The stupidity of the IPA Excellence Diploma

Why would you want to come up with anything new? 

It just gets in the way of doing the same things that your boss did before you, and his before that. 

Nothing’s changing, not really, it’s all the same game… write a powerpoint presentation, make a telly ad, put it on telly, repeat every year ad infinitum.

Everyone gets paid, media folk go to lunches at The Ivy, advertising folk go to shoots in Argentina, digital folk go and get their microscooter pimped in Hoxton.

Why rock the boat?  We’re onto a good thing here, people…

If you go learning things, reading things, forming opinions on stuff, then go around writing and sharing these thoughts… well, how’s that going to make your agency better?

So, I guess, the IPA Excellence Diploma isn’t helping anyone at all.

I blame the tutors.  For a bunch of so-called industry greats, they really should know better.  Let’s name names; Nick Kendall, Chris Forrest, Jim Taylor, Peter Field, Gerry Moira, Mark Lund… all guilty, to a man.  Especially Kendall, he’s the ringleader.

You’d have thought they’d have just covered the ‘how to get ads made and shown as quickly as possible’ bit, and done everyone a favour.  But no.

Six modules, on just about every conceivable topic… brands, people, channels, measurement, creativity and leadership. 

They they give you a two months to read endless amounts of brilliant discourse on each area, after which you’ve then got to write a 2,000 word essay on ‘what you believe…’.

And if that weren’t bad enough, at the end of it all you’ve got to craft a 7,000 word thesis on what it all means… where the future of our industry lies.

Frankly, it’s asking for trouble.  So unsurprisingly, over the four years of the course it’s produced endless amounts of trouble makers… Faris, Sam, Graeme, Matt, Alex, Chris, Chris, Bethan… the list goes on. 

In fact, I was at the graduation last night of the class of 2010 (I mentored Ben Harrison at Rocket this year), and it turns our there are 66 of us who’ve gone through the course so far…

Which is enough, surely, yes?  How can the industry expect to stay firmly stuck in the nineties if we keep teaching our best people to think better, more revolutionary thoughts?

So, this is where you come in.

I want you to email Chloe at the IPA (chloe@ipa.co.uk), and rule yourself out now

I dunno, say something like “Chloe, if you were to send out any information about the next intake of the IPA Excellence Diploma in 2011, I would be in no way interested AT ALL.  I am happy sitting here in blissful ignorance, because life is easier that way”.

Or, if you’re the boss of a someone who’s looking like they might unfortunately turn out to be brilliant, maybe say “Dear Chloe, I would request that you refrain from sending my charge any information on this course, because they’re enough trouble as it is with all their ‘great ideas’, and I don’t’t want them having any more”.

So please, please, for the sake of the comfortable, easy, unchallenging world we all seek to protect, email Chloe right now.

Of course, you may take a different view. 

You may think the the only thing that’s stupid about the Excellence Diploma is that there isn’t a five year waiting list to be on it. 

But, you know, maybe that’s just you.  And me.  And a fair few other people.

Either way, drop Chloe an email (chloe@ipa.co.uk).  Ask her about the Excellence Diploma.  And make up your own mind…

 

 

]]>

Inception, MacGuffins, and ideas that spread

“What’s the most resilient parasite? An Idea.

A single idea from the human mind can build cities. An idea can transform the world and rewrite all the rules…”

Media_httpfeedingthep_fxamx

 

(This is a follow up to the previous post on MacGuffins and so on.  It’s worth reading that first.)

Now, I’m very certain I won’t have been the first to seize on this quote from Inception and bend it to fit some hinky marketing theory about social sharing.

I thought the quote had a beautiful simplicity of expression about it.  We all know that, at the end of the day, powerful ideas spread.  As we navigate the layer upon layer of modern communications though, it’s the how and why we’re increasing trying to unpick.

One of the contributors to the last post, John Dodds, said…

“Think Social Idea”

…and followed up with an explanation…

“Focus on the idea, the belief behind the company – why you’re doing what you’re doing and how you’re hoping to change the world for the better – and focus your efforts on making it social ie spreadable discussable, supportable…”

Beautifully expressed.  Of course, the thing is, it all amounts to same thing; Object-Idea, Social Idea, MacGuffin.  It doesn’t really matter what you call it.

Why?

Let’s go back to the movies.

I found a post by Douglas J. Eboch, who’s a screenwriter (and a fine fellow I reckon, given he uses his middle initial… that’s always a mark of good character…).  It was on MacGuffins.

Douglas writes…

“I define the MacGuffin as the object or goal that the characters’ mission is focused on. For example, in Inception (written by Christopher Nolan) it is the idea that Cobb and his team are trying to implant in Fischer’s dreams. In Casablanca it is the letters of transit. In Sweet Home Alabama, the divorce papers. In Avatar (written by James Cameron) it’s the goofily named Unobtanium.”

The thing that gets people moving, doing things, makes you care about finding out what happens.

Douglas continues…

“Alfred Hitchcock defined the MacGuffin this way: “It is the mechanical element that usually crops up in any story. In crook stories it is almost always the necklace and in spy stories it is most always the papers.” Hitchcock believed the more generic the MacGuffin was the better since the audience didn’t really care about it.”

“Inception tells us what the idea that Cobb must implant is, but do we really care? It could be just about anything and the movie would still work as well. It’s simply a device to get Cobb and Arthur and Ariadne and the others into a dangerous dream world that will test their skills and force their characters to undergo internal change.”

It doesn’t matter what it is, or what it’s called.  It’s what it does to people.

Back to our MacGuffin.  Well, what I called a MacGuffin.  John called it a Social Idea.  Hugh called it an Object-Idea. You’re maybe thinking of calling it something different, putting your own spin on it, something that works for you to help explain to others.

It is all of these, and it is none of these.

The Macguffin here is a MacGuffin.

It doesn’t matter what it is called, or what diagrams you use to draw it.  What matters is what happens to the people who’re talking about it, debating it, remodelling it, chasing the perfect version.

It changes us. It plants an idea, a seed inside our head, which starts to grow.  And when we talk about it to others, it starts to change them too.  We can express it however we like, and it will take many forms, but that idea will continue to spread.

And that idea is that we’ve got to change the way we do things.

The idea that the future of marketing, branding, advertising, media and so on is very different from the past, and indeed from the present.

The idea that companies whose purpose isn’t an social, spreadable idea actually might not have that much of a future.

It’s an idea that can transform the world and rewrite all the rules…

 

]]>

Thinking about the MacLeod-Earls MacGuffin

For the past couple of days, I’ve been trying to iron out some wrinkly thoughts that were started off by Hugh MacLeod’s post on ‘Object-Ideas’.

I’m working on various diverse client things that will benefit if I get to an answer, but for now it’s just some thoughts aired in the open to see where it takes me, and what you clever folk think too…

Anyone, this is what I’m netting out at presently…

The MacLeod-Earls MacGuffin.

There’s three things encapsualted in this term; one from Mark Earls, one from Hugh, and one from Alfred Hitchcock.  I’ll explain…

 

Firstly, there’s Mark’s Purpose Idea:

“The Purpose-Idea is the “What For?” of a business, or any kind of community.  What exists to change (or protect) in the world, why employees get out of bed in the morning, what difference the business seeks to make on behalf of customers and employees and everyone else?”

When I looked back at the little smileys diagrams I made for the Communis Manifesto, I realised I’d drawn it in; it’s this bit; at the heart of the company

Media_httpfeedingthep_ygeyf


Brilliant companies and communities of course thrive of a communal, shared purpose. So even with no connection to the outside world (the guys around the outside of the diagram), a great company retains its Purpose-Idea

Then, secondly, there’s Hugh’s Social Object:

“The Social Object, in a nutshell, is the reason two people are talking to each other, as opposed to talking to somebody else. Human beings are social animals. We like to socialize. But if think about it, there needs to be a reason for it to happen in the first place. That reason, that “node” in the social network, is what we call the Social Object.”

Again, back to Communis… I’d drawn those in too, but this time more purposefully (I referenced Hugh’s ‘social objects’ in the thesis).

Media_httpfeedingthep_njbjl

In the diagram, the ‘contexts’ referred too are the social objects where you connect internal to external… encouraging the company to participate in the social world.  Make & do things that are of interest to people, form relationships, collaborate and so on and so forth…

So far, so 2008.  What’s changed?

Well, Hugh’s point is that the two things, Social Objects & Purpose-Ideas, can be (and most often are) quite distinct from each other.

If you do something amazing in the social space (Whassup, Meerkat, Old Spice etc), then people will like you more for it.

But it’s not really what you’re about.  Your Social Objects aren’t really that linked to your Purpose-Idea…

Media_httpfeedingthep_vivlo

It’s just the things you made to make people talk about you more.

So that, somewhere down the line, they’ll think ‘oh yeah, they’re the guys that did X, maybe I’ll buy their stuff that they also do…’

But as Hugh puts it:

A social object on steroids i.e. an Object-Idea, is far more powerful. Because it’s actually talking about stuff that actually matters to people. 

It’s not enough for people to like your product. For them to really LOVE it, somehow they’ve got to connect and empathize with the basic, primal human drives that compelled you create your product in the first place. The Purpose. The Idea.

Which got me thinking about what Hitchcock called the MacGuffin

Media_httpfeedingthep_ewiti

“We have a name in the studio, and we call it the ‘MacGuffin’.  It is the mechanical element that usually crops up in any story. In crook stories it is almost always the necklace and in spy stories it is most always the papers”

 

It’s the thing in movies that gets everything, well, moving.  That which all the protagonists will do anything for.

So if we take it that back into the world of Social Objects and Purpose-Ideas, we can define our  MacGuffin here as:

The element that gets people talking about the thing that’s most important to your business


Which, I reckon, has lot of appeal for any company wrestling with modern communications…

For instance, you stop creating limited shelf-life social objects.  Things created to simply get attention, and then become leaden relics you don’t know what to do with, but feel you should persevere with because so much time, effort & money has been spent on them.  With a great MacGuffin, everything you do socially feeds back into your central Purpose-Idea.

Which also means that what you do socially starts to inform your Purpose-Idea; it leads a company more rapidly and quickly into areas in which they can flourish, because it’s created with people who’re interested in what it is you do, not just what you say.


So, to conclude for now, at the core of the MacGuffin, I’d propose there are two principles:

i) All Social Objects must build to and from the Purpose-Idea

ii) The Purpose-Idea must be compelling enough to breed Social Objects

…which means it’s not just a company’s marketing that changes, it needs to be the company itself.

It’s not about making more interesting and social marketing.  It’s about becoming a more interesting and social company.

Otherwise, amongst the rare runaway successes, we’ll keep on seeing lots of sausage companies asking you to make videos.

Now, clearly, I need to think a lot more about the implications & actionable stuff out the back of this. But hey, it’s a first stab.  Thoughts?

 

(as an aside, inspiration for the term comes from an economic device called the Edgeworth-Bowley Box – not a something messrs. Edgeworth & Bowley worked on together concurrently, but thinking that was developed over time, which reflects the continuum of this idea I think)

 

]]>

"A better brief for a post-digital world" – @garethk

I just had a wee flick through the below presentation, by Gareth Kay of Goodby, Silverstein & Partners.

It’s a brilliant encapsulation of what’s still wrong with a lot of the adland process, and some smart & simple expressions of how to start asking the right questions… or get clients to ask the right questions of us.

 

 

]]>

Social Projects – The tall and the long of it

Beth asked me if I’d like to contribute a guest post to the Social Collective 2010 blog for the event she’s co-organising on September 30th in London – there’s still tickets available here, too. 

The Social Collective conference is rooted in practice rather than theory; finding a better way to pitch social projects to clients, and then run them too.

So I said I’d like to talk about something that’s be brewing for a while, off the back of the ol’ bonfires & fireworks analogy… so here it is…

The tall and the long of it

In one of my favourite traditions of episodic storytelling, I’d like to start with something you should imagine is spoken by a gruff American man…

“PREVIOUSLY, ON FEEDING THE PUPPY…”

(You really heard him too, didn’t you..?)

Last year I was part of the wonderful IPA Social crew who created a list of principles which would help inform the approach agencies should take to ‘social’…

…rather than just imposing the ‘hey, it worked this way in advertising’ rule to everything.

Ten of us wrote a principle each, and my contribution ran as follows:

 

Media_httpfeedingthep_bhkdf

In the sense that…

i) Firework = Big, explosive, attracts a crowd immediately, expensive, dies quickly

ii) Bonfire = Small at first, collaborative, draws in a crowd slowly, gains momentum

It helps imagining it using a simple diagram like this…

   

Media_httpfeedingthep_khtqf

I’ve found it particularly helpful in giving folk an easy-to-get image of why social projects are different than things like advertising.

(“Social Projects”?  Yes, I’ve been trying to stop saying ‘social media’, because sometimes there isn’t really any ‘media’ involved, especially in a media agency sense).

But still all a bit theoretical, which is not what Social Collective is about.

What ‘Bonfires & Fireworks’ has made me realise is this:

Selling in tall potential is easy.  We need to get better at selling in long potential.

Think about the firework (advertising, PR etc).  The way we (always have) sell in fireworks is talking about the total audience of a television channel, the readership of a newspaper, the unique users of a website.

All of these large numbers are stuffed full of tall potential; no-one expects that nearly everyone in those figures will be affected by what we place there (or even see it, necessarily). 

But the comfort of potential makes everyone happier at buying a firework, despite knowing that the ‘actual’ delivery will be considerably less.

 

Media_httpfeedingthep_ifvvj

Social projects, on the other hand, don’t have that ‘tall potential’.  What they have instead is ‘long potential’.

Long potential in social projects is the moment when something big and amazing happens.  The world rejoices at the wonderful thing you’re done, all your employees sign new lifetime contracts because the company rocks so much, your customers dance in the streets and set up religions dedicated to you.

Or, more realistically, it’s the bit where the project is successful enough for everyone involved to be really glad they did it, and want to keep doing it.

The problem is, unlike fireworks, it’s really hard to get a handle on when or if the ‘actual’ might tip into  ‘potential’, how big that potential might be, or how much it might cost; three questions clients are understandably pretty keen on asking when starting projects.

 

Media_httpfeedingthep_ndxha

So how do we need to get better at responding to the ‘when, how big, how much’?  Using that wonderful gift of hindsight, here’s three things I’ve found help make everyone, both client and agency, happier and more effective on social projects.

1. Keeping it real

It’s very tempting to use the ‘social media rock star’ examples when selling in social projects… “yeah, Dell made $267 billion using twitter, and they installed the moon on a USB stick as a result…”

However, just using these examples at best sets wildly unrealistic expectations for the client, and at worst you’ll be dismissed as a fantasist and show the door.  Scour the web for examples that are a) a lot more like what you’re proposing and b) show results that sound realistic and achievable for what you are proposing to the client.  Those examples are out there, just not as hyped, so you’ll have to dig a bit harder.

Then when you’re selling in your project, you’ve got a range from the ‘realistic’ to the ‘fantastic’, which starts to resemble the actual/potential dynamic seen in the firework model.

2. Living one day at a time

I’ll be honest, I’ve nicked this from Omar Little.  The only way to be as active and reactive as you need to be when building social bonfires is too fix as few constraining frameworks around yourselves as possible.

Because, unlike fireworks, we don’t know when bonfires start and stop, it’s very hard to phase them into the traditional ‘campaign’ expectations… it makes everything clients might expect really difficult, from estimating how many people will see it, to carrying out research to see how it affected those people.

What’s been more effective for us is creating a loose framework of the stages you think the project will go through, roughly estimating how long each might take, and then setting off.  You travel through the project grabbing insights & statistics en route, spotting opportunities and closing down redundant sections, which you present to the client at pitch stage; it overtly becomes part live-project, part experimental research piece.
 

3. It’s always worth doing

Finally, we get to the ‘money’ question… how much will this cost?  With all the preparation you’ve done above, you’ll have an idea of all the elements needed to make a brilliantly successful project… and that’s your job, to think of every angle, and propose it.

Your client will, invariably and reasonably, ask ‘do we really need section x/y/z?’.  Things will start dropping off the plan, the project will become leaner and tighter as a result… but there isn’t really a stage where I think you should turn around and say ‘I don’t think this is worth doing with that much money’. 

Firstly, no-one’s really qualified to say what will & won’t work with social projects. 

Secondly, remember it’s a part-research piece, and if the finding you reach is that social projects don’t work for your client at that price, you’ve all learned something.

And thirdly, and most importantly, this brave new world isn’t going away.  So the sooner you get some social projects up and running, the better it’ll be for your client and for you…

John V Willshire is Chief Innovation Officer at PHD Media in London

]]>

Why I'm backing Bud's Bucket Brigade (beyond just the lovely alliteration)

After finding out about Bud Caddell’s book project The Bucket Brigade, I decided to back it (rather than, say, spending yet more money on Threadless T-Shirts).

“But what is it?’ I hear you ask, using my special ‘listen to people saying things on the internet app’.

Well, it’s a book.  Or rather, it isn’t… yet.

 

Media_httpfeedingthep_matjj

It’s a book that’s still to be written; it’s going to be a guide for people & companies through more nuanced, practical thinking about how all this wonderful technology changes everything for a company beyond just the ‘marketing’ bit…

as Bud says:

Brands and marketers have a sense that social media are an opening to culture, but a hunger for simple solutions too often means blunt force gimmicks, aimless executions, and an understanding of value that’s still based on media placements.

  • Let’s help brands and marketers better understand how to court and support existing communities, crowds, and networks; that each is different and that each possesses people seeking unique interests.

  • Let’s prove to brands that there’s far more value in earning, feeding, and sustaining their own communities, crowds, and networks than a few more repeat purchases.

  • Let’s prove what a farce it is to measure that value in terms of media impressions.

  • Let’s set the record straight, there is no free user generated content and there is no magical viral answer to reintroducing the corporation to culture.

  • Ultimately, let’s teach brands to better structure organizations, create products, distribute meanings, and make money

BANG.  That’s brilliant, I thought, how could you not sign up?

But if there’s one thing in particular that made me back the project, it was this sentence…

“Since 1776, when Adam Smith divorced commerce from culture in The Wealth of Nations…”

Personally, since I read The Wealth of Networks by Yochai Benkler, and subsequently wrote The Communis Manifesto a couple of years back, it’s been hugely apparent that the problems we’re trying to solve aren’t like anything we, or the generation before us, or the generation before THAT have had to solve.

Subsequently, everything I’ve tried to do at PHD has been rooted in not just superficial marketing change, but organisational change with clients (which has been fantastically hard of course for everyone involved… but terrifically interesting and rewarding as a result).

Which sounds a lot like the approach Bud is taking too.  Which is why I’m backing him…

———————-

UPDATE… the cheapest education ever

So, I was thinking earlier about why I was backing Bud, and I think there’s another, more selfish, reason I’m doing it…

…I think I’m doing it to help revisit everything that I think I think, if that makes sense.

Whilst Bud’s doing the research and writing and thinking, he’ll be working with the folk who back him at the ‘editorial’ level to sense check/input/read/think/suggest.

By being part of that part of the project, and given the sorts of folk on the editorial team, it’s a brilliant opportunity to look at the world again, and reorientate my head.

So I guess, in a sense, the $100 for the editorial level is the cheapest course I’ll ever pay for…

——————-

So why don’t you think about backing Bud’s Bucket Brigade too?

Bud has been raising the funds for the book via project funding site Kickstarter; the initial target’s been hit already…

…but the more funding there is, the better the book will be (even I can do those maths).

Even if it’s just for the lovely alliteration it’ll bring into your life…

]]>

The Actimel Allotments

Here’s a brief, maybe interesting observation, made whilst visiting my father-in-law’s allotment at the weekend.

You’re familiar with Actimel, no doubt…

 

Media_httpfeedingthep_irjdd

Well, some smart cookie has come up with an ingenious use on his allotment for the empty bottles; put them on top of the garden canes, and you’ll avoid bending down quickly and getting one in the eye, as you’ll see the bottle.

 

Media_httpfeedingthep_jxkwh

If it’d been on one allotment alone, it wouldn’t have been worth mentioning.

But, yes, you guessed it… it’s on all the surrounding ones too…

 

Media_httpfeedingthep_adgeh

 

Media_httpfeedingthep_czevb

Why’s this interesting?  Well, for two reasons I think.

Firstly, it’s a great example of the things Mark Earls talks about in Herd; we’re a social animal, and social animals share and copy each other. 

On walking past that first allotment, or in conversation with the allotmenteer, other allotment keepers have thought ‘ah, yes, that’s a good idea…’ and gone out to get themselves some Actimel.

Which brings us to the second point.

There’s no brand research, sales data or other study that would tell the Actimel brand team why, at a given moment in time, Actimel sales in Macclesfield spiked.

And, more than likely, even if you asked those people who’d bought Actimel to use the bottles on their allotment, they’d probably just repeat back to you what an ad said about the product, or what was on the packaging.

Just worth remembering we don’t have the full picture by any stretch of the imagination. 

But the interwebs in all its glory means that we’ve a better chance of discovery small, interesting things about the products & brands we work on.

Especially if weirdos keep hanging around in allotments taking pictures and posting them up on the web…

]]>

Want a good review for Four Lions? Ask twitter…

This is interesting…

…the honourable Rupert Britton, Dark Lord of Content Strategy here at PHD, has had a tweet picked up of his thoughts on the new Chris Morris film Four Lions, and it’s been used in an ad. 

It’s the second one down…

 

Media_httpfeedingthep_pqawh

He’s not the only one though… they’ve used about four or five, mixed in with reviews from proper journalistic organs.

Oh, and the Evening Standard.

Anyway, it’s really interesting, for several reasons. 

Firstly, if you were a little short of good write-ups of your film (which I’m not suggesting Four Lions is, it’s just a hypothetical ‘if’), you could just find the tweets by people who did like your film, and use those.

Secondly, it highlights the fact that we increasingly trust (or at least marketers believe that we trust) the opinions of other people at least as much, if not more so, than those of the so-called ‘experts’.

Thirdly, if you are going to use someone’s tweet in a review… is it polite to ask?  The first Rupert heard of it was when a friend called him up and told him…

Rupert says he wouldn’t have minded at all. 

So why not just ask?

(If you’re listening, Four Lions folks, the very least you could do is send him a poster or something…)

]]>

The iPad; it's TV, only more so

Now, you’ll remember my previous post on the iPad, TV and the like, yes? 

Well, our superclever research team here at PHD (Clare, Chris & Carrie) have been working on a project to gauge the impact that this generation of devices (i-pad-tablet-slate things).

Here’s Clare to take you through what they’ve found so far…

 

Media_httpfeedingthep_agvgi

Following on from this, I thought we’d add the view from the research couch. 

We recently did some work with people – not early adopters, not geeks, just ordinary people who like gadgets that make like easier, or more enjoyable – about how they use mobile devices (netbooks, smartphones etc) in our qualitative facility, The Living Room. 

The ulterior motive was to get them thinking about mobile media use and then get them to consider how they might feel about and potentially use iPads in the future.

<o:p> </o:p>

The results were fascinating.  We found massive enthusiasm appetite for mobile TV.  While few had watched much TV on their iPhones to date, when asked to try it out for a couple of weeks they came back full of enthusiasm and thought the iPad’s combination of screen size and simplicity of use would offer an even better way to watch mobile TV and video content.  <o:p></o:p>

The possibilities for combining viewing with interactions through social networks also appealed to some, with the chance to watch and discuss things together while apart, or pass on recommendations all from the same device you’re watching on.

They also thought it could easily be an option to replace second and third household TV sets, and could even replace some main set viewing especially where people have limited multichannel access, which suggests potential for a “pay as you go” option for mobile tv.

 

Media_httpfeedingthep_fuaii

Basically, they saw an opportunity for telly, only more so.  And better.  And easier to share.  Whats not to like?

Mind you, the success of TV on iPad will rely on Apple and other service providers marketing their mobile TV apps clearly and effectively as awareness of existing services for smart phones and computers was still pretty low (we had to show our groups some of the possibilities to get their views).

]]>

iPad video review; it's the future of television

I got my mitts on an iPad for the first time yesterday, thanks to David at The Guardian.

We worked with them and Canon on the Guardian Eyewitness app (now the SECOND MOST POPULAR free app for the iPad… FTW).

So we were understandably VERY eager to see the fruits of our labours.

(Apple, ‘fruits’?  See, it’s a pun, geddit?  Oh, never mind…)

Anyway, I took the opportunity to create a little video run through of some of the ‘media’ properties on it, just to get a first feel for what ‘worked’ on the iPad:


So, that was yesterday.  My thoughts today?

All in all, whilst newspapers and magazines (and of course comics) can do some wonderful creative things with the iPad, having used it you realise what a great in between step between ‘lean back’ and ‘sit forward’ it is…

…which is perfect for just watching TV on.

Ben Malbon points out that the posters they’ve put up are like a giant user manual… “this is how you use it”. 

 

Media_httpfeedingthep_boyjq

Looks like a great way to watch content, yet still have access to everything the web offers at the flick of a finger.

And sure, as a device it has the potential to do untold amount of wonderful things, depending on the apps developed for it.  And it may revolutionise many markets (news, games, work, healthcare…)

Yet given the amount of ‘watching’ people still do (television, films etc), and the quality and flexibility of the iPad for fulfilling that need, I believe that for mainstream take up it’s the viewing capabilities that will be key. 

 

Media_httpfeedingthep_frgch

People LOVE watching TV, as we all know.  This represents a different, flexible, personal way to do that, wherever you want.  TV has a mass appeal that opens up the interest in the device to a wider audience than would be interested in more early-adopter tech (the iPhone, for instance).

Which means there’s probably an interesting behavioural economics thing going on here too

People will justify spending £500 or so when they compare it not just to the price of netbooks, laptops etc… but to the price of flash flatscreen TVs.

For instance, would you buy a TV for the kitchen when you could buy a stand for an iPad and sit it in the corner when you’re there?  Especially if you can download whichever recipe you want on it too.

 

Media_httpfeedingthep_ctvdo

Which all means that whilst people will be watching as much, if not more, television content in the future, the way in which they are watching it is even more flexible and on demand…

…whatever, whenever, wherever.

Which has interesting, challenging repercussions for business or marketing models based upon the traditional linear TV watching with ad breaks every 20 minutes… but more on that another day…

What do you think?  Is the iPad the future of TV?

]]>