i [love] marketing.

the cathedral and the bazaar

Another accidental discovery today: an awesome (and forgotten) paper "The Cathedral and The Bazaar" by Eric Raymond. It was written 11 years ago and it's about Linux (remember that?), but it could easily have been written today in relation to brands. The main thing in his analysis is comparison of 2 different development styles, the "cathedral" model of most of the commercial world vs. the "bazaar" model of the Linux world ... and of the digital world today. Linux style of development - release early and often, delegate everything you can, be open to the point of promiscuity ... No quiet, reverent cathedral-building here—rather, the Linux community seemed to resemble a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches. It's not so much in doing quick-turnaround releases incorporating lots of user feedback, but in scaling it up to a level of intensity that matched the complexity of what he was developing (and this last part is super-important). While Raymond focused on the software-debugging task in his analysis, the same kind of argumentation can be applied to branding vs. people's experience today. Raymond's core argument is that "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. More users find more bugs". Spoken in today's language, the statement can go: "given enough people, all brand promises are shallow". Umair Haque calls this the shrinking advantage of brands:  when interaction is cheap, the very economic rationale for orthodox brands actually begins to implode: information about expected costs and benefits doesn’t have to be compressed into logos, slogans, ad-spots or column-inches – instead, consumers can debate and discuss expected costs and benefits in incredibly rich detail. Raymond's "bazaar" may be interpreted today as a social media thing, but it is fact much more than that (i always claimed that the web is social and collaborative by default). His analysis in fact applies for agencies' model of website development: "In the cathedral-builder view ... it takes months of scrutiny by a dedicated few to develop confidence that you've winkled them all out. Thus the long release intervals, and the inevitable disappointment when long-awaited releases are not perfect." (where did my money go? asks the client. for example, it went here and here). Then, it applies to digital brands (think Netflix or Google or Zappos) AND a horrifyingly low number of agencies: "in the bazaar view, you assume that bugs turn shallow pretty quickly when exposed to a thousand eager co-developers pounding on every single new release." (test & iterate & iterate some more - that's what they do). And then, it applies to brands. Let's see. The cathedral above is Niketown in Manhattan. The image of a products' shrine is here, cathedral's interior is here and here, worship area is here, ornaments are here, and the altar is here. When people come in for service, they are ushered through the neatly established paths. Only certain behaviors are allowed (must not leave empty handed). The product is the center of the worship - not the person - b/c after all, this is a cathedral. Seems to work well. Until, hm, it doesn't. Blame it on bazaar, or "edgeconomy" - an economy characterized by cheap, ubiquitous interaction. In bazaars, talk is cheap, interactions are many,  and  [brand] promises become shallow. Down goes the cathedral.

an [unmet] need or ... a habit?

This is my contribution for the celebration of the upcoming Black Friday & also International Buy Nothing Day  (Saturday, November 29). I accidentally came across Peter Merholz (Adaptive Path founder) blog post, where he says: "it's important to recognize that successful innovations do not create needs - they satisfy unmet needs. The trick is figuring out what needs are going unmet." While this is a fundamental truth in people-centered research and design (and also there are really a number of discussion paths to be taken from this sentence), I am trying to focus here on needs-habits relation. Example: P&G hires psychologists (among other professionals) to help them develop and market their products [yep, they are serious about their business].  So, the story goes: "about a decade ago, we realized we needed to create new products. So we began thinking about how to create habits for products that had never existed before." Hm: there are [people's] needs (met and unmet) and then there are their habits [around products] - products existent and also those yet to be invented. It really seems way to easy to confuse the two. BUT inventing a product - or anything new, for that matter - does not necessarily entails meeting an [unmet] need. As P&G business (and many other brands' businesses) really prove. Many products, in fact, fail because there is - initially - no need for them. What brands then invent is not a new need, but a new angle by which to market the product. And - poof - people start to use it. Out of an [unmet] need or ... out of a habit? Apparently, habits are much easier to create & manage. NYT article titled "Warning: Habits May  Be Good for You" writes: "Is black friday a collective experiment? For example, the urge to check e-mail or to grab a cookie is likely a habit with a specific prompt. Researchers found that most cues fall into four broad categories: a specific location or time of day, a certain series of actions, particular moods, or the company of specific people. The e-mail urge, for instance, probably occurs after you’ve finished reading a document or completed a certain kind of task. The cookie grab probably occurs when you’re walking out of the cafeteria, or feeling sluggish or blue." This sounds scary to me: "habits are formed when the memory associates specific actions with specific places or moods... If you regularly eat chips while sitting on the couch, after a while, seeing the couch will automatically prompt you to reach for the Doritos. These associations are sometimes so strong that you have to replace the couch with a wooden chair for a diet to succeed.” (from the same article). Something to think about before tomorrow - do we really need things that we are about to buy tomorrow? Or - does the day after Thanksgiving habitually prompt us to run to shop? More importantly: how much of our (consumption and other) behavior is habitual - and thus created by brands?  Sociological determinism alert. Still an interesting question, tho.

image vs. reality ...

... one of my favorite topics here. This is really nothing new, but I don't think it can be mentioned enough times. On the image above: package & image & reality (eeeeww). More stuff here - for my favs, scroll all the way down. The video is pretty illustrative too (ignore the music, tho). [also, no idea why i had to post this on thanksgiving]

postcards I may send

It's time to be a girl [again]. Another fav of mine thus far is this. I love this blog. Lots of potentially useful stuff when [someone] screws up ...

Everyone likes a good story.

Especially the one that includes winners and losers. Cool guys and nerds. I was having lunch yesterday with my friend Duncan Watts, who is now at Yahoo, and who got slightly worked up about when we started talking about, what he saw as regularly distorted, portrayal of Yahoo by media. While Duncan has no illusion about how media operate, something else got my attention in his rant [no, it was not stepping down of Jerry Yang]. Apparently, Google was not first to come up with its "Flu Trends." Turns out Yahoo has done the same research on the same topic six months earlier - yes, before Google - and published it to the sound of silence.  Then came Google research ... and - poof - NYT breaking story. Which, truth to be told, does acknowledge that Yahoo has done something similar, but read the lingo for yourself: "The premise behind Google Flu Trends ... has been validated by an unrelated study indicating that the data collected by Yahoo ... can also help with early detection of the flu." Really?: "can also help" & "validated by an unrelated study" - that sounds really really enthusiastic - you got me truly excited there about Yahoo. Also, how can something that happened earlier validate something that is happening now? Isn't Google study actually validating Yahoo one, since it was released later? Oh well. Ok, this may be the place to also say that while Google is one of my favorite digital brands, and that I use all possible Google services, and I in fact really think that Yahoo! is lame [I guess that's just the Zeitgeist], I cannot help but actually realizing that there's something weird about this witch hunt. In order to have a winner, you seemingly need to have a loser (MSFT is just too boring to be part of the equation. In some different story tho, it may have also been regarded as a big bad wolf (albeit one with the *human* face of Jerry Seinfeld) that patiently waits to devour the loser). In any event, the point is that in reality - that seemingly no one cares about - Yahoo is really not that troubled. Monday's NYT article starts with "Here’s a new parlor game in Silicon Valley: guessing who will replace Jerry Yang at the helm of the troubled Internet giant Yahoo". And now some facts: "Whatever the Yahoo board decides to do, it still has some considerable assets with which to work. The company still attracts 500 million users a month, is the leading Web e-mail service, and has other profitable Internet franchises in news, sports and video. It also remains one of the top brands on the Internet." Hm, not so bad. Much less "troubled". Why is this information tucked at the end of the ranting about Yahoo's alleged doom? Simply, it does not fit in the story. In a winner-takes-all society, someone's really got to be a loser. Even if he is not.

Feeling ... ?

This site is awesome. It represents an actually-useful CitySearch (if you can even imagine that), and best of all, it's filtered by mood (energentic, hungover, manly, etc). Like, who cares what are the highest rated bars around (or, for that matter, what's the half-way meeting spot) if you are not *feeling* it?  Other reasons for its greatness: it's a collaborative effort; there's a possibility of finding out something hidden/new; a serendipity of discovery; and targeting recommendations by something truly relevant: your mood (finally!). Also, there is something else: a truly personal (private?) component of the whole reviews thing. The spots we put in remind us of a specific event in our own life that happened there. So it's a bit of adding a personal history to the city [which, in fact, always happens, but is also almost always invisible]. I really dig it. Bonus: the design is really simple + the look & feel (mood?) is just right + it's super easy to edit the map (as with most google mash-ups). p.s.  I added a romantic spot :) (yes, I am such a girl; and no, it did not work out - but the place is still romantic). The site is still in beta, so suggestions are not exactly abundant, but i can see it being totally useful once it gets crowded...

google ads are killing me.

I really don't heart this new gmail design. The ads are the most prominent thing on this page. Wonder if they are going to spread some more. Bigger font is also an option (that I am dreading of). And fine, I get how convenient is the space above the email (narrow blue bar w some ESPN news, whatevs) - that was btw all the time there but i NEVER noticed it until the re-design (good job). But i would prefer to have my contacts and folders BIGGER than the ads. As of now, they seem like this really skinny side thingy. Am I just resistant to change or this really does suck??

the interaction needs to be social. its participants, not so much.

I have finally sent out my contribution to Jeff Caswell's "Project 100: Marketing in the Social Media Era.” In order to avoid writing about what I thought everyone else would, my idea is that online social interaction is not about its participants but the way they relate. So we don't have to socially interact only with other people - apps & tools & websites are welcome, too. Anyway, here's what I have written, and it is sorta compilation of several posts from here. But combining them made a better post - and a better story. So here it is.

I like thinking about branding and website design. Truth to be told, figuring out digital branding is a gruesome task. Mostly because the conversation gravitates around two areas: brands using or not using social networks (that annoying “hello, you are my friend now, so better get used to it” thing), or mindless ads & even more mindless branded destinations like minisites, advergames, viral videos, and immersive environments. I think that the truth is in between. And by in-between I don't mean some crazy social network-widget combo. (People already tried that. Doesn't work). I mean designing interactions that are not only useful & usable, but that are, well, human. This is not about making people interact with each other or creating a community. It is also not about “brands managing customer relations” in social networks. It is about making people interact with applications & site tools in a social way. It is about (social) interactions design. Something like thinking that interface has a human face.

I like to believe that every web interaction is a social interaction (and yes, saying that the web is social is a verbosity). By this I mostly mean that interactions are designed as roles and gestures between people. Something like this: when you are interacting with the real person who is maybe offering you advice, helping you do something or, just having a conversation with you. That interaction is ritualized, playful, funny, surprising and, mostly, continuous (think brand loyalty now). The brand websites should be designed like that.

In this world, the size of a button, the location of the image, a position of the search box or a number of links displayed does matter. And it matters because it represents a "break-it or make-it" point - a moment of truth about the brand. People either click or don't. They want to interact or not. They stay or they leave. (Social) interaction is possible even with the sites that are meant to be super-functional, like banking or online flight booking sites or shopping. They can be functional as if users are dealing with a real person and not with an interactive interface. Or, to say all of this in the simplest possible way: decisions about the human details like the above define if your brand makes money or it doesn’t. So why do only social networks care about this kind of stuff today? And, why do brands think that they need to go to a social network in order to be (or not) someone’s friend? The relationship can start right there on the brands’ site. It is all about the details.

5 things that are wrong with stuart elliot

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/business/media/13adco.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/business/media/28adco.html
http: //www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/business/media/15adco.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/media/26adco.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/business/media/04adco.html
+ bonus one: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/business/media/16adco.html

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge*

* Charles Darwin. I put this quote here just because. I don't have anyone particular in mind. It is just relevant for the state of the ad industry today. Next time you are at a digital marketing event, pay attention. Look out for the most confident speakers. [btw, no idea what the site above is useful for. maybe texting].

the devil in details

Sad as it may sound, I actually do own the bed above. Minus the slatted bed base, that is (until the last night). Which got me to thinking not only about the usefulness of the information above, but about the power of details in general. More specifically, about details that lead to (proven) accountability. Things like reminding people that their purchase is not complete until they have all the bed parts shows not only superior customer research (how did they know that people fail to realize this?), but also something else: a realization that each step of the process (of purchase or otherwise) can be observed, managed, and - ultimately - monetized. That is, made accountable. This is specifically relevant for websites which made each step on consumers' journey visible and observable. In this world, the size of a button, the location of the image, a position of the search box or a number of links displayed does matter. And it matters because it represents a "break-it or make-it" point - a moment of truth about a brand. People click or don't. They want to interact or not. They stay or they leave. To say this in the simplest possible way: decisions about the micro-details like above define if you make money or you don't.  Now think advertising or, better yet, some of its most *exciting* formats:  flash banners, advergames, webisodes, minisites, video game ads, and ubiquitous "viral video". The way those are accountable (whatever) is through elusive concept of impressions and engagement. People spend some time, and a moment later, agencies claim to clients that their campaigns made money. Targeting or no targeting, between watching an ad and the actual product purchase is this giant black box, where all the real decisions happen. Matrics is today a big numbers game (number of clicks, impressions) that can maybe describe reality of consumer behavior, but certainly can't explain it. What big numbers - as well as any big picture - conceal are the details of where the clients money is. The question then is: why so few agencies care about this?

just be real, and use your best judgment

Zappos never ceases to impress me. This is its CEO's blog post , which details about Zappos' layoffs. Talk about transparency & honesty. And real honesty, not advertising honesty, in that. Not only the guy meets with his customers on a regular basis, he has the same honesty & transparency policy with his own employees (and their twitterings about the layoffs): in the post, he says that "our twitter policy remains the same as it has ever been: just be real, and use your best judgment." I guess I am mostly impressed by the consistency of Zappos approach: in good times equally as when the shit hits the fan, they don't change the way they do business, treat their customers, and relate to their employees. That's really hard to imitate and even harder to compete with. And I really don't think that "just be real, and use your best judgment" can be summarized any better as a lesson to brands.

the election is over. what now?

I've read today NYT article (thanks, Brian) about Politico.com, which in the months leading to elections has become one of the go-to online news destinations. The article asks what happens to it after November 4th? The same question can be asked about any news source (plus Stephen Colbert and John Stewart shows) and any news brand. What to do now? How to keep energized voters interested (especially the young ones)? How to inspire them to come back to the sites when there is no pressing election issues going on? Those who succeed will probably need to reinvent their online presence. Traditional news brands are competing with blogs; at the same time they  are challenged to rise above them in terms of credibility (loosely used here), but to keep the blog dynamics. A though task & the one that requires a thorough makeover. Keep authority without being stodgy & rigid. Offer facts  & information, but be fluid & dynamic. Blogs are awesome in the latter, and (some) news brands are better in the former. But aside of redesigning their sites, they are faced with much more fundamental issues: who owns online political debate today? And, perhaps more importantly, can this debate even be owned? Online news consumers are faced with fragmented news, information, and opinion sources. They often need to visit a number of destinations in order to get a full spectrum of information they seek. There resides the opportunity for traditional news brands: while blogs are great in offering opinions and angle, the news brands (and not all of them, for sure) are actually still perceived as reliable sources of hard-core information (think "I saw it on CNN" t-shirts). So why not go in direction of curated aggregation? More often then not, this is a question of execution - provide enough blog links, comments links, and trackbacks. In short, bring the debate in. Instead of too often abused strategy of littering social networks and blogs with meaningless widgets and annoying "hello, you are my friend now, so better get used to it" approach, be the host of the party. (yep, RSS is a challenge, but when political issues are concerned people more often then care about others' opinions as much as about the article itself). Owning a debate does not necessarily mean having the last word; rather, it means having the first (being first in Google search results, featured on Buzzfeed, most cited on Twitter). Speaking of firsts, featuring "First 100 Days of Obama's Presidency" seems like a good start.

introducing healthy competition. is Nike+ bound to become a runner up?

My friend Ben Bloom has recently taken on running (seriously), and he pointed me out this site. I accused him of being a running "amateur", but soon enough I realized that I have laughed too soon (as I often tend to do). I think this is a great site. It has all awesome & necessary elements: advice, trainings, community, finding a training partner, tracking your own progress. This inevitably made me think of Nike+. I have already written at length about everything that is wrong with this site, so here is just a recap: a) Nike+ system supports only a specific type of running experience, and a person has to have that specific running experience in order to find the system personally useful ( Adam Greenfield's awesome post "on the ground running" talks about the closeness Nike+ system much better than I do);  b) This would not be an issue if Nike didn't claim that they provide super-customization (marketing talk alert!) for all runners - exactly the lack of which got a lot of serious runners not to use the site + to complain about Nike Human Race. The truth is that the more people run, the more help they need - that help being better shoes, well organized runs, and support and advice of community of runners. Which brings me back to the site above. It is all about runners' (serious or casual) actual experience. And ignoring those experiences reveals a too-well-known marketing perspective that is focused way too much on the brand and its products, and not enough on people's experience with the actual activity [in this case, running]. The brand cares less about *people-as-runners* and people's *running experience*, and more about *people-as-consumers* and *running-as-a brand-experience*. Experience seems to be the weirdly missing link in many brands' marketing thinking. It definitely is nice if a brand, like Nike, wants to help people, but then it should organize uncontroversial runs + open up their system so it is well, less about the brand, and more about runners. The problem that I have is that a lot of people in the marketing community use Nike Human Race as an "excellent" example of advertising-as-service. But if that service does not serve runners, then it is not a service anymore but a pure brand promotion. It should be questioned, not celebrated. This is the larger problem of brand images - they cover up reality way too much. This is why I think sites like DailyMile are awesome: they don't claim anything, they don't want to sell you anything, they just want to help you run better. This is a great way to build a long-lasting and loyal relationship - with a brand or otherwise.

this is not a joke.

This is awesome. I suppose this means that President Obama's win offers a longed-for accountability to online advertising. The "huge ROI" is to be attributed to in-game Obama ads. Mind all on-ground volunteers, incredible campaign outreach, and actually useful online tools, like tax-cut tracker. Obama won b/c of the in-game ads. Speaking of desperate, whoever is interested in learning more about achieving Obama-like success for their brand, can attend Digital Media Measurement and Pricing Summit - prospective attendees, please register at this nothing less than amazing, pure state-of-art summit's website. Your online ad ROI has just been found.

how do you feel today?

NYT is keeping it real. Apparently, McCain supporters are "prayerful" (is that a word?), "worried", exhausted", "resigned" & "scared" (oh, boo). Obama's are "excited", "ready", "relieved", and "inspired". 

razorfish discovers that the web is social. and all of it, too

Judging by its look & feel, the only thing missing from this picture is a unicorn. Otherwise, Razorfish's FEED Consumer Experience Report would be a perfect fairytale. [and by fairytale i mean something that has nothing to do with reality]. Think for example the FEED's "finding" that 22% of the respondents use Twitter, or that 40% of them said they made purchases due to seeing ads on social networking sites (A question: how come that the agency with a strong media buying capabilities is allowed to run a survey confirming that people click on ads? oh, never mind). Last time I even noticed an ad on Facebook, it was offering me the service at Park Avenue United Methodist Church and to "never shave again" (no, I haven't clicked on either). I got somewhat entertained by Brandon Geary's contribution "More Value for Your Message: Advertising as a Service", where he lauds Nike Human Race [Fiasco] as an "event that provides a real service." Sure it does - for Nike. For runners, not so much. Speaking of Nike Human Race, seems that ebooks are making their major, and let's just hope, final comeback: R/GA has just released a compilation of glossy photos from its Human Races - truly amazing and inspiring images, page after page. Can be customized, too. Do they have much to do with the reality of the Human Races? Probably as much as the FEED report has to do with the actual consumer experience.

top 5 marketing agency sites (+ shitlist)

I have already been thinking & writing about marketing agencies' identity crisis & about their blogs, and a bit about their sites, too, so I guess now it's time to pick up where I left off with this last one. The way I think about agencies' websites is that they are display of 1) agencies' capabilities; 2) reflections of an agency's unique approach to consumers, brands, and business; 3) sign of a clear identity. When someone's site has all three of the above + clean, simple + minimialist design & navigation = great agency site. So I ranked the sites by these criteria. My all time fav are 1. Bond Art & Science site (yes, still), 2. Undercurrent, 3. Zeus Jones; 4. HUGE, and 5. LOVE Creative. Bond Art & Science and Undercurrent are great b/c their content&presentation&site format IS the web. Prob. also great b/c the sites tell a lot about the agencies' culture & the way its people think about digital. Also shows confidence in what those people can do, rather what these agencies has done in the past (which would be an old-school approach). Zeus Jones does the same thing a slightly less convincingly. HUGE brings in a different angle - accountability - as it displays highly-coveted numbers on its front page  [e.g. 120 million monthly visitors to sites designed & developed by HUGE]. Beautiful and clean look&feel of the site also sets expectations for prospective clients. V confident design & clear messaging about who the agency is and what it an do. The top-5 runner-ups are The Barbarian Group (a bit zzzzz but shows 2)) & Modernista (I really don't like their site, but it also scores well on 2) so I put it in). Leading the shitlist and slowly entering the all-time hall of fame is 1. Razorfish's "all-flash" site, followed by 2) truly scary DDB, which is disturbing if only for the butchered butterfly; 3. Grey, which made the list b/c of little aliens that I find very endearing; 4. shared place by Leo Burnett and Publicis & Hal Riney - loading time indefinite & navigation: impossible. Finally, let's not forget the agency for the digital age, R/GA (I actually think their site is just plain (not plain good or plain bad), but the logo (and bob greenberg) are so overwhelming that it actually made it here). Bonus rankings: best sound effects - Razorfish & Leo Burnett; Most confusing: Saatchi & Saatchi, uniquely featuring very timely "Bob Ideas Gallery"; Worst navigation: Leo Burnett; Fragile-to-nonexistent identity: McCannErickson; Preternatural reliance on color red & on Cannes Lions: Ogilvy; Who-cares-information (a.k.a. sales pitch of the year 2006) & giant fireworks (a sure indicator of cheesiness) on the front page: Tribal DDB.

your brand is my friend

I was talking yesterday with my friend Sasha about branding & website design. Sasha, who is a partner in a well-known digital marketing agency, complained that if looked from a slight distance, all the sites they created for their very different clients looked the same to him. Truth is, they were exceptionally well designed, both visually and in terms of interactions, and had seamless navigation and were SEO-ed. But, the question was, where the clients' brand had gone? Figuring out digital branding is a gruesome task. Mostly because the conversation gravitates around 2 areas: brands using or not using social networks (hence the title of this post, as an anti-thesis of Alan Wolk's idea that "your brand is not my friend") or mindless ads & even more mindless branded destinations like minisites, videogames, viral videos, and, of course, in the category of its own & impossible to surpass (in budget, time invested, and lack of ROI) Coke Happiness Factory. I think that the truth is in between. And by in-between I don't mean some crazy social networks-widget combo (people already tried that. doesn't work). I mean designing interactions that are not only useful & usable, but that are, well, human. Adrian Chen talked about something similar, but his analysis focuses on how "social" interactions differ from UX and ID. I, on the other hand, think all IDs should be human. This mostly means that interactions are designed as gestures and rituals between people (open-ended, prone to breakdowns, interactive, funny, playful, accidental, confusing, surprising, but at the end of the day, mostly seamless). And this is where the brand-as-your-friend interaction talk comes in. Again, I am not talking about "brands managing relations" in social networks, I am talking about interaction design. Interaction design is all about people: how people connect with others through products and services and information they use. All of it right there on the brand's site. Isn't that where the real engagement resides (in keeping the interaction going)? Adopting this approach probably means studying how people interact with each other, their rituals and gestures, and super-imposing these insights on the already-streamlined standard interaction design. Sure thing, sites need to be clean and easy to navigate, but they also need to be messy enough to be human. This is where any relationship (brand relationship included) starts. This is possible even with the sites that are meant to be super-functional, like banking or online flight booking sites or shopping. They can be functional as if we are dealing with a real person and not with an interactive interface. Also, success in these interactions is a much more long-term project: failures are temporary (see the image above), and the most important thing is to build a (brand) relationship. Why do only social networks care about this kind of stuff today? And why do brands think that they exclusively need to go to social networks in order to be (or not) someone's friend? The friendship can start right there on the brand's site.

if obama wins the election, it won't be because he took out banner ads in video games?*

* A sentence from an IM conversation this morning. I really like Google's "In Quotes" thing. It reminded me of advertising vs. "facts" or, if you like this better, advertising vs. ROI situation (yep, apparently, it is a "vs" deal). It all starts with the really old question of wasted advertising. Are your ads effective? More importantly, perhaps, what does it even mean to be effective? (to drive sales? um, ok). If this is really the case, “typically what consumers do is they remember they saw the ad for a discounted fare to Vegas, but they can’t remember who it was from,” [so they type it into Google] (a statement by Michael Hayes). All (online advertising) roads seem to lead to Google. (But forget not Microsoft "engagement mapping" initiative - it works only when your cookies are on. a tricky situation - no cookies, no tracking which ads consumers had seen). What I am actually wondering is if does it really matter than if someone creates a super-fun display ad, with a ton of flash (+ little aliens), or a video game? In short, how much does it really matter if consumer is exposed to brand message throughout a *fun* display experience? Would it make her go to the store and buy a product? Even if she soundly memorizes what the brand was, how that little fun piece of engagement has anything to do with the sale of a product? Can an advertiser really claim that higher "engagement score" mean higher purchase intent? I guess I am wondering if there can ever be a hard-core facts list, like the one above, that correlates the engagement score with a purchase intent & product sales, which would give an idea of a ROI?

half-way?

This is not bad. I can see how it can come in handy. But what I am mostly curious about is how this half-way distance is different from any regular map half-way distance? (yes, i am aware that it offers a number of additional information, like a nearby "golf course", specifically tailored to manhattan's wast empty spaces). I guess what I am aiming at here is that all this addl information is offered post-distance calculation. So, my options for meeting Brian half-way are "Impress Deli Inc" (if we are thinking about having some food), or "Quintessentially Inc" (if we feel like having a drink). And yes, it may be worth noting that the meeting area is Murray Hill, usually avoided by me at all costs. So, not a ton of useful stuff here. But I was thinking how can this application make more sense, at least to me. An idea: how about customization before calculating distance? (Do people really care about meeting precisely half-way? Wouldn't they rather meet somewhere they like?) For example, I can say what I like first, then the MeetInBetween.us calculates distance based on those criteria in addition to geographical distance.  If this were case, I would probably have ended up meeting Brian in Chelsea rather than Murray Hill. Would have liked that much more.