I am truly blessed, having a lot of really smart and insightful people around me. One such blessing is Erik Nilsson, award-winning, skyrocketing, Senior Associate with JKL, who, on those rare occasions when he finds time out of his busy schedule, keeps throwing fascinating observations and case studies at me. Too rarely do they reach the eyes of you wonderful followers of this blog. But not anymore – after a lot of planning, we finally managed to pencil in a guest appearance here next week.
Obama has been a recurring person of interest on this blog, I devoted quite a number of posts during the fall to studies of his nextopian status. Never before has an expected president been able to gain more attention and greater power than what the sitting president amassed during his eight years in the office. Never before has an expected president been so popular – being voted most popular president ever while not even yet installed, reaching a record-setting 83 percent approval rating when beginning his term. Obama has truly been a super expectity.
When talking about him, I often get the question – has his status changed now that he is the actual rather than the nextopian president? 100 days in, we have an answer. Nextopian Obama’s 83 percent has fallen to sitting Obama’s 60 percent. That’s a 28 percent decrease, meaning that, already he’s lost more than one in four (soon, one in three).
It’s still a fantastic number. But it’s not perfect. The nextopian president stays in nextopia.
By the way, can you guess who’s the only president who hasn’t experienced decreasing popularity once installed?
Find out within microseconds if you’re stupid or not! Just answer this question:
Do you have a facebook account?
If the answer is no, you are not stupid. Congratulations!
Did you answer yes? Sorry, you’re screwed.
A recent American study found that facebook users perform significantly worse at school – their average grades are lower (3.0-3.5 compared to the non-users’ 4.0-4.5) and they devote far less time to studying (1-5 hours compared to the non-facebookers’ 11-15 hours).
The researchers could not say whether facebook use made people study less and perform worse or if it’s the other way around – worse performing, less studying people, are more prone to have a facebook account. Either way, facebook users would be more stupid.
But if you ask the facebook users themselves, they don’t believe that they are more stupid, or that they are performing worse.
Who’s right?
Obviously, by the yestermillennium standard of school work and smartness, the researchers are right, facebook users seem to be more stupid.
But what if we take a new millennium perspective? In the world of any, you don’t have to memorize anything by heart, you can find the information anywhere, anytime. So what’s the need for cramming? A symptom of this, I’ve found that nowadays, people seem to be less able to remember recent facts (because we don’t have to anymore) than historical facts (which school many times still forces people to memorize). Facebook users are probably much better at finding, discerning and reshaping information than the non-users. Which seems pretty smart and handy? Also, would Generation In-Charge really settle with following old-millennium rules of what and how to learn, and what and how to be evaluated? Ample evidence suggests that facebook users are better at mobilizing forces and shaping and reaching their own goals. Even when it comes to school work – remember the blogarazzi-bummer Chris Avenir I wrote about a while back – he mobilized people from all over the world to do his homework, and when the University found out and wanted to expel him, facebook users worldwide mobilized to successfully overrule the University board’s decision.
So there you have the American researchers’ and this Swedish researcher’s two sides of the coin. What do you think? Are facebook users stupid?
I’d say the British student video below can be interpreted in either direction…
Tom Beckman posted some amazing stuff, really interesting twists on how real business is done in the world of any. No bs, he tells the truth. From now on, I’ll no longer shake the box, I’ll just leave it there. And I’m going to consume more maple syrup, hoping to make smarter business.
But I’m not sure if I’ll be able to be as productive as Tom, a true 2,920 guy, making multiple posts even on the weekend…
Tom, thanks a lot, I (and many people giving me a shout) love your brain!
In advertising people has always talked about “reason to believe”. Basically it means that you have to present some kind of proof that you will deliver on your promise. In the best of all cases, your communication is your proof – you have a symbol!
Sony’s robotic dog Aibo is of course a classic brilliant example. Building a robotic dog. Is there a better way to prove to the world that you are a company based on innovation, design and consumer orientation? Probably not. But nowadays there are other proofs that’s more probable to close a case. Prof that your company has a relevance, given the situation in the society today. Prof that you’re with it.
Symbols used to be the hardest currency in advertising. Now, context is the new symbol. Sure we all still love symbols. We still love to be served a reason to believe. But more that that we love to see how companies, products and services interact with their surroundings.
So go home and find your brand model. Look up the words “Reason to believe” and change them to “Reason to care”.
To simplify the world of branding you can divide it in to the European and the American school of branding. Where the European school is inside to out – determining what the company is good at and then sell that. The American is outside to in – determining what the market wants and then sell that.
Presented the two – what do you prefer? Do you prefer to buy an in-house engineers solution or do you prefer that product arranged just for your target group profile? They are of course both wrong. And both right. For isn’t it the mix of the two that we like? Odd ideas presented in a contemporary way?
Ben & Jerry’s and Innocent’s corky CSR-stuff, Nintendo and Toyota’s strange hi-tech/hi-touch-mix, Cheap Monday and Armes Égales commercial yet altruistic approach … the proof is already out there.
So what do you get if you combine the best of Europe with the best of USA? Canada. Canadian is the new branding school.
You’ve heard it before; you need to let go of that brand control. Totally. It’s not social media-ish to have brand guidelines.
You’ve heard it, but you haven’t done anything about it. It’s just too far away from how marketing have worked for ages.
I agree. Letting everything go is just stupid. But getting your customers engaged in your brand and caring about it isn’t. That doesn’t mean that you can still play a part in your own marketing and share brand influence with others.
Creating an act for your brand’s wanted activation will force you to think about brand power in a new way. The Activation act should include tools for sharing brand power, not giving it away.
If it stills feel too scary, add the Activation act to the Brand book. But remember that A comes before B.
And hey, what’s the equivalent to a brand book in real (human) life any how? A memo of what to think? Having principles as a person is, I guess the same as brand guidelines, sure I buy it. Problem is though that your principles doesn’t define you. Your ability to brake them with style does.
Personal correspondence should go to micael dot dahlen at hhs dot se. Media requests should go to info at volante dot se. Do you want to hire me as a speaker? Email speakers at volante dot se.
Presented by
Mailing list
To receive information from Nextopia, please sign up here.
What does Nextopia mean?
Nextopia på svenska
Facebook group
Illustrations for the Nextopia book blog appendix
Recent Comments