..and I took a look at the last few posts and realised, that the excitement of the Facebook -Google- Twitter three way fight was making me obsessed, and I figured you guys would like a break from that too. Thankfully, I came across two activities, that I thought showed a fundamental way of approaching the internet as a medium.
At a basic level, the internet (and mobile) differ from say, print, OOH, television and even radio (in spite of call ins) simply because it allows two way expression. And if we go meta on that, even the internet, like other media, is after all a tool, as far as brands go. Its just that in many cases, its a much better enabler than the others because of its features. So, Facebook, Twitter etc are only tools – I have to keep reminding myself of that. The two examples below have shown how to use the web to increase the utility and value they are offering consumers. I liked these two all the more, because while they have presence on the usual suspects, these activities do not use the services.
Some of you would’ve read about the Dunkin’ Run iPhone app and website by now. For those who haven’t here’s the gist. Going out for coffee? Want to get your friends something too, but can’t be bothered to remember their order? You become the ‘Runner’, and use the app/website to initiate a group order. Your friends/colleagues ( a list you’ve made, and you can make different ones) get an interactive alert, and they can place the order online/app. If they’re registered users, they can even pick from their favourites/ previous orders. Once the list is made, take a print out/show it on the phone. Oh, okay, you can display the run status on facebook too. This is how the app looks on the phone
(Thank you, Chris Brogan, Mashable)
‘Run’ seems to be the operative word since the second example is to do with a product and activity right in that space. Nike. On Wired, I read about this excellent service called Nike+, which is now helping users track personal metrics and thus adding value. By using a sensor, and syncing an iPod to the website, (after the run) users can now track distance run, time taken, calories burned, weight lost etc and over a time period. These are displayed visually, on their profile, and it can be shared, and for extra motivation, users can even take up a challenge or set individual goals, and if that’s not enough, you can even create a list of people who could motivate you for completing it. They are updated about your progress. When i visited the India site, I could see a ticker that showed updates about various runners.
According to Wired, “Nike has attracted the largest community of runners ever assembled—more than 1.2 million runners who have collectively tracked more than 130 million miles and burned more than 13 billion calories.” It has not only helped the users, but think about all that data Nike has, which it can use to provide even more value for customers and build better products. Amazing, I think I just might end up doing this stuff!! Oh, okay, there’s a twitter app too – Twiike.
Two ideas, which use the concept of sharing without needing the tools that I keep discussing here. A good reminder that while the tools race for users, and web domination, brands can quietly use the philosophy of web 2.0 and build communities around users through simple ideas and wonderful execution.
until next time, Just Donut it 😉
And the donut will almost certainly need to be annulled by running.
Interesting post. I do think however that so far any efforts brands make to engage ‘socially’ seem to end up being tedious time-wasters instead of being useful, value enhancers. Yes, you could turn around and tell me brands are about emotive connections and not just about utilitarian value. But without utilitarian value, the most emotive connections with ephemeral things like brands could wither away. Would you look at Nike if the running shoes were crap?
Where is the meaning?
i am a bit ambivalent on that, since i do believe in the emo connect, but also believe that if fundamentally there is no value, its not going to last… hmm, so yes, i would tend to agree with you on this.. that’s the reason i liked these two, since they were relying on their basic strength – good products (assuming that about Dunkin) and using the net to add value on top of that…
I don’t know* about “good products” at Dunkin’ but I could not avoid seeing that Dunkin’ will necessitate Nike. May be they should co-promote? 😉
* Actually having been subjected to their products occasionally when I lived in MA (take-a-right-turn-at-Dunkin’ is the best instruction to get people to get lost in MA) I would distinctly not use good in the same sentence as Dunkin’.