Garmin has released an after-market unit that projects navigation onto the windshield, acting as a heads up display. With Google Glass, Garmin and others, we are seeing that media is becoming even more synchronous with our environments. Like much of next-gen media in the car, the Garmin HUD relies on mobile app integration via bluetooth and at $150 (compared to other $1,000+ models), it brings this functionality into a whole new price point.
Consumer Electronics Week is in full swing here in NYC , and one of today’s featured events was the Connected Car Conference (“C3”). The afternoon featured a variety of panels discussing the future of the telematics space from a variety of different angles.
A major theme throughout the day was the disparity in product life cycles between cars and “normal” consumer electronics. Whereas a car goes from the drawing board to the dealer in something like 8 years, consumer electronics typically make the journey from design to store in 18 months. So in order to keep pace with consumer expectations, automakers have a lot to learn from the consumer electronics industry.
As an example of the blending of formerly disparate industries, one panel featured the CTO of General Motors sitting alongside a VP from AT&T, along with other automotive electronics representatives. Tim Nixon from GM was quick to point out how the Chevy Volt platform already gives drivers access to vehicle data from their smartphone, and that consumers are going to grow to expect this kind of integration.
Another interesting topic of discussion was design aesthetics. In a dialog that seemed to echo debates about mobile interface design, panelists discussed how different car makers have different philosophies on interaction design. For instance, BMW eschews touchscreens in favor of a jog wheel placed down by the gear shifter. And much like the dueling gadget interface designs we’ve seen over the last ten to fifteen years, carmakers will duke it out as consumers decide which input methods work best for them.
Carmakers are constantly experimenting with new integrations between media and the car environment. A panelist from Gracenote described an interesting proof-of-concept experiment they did with Ford, wherein the driver triggers Madonna’s “Ray Of Light” when the headlights are turned on.
Several panelists also discussed Apple’s recent announcement of “iOS in Car”, wherein certain car models would be able to take deeper advantage of iOS7 on in-car touchscreens. While this sounds like a big breakthrough at first, the functionality is being very strictly limited at launch for safety reasons, and much of it is available on other platforms such as Pioneer’s App Radio.
Driver distraction was also a hot topic, and Gloria Bergquist of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers highlighted the tension between public policy and observed user behavior. At one point, regulators had considered banning dynamic (aka “moving”) maps from in-car nav systems, because they can be distracting. The counter-argument from the industry was that if you degrade the in-dash experience in this way, drivers will just start to try navigating with their smartphones. This obviously creates more danger than there otherwise would have been in the first place.
All in attendance agreed that while there are many nuances and challenges, apps were coming to the in-car experience and many lessons could be learned from the smartphone space about user behavior and demand for services.
Similarly brands should be aware of this shift and be ready to take advantage of the time people will spend interacting with apps rather than listening to radio and radio ads.
If music and business history have taught us anything, it’s that Jay-Z is almost always right. His latest career move, a groundbreaking deal with Samsung where the company pre-ordered 1 million Jay-Z records for $5 million as a gift for its Galaxy users, is already proving that some institutionalized sectors of the music industry are struggling to keep up with the new rules Jay’s creating. Case in point: Billboard and Nielsen Soundscan won’t count the million copies Samsung purchased as official sales because they don’t recognize bulk sales or free-to-consumer product.
In the late 1990’s, when a 20-something Jay-Z was selling CDs out of his car and getting rejected by major labels, record sales were roughly double their 2013 value. A decade and a digital revolution later, when it comes to the classic “consumer,” it’s a buyer’s and stealer’s market. But Jay-Z is introducing us to the new buyer on the block— the big brand. He’s coming to town like a lovable Santa Clause with a big bag of money and he’s ready to buy you your favorite record as long as you leave him a cookie and some milk.
When Amazon sold Lady Gaga’s Born This Way album for $0.99 during its release week, it was playing Santa Claus in the same way. It happily lost millions to subsidize Gaga album purchases in order to get more people onto its music platform and using its Cloud service. Everybody won, including Gaga, who went platinum in one week while making fans happy and receiving her cut of the full price from Amazon.
But as often happens with big successes, detractors started lining up crying that Gaga and Interscope were cheating (Interscope claims it wasn’t even told about the promotion). Billboard soon announced a new set of certification rules and declared that albums sold for less than $3.49 wouldn’t be counted. The danger here is that next time Amazon wants to line an artists’ pockets and give a $0.99 deal to fans, labels will be tempted to raise that price to at least $3.49 so that it doesn’t deflate sales metrics. Similar considerations will likely make deals like the Jay-Z / Samsung partnership feel like a bittersweet victory to labels or artists rather than what it truly is: a 100% win. As soon as sales executives at labels start worrying that brand purchased albums cannibalize official sales and make them look bad, you open Pandora’s box.
The music industry needs to endorse a simple rule: anything that helps sell more records is good. Anything that complicates that process is bad. Jay-Z gets it, and rightly fired back on Twitter: “If 1 Million records gets SOLD and billboard doesn’t report it, did it happen? Ha. #newrules #magnacartaholygrail Platinum!!! VII IV XIII.”
Understandably, Billboard and Nielsen don’t want charts to be susceptible to manipulation. After all, the industry’s history has been littered with cases of pricing drops and “two for one” deals with retailers aimed at getting music to the top of the charts. And the danger with bulk sales and low price points is that a company can sell millions of units for next to nothing to juice their numbers. For that reason a threshold for price point makes sense, BUT that threshold shouldn’t be tied exclusively to the listener making the purchase. And not all bulk sales should be written off. If Amazon or Samsung are willing to drop millions on music, it’s because artists like Gaga and Jay-Z have earned valuable cultural capital and are making music people want.
The hard truth is that people may never purchase music in the quantity they used to, and it may become vital to let brands do some of the buying as a way to make up the difference. Music does make a great gift, and that model may make sense in a variety of scenarios for a growing number of artists in the years to come. Take Kiip for example, a startup that has helped brands like Pepsi gift free Amazon music as a surprise reward for mobile gamers when they achieve something noteworthy in the game.
Let’s also give credit where it’s due: Samsung is pushing the envelope on how brands interact with artists and their fans, and so far it’s paying off big. The company actually announced the release of Jay-Z’s new album during a three minute commercial that aired during Game 5 of the NBA finals. That clip, a behind the scenes look at the making of the record that ends with a short Samsung Galaxy title card and “The Next Big Thing Is Here” tag line, has since been viewed close to 13 millions times on YouTube in four days. The alignment of that tag line with trend setting music couldn’t be more perfect, and despite a reported $20 million dollars the company is paying Jay-Z (on top of buying a million albums)— it’s money well spent.
It’s also notable that as far as corporate sponsorship goes, the spot is fairly focused on Jay-Z and doesn’t come across as heavy-handed product shilling. This is another hallmark of the more successful recent partnerships between musicians and brands: they work best for everyone when the brand doesn’t ask for too much of the spotlight. Take a look at State Farm’s subtle product placement in OK Go’s “This Too Shall Pass” video for another prime example.
Bottom line: when it comes to branded content the brands look cooler when the bands looks cooler, and that’s certainly the best experience for fans. Samsung’s campaign also incorporates a MagnaCartaHolyGrail.com microsite and a special app where Galaxy users can access the album 72 hours before it’s street date— an interesting evolution of the branded content model in which non-branded content is delivered as a follow-up.
Some would argue that the Samsung / Jay-Z model is disruptive to companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon that make their money selling downloads and streams. Samsung is certainly cutting out the distribution middleman, but some would also argue that major digital distributors are using music as a loss leader to attract consumers to their other offerings. In that regard, Samsung is pretty much playing the same card and acting as distributor. And I expect that in the future we may see iTunes, Amazon, or Google Play increasingly working with big brands to deliver pre-purchased music to fans.
For the music industry, the job of measuring success and popularity in an increasingly fragmented landscape will only get harder. Ironically, in February Billboard started factoring YouTube views into its Hot 100 formula, which makes it easier than ever to buy your way onto the charts. After all, labels regularly buy legitimate video views through ads on channels like YouTube, VEVO, Facebook, and Spotify. Do those purchased views make those songs or videos truly popular? But ultimately I could care less how people measure things, as long as their methods don’t undermine the legitimacy of new and necessary opportunities to drive more revenue for the industry overall.
When it comes to dollars and cents it doesn’t matter who bought your record, it only matters that you sold it legitimately to a buyer who had no intention of helping you game the system to manipulate the Billboard charts. As far as I’m concerned, Jay-Z should get bonus sales points for coming up with an innovative way to find more music buyers in the marketplace. As anyone in the industry can tell you, we need as many of them these days as we can get.
Over the past several months, we have worked with Sharethrough to complete the industry’s first native ad effectiveness study using both eye-tracking and survey-based techniques. The goal of the study was to measure visual attention and brand lift for native ads from top brands, including National Geographic, Southern Comfort, and a premium travel brand in comparison to traditional display ads. After surveying 4,770 consumers and using eye-tracking technology on 200 consumers, some of the more telling statistics were:
All new features require an adoption period where users familiarize themselves with the tech. Graph Search is one of Facebook’s most ambitious initiatives that places Facebook at the center of online discovery, but also brings with it some serious user challenges. This article from Gigaom shows both the machine learning and human intervention required to streamline the product to gain mass adoption.
Last week, I took a nine-day road trip covering the west coast from San Diego to Seattle, a journey that shook up my everyday routine.
Beyond the gorgeous views and even more beautiful spring weather, while popping into a boutique on the trip, I was surprised to realize that it was the first physical store I’ve entered in quite some time (other than my local grocer).
I don’t believe I’m alone. Traditional shopping centers are on the midst of a tremendous decline. Andreesen Horowitz partner Jeff Jordan recently pointed out that “10% of the roughly 1,000 large malls in the US will fail within the next 10 years.” For a bit of fun, check out the Dead Malls blog, which beautifully epitomizes this trend.
But this change isn’t happening in a vacuum. I’ve given some thought to what’s driving this shift, and I believe it boils down to four simple elements:
1. PRICE: Things Cost Less
This is a no-brainer. The web enables a state of near-perfect information, so if a better price is to be had, it’s easy to find. Sites like Amazon and ShopStyle have been leading this shift for a while, though new services like Lyst allow shoppers to track the price fluctuations of individual items across retailers.
2. SELECTION: Online Inventory Is (Relatively) Endless
Heading into a store, I frequently find that I’m not able to find a particular item — especially given the way “fast fashion” brands like H&M and Zara stock their shelves, with new products every week. I also happen to be a fairly average-sized female, so even when the merchandise is in-stock, it’s often the case that my size has been sold out. Shopping online gives me the best chance to find what I’m looking for — or to be surprised by something new.
3. PRECISION: There’s Little Opportunity for Miscommunication
Call me crazy, but nothing is more stressful for a Millennial like myself than needing to speak to a fallible human when a straightforward transaction could better be conducted by a machine. Ordering food is a great example of this scenario. Sites like Seamless, GrubHub and Delivery.com ensure the specifics of my order are clearly communicated to the restaurant and, as an added bonus, eliminate the need for cash.
4. CONVENIENCE: The Web Never Closes
In today’s connected world, we never really stop working, which can make it difficult to find the time to shop in “real life.” We rush home from the office to avoid eating dinner at 10 pm and run from errand to errand on the weekends, hardly leaving the time to relax — let alone leisurely browse the racks at a favorite retailer. Shopping online lets us use the short snippets of free time we do have to make a few purchases without the hassle of leaving the office or the sofa.
So how can brick-and-mortar stores compete?
Smart retailers will use new technology to bring the benefits of online shopping into the physical experience.
• PRICE: Make prices more competitive by delivering real-time offers through geolocated Passbook offers, Shopkick rewards or push notifications for loyal customers through detection of their mobile devices in-store.
• SELECTION: Extend inventory by allowing shoppers to use their smartphones to tap or scan a sample product to purchase a variety of other sizes and styles and have it delivered the next day (at no additional cost, of course!)
• PRECISION: Email receipts to customers for an easy-to-access record of their purchase, as well as simplicity in the case of product returns. (As an added bonus, apps like OneReceipt can scrape your email and conveniently gather your receipts in a single location.)
• CONVENIENCE: Create 24/7 shopping experiences outside the traditional store, whether on the windows of a shop, within out-of-home advertising Tesco-style, or in accessible pop-up locations.
Until then, good luck finding me at the mall.
A big theme on this, the final day of TechCrunch Disrupt NY 2013, has been hardware.
On stage upstairs, Limor Fried of Adafruit sat down with TechCrunch to discuss her company and philosophy on hardware and education. Adafruit is a NYC-based electronics design and manufacturing company. We profiled one of their products, litleBits, on this blog a few months ago.
The goal of the company is to teach people how electronics work and to have them become comfortable making relatively simple things. Relatedly, they want to help encourage kids to get interested in engineering.
Underlying all of this is Ms Fried’s perspective on open source hardware. While open source software is widely known about (insomuch most companies are running at least some of it) open source hardware is less so. Beyond just source code, open source hardware includes such items as CAD files and material specs. The idea is that someone could take digital files provided and go make an exact working replica of the hardware in question. This is similar to how someone can take open source code and compile their own perfect working copy of a computer program.
Ms. Fried shared an anecdote of how she had posted a design for an efficient solar battery charging mechanism. After some time, someone reached out to her to let her know they aimed to use her designs as the basis of a new Kickstarter project. The project aimed to create solar charging stations for mobile devices in developing nations. Instead of being protective of her designs, Ms. Fried was more than happy to bless the project in the name of the overall advancement of innovation.
Meanwhile, downstairs on the expo floor today is a dedicated area called Hardware Alley. While most of the startups showcased on days 1 & 2 were primarily software-oriented, today’s focus is on hardware. Displays include home automation systems, 2D and 3D printing technologies, tech for dogs, and a little drone helicopter the size of your palm.
The web (not the Internet–that’s a different thing) turned 20 years old today. Even though it’s not old enough to drink (in the States) it’s sure changed the life of everyone you know, including yourself. But did you know that it’s fundamentally changed since it’s creation? We don’t know what life would be without it. We can find everything we need and a lot we don’t. If it wasn’t for a few forward thinking founding Fathers it could have been owned by a major corporation.
At CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (better known now for particle accelerators and exploring the fundamental structure of the universe) they’re working to restore the original computer that Sir Tim Berners-Lee used to create the first web-server, a NeXT computer (image shown here). For those that watched the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic’s they saw Tim Berners-Lee on stage with his NeXT during the segment “Frankie and June Say ‘Thanks Tim.'” The dance and musical number, directed by Danny Boyle, told the love story of teens Frankie and June, who are only able to reconnect after a chance encounter through technology like smartphones and social networks.
Trivia: NeXT was started by Steve Job’s when he left Apple.
In 1993 Sir Tim convinced the management at CERN to publish a paper that made the web publicly available on a royalty-free basis. The ideal was that it was to be a free and open exchange of information. No one could own it and everyone could edit it. The goal was to provide a two-way communication medium where everyone could freely exchange information. Even though this exists today with opportunities such as Wikipedia, the Web is mostly dominated by large companies.
Twenty years ago, there were no URLs on TV spots, news breaking or politicians embarrassing themselves on websites.
Read a full piece on the ideals of the web at BBC News by @BBCPallab and a great tribute feature at CERN
Looking to nerd-out more on the Web's b-day? Here's the original @CERN doc that made the Web public domain http://t.co/uuyq9ep2V0
— Alexander Rea (@AlexanderRea) April 30, 2013
Today at TechCrunch Disrupt NY, executives from Google, Facebook and Twitter were assembled on a panel to discuss advertising. The participants expressed some common views on the industry but also some sharp philosophical differences emerged.
Neal Mohan of Google stressed that for advertising they are trying to embrace context, for example mobile vs. desktop and lean forward vs. lean back settings. He also highlighted that measurement represents one of the biggest unsolved problems in the landscape today. It’s critical to be able to measure the efficacy of digital ads in terms of driving sales. Google is currently investing a lot in solving this problem.
Gokul Rajaram from Facebook agreed that context was important, and pointed out that Facebook has been focusing heavily on creating an optimized mobile experience. In fact, a full 23% of Facebook’s advertising revenue comes from mobile at this stage. The guiding philosophy behind the recently-launched Facebook Home was to put your friends at the center of your mobile experience rather than your apps. It was key, he indicated, that advertising not be interruptive, but that it fit into the flow of the natural way people are using an application.
Kevin Weil of Twitter discussed how the site is “a bridge, not an island”, insomuch as it drives action from sponsored content out into the world. He described the platform as the social soundtrack to TV, pointing out that 95% of social commentary about TV is on Twitter. He feels the two platforms thus make each other stronger for advertisers. Mr. Weil also pointed out that no one typically screenshots a banner ad and shares it, the way people actively retweet promoted tweets within their Twitter feeds.
A difference of opinion emerged into how to credit different digital marketing tools for effectiveness measuring purposes. Facebook’s point of view is that the last click before purchase doesn’t necessarily deserve all of the credit; they feel that brand-building interactions (e.g. Likes, Suggested Posts) play a more important role in driving purchase than conventional wisdom would currently say. Meanwhile Twitter feels as though engagement with Tweets and links therein that drive to purchase are critical, and the “last click” before purchase deservedly gets the lion’s share of attention.
Today at TechCrunch Disrupt NY, Jonah Peretti of Buzzfeed delivered an entertaining keynote touching on content, social networking and cats. The key theme was that many Internet users’ online behaviors actually roughly correlate to DSM-IV-recognized mental disorders, including:
OCD
Histrionic Disorder
Narcissistic Personality Disorder
ADHD
Oppositional Defiant Disorder
Caffeine Intoxication
As he dove into each of these mapping them to online behavior, he made a number of interesting insights that align with Buzzfeed’s approach to curating compelling content and driving eyeballs. In the end so much of how people embrace some content and not others reflects traits that are inherently human. A slide from Blade Runner was shown and the Voight-Kampff test was referenced.
One example was the role of cute/funny content in our lives. When you and a friend laugh together about a good joke, the next day you may not remember the joke as much as you remember being with your friend and sharing a good time. Similarly, cat pictures are not about cats – they are about connecting with other people.
A content-related tip was to “publish into the zeitgeist”. You try to capture a fleeting moment when everyone is interested in the same thing. An example of this was Buzzfeed’s picture of tipped-over yogurt as “earthquake damage”. A more recent example could be the now-famous Oreo tweet during the Super Bowl blackout.
Jonah’s presentation also contained a nugget of direct advice to marketers. When creating ad creative that you hope to go viral, consider the extent to which the content is the sort of thing someone would be proud sharing. He noted that the things people search for on Google the most (e.g. “sex”) rarely correlate with things they share on social networks. So from a creative standpoint, this drives a divide between a brand’s SEO and display ad strategy and their content/social strategy. As Jonah pointed out, women in bikinis may drive browser clicks, but that same content is unlikely to be proudly shared on social networks even if it is otherwise compelling.
On another note, Jonah shared that 50% of Buzzfeed’s video traffic happens during Primetime TV hours. This could indicate Buzzfeed has become something of a competitor to many of the emerging second-screen applications that tether to the TV programming being watched.
*figuratively
