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

It’s an interesting rumour that could pass as a viral hoax: “Internet will close tonight for cleaning.” “Please wire me your bank details so I can send you $10m.” “Government will regulate web content to help TV.” (Spot the real one.)

Andy Burnham’s plans to “even up” the regulatory imbalance between television and the internet can go one of two ways. Either TV will become more like the unregulated web world. Or the web will become more like the regulated TV world. Or a bit of both.

In fairness, Mr Burnham is all about promoting “innovation, risk taking, and new talent” and, although scant on details, there’s no doubt that the internet is by far the most innovative platform ever invented. But I think we now know Mr Burnham’s views on grubby commercialism like product placement, so we have to assume that plans to “tighten up” the online content will be a less-is-more approach.

If the plan is to restrict content, either through ISP certification or centrally-managed censorship, it feels we’ve heard this somewhere before: clearly recent Olympic trips to Beijing had more of an impact on the DCMS than anyone expected…

By Morgan Holt on October 27th, 2008

Tags: Branded content, China, DCMS, Default, Digital marketing, Media, Product placement, Television, Viral Marketing

No comments

Two weeks ago I flew out of Terminal 5 as part of the British Airways Team, filled with excitement and intrigue heading to Beijing for my first Olympic games. The scale of the airport proved to be a taste of things to come, as the recent expansion to cope with demand during the games made us feel like the only people arriving in Beijing.

As expected the first greeting (other than the strict visa checks) were the various TOP and domestic sponsors displaying their Olympic advertising. Being brutally honest it failed to really inspire or excite me, so it was not until arriving land side did we feel the full Olympic welcome from Beijing. This came in the form of two eight foot mascots bouncing towards us emblazoned with the Beijing 2008 logo. Whilst visitors queued up for photos, our guide was almost bursting with pride when he told us that we were not just in the presence of some inflatable cartoons, but we were standing next to BeiBei and YingYing two of the five Official Olympic Mascots. Having always been a little dismissive of mascots, except perhaps when they amusingly play rugby at the Guinness Premiership Final, I started to be amazed by the clamour to meet the eight foot cartoons. The Beijing Organising Committee of the Olympic Games named the five mascots BeiBei, JingJing, HuanHaun, YingYing, NiNi which when the words are put together translate to “Welcome to Beijing” and they were living up to their name. In fact it proved to be pretty hard to avoid them out and about in Beijing, as they appeared on every other form of communication about the games. So whilst some brands like Visa wanted to own the welcome to Beijing with information booths and guides, it was only the Olympic organisers themselves that really stood out welcoming visitors, a key opportunity lost for sponsors.

During my time in Beijing it was fascinating to see an entire city turn its attention to making sure the games are a complete success. Everyone we met wanted to help us, the taxi drivers trying their hardest to make sure we all went in the right direction (despite it being a nail biting experience) and even the underground was lined with volunteers, part of the army of helpers all over the city that guided visitors around Beijing and the games. Whilst it was obvious that this was Beijing with its make-up on I was impressed by their staging of the games, even if we felt uneasy thinking about how it all has been made possible. London has a considerable challenge to follow Beijing but I believe we will deliver a memorable Olympics and certainly deliver the party atmosphere, which was sorely lacking in Beijing.

One of the objectives of the trip was to have a look at how each of the Olympic sponsors used their association with the Games. Whilst there is too much to list as expected the most prominent use was outdoor advertising and there is no doubt the competition for the premium sites was hotly contested. However what was disappointing was the creative execution which was relatively poor and many campaigns looked like they had simply added the Beijing 2008 logo to existing campaigns. Another potential loss of value was that some of the key sites were taken by the IOC to thank all their Worldwide partners, domestic partners and suppliers. Whilst this gives brands guaranteed ad space, I doubt if any brand will see any return from being part of a list of sponsors. Had the IOC split each of these sites up amongst the partners it could have given each of the brands access to some of the most sought after advertising opportunities.

One of the other major sponsor activities was the large scale product showcasing on the Olympic Green around the now famous Bird’s Nest stadium. As reported in the media, sponsors originally believed this area would be filled with thousands of visitors and with an area six times the size of the Athens Games sponsors eyed this as a valuable opportunity. Whilst not all sponsors were present those that were invested heavily in substantial buildings for showcasing, ready to accept up to 18,000 people a day.

Unfortunately security precautions limited numbers during my time at the games and I sensed the sponsors’ areas were well below capacity. Whilst all the showcases where delivered to a very high quality on the whole they did not actually do anything to really enhance my experience of the games as they did not fulfil any real need by a visitor. That said it did give sponsors like Coke and Adidas a good opportunity to demonstrate their heritage and long term relationship with the games. I doubt this will be replicated on the same scale at London 2012 but what is clear is that whoever uses this space must make sure the activity is compelling and relevant to visitors’ experience at the games. Lots of lessons learnt and I now can’t wait until London 2012.

By Roberto Colandangelo on August 29th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, China, London 2012, Olympics

No comments

Before Beijing 2008 began I wrote a post speculating about what the legacies of Beijing might be for the Olympics, for London 2012, and for brands. Now that the Olympic flag has been handed to London 2012, what initial conclusions can we draw?

1. From a UK perspective, Beijing was the latest in a long line of single-issue Games - but the issue wasn’t, in the end, China. It was, of course, Team GB’s brilliant performance. This has created numerous legacies, all of which can be filed under ‘Feelgood Factor’. Right now, we feel good about Team GB, London 2012 and The Olympics. Of course it’s too early to say, using one of Boris Johnson’s many wonderful new soundbites, that “Olympo-scepticism” has been totally blown away, but I think we can say with some confidence that thanks to ‘The Great Haul of China’ it will be a minority sentiment from now on.

2. The Olympic brand survived the China crisis. Concerns about regime policy and authoritarian stage-management never went away, but were ultimately overshadowed by a technically superb Games which delivered both breathtaking spectacle and an array of legendary performances. The most important performance of the lot in a global context? My vote goes to Usain Bolt. Not just for what he did, in the event which above all defines the Games, but for what he didn’t do: three of the previous five Olympic 100 metre champions tested positive for drugs. Usain prefers chicken nuggets.

3. The London 2012 brand evolved significantly. Beijing 2008 grafted two new elements into London 2012’s DNA: Team GB and, by very different means and in his own unique way, Boris Johnson (and since you ask, I’m a huge fan of both). Finally, do you know anyone who doesn’t like the new London 2012 logo featuring Union jack colours?

4. And what of the brand marketing contest around Beijing 2008 in the UK? To my mind there were three clear winners: adidas, via their kit sponsorship of Team GB; Powerade, the only Team GB sponsor to commit to a brand campaign throughout the Games, as my colleague Sara vividly described in her post a few weeks ago; and British Airways, who skilfully leveraged Team GB’s homecoming

By Tim Crow on August 27th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, Brand marketing, China, Default, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Sponsorship consultancy, Sponsorship consultants, Team GB, Vancouver 2010

1 comment

Steve Parry; ex-Team GB Olympian, bronze medallist, BBC TV pundit, Michael Phelps look-a-likey.

One of the funniest clips from the Beijing 2008 Olympics. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

By Stephanie Branston on August 20th, 2008

Tags: BBC, Beijing 2008, China, Olympics

1 comment

What memories will you take from Beijing 2008? The Beijing Olympics got underway last Friday, with a unique and quite incredible Opening Ceremony. The fireworks, theatre and special effects were nothing short of spectacular, and after the opening weekend’s sporting events, the Games themselves promise to be little different.

I for one spent the weekend glued to my TV. Already we have witnessed some truly great sporting moments, full of achievement, hope and emotion. I’m already watching sports I’ve not watched for four years, I’ve been gripped to Craig Fallon’s valiant attempt at the bronze medal in the judo (he ended a credible 7th), as well as witnessing the most nervous of starts by Team GB badminton hope Andrew Smith (he finally came through after a dreadful opening first round match). Among other sports, I also took in Chinese weightlifter Chen Xiexia winning the hosts their first gold, the first of many I suspect.

Sunday’s action saw a wonderful first gold for Team GB; Nicole Cooke in the women’s road race (cycling) took victory in a thrilling sprint finish at the end of the gruelling 75 mile course. Extra special for me as she’s from my native Wales, the first Welsh gold of my lifetime. Awesome. In the boxing, 18 year old Brit Billy Joe Saunders started in some style and he looks set to become one of the incredible stories of Beijing 2008. My ‘red button’ on the Beeb has just become the best thing since sliced bread and by the end of August I’m sure it will be toasted!

The start for me has been so refreshing. After months, if not years, of media debate surrounding the political issues of staging the Games in China, the focus has finally moved to the passion drivers - the sports, the heroes, the winners and the losers. Don’t get me wrong, I have full understanding for the political agenda and I’m hopeful the 2008 Olympics marks the start of new beginnings for China and its people. But, for me the Olympics is about the special moments, and they can only really begin when the flame is lit and burning bright.

Of course, focus will occasionally move to the important issues of humanity and the environment, but now the main event is the actual event itself. It’s impossible to put into words the impact of a Games. The impacts will be officially measured but to millions of people the Games will mean something different and unique. Each of us will remember the magic moments that touch our emotions and that for me is the true measure of the event. The moments may only last a fraction of a second but the memories they create will last a lifetime.

This Olympics is extra special, for we are privileged to know that next time it will be our Games in London. If I can be this excited when it’s over 5,000 miles away, just imagine how it will be with the Games on our doorstep.

When these Games finish I for once will not feel empty. I will feel the anticipation begin for our journey. The London 2012 Games will be the ultimate. An Olympics in which we can all play our part. Join the journey and I promise the memories will last for ever.

By Ben Wilkinson on August 11th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, China, London 2012, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Television

No comments

Apart from the competitors’ heroics, what will we remember Beijing 2008 for? And how, with London 2012 in mind, will UK consumers feel about the Olympics after Beijing?

Previous Olympics in the modern era have all strongly impacted the Olympic brand – in general negatively – and left a single-issue legacy. Montreal 1976 invented the Olympics as a debt monster. Moscow 1980 was the Cold War, Soviet Games. LA 1984 showcased the American entrepreneurial Dream - and in Atlanta 1996 the Dream became an over-commercialised Nightmare. Seoul 1988 will forever be remembered for Ben Johnson and doping. Barcelona 1992 was a triumphant spectacle for Spain, as Sydney 2000 was for Australia. Athens 2004 was the Games that could never follow Sydney and only just got built.

Beijing 2008 looks like being another single-issue Games - the issue, of course, being Chinese government policy. With the Torch Relay crisis now firmly imprinted on Beijing’s DNA, and the media even more focused on the issue as we move into Games time, I can’t see this changing.

But what I do see changing is the world’s knowledge of and attitude to China. And in this respect the Olympics is part of the solution, not – as many would have it – part of the problem. Beijing 2008 will offer an unprecedented window into China’s uniquely fascinating society and culture. And the greater knowledge, understanding and – let us hope – human empathy this engenders will perhaps be Beijing 2008’s key legacy. As Simon Barnes of The Times wrote in a characteristically brave and intelligent piece back in April, this is a key strand of what this Olympics is about. It will make few, if any headlines, but it will leave the world, and the Olympics, in a much better place.

And what of the legacies that Beijing 2008 will leave London 2012? Here in the UK of course, as the next hosts of the summer Games, we’ll be looking at Beijing very differently to the rest of the world. “It’s our turn next” will undoubtedly be a theme running throughout the Games coverage, rising to a crescendo when Beijing hand the Olympic flag to London during the Closing Ceremony on Sunday 24 August.

The big question, of course, which we’ll be looking at closely with our clients who are Olympic sponsors, will be the effect of Beijing 2008 on UK consumers’ attitudes to and behaviours around the Olympics. There are bound to be some big shifts – especially in favourability if, as we all hope, Team GB wins medals galore – but only time will tell what they’ll be, and how lasting.

By Tim Crow on August 6th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, Brand marketing, China, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Media, Olympic Torch Relay, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultancy, Sponsorship consultants, Synergy

No comments