Life was easy in the old days. Everything was so neatly defined by the limitations of the market. Take brands. The product team would make a product the individual would like, the sales team would sell it to shops, and the marketing team would target the undefined mass of the market with inspiring brand-centric campaigns.
Welcome to THE ultimate resource for creatives. Up-to-the-minute updates from over 180 of your favorite design/dev/photo blogs around the web, all in one place... Stay a while!
We also contribute our own content to the design community. View our Original Posts.
Reason 3: As I already said, people do not choose to use a specific device. They just use whatever device that happened to be most convenient one at the time. So it makes absolutely no difference to your overall strategy if you have 15% mobile traffic or 55%. Your job is to be 100% relevant, 100% of the time.
The reason why TV commercials are made to be loud is because they are designed to make people look at the TV. We all know how it is. When we are watching TV we are also doing all kinds of other things. We are getting something from the kitchen, playing with our smartphones, reading a magazine, talking, or just dozing off. People are mostly in a passive state, so TV commercials have to be loud to make people look.
This is of course an extreme example, but the same is true today. The newspaper (the package) is a tool. Sure, you might enjoy it in a nice comfy chair, but it's something you do. It's an action that you decide to use before you use it. You don't bring the newspaper with you unless you have decided to read it first. And even as an app, most newspapers are designed to be something you tap on, then you open the daily issue, and then you read it.
A couple of days ago, Avinash posted about a new research study by Google looking at our changing taste in music. It's a truly wonderful visualization, not so much because of the music, but more because of how it so brilliantly explains the changes we are all experiencing in the media industry.
Wouldn't it be better if people simply used their own devices? Each person would then face their own camera directly. You would be easily able to see everyone's facial expressions. You can quickly share your screen to show what you have on your computer (which these people at the meeting room can't), and you have the freedom to have your meeting from anywhere at anytime.
Take newspapers. In the past, newspapers were something that people would sit down with, perhaps for 20-40 minutes at a time. But when you look at news online, and especially on mobiles, nobody is going to sit down with the New York Times on their iPhone for any length of time. Instead, we now read news whenever we have a moment. We no longer decide to read the newspaper, it comes our way through the day. Does this sound familiar?
I don't like writing negative articles that don't include a solution to the problem but, in this case, there is no solution. The state of in-app purchases has now reached a level where we have completely lost it. Not only has the gaming industry shot itself in the foot, hacked off their other foot, and lost both its arms ... but it's still engaging in a strategy that will only damage it further.
Not a day goes by without hearing yet another story about Facebook's demise. These stories can generally be divided up into three categories. First we have the stories about how younger people are leaving Facebook and how their overall engagement is trending down. Secondly we have the more speculative posts that look at different trends and try to predict how that will affect Facebook's future. And finally, we have the increasing discontent from brands and content creators, who are annoyed by th
2014 looks to be a very interesting year for the future of news, unlike 2013 which I would call the great depression. If you have followed the behavior of the newspaper industry over the past five years, you will have noticed the very tell-tale signs of shock.
In the old days, ranking was determined only by the combination of different keywords and links, or what we used to know as pagerank. Today, of course, it's much more complicated. Our search results have become personalized and tailored to us as individuals, and are influenced not only by what Google knows about us as individuals, but also about other people and connections around us.
If you haven't played this game, watching the video doesn't feel that special. You don't have the connection with the journey these characters have endured, nor the personal feeling of dreaming that you could be one of them. It's just a video of a woman singing, and some ship coming into port with a passenger.
In the last half of 2013, it seemed everyone was talking about native advertising (advertising published as articles). With everyone, of course, I mean mostly the new media press people. Outside that very narrow circle of people, it's still practically unknown and received with a shrug. Most of the brands I talk with don't (yet) see the big appeal.
So when we look at the trends, we see that the current way of publishing is ripe for change. But it isn't just to have a slightly better version of what already exists. We need an entirely new concept. And I believe that it is only a matter of time before such a concept will emerge, and just like it wasn't Nokia who invented the iPhone, it likely won't be the existing publishers who invent the next stage of publishing. They are too caught up in their old models.
Let me tell you an incredible story about how dramatic our world has shifted away from the scarcity of the past, and the trends that shift with it.