1. hautepop:

    "This presentation is not a primer. Nor is it a marketing deck, though that is its form. It is a stunning work of speculative fiction about a future that must be avoided at all costs. It imagines a generation defined exclusively in opposition to the ill-defined one that came before. Its incoherence, like the incoherence of its subjects, it what gives it such paralyzing power."

    The Looming Threat of “Generation Z”
    by John Herrman, The Awl
    19 June 2014

    Referring to the presentation Meet Generation Z: Forget Everything You Learned About Millennials by Sparks & Honey, a “culture briefing” / trends agency in NYC.

    Via @justinpickard

    This is the deck I was criticising on Wednesday. I should have known someone smart and quick would have been on to this weeks ago. The tone here is right. Marketers - and we researchers - have a once-in-a-decade opportunity not to condescend to young people by rolling them all up in a big bland ball. We are not taking that opportunity.

    Instead we are enthusiastically retweeting the likes of this: “With the sting of a face palm, you’ll experience a sheer rush of humility as you realize that everything you thought you knew about tech, behavior, and common sense is simply nascent compared to the native differences inherent to digital natives…. My advice to you is to study it. Study it right.now. Don’t try to make sense oft it. Don’t question it.”

    Don’t ask just buy!

  2. "WHAT IS A BRAND?" - 40-ish year old video by JWT.


  3. The Trouble With Trend Decks

    I read this deck today, about “Gen Z” - i.e. teenagers. Obviously generations are something of a bugbear of mine, and this deck does all the usual generation-thinking things: goes overboard on distinctions, worships attitudinal data, fails to cross-analyse by other demographic groups, etc etc.

    But it’s also an example of a problem that spreads well-beyond generation-level thinking. The problem is stacking - taking multiple separate quantitative studies and using them to tell a story about a particular group - not just generations, but ‘men’, ‘women’, ‘the rich’, ‘the emerging middle class’, and more.

    Read More


  4. Facebook Breaks The Fourth Wall

    You can anticipate a crisis for ages and then when it actually happens the exact form of it still takes you by surprise. For as long as I’ve been involved - as doer or observer - with social media research there’s been the awareness that given the right spin or situation the cocktail of observed behaviour, aggregation, lack of privacy or “informed consent” and blunt-instrument analytic tools could land someone in trouble.

    Naively, I think most market researchers imagined it would be a research firm doing something seen as naughty - having put together codes of conduct designed to prohibit that. But the sad truth is that nobody cares what market researchers get up to with data - these days, there are bigger fish to try. If researchers can get away with signing up to a forum for the terminally ill in order to scrape it of data - as Nielsen did in the PatientsLikeMe breach in 2010 - it’s a sign that we’re basically Too Small To Epic Fail. No, we should have realised where the issues we predicted were likely to hit: Facebook.

    Read More


  5. "

    The study, which surveyed 6,000 US respondents aged 13-64, revealed that 54% found personalised ads more engaging than general ads.

    52% felt they were more educational
    49% more time-saving
    45% more memorable
    42% more relevant

    This desire for personalisation also varied by category: while 77% of respondents looked for personalised retail ads, only around one third wanted the same for car or entertainment ads.

    — And yet, I would lay money that if the survey had started “name an ad you’ve seen recently”, the vast majority of the 45% who think personalised ads are more memorable would name a general ad.

  6. The World (Cup) We Live In: Ad agency creates stereotypical loudmouth fan character, then ASKS PEOPLE TO PAY FOR HIM via crowdsourcing.

    I am pretty sure this is the first time I have seen an agency use crowdsourcing to keep a campaign going. There’s a devilish genius to it - if content marketing is going to use the platforms and forms of independent content, why not also appropriate the ways its paid for? But also, ew.


  7. Just Saying Like

    At the individual scale, “disruption” means divorce or marriage or having kids or losing parents or getting fired or getting hired. It has very little to do with a bloody phone.


  8. "The thing that we have heard from people is that they want more targeted advertising"

    Facebook to Let Users Alter Their Ad Profiles - NYTimes.com

    really a real quote from Facebook lololololol

    (via nathanjurgenson)

    (via nathanjurgenson)


  9. "There’s ways for marketers to use interactive media and social media but they have to understand that we’ve returned to really a medieval-era bazaar. It’s a nonfiction space where people are now talking about product attributes. They want to know, ‘Where are these cookies made? What is in them? Are they organic? What’s the supply chain? What’s the labor like? What’s the environmental footprint?” Not, “What’s the name of the elves in the hollow tree that supposedly baked them?"
    — Douglas Rushkoff. ReThink. (via peterspear)

    A quote that sadly confirms even very smart people are not immune to the lure of filter bubbles full of what they’d like to be true.

  10. Naughty stuff from Forrester, here, combining several questions with different base sizes into the same chart.

    What do we know about their survey? We know that 34% of their 412 US decision-makers answered no to either seeing the benefit of big data*, or understanding it.

    And we know that a large majority of 108 decision-makers who are using or planning to use big data expect revenue growth or efficiency from it.

    The graph is trying to fool you into thinking that the 72% and 83% relate to the green bar, the two-thirds who don’t fall into the baffled grey big data haters category. But it does not. It relates to the far smaller proportion of that green bar that is actually trying to do something with big data.

    Forrester’s graph is saying - “hey DECISION MAKERS look at those big numbers versus this small number, don’t you want to be on the WINNING SIDE?”

    Actually, if you recalibrate EVERYTHING according to the 412 base size, you end up with:

    19% expecting revenue growth from big data over the next 12 months.

    22% expecting increased efficiency from big data over the next 12 months.

    34% don’t see the benefit or don’t understand.

    So in effect, what this is proving is that just under one-fifth of business decision makers expect to see revenue growth this year because of big data. That’s not nothing, but it’s not the unstoppable bandwagon message that Forrester are pushing.

    Oh, and the decision makers who have decided to invest in big data are bullish about its prospects. Which translates as “Most decision makers think their decision will pay off”, really. Nice insight. that. Hurrah for research!

    *(some would say that anyone who accepts the phrase “implementing big data” without caveat probably doesn’t “understand and value” it, but let’s not quibble.)