DigitalCuppa

The augmented reality glasses concept is nothing new, but whereas when I previously blogged about it and included concepts videos that had no other support , Google apparently have a team set up to work on “Project Glass” who, according to rumours, have been working on the project for at least a few months. Whereas I was always doubtful Nokia could pull off such a feat, these augmented reality specs may just become a reality coming from a company with a portfolio as diverse (and a wallet as big) as Google.

I don’t want to like this sort of ad, I really don’t. It’s not original (very Yeo Valley inspired), I’m not a fan of waving money in front of worn-out celebs to entice them out of their live-in communities and in front of a camera (like John Lydon and Country Life) and I rarely like synth-tinged hip pop! However, I just sat through this two minute ad for mobile network giffgaff on a YouTube Skippable (sorry, True View Instream) because for some reason, I think it really works!

Maybe it’s because as much as Keith Harris looks like a worn out celeb, Orville still looks as fresh as the day he was errr…sewn?  Maybe it’s because it reminds me of The Lonely Island’s I’m on a Boat. Or perhaps it’s because the product messages feel more subtle in this than on other examples.

Regardless of the reasons, I think it’s a fantastic piece of work and is an example of the way advertising (and how it’s used online) should be going. Also, this is exactly why the Skippable format can work so well, with the right content; that being content that people want to watch.

A 24:1 Like to Dislike ration on YouTube suggests others feel the same too. And if I was Albion, the agency behind it, I couldn’t think of anything better to whack on slide number 1 of the PCA than the current top comments…

Tim Armstrong, AOL CEO

How’d you like the pun? Good eh? No? Sorry. Anyway, with AOL announcing more investment in quality content, this time in streaming video, it’s good to stand back and see how they got to this point.

If there is one example of a company still around that has felt both the sweet caress and the swift slap of the fast paced tech world, it’s AOL. The good ol’ days (for them, not consumers) of dial up and Joanna Lumley are long gone and instead they are left playing catch up in a market where in the last decade others innovated faster and better. But AOL’s activities over the past few years make it a important company to watch, not only because they are undoubtedly a key player in the digital media market, but because they are a litmus test for how big businesses invest in content in the coming years, as fragmentation increases and UGC aggregation improves.

When I first starting working with AOL in 2007 they had all the swagger and arrogance of the other early internet giants. While difficult to work with,  inflexible and staunch supporters of the “take it or leave it” negotiation tactic, as an exec I think it was the fact that they had ad specs different to everyone else’s that probably frustrated me most!

But under the watchful eye of Tim Armstrong, AOL has become a completely different company, characterised in public best by their focus on quality content across a range of key areas, the purchase of Huffington Post and the responsibility placed on Arianna Huffington. However, from my perspective they have changed too, moving so far from the obstinate and bulky company they were, now unrecognisable from their former self. Other players in this market could certainly learn from this.

AOL's share price has seen better days, but is now climbing

However, the change didn’t come out of nowhere – losing a hundreds of millions of dollars a year and wiping $220 billion from your value in 10 years will encourage that a little. AOL have made some sweeping cutbacks, gotten rid of the dead duck that was Bebo (they lost about $840m on that one) and faced criticism of Huff Po’s reliance on unpaid bloggers as a way to create content for cheap. While not exactly positive, AOL is a company that is now leaner then ever, but fighting for survival in a turbulent market. So, while the $10m invested into this new streaming service is a fraction of the $315m paid for Huff Po, the fact that investment is still coming indicates that Armstrong is in this for the long term.

As a bit of an internet snob (or internet hipster maybe) I don’t peruse a lot of mainstream content channels but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognise other people do. I also believe there is great value in content, something that is talked about less and less in digital media. Reach for cheap is one of the fundamental advantages on advertising online, but too often is quality playing second fiddle to that. In the same way that TV buyers want top brands to be around X Factor or world sporting events, we in digital should want the same thing.  The problem is that digital has always been only about the numbers and in an environment where you can track everything, that’s understandable. But it’s the intangible factors that I think can often add the most weight to a branding campaign, the subtle associations between a brand and quality content that can leave the lasting impression. People may not tweet about a brand they’ve seen on their favourite website like they may about the ad breaks in BGT, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t worked – it simply means you can’t easily track it.

For that reason, I think that AOL’s approach is the right one,  from a idealistic point of view at least. Whether it will be the right one from a business perspective is yet to be answered, but for a company that is still losing money every quarter, time is more pressing than ever.

In the latest in their series of Future Vision videos (see the one from 2009 here and the whole channel here) Microsoft again provide their take on how technology will progress and help us in day-to-day tasks in the coming years.

If one thing is clear in these videos, it’s that there will be a screen on every… single… thing… you interact with in the future – better start investing in some touch screen tech companies now! But as someone that remembers rotary phones and re-tuning a TV with a little plastic stick (kids have it so easy these days) there is no doubt that before I’m old enough to get left behind, these sort of devices will exist.

The interesting thing about this though, is that while I don’t doubt there is a problem with this from a technology point of view, the major stumbling block will be data. The gadgets in this video can only be applied and personalised if data is shared freely. Data sharing online has gone from non-existent to common place in the space of just a few years so I don’t doubt that it can progress too, but don’t forget that all nations are not as accepting as the British and Americans. Germany is one of the strictest nations, with EA coming under fire just this week for the T&Cs on their Origin service, needed to play Battlefield 3 (brief summary here). While there are indications younger Germans are more accepting of data sharing, something that we’ll see worldwide in the new generation, there are still hurdles to overcome. I mean, if the EU is handing down muddled, confusing and unrealistic on cookies in advertising and site analytics then my hopes are not actually that high for a life like in this video.

Via DigitalBuzzBlog

I highly recommend following the W+K blog, Welcome to Optimism, to anyone that doesn’t already because they include some treats on there. Like this incredible video.

Projecting mapping, only owning to the sheer volume of projects I’ve seen over the last 18 months, has become a little stale. However, innovation like this, where images are projected onto a mist of water inject new energy into the stunt. Skip to about a minute in to get to the action.

Only criticism – would have liked it to be longer.

Two things that are being increasingly exploited on YouTube for entertainment and advertising purposes are annotations and using the number keys to jump to certain points in the video. The former has possibly been best showcased in the Time To Spy videos from McDonald’s, but also to a less impressive degree (but still very innovative at the time) by Samsung and the COI in an anti knife crime campaign.

However, campaigns using the numbers on your keyboard to control videos are far less impressive, as in the example from Audi above. In this, you control the driver using keys 1-9, which gets the driver to perform an action. Those thrilling actions include, turning left, turning right and even going through a chicane!!! From the top comments, looks like other users are about as amazed at this as I am.

Other examples have cropped up from Sprite and Lynx (the latter supposedly being NSFW), below:

Sprite Zero Skate ‘n’ Splash

Lynx – Hot news girl gets job done… (you need to hit 5 7 3 8 to get the “Lynx Effect” on this one)

Let me know if you think otherwise, but these just don’t work. The Lynx (or AXE for our non-UK friends) video is obviously intended to make it look like the girl is giving the guy  a blowjob and that you can control this (sure teenage boys will be throwing away their porn for this right now). But instead you just get an earful of messed up audio and a few jerky motions. And the Sprite example, well, I challenge you to even crack a smile and try more than 3 tricks before you punch your monitor out of boredom.

This mechanic works will as a 1 minute time killer and has been used for a while on things like interactive YouTube keyboards and drums, and those have a ton of hits and a load of likes. But these aren’t representing a brand and trying to convey a message.  They are made cheaply and quickly to show off a use of a YouTube feature that probably wasn’t planned. Trying to crowbar a brand into them simply doesn’t work, at least in these examples.

Sadly, this is a result of a problem far too common within the industry, which is “innovation” for innovation’s sake. Innovative campaigns only works if they still addresses a brand’s key aims and challenges. And even if you’re going to ignore that, which gives you a much wider scope for creativity, you had better at least produce something that people are going to like, engage with for more than 5 seconds and want to share.

Face Substitution from Kyle McDonald on Vimeo.

Well, I’m officially freaked out!

Using programs and plug-ins on opensource platform Openframeworks, Kyle McDonald (in the above video), Arturo Castro and Kevin Atkinson (source) have developed a way of layering faces from images, onto your face on the feed of a webcam.

This delivers some surprisingly well meshed “masks” and while some are just downright creepy (Michael Jackson!) the ability to alter the face so well, with the tracking of facial expressions and a mouth opening, is extremely impressive. It seems like only yesterday that I was amazed by the Transformers AR face tracking but it goes to show how quickly this technology is developing.

Applications for this are really not difficult to think of, the first that springs to my mind being gaming. Developments like the Kinect Avatar, have been designed to make you feel like you are in the game, although this would be perfect for making you more like the hero in the game, something that would be much more applicable in FPS games (don’t think shooting the faces of real people is that acceptable right now!).

Thanks to Duncan Child for the share

This is pretty awful by anyone’s standards. I’m almost loathed to share it. However, I suffered through all 18 seconds so I think it’s only right you do too.

If you can’t bear to watch it, it’s an advert for Wonderful Pistachios nuts featuring Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss. Clearly their money grabbing antics will never cease.

The RNBI (Royal National Institute of Blind People) released this video back in March to mark World Book Day.

There’s not a whole lot to say about it, apart from it’s hard hitting, conveys its message both beautifully and tragically, and will probably make you feel pretty down for a while.

Great work, for an extremely worthy cause.

Stan James may have adopted a slightly different advertising approach to most of their competitors, if this poster is anything to go by.

Instead of trying to convey why Stan James is the place you want to be spending your pennies (you know, by promoting a USP or offer!?) they instead are going after the classic market of gamblers that don’t know how gambling work.

Throw into the mix an image of bloody great big phone, a QR code (ticking off those mandatory boxes on the brief!), some copy about mobile that doesn’t relate to the main focus of the ad and you’re done!

I’d argue that if the person reading the ad doesn’t quite grasp the basic concept of gambling/fractions, they sure aren’t going to know what a QR code is.

Similarly bad poster from the same pub