Anyone watching Newsnight this week may have caught the interesting feature on popular design website Information is Beautiful. For the uninitiated amongst you, the site is the brainchild of David McCandless, who describes himself as “an independent data journalist and information designer…interested in how designed information can help us understand the world”.

With nods to the seminal philosopher and statistician Otto Neurath, whose motto, “words divide, images unite”, led him to design an icon-based language to express quantitative information, Information is Beautiful presents a fascinating series of visualisations, a distillation of democratised data, if you will. In a world where we’re constantly struggling under the weight of statistics, news, opinion, video – not to mention a healthy measure of total junk – McCandless questions whether there’s a compelling means of simplifying, and in some way better understanding the constant stream of facts and figures routinely presented to us by the media.

This mission led to one of IIB’s most famous designs, The Billion Dollar-o-Gram, an exercise in quantifying the unquantifiable: I mean, what does $1billion really mean to anyone?

It was inevitable that this project would attract the attention of the media, with sites such as The Guardian’s Datablog providing a ready outlet for data and stats with a journalistic hook, that can be represented in a new and appealing way.

Mr McCandless’s appearance on Newsnight was certainly a little different, as you might expect, with host Kirsty Wark and guest, respected designer Neville Brody, critiquing McCandless’s previous assertion that visualisations had the potential to offer new insights into the politics of the world around us.

The debate’s well-worth watching, even if it involves the somewhat unjust intellectual skewering of Mr McCandless by the Brody-Wark duo, whose main argument is that designs such as those found on IIB, whilst beguiling and attractive, are likely to oversimplify the deeper issues behind the information from which they are drawn. We might feel slightly cleverer, but we aren’t necessarily any better informed; the designs are knowing, without necessarily imparting knowledge.

It was an awkward paradox for McCandless, as, by the nature of his work, he is bound by the information he illustrates, restricted to those nuggets that lend themselves to visual representation, however clever or imaginative the resultant images are.

Interpretation is all important, with IIB less about blind acceptance than mental stimulus: if it forces you to find out more, it’s achieved a goal.

Other examples of this include the excellent online resource Wordle – a word-cloud generator, which can quickly deliver images like…

Whilst certainly a valuable tool in linguistic sifting, it’s hardly something upon which you’d base an entire opinion. Instead this presents us with a means of examining the patterns in a complicated world, rather than explaining them.

Similarly, the online project ‘We Feel Fine’ – also referenced in the Newsnight report – is a resource as alluring as it is technically impressive. Scouring the global social media landscape every 10 minutes for any posts starting with the words “I am feeling…” or “I feel…”, the output is a demographically configurable snapshot of sentiment. Emotion trending, perhaps. The organic, transient and in many ways fickle nature of social media updates questions this as a means of truly tracking the mood of a nation, but it certainly offers food for thought.

There’ll always be a précis, a Cliffs Notes, an elevator pitch or edit to help us cope with today’s crowded and clouded data-stream – the impetus on us is to question, examine the bigger picture, ensure that visualisations such as those of David McCandless serve as cues to curiousity. It’s not just a design, but an invitation to explore the numbers, opinions, testimony, photos and history surrounding an issue, all accessible via a few extra clicks of the mouse.

Information might be beautiful; integration is essential.

By Jonathan Izzard on August 17th, 2010

Tags: Design, Media, Online communities, Social Media, Television

No comments

You’ve got to love a good viral. Many of you will have seen Brand Republic’s article this week on the efficacy of this type of marketing, which includes a liberal dose of Goviral’s favourite videos to be leveraged as part of a wider viral campaign. Many of these are fantastic, with the 15million views of Nike’s ‘Write the Future’ video testament to their pulling power and creativity.

Assuming this list managed to whet your appetite, how about spending a few minutes with Ignite’s view of the viral game-changers of the last 10 years. Lots of things you’ll have seen, but also, I’d wager some stuff that may have passed you by. It’s a liberal mix of videos, pictures and applications, but all check a single box, namely, would you send this on to a mate?

As you may have noticed by the none-too-subtle references in my last couple of Synergy blogs, I’m a bit of a film fan, so to see ‘The Blair Witch Project’ so high up on Ignite’s list reminded me just how much of an upsurge of viral marketing campaigns related to film releases there has been over the past few years.

Ask most people and they’ll probably agree that 1999’s ‘The Blair Witch Project’ was certainly one of the first films to really embrace viral marketing, and use the internet to create a genuine phenomenon. They’d be right, and the figures speak for themselves: though the production costs are often enthusiastically undercooked by the media (in fact coming in at a total of around $600,000), the movie nonetheless went on to gross almost $250million worldwide, at the time making this one of the most profitable independent films ever made. Incredibly, this was recently eclipsed by the similarly spooksome ‘Paranormal Activity‘, which has to date taken over $190million from a mere $15,000 production. Now that is frightening.

Since then viral has formed a part of a great many movie releases, but perhaps the most important question is how did Blair Witch’s original campaign come together? Using the internet as a subversive source of pseudo-information to create and perpetuate the myth of the Blair Witch. Coupled with the movie’s amateur documentary feel, blurring the lines between actors and characters, it sucked you in and creeped you out.

Without doubt the Blair Witch team exploited first-mover advantage – to be fair, in a year that saw the release of ‘Star Wars: Episode I’, ‘Toy Story 2′ and ‘The Matrix’, they needed it. In fact, ‘Blair Witch’ ended up as the 14th biggest movie at the box office  in 1999,  out-grossing ‘American Pie’ (okay, bad use of the phrase ‘out-grossing’), ‘Sleepy Hollow’ and ‘Fight Club’, to name but a few memorable titles.

So what about the pretenders to the throne – the viral campaigns that followed in the Blair Witch’s shadowy wake?

‘Cloverfield‘ is one you might mention. With a budget of $22million, it could hardly be termed a small movie, but the air of mystery that was cultivated around its release was pure viral: the teaser trailer featuring directly before producer JJ Abrams’ preceding major release, Mission: Impossible III; the drip-feed of subversive shots of a decapitated Statue of Liberty; and what the hell was a ‘Cloverfield’ anyway…? As with ‘Blair Witch’, ‘Cloverfield’ was based on the premise of found footage – but this time on a Hollywood scale – with a viral campaign that built intrigue ahead of the big reveal, mirroring the natural plot crescendo of many a monster movie before it. Disappointing or not (anyone see the finale of ‘Lost’ – also by JJ Abrams?) – it was definitely a success.

Conversely, you’ve got the Samuel L Jackson vehicle, ‘Snakes on a Plane’. Infamously inheriting its title from the classic Hollywood elevator pitch (Ridley Scott originally described Alien as ‘Jaws in Space’), the online community went wild over it. A slew of parodies and spoofs, such as ‘Cats on a Plane’, ‘Snakes who missed the Plane’ and even ‘Steaks on a Train’ were released on video sharing sites in the lead-up to the movie’s opening. Unfortunately, a turkey is still a turkey (even if it’s on a plane), and, in spite of a spirited effort by its marketing team, no one went to see it.

Various others have followed, including ‘Spiderman 2′, ‘Iron Man 2′, and, most notably ‘The Dark Knight’ (yes, you guessed it, ‘Batman 2′).

This last example represented viral marketing with a difference: there was no doubt from the off that the sequel to Christopher Nolan’s successful franchise reboot was going to be big – it didn’t need a clever campaign behind it to break any records. However, where it differed was in its very specific approach, with its careful exploration of The Joker, Batman’s enigmatic nemesis, allowing interested fans the opportunity to glimpse this character’s dark, unsettling roots. Importantly, though, ‘Why So Serious?’, the resulting ARG (Alternate Reality Game) encouraged not only online discussion, but offline, real-time participation in live events across an estimated 177 countries worldwide. Millions of people wanting to talk about your product, coupled with a career-defining performance from Heath Ledger saw ‘The Dark Knight’ have the biggest opening weekend in history (taking $158million).

And it’s the same team behind ‘Why So Serious?’ that are trying to repeat the trick for the upcoming Disney movie ‘Tron: Legacy’.

Not heard of it? That’s because it’s a sequel to ‘Tron’, cult sci-fi flick from way back in 1982. It was one of the earliest films to bring video games to the silver screen together, with a plot revolving around a games programmer, Kevin Flynn – a young Jeff Bridges – being sucked into a computer network (okay, it was no ‘Gandhi’), and notable for being omitted from the Best Visual Effects category at the 1982 Oscars on the grounds that many of the film’s special effects were computer-generated.

So why bother with viral marketing? I mean, if you’re Disney then surely you can just buy an audience via traditional media? Maybe the answer lies in who they’re targeting with the ‘Flynn Lives’ campaign – key influencers in the geekosphere: tech bloggers, sci-fi critics and comic fanboys. As the kind of people who, like me, are naturally protective of cult movie IP, and therefore highly cynical about a money-spinning 3D sequel, this is a key demographic for Disney to engage with and convert. As such, the ‘Flynn Lives’ campaign started with an exchange of branded memorabilia, details of esoteric code to be cracked and secret web addresses with clues to real-world experiences, such as trailer screenings.

Disney are not technically buying love (although it’s definitely a transaction of sorts), but rather engaging with the sceptics and bartering for belief, in a bid to reclaim interest amongst the 1982 original’s fanbase.

So does that make this retroviral marketing…?

By Jonathan Izzard on June 15th, 2010

Tags: Default

1 comment

Microsoft has announced the release of a new mobile phone designed to capture the hearts, minds and standing orders of ‘younger, chattier, socially switched-on’ users.

Developed in conjunction with former Manchester United sponsor Sharp, the brand is to be known as KIN, and represents a range of mobile phones – currently dubbed KIN One and KIN Two – the former in particular a pretty neat-looking device somewhere between a Palm Pre and the chubby widescreen variety of iPod Nano.

From left, KINs One and Two

It’s not a Blackberry, neither is it an Android-a-like, and it’s definitely, categorically not an iPhone challenger. With social media feed functionality placing it in an interesting limbo between smartphone and old-fashioned ‘dumb phone’, the KIN may, in fact, be more of a long-term stepping stone for Microsoft in converting a wider audience to the upcoming mobile Windows 7 OS.

Check the KIN website: it’s all very ‘youth’ (and not even in a ‘this is what all the kids are doing these days, isn’t it everyone?’ Gap style), informative, pretty and dynamic…nice, and contains only the tiniest nods to Microsoft…phew.

Does this mean Microsoft has broken free from its infamous track-record of dad-dancing that has confirmed the world’s third largest company as one of its dorkiest? Of course not, as confirmed by the following shot of Microsoft exec Robbie Bach from the KIN’s press launch last week – probably not the Generation Y shot in the arm the product required, given its offering and audience.

Robbie Bach at the KIN press launch

So why do Microsoft rule the uncool, and how do they manage to make things so effortlessly undesirable?

The much-ridiculed Window 7 Launch Party video holds one or two clues…

If you never saw this, please watch as much as is humanly possible of the video above (I’d say about 12 seconds) and then have a look at the Remix version on this ‘tribute’ site, which, through the tiniest addition has produced something eminently more watchable.

So why will people line up to shoot Microsoft down for this? Is it because the original video is so replete with cheese, yet so bereft of irony? Is it because of the public’s distaste for celebrating what is effectively a stress-purchase, in this case designed to solve the problems created by Microsoft Vista, W7’s predecessor? Or is it simply that the idea of hosting a party to launch a computer operating system is just incredibly bizarre?

Go back a little further to Microsoft’s ‘I’m a PC’ campaign. This was a response to Apple’s ongoing advertising creative which pitched a ‘typical’ PC user against a Macophile. In the US this campaign included Justin Long (of Dodgeball and Die Hard 4.0) as ‘the Mac’, but UK consumers will be more familiar with the localisation featuring Mitchell and Webb.

Whilst a comedic exercise in stereotypes – termed as bullying from certain pro-PC quarters – ultimately, Apple’s campaign was grounded in the functional versus the inspirational: on the whole people have to use PCs, but choose to own a Mac. If this isn’t an indicator of brand love, then I’m not sure what is.

Were Pharrell Williams’ claims that he’s a PC enough to turn the heads of unbelievers? What about when they see him on his  iPhone? Did Eva Longoria’s endorsement make PCs any sexier? Tough to say, especially when she was subsequently captured at the airport on her MacBook. Isn’t this indicative of the difference between obligation and aspiration?

Whatever way you look at it, in the constantly-updating, virtually-democratised world of the web, where transparency is a badge of honour, there’s very little room for the clumsy manufacture of cool. And even if you did want to – Microsoft boffins, take note – there’s a formula you need to apply…

Generated through research conducted between InSites Consulting and MTV Belgium amongst 13-29 year-olds, the above represents the key factors (at an official ratio of 22% originality, 23% popularity and 55% attractiveness) that contribute to make a brand, product or service ‘cool’.

The same study demonstrated that 73% of all brand loyalty is about the coolness of the brand, with young people today buying twice as many cool brands than uncool brands, while the future purchase intention of these brands is no less than three times as high. It doesn’t really matter whether this is right/wrong/lowlands-specific, but there’s little argument in the study’s assertion that trying to be cool is the worst thing you can ever do. Ever.

A tragic confirmation of this is Microsoft (honestly, I don’t actually dislike the company, there’s just so much cannon fodder) and its foray into the digital music market…the ill-fated Zune. They have the set-up, the know-how, and the can-do attitude, but this couldn’t save Microsoft from failing on the Originality, Popularity or Attractiveness fronts, in the face of Apple’s iPod. In fact,  in what is probably my favourite comedy product on the internet, you can even buy what has been termed the ultimate Apple anti-theft device, the ‘Hide-a-Pod’ - a Zune-disguise for your iPod.

Who knows what the fate holds for Microsoft’s latest mobile offering, but unless they learn the lessons from past product launches, there’s a chance it could be KIN useless.

By Jonathan Izzard on April 19th, 2010

Tags: Blogging, Brand marketing, Default, Digital marketing, Media, Mobile, New Product Development, Online communities, Viral Marketing

1 comment

Life moves pretty fast. You don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.

- Ferris Bueller

Sentiments borne of teenage frustration and a need for escape, rebellion and self-expression from the master of the ‘80s genre, the late great John Hughes. A simpler time, one might argue: the days before the web, wi-fi, information aggregation and real-time status updates live-streamed from a virtual community of billions.

Nowadays, information overload is well-documented, but to put things into context, it’s worth reviewing a snippet of the review of web use in 2009 from the legends at Pingdom.

So, in 2009:

- 90 trillion emails were sent…of which 81% were classified as spam (that’s 200 billion mails a day)
- A total of 234 billion websites were catalogued…with a further 47 million added last year
- There were 1.73 billion internet users worldwide…an 18% increase on 2008
- 126 million blogs were tracked by BlogPulse…with 84% of social network sites with more women than men
- Microblogs weighed in with a hefty 27.3 million tweets per day…although 57% of Twitter’s user base is in the US
- Facebook reached 350m users…50% of whom logged on every day
- 4 billion images were hosted on Flickr…however, 2.5 billion per month were uploaded to Facebook
- 1 billion videos were viewed per day on You Tube…with the average user watching 182 videos per month

And breathe.

In an age where the relentless pace of technological change means that many of us feel like we’re running to stand still, how do we find the time to stand and stare? If only there was some kind of machine that could take you back, pre-tipping point, or at least let you remember what things once looked and felt like…

You’ll be needing the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. Whether it’s for research, curiosity or simple nostalgia, this is a really fascinating resource. Type in whatever website you’re interested in and the site will offer you glimpses of archived pages from as far back as the mid ‘90s.

Just to get you started, how about:

Hotmail circa 1997

Google circa 1998

BBC.co.uk circa 2000

Sky Sport circa 2001

You Tube circa 2005

Granted, hardware, software and coding changes mean that not every page works perfectly or looks exactly as it used to. However, it’s a great way of frittering away a couple of minutes online, and even acts as a would-be stomach pump for the reclamation of forgotten morsels of data that Google, like a virtual sarlacc, has swallowed up but is now unable to regurgitate via organic search, such is the ceaseless growth of cyberspace.

Whether you find what you’re looking for or not, such online time travel confirms that LP Hartley knew what he was talking about…the past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.

By Jonathan Izzard on April 12th, 2010

Tags: Blogging, Content, Default, Facebook, Media, Online communities, YouTube, community

No comments

The King of the World is dead, long live the King of the World.

You have to hand it to James Cameron: at $1.88billion in takings to date, his 3D epic Avatar is officially the biggest box office ticket of all time. And having taken only six weeks to eclipse the record set by Titanic, JC’s last feature film, this is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg.

Yes, the world and his wife (and their three children, plus extended circle of friends) have queued up at cinemas to see Avatar: whilst it’s not perhaps a film for everybody, it has nonetheless garnered some strong reviews, and, 3D effects aside, features some of the best CGI ever used in medium. The spectacle in 3D, however, elevates Avatar beyond movie to experience, drawing the audience into Cameron’s alien world of Pandora without simply resorting to the customary “oh, that was the 3D bit” camera pans. Not all 3D films can claim to do the same.

Avatar is a 3D success because the extra something this technology brings makes us believe it more, enriching the immersion and further suspending disbelief. The question is, how to monetise this on a more regular basis, as opposed to only once every 15 years, when Mr Cameron decides to take us one step beyond?

Naturally, the answer came in the form of the ever-inventive Sky, with Sky Sports’ first foray into 3D programming the live coverage of Arsenal vs Manchester United last weekend. For those lucky enough to be in one of the nine bars across the UK to feature 3D screens – well, if you’d call ‘lucky’ being reciprocally filmed by Sky Sports looking like the rejects from a Buddy Holly casting session – the experience was mixed. The customary Sky Sports graphics, player line-ups (where a sense of depth and perspective is inherent to the camera view) and wide angle shots from behind goal were suitably impressive; however, the third dimension was not the totally eye-popping revolution many were imagining.

To be fair, Sky does spoil the viewer: with up to 20 cameras tracking the game in regular Ds and lovely High Definition crispness for those willing to pay an extra tenner a month – it’s hard to say whether the final spectacle of 3D could ever match up to our expectations. It’s no massive surprise that this was basically a glorified experiment by the broadcaster – football may not be the ultimate sport to benefit from an extra dimension, versus, say boxing, rugby, or even golf – but the fanfare of such a world’s first certainly captured the public’s imagination, leaving viewers hungry, or at least peckish, for more.

Whatever the future holds for in-home 3D, it’s clear that from a sporting perspective, as James Cameron understands, the extra dimension needs to add something to our experience, to give something back, with Sunday’s experiment representing a small step in furthering Sky’s opinion on exactly how it plans to achieve this.

By Jonathan Izzard on February 2nd, 2010

Tags: Barclays Premier League, Branded content, Broadcast sponsorship, Experiential marketing, Football, Football Sponsorship, Manchester United, Media, Sport, Television, Television audiences

No comments

Having won the MCCA ‘Best Campaign Featuring Sponsorship’ last year for its Team GB campaign around the Beijing Olympics, it’s great to be able to say that the Powerade 2009 InnerGear campaign has again been shortlisted in this year’s MCCA BEST Awards. Building on the insights and imagery of the Team GB campaign, Powerade brought the same InnerGear core creative idea to two of its international rugby assets – the English and Welsh rugby teams.

The 2009 edition featured England captain Steve Borthwick, Paul Sackey and IRB World Player of the Year, Shane Williams, in some equally impactful creative, and was supported through the line by Powerade’s cross agency team.

By Jonathan Izzard on January 20th, 2010

Tags: Beijing 2008, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Rugby, Sponsorship, Synergy, Team GB

No comments

When I tell you that I’m a big fan of Chrome, relax, I’m not hinting that anyone get Westwood round to pimp my ride – I am rather referencing Google Chrome, the web browser launched in late 2008 by the ubiquitous internet behemoth.

Having used it as my default browser since downloading the programme over a year ago, I’ve since installed it on my home PC and laptop, as a welcome break from Internet Explorer. I realise that I’m not the first person to break convention here, with any Mac users out there, along with the more technologically savvy, already well aware of life after Microsoft when browsing the web, with Safari – Apple’s own browser – and Mozilla’s Firefox, the main contenders for IE’s crown in the years BC (that’s Before Chrome); however, December 2009 finally saw Google’s new window onto the web overtake Safari’s hard-won market share. No mean feat, a year after launch.

This leaves the stats from December 2009 looking something like:

1. Internet Explorer - 62.69%

2. Mozilla Firefox - 24.61%

3. Google Chrome - 4.63%

4. Safari - 4.46%

5. Opera - 2.93%

6. Netscape Navigator - 0.32%

7. Various others - 0.68%

(Source: Market Share)

This may not look too significant a shift, although given that this % represents around 40 million users, and that Internet Explorer’s global usage dropped by almost 7% last year (from 69.23% in Feb 2009), you might start to appreciate the long-term machinations of Messrs Page and Brin, and how these might impact on one William Henry Gates III in the war of the super-rich supernerds.

In quite a major move for the brand, Google has even been running an offline ad campaign publicising Chrome. Commuters at Oxford Circus may well be familiar with both the posters and digital escalator creatives drawing attention to the ‘fast, new browser, made for everyone’. Indeed, in the lead-up to Christmas, Google engaged in another rare piece of ATL, with a Metro wrap (you may have seen this repeated last week), as well as a call to action for people to make Chrome one of their Xmas gifts to a loved one, via the www.givechrome.com website. Well, it’s better than a pair of socks.

This activity certainly translated into curiosity amongst web users, with searches for Chrome overtaking Internet Explorer for the first time ever, which Google – or its media department – would doubtless argue contributed to its rise in the browser rankings that very month.

So, what’s good about the product? Well, it’s very clean, clear, fast and free; you can have lots of different web pages running at the same time with no drag, and if any particular page crashes, Chrome simply shuts down that tab, rather than the whole browser. I’d definitely recommend it, although the programme is still not a catch-all: certain Microsoft plug-ins are incompatible with Chrome (hmmmm, how unexpected), making it difficult to use some online applications such as the SkyPlayer. For everyday browsing of the internet, however, it’s fantastic.

Other than the slow burn process of accruing new advocates and users, what next for Google Chrome? The answer is actually slightly more ambitious than you might think, with Google now moving further into Microsoft’s back yard through the development of the Google Chrome OS (Operating System). Whilst it’s still a way off, with an official release scheduled for the latter half of 2010, the concept is remarkably different to the traditional Windows offering. As outlined by company chiefs at Google HQ in November last year, the OS is designed with a focus on three user requirements: ‘Speed…Simplicity…Security’, achieving its aims via a radical approach: to all intents and purposes, Google Chrome OS only works when you are online.

What the hell? So I’ve got to be online for my PC to work, you say? Well, sort of.

Although this may sound pretty restricting, Google are not setting themselves the challenge of beating Microsoft at its own game, but rather carving up a piece of the action for themselves, namely through appealing to the burgeoning netbook market. Sales of these small, light, web-friendly PCs were up 103% in 2009, and with decreased price points and increased wi-fi availability, this trend looks to continue. To date, the concept has received a mixed reaction: for the always-online professional netbookers out there, Google are preaching to the converted, with a promise of a system that will be ready to surf the web within seven seconds of power-up; plus they won’t need to store all their docs on their hard disc, with data instead stored remotely and accessed via the web. Google aren’t the first to use a ‘cloud’ system, but probably are the first to take the concept of virtual storage for mobile PC users to such a commercial extreme.

From starting life as the cleanest, fastest and most efficient way to find what you need on the internet, Google has, in an incredibly short space of time become part of our culture, our very vocabulary. And in today’s information age, there appears to be no stopping them: news, video, mail, maps, photos, phones, toolbars, Trends, translation, into China (and out again?) – and we search, and we search, and we search…

By Jonathan Izzard on January 19th, 2010

Tags: Advertising, Brand marketing, China, Digital marketing, Media

1 comment

So, the draw for the 2010 FIFA World Cup™ finals is almost upon us. At 5pm GMT today in Cape Town, Sepp Blatter, Charlize Theron (yes, really) and co will select the teams from the four designated pots that will make up Groups A – H next summer in South Africa.

But what does it all really mean to the brands, the fans and to FIFA’s flagship?

From a brand perspective there are no surprises in terms of the major head-to-heads we’ll be seeing: Nike managed to comprehensively crash adidas’s party in Germany at the last World Cup, with Joga Bonito stealing adi’s ball from its own back yard. What about 2010, though? As the first World Cup to take place on the African continent, will the joy, enthusiasm and raw power that characterise African football play into Nike’s hands, or, as kit supplier to 11 of the 32 teams, including hosts South Africa (versus Nike’s 10), do adidas have something else in their locker? Although if anyone understands African football, it’s Puma. Together with reigining champions Italy, Puma supplies four of the continent’s six nations: the brand’s use of its African assets in Africa’s World Cup will be interesting to track.

So what about the draw itself? Whilst Portugal and France’s poor qualifying records have upped the ante on any prospective Group of Death, all we can do at this stage is wait and speculate. For sponsors, a killer draw may represent a challenge, for others an opportunity: big Group Stage fixtures in the diary drive scale and anticipation and allow for advanced planning…but also affect permutations in the Knockout Stage. From a fan perspective, no one wants a Group of Death – but who imagined they’d see France getting ‘Senegalled’ back in 2002? Whether it’s the relief of a dream Group, the agony of the worst draw imaginable, or the buzz of a being drawn against a historic or local rival, this will be THE big global sports story of the next few days no matter what happens today.

What about FIFA? After a 2006 tournament remembered for Zidane’s madness, rather than his magic, a sticky tie here or there is likely go down pretty well with the organisers, adding to the colour and vibrancy already imbued by hosts South Africa. And, as a prelude to Samba Football going home at the 2014 FIFA World Cup™ in Brazil, the 2010 draw is a critical moment in FIFA’s perennial brand and business rivalry with UEFA and its titans, the Champions League and the European Football Championships.

By Jonathan Izzard on December 4th, 2009

Tags: Default, Football, Football Sponsorship, Synergy, World Cup

No comments

So John Cleese will be footing a £12.5 million bill for his divorce of second wife, Alyce Faye Eichelberger. As Cleese put it, “I got off lightly. Think what I’d have had to pay if she’d contributed anything.” Whatever the reason for this split, there may be more proceedings to be filed over the coming months, following news of the imminent release of Championship Manager 2010 from software house Eidos.

For a limited time only, Eidos is offering its revered football management title to online consumers through a ‘pay what you think it’s worth’ mechanic. Aside from a non-negotiable £2.50 ‘delivery charge’, buyers can theoretically spend as little as a penny extra to own the game. It’s an audacious move, with even the staunchest of CM fans likely to pay less than RRP to get a piece of their narcotic of choice. The risk-reward ratio must come down to how many new enthusiasts/devotees/junkies can be brought into the franchise through either the reality of the deal, or the PR noise it’s made. It’s brave, it’s bold, but one has the feeling it’s based on a commercial reality – surely someone at Eidos has done their sums before this launch got the green light? Radiohead employed a similar tactic on the release of their album ‘In Rainbows’ and claimed to enjoy the last laugh, making more money than all their other albums put together.

The fact is that much of this has been made possible by the move from the physical to the virtual transaction. Whilst there’s no suggestion that making £2.51 a time off a product traditionally retailing at around £40 will keep the CEO in your pocket, the shift from purchase off-shelf to online does fundamentally change the business model: no packaging, no CD, no negotiated shelf-space, no point of sale material…no hassle. It’s not as though this is anything new – software has always been available via the internet, legally or otherwise, but the bandwidth has got broader and the delivery mechanisms more mainstream. We’re not talking about shady P2P software ‘shopping’ services for the tech-savvy, but point-and-click, monetised downloads for the wider PC/console/mobile user.

The iTunes App Store blazes a trail with its well-vaunted billion downloads worldwide, giving an impression as to the appetite of iPhone and iTouch owners for the various games, utilities and services available. Similarly, both the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 have their own download services for the broadband generation, offering software updates – such as the well-publicised England kit that Umbro automatically ‘launched’ in Pro Evolution Soccer – and full games. In fact, digital distribution of this kind of content – whilst not a replacement for a physical purchase given the size of modern console games versus their in-built storage capacity – has proven hugely profitable for a number of companies. The classic software title Worms, recouped its development costs within four hours of its release on Xbox Live Arcade – a staggering feat without a single CD in sight.

And now, Championship Manager, the football sim notable for its reputation of turning male university students into soccer stat-devouring zombies after countless all-night sessions on their PCs – long the bane of other halves across the globe. Officially cited in over 35 divorce proceeding to date, it’s the pastime that makes regular football widows grief look half-baked, and the dirty little secret that should set alarm bells ringing in any prospective relationship. With incidences of laptops being thrown from windows following any given catastrophic loss, to that of the player fabled to have dressed in a suit and tie for his team’s appearance in the FA Cup Final – the game has created its own Masonic subculture of transfer tips, war stories and spousal rejection.

And thanks to the Eidos honesty box, it’s about to get worse…

By Jonathan Izzard on August 20th, 2009

Tags: Default, Downloads, Football, Mobile, New Product Development

No comments

Can you recall the last CD you bought? Unless you’re either a seriously early adopter or an MP3 evangelist, you’ll probably be able to dredge up that memory. What about the last album you downloaded? Chances are you might be able to remember that too. Okay, so what was the last single you got from iTunes? Maybe trickier?

Granted, I’ll still buy the odd CD, but we’re talking about a handful of artists whose records I’ve always bought – somewhere between a fan’s loyalty and a collector’s prerogative. Do I download full albums? Very rarely. You’d need to be talking about either a pretty esoteric band (which iTunes isn’t always guaranteed to stock) or a download-only release. And I’m not alone. Singles rule the download charts, whole careers etched out through a few million mouse clicks on Apple’s site.

Last year Katy Perry notched up over 2 million downloads of ‘I Kissed a Girl’ on iTunes (no wonder she liked it), but only 282,000 copies of her album. That sort of singles-to-album sales ratio simply never happened pre-iTunes.

Over the past couple of years both the distributors of digital content (read: iTunes) and even artists themselves have found this troubling enough a trend to warrant two very different reactions.

For iTunes this has meant ‘Complete My Album’. Described (by Apple) as “a wonderful new way that iTunes helps customers grow and enjoy their music collections”, this is an additional service made available for six months following the purchase of any individual song/songs from a given album, iTunes offers a discounted rate on the rest of the collection in question. In fact, by mid 2008, ‘Complete My Album’ was said to be responsible for 52% of all album purchases on iTunes, with a 10% conversion rate from single to full work. In response, a number of recording artists have capitalised on this opportunity, digitally releasing tracks in advance of the full album being made available, whilst ensuring that their fanbases are made aware of the facility and the deal iTunes is offering them.

By contrast, Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins has publicly stated that the band will only be releasing singles, rather than full albums: “We’re done with that. There is no point. People don’t even listen to it all. They put it on their iPod, they drag over the two singles and skip over the rest.” Taking this a step further, AC/DC simply refuse to put their music on iTunes, stating “We don’t make singles, we make albums.” Schoolboy error? Given that their last album, ‘Black Ice’ sold over 8 million copies, having debuted at #1 in 29 countries, I’d say they’re fairly switched on.

Guy Garvey, lead singer of Elbow has described downloads, and iTunes in particular, as being “responsible for the death of the album”, although you can most certainly purchase the band’s wares on said site. I guess there’s still something to be said about the age-old quest for albums that are all killer, no filler – but what happens to those records with the songs that used to grow on you? Understanding where a band was, artistically, when they wrote any given piece of music? Do certain tunes always have the same impact in isolation of their creative surrounds?

I mean, other than an executive at Sony, whose favourite album is a ‘Best of…’?

By Jonathan Izzard on July 22nd, 2009

Tags: Default, Digital marketing, Music

No comments