January 2009 Entries

I had a chance to read through the fMRI study from UCLA, Your Brain on Google, on a plane ride down to visit with..you guessed it..Google. Pretty interesting stuff...here are a few quick highlights:

• In the Internet Naive group..there was little difference in brain activity between searching on Google and reading text. The reason, I suspect, was that the group was just reading the search results.
• But in the Internet Savvy group..a totally different story. Suddenly, many more parts of the brain started lighting up, including the parts governing decision making and the visual cortex. What this shows is that these users were using the results to help make decisions. They were fluent in search.
• One other interesting note. The increased activation in the visual cortex may indicate that searchers see the information differently. The information presented was exactly the same, with the same stimuli, but in the search savvy group, when they were scanning the visual stimuli as search results, they seemed to be more visually rich. I suspect that as we get more savvy with results, we scan more and read less, treating the results more like a picture.

Just a few tidbits for now. I'm setting up an interview with researcher Teena Moody to dive deeper, which will probably become a Just Behave column. Also, don't be surprised if it's what I talk about at SMX West in Santa Clara.

Published Jan 22, 2009 in the Search Insider

Last week, I talked about how the economy will sort out winners and losers even faster. This week, a trio of news releases seems to confirm that search, and Google, in particular, will be a winner. Unfortunately, almost no one will recognize that they've won.

Reports out of AdGooroo and Covario show that search is still ticking along better than ever. AdGooroo has Google and Microsoft on track for the best Q4 in history. Apparently, despite the gathering storm, people still search and still click on ads. And, relatively speaking, there's been minimal impact on search ad budgets. We saw a lot of advertising budgets hold the course for 2009. This was a good news/bad news scenario. The good news was, budgets weren't cut. The bad news was that planned increases, in some cases aggressive increases, were put on the shelf.

So, are there smiles in Mountain View? Not according to a MediaPost  article from yesterday. Google is jettisoning every piece of financial baggage it can, drastically cutting costs to keep the financial boat upright in advance of the earnings report (due out today). The latest cut? Google's newspaper business.

What Does It All Mean?

By any sane analysis, Google is doing very nicely, thank you. Jeffrey Lindsay, an analyst quoted in the MediaPost article, expects to see 23% year over year revenue growth, with 14.3% growth expected for 2009. In the rational world, that would be cause for popping Champagne corks and backs bruised from vigorous patting. Given the performance of every other company on the planet, double-digit growth is nothing short of miraculous. But in Google world, it's an "all-hands-on-deck" disaster. True, Google's stock price has retreated to levels not seen since 2005 (Psst.. stock tip: Buy!), but the financial engine is ticking along very nicely, thank you.

What is happening is a bit of natural selection and forced evolution at the Googleplex, and although this will be painful, it will be very healthy in the long term. Google is picking its winners and culling the losers. At the same time, its strategists are redefining themselves into a sustainable business model. I suspect Eric Schmidt and CFO Patrick Pichette have stolen a page from Rahm Emanuel's book: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste." The economic freefall and irrational pessimism of analysts gives them the opportunity to impose some logical constraint on the overexuberance we saw from Google in days gone past. Google was going to reinvent everything, from advertising to telecommunications to sustainable energy. Now, it appears Google realized there's more than enough in its core mission (organizing the world's information) to keep it busy for the foreseeable future. I always thought that the starry-eyed idealism was commendable but not sustainable. Google is growing up.

Think Search is Strong Now? Just Wait...

In the meantime, think for a moment how search has positioned itself. Despite one of the worst economic years in recent memory, Google showed 23% growth in revenues. During the same time period, every other economic metric went into free-fall. Consumer confidence plunged to its lowest levels ever. Retails sales and online sales both hit the skids. Let's not even talk about home sales. The Dow Jones is down 40% in the past year. The economy didn't just slow down. It screeched to a halt. But in this same time, search kept plugging through without a hiccup. Did the astronomical growth continue? No, but 23% is pretty damn good in anyone's books.

People kept searching and clicking on ads. In fact, according to AdGooroo and Covario, they did so more than ever. The only thing impacting search right now is the sheer fear of advertisers who are being assailed on all fronts.

Understandable? Yes. Rational? No.

So, when we hit bottom and start climbing out of this economic black hole, search will have consolidated its position as the most accountable of marketing channels. It will form the basis of a new marketing model: consumer-driven, immediate, measurable, effective, interactive. And Google will be the most powerful player on the block. Best of all, the company can do it without worrying about selling newspaper ads, redefining America's power grid or colonizing space. All Google has to do is focus on helping people find what they're looking for.

Thanks to UCLA, I just got a copy of the UCLA fMRI study of what happens to people's brains when they use Google. This is fascinating..well..it is if you live in my skull.

The study was done by Dr. Gary Small, Dr. Susan Bookheimer and Dr. Teena Moody. Just got it so I haven't had a chance to read through it, but I'm looking forward to it. As chance would have it, I just finished Gary Small's book - iBrain - last night. The most interesting part of the book was references to several fMRI studies done around the world, showing what parts of the brain fire in given situations and while we're undertaking different tasks. When it comes to searching, I have my own theories..which I talked about here and in my Search Insider Column. I'd like to see if the UCLA results match up.

Small's discussion of Digital Natives vs Digital Immigrants is really interesting as well, and something I want to take a much deeper dive on in future posts and articles. Briefly, natives grew up with technology, so their brain basically molded itself with hard wired capabilities, while immigrants learned their tech skills after the brain had largely formed itself. Think of the difference between growing up with a language and learning it as an adult. Digital natives are fluent in technology..for the rest of us, it will never be our native tongue. Small does make one serious transgression in the discussion which drove me nuts. He keeps swapping out neuroplasticity for the word "evolution", giving the impression (which he never bothers to clear up) that genetic evolution can happen in one generation. It just doesn't work that way.

That said, it's pretty fascinating research and a question that seems to be of interest to many. I did a Search Engine Land article on it called "Are Our Brains Becoming Googlized" which picked up a healthy number of Diggs and became one of Search Engine Land's most read articles. I'm trying to land an interview with one of the researchers. If successful, I'll let you know how to access.

I'm very happy in my own nerdy little neuro-world!

Originally published October 23rd in Search Insider

Two weeks ago, I talked about the concept of selective perception, how subconsciously we pick and choose what we pay attention to. Then, last week, I explained how engagement with search is significantly different than engagement with other types of advertising. These two concepts set the stage for what I want to do today. In this column, I want to lay out a step-by-step hypothetical walk-through of our cognitive engagement with a search page.

Searching on Auto Pilot

First, I think it's important to clear up a common misunderstanding. We don't think our way through an entire search interaction. The brain only kicks into cognitive high gear (involving the cortex) when it absolutely needs to. When we're engaged in a mental task, any mental task, our brain is constantly looking for cognitive shortcuts to lessen the workload required. Most of these shortcuts involve limbic structures at the sub-cortical level, including the basal ganglia, hippocampus, thalamus and nucleus accumbens. This is a good thing, as these structures have been honed through successful generations to simplify even the most complicated tasks. They're the reason driving is much easier for you now than it was the first time you climbed behind the wheel. These structures and their efficiencies also play a vital role in our engagement with search.

So, to begin with, our mind identifies a need for information. Usually, this is a sub task that is part of a bigger goal. The goal is established in the prefrontal cortex and the neural train starts rolling toward it. We realize there's a piece of information missing that prevents us from getting closer to our goal - and, based on our past successful experiences, we determine that a search engine offers the shortest route to gain the information. This is the first of our processing efficiencies. We don't deliberate long hours about the best place to turn. We make a quick, heuristic decision based on what's worked in the past. The majority of this process is handled at the sub-cortical level.

The Google Habit

Now we have the second subconscious decision. Although we have several options available for searching, the vast majority of us will turn to Google, because we've developed a Google habit. Why spend precious cognitive resources considering our options when Google has generally proved successful in the past? Our cortex has barely begun to warm up at this point. The journey thus far has been on autopilot.

The prefrontal cortex, home of our working memory, first sparked to life with the realization of the goal and the identification of the sub task, locating the missing piece of information. Now, the cortical mind is engaged once again as we translate that sub task into an appropriate query. This involves matching the concept in our minds with the right linguistic label. Again, we're not going to spend a lot of cognitive effort on this, which is why query construction tends to start simply and become longer and more complex only if required. In this process, the label, the query we plugged into the search box, remains embedded in working memory.

Conditioned Scanning

At this point, the prefrontal cortex begins to idle down again. The next exercise is handled by the brain as a simple matching game. We have the label, or query, in our mind. We scan the page in the path we've been conditioned to believe will lead to the best results: starting in the upper left, and then moving down the page in an F-shaped scan pattern. All we want to do is find a match between the query in our prefrontal cortex and the results on the page.

Here the brain also conserves cognitive processing energy by breaking the page into chunks of three or four results. This is due to the channel capacity of our working memory and how many discrete chunks of information we can process in our prefrontal cortex at a time. We scan the results looking first for the query, usually in the title of the results. And it's here where I believe a very important cognitive switch is thrown.

The "Pop Out" Effect

When we structure the query, we type it into a box. In the process, we remember the actual shape of the phrase. When we first scan results, we're not reading words, we're matching shapes. In cognitive psychology, this is called the "pop out" effect. We can recognize shapes much faster than we can read words. The shapes of our query literally "pop out" from the page as a first step toward matching relevance. The effect is enhanced by query (or hit) bolding. This matching game is done at the sub-cortical level.

If the match is positive (shape = query), then our eye lingers long enough to start picking up the detail around the word. We've seen in multiple eye tracking studies that foveal focus (the center of the field of vision) tends to hit the query in the title, but peripheral vision begins to pick up words surrounding the title. In our original eye tracking study, we called this semantic mapping. In Peter Pirolli's book, "Information Foraging," he referred to this activity as spreading activation. It's after the "pop out" match that the prefrontal cortex again kicks into gear. As additional words are picked up, they are used to reinforce the original scent cue. Additional words from the result pull concepts into the prefrontal cortex (recognized URL, feature, supporting information, price, brand), which tend to engage different cortical regions as long-term memory labels are paged and brought back into the working memory. If enough matches with the original mental construct of the information sought are registered, the link is clicked.

Next week, we'll look at the nature of this memory recall, including the elusive brand message.

Originally published October 16 in the Search Insider

Last week, I talked about the nature of engagement and the neural mechanisms that underlie it. This week, I want to explore why those same mechanisms dictate that our search interactions are going to be completely different from engagement with a TV ad or a billboard.

The key thing to understand here is how we're driven by goals. In a drastic oversimplification, goals are the objectives that drive our information processing modules, more commonly known as our brain. Our "mind" and all that we know about ourselves are shifting patterns of information being processed in these modules. At multiple levels, we sift through data, make decisions and initiate actions to get us closer to our goals.

Goal Interrupted

Most advertising is interruptive. It's a detour on the road to our goals. The holy grail of direct marketing is to time delivery of the message so that it coincides with our pursuit of a goal. If you can get a realtor brochure to my doorstep at exactly the time I'm thinking of putting my house up for sale, you've substantially increased the odds of active engagement with your advertising message. But despite the advances in targeting methods, the odds of perfect coincidence are frustratingly slim. So advertising has to depend on other methods, like emotion, to trigger primal reactions and force suspension of current goal pursuit to engage with the message.

One of the comments on last week's column, by fellow Search Insider Kaila Colbin, provides a perfect example of this. Kaila provided a link to a particularly powerful use of emotion in a TV ad from New Zealand Post. Now, despite the powerful emotional appeal, in a typical stream of ads inserted in a commercial block in network programming, the ad would still need to batter our way into our consciousness. With Kaila it succeeded once, hitting all the right emotional cues, and so her subconscious has been primed to respond to this ad should it appear on the radar screen of her constant scanning of her environment. In Kaila's case, she would rush to the TV to change the channel, preventing her from dissolving into a messy puddle of tears.

Active Engagement

But by drawing our attention to the link, Kaila set up a totally different nature of engagement. She embedded the concept in our working memory by allowing us to create a goal around the viewing of the ad. We were engaged with the concept on a totally different level. Watching the ad was the goal, so no diversion of attention was required. We were primed to pay attention by Kaila's recommendation. This is the power of ads that go viral in social networks, like Dove's Evolution.

This concept of attention is at the center of two targeting tactics that have proven effective in the online environment: behavioral and contextual targeting.

Engaging Tactics

With behavioral targeting, we track behavioral cues through clickstreams, hoping that it will improve our odds of presenting our advertising message at exactly the right time to coincide with our target's pursuit of a goal. The well-timed presentation of an ad for Chinese hotel rooms at almost the same time I was planning a trip to China was an example I've talked about before. Because planning for the trip had recently occupied my working memory and presumably I hadn't yet reached my goal (the trip wasn't completely planned yet), this message stood a pretty good chance of being engaged with (despite the fact that it creeped me out a little).

Contextual targeting employs a different but related strategy. If advertising messages are about the same topics as the content that I'm engaging with, transference of that engagement should be easier than with unrelated topics. Indeed, at Enquiro we've found that engagement with these ads actually occurs at two levels. There's the initial awareness of the ad and the subsequent decision to engage with the ad. We've found that awareness is often higher with non-contextually targeted ads, but engagement and recall is higher with contextual ads. I have my theories about why this is so (having to do with the nature of the creative and the interplay of active consciousness and selective perception) but that could fill up an entire column in itself.

Engaging Search

Finally, we have search. In my previous examples of online targeting, we're still using our best guess about optimum timing based on some pretty broad assumptions: click streams provide an accurate measure of intent, and interest in content means interest in related advertising messages. These targeting methods simply improve the odds in what is still essentially an interruption in the pursuit of a goal. But use of search is inherently aligned with goal pursuit. Information gathering is a key subtask in the pursuit of many goals, and search is an important tool in our information foraging arsenal. The goal is firmly embedded in our working memory and we're on high alert for cues relevant to our end goal. This is why information scent in search results is so critical. No diversion of attention is required. Our attention is firmly focused on the results presented on the search page (both paid and algorithmic), because we believe that one of those results will take us one step closer to the goal.

This concept of active engagement is key to understanding search's role in branding. Next week, I'll look at how our cognitive mechanisms digest the results on a search page.

Originally published October 9th in the Search Insider

In a single day, you will be assaulted by hundreds of thousands of discrete bits of information. I'm writing this from a hotel room on the corner of 43rd and 8th in New York. Just a simple three-block walk down 8th Avenue will present me with hundreds bits of information: signs, posters, flyers, labels, brochures. By the time I go to sleep this evening, I will be exposed to over 3,000 advertising messages. Every second of our lives, we are immersed in a world of detail and distraction, all vying for our attention. Even the metaphors we use, such as "paying attention," show that we consider attention a valuable commodity to be allocated wisely.

Lining Up for the Prefrontal Cortex

Couple this with the single-mindedness of the prefrontal cortex, home of our working memory. There, we work on one task at a time. We are creatures driven by a constant stack of goals and objectives. We pull our big goals out, one and a time, often break it into sub goals and tasks, and then pursue these with the selective engagement of the prefrontal cortex. The more demanding the task, the more we have to shut out the deluge of detail screaming for our attention.

Our minds have an amazingly effective filter that continually scans our environment, subconsciously monitoring all this detail, and then moving it into our attentive focus if our sub cortical alarm system determines we should give it conscious attention. So, as we daydream our way through our lives, we don't unconsciously plow through pedestrians as they step in front of us. We're jolted into conscious awareness until the crisis is dealt with, working memory is called into emergency duty, and then, post crisis, we have to try to pick up the thread of what we were doing before. This example shows that working memory is not a multi-tasker. It's impossible to continue to mentally balance your check book while you're trying to avoid smashing into the skateboarding teen who just careened off the side walk. Only one task at a time, thank you.

You Looked, but Did You See?

The power of our ability to focus and filter out extraneous detail is a constant source of amazement for me. We've done several engagement studies where we have captured physical interactions with an ad (tracked through an eye tracker) on a web page of several seconds in duration, then have participants swear there was no ad there. They looked at the ad, but their mind was somewhere else, quite literally. The extreme example of this can be found in an amusing experiment done by University of Illinois  cognitive psychologist  Daniel J. Simons and now enjoying viral fame through YouTube. Go ahead and check it out  before you read any further if you haven't already seen it. (Count the number of times the white team passes the ball)

This selective perception is the door through which we choose to let the world into our conscious (did you see the Gorilla in the video? If not, go back and try again). And its door that advertisers have been trying to pry through for the past 200 years at least. We are almost never focused on advertising, so, in order for it to be effective, it has to convince us to divert our attention from what we're currently doing. The strategies behind this diversion have become increasingly sophisticated. Advertising can play to our primal cues. A sexy woman is almost always guaranteed to divert a man's attention. Advertising can throw a road block in front of our conscious objectives, forcing us to pass through them. TV ads work this way, literally bringing our stream of thought to a screeching halt and promising to pick it up again "right after these messages". The hope is that there is enough engagement momentum for us to keep focused on the 30 second blurb for some product guaranteed to get our floors/teeth/shirts whiter.

Advertising's Attempted Break-In

The point is, almost all advertising never enjoys the advantage of having working memory actively engaged in trying to understand its message. Every variation has to use subterfuge, emotion or sheer force to try to hammer its way into our consciousness. This need has led to the industry searching for a metric that attempts to measure the degree to which our working memory is on the job. In the industry, we call it engagement. The ARF defined engagement as "turning on a prospect to a brand idea enhanced by the surrounding media context." Really, engagement is better described as smashing through the selective perception filter.

In a recent study, ARF acknowledged the importance of emotion as a powerful way to sneak past the guardhouse and into working memory. Perhaps more importantly, the study shows the power of emotion to ensure memories make it from short term to long term memory: "Emotion underlies engagement which affects memory of experience, thinking about the experience, and subsequent behavior.  Emotion is not a peripheral phenomenon but involves people completely.  Emotions have motivational properties, to the extent that people seek to maximize the experience of positive emotions and to minimize the experience of negative emotions.  Emotion is fundamental to engagement.  Emotion directs attention to the causally significant aspects of the experience, serves to encode and classify the 'unusual' (unexpected or novel) in memory, and promotes persisting rehearsal of the event-memory. In this way, thinking/feeling/memory articulates the experience to guide future behaviors."

With this insight into the marketing mindset, honed by decades of hammering away at our prefrontal cortex, it's little wonder why the marketing community has struggled with where search fits in the mix. Search plays by totally different neural rules. And that means its value as a branding tool also has to play by those same rules.  I'll look at that next week.

First published October 2, 2008 in the Search Insider

Word of mouth is powerful in marketing. In the last two weeks, we've seen how the opinions of others can cause us to change our own beliefs to match. We've also seen how the speed at which the word spreads is a function not only of the structure of the network itself, but also the value of the message and its impact on the people in the network, as well as how much they stand to gain (or lose) by spreading the word.

Influencers: Our Connection to Opinion?

In the world of marketing, one of the most cherished concepts has been the idea of an influencer or opinion leader, the super-connected individual who acts as a hub in an information cascade, rapidly disseminating the idea to many. According to this theory, most of us (90%) play relatively passive roles in information cascades, meekly accepting the opinions of these influencers and following the herd. Katz and Lazarsfeld introduced the two-step influencer model in the middle of the last century, showing how media first influences these influencers, or opinion leaders, who then act as a conduit and "infection agent" for the greater population.

It's Not the Influencer, It's Our Willingness to be Influenced

For the past 6 decades, marketers have allocated a lot of effort in reaching these influencers, assuming that once you capture the influencers, you capture the entire market. The assumption was that information cascades depended on these influential hubs. Malcolm Gladwell's "TheTipping Point" brought this phenomenon to popular attention.

In the past few years, a number of researchers, including Duncan Watts from Columbia University, have questioned the impact of influencers on information cascades. They've created several network models which have shown that in most cases, ordinary individuals are all that's required to trigger a word-of-mouth cascade. We are not merely sheep following the herd. We are all influencers in our own right, but only when we feel strongly about something. The necessary ingredient is not a hyper-connected influencer or super trend-setter, but rather a group of people willing to be influenced.

Passion by Word of Mouth

Which brings us to Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." When promoting the film, Gibson knew the most receptive audience would be church-goers. So he arranged for private screenings and the distribution of free tickets in churches throughout North America. We had Watts' ideal model, a low variance network (similar levels of influence) that shared a vulnerability to influence, given the nature of the message. Word spread quickly before the launch of the movie (which also resulted in a firestorm of controversy), making "The Passion of the Christ" one of the most successful movies of 2004.

This example also leads us to a possible error in analysis of information cascades that has perpetuated the "influencer" theory. It's relatively easy, when looking in hindsight, to make the assumption that if a cascade happened, the individuals at the beginning of the cascade had to be unique in their ability to influence others. A proponent of the Influentials Theory could look at the example of "The Passion of the Christ" and say that it was the pastors and ministers of the selected screening churches that acted as the influencers, spreading the word to their congregations.

But Watts' theory offers an alternate explanation. The everyday, commonly connected members of the audience were willing to be influenced, and once captured by the message, went and spread it within their other social groups. It was the willingness to be influenced that was the critical factor. To use the analogy provided by Watts in his paper, assuming some unique level of influence by the catalysts of a cascade is like assuming that the first trees to burn in a forest fire are somehow able to spread flames farther than other trees. Often, the fact that the tree was combustible in the first place is overlooked.

Starting a Brand Fire

So, when we talk about brand, what makes a tree ready to catch on fire? Here we have another important insight from Watts' work. Too many marketers make the assumption that influencers are the critical component of success. Proctor and Gamble has made influencer marketing a cornerstone of its strategy. But the fact is, if "The Passion of the Christ" was an unremarkable movie that audiences couldn't connect with, all the influencers in the world wouldn't have caused the word to spread. It was a powerful message connecting with an audience primed to accept it.

Watts' models show that the success of a cascade depends on the vulnerability to influence. If that is present, ordinary individuals can cause the word to spread as far and just as quickly as hyper-connected influencers. And the vulnerability to be influenced, the "combustibility" of the audience, depends on many factors, perhaps the most important of which is the back story of the brand.

The Combustible iPhone

Look at what has been one of the most successful cascades of recent times: the Apple iPhone. The iPhone is a tremendously combustible product. It's not technology mavens causing the word to spread (although they do have influence. Watts is quick to point out that they have impact, but it may not as disproportionally large as everyone believes), it's the person sitting next to you on the plane who says she loves it. And we're receptive to that message because we have that magic connection of brand (Apple makes cool products) and a remarkable product. We're ready to be set on fire.

I've spent the last few columns detailing the aspects of word of mouth because they have a tremendous impact on brand and how we create our own brand beliefs. And it's these brand beliefs that are triggered when we interact with search results. Next week, we return to more familiar territory and see how this interaction plays out.

As I mentioned..got my iPhone late last week. What's amazed me most is the attention to detail in the user experience. Every little thing has been thought through and integrated into the experience. As opposed to Windows Mobile..where every little thing seems to be developed seperately and then the whole ungainly mess is bound together with chewing gum and scotch tape. Can't speak to the other mobile OS's..but the iPhone amazes me.

There's a philosophy here that seems to be recurring. You can throw brute force innovation at a problem, trying to overwhelm it by a sheer show of power. Or, you can create innovation around the needs of the user, making sure your solutions contribute to an amazing user experience. Microsoft seems to be in the first camp (where much of the ad hoc innovation ends up being dropped, just because it can't be integrated in a useful manner) and Apple is in the second camp. You'll see this in other industries. I'm thinking GM and Toyota's approach to the driver experience.  I don't think anyone on the planet has more respect for the user than Apple.

This is the thinking that's desperately needed in Search. Google comes the closest, but even they don't have the Zen-like holistic user experience that Apple seems to bring. It would be amazing to see these two colloborate on next generation search..with Google's immense respect for relevant information, defined by the user, and Apple's ability to weave it into a seamless and amazing experience.

Why are we in such a rush to return to the way things were?

Most reports I'm reading say that it will take years for the economy to recover to where it was. Why have we set this as our baseline for success? Who says the way we've behaved in the past 5 decades (especially the last 15 to 20 years) is the way we should behave in the future? Certainly not the rest of the world. Certainly not the environment.

I was reading an article in Adweek that said Boomers are now saving rather than spending, and it was put across as bad news (at least for marketers). Isn't it about frigging time we started doing that?

I think we have to accept that as much fun as the party has been, it can't keep going on. Urging us to get back to where we were is like curing a hangover with another drink. We've been irresponsible, greedy, short sighted and consumed by consumption. And what we're going through is directly attributable to that behavior. A change in behavior is absolutely essential for survival. It won't be fun, but a future, any future, is a lot more likely if we go through the pain now than if we continue to get back on what Michael Eysenck calls the hedonic treadmill, chasing some misbegotten ideal of happiness.

Thank goodness Boomers are saving. Thank goodness Detroit is seriously looking at more environmental vehicles. Thank goodness we're starting to realize there's more to life than a big screen TV. It's about time.

I got an iPhone on Thursday.

This post has nothing to do with the iPhone..everything to do with where I got it. Being in Canada, Roger's is the only carrier that has the iPhone. Roger's is particularly clueless when it comes to brand integrity (perhaps rivaled only by Air Canada in my home and native land). And this was made abundantly clear to me.

I went to a local mobile store. While the store is run by a licensee, the branding is all Roger's. For all intents and purposes, it's a Roger's store. I walked up to the counter and what appeared to be a 13 year old with a five o'clock shadow who managed the store siddled over to wait on me. His assistant, a petulant female, rolled her eyes and went in the back.

I currently have a Roger's plan, put in place almost 4 years ago. At the time, I put a plan in place that would cover my somewhat limited data needs. To be honest, I don't really monitor the bills and my assistant finally showed me one. I hit the roof. Because my device now syncs with our mail server while I'm in Canada (I'm on another plan when I'm in the US) my data traffic has increased substantially. Here's the details of the plan I was on..get this..25 Megs per month for $25 bucks..and 5 cents a kilobyte for overages! 5 cents a kilobyte! My relatively modest data needs were racking up hundreds of dollars in charges. Was I stupid for letting it go? Absolutely. But obviously Roger's was perfectly happy to leave me on the stupidest plan in the world and rake in the money. That's their bad.

So, after hitting the roof, I decided to change the plan. Roger's plans are still highway robbery, but at least Apple forced them to ease the data plan usury in order to get exclusives on the iPhone. Now..I could get 1 GB of data monthly, plus a limited voice plan, for about $70 a month..all in. I could get an iPhone (which I've been salivating over for some time) and still save hundreds a month. I still had to deal with Roger's, but to be honest, their competition is no better (Twitter recently had to discontinue SMS notifications in Canada because our mobile carriers are uniformly stupid). So, hence my visit to the local store.

I informed Skippy, the wonder manager, of all this and he said, "Well, I can get you set up with the iPhone dude, but I can't change your plan. You need to call Roger's to do that".

"Why?"

The answer was painfully incoherent, but it came down to Roger's not trusting their licensees (remember, this is Skippy's take on the situation) and trying to lock me into a package that maximized profit for them and minimized usability for me. Skippy walked me through the routine (with many interjections of "Sorry dude, Roger's makes us do this") and, as we were wrapping up, pulled out the check lists to make sure he had done all the things he was supposed to. By this time, I was looking for the nearest exit to escape. Yes..you had shown me how the iPhone works. Yes, you explained all the nickle and dime charges imposed on me. Yes, you explained how Roger's repossesses my home if I cancel early. Yes, you explained why the writing on the contract might not be what I actually get. Just let me go home.

And then, the final straw.

"Okay..you're probably going to get a call from Roger's to make sure I did my job right. I only get my points if you answer that you were 'definitely satisfied'"

"Sure"

"No..I mean it. That's the only answer that will give me the score I need. Will you answer that." At this point, I swear to God, he gives me a photocopied sheet of paper with the right answer printed on it, circled with a check mark beside, just to jog my memory for the call. "You will say 'Definitely Satisfied', right?"

At this point, I was either ready to beat my self to death with my shiny new iPhone, or burst out laughing. Skippy was on the verge of tears. I could have launched into an explanation of how this was not the way to ensure customer satisfaction (but the irony is, he does this with every customer and it probably works most of the time. Whoever thought up this approach had done their psychological homework) but that would have cost me more precious hours of my life. I smiled my best paternal, sympathetic older dude to younger dude smile and said, "Sure man."

Obviously, Roger's is trying to police the quality of these licensee touchpoints through these ridiculous QA checklists and follow up phone calls, but it made the entire experience bizarre. I think a better approach would be to create reasonable plans, be proactive with existing customers in moving them into the right plans, be more transparent and fair with promotional deals, insist on better hiring practices and provide more value to customers. If they did all these things, their brand integrity could survive the odd fumble in the hands of a Skippy.

From today's Search Insider

I am an unrepentant Darwinist, which probably doesn't surprise anyone who reads my columns on a regular basis. The whole topic of evolution and emergent behaviors in complex systems constantly fascinates me. As Steven Johnson pointed out in his recent book, "Emergence,"  the theme of patterns rising from complexity is  ubiquitous and could well define the 21st century.

The World is a Cruel Place - Get Over It!

One of the most interesting things about evolution is that the pace of evolutionary change picks up in the face of adversity. The more hostile the environment, the faster the wheels of evolution roll and the quicker we adapt. Of course, we do so in a pretty ruthless way. The weak get culled faster. There are no consolation prizes in this lottery. Winner takes all. Richard Dawkins didn't call genes "selfish" for nothing.

Which led me to apply the rules of biology to our current marketplace. We are going into what may be the most hostile environment for marketers in recent memory. Expect losers to die faster and winners to adapt quicker. But it's just such an adverse environment that ultimately decides the survival of the fittest. After all, our marketplace is just one more complex system where emergence again plays out.

When the Going Gets Tough

We've seen the groundswell of change wash over marketing in the last decade or so. Inexorably, the digital sea change has already started to determine winners and losers, but when ad budgets were fatter, there was more room for everyone. Now, as those budgets are dramatically scaled down, advertisers are forced to make tough decisions.  Channels have to prove themselves against tougher standards. There will be fewer winners and more losers and the evolution of the marketplace will pick up dramatically.

In the end, this will be good for most of the digital marketplace, especially search. Already with our client list, we've seen tough budgeting decisions dramatically impact more traditional channels but leave search relatively unscathed.

Scarcity Eliminates Stupidity

Another outcome of the financial meltdown will be that only the smartest marketers will survive. A few years ago, I remember someone from one of the largest advertisers in North America once saying to me, out of frustration with  their marketing program, "We're so big we can afford to be stupid."  No more. Today, only the smartest will survive. Size is no longer a guarantee of survival, nor a justification for stupidity, as we've seen in a number of particularly painful examples.

Smarter marketers will make smarter decisions, including the painful ones.  They will be ruthless about culling out the losers. Which means chronic mediocrity will become acute failure;  the mortality rate will rise substantially. This will drive our marketing models into the future much faster.

Strategies for Survival

How do you emerge on the winning side of the Darwinian lottery? Based on what I've seen, you won't go far wrong if you concentrate on the following:

• Accountability for and transparency in delivering on advertising objectives.
• Understanding the intent and behavior of your target market.
• A ruthless focus on efficiency in getting the right message to the right person at the right time.
• Effectively leveraging a fundamental understanding of how the marketplace is shifting due to technology.
• The ability to map out the most effective prospect touch points, and strong integration between all the channels found at these touch points.
• The ability to collect and utilize all possible intelligence sources.
• An ability to brutally assess the reality of the environment and execute quickly and effectively against these realities.

It's the last of these factors I'd like to focus on for my final thoughts on this topic. In a hostile environment, negativity comes with the territory. The winners will seek out negativity as an important indicator of the true situation and will use it to adapt. In this case, the fittest will see things as they are, not as they wish they would be. In coming months and years, the difference between these two viewpoints will be critical.

Originally published in Search Insider, Sept 25, 2008

What makes up buzz? And what determines how fast it travels? Last week, I talked about how important the opinions of others are in shaping our brand beliefs. Today, I want to look at one category of word of mouth, the juicy tidbit, recently christened "buzz," and see what makes it leap from person to person.

 Buzz is Nothing New"

For some reason, we think buzz is a new thing that lives online. In fact, it's as old as human behavior and has its roots in our very social fabric. We need to pass on information. We're driven to do so. We gossip because it's inherently satisfying, both to ourselves and to the recipient. But the spread of gossip through a social network is neither uniform nor consistent. In the '70s, Mark Granovetter discovered that, like many things, social networks are patchy, made up of tightly linked clusters of people who spend a lot of time together (families, friends, co-workers) which are loosely connected to each other through "weak ties," more distant social relationships. The survival potential of a viral piece of information (Richard Dawkins first coined the term "meme" as a cultural equivalent of a gene in his book, "The Selfish Gene") lies in its ability to jump Granovetter's weak ties.   If the meme doesn't jump out of a cluster, it ceases to propagate itself and can die an isolated death.

It's Not Just the Network

In 1993 Jonathon Frenzen and Kent Nakamoto launched an interesting study showing that the ability of a "meme" to spread through a social network depended not only on the structure of the network (the main point of Granovetter's work) but also on the impact of the meme's message on the carrier (akin to the idea of a phenotype in genetics) and the value of the meme itself.

Frenzen and Nakamoto worked with three different variables: First of all, they altered the value of the message. In the first variation, it was news of a 20%-off sale, in the other variation; it was the more valuable news of 50% to 70% off. Secondly, they varied the amount of product available at the sale price. In one case, there was unlimited inventory. In another, the supply was very limited. Finally, they varied the structure of the network itself, in one case having a network of strong ties, and in another, strong tie clusters linked by Granovetter's weak ties.

What they found was that the value of the message (20% off vs. 50% to 70% off) has a significant impact on the rate in which the word spread, as did the availability of items at the sale price. The second factor introduced a moral hazard aspect. It made spreading the news a zero-sum game: if I tell you, I might lose out.

Frenzen and Nakamoto also found that in strong tie clusters, word seemed to spread relatively quickly regardless of the nature of the news. There were variations, but in all cases, the majority of the strongly linked network came to know of the news fairly quickly.

Social Speed Traps

If the discount was fairly low, the news tended to get stuck within clusters and had difficulty jumping the weak ties. If the news was valuable (50% to 70% off) and supply was virtually unlimited, the news was much quicker to jump the weak ties, spreading through the network very quickly. But, if the discount was large and the supplies were limited, suddenly the news tended to get trapped within the strongly tied clusters. People were reluctant to spread the news because the more people that knew, the more it was likely that they and their close family and friends (the people within their strong tie clusters) would lose out on a great deal.

Weak Ties on the Web

In both the online and offline worlds, the speed with which buzz will spread depends on the value of the message (is the gossip juicy? Is the price unbelievable?) and how much we stand to gain or lose (does sharing reduce the chances of me and my close circle getting ahead?). Gossip's primary purpose is to create social bonds, and the sharing of intensely interesting information is something we're programmed to do. Similarly, we're programmed to share opportunity with those closest to us, either through kin selection (we want those with whom we share the most genes to get ahead first - W.D. Hamilton did the foundational work on this) or reciprocal altruism (doing a favor for a friend knowing that at some point, we'll benefit from the payback -- Robert Trivers is the name to search for if you're interested). In most cases of online buzz, there is no moral hazard. In fact, unless a meme has what it takes to jump the weak ties in a real-world social network, it will never make it onto an online forum. Posting on the Internet is, by its very nature, a weak tie, a reaching out from ourselves to everyone. We don't publically post memes if it costs our strong ties the opportunity to capitalize on them. Similarly, we're less likely to post unremarkable news, although I'm still trying to reconcile Twitter and Facebook status updates with this theory.

So, in the world of social networks, some people have more influence than others, right? Some are mavens, or super connected hubs, or natural salespeople (borrowing from Gladwell's "The Tipping Point"). Not so fast, says Columbia University's Duncan Watts. But more on that next week.

Originally published in the Search Insider, September 18, 2008

In the past few weeks, I've looked at where our feelings towards brands come from and how they get stored in our brains for future recall. I've looked at how powerful brand beliefs can be, even to the point of altering our physical sensations (the Coke blind taste test), how advertising can mix with our own personal experiences to create false memories, how emotions can build a powerful subconscious reaction to a brand and how we label complex concepts, including brands, with a summary label that reduces all we know about a brand to an easily accessible impression. Today, I'll round out the building of brand belief with perhaps the most powerful influence of all: the opinion of others.

Social by Nature

We are social creatures. One of the reasons humans have flourished on earth is because we take advantage of the power of groups. We have built extremely sophisticated heuristic rules to help us know when to trust and when to be wary. In our past, human survival depended on the passing of information from those we trusted and ignoring information from less trustworthy sources. While the survival value of word of mouth might not be as critical to us now (unless knowing a good Chinese restaurant or mechanic is a matter of life and death) those evolutionary mechanisms are still in place, and every piece of information we receive has to be filtered through them.

Remember, heuristic rules, which we know as our gut instincts, tend to form when the same circumstances produce the same results in the majority of cases. Given this stable pattern, we create a subconscious mechanism that allows us to act without thinking. A huge percentage of human behavior falls into this category (I explored one example, habits, previously in this column). The same is true for how we treat word of mouth information. Let me give you two examples.

Whom Can You Trust?

First, the closer someone is to us, the more we tend to trust their opinion. The word of family or close friends tends to carry a lot more weight than that of a stranger. That's because friends and family have proven their worth in the past and gained our trust. They haven't steered us wrong before, so why should they now? Secondly, the more enthusiastic the endorsement, the more value we give it. If we get a wishy-washy recommendation, we probably won't run right out and take action. But if someone close to us is ecstatically recommending a Thai restaurant, the odds are we'll try it ourselves in the near future. Enthusiastic endorsement shows that the initial impression was strong and memorable because it was emotionally tagged, making it more believable to us. Incidentally, it probably isn't coincidence that many personal recommendations tend to revolve around eating. Sharing information about promising food patches would have been a key survival strategy for our ancestors.

Gut-Level Judgments

When we get presented with information from others, it's not as though we pass the information through a number of rational filters. Calculations like the two examples are done below the surface. At a gut level, we instantaneously affix credibility to word of mouth and decide whether to pay attention or not. But if we do pay attention, this becomes a tremendously powerful consumer motivator. It's no coincidence that word of mouth typically tops the list as the key influencer in every marketing study ever done. Word of mouth fits our inherent survival strategies. We are programmed to prioritize information from trusted others as being important.

Your Word Over Mine

In fact, in many cases the opinion of others may trump even our own experience with brands. Studies have shown that we alter our own memories of a consumer experience depending on the opinion of others. If we're recalling a less than positive experience but at the time of recall we're surrounded by others who have more positive opinions, we'll alter our own opinions to better match the collective one. The same is true in reverse. A great brand experience suddenly loses some of its shine if others are vocal about their bad experiences.

In this altering of our own opinion, one has to remember an interesting principle about memory formation. Memories are not unalterable snapshots. They get reformed every time they get retrieved and then laid down again. So, if we retrieve a personal experience with a brand from our memory, then alter it to fit the opinions of others, it's the altered memory that gets recoded. We don't suddenly revert to our previous opinion when others aren't around anymore. Our perception of the brand has been altered by others from this point forward. This helps explain why others have such a powerful influence on our brand loyalties.

Next week, I'll look at an interesting study that explored how word of mouth spreads in a network, whether it's online or in the real world.