Control Your Home. Away From Home.

You may have seen YouTube videos of super-techie hipsters connecting their coffee makers to their Twitter accounts and through a series of “if this then that” commands, magically getting their brew on.  Pretty nifty trick, but how many of us (i.e., non-techie, non-hipster) will actually invest the time and energy required to set this up just to get a cup of joe?  With the new, affordable smart plugs on the market, expect to see more and more not-so-hipster smart phone carriers controlling everything from their coffee makers to their floor lamps with a few taps on their phone.

One of the most fascinating technological devices introduced recently is the Nest Learning Thermostat – which is easily installed and controlled directly from a smartphone.  It was introduced in October of 2011 and is already in its second iteration and has sold hundreds of thousands of units.   Its popularity is easy to understand, given its elegant design, simplistic set-up and convenient controls.  But beyond its “cool factor”, it’s also a very practical piece of technology.  Not only does it allow the user to control the temperature of their home, while away from home, but simultaneously tracks energy consumption and adjust the temperature accordingly– which could mean significant savings throughout the year.

Nest is certainly not the only smart device (i.e., any device that communicates via Bluetooth, WiFi, 3G, etc.) for the home (though given it was developed by “the godfather” of the iPod, it’s probably one of the best designed).  A new genre of smart devices is now available (or coming soon) that will allow you to turn any appliance in your home into a smart device – controllable by your smartphone and at a price-point  that will make them affordable to everyone.

Belkin’s WeMo product line offers smart plugs, motion detectors, door locks and even baby monitors that can be controlled and tracked from smart phones.  Several companies including: Zuli, Smart Power Strip and Plug Away have similar devices proposed (and funded) through Kickstarter that will be available soon.  And while these plugs don’t yet offer complete control of any device, they do offer great possibility for the future.  

Using Digital to Achieve New Year's Resolutions

Happy New Year avid Treffpunkt readers!

With every New Year's Day passing it seems like there are more and more offerings for people trying to achieve some sort of New Year's Resolution.  Usually I try and stay away, but this year I am starting 2014 with fitness in mind - even if that means falling into potential New Year's Resolutions deals, tricks or fads.  Feeling like I've tried everything, from hot yoga to 5am spin classes, this time I want to take a different approach, a digital one.

Being the millennial that I am, my first instinct was to look for a digital tool to try help this process. What I needed was a tool that would 1. Help me change some of my unhealthy habits and 2. Actually motivate me or hold me accountable to acting on this change.

After a little bit of search I found the app Pact. This free app aims at helping people to change their habits in the areas of getting to the gym, food logging and eating healthily.  The way that this fitness app differentiates itself from the other fitness tracking apps out there is that it forces users to put their money where their mouth is! Pact uses cash incentives for users to get in shape and stay healthy.

Basically how the app works is by committing to a weekly Pact to exercise more or eat healthier and set what you'll pay other Pact members if you don't reach it.  However, this is not just a diary that you can fudge what you actually did that day and reap monetary rewards; you actually have to show that you have achieved each of your goals by checking in through the app at the gym or sending pictures of the healthy food you are eating.  Then at the end of the week once you have successfully completed your goals you earn actual cash for being healthy, paid by the members that could not reach their goals.

A screenshot from my own Pact app

On a personal level I found this app compelling because I am super competitive, looking to get into shape and have yet to try a monetary incentive to get me going to the gym regularly. Barring the fitness/money related reasons, there are a number of other reasons why I really like this app.

1. Pact is taking a new and creative approach at a product that has been done over and over again and creating a niche for itself.
2. Instead of try to be better than it's competitors, Pact uses it's competition successes to enhance the Pact experience.
1. This can be seen through the option to sync with other fitness tracker apps, such as RunKeeper, Fitbit, Moves or Jawbone Up.
3. Pact incorporates social without annoying any of your friends on Twitter or Facebook.
1. Part of the reason users need to take pictures of their healthy foods is to prove that they are fulfilling that part of the Pact. But members can get ideas and engage with others that are eating right from the Pact community social stream.

While I cannot personally say if this app is a long term motivator just yet, I can say that Pact drew me in with their interesting incentives and - as far as I can tell - a well designed app.  I will report back with any groundbreaking news, but in the mean time Happy New Year and good luck with all of your resolutions!
  

Emotion is a Powerful Driver of Engagement...But can You Fake it?

Everyday as we surf the internet, check our social media profiles and watch TV,we're exposed to viral content. More often than not, this content is hilarious but in some cases it can be shocking or sad. It's really no surprise that emotion-rich content is the type that is the most likely to be shared and spread around from person to person.

A recent article in Fast Company features a research study that validated the importance of emotion in a person's likelihood to engage and share content. Their conclusion is that it's not really the content itself that is contagious but rather the emotion that it invokes. 

Their findings indicated that when you're trying to create viral content:

Positive Emotion > Negative Emotion > No Emotion

The hierarchy makes sense if you think about it. When you see a picture of a tiny cat, or a puppy with huge eyes, I'd have to question the existence of your soul if you didn't have a massive smile on your face. But according to this study, what's more important is the fact that when we see something like this, we tend to immediately think of two or three people that we know will enjoy this as much as we did. On the other hand, when we see a video or read an article about some wrong in the world, we often feel anger, and are empowered by a sense of advocacy to share that content with the world. 

There's a subtle nuance in that description that you may or may not have noticed but it's extremely important (assuming the assumptions about our behavior that I just made are correct). It seems to me that the reason positive emotions lead to the highest engagement is because of the fact that we have specific people we want to share with. Sure we may post that content on Facebook but at the same time, I know that I at least tend to IM or text a link to a few people as well. Just like the study inferred, when we know another person will get the same emotion from something that we did, we can expect them to react the same and spread it farther. On the other hand, when we share content with a large group, even though it may have a larger reach, you don't know who is going to look at it and feel the same way. In many cases, those rage-inducing articles are often very interesting and relevant; think about all the (semi-obnoxious) political debate that goes on over Facebook and Twitter, especially during election season; but you may not send things like, "Hey Dave, check out what [insert political figure here] just said on CNN".

Though I wholeheartedly agree with the findings from this study, there's a follow-up I'd like to see done. Typical viral content is organic, and thus the emotion is real (or it's a really awesome graphic). However, as marketers, I think we face a challenge in trying to recreate or honestly portray that sense of raw emotion. Social media certainly makes it easier, allowing brands to actually converse with their audience and utilize their financial power to create amazing content in real-time (that's a key right there). However not all brands can do that, and what about content that isn't on social media? Working in a heavily regulated industry, I know all to well what feigned emotion looks like. After a few rounds of being told that our writing is too strong or makes unjustifiable implications through tone alone, the copy falls a little flat. Additionally, I see brand sites throw sharing widgets in their utility navs and later wonder why people aren't using them. This new study seems to indicate why.

I don't think I need to say that it's important to know your audience and know the emotions accompany their interaction with your brand. But I think good copy comes from marketers who really feel what the audience feels. I'd wonder if people can tell the difference (or at least subconsciously through behavior) between organic and crafted emotion. Educational content on a website rarely carries the same feel as organic content (unless maybe you're Buzzfeed), but I feel like if a brand has a certain value, it should be able to speak, and speak well with the associated emotion. 

I think strategists need to work closely with creative to help them truly understand that emotion. Externally, we should be continually providing proof points and backing up our copywriters who are doing their best to empathize "organically", especially in regulated industries, where straying too far can get you a slap on the wrist. In pharma especially, this may be a value proposition for unbranded campaigns. Focused more on education and advocacy, there's a bit more leeway to write with feeling and, potentially, for more ad hoc type of communication. The trick is to develop your brand into one that is clearly a champion for that same cause, so that people who are looking to get involved or need support see the company as one who understands. Just don't connect the two campaigns. No pressure. 

How do you feel about how brands portray emotion? Are they doing it successfully? How would you change it? Let me know in the comments below!

Facebook may not be THE Place to Be, but it's still a Good One

This has been a long time coming, but it's official according to a study by the European Union...teens no longer think Facebook is cool. I know, I know, you're thinking, "great now we have to go on the Twitter or start taking selfies on Snapchat". Well don't limit yourself to 140 characters just yet, let me tell you why.

In the study, Facebook was compared to Instagram (which, ironically, it owns), Snapchat, Twitter, and What's App and it appears the thumbs ups are on the decline.  However, I find these comparators interesting and also revealing. When you look at the networks that were part of the study, there's a pattern that forms: each one of these (if you can even consider What's App a social network) is a specialty network; they focus on one specific type of social sharing:

Twitter, the most popular of the group, is a microblog, where you can only share a taste of the content that hides behind a hyperlink.

Instagram is a forum for sharing images with the world. The filters allow even amateurs to get a little creative with the way they see the world.

Snapchat is also about image sharing, but the caveat is that the images only last for a limited time before they are deleted forever. This makes telling compelling stories a creative challenge...it's also made Snapchat a popular forum for sexting...

What's App is an alternative platform for texting, which is why I was surprised to find it on this list. It operates much like normal multimedia messaging but it's free and operates globally which is a major draw for users who travel often.

Facebook is different though. It combines almost all of these features into one place. It's a platform for your entire life, to build your digital persona. If LinkedIn is comparable to your job, Facebook is the home you go back to at the end of the day (or during the day if your job allows). Many of us have invested an insane amount of time building our Facebook profiles over the years. We've defined ourselves in the About Me section. We've catalogued thousands of pictures in every aspect of our lives. We put our interests on display by sharing content with the world.  And we've built a network of friends (and sometimes enemies) that we follow and engage with. No matter where we share our thoughts, or no matter who we're talking to, there's a place they can go to get a more complete sense of who we are. It's the hub, of our digital lives.

But maybe this next generation doesn't have that kind of time to invest in their online social lives, and I'm not at all implying that they should spend all their time in front of a computer. These things happen over time. The age group of this population is truly growing up mobile, and they want their technology and lives on-the-go. Facebook isn't bad when it comes to mobile by any means but it's also not one of these other platforms where the content is bite sized and meant to get you on your way quickly. There's also less need to spend time on it when you can easily post to multiple networks at once from another app.

I think also that Facebook is aging. Of course, they're a technology company and the platform is innovating and changing constantly but the core purpose of Facebook is getting older. Facebook is like this generations MySpace...it's the intro to social networking for most people. If what I said before is true, that Facebook is like our hub, many people are likely feeling content with what they've created. Though I'd like to group myself into this category, teens especially are quick with technology and they're quick with social. I imagine that once they set up shop they're quick to expand: have a Facebook because you just have to and then get on the networks you really want to be on.

It's also because for that reason that I think, while it may be on the decline, Facebook isn't going anywhere. And while it may not be what people use most on a day to day basis, people will continue to go home to it at the end of the day.

Even if use is on the decline, it's still strong. For people and brands, the core value of Facebook remains. For people, it's a place to keep the foundation of your digital life and to keep the friends you want to interact with. For brands, it's still the place where they can start to personify themselves and build the voice and life that it will then express on the various other networks. Posts from strong brands get a lot of engagement, both positive and negative. Not all brands can jump right into social and see the results, but Facebook is a great place to build awareness. The platform has such a wide variety of content and interactivity that it's likely you can find a way to get involved. Even in highly regulated industries like healthcare or financials there is likely an advocacy or educational space for you if you think outside the box a bit. As social media experts, we need to be smart and we need to be fast, looking to impress our audience with thoughtful and relevant content all in real time.

I don't believe that young people are exempt from this type of marketing on Facebook either. You may not see as much engagement in the form of comments and likes, but they share and they pay attention. When studies like the one I mentioned come up it makes me think maybe marketers need to think more like Twitter and Instagram when they're on Facebook. Quick. Simple. Visual. Attractive, shiny and smart.

Tell me what your favorite networks are. Tell me why they appeal to you. Tell me what you think of Facebook, even if it's that you hate all the redesigns and changes (though I'll quickly disagree with you). Tell me all these things in the comments section down below.

The quantified self may lead to more accurate market research

Over the past few years, a plethora of “smart devices” and apps have emerged with sensory technologies that track everything from the number of pills in a bottle to items in a refrigerator.  These new devices rely on sensors to gather information and share it―usually with an app on a smartphone.  While such technology certainly offers great convenience to consumers, the impact on data collection may create a sea change for market researchers, physicians, dieticians or any researcher whose prior data collection methods relied on the biased accounts of self-reporting.  New advances in, and adoption of, sensory technologies, will make it possible to gather information that is not only instantaneous but also more accurate than what was previously possible. 

Consumers are flocking to purchase devices that allow them to better understand themselves.  For example, “The quantified self” movement, established by health fanatics and dieters, has become mainstream with the arrival of devices such as Fit Bit, Nike’s Fuel Band and Jawbone.  These sleek armbands make tracking calories burned, heart rate and sleep quality a passive endeavor for the wearer.  Essentially, these devices provide a quantified assessment of the wearer to themselves and may serve to predict future behavior based on personal goals.  While such information is typically used only for self-assessment, it is possible for it to be shared with third parties and thereby alleviate the need for self-reporting. 

One explanation as to why the quantified self movement has become so popular lies in social psychology.  According to Daryl Bem’s self-perception theory , states that the only way to truly know oneself is by analyzing one’s own behaviors.  In other words, we are what we do and our thoughts and feelings are the result of our actions (rather than our attitudes dictating behaviors).

As marketers, we traditionally rely on asking consumers what they think/feel/do in order to understand our audience, but there is always a tendency to caste oneself in the most favorable light―which makes self-reporting methods invalid.  New sensory technologies, however, prevent such biased accounts because data can be collected and recorded in real time and marketers no longer need ask the question, “Who are our consumers?”, rather, analyzing true behaviors will allow us to better predict what is wanted and needed.