I grew up an actor and filmmaker. Then, I fell in love with writing. Creativity, and the need for outward expression through some sort of art, is in my bones. When I feel the most fulfilled, I am doing something that feeds by creative desire.
As one who is continually checking myself as it relates to career growth and fulfillment, I am discovering – and having an even deeper appreciation for – a key principle that has been instrumental for me: being open.
Open to opportunity. Open to doing what needs to be done and immersing myself in it. Open to learning. Open to stretching in ways that might be uncomfortable.
This very principle is at the core of my growth over the past two years, and if I were to look back and analyze my ‘path’ before then, I would most likely come to the same conclusion.
Most acutely, over the past two years, I have been focused on the business and operations side of my industry, an industry that is very dynamic and exciting, one where ‘blueprints’ haven’t been widely created. It has definitely required me to use, flex and embrace the science side of my brain.
While I certainly couldn’t have verbalized this specific growth – in the past, projecting ahead – it has been a substantial rounding out of my different dimensions. And, at the end of the day, isn’t that what true growth is? Uncovering and rounding out dimensions that need it and making stronger those that are already there.
In today’s instant-gratification and sometimes, somehow entitled world we operate in, it’s easy to get distracted by lack of clarity related to career growth. My advice based on personal experience and ultimately, gratification: just be open.
Before this year, guess how many digital billboards I passed on my way to work from my home in the Dallas suburbs to downtown Dallas?
Answer: 0
Sometime early this year, guess how many I started seeing?
Answer: 1
Now, getting into the latter part of the year, guess?
Answer: 5
While one to five might not seem like a big increase, driving down that stretch of highway and now seeing five digital billboards as opposed to one actually has a big impact.
1. I’m automatically processing more digital.
2. I’m getting used to more moving images vs. static.
3. I’m interested to see (while not driving, of course) what’s next in the loop of content.
4. I’m starting to feel like I’m in a digital-forward city/environment.
My eye is automatically drawn to them because of all of these reasons. That’s the biggest impact it has. On a personal level.
I can’t help but think about the cost of putting in digital billboards vs. static billboards, but I’m starting to get convinced that cost is certainly not going to be a barrier. In a short eight months, it hasn’t seemed to be, given the increase from zero to five.
I’m really feeling and believing that this is just going to be the norm. Digital/moving image signs on the sides of highways. It’s right around the corner.
But I also start to wonder if we’ll grow (somewhat) immune to these digital/moving messages, too? Just like we have to static billboards. Over time, once they’re commonplace, will moving images provide even more noise than one static image? And in that way, how good (read – effective) has digital become?
“Mr. Cearley” – I get it when I check in, at the front desk. When I get online. Even when I turn on my TV.
Technology enables a lot of this to happen now. Time plays a part in it, too. People are trained here to take the time to address everyone in a very personal way.
This is one of the touches that we – as consumers – are requiring now. Make it personal.
Social platforms enable people and brands to connect on a personal level like never before. Technology, particularly mobile, enable personalization on a new level, too.
I spend a lot of time in the Detroit airport nowadays and recently I encountered something interesting and little bit frustrating – a self-serve only kiosk to order your food.
In theory, this is more interesting than frustrating, but when you have three people – employees of the establishment – standing right behind the kiosks and no one else in line to order the food, it tipped the scale to frustrating.
There I was, in a hurry, trying to catch my flight, and within the span of 30 seconds, I could have given my order to one of the employees. And within a couple of minutes, could have gotten my meal and jet-setted off to my plane. Rather, I had to spend a good 1.5-2 minutes going through the kiosk to place my order. Wait another couple of minutes to get it and violà, an experience that should have taken less than five minutes, suddenly took at least five minutes.
I’m all one for self-service, interactive ordering and ticketing and the like. But the balance with this sort of technology, out in the real world like this, is how much is takes away from or supplements customer service. That’s right: good, old fashioned customer service.
See, I want to take care of my business quickly and efficiently. Technology like this can help. But I also have a need for some sort of human interaction, particularly if it helps me take care of my business more quickly and efficiently. When we replace one with the other, we are shifting the balance of what technology can really do for us. We are deeming it just as good, just as quick, just as efficient – if not more – than what we as humans can provide. This is scary. It’s not a complete replacement. It should be a comprehensive supplement.
The voice, the smile, the service. That’s something that a Siri-like device can give us now and in the future. It will likely be even more real. But it’s not. And it never will be. And that’s the point. Human interaction, at our core, is a consistent point of connection and that will never go away. Even when we have more and more technology and kiosks and computers and Siris.
Right now, a complete substitute is just frustrating. In the future, well…I just hope that we can hold on to that human connection.
I love technology. And what I find incredibly fascinating is that children love it, too. Probably even way more than I do.
They don’t know life without it. It is one of those things that once they learn how to do it – how to operate this or that – they will only build on top of their ability to do it. Become more proficient.
For all sorts of enabling technologies. For in and out of home, this is exciting.
But technology is still technology. That is to say, it is still a machine. And it can be buggy. Or just not work altogether.
Children have no patience for either scenario. They are a great indicator of human behavior to come, in my opinion.
If technology doesn’t work, they simply won’t use it. But they will go on to the next piece of technology that works. Until it doesn’t work. Then, they’ll go to another.
Technology that doesn’t work is dead. It simply will not get used. And when it doesn’t get used, it’s no good.
I love technology because it can make experiences better. I have perspective on life without technology, simply because it didn’t exist. Children have no perspective other than when it simply does not work. Either way, it’s no good dead.
"Out of Home" is quickly becoming a tired advertising channel.
"Digital" is quickly transforming into something more powerful than "always on."
People are active. Not tied to any single "channel" and certainly have the expectation that communications they want from a brand/organization is "always there."
Digital + OOH does not necessarily fill that need. Not at all.
Relevance & timely + "right there" (at that moment in time) fills the need. This is what the new OOH can be.
Unfortunately, though, as a channel, OOH is only a check-the-box thing. We must change this.
Nike shows us, if used the right way, all technology can be interactive. They’re at it again with some over-the-top OOH installations, what they call Camp Victory.
Sounds like some of the components of this installation will be put in their retail stores, which is only taking them one step closer to a completely technology-based interactive retail environment. It might take some time, but they are leading the way. And this is the future.
More than that, though, they’re just great at using (enabling) technology as a way to demonstrate to the public their own technology. And the thing about it is, they use whatever technology is best to show it off, regardless of how 1.0 or 2.0 it is.
This makes me believe that consumers might not be as intimidated by technology as I think, particularly as more and more people adopt smartphones. In a lot of ways, these types of installations are just bigger, badder smartphone applications. If people know how to work those, they’ll know how to work something(s) as enormous as this. And besides, that’s what I would call “2.0″ enabling technology. You can see just as many examples of simpler technology, but just as interactive. And that’s what I think is brilliant.
When you pair super creative minds with super technology, you get something like this:
This was this year’s Cannes Outdoor Grand Prix winner.
This is not just cool for cool’s sake. This Mercedes car runs of F-cell technology, which produces 0 emissions. Basically, producing an “invisible” impact to the environment. This is a creative expression of that benefit.
The case against one-way push advertising keeps getting stronger and stronger. Intuitively and based on my own experiences, I feel like the time to capture someone’s attention, certainly to the point of engaging them, is dwindling at a rapid pace. Our lives are busier, we have more and more media choices, and as such, there is a premium put on content that we will give our attention to.
But there’s not tons of research out there to back this up. This year, in fact, I’ve seen more and more centered around multi-channel use and it is something that I anticipate seeing more and more of – bigger studies, looking deeper into consumer behaviors across channels/devices/media – in the very near future.
Sometimes these studies – and corresponding results – are staggering. Like this one: “commissioned by Time Warner’s Time Inc. and conducted by Boston’s Innerscope Research. Though it had only 30 participants, the study offers at least directional insight into a generation that always has a smartphone at arm’s length and flips from a big TV set to a smaller tablet screen and back again at a moment’s notice.”
The study “found that consumers in their 20s (“digital natives”) switch media venues about 27 times per nonworking hour — the equivalent of more than 13 times during a standard half-hour TV show.” This, compared to “digital immigrants” (consumers who grew up with old-school technologies, such as TV, radio and print, and adapted to newer ones). Immigrants switched media venues just 17 times per nonworking hour. Put another way, natives switch about 35% more than immigrants.”
Either way, there is no doubting that with the availability and adoption of so many different media choices (through technology) + our yearning to consume only what we want, the expectations of content delivery – despite what “channel” – are higher than ever. And it’s going to continue getting higher and higher.
When we think about the idea of interactive out-of-home, the places and things around us being turned “on,” and having the ability to interact with whatever we want, when we want, it’s clearer than ever that the technology alone will do nothing. It simply enables more noise or more engagement.
Question is – what are you producing? Are you producing content that just “goes” with the screen/channel? Or are you producing content that enables a deeper connection to the story? Something that is relevant and engaging? Something that is not pushed down someone’s throat?
This is where we’re going. We are a connected society who gets connected quicker and more seamlessly every day. As such, the substance of what we’re connecting with is going to always rise to the top.
This is gut and experience talking. For those of us who might need the data to be convinced, hold on. It’s not a matter of when that data will come, it’s a matter of what that data will say. Are you ready?
I always talk about the places and things around us having the ability to be turned on. What I have not talked about is our ability to be turned on and interact with the places & things around us. This cool, kind of creepy technology from Google – Project Glass – shows just that. With a pair of glasses, look what you can do to and with the world around you:
I can imagine a day where this is reality, but I wonder if technology like this – to this extreme – will connect us more or divide us more? When everything is enabled through technology, what happens to the human aspect? Now, multiply that by about a billion. What do you think?
I spend a lot of time in the Detroit airport nowadays and recently I encountered something interesting and little bit frustrating – a self-serve only kiosk to order your food.
