For the second time in recent months I've been shown some fantastic work in the area of transportation safety. In both cases the work was done in Europe.
The first piece of work is new (initially I found it here) and presents seat belt safety in a very unique, emotional way. The spot has become globally popular, featured throughout the web.
The second piece of work is not new, but it was new to me. Another unique and emotional spot. Makes you think hard about why a speed limit is set at a certain number.
Seeing these, of course, then reminded me of the much passed around moonwalking bear:
All great stuff. Again, all out of the UK.
I think it's worth noting that the transportation safety creative coming out of the US doesn't seem to have received the same traction as the work coming out of the UK.
Why?
One possible reason could be in all the European adverts above consumers are being shown something while in the US it seems consumers are often being told something.
When we're shown something visually we're more likely to remember it. Neurology refers to this as the pictorial superiority effect, and, as Alex reminds us in this great video, we are 62% more likely to recall ideas that are presented to us visually.
We "tell" a lot in the US. Watch TV tonight and you'll see what I mean.
I think we should all try a little more showing and a little less telling over here... Might make things a little more engaging and a lot more impactful.
February 03, 2010 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Volkswagen and DDB Stockholm have created a series of fantastic videos that are based on a very simple idea: that the easiest way to change people's behavior for the better is to make things fun to do.
And they prove it in a series of viral videos.
One of those videos, Piano Staircase, has achieved more than 1.5 million views since being posted five days ago.
See them all at TheFunTheory.com.
October 12, 2009 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
The July 6 issue of Sports Illustrated features an interesting article on David Beckham and his relationship with the LA Galaxy taken from the book, The Beckham Experiment. (Read the SI piece here.)
One thing that stood out in the article is how Beckham entered the Galaxy organization two years ago... Upon arrival he was immediately anointed Team Captain (perhaps forcefully by "his people"), taking the title from fellow teammate Landon Donovan.
He hadn't yet earned the title through hard work with the Galaxy. Nor had he gone into battle alongside his teammates before he started leading them. And according to the article/book, his leadership was drawn into question during '07/'08.
Is Beckham a good Team Captain? Who knows. I'm not there, you're not there. But, regardless, I think the story serves as a reminder of an important component of group leadership.
Over the years I've seen people join organizations and immediately start giving orders despite the fact that they haven't taken the time to learn the organization yet. This is direly important to do. (Not so long ago the Harvard Business Review recommended that new CEOs wait 3-6 months before making any sudden moves.) This is partly to make sure you understand things but also allows the opportunity to assimilate within the group and see all the great things they're doing without you. (And they are always doing some great things without you.)
Leaders gain trust by first conforming.
Again I go back to a great PsyBlog post on the subject of groups... Here's an excerpt on a test regarding conformity and leadership:
A study that has much to teach was carried out by Merei (1949) who observed children at a Hungarian nursery school. He noticed that successful leaders were those who initially fitted in with the group then slowly began to suggest new activities adapted from the old. Children didn't follow potential leaders who jumped straight in with new ideas. Leaders first conform, then only later, when trust has been gained, can they be confident that others will follow. This has been confirmed in later studies (with grown-ups!).
Regardless of past fame, leaders need time to conform a bit before they can successfully lead. As a society, we should allow time for this.
That is, of course, if we care about the end result.
July 10, 2009 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
PsyBlog had a fascinating post the other day about the dynamics of group psychology: 10 Rules that Govern Groups. You should read it. All 10 rules are interesting but #2 really made me think... The test is a bit weird, but the result are interesting:
Existing groups don't let others join for free: the cost is sometimes monetary, sometimes intellectual, sometimes physical—but usually there is an initiation rite, even if it's well disguised.
Aronson and Mills (1959) tested the effect of initiation rites by making one group of women read passages from sexually explicit novels. Afterwards they rated the group they had joined much more positively than those who hadn't had to undergo the humiliating initiation. So, not only do groups want to test you, but they want you to value your membership.
Makes sense.
Is it not true that some of the tightest groups around have an initiation of some kind??
College: Fraternities and Sororities are very tight groups. They have initiation through tests, milestones, and achievements that everyone must do before they're a member. (I'm only referring to constructive achievements by the way, not the childish/dangerous things... those don't help anyone.)
Careers: Joining a big league investment firm is valued membership. But getting into one of them only comes after running a rigorous gauntlet. (Watch The Pursuit of Happyness.)
Brands: American Express membership is a sought-after achievement. They have their own "initiation" through strict qualifying terms that everyone must pass in order to join.
Think for a bit... you can make a nice list of examples...
But one thing sure is true: the strongest company cultures most often exist at places that have the toughest standards. Because only through collective achievement of tough standards do group members form tight, mutually-respected bonds.
So if organizations really want to build a strong group culture, perhaps they should have some sort of initiation for all new employees, versus just showing them where the coffee is on the first day and then rushing them into a meeting.
July 06, 2009 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Seth referred everyone to a recent study on PhysOrg the other day which found that the fall of an item's popularity mirrors its rise to popularity. Intuitively, this seems true. Trends leave just as abruptly as they arrive. But to put quantitative research to the idea is very satisfying.
While it's important for marketers to be aware of this study, it's also important for another group to be aware of it: Wall Street.
Here's why...
Remember the meteoric rise of Boston Market and Krispy Kreme? Ideas like these take off like a rocket. At the early stages they're just ideas doing everything a desired brand is supposed to do: get word-of-mouth, encourage inquiry, perhaps even feel a bit elusive.
Then Wall Street notices and gets involved. They encourage investment in real estate, materials and staffing. They buy software and hardware and broker large distribution deals. They engage in massive structural investment--more stores, more cities, perhaps even more countries. And all of this is done on speedy quarterly deadlines. This makes sense, of course--for the long term health of the business.
But while all this is going on (pretty much behind the scenes) consumers start to wain on the idea. They're tired of the articles, blog posts and energy surrounding the brand. What got them really excited a short while ago has now, seemingly overnight, become common. And those fresh donuts one used to only find at the Krispy Kreme store 20 miles away are now available by the box at the local supermarket at 1am. The consumer energy starts to slow shortly after the long-term plan is physically built.
Moving forward be wary of the meteoric rise because now, research shows, it's followed by a meteoric slide.
July 01, 2009 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Consumers are quick to voice their opinions online. They're also quick to voice their opinions among family and friends over coffee or cocktails. But they're not quick to tell people who work in restaurants and retail, face-to-face, how they feel. I'm not entirely sure why this is, but we should start doing so more often...
Over the weekend I made a trip to Bed Bath & Beyond. I was looking for a couple odds and ends with one of those things being a folding card table. I thought BB&B would have one. They didn't. Not a big deal. So when I got up to the register, the checker asked the six word question that all of us have heard for most of our lives: "Did you find everything OK today?"
For years I've been doing what most people do and mind-numbingly answer "yes" in hopes of just avoiding a conversation at check out. But this time, I said: "Actually, no man, I didn't... I was looking for a folding card table and you don't seem to carry any." I think it was the first time a customer said something like this because the checker didn't quite know what to do with the conversation. My hopes in telling him was simply that he would document the comment and then, through appropriate BB&B channels, tell someone. Who knows, maybe lots of customers have asked about folding card tables...
The same thing happens at restaurants. We go out to eat and receive an average meal. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't great either. So what happens? The server comes out and asks the three word question all of us have heard most of our lives: "How was everything?" From my experience, eight times out of ten, we simply say, "it was good," only to complain about things on the walk back to the car.
We're vocal when we love or hate something. But what about everything in between?
Let's be honest and upfront with retailers and restaurants. It doesn't have to be uncomfortable... Be cool, it's all in the delivery anyway. If the steak wasn't hot enough, let them know. If the music seemed off, tell them. Just do it in a classy, casual way. These places need this feedback, especially these days. They want to get things right. It doesn't have to be on a comment card or online forum. Imagine the collective effect that would result if everyone was direct (albeit in nice, constructive ways) about their experiences? As shoppers, we might get things the way we want them after all.
March 30, 2009 | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
May 29, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)