11 posts tagged Rant
Branding is dead again, didn’t you hear? I think it has died at least five or six times over the last 3 years - if you believe the blog posts that is. However, don’t feel as if you have to grieve over branding’s passing - it has plenty of company:
I recently read a nice article listing some tips that would be useful for web strategists (On a side note, how many times have you heard, “Business Strategist” as a job title? Yeah me neither. I guess “analyst” or “consultant” isn’t cool in the web industry). But while I found the article interesting and indeed useful, I wasn’t sure how these tips applied to strategists per se. From what I can tell, the tips were more akin to tactics than strategies. For instance, “Be proactive, not reactive” is great advice, but it really doesn’t tell me what strategic direction to go. Also, “Be an enabler” sounds more like advice you’d give to some shady drug dealer than a client. After reading the article, I came to the realization that most so-called web “strategists” are mere “tacticians”.
I have no idea how we do it. How can we sleep at night knowing that there are so many killers on the loose: iPhone killers, Windows killers, Google killers, Twitter killers, Facebook killers and other murderous types hiding around the corner. Everyday, or at least that’s how it feels, I read at least one article about how something will kill something else. Just a few months ago, I read how the iPad would kill the Kindle. Yet, I bought a Kindle just recently with no mention made of its pending doom - at least to me (though feel free to let me know if I should buy it life insurance). What I can’t seem to understand is why every product released has to kill another. You know, the market is a very big place - just go check out the breakfast cereal isle. Apparently those brands aren’t as blood thirsty. When was the last time you heard, “The new Kellog’s Vector brand cereal is a Cheerios Killer”?
For those who haven’t heard, The Gap launched a new logo last week (by Laird+Partners). Let’s say the new logo wasn’t well received (HBR didn’t like it, nor did these folks). While the former designer in me wretched when I saw it (I think my first reaction was, “Helvetica Bold?!”) I’ve had a few sleeps to think it over and I have a new take on it: whatever.
Oh I realize that all my designer friends will rail on me once reading this, but I think, in this case, the logo really doesn’t matter. Sure, The Gap had a lot of brand equity in that logo. But what it also had was a brand that was stumbling. Compared to its sister brands, Old Navy and Banana Republic, The Gap wasn’t fairing too well. With major management shuffles within the last few years, The Gap was in need of a new direction (or at least I reckon it did). So The Gap did what so many other companies do when they are going in a new direction, waste money on a new logo.
Logo changes are just distractions
Don’t get me wrong. I am a firm believer of refreshing a logo from time to time. But I believe in evolution more than I do in revolution. (Mind you, if a brand suffers an astronomical PR disaster, I could be easily swayed.) But when a company blows a wad of cash on a new logo, the first thing I think is, “red herring”. Too many times companies don’t address their problems in the back of the house and focus way too much effort on window dressings.
Let me ask you this, how often do you love a brand of anything and are truly moved by the logo or even the brand name? For instance, I prefer Panasonic products. I’m not hot on their lack luster font or even the name Panasonic (which is, to me, only marginally better than what it used to be called, “National”). But I don’t care. My experience with their brand as a whole is enough to keep me loyal. What so many designers miss (and unfortunately many managers miss) is that the logo, really, is a small part of the brand experience. In fact, when blueprinting a service or experience, not once does the word, “logo” appear. You might see, “commercial” or “website”, but not “logo”. (Oh, and if it does… consider other work - seriously.)
People aren’t loyal to logos - they’re loyal to experiences
So coming back to The Gap. Did their old logo make you come to their stores? Did you care about the name? Or were you drawn by the image, the feel, the service in the stores? In fact, how often did the word “Gap” appear on the outside of their clothing? Unlike Nike, it was rare to see their name brand exhibited. What people are loyal to are brand experiences. People remember how they felt when interacting with a brand’s many touch-points. They remember how they were treated, they remember how their problems were solved. Not once have I heard a customer say, “My problem is that I dislike the logo on my product”.
In fact, this whole Gap-gate situation screams of New Coke, doesn’t it? So many people are screaming about how they’ll never go back into a Gap if they changed their logo, etc. Well, frankly, if this type of customer is the Gap’s current market - their logo is the least of their worries.
As much as I enjoy the world of web marketing and the infinite possibilities of measuring media, specifically web analytics, there are days where I simply find my job mind-numbing and painful. OK, OK, OK. I’ll admit that web analytics can deliver the euphoria of discovering hidden nuggets of insight and the ecstasy of uncovering an untapped market segment. And I’ll also admit that I like to liken myself to Indiana Jones - following trails, using my intellect to find hidden treasure. However, just like Dr. Jones, I feel like I get beat up a lot as I crawl through a good amount of filth to get where I’m going. It’s during times like these when it feels crappy to be a web analyst. Avinash Kaushik never told me there’d by days like these…
The ugly side of web analytics
Web analytics is a new(er) field. Everyone knows this (right?). The industry still comprises of professionals who are more or less, for a lack of a better word, jacks-of-all trades and master-of-some - out of necessity, if not by design. Web analysts are usually part-developer, part-marketer, part-salesman, part-teacher and unfortunately for too often, part grunt. No one told me that I’d spend hours upon hours overseeing developers (aka herding cats) as they botch up implementation after implementation. Nowhere in the job description does it say that the client sometimes just won’t listen - no matter how many times I explain something to them. Nowhere is it advertised that I would have to have to spend so much time working around so many unbelievably frustrating limitations of analytics packages. Though I was briefed that I would have to wear many hats, I didn’t know I would have to wear a helmet and a cup.
Forget insight, what about hindsight?
So much talk about the information I can extract. So much talk about how to convince hippos. Oh Avinash, why didn’t you warn me about how slow-to-react analytics vendors would be to true business needs? Why don’t their filters work? Why are the reporting abilities limited? What about those missing bounce rate metrics? Don’t get me started about having to crunch numbers in Excel…
The fact of the matter is that as sophisticated as many web analytics solutions are right now, they aren’t that advanced. They lack percentage points, standard deviations, variances, significance and simple forecasting. All these common managerial tools are virtually non-existent. However, they all do give me averages… Forgive me as I rub my temples. Oh, did I mention that a lot of these solutions are slow? No one told me that I’d have to wait days for some data queries. I’m not a BI analyst per se, but days seems awfully long considering the basic nature of the data. And as most you know, my analyst brothers and sisters, these short-comings have been around for years. Analytics tools come out every quarter - all missing some important piece of the puzzle. It’s like they don’t listen to us. If only Avinash would of warned me - I could of braced myself. *grumble* This situation, while better than 5 years ago, still “sucks”.
Macro-economic theory, take me away
It is said that if one or two companies hold the lion’s share of an industry, it’s because they have an initial technological edge. But overtime, as more entrants enter the market, this advantage fades - leveling the playing field. I can’t wait for that day. But until then, I’ll continue to create work-arounds, I’ll continue to crunch the numbers in Excel, and I’ll continue to double-tag. I’ll suffer through all of this because the rush of helping a client leverage a once unknown piece of intelligence is just too seductive. It feels too satisfying to give up. At least this part of the job Avinash did tell me about it.
Oh, OK. I get it now. Never mind.
I recently read this article fom Econsultancy a few days ago. It implies that some people believe that Google is manipulating web statistics by having a visitor window of 6 months for campaigns (though it does acknowledge this setting can be changed as per these instructions). For those who don’t know what this means, here’s a quick summary:
I watched as consipiracy theorists Tweeted ad nausium about Google hiding this little bit of information, and trying to manipulate the system in their favor. All I can say is, “Oh please”.
Firstly, the 6-month window is a default. I’m pretty sure people would complain no matter what length they chose. (One could also say that XiTi’s window is too short as well) Secondly, one should always familiarize themselves with the intricacies of an analytics tool before relying on its stats. Otherwise, it’s the same as trying to measure something with a ruler without the units marked on it.
Just because Google Analytics is free, doesn’t mean one shouldn’t take the time to learn about the system and perhaps get some training in it. Similarly, just because some analytics solutions are expensive, doesn’t mean it will do everything out of the box.
We’re living in a time of fiscal responsibility (though I do find the phrase “tough economic times” overused). Meaning, that ad spend should be monitored, and justified. So if everyone else is being responsible, why are people dropping the ball when it comes to their web analysis?
As the saying goes, “It’s a poor musician who blames his instrument”. So let’s stop pointing fingers, and learn to play properly and better.
By the way, Google offers free online tutorials on Google analytics here. Knowing’s half the battle, eh?
Here we go again. Back when I was in high school, one of the coolest things to do was to be into a band that no one heard of. We’d look down our noses at the very happy pop music lovers, thinking that they had no idea what good music was. And when we were asked what music we were into, we’d proudly fire off a half dozen names and praise their awesomeness. We’d even lend our friends tapes, and records in hopes that they, too, could see what they were missing. But, inexplicably, the moment that one of our favorite bands got popular, we considered them “sell-outs” and swore that all the new “fans” were into them just to be cool. These so-called “fans” didn’t “get it”, they were posers.
As immature as doing this was, I guess it was our way to express how we felt, how we lost a bit of our coolness, and we resented it. Well, I’m sorry to say, this high school pettiness is happening all over again. But this time, we’re not talking about R.E.M. or NIN, we’re talking about Twitter, you poser.
Sorry Oprah and Ashton, you don’t get it
Recently, I discovered a site called Here Before Oprah. Essentially, it’s a way to prove that you were old-school and a fan of Twitter before Oprah discovered it and brought her legions of fans onto along (enter the fail whale, stage left). But, weren’t we the ones praising Twitter just yesterday? Weren’t we the ones pushing for more people to get on it? Was I the only one that got tingles when newspaper writers started asking Twitterati for their opinions on articles? So why the about face? Instead of embracing Oprah, why make the point that we were on it before her? To keep cool, I guess.
Add to this, recent posts saying that celebrities only see Twitter as a broadcast channel, that they only talk amongst themselves, and that they don’t see it for it “truly is”. Truly is. What a crock. Yeah, because we all “got” Twitter when it first came out. Uh huh, sure. Y’know, I don’t recall Twitter originally being designed for retweeting (RT for those of you who don’t “get it”), but all Tweeters do it these days. Like so much in this world, many things grew and evolved into something greater than they were originally designed for, or were truly meant for.
Dinner knives make great screwdrivers
How many of you have cell phones, but primarily use it for texting? How many of you own TVs and use them to babysit your kids? How many of you have used a dinner knife as a screwdriver? In the end, it doesn’t matter what a tool was originally designed for, each person will use a tool as they see fit. If they derive some value that’s important to them, then great! If not, who are we to jump down their throats and act elitist?
If we stuck to using things for what they truly were designed for, we wouldn’t have Krazy Glue, Post-it notes, pace-makers, nor Twitter itself (I do recall that the internet was originally designed for the military - what’s your name soldier?).
Twitterati, Schmitterati
Looking down at Oprah’s plunge into Twitter is shameful, and seeing her presence on Twitter as the end of it is ludicrous. The web is undergoing an age of engagement and collaboration, i.e., the ultimate in marketing. The web is engaging, accountable, and collaborative. All this elitist behaviour is counter to the evolution.
So for those of you who see celebreties on Twitter as a negative thing, grow up, and embrace their curiosity. Welcome them and be friendly… you web 2.0/social media “expert” posers.
Let me begin by saying that I kind of just lied to you. I promise not to make a habit of it, honest. The truth of the matter is that I am on FriendFeed - I’m just not that active on it. In fact, I simply just feed my Twitter updates into it, and put it on auto-pilot. Yes, I know, it’s an amazing tool, but so are so many other new applications/social-networks/websites/paradigm shifts out there. It’s just that I simply don’t care - and you know what? That’s OK. It’s also OK if you don’t care either. I won’t speak poorly of you, swear.
No time
There seems to be this belief by some that those on the web, ought to be on every new technology, and that we must be “innovators” (earlier than early-adopters). Personally, I like to keep up-to-date with recent developments in web design and web analytics, but that’s as far as I’ll really go. Sure, I’ll keep my ears open for new social networks, I’ll even create accounts to “check them out”. But if a new application doesn’t hook me in the first hour or so, I’ll ditch it - unless of course it gains wider appeal like Twitter did (hello Oprah!). In that case, I wouldn’t want to miss out on the party.
Of course, Social Media Experts (can the real Social Media Experts please stand up?) ought to be more up to date with all this, since this is their job - but it surely isn’t mine. For mere mortals like me, time is at a premium. With full-time work, part-time studies, and family obligations, it’s a wonder I even have time to blog anymore. Throw on top of that that I have to keep up to date with the fields I work in - and that’s plenty.
Motivation and Commitment
As with any new technology, features and promises of greatness do not guarantee widespread adoption. Most users tend not to want to learn how to use a new applications if:
During my Web Analytics studies at UBC, an interesting topic arose that was the centre of some lively discussion:
Is the use of cookies to track online behaviour an invasion of privacy?
If you were watching the news lately, you’d think they probably were. Last week, the White House caught quite a bit of flack about using web beacons (a.k.a., web bugs) and persistent cookies on their website, http://www.whiteHouse.gov. Interestingly enough, the use of web beacons (in a nut shell, JavaScript that calls a tiny image while transmitting some data about a web site’s visitors) was not the problem. The problem was the existence of persistent cookies. I won’t go into detail about how the cookies got there, or if they were actually set by the White House website, but basically these little text files that are stored on your computer are quite controversial to some. I’ll just offer this:
Relax. What’s the big deal?
I feel there is this strange perception of what is private and what is not with respect to different mediums. Consider this: whenever you use your credit card, you are tracked by the store, and the credit card company. Banks especially, know if your credit card usage is out of your “norm” and will contact you. Yet, no one complains about that. Similarly, cell phones today have GPS functionality. Yet no one seems to raise a fuss about being located by the phone company. And those close circuit cameras around your offices? No worries. But when it comes to web surfing, it’s a whole different ball of wax.
For some, web usage must remain secret, and completely private. You’d think they were spies, deleting their caches and flushing their cookies after every surf-session. I think the public has to accept that anytime technology is in between you and the person you are trying to communicate with, there is a risk of information theft. Have you secured your WiFi connection? Chew on that for a bit.
Blocking cookies? Pointless.
There is a misconception that deleting or blocking cookies will make you disappear from web analysts’ and Big Brother’s radars. News Flash: You’re just fudging up the numbers. Outside of using public computers, where I totally condone deleting cookies since people might login as you if you’re not careful, I don’t see the point. With respect to Google Analytics (GA) alone, even if you were to block cookies, web analysts still have your IP, screen resolution, browser make, and a myriad of other stats. The cookie is just a small part of the equation.
The anatomy of the Google Analytics cookie system
Upon closer inspection of the GA cookies you’ll notice that the GA cookies actually don’t contain a great deal of information about you. Basically, they only contain:
By blocking these cookies, you successfully do the following:
That’s pretty much it really. (See for yourself with Stéphane Hamel’s WASP application.)
NOTE. Yes, I know 3rd-party cookies are still borderline in terms of privacy. I’m talking about 1st-party cookies here. But thanks.
Most cookie usage is not evil
Another argument I hear is that some users don’t want customized content, or they don’t want to let marketers into their heads because they find marketers “evil”. Contrary to popular believe, marketing isn’t evil. At the heart of marketing (and most web analytics) is the attempt to discover a need or want within a market segment (or to find a new market segment completely) and satisfy them. That’s it. Marketers simply want to figure out what you want and give it to you (I know, crazy concept). If you don’t like what they’re offering, ignore them (which many of us already do), and market forces will do away with them eventually.
Other methods to maintain your privacy
So, deleting/rejecting cookies isn’t the holy grail of privacy. What is a privacy-nut to do then? Here are my tips for those who wish to drop off the map:
Essentially, disconnect from the wired world altogether. Or…. accept the reality of the web, that ANY information you put into it is somewhat vulnerable (so be careful about what you publish) and know that cookies aren’t that big a threat, and are definitely the least of your worries.
What are your thoughts about cookies and privacy?
(Thanks to Jacqueline Ng, Stéphane Hamel, Adrian Liem and my classmates at UBC for the great conversation and feedback.)
I’ve noticed a rise in what I call “Fortune Cookie Bloggers”, essentially so-called Social Media Experts whose blogs read more like fortune cookies rather than anything with any real insight. Their posts tend to all share the same qualities - they’re vague, safe and forgettable.
These bloggers never say anything concrete, don’t take sides, and they start artificial conversations using Yoda-esque happy-talk. Just as a fortune cookie might tell you that patience is a virtue, or that true happiness is enjoying friends’ company (add the words, “in bed” as you wish), fortune cookie bloggers also say things of little to no usable value. Typical advice usually includes phrases like “build your online brand” and “engage your community” without once offering any details about how to do so.
The best bloggers not only say all the ra-ra Yoda-eque stuff, but they also bring up points of discussion and, most importantly, their opinion. What use is a blog if all it does is rehash old ideas and never takes a stance of its own? Without an opinion, a blog merely becomes a glorified book report.
But despite their empty talk, fortune cookie bloggers do attract a lot of visitors. I think it’s because their posts are bite-sized, and sound important, just like fortune cookies. The big difference here is that a fortune cookie doesn’t pass itself off as an expert or Confucius. You know going in that the cookie is just that, a cookie. You would never base your life nor your online strategy on it. When an online expert writes posts that come off as gospel and just lets their followers pull whatever random meanings they want out of them, I consider that reckless. Just like a fortune-teller, anyone can speak in generalities that have an air of importance. And just like a fortune-teller, they sometimes can do more harm than good. Fortune Cookie Bloggers fool a lot of people into thinking that they’re true authorities and can cause a followers to go down the wrong path and lose online credibility.
Unlike a fortune cookie blogger, I’ll actually attempt to define some of the terms being thrown around the blogosphere.
So I implore all the “Social Media Experts” out there that when you post something and it sounds like a fortune cookie, stop. If someone cannot take what you’ve written and actually do something tangible with it today, stop. Doing so does nothing to build your online reputation as a social media expert and would be a waste of everyone’s time.
Do you know of any Fortune Cookie Bloggers? If so, what advice would you them?
Oh, by the way, according to Foodimentary (@foodimentary) fortune cookies don’t come from Asia, they’re an American invention. Just thought I’d share.
Call me old-school, but I find the whole “web ninja” moniker ridiculous. I guess when someone calls himself a ninja, he’s trying to imply that he has mastered a wide array of skills that he uses when he wages war against websites. Wonderful imagery. Honestly - moving.
But I just can’t take people that refer to themselves as ninjas seriously, sorry.
I recently had to wade through a pile of resumes to fill a couple web designer jobs at Concordia University and ran across a handful of applicants who referred to themselves as “web ninjas”. Now I’m fully aware, there are some companies out there that have staff members with titles such as “Web ninja“,etc. That’s fine, I get it. These companies are avant-garde, cutting edge, and hip. Got it. Coo’. But when an individual writes “I’m a CSS ninja” in his cover letter - it makes me pause and wonder, “Can I take this guy seriously?”, then right after, it puts me into, “Let’s-see-how-good-this-ninja-really-is-mode”. Seriously, if you’re trying to apply to a position where someone like me is looking over your portfolio, the last thing you want is to make the employer ultra-hyper-uber picky. In my books, if you’re calling yourself a ninja, you better be perfect buddy. Some of you may be asking where my sense of humor went? Well, after you sift through a few hundred CVs, and just as many terrible portfolios from other “ninjas”, you lose a bit of your cheerfulness. Which leads me to my big three of applying to web designer jobs:
What do you think of designers who call themselves, “ninjas”?
With all that said, I’m not always right. This guy actually got the job he was trying out for.
