So I loved Inception, and I’m not alone. With over $200 Million in just a few weeks this movie is doing brisk business. With a movie like this though, you really have to wonder about longevity. If everyone rushed out to see it who is left to watch?
If you’re one of the few who hasn’t watched it yet I implore you to watch the trailer, and then run out to the theater and watch it.
embedded by Embedded Video
This is where some terrific marketing comes in. I was watching TV as I was getting ready for work this morning and heard an advertisement that was so simple in it’s message that it really drove it home: See it a second time. Yes, they know you’ve by now, no doubt seen it. They know you’re asking yourself questions: What was real? What was a dream? Where does it end? When did it begin? And so many more I can’t even begin to discuss without ruining the plot for those who missed it.
Just the mere suggestion seeded in the commercial much like the concept of “inception” (the idea not the movie) continues to grow. It’s genius, it’s what made Dark Knight a $500 Million movie, and its what Chris Nolan and crew hope will make Inception a $350 million movie. The need to see it again, the need for the answers. Well done.
First it’s good to be back after my website went dark for about a week to address a change in hosts, and an extended bout of laziness that kept me away.
Microsoft, Google, Apple these are 3 of the largest tech companies in the world. They’re so similar and yet so very different. These differences have really come out to the forefront lately with some of the choices in branding and marketing.
I’ve been reviewing the new products Apple is releasing and how they talk about them to consumers. One thing is standing out, the use of the word “magical”, whether it’s the iPad or the new “magic trackpad” apple wants us to envision a world where their products bring to earth an almost imaginary experience. A new reality this is what Apple Brings.
Their public facing brand has more to do with science fiction than technology. Their versions resemble confectionary delights rather than the operating systems they really are. Yes, Google has really embraced the fanciful in a way that inspires their customer base to jump in and get engaged.
Then there is Microsoft a juggernaut in the enterprise space but still very much an up and comer in the consumer space. They’ve got a few fanciful names like “bing, Azure, XBox, and Zune” but for the most part they are rooted in attaching to a brand that has been iconic in Redmond for over 20 years. Yes, everything is Windowized at the moment with: Windows Phone, Windows Mobile, Windows Azure, Windows Live Messenger, Windows Embedded, Windows Server, and a host of other products.
A once fanciful brand Windows has become a generic extended statement that tries to attach all these new markets to the desktop experience Microsoft dominates. Unfortunately, consumers aren’t getting excited by pushing the desktop experience into all these different categories. The message appears to come off as mundane and ordinary.
Fantasy in Marketing
There used to be a time when marketers were very cautious about making overly ambitious statements. Now making these bold fantastic, nowhere near reality statements have become the way to captivate an audience and cut through all the noise in the advertising space. Time will tell how long this trend lasts but it’s something that we’re seeing 3 major players handling a bit differently and it’s having meaningful results on performance.
The love letter:
You’ve entertained me for years whether it be Nikelodeon, MTV, Comedy Central, VH1, or Paramount (didn’t even realize you owned that one). As a long time viewer, someone who respects and loves the product you put out I was saddened to hear that in your first go at Google you did not succeed in exerting your intellectual property rights.
You see, I’m an informed consumer and I respect the ownership laws granted by this country. Unfortunately, with lawmakers there is often short-sightedness in the drafting. How else could a law like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (designed to keep frivolous lawsuits from targeting internet hosts and ISPs) be utilized as a shield for a corporation that keeps illegal content on their service and servers through which they directly profit from? Sorry, I understand that it’s not Google’s fault that people upload the videos but creating the service means policing it. Google is profiting from Viacom’s content either through the additional traffic it generates (which facilitates a higher asking rate on advertising) or utilizing it in negotiations shakedowns of content holders. It’s a lot easier to bargain with someone whose content is already exposed when it comes to setting the tone of the partnership agreement.
Here’s to hoping in 5 years the Supreme Court sees things your Way Viacom.
The Hate Letter
How is it you can be so good at creating amazing content and so terrible at serving it up to the world? I can access your content at YouTube just fine (yeah I know it shouldn’t be there). You might want to get on those take-down notices since their site doesn’t hang/ spend minutes buffering and I don’t even have to watch a commercial there.
Or better yet learn from NBC and actually post your content on Hulu ,rather than using Hulu point back to your overwhelmed site. See I don’t mind watching the commercials, I just mind the buffering time. I know Hulu is a little more appeasing than Google, who you still have that nasty back and forth legal fight with.
So in closing fix your website or I’ll just hit up YouTube.
Gotta say loving my new job, having an amazing time driving strategy for a large client. After the “vacation” its great to be thrown to the wolves and have to start executing immediately. Needless to say as always finding time for blogging is difficult when you’re consumed by other tasks in your life. I saw this today though and thought it would make a good post.
First off I’m not going to say giving to charity isn’t a good thing, but I have to look at this article and really take in what it says. I find charities to be a challenge, because of the structure and nature (including tax implications) there really isn’t an incentive to run a charity efficiently. The problem is not enough people asking how can we stretch this budget, what are our goals, how do we run this “business” in a manner that will maximize the return on investment.
I’ve in my past career life worked on these problems at a University, these are very real problems that do impact charities and educational institutions. Unfortunately, unlike businesses which are forced to address these issues many charities shift the focus onto driving more donations and endowment use.
In the end though I can’t find fault in giving, even if its an imperfect system its a necessary system; so some waste is permissible.
I’ve sounded off on this topic before. I’ll continue to be more in Viacom’s corner than Google’s so long as I can find a video any time day or night thats sitting on a Google Server that can be viewed illegally. Hiding behind the safe-harbor provision inserted into the DMCA that was designed to remove the possibility of ISPs being sued, or having to police their users rings hollow to me for Google.
There’s something to be said though for practicing what you preach, and while I’m sure Viacom’s site isn’t nearly as slathered down with content that was “borrowed” as YouTube was it makes for a compelling humorous video when you get to catch a company doing something hypocritical.
Apologies, video embedding is acting up.