I have read a really interesting article dealing with the question if it might actually be more important for a brand to be interesting than being different. If I got it right, the author argues that research shows that people don't really make differences between particular brands, marking the whole process of positioning and differentiating at least, let's say, overrated.

The article sparked to different questions in my head that I'll try to bring together in the following paragraphs.

#1 What if it is a methodical problem?

Without having access to the underlying data or the research design used in the quoted studies I started wondering: What if people can't differ between brands and their products when asked the survey questions? What if people, the moment they are asked about a brand's personality or about differences between brands, take a shortcut for the "easy way" and make reference to a brand's product rather than the brand itself?

A brand's product is arguably something way more tangible than a brand's personality. Just imagine how hard it is to explain the difference between Pepsi's Coke and Coca Cola's Coke (I'm talking about the product now). Or the difference between the savings accounts of two big banks. So if you'd ask me now about differences, I'd most certainly only find differences because you ask me for them. The products just are too similar. Yet they are more tangible than brands' personalities – and therefore they might serve as a point of reference when it comes to questions about differences.

#2 What if big brands can't be different?

Probably more interesting than the methodical question is the cultural question. What if brands can't be so different, just because of their huge customer bases? The bigger the customer base a brand is catering to, the harder it might be to actually differentiate itself from its competitors. Why? Because you have to please such a diverse audience that ultimately you can't be that particular anymore. The moment you start selling your product on a global level, you have to consider so many different aspects, that your brands perceived differences maybe wear off. On a global level it sounds almost logical that brands' perceived characteristics only differ marginaly. 

On the opposite, the smaller a brand, the smaller its niche market, the easier it might be for a brand to hold up a clear brand personality, the easier it might be for people to actually make a difference between those brands. Furthermore, the smaller the market, the more different the offered products might be. Which, in result, would maybe lead to bigger perceived differences between the brands – if people answer survey questions in regard to a brand's product (see #1).

I am well aware that those questions need more elaboration and ultimately deserve to be answered. Which I can't do now. Still, I'm happy to hear your opinion on it since it is not so unlikely that I'm completely wrong and missed an important point. Nevertheless, if you haven't done it yet, read Martin's article here.

Have you ever wondered what Facebook is actually doing for you? Is it helping you with any of your real-life online or offline problems? Or is it just distracting you and becoming some kind of problem of its own?

I don't read or regard most of the status updates and shares of my Facebook friends. (No offence.) My News Feed is limited to a few selected "channels". Sometimes, when I feel like it, I am zapping through my friend lists, scanning for interesting articles, videos, or pictures. In that effect, Facebook has turned into a media platform that, not so much unlike television, runs in the background while I'm doing other things on the web.

After reading this article I started to wonder, where I'd turn to if I needed something to get done. Aren't more particular, more focused plattforms way more useful?

Most of the interesting information I consume during the day I find on my Twitter feed. Pinterest makes it incredibly easy to share and spread pictures on the web. If I want to share my location I use Foursquare. I create and share lists on Listgeeks. If I wanted to track my fitness achievments I could use Fitocracy. I take and share pictures through Instagram. The more intimate thoughts I share via Path. Or in a phone call. I haven't used Amen for months.

I'm aware that most of those apps and services optionally forward their activity to Facebook – where my friends can read about it. If I want to get things done or my friends want to do the same (check in, pin a picture, etc.) we have to use another, namely the corresponding service.

Facebook is aggregating my activity, but I'm not active on Facebook. On Facebook I'm on the receiving end. I consume content that is created elsewhere. You might call this a smart move because Facebook is benefiting from smaller services' attractiveness. Or you might wonder how long it will take until another platform will substitute for Facebook. Because: What can you actually do on Facebook?

Audi recently published its contribution to the Super Bowl advertising madness: a minute-long vampire party that gets smoking hot on arrival of the blood supply (see video below). Not so bad, you might think – but what I really liked about the spot is the hashtag integration at the end of the commercial: #SoLongVampires.

They are probably not the first to this, which doesn't change the fact that it's a simple trick to steer the conversation on Twitter. Instead of leaving it up to the viewers to create a multitude of hashtags about one and the same topic, Audi simply suggests a hashtag as a basis for the conversation on the web – and people make use of it.

So long...

I don't know anyone working at Foursquare, yet I'm quite mad at them at this very moment. This morning I couldn't log into my account, and later had to found out that my account might have been deleted. After a short moment of shock, I started wondering:

What if Foursquare just deleted a valuable part of my (online) identity?

Now let's assume the folks in New York weren't able to restore any of the deleted data. That means hundreds of users lost a few thousands of check-ins, comments, and recommendations given. All those minutes spent loading the app, typing, etc. are gone forever. And there's nothing we could do about it. Sure, we could go back to a few of the places we have been to and check in once again. Though it just wouldn't be the same.

Now that was "just" Foursquare (that coming from someone who loves this LBS). Just imagine what would happen if Facebook deleted a few thousand user accounts. Pictures, posts, events, friends – lost forever.

Have we become too dependent on those kind of services?

UPDATE: Just after I clicked "publish", I was able to log into my account again. Suddenly I feel complete again.

Converse is extending their campaign with a new sales approach onto Facebook. Users can design their own pair(s) of Converse and sell them to their friends and/or can even open their own store. Since the program only launches in the UK and US, I wasn't able to try it, however, this post deals more with the underlying principle rather then the execution.

With this app, Converse basically outsources risk. The risk of failing to recognize trends. The brand provides their customers with the infrastructure and technology (store & shoe) and let them do the job of adapting it to their individual or peer group's lifestyle and need. By doing so, Converse can focus on creating great products (the shoe), while it outsources costly and constant adaptation to somewhat fleeting design trends and consumers' wishes.

In a wider sense, Apple is doing the same with its iOS platform and the AppStore. Apple provides the infrastructure and an excellent product and leaves the catering for fleeting consumer wishes – the creation of apps – to third parties (of course not without keeping a stern eye on those products).

With the massive spread and adaptation of new technologies, companies can finally stop guessing on consumers' current needs and wishes and just let them give answers – not in a survey but right on the product, while – and that's the important thing – the product and its development stays under total control of the brand.

Triggered by two articles I have read in different blogs, and by a decision I recently had to make, I started to think about the concept of patience and how it influences the way we achieve and perceive progress and innovation. Or, put differently, it influences the way we treat others.

The first article was about the fact, that Facebook hasn't really "wowed" the author with the late versions of its mobile application. Even though I agree with that, it made me wonder, firstly, why we expect a company that struggles to deliver stable performance on their "stationary" website to somehow magically produce a "wowing" mobile app. And secondly, how our evaluation of adequate developing time seemingly has changed. We expect everything, and we expect it to be conveniently delivered right now for free.

This idea is partly included in the second article, that dealt with the rise of average and mediocre particularly in the smartphone segment (sorry, folks, I can't find the link anywhere). No more magic, only marginally better copies of the respective predecessors.

I think it is about time to adapt our expectation of quality to the expectation of release dates. There's a reason for saying like "Haste makes waste" or "Gut Ding will Weile haben". If we, for what ever reason, want an update every four weeks, we should stop expecting major innovations in those updates. In most cases, great work needs more time than average work. Grant people that time and they might surprise you with more than you expected.

I'm not saying we should lower our expectations. We just should unlearn to expect their immediate satisfaction without being willing to give anything for it.

Advertising messages have always been sent through one or more channels. With the advent of new technologies there secretly is hope for new and better ways to reach specific target audiences. One of those developments is the rapid spread of GPS enabled smartphones and the growth of location-based services (LBS) that allow marketers for disseminate commercial offers just at the right place (and further, at the right time, in the right context, etc.).

 In the first half of 2011, I conducted some qualitative research on location-based advertising for my master’s thesis. I want to share some of the results that are by no means representative (out of 73 participants only 16 were actually using LBS), nevertheless they are to some extend interesting. I spare you the theoretical details and framework the research was based on, but I am happy to provide you with the complete thesis (written in German) upon request.

The Reasons Why

The main reasons to use location-based services were to stay in touch with friends and acquaintances, followed by receiving information on your surroundings. Respondents admittedly started using LBS because their friends were using them too. The answers indicate that LBS are partly also used in order to create a favourable picture of ourselves that is presentable to our peer group. Thus, it is no big surprise that LBS are not used at places that are deemed inappropriate or embarrassing. Neither LBS are used at places that are considered private.

Attitues Towards Advertising

Only three respondents mentioned the chance to receive relevant advertising messages as a motive to use LBS, but everybody had an opinion on commercial offers sent via LBS. They have to be personalised and specifically tailored to wishes, needs, and the context. Furthermore, they have to offer additional value, maybe have an exclusive character, while at the same time they have to respect users’ privacy and should never be intrusive.

As particularly intrusive respondents described offers that are irrelevant, uninteresting, not targeted, and repetitive. Further the ads should never interrupt the actually planned “user experience” nor slow down the performance of the service.

Benefit of Location-based Advertising

The biggest advantage of location-based advertising is seen in the immediate chance of interaction. Between learning about an offer and buying it there should never be more than a few literal steps. This is maybe one of the great chances LBS offer to marketers: the conversion of online interaction into offline action. On the other hand it calls for a more real-time approach towards advertising, since every message sent has still to be valid the moment it is received.

What is your opinion or experience with LBS and location-based advertising?

I stumbled upon an interesting article on "Why the QR code is failing", recommended today in my Twitter feed. The title is misleading because Sean X Cummings mentions halfway through his obervations that "it's really not the QR codes fault: A QR code is a tool, nothing more".

It's simple: A tool only can fail if it's used in the wrong way. So it must be the user's fault - in this case marketers and advertising agencies - because they fall short in creating real value for customers. It is a phenomenon that can be observed almost everywhere today: The usage of technology with total disrespect of the user.

It seems that sometimes agencies are just showing off their know-how. Of course we can create Facebook pages. Of course we can launch this app. Of course we can implement QR codes in our campaign. In most cases all of those measures are incredibly well executed, look good, feel good. It's just nice. But shouldn't the more important question be: Why are we using this? What is in it for the customer?

We're hunting for awards, for the next big things, while all that matters is to talk to the target audience, tell them a compelling story. If those stories earn awards or become the next big thing – congratulations. But this "ad pour l'ad" is just a waste of time. We waste the time of the people we ultimately work for: customers. We have been talking about creating experiences for customers for quite a while now. So what is the user supposed to feel by uninspired use of technology?

Technologies give us very powerful tools to reach our customers. Let's not forget what we tried to reach them for in the first place.