THE BLOG

30
Apr

Diseño Contextual – SMT ama este concepto

 

 

StarbucksContext design: How to anticipate users’ needs before they’re needed by Ami Ben David, thenextweb.com Ami Ben David is the co-founder of EverythingMe. A seasoned veteran with experience as a founder, an executive and a VC, Ami is in charge of EverythingMe’s marketing and strategy. Everybody in tech is suddenly talking about context. In his TED interview, Larry Page talks about context as the future of computing; Marissa Mayer is rumored to be building a home grown contextual search engine; Twitter just acquired a contextual team; and Samsung is getting into the contextual game as well.

There have been various attempts to define context, but I want to focus on contextual mobile product design. This is important because context is a revolution in the way we design mobile products. You may not see it yet, but trust me, it’s coming. So what exactly is “context” in the context of product design? A contextual product understands the full story around a human experience, in order to bring users exactly what they want, with minimal interaction. Context done right feels like your device finally gets you. User story: You’re late for a meeting, running into a huge office building. But where is the meeting? And what’s the name of the person you’re meeting with? Standard interface: Swipe your phone > enter password > find calander app > open calendar > open the meeting > look for the information. Shit, not there > search your email… Contextual interface: Glance at your phone: the meeting card with everything you need is already on the screen.

Notice what happened here. The contextual interface understands that you’re late for a meeting and trying to find it. It’s not waiting for you to ASK for the meeting, it is giving you the meeting proactively. The user emotion is “gratitude” – the phone saved the moment. This is the magic of context. It answers our questions before they are even asked. Anticipating the needs There is a beautiful line in the wonderfully surreal movie The Grand Budapest Hotel, where the new lobby boy is told to “anticipate the client’s needs before the needs are needed.” That’s the consumer value of context in a nutshell. Think of “contextual design” as the opposite of the conversational Siri approach. The natural-language Siri is the equivalent of the personal assistant you have to talk to. If you like coffee in the morning, you have to ask again and again every single morning. “Can I please have a cup of coffee; a large latte, with soy milk.” The contextual approach is about waking up in the morning and finding your coffee next to your bed. The coffee is prepared exactly as you like it without any fuss. There is no need to tell the assistant what they should have already known.

We are used to thinking about user interface design as a set of user-initiated interactions, where every action starts with a user making a (detailed) request, and the computer delivering as requested. With context, we try to switch a lot of the thinking process to the computer, so that users never have to tell computers things the computer already knows. User story: You want to call a friend, someone you call at least once a week: Standard interface: Swipe phone > enter password > open calling app > tap Contacts > start typing name > find contact among 10 entries with the same first name > choose which number to call > Call Contextual interface: Look at your phone > tap search > enter first letter > a picture of your friend is first on the list > call. What happened here? The contextual interface realized that this person was the one you were most likely to want to call at this time, at this place, starting with that letter. Because that’s what you’ve been doing every week. The user emotion here is “I’m being understood” – the phone gets me. I always like to measure contextual design success in terms of how little interface was needed to deliver a great result. Top success is zero interface; what you want just shows up on screen. Second best is when you just need to hint to your device. Just one one tap, or one letter. If your phone is smart, and has been with you for over a week – that should be more than enough time for it to get your hint. So how do we design contextual products? First, we need to start thinking differently. We need to think about interface as a two way interaction where both sides are smart and familiar with each other. Let’s say I’m designing a TV guide application. User story: You sit down in front of the TV after a long, hard day Standard interface: Swipe your phone > enter password > open TV Guide app > go to TV listing > scroll through a list of 200 shows > find something nice > find the TV remote control > switch to the channel Contextual interface: Look at your phone > TV card shows with three things you may like > point phone to TV and tap > both TV and phone sync to that show. What happened? Your phone realized you’re in front of the TV, it’s late, you’ve been running around all day, so you must be tired. This is the time to show a TV card. It knows what you usually like to watch, so it can compare it to what’s on right now. Oh, and It’s seamlessly connected to your TV so one tap activates them both – a magic moment. This is a completely new way of designing experiences. What are the building blocks of “context design”? I see three groups of context elements: the user, the environment and the world. The user context is about how people are different. It’s about what every user likes, hates, owns (a digital watch?), installs (apps?) and likes on social networks. It’s also about the user’s state of mind (bored, late, hungry,etc.), their habits and their state of motion (is the user standing, moving, running). The environmental context captures the time, the day, the location, the type of place (home, work, shop, train station,etc.), other networks or devices the user is connected to, or any other physical aspect that influences your application. The world context looks at what is happening elsewhere that may be related to the user, such as sports events, news events, weather, flight delays, traffic jams, package delivery times, a TV show everyone’s watching, or something trending on Twitter. Obviously not every piece of data is relevant to every application, but I believe that just about every application can benefit from the contextual approach way of thinking. Now here is your challenge as a mobile product designer: Take your three basic user scenarios and imagine how you would redesign them if you had instant access to the full context of the user using them. Can you create magic moments? Can you make the user feel understood? I believe you can.

london-attractions

21
Mar

Teens aren’t abandoning “social.” They’re just using the word correctly.

Advertisers are perplexed and a little angst-y.

I know this, because I work in advertising. Wait. Don’t stop reading because I admitted that. This isn’t about advertising. It just happens to start there.

“Teens Are Leaving Social Media in Droves Oh My God We’re Doomed Hold Me”
A few weeks ago, that was basically the subject line in every advertising industry newsletter. The source of the panic was a just-released study by Piper Jaffray that asked 5,000 teens to name their “Most Important Social Media Site.”

The result? Many old-school social media sites saw a fairly significant dip in preference over six and twelve months.
0*WCjW0Lgs-11o7GOh

Facebook obviously took the hardest hit, losing close to ten percentage points in a year. YouTube, Tumblr and Pinterest all lost, too. (Note: There are some things for which I will have exactly zero deductive speculation. Teens’ rekindled preference for Google+ tops that list.)

Why did marketers find this information so disturbing? Two reasons.

First, almost every retail, food and entertainment company wants those kids’ money. But if those kids don’t know about or don’t prefer those companies, they’re not going to spend their hard-earned dollars (or their parents’ hard-earned dollars) on those companies’ products.

That’s why marketing exists. And where have marketers increasingly tried to reach those kids? Social media channels (or “social,” as it’s often shortened).

Even though Facebook wasn’t the only loser in that survey, it’s the one marketers are lamenting most. (And not just marketers. Investment analysts have been referencing the Piper Jaffray survey, too, when wondering about Facebook’s long-term viability.)

Facebook has become a big part of many companies’ marketing budgets, because they want to reach those kids. That money seems a bit wasted now.

The second reason that marketers—especially ad agency types—are taking a few extra Xanax with the news of teens “abandoning” social media: we’ve sold social to our clients as the magical answer for every problem over the past several years. If social isn’t a viable way to reach our clients’ customers anymore, we’re firing blanks instead of silver bullets.

So that’s why ad folks are in a tizzy, and how I ran across the info. But again: this isn’t about advertising. It’s about something much more interesting (IMHO, as the kids say).

Moms, Drama and a Guy Who Carried a Garden Gnome Through the Entirety of Tough Mudder (or, a Few Reasons Why Kids Are Leaving Facebook)
Before I go much further, I should say that I have the ability to frequently practice first-hand ethnographic research on the topic of kids and social media. In other words, I have teenagers. Two of them. Girls. One is 16, the other is almost 14.

Both of my kids have their noses buried in the four-inch screen of an Apple product at almost all times.They’ve also both abandoned Facebook. One deleted her account. The other couldn’t even be bothered to do that. Why?

If you listen to many pundits, they’ll tell you that old people have ruined Facebook by their mere presence. Kids don’t want mom and grandma creeping their social media to see what they and their friends are doing. Because of that, those kids are just walking away.

While I suspect there is some truth to that (my kids are never happy to see me following them on any and every channel), I don’t think that’s all there is. In fact, I don’t really think that’s the answer at all. If they were giving up Facebook simply because their family was lurking, they’d replace it with a similar service where there wasn’t much of a chance of bumping into Grandma. Something like, say, Tumblr.

Many older people don’t use Tumblr, so it should be relatively free of family creeping. (Unfortunately for my girls, I have eight different Tumblogs, so they’re dealing with a bit of an anomaly.) Tumblr also supports text, photo, video and other media found on Facebook, so they’re not missing out on any functionality. And while Tumblr’s total numbers are up (the company recently surpassed 100 million blogs), Piper Jaffray reports that the number of teens naming it as their “most important” social media site was almost halved in the past year. So unless there’s some super-secret Facebook-like social platform that every teenager in the world has managed to hide from the rest of us, the “creeping mom” theory—while not invalid—doesn’t explain everything.

I think there are a few other reasons. One of those is called “cyber-bullying” by the press and just plain “drama” by my kids and their friends. Both of my kids had minor instances of drama within the first few weeks of their Facebook experience. They’ve also related a few stories of terribly cruel things said or done on a Facebook wall to other kids at their respective schools.When social media is no longer enjoyable, you can walk away. I think some kids are.

I also think Facebook is boring for most kids. I’ll come back to this in greater detail in a second. But Facebook’s banality would explain Reddit’s rise in popularity, especially with the boys in this age group. I took an informal survey of the boys in my oldest daughter’s circle of friends. They were all on Reddit.

Not familiar with Reddit? Just click that link and prepare to walk away from your computer tomorrow at 3 a.m. If you think Facebook is a timesuck, Reddit is an eternal abyss. It’s the best and worst of the internet mixed into a single site and served in bite-sized chunks that gain or lose popularity by users’ votes. It’s democratic ADHD.

That guy up there in this section’s header that carried the garden gnome through Tough Mudder? He was a popular link on the Reddit landing page while I was typing this. A few more things you could find on that landing page at the same time: A huge discussion about who might be the worst person alive today. A picture of a dog sleeping with a cat. A video of a cockatoo dancing to Daft Punk. Just in case those make you think it’s all fluff and novelty, the second most popular Reddit entry right now is a link to an Associated Press article regarding legislation that would force Super PACS to reveal their donors.

Oh, and there’s a link to an editorial about a guy quitting Facebook. The link itself is a quote from the editorial: “I found myself checking Facebook often, and it was really providing no value to my personal or professional life. I realized the time I was spending on Facebook was time I was wasting. And it truly was. At that point, I made the decision to quit.”

I would love to know how much time the person who posted that link spent on Reddit that day.

The Number One Reason Kids Don’t Need Facebook? They Literally Don’t Need Facebook.
In a second, I’ll give you the most logical conclusion kids are ditching Facebook—one that none of the articles I read on the Great Teenage Facebook Exodus mentioned. And the evidence that supports the theory is right there in the Piper Jaffray survey. But first let’s define Facebook.

What is Facebook to most people over the age of 25? It’s a never-ending class reunion mixed with an eternal late-night dorm room gossip session mixed with a nightly check-in on what coworkers are doing after leaving the office. In other words, it’s a place where you go to keep tabs on your friends and acquaintances.

You know what kids call that? School.

For those of us out of school, Facebook is a place to see the accomplishments of our friends and acquaintances we’ve made over years and decades. We watch their lives: babies, job promotions, vacations, relationships, break-ups, new hair colors, ad nauseum.

For kids who still go to school, Facebook is boring. If one of their friends does something amazing or amazingly dumb, they’ll find out within five minutes. If they’re not friends with that person, it will take 15 minutes.

How? Mobile. And not just texting. In fact, pure cellular texting is only part of the equation. Texting is being supplemented by the products that are making Facebook not just boring, but obsolete: apps. It’s right there in the Piper Jaffray study.

But if we’re talking apps, we have to look at teen smartphone usage. Or, rather, let’s not look at teen smartphone usage. Why? Because the numbers are changing so rapidly that any report regarding teens and smartphones seems to be a few months out of date as soon as it’s released. In a google search, I couldn’t get any of the top results to agree on how many teens are using smartphones.

As long as we’re using Piper Jaffray as our information source, though, let’s turn to them for insight into smartphones. Another Piper Jaffray study says 48% of teens own iPhones, with 62% of teens saying that their next phone will be an iPhone.

Seriously? Seriously.

It boggles my mind, and I have two teenagers. Anecdotally, however, my teens confirm this. They constantly remind me that they’re the only two people at their respective schools who don’t have an iPhone. It seems true. So many of their friends have iPhones that I occasionally feel bad that they don’t. Then I pay their non-iPhone cell bill and feel a lot less terrible.

That said, they do have iPod Touches (“They’re so lame, Dad”), so I understand the app phenomenon when it comes to teens.

Tweeting, Sexting and Off-the-Grid Texting
Kids still text. No doubt. Between my two girls, there were more than 5,000 mobile, over-the-network cell-tower-based texts sent or received in March 2013. That’s fairly incomprehensible to me, but it’s also almost 2,000 texts off of their peak about a year ago. I suspect that has a lot to do with them using an “older” social channel that’s seeing a resurgence, as well as usage of two of the “social” apps that teens mentioned as “write-ins” on the Piper Jaffray social media survey.

First, the old-school social app that teens gave up last fall, but seem to have readopted en masse recently: Twitter. I think kids probably got on Twitter originally for the same reason most people get on social accounts: because they heard about it and wanted to get in on this whole social thing to see what it was about. They signed up and then had the same thought most people of any age have once they get into the service: “What am I supposed to do with this?”

Some people find an answer. Others don’t, and they leave. That’s what I think happened with teens. They left. Then, some enterprising high school student turned to her friends and said: “You know what? We could use Twitter like one big group SMS. It’s like texting. But to everybody.”

Boom.

That’s exactly how my kids use it. Granted, they’re in the middle of nowhere (we call it “Nebraska”). But I can anecdotally confirm the same kind of teen Twitter group usage in California, New York City, the upper Midwest, New England, the South and Texas (which is not the South and that’s a completely different Medium topic).

Tweets are visible to anyone, though. So what do they use for personal, one-to-one, “you have to hear this” messages? Texts, right? Sometimes. Often, not.

This is where I think the “creeping mom” theory does hold some sway. Many parents check their kids’ texts. I have a few personal anecdotes about finding texts on a kid’s phone that would make any parent utterly horrified. When those kinds of texts are found, the frequency of parents checking texts increases. That doesn’t mean the kids stop feeling the urge to send messages to their friends, though. So what’s a kid to do? Use a messaging app their parents have never heard of.

Kik and Snapchat often fit that bill, which is why I suspect a lot of kids “wrote in” those services in the Piper Jaffray study (which BuzzFeed reported), naming them as their most important social media site.

0*I79dUXwTQu9gnyar

If you’re unfamiliar with Snapchat, it sends picture messages. You take a picture. You have the option to modify it a bit. Then you send it. The catch: before you send it, you can select how long the recipient sees the image, from one second to ten seconds. After the image has been opened and shown for the alotted amount of time, it self-destructs.

Originally, this gave a lot of kids courage. If they wanted to send an inappropriate image to friends with no evidence, they could use Snapchat. It quickly became known as the “sexting” service, because some kids were sending inappropriate pictures (i.e., nude selfies) to people they knew (and sometimes didn’t) with the thought that there would be no evidence after a few seconds. They forgot about one thing, though: taking a screen capture is very easy on most phones, and screen captures can live forever. Anecdotally, my kids have stopped using Snapchat (hopefully, not because someone has a less-than-flattering screenshot), and it seems their friends aren’t using it nearly as much either. Kik, on the other hand…

Kik is a non-cellular text service. You don’t text people by phone number, you text by their Kik handle. Think of it as Direct Messaging on Twitter, but without using Twitter or having its character limit. That’s it. That’s all it is. But it handles millions of texts every day.

So what are the advantages of these apps over text? Mom and Dad probably don’t know about Kik and Snapchat (although Snapchat’s gotten some bad press lately for the “sexting” usage, which has put it on some parents’ radar). If Mom and Dad are checking your texts and you don’t want them to see your texts about hooking up with that guy or smoking weed with that guy or going to the park and drinking with that guy, send those messages using an app that your Mom and Dad aren’t checking. (“That Guy” is the bane of the fathers of teenage girls.)

“This Is a Word Old People Stole from Merriam-Webster’s. We’re Stealing It Back.”
Teenagers are probably not shouting this about “social” from the rooftops, but they could. Maybe they should.

You see, we’ve come to define “social” in unintentional Orwellian double-speak. “Social” has come to mean the exact opposite of what it’s meant for centuries. Instead of actual interaction and communication, we define “social” as once- or twice-removed ego validation through button-clicking.

“Social” is what happens when someone posts personal information—photos, thoughts, announcements, favorite songs, jokes—on the internet and another person comes along and clicks a thumbs up icon or a star or a heart. If someone’s really “social,” they’ll even type a comment or reply.

Kids aren’t leaving social networks. They’re redefining the word “social.” Rather, they’re actually using the word with the intent of its original meaning: making contact with other human beings. Communicating. Back-and-forth, fairly immediate dialogue. Most of it digitally. But most of it with the intent of a conversation where two (or more) people are exchanging information and emotion. Not posting it. Exchanging it.

That’s “social.” That’s why they’re increasingly skipping over static, interface-based URLs and apps in order to define “social” as messaging services.

For once the kids get it, and we don’t. Hats off to you, kids. Metaphorically, not literally. Keep your hats—and all of your other clothes—on. Please. Especially if you’re thinking of using Snapchat.Advertisers are perplexed and a little angst-y.

I know this, because I work in advertising. Wait. Don’t stop reading because I admitted that. This isn’t about advertising. It just happens to start there.

“Teens Are Leaving Social Media in Droves Oh My God We’re Doomed Hold Me”
A few weeks ago, that was basically the subject line in every advertising industry newsletter. The source of the panic was a just-released study by Piper Jaffray that asked 5,000 teens to name their “Most Important Social Media Site.”

The result? Many old-school social media sites saw a fairly significant dip in preference over six and twelve months.
0*WCjW0Lgs-11o7GOh

Facebook obviously took the hardest hit, losing close to ten percentage points in a year. YouTube, Tumblr and Pinterest all lost, too. (Note: There are some things for which I will have exactly zero deductive speculation. Teens’ rekindled preference for Google+ tops that list.)

Why did marketers find this information so disturbing? Two reasons.

First, almost every retail, food and entertainment company wants those kids’ money. But if those kids don’t know about or don’t prefer those companies, they’re not going to spend their hard-earned dollars (or their parents’ hard-earned dollars) on those companies’ products.

That’s why marketing exists. And where have marketers increasingly tried to reach those kids? Social media channels (or “social,” as it’s often shortened).

Even though Facebook wasn’t the only loser in that survey, it’s the one marketers are lamenting most. (And not just marketers. Investment analysts have been referencing the Piper Jaffray survey, too, when wondering about Facebook’s long-term viability.)

Facebook has become a big part of many companies’ marketing budgets, because they want to reach those kids. That money seems a bit wasted now.

The second reason that marketers—especially ad agency types—are taking a few extra Xanax with the news of teens “abandoning” social media: we’ve sold social to our clients as the magical answer for every problem over the past several years. If social isn’t a viable way to reach our clients’ customers anymore, we’re firing blanks instead of silver bullets.

So that’s why ad folks are in a tizzy, and how I ran across the info. But again: this isn’t about advertising. It’s about something much more interesting (IMHO, as the kids say).

Moms, Drama and a Guy Who Carried a Garden Gnome Through the Entirety of Tough Mudder (or, a Few Reasons Why Kids Are Leaving Facebook)
Before I go much further, I should say that I have the ability to frequently practice first-hand ethnographic research on the topic of kids and social media. In other words, I have teenagers. Two of them. Girls. One is 16, the other is almost 14.

Both of my kids have their noses buried in the four-inch screen of an Apple product at almost all times.They’ve also both abandoned Facebook. One deleted her account. The other couldn’t even be bothered to do that. Why?

If you listen to many pundits, they’ll tell you that old people have ruined Facebook by their mere presence. Kids don’t want mom and grandma creeping their social media to see what they and their friends are doing. Because of that, those kids are just walking away.

While I suspect there is some truth to that (my kids are never happy to see me following them on any and every channel), I don’t think that’s all there is. In fact, I don’t really think that’s the answer at all. If they were giving up Facebook simply because their family was lurking, they’d replace it with a similar service where there wasn’t much of a chance of bumping into Grandma. Something like, say, Tumblr.

Many older people don’t use Tumblr, so it should be relatively free of family creeping. (Unfortunately for my girls, I have eight different Tumblogs, so they’re dealing with a bit of an anomaly.) Tumblr also supports text, photo, video and other media found on Facebook, so they’re not missing out on any functionality. And while Tumblr’s total numbers are up (the company recently surpassed 100 million blogs), Piper Jaffray reports that the number of teens naming it as their “most important” social media site was almost halved in the past year. So unless there’s some super-secret Facebook-like social platform that every teenager in the world has managed to hide from the rest of us, the “creeping mom” theory—while not invalid—doesn’t explain everything.

I think there are a few other reasons. One of those is called “cyber-bullying” by the press and just plain “drama” by my kids and their friends. Both of my kids had minor instances of drama within the first few weeks of their Facebook experience. They’ve also related a few stories of terribly cruel things said or done on a Facebook wall to other kids at their respective schools.When social media is no longer enjoyable, you can walk away. I think some kids are.

I also think Facebook is boring for most kids. I’ll come back to this in greater detail in a second. But Facebook’s banality would explain Reddit’s rise in popularity, especially with the boys in this age group. I took an informal survey of the boys in my oldest daughter’s circle of friends. They were all on Reddit.

Not familiar with Reddit? Just click that link and prepare to walk away from your computer tomorrow at 3 a.m. If you think Facebook is a timesuck, Reddit is an eternal abyss. It’s the best and worst of the internet mixed into a single site and served in bite-sized chunks that gain or lose popularity by users’ votes. It’s democratic ADHD.

That guy up there in this section’s header that carried the garden gnome through Tough Mudder? He was a popular link on the Reddit landing page while I was typing this. A few more things you could find on that landing page at the same time: A huge discussion about who might be the worst person alive today. A picture of a dog sleeping with a cat. A video of a cockatoo dancing to Daft Punk. Just in case those make you think it’s all fluff and novelty, the second most popular Reddit entry right now is a link to an Associated Press article regarding legislation that would force Super PACS to reveal their donors.

Oh, and there’s a link to an editorial about a guy quitting Facebook. The link itself is a quote from the editorial: “I found myself checking Facebook often, and it was really providing no value to my personal or professional life. I realized the time I was spending on Facebook was time I was wasting. And it truly was. At that point, I made the decision to quit.”

I would love to know how much time the person who posted that link spent on Reddit that day.

The Number One Reason Kids Don’t Need Facebook? They Literally Don’t Need Facebook.
In a second, I’ll give you the most logical conclusion kids are ditching Facebook—one that none of the articles I read on the Great Teenage Facebook Exodus mentioned. And the evidence that supports the theory is right there in the Piper Jaffray survey. But first let’s define Facebook.

What is Facebook to most people over the age of 25? It’s a never-ending class reunion mixed with an eternal late-night dorm room gossip session mixed with a nightly check-in on what coworkers are doing after leaving the office. In other words, it’s a place where you go to keep tabs on your friends and acquaintances.

You know what kids call that? School.

For those of us out of school, Facebook is a place to see the accomplishments of our friends and acquaintances we’ve made over years and decades. We watch their lives: babies, job promotions, vacations, relationships, break-ups, new hair colors, ad nauseum.

For kids who still go to school, Facebook is boring. If one of their friends does something amazing or amazingly dumb, they’ll find out within five minutes. If they’re not friends with that person, it will take 15 minutes.

How? Mobile. And not just texting. In fact, pure cellular texting is only part of the equation. Texting is being supplemented by the products that are making Facebook not just boring, but obsolete: apps. It’s right there in the Piper Jaffray study.

But if we’re talking apps, we have to look at teen smartphone usage. Or, rather, let’s not look at teen smartphone usage. Why? Because the numbers are changing so rapidly that any report regarding teens and smartphones seems to be a few months out of date as soon as it’s released. In a google search, I couldn’t get any of the top results to agree on how many teens are using smartphones.

As long as we’re using Piper Jaffray as our information source, though, let’s turn to them for insight into smartphones. Another Piper Jaffray study says 48% of teens own iPhones, with 62% of teens saying that their next phone will be an iPhone.

Seriously? Seriously.

It boggles my mind, and I have two teenagers. Anecdotally, however, my teens confirm this. They constantly remind me that they’re the only two people at their respective schools who don’t have an iPhone. It seems true. So many of their friends have iPhones that I occasionally feel bad that they don’t. Then I pay their non-iPhone cell bill and feel a lot less terrible.

That said, they do have iPod Touches (“They’re so lame, Dad”), so I understand the app phenomenon when it comes to teens.

Tweeting, Sexting and Off-the-Grid Texting
Kids still text. No doubt. Between my two girls, there were more than 5,000 mobile, over-the-network cell-tower-based texts sent or received in March 2013. That’s fairly incomprehensible to me, but it’s also almost 2,000 texts off of their peak about a year ago. I suspect that has a lot to do with them using an “older” social channel that’s seeing a resurgence, as well as usage of two of the “social” apps that teens mentioned as “write-ins” on the Piper Jaffray social media survey.

First, the old-school social app that teens gave up last fall, but seem to have readopted en masse recently: Twitter. I think kids probably got on Twitter originally for the same reason most people get on social accounts: because they heard about it and wanted to get in on this whole social thing to see what it was about. They signed up and then had the same thought most people of any age have once they get into the service: “What am I supposed to do with this?”

Some people find an answer. Others don’t, and they leave. That’s what I think happened with teens. They left. Then, some enterprising high school student turned to her friends and said: “You know what? We could use Twitter like one big group SMS. It’s like texting. But to everybody.”

Boom.

That’s exactly how my kids use it. Granted, they’re in the middle of nowhere (we call it “Nebraska”). But I can anecdotally confirm the same kind of teen Twitter group usage in California, New York City, the upper Midwest, New England, the South and Texas (which is not the South and that’s a completely different Medium topic).

Tweets are visible to anyone, though. So what do they use for personal, one-to-one, “you have to hear this” messages? Texts, right? Sometimes. Often, not.

This is where I think the “creeping mom” theory does hold some sway. Many parents check their kids’ texts. I have a few personal anecdotes about finding texts on a kid’s phone that would make any parent utterly horrified. When those kinds of texts are found, the frequency of parents checking texts increases. That doesn’t mean the kids stop feeling the urge to send messages to their friends, though. So what’s a kid to do? Use a messaging app their parents have never heard of.

Kik and Snapchat often fit that bill, which is why I suspect a lot of kids “wrote in” those services in the Piper Jaffray study (which BuzzFeed reported), naming them as their most important social media site.

0*I79dUXwTQu9gnyar

If you’re unfamiliar with Snapchat, it sends picture messages. You take a picture. You have the option to modify it a bit. Then you send it. The catch: before you send it, you can select how long the recipient sees the image, from one second to ten seconds. After the image has been opened and shown for the alotted amount of time, it self-destructs.

Originally, this gave a lot of kids courage. If they wanted to send an inappropriate image to friends with no evidence, they could use Snapchat. It quickly became known as the “sexting” service, because some kids were sending inappropriate pictures (i.e., nude selfies) to people they knew (and sometimes didn’t) with the thought that there would be no evidence after a few seconds. They forgot about one thing, though: taking a screen capture is very easy on most phones, and screen captures can live forever. Anecdotally, my kids have stopped using Snapchat (hopefully, not because someone has a less-than-flattering screenshot), and it seems their friends aren’t using it nearly as much either. Kik, on the other hand…

Kik is a non-cellular text service. You don’t text people by phone number, you text by their Kik handle. Think of it as Direct Messaging on Twitter, but without using Twitter or having its character limit. That’s it. That’s all it is. But it handles millions of texts every day.

So what are the advantages of these apps over text? Mom and Dad probably don’t know about Kik and Snapchat (although Snapchat’s gotten some bad press lately for the “sexting” usage, which has put it on some parents’ radar). If Mom and Dad are checking your texts and you don’t want them to see your texts about hooking up with that guy or smoking weed with that guy or going to the park and drinking with that guy, send those messages using an app that your Mom and Dad aren’t checking. (“That Guy” is the bane of the fathers of teenage girls.)

“This Is a Word Old People Stole from Merriam-Webster’s. We’re Stealing It Back.”
Teenagers are probably not shouting this about “social” from the rooftops, but they could. Maybe they should.

You see, we’ve come to define “social” in unintentional Orwellian double-speak. “Social” has come to mean the exact opposite of what it’s meant for centuries. Instead of actual interaction and communication, we define “social” as once- or twice-removed ego validation through button-clicking.

“Social” is what happens when someone posts personal information—photos, thoughts, announcements, favorite songs, jokes—on the internet and another person comes along and clicks a thumbs up icon or a star or a heart. If someone’s really “social,” they’ll even type a comment or reply.

Kids aren’t leaving social networks. They’re redefining the word “social.” Rather, they’re actually using the word with the intent of its original meaning: making contact with other human beings. Communicating. Back-and-forth, fairly immediate dialogue. Most of it digitally. But most of it with the intent of a conversation where two (or more) people are exchanging information and emotion. Not posting it. Exchanging it.

That’s “social.” That’s why they’re increasingly skipping over static, interface-based URLs and apps in order to define “social” as messaging services.

For once the kids get it, and we don’t. Hats off to you, kids. Metaphorically, not literally. Keep your hats—and all of your other clothes—on. Please. Especially if you’re thinking of using Snapchat.

21
Feb

Excelente Articulo de Harvard Business Review: For Mobile think Apps!

R1303D_OCR

 

Like most professionals, I carry a smartphone. Although I use it frequently for e-mailing with colleagues or texting with my family, I also use its apps to find information or to entertain myself. And as I navigate its 3.5-inch screen, I routinely encounter something else: a growing stream of itsy-bitsy advertisements.

When I click on the app for the online magazine Slate, for instance, I see a banner—smaller than my pinkie—for something called Bingo Rush, with little stars and the word “free.” What is Bingo Rush? I have no idea. At the bottom of the Huffington Post app is a tiny rectangle that says “Scratch and win with Adidas.” What can I win? I’m not sure; the ad can barely accommodate five words. On my Sudoku app is an ad for BMW—no, wait, it’s Audi. (The photo is so small that it’s hard to tell.) When I give it a tap, the Sudoku app disappears, and my screen goes blank while my phone struggles to load whatever Audi intends to show me next. Before it appears, I’ve lost patience and switched to a different app.

These balky, Lilliputian ads represent the state of the art in mobile advertising—and they don’t work. Few people click on them. In surveys, four out of five people report disliking them.

Many companies are betting that with some tweaking, mobile ads will become an integral part of their communications strategies. Indeed, one of the most celebrated media graphics produced in the past year is a slide showing a side-by-side comparison of how people consume media (mobile now accounts for 10% of time spent with media) and where advertisers spend their money (mobile accounts for just 1%). Over time, some observers argue, these numbers will converge. Driven by that logic, mobile ad budgets in the U.S. are expected to increase from $2.3 billion in 2012 to almost $11 billion in 2016.

Smart marketers will embrace mobile as a communications platform—but the best use of the new medium won’t look anything like the current generation of tiny display ads. Historically, that’s a familiar scenario. Whenever new media emerge—consider television in the 1940s and 1950s and the World Wide Web in the 1990s—there’s a period of fumbling while marketers try to repurpose ads that worked in the old media. That’s why early-1950s TV commercials featured narrators reading what were essentially radio advertisements, and why 1990s websites were filled with static display ads taken directly from print campaigns. Neither effort was effective. New media require new methods of advertising, and those evolve over time. The same will be true of mobile.

Why Mobile Ads Don’t Work

 

The best way for marketers to communicate through mobile will be with apps. Apps will trump traditional ads in part because consumers don’t perceive them as advertising—they value them for their functionality and thus don’t find them intrusive. For marketers, apps will also be attractive because they’re actually more cost-efficient than traditional ads, and they sometimes create entirely new revenue streams.

If you observe how people use their smartphones, and if you look beyond calling, e-mailing, and texting (activities that aren’t particularly conducive to advertising), you’ll see that apps dominate. Users spend, on average, 82% of their mobile minutes with apps and just 18% with web browsers. They download about 40 apps to their phones (out of more than a million available) and regularly use about 15.

Smartphone apps fall into five categories:

 

  • Games and entertainment, which, according to one study, account for 42% of time spent on smartphones;

 

 

  • Social networks (especially Facebook), which account for another 31% of smartphone time;

 

 

  • Utilities, including maps, clocks, calendars, cameras, and e-mail;

 

 

  • Discovery, including apps for Yelp, TripAdvisor, and Flixster;

 

 

  • Brands, such as Nike and Red Bull.

 

The challenge for brand marketers is clear: If smartphone users spend most of their time with apps but regularly use only about 15, and if few of those 15 are for branded products, the marketing real estate on users’ mobile screens is constrained indeed. How can marketers reach and engage these consumers?

Instead of buying tiny banner advertisements, marketers should create apps that add value to consumers’ lives and enhance long-term engagement with their brands. To do so, they need to understand how and why users choose apps. My research reveals five strategies that can help them succeed.

1. Add convenience. Most airlines have mobile apps that allow customers to check in and to monitor their flights’ status. Most banks have mobile apps that let people track their bank balances and pay bills. ESPN’s app lets sports fans check scores. Of course, people can also do these things on desktop computers or from a mobile browser, but the smartphone apps function more quickly and smoothly, so most customers prefer them. And every time a consumer uses one of these apps—or even glimpses it on the screen while swiping to find something else—it increases her exposure to the brand.

Convenience apps can give marketers a great return on investment, but they face three constraints. First, although they can strengthen relationships with existing customers, they aren’t very effective at acquiring new customers. Second, established brands with large customer bases have an inherent advantage in using these apps to drive retention and engagement; such apps aren’t a viable alternative for every company. Third, as more and more companies build convenience into their apps, they will find it harder to differentiate themselves on that basis.

2. Offer unique value. Some apps take advantage of mobile capabilities to do things traditional desktop computers can’t. In South Korea, where the UK–based retailer Tesco has a grocery delivery business called Home Plus, the chain plastered the walls of subway stations with life-size, high-resolution photos of products on store shelves, complete with QR codes that can be scanned with a smartphone. This allows consumers to shop and arrange for delivery while waiting for their trains. Within three months of the system’s rollout, the number of registered users of Home Plus had increased by 76%, and revenues had increased by 130%. After a decade of badly trailing its competitor E-Mart, Home Plus is now closing the gap in overall market share, including offline sales. Since it was launched, in April 2011, the app has been downloaded more than a million times, and the company is now expanding its virtual stores to bus stops.

How an App Drives Revenue

 

Nike, similarly, has capitalized on mobile’s distinctive abilities. In 2006 it unveiled Nike+, an app (originally for iPods, now available for most smartphones) that works with a special chip in runners’ shoes to monitor speed, distance, and calories burned. Although the app itself is free, people must buy either a sensor-equipped Nike sneaker or a shoe-mounted sensor in order to use it. Nike credits the app with having driven growth of 30% in its running division as of 2012, and it has expanded Nike+ to include apps and accessories that track other activities, from playing basketball to sleeping.

 

Neither the Home Plus app nor Nike+ feels like a traditional marketing communication—and that’s exactly the point. Mobile users don’t want ads; they want apps that deliver unique benefits.

3. Provide social value. Facebook added its billionth user in October 2012; its app is one of the most used in the mobile world. Yet Facebook, like other social media companies, has struggled to monetize its user base through advertising. Marketers question the effectiveness of ads on social media sites, because ads interrupt the user experience of connecting with friends. Activities that enhance connections among friends are a different matter.

 

 

http://hbr.org/2013/03/for-mobile-devices-think-apps-not-ads/ar/1For Mobile Devices, Think Apps, Not Ads by Sunil Gupta R1303D_OCR

Like most professionals, I carry a smartphone. Although I use it frequently for e-mailing with colleagues or texting with my family, I also use its apps to find information or to entertain myself. And as I navigate its 3.5-inch screen, I routinely encounter something else: a growing stream of itsy-bitsy advertisements. When I click on the app for the online magazine Slate, for instance, I see a banner—smaller than my pinkie—for something called Bingo Rush, with little stars and the word “free.” What is Bingo Rush? I have no idea. At the bottom of the Huffington Post app is a tiny rectangle that says “Scratch and win with Adidas.” What can I win? I’m not sure; the ad can barely accommodate five words. On my Sudoku app is an ad for BMW—no, wait, it’s Audi. (The photo is so small that it’s hard to tell.) When I give it a tap, the Sudoku app disappears, and my screen goes blank while my phone struggles to load whatever Audi intends to show me next. Before it appears, I’ve lost patience and switched to a different app. These balky, Lilliputian ads represent the state of the art in mobile advertising—and they don’t work. Few people click on them. In surveys, four out of five people report disliking them. Many companies are betting that with some tweaking, mobile ads will become an integral part of their communications strategies. Indeed, one of the most celebrated media graphics produced in the past year is a slide showing a side-by-side comparison of how people consume media (mobile now accounts for 10% of time spent with media) and where advertisers spend their money (mobile accounts for just 1%). Over time, some observers argue, these numbers will converge. Driven by that logic, mobile ad budgets in the U.S. are expected to increase from $2.3 billion in 2012 to almost $11 billion in 2016. Smart marketers will embrace mobile as a communications platform—but the best use of the new medium won’t look anything like the current generation of tiny display ads. Historically, that’s a familiar scenario. Whenever new media emerge—consider television in the 1940s and 1950s and the World Wide Web in the 1990s—there’s a period of fumbling while marketers try to repurpose ads that worked in the old media. That’s why early-1950s TV commercials featured narrators reading what were essentially radio advertisements, and why 1990s websites were filled with static display ads taken directly from print campaigns. Neither effort was effective. New media require new methods of advertising, and those evolve over time. The same will be true of mobile. Why Mobile Ads Don’t Work The best way for marketers to communicate through mobile will be with apps. Apps will trump traditional ads in part because consumers don’t perceive them as advertising—they value them for their functionality and thus don’t find them intrusive. For marketers, apps will also be attractive because they’re actually more cost-efficient than traditional ads, and they sometimes create entirely new revenue streams. If you observe how people use their smartphones, and if you look beyond calling, e-mailing, and texting (activities that aren’t particularly conducive to advertising), you’ll see that apps dominate. Users spend, on average, 82% of their mobile minutes with apps and just 18% with web browsers. They download about 40 apps to their phones (out of more than a million available) and regularly use about 15. Smartphone apps fall into five categories: Games and entertainment, which, according to one study, account for 42% of time spent on smartphones; Social networks (especially Facebook), which account for another 31% of smartphone time; Utilities, including maps, clocks, calendars, cameras, and e-mail; Discovery, including apps for Yelp, TripAdvisor, and Flixster; Brands, such as Nike and Red Bull. The challenge for brand marketers is clear: If smartphone users spend most of their time with apps but regularly use only about 15, and if few of those 15 are for branded products, the marketing real estate on users’ mobile screens is constrained indeed. How can marketers reach and engage these consumers? Instead of buying tiny banner advertisements, marketers should create apps that add value to consumers’ lives and enhance long-term engagement with their brands. To do so, they need to understand how and why users choose apps. My research reveals five strategies that can help them succeed. 1. Add convenience. Most airlines have mobile apps that allow customers to check in and to monitor their flights’ status. Most banks have mobile apps that let people track their bank balances and pay bills. ESPN’s app lets sports fans check scores. Of course, people can also do these things on desktop computers or from a mobile browser, but the smartphone apps function more quickly and smoothly, so most customers prefer them. And every time a consumer uses one of these apps—or even glimpses it on the screen while swiping to find something else—it increases her exposure to the brand. Convenience apps can give marketers a great return on investment, but they face three constraints. First, although they can strengthen relationships with existing customers, they aren’t very effective at acquiring new customers. Second, established brands with large customer bases have an inherent advantage in using these apps to drive retention and engagement; such apps aren’t a viable alternative for every company. Third, as more and more companies build convenience into their apps, they will find it harder to differentiate themselves on that basis. 2. Offer unique value. Some apps take advantage of mobile capabilities to do things traditional desktop computers can’t. In South Korea, where the UK–based retailer Tesco has a grocery delivery business called Home Plus, the chain plastered the walls of subway stations with life-size, high-resolution photos of products on store shelves, complete with QR codes that can be scanned with a smartphone. This allows consumers to shop and arrange for delivery while waiting for their trains. Within three months of the system’s rollout, the number of registered users of Home Plus had increased by 76%, and revenues had increased by 130%. After a decade of badly trailing its competitor E-Mart, Home Plus is now closing the gap in overall market share, including offline sales. Since it was launched, in April 2011, the app has been downloaded more than a million times, and the company is now expanding its virtual stores to bus stops. How an App Drives Revenue Nike, similarly, has capitalized on mobile’s distinctive abilities. In 2006 it unveiled Nike+, an app (originally for iPods, now available for most smartphones) that works with a special chip in runners’ shoes to monitor speed, distance, and calories burned. Although the app itself is free, people must buy either a sensor-equipped Nike sneaker or a shoe-mounted sensor in order to use it. Nike credits the app with having driven growth of 30% in its running division as of 2012, and it has expanded Nike+ to include apps and accessories that track other activities, from playing basketball to sleeping. Neither the Home Plus app nor Nike+ feels like a traditional marketing communication—and that’s exactly the point. Mobile users don’t want ads; they want apps that deliver unique benefits. 3. Provide social value. Facebook added its billionth user in October 2012; its app is one of the most used in the mobile world. Yet Facebook, like other social media companies, has struggled to monetize its user base through advertising. Marketers question the effectiveness of ads on social media sites, because ads interrupt the user experience of connecting with friends. Activities that enhance connections among friends are a different matter. Original Article: http://hbr.org/2013/03/for-mobile-devices-think-apps-not-ads/ar/1

12
Jan

Top 5 mobile trends for 2014

In the technological industry each year is more exciting than the last. The best proof for that are the years we’ve left behind us – the memory of the first iPhone version, the last goodbye to the Blackberry, the EDGE. We even take this progress for granted; throwing tantrums like kids cause the whole world isn’t covered by LTE yet! But we’re getting there, and with a big smile on our face.   Now here are the mobile trends ahead of us next year: vizuali top 5 01 Top 5 mobile trends for 2014 Although we can place Mobile First in different contexts, here above all we are thinking about users for whom the mobile screen is the primary one. As we’ve already shared on our Facebook page, by 2016 mobile search will become dominant by exceeding desktop search by 27,8 billion queries. 2014 will be a big step towards that number – already in mid-2013 we found out that next year the number of mobile subscriptions will surpass the Earth’s population! vizuali top 5 02 Top 5 mobile trends for 2014

If we’re to judge by Starbucks, apps are the new credit cards. You see, this popular chain lets you pay for your coffee through a mobile app. The jeans store Hointer in Seattle operates on a similar basis: they don’t even have shop assistants, it’s all done through apps, and the owner, Nadia Shouraboura, the ex-president of Amazon, claims that in the future all shopping will be done this way. So our keyword for next year is – a mobile wallet. vizuali top 5 03 Top 5 mobile trends for 2014

Back in mid-2012 it was predicted that in 2014 out of the 49,6 billion hits on top 500 e-retailer sites, more than half (53,2 %) would come from mobile devices! As you can see from this infographicMobile platforms are set to change the way we buy, transact and consume in our local environment. Local commerce is a massive carrot for growth, a 1 trillion opportunity in US alone.According to latest reports, 73% retailers will be integrating the mobile component into their strategy. Mobile loyalty programs will start taking over the traditional ones, with mobile apps and social networks taking on a key role. Likes, shares, +1, fans, followers – these are the new currencies that have already entered the loyalty programs. That way you might get a 100 points if you have lunch at your favorite bistro twice a week, and a 100 more if you then share it with your followers on Twitter or become a fan of the bistro on Facebook.

vizuali top 5 04 Top 5 mobile trends for 2014

Considering that mobile devices are where the users are these days, a part of the advertising budgets is moving there as well. CTR (click through rate) on mobiles is up to 18% (and only 1% on desktop computers) so it’s no wonder that mobile advertising is on the rise as well. Not to mention that mobility will become the key to the advertising strategy of every major brand.

vizuali top 5 05 05 Top 5 mobile trends for 2014

07
Jan

Nuevo Website SMT 2014

Estamos orgullosos de presentar nuestro nuevo Website de SMT 2014. Esperamos que este año sea EL AÑO. Cuentanos en los comments que piensas de nuestro nuevo Website?

2

Equipo Comercial