It’s always nice to find a simple way to explain something. Lee LeFever does just that with this quick video explanation of RSS. Anyone who still doesn’t get RSS should watch this.
Posted by James on June 20th, 2007
Filed under Miscellaneous, Web | 1 Comment »
Arial, Microsoft’s Helvetica substitute, is probably more familiar to the average computer user than the typeface it was aped from. But how well do you really know your friends? Derren Wilson’s online quiz begs the question, can you tell the difference?
Once you’ve failed the quiz, work off some of that Arial angst in the Helvetica vs Arial flash game.
Posted by James on June 19th, 2007
Filed under Design, Fun | 1 Comment »
In today’s media world we are fortunate enough to be able to target our buys in a myriad of ways; geo-target, demo-target, site-target, behavioral target…you get the idea. Targeting is an attractive and effective marketing strategy. It can provide more qualified leads and offer increased share of voice within respective markets and industries. The trouble is it’s easy to be wooed by the appeal of reaching our targets with such precision that our focus moves solely to targeted delivery methods and we forget about the importance of incorporating a layer of broad-reach exposure into our campaigns (save Stackpole & Partners, of course).
There is substantial (perhaps hidden at the moment) value behind incorporating broad-reach exposure into an over-arching targeted media strategy. For example, if we take a step back and dial into the fact that we are all consumers (and in most cases have friends, family and colleagues who are consumers as well) and recognize or remember the immense value associated with a referral that comes direct from a friend, relative, or colleague who is passing along an ad, article or listing that relates to our work, passions and life pursuits we arrive at a ground breaking new concept – Word of Mouth marketing. Ah yes, a genius marketing tactic… hmm, that media/marketing vendors are now actually writing into their capabilities and service offerings as the latest and greatest method of message delivery?! Wait a second; if we need to pay for (or even negotiate as added value) Word of Mouth marketing then maybe we aren’t purchasing media in the most effective manner, creating brilliant, inspiring ads or delivering on our brand promise. But I digress. My point is, perhaps we’re guilty of dancing on the edge of uber-targeting our media campaigns. Which is why an elementary concept such as Word of Mouth is the latest rage. (All of this is not to say conclusively that finitely targeted media buys won’t yield Word of Mouth marketing, but it is to say that the universe and possibility shrink – and my question is, for what purpose? Let’s make sure our targeting methods are meaningful, not blinding.) So, before we all go jazz-hands over the concept of Word of Mouth we should proceed with caution when planning, recall the importance of Word of Mouth and understand that while targeting is nice, broad-reach coupled with a targeted approach inherently delivers on Word of Mouth (provided that creative and brand promise are fulfilling their roles).
Not to mention, if we add some slack into our targeted media approaches we may even find ourselves answering the following question less, “Dude where’s my ad?”
Posted by Marrianne on June 15th, 2007
Filed under Marketing, Media | No Comments »
So, this is my first blog and I’m hoping it is my first of many, but we’ll have to see about that. I am, you see, a self-proclaimed technology dinosaur. Sure, I know what a blog is. But in order to write this contribution to The Stackpile I began with a little research. In my spare time this week, I’ve departed from my usual surfing among mainstream news sites and read loads of blogs and online news feeds instead. The one that struck me the most was an item in adotas.com, an interactive newsletter, loftily titled, “Internet to Transform American Political Discourse.”
Now, how can you not stop and read an item like this? “Transform” political discourse — I needed to learn more. The article references an e-mail tracking firm that reported, “the top Democratic and Republican candidates…[sent] from 3 to 17 e-mail newsletters each in May and early June.” Interesting, I thought — good use of email marketing, particularly in the early stages of the campaign when fundraising is critical but platforms aren’t quite ironed out yet. Ongoing, one-on-one communication with your target audience is a very strategic use of the medium for those on the campaign trail. So, I read further. The article compared the influence of the Internet in the upcoming election to the influence of the televised debates of 1960. Now here’s where they lost me, “If televised debates showed how impressionable voters are to physical appearance, maybe the Internet will be a medium known for effecting the depth and breadth of thought, communication skills, and administrative vision held by the candidates.” Okay, slow down there, adotas.
Even a borderline technophobe like me understands enough about the Internet to take issue here. Just because the communications means are revolutionary, doesn’t mean that the message will be. The Internet will give candidates another forum for communicating this time around, and yes, it will be extremely interesting to watch how they employ it. But the Internet certainly offers no guarantee that what candidates say will be any more substantive than we heard in 2004, 2000, 1996 … well, you get the idea.
While this may sound cynical, it’s not. I just think adotas is on the wrong track. I think that what the use of the Internet in this election will continue to prove is that the Web is still a groundbreaking, results-oriented medium for selling products, and even ideas, to critical target audiences.
Posted by Kelly on June 14th, 2007
Filed under Marketing, Miscellaneous, Web | No Comments »
Wow. Since my post about the new logo for the 2012 London Olympics games, the inter-web has been a buzz with negativity. I find all of the hubbub rather interesting (and in some cases, a little amusing). I think anytime design gets discussed in a public forum, even if it is to point out design that is largely unpopular, I think that it is a good thing.
To me, aside from the aesthetic merits of the logo, I find the resulting public relations fallout to be the most interesting aspect of this mess. The old saying that “there is no such thing as bad publicity” really gets put to the test here. The logo is certainly generating a lot of discussion, but is it a good thing when a lot of it centers around demanding the mark be changed? Or that an animated version of the logo potentially may cause epileptic seizures? Or that a large amount of people have felt compelled to try their hand at creating a better mark?
To be fair, not all of the reaction has been negative. Some have argued that the mark works just fine. While I don’t agree with these sentiments, I do respect that the designers tried to come up with something different. While I don’t feel that “different” necessarily translated into “good” in this instance, I hope this incident doesn’t dissuade other designers from trying to push people’s expectations. And let’s face it, when all is said and done, no one can argue that the logo that didn’t leave one heckuva mark.
Posted by Trev on June 7th, 2007
Filed under Branding, Design, Marketing | No Comments »