for people to submit and decide how to use the money to drive real social change and provide positive impact to their communities. We are grateful to our client's team who worked with us side by side and our design and development team working day and night to accommodate the evolving needs of the program. This is year two and we won a gold award for this campaign. Great work team!

The sustainable impact of the idea or campaign is another proof to show that the world has changed so much since the early days of advertising. The events of the last decade and the Internet has made us aware of the challenges around us.

Advertising has always been the primary mechanism to create awareness and build brand equity, but it is not a question of which 50% of the money is wasted, it is a question of why 80% of the money spent is not building brand equity and merely creating awarness?

Our research shows that 79% of consumers are willing to change the brands they buy or if they believe their actions contribute to making our world a better place, and over 67% would help a brand “promote” (by using Facebook or other social media) if a good cause were behind it and is credible. Also, 73% of consumers (under the age of 35) said it is their mission to contribute to a better society and environment.

Among all respondents, “helping others and contributing to their communities” was cited as the second-most important source of personal contentment, after “spending quality time with loved ones.” Over 54% respondents are not fully convinced that corporate social responsibility advertising is credible when they cannot associate that with real action. The power of PR is diminishing when the program is not designed to engage consumers. This study was part of our ongoing research to look at how social causes can help brands which are low involvement in nature to drive engagement.

One interesting take away point, 67% of consumers are comfortable with the idea that brands can support good causes and improve our societies and make money at the same time. When is Wall Street ready to factor in a second or third bottom line into their valuation of companies? It is time.

There Is Texting For Business, Texting For Emergency, Texting For Health, Texting For Love And Texting For Seduction. We Have Yet To Understand The Effects Of Excessive Texting Impacting Our Communications And Realtionships.

San Francisco weather is perfect this week, yes unusual for late Sept. Exhasuted but a lot of things get done. Will be spending a lot of time here.

I realize I am texting more these days as it is faster and easier. Texting is one of our everyday activities, for the younger generation, it is the primary method to stay connect with friends. I have seen a couple texting each other even when they are in the in same house. And some text while they drive, eat and even in an intimate situation. Imagine that?

It is also becoming a common tool for business as customer services. Airline texts me update on flight status and that makes sense, as it is time sensitive. One significant strength of text messaging is its ability to remain unintrusive, particular we are in meetings or on conference calls.

A company called StartTalking is making texting easer by allowing you translate talk to text. You just talk to it, and have it send what you say as a text. Likewise, when someone sends you a message, it will read it out. Is that a good idea? Are we turning text into phone calls? The thing is free of charge and once installed on your Android phone (and available soon for the iPhone and BlackBerry), it works quietly in the background and listens for voice prompts in order to activate.

The two prompts that are coming in this first iteration of the product are "computer" and "operator," though in future versions you'll be able to program in whatever word you want. It's as simple as saying "operator: text message for (insert name of the name of the receiver)." It confirms you want to send a message to that person, and then you just begin speaking. When you're done talking, it runs that speech through conversion, and plays it back for you.  Works like a voice mail. But other than when I am driving, it is defeating the purpose of texting. People do it most in classes and meetings when they can't talk.

Texting is actually an interesting behavior that is affecting many aspect of our life. There is texting for customer service, texting for emergency, texting for socail causes, texting for security and testing for seduction. It is now ubiquitous in our society. Think about the future of seduction and flirting, texting will be a perfect medium. Just add location based capability and a people matching algorithm.

I can see a bestseller book titled “100 Proven Techniques - Texting to Attract And Seduce?” Think about it, all it takes is one single funny text to makes one laugh and remember you. There is a whole new set of techniques in how often, what style, what teaser, when and that becomes your brand. You can't over do it, too much texting is bad. It is sort of like direct marketing, and sometimes you need a call for action. What we are looking at here is to tantalize and tease her/him. Bring out your brand personality and always leave her/him wanting more. Texting is a great seduction tool if you know the right techniques.

It is easy to envision using texting to engage audience in entertainment, particularly terrestrial radio to interact with live programs, a new revenue stream too. Local politicians can use this to drive engagement with constituents since people can use it to send complains to their local councilors as most would not write a letter and make a phone call after the event.

Here is an innovative idea. You can build a business with this overnight. Starting a SMS–based training services. Whether it is for improving your general social skills, seduction skills, customer service skills, negotiation, self-improvement and even language skills etc. Or an SMS-based MBA? Anytime and anywhere. For $10 a month, you can learn new skills anywhere and anytime you want. And each session can be 5 min while you wait for your burger or 30 min while you wait for your flight to take off. I can come up with a list of 50 ideas to offer. May be this our next start-up incubation idea?

From A Behavioral Economic Perspective, I Think Many Of Us Are Considered Imcompetent As A Consumer.

We have to deal with economic decisions on an everyday basis without knowing it. Here’s a few example of what I have been dealing with the last two days. From buying a pair of sneakers to using the iPad.

I discovered a little animal trapped inside bottom of my chimney since a few days ago, it finally climbed down to the fireplace just yesterday, and it was a little squirrel. The front of the fireplace was covered with a screen luckily so I didn’t end up chasing it around the house. After a short while it climbed back up to the bottom of the chimney. So we could I do?

If I call up the wild life people, it will cost me $300 to dis-invite the little animal. If we leave it up there, it will eventually starve to death. If I let it out, I would risk it running around hiding in the house instead out heading out the door. It is not an easy task to find a small animal in a 6,000 sq feet home with lots of little hiding places. I definitely won’t be spending $300 every time one of them decides to pay us a visit.

So I ended up borrowing a trap from my neighbor. It was left inside the fireplace for the night and I stocked it up with peanut butter bagel, a slice of apple and some peanuts. Next morning, I got it trapped. I fed it with water, more food and did a little lecture why he should never come back, then took it to the park. He didn’t say goodbye and ran up a tree, rude. What would you do? Would you spend $300 to have someone remove it or leave it to die up there? We are dealing with economic decisions like this all the time.

Here is another one. I was looking for a pair of sneakers and couldn’t find my favorite blue Adidas Gazelle. Almost given up but then I saw a pair of Converse, nice gray color. I am not a Converse fan and for whatever reason, today I bought my first pair of Converse. The sales person told me I could get the second pair for 50% off. So do I need another pair? No, I’ve enough shoes to last for 3-4 years.

But I did eventually buy another pair the same color but a high cut design. So their marketing tactics worked. They got me buying more than I need, although they made less margin on the second pair. That's a bad consumer decision, buying things I don't need at all just because there is a discount.

Another common one is reusable shopping bag. A lot of people still have not developed the habit of bringing their shopping bags including myself. We know we should, but we always forget. Do we end up buying more additional reusable bags? No, we go back to single-use bags. When people think that they have already paid for being green but they forget next time, they’re not willing to invest more in their behavior. Another bad consumer decision.

What about the iPad, I love that device but I really have no need for it. I bought one for myself, sometimes carrying it around the house but have no idea why. No idea why spending $700 buying it in the first place and why I am carrying it around in the house like I am a waiter taking orders in a restaurant. Can someone explain this behavior? Do I want it? Do I need it? Do I like it? Do I even use it? Worse, I've actually spent another $50 on useless widgets.

There are a lot of holes in the field of behavioral economics. Behavioral economists are sticking to a few simple theories. We know that people value changes from reference points (but know little about what points of reference are, and how multiple gains and losses from reference points are integrated), that expressed preferences are constructed much as people heuristically approximate solutions to different problems, that categories of wealth are not added up when people make spending decisions, but we know little about the detailed cognitive structure of their “mental accounting” of "wealth categories."

Let’s imagine we have a diagnostic tool, to measure when present people with images of new products and asked them to choose which they like most (measuring “wanting”). Then we separately measure how much they actually like using that product (“liking”). If wanting and liking brain activation are different, a consumer could be judged as incompetent. I think as consumers, many of us are simply incompetent. My iPad one is a perfect example.