The hidden treasures of Amazon 1-Star reviews

Posted on by
1

I was inspired by this review of Orwell’s 1984, that came trough the lovely B3tards:

Do not buy this book if you’re expecting to find out anything at all about 1984, as this writer seems to have been living on a different planet…Orwell completely fails to capture the uplifting vibe that was the pop explosion of the summer of ’84… maybe he lived in Norwood.

So I immediately thought “I wonder what else is out there?” So went through some random favourite classics, and look what I found…(highlights added)

On Slaughterhouse 5:

This book is a complete waste of time. It is so difficult to read as it jumps back and forth in time. There is no great climax and the stories within just seem to be included by the author to bulk it up.
Childrens crusade? HA! Childrens book more like!

 

Old Man and the Sea:

This "novel" was the worst "piece of literature" I have ever read. If you can spare yourself from the agony of reading a hundred or so pages about an old man and a fish, than do so. This book brought the worst period of my life to a dramatic climax. I was more miserable reading this book than when my wife divorced me and my parents disowned me. I now have no one but at least I don’t have to read this book anymore. Thank you god.

 

The Sun also Rises:

I read this as my first Hemingway,and I have to say that it was thoroughly underwhelming. The characters just hang around drinking, and saying things like ‘What rot!’. The dialogue is comical and unrealistic, and you have to ask yourself what exactly happened when you get to the end. The answer? Nothing. Lack of plot is usually mace up for by interesting character development and interplay, but all we have here is a group of rich conceited fops, gracing Europe with their presence. A waste of time.

Continue reading →

“What has your cult done for you lately?”

Posted on by
Reply

I’m reading Tina Fey’s book “Bossypants”, it’s quite light, but also funny, smart and human as expected, and contains many gems.

Some examples:

“In most cases, being a good boss means hiring talented people and then getting out of their way.”

I agree. This way has proved itself for me when working with design teams as well as, a long time ago, when I was hiring my team at IOL (Many have done exceptionally well in their careers, such joy…)

“Almost everyone [women] first realized they were becoming a grown woman when some dude did something nasty to them.”

Sadly accurate. So far the book is full of feminist observations that while not ground-breaking, are well articulated, heartfelt, opinionated and a joy to read from someone so bang in the heart of mainstream.

Last one, on the cult-like experience of studying and practicing improv comedy:

“Studying improvisation literally changed my life. It set me on a career path towards Saturday Night Live. It changed the way I look at the world, and it’s where I met my husband. What has your cult done for you lately?“

Marketing Plots: the About You/Us Myth

Posted on by
Reply

(Previously published on the Landor Blog as “Knowing me, Knowing you.”)

“Is our brand more ‘about us’ or ‘about you?’”

Agencies and clients alike, we all love a good positioning matrix.

To begin with, they are dangerous creatures, as their seductive powers come from the brain’s cognitive preference for clear cut dichotomies, and life isn’t always black and white. Taking two dichotomies and using them together is that power squared, but so is the danger.

Love, respect, and fear them—they’re not going anywhere any time soon. However, it will be useful to start rejecting some common false dichotomies that tend to make reoccurring appearances.

The one I want to mention this time is when one axis (usually the X) talks about the difference between "talking about us" (the company/brand) and "talking about you" (the audience/customer).

Usually the assertion will be that the brand is too inwardly orientated, talking about the detail of the products and the history of the company instead of the needs and solutions of the customers, audiences, or stakeholders.

Time and time again?I’ve seen it used as a central dimension to the analysis of positioning, often favoured by research agencies.

The bias is in the question itself, compounded by a guilty residue from an era before customer-centricity. A concept that is now hygienic to every industry (at least as an ambition).

Beginning with the question: the world we live in is just not like that. Most of the best brands you could think of will be neither. Apple talks about its products and culture, but is a brand that cares deeply about meeting needs and ease of use. The same can be said about Google. Coke is very much about the product and the myths that come with it, it’ll be tempting to position them opposite to Pepsi and say that Pepsi is more about its drinkers and Coke more about its own brand. But in truth: 1) Coke has adapted its myths to centre on changing lifestyles time and time again. And, 2) Is it really that helpful to put them on this axis to begin with?

The best brands are both about themselves and about their customers. Apple, on different analysis pieces I’ve seen, is placed on either end of the spectrum—being "about Apple" to differentiate from and "about the customer" as a pointer at the important-but-generic-for-the-last-30-years (at the very least) practice of customer centricity.

Going back to the bias in the question: If you ask customers in focus groups or individual interviews what they prefer, what do you think they’ll answer? Of course they will say: "Me! Me! Talk about me!" But we know that in the mysterious mix required to make them pay attention they also want to know who "you" are and why is it worth paying attention to what you have to say.

So can we just stop using it and pretending that it adds any meaningful insights?
Thank you.

Valve software doing what they must, because they can. For science. (and gaming, and marketing…)

Posted on by
Reply

Too busy to write a full post report, but here is a story told in links… To gamers, this will all be taken for granted, but many people in the creative industry are simply oblivious to what’s going on in this arena, and they shouldn’t. We should all pay real attention to this category, because it is the avant-garde of post-modern marketing.

If you have any interest in transmedia storytelling or the future of marketing, what Valve is doing as it promotes the release of Portal 2 (probably tomorrow at this pace) is simply amazing.

Links:
Portal 2: The game
The wiki of the game about the game which is played across social media, other games, podcasts, magazine websites, email, IRC … involving the gathering of clues to aid the gathering of “potatoes” required to overclock the AI antagonist of the game (=Valve releasing the game earlier). But also includes the release of branded content across the other games, new content about the game’s universe and its meta-universe (which is a version of our’s).
Which all results in this accelerated countdown to the release.

Single handily revolutionising the PC gaming industry through their Steam platform (an app store for PC games, installed on pretty much every gamer’s PC on earth) is apparently not enough.
Seriously exciting, ground-breaking and creative stuff.

Update 26/4/2011: And here is a good summary of the Portal 2 ARG by Edge Magazine.

One word (equity) is not enough

Posted on by
Reply

"Could you define the brand in one word?"
In one word?  How about "No."

Albert Einstein was quoted saying: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
I don’t know any worthwhile stories or conversations that contain one word, or that focus on just one word. Any brand needs more than that to craft its narrative.

I’m tempted to say something like "The age we live in is very much about creating (new) meaningful connections." but actually, that’s what life’s about, isn’t it?
Well, no connections if there is only one thing. Two are a minimum requirement, and you need a third one if you want movement. The math of stories, one could say.

And if you do take one word and try to use it to link yourself and your audience – you already have something that goes beyond this single word, just by making that connection, you have three points of reference. If that’s the case, you’d better have a better idea of what it might be. And an attempt at articulating it, not necessarily only with words.

If your team or agency get only one word, what they get is a wide open brief to do almost anything with your brand.
Sure, great brands become iconic. Talking about one word alone may give an iconic impression. But being iconic is a result, not a cause.

And if you tell me you want to "own" something, then I’m really going to reach for my gun.