How digital brands are advertising

Posted on February 15, 2022 by Content in Context

During a recent visit to the cinema, I was surprised to see adverts for major digital brands on the big screen, ahead of the main feature.

I’ve always thought of cinema advertising as falling into one or more of the following categories:

ads you don’t see on TV (often longer than their small screen counterparts)
luxury names and aspirational brands (travel, spirits, fashion, financial services)
local businesses (the pizzeria “just a short walk from this theatre…”)
movie tie-ins (highlighting the product placement in the film you are about to see)
seasonal themes (especially Christmas)

What struck me on this occasion were the ads by three DNBs (digitally native brands), featuring LinkedIn, Tik Tok and Audible. Despite the disparate nature of their businesses, I realised that there was a common element.

As the above-linked McKinsey report states, successful DNBs are really good at connecting with (and understanding) their audience, identifying and fulfilling very specific needs with unique solutions, and leveraging the very technology they are built on to promote their services and engage with their customers. Witness the well-timed “alerts” from food-delivery platforms in the early evening, the viral campaigns designed to enforce brand awareness, and the social media feeds designed to build customer engagement and loyalty. (Note that the report features Peleton as a poster child for its thesis, before the personal exercise brand ran into recent difficulties.)

If you look at most DNB campaigns, they are primarily generating demand via very specific human drivers:

1. Aspirational – the pure FOMO element (not unique to DNBs, of course, but they do it more subtly than many consumer brands)
2. Experiential – highlighting the tangible benefits (of mostly intangible products)
3. Socialisation – the paradox of building a trusted relationship through hyper-personalisation and constant sharing…

These three cinema ads each contained implicit “story-telling“. LinkedIn positioned itself as a platform for establishing our own narrative (telling our own truth?); Audible promoted its audio content (books and podcasts) as a means to find authentic stories that resonate with us (and this was long before the recent shenanigans over at Spotify); and Tik Tok used a well-known viral video as the basis for building community around shared stories.

Of course, story-telling is hardly a new concept in brand marketing, and has been eagerly adopted by digital brands (think of campaigns during the pandemic which have featured on-line connectivity and remote working). However, it has become an over-used technique, and is often cynically exploited in the service of corporate green-washing, jumping on social bandwagons, and blatant virtue signalling.

Call me jaded, but I’m old enough to remember the fad of consulting firms pitching their clients on building a “corporate narrative“, drawing on employee stories and customer experiences, as the foundation for those anodyne mission/vision “statements” – but they typically ended up as exercises in damage control in case the truth got out.

These particular cinema ads managed to use story-telling to create a human dimension (authenticity, connectivity, community, sharing, etc.) that is more than simply “buy our product” or “use our tech” (although obviously that’s the ultimate goal). It would be very interesting to read the briefs given to their creative agencies, given that the ads were all in the service of corporate branding.

Next week: Doctrine vs Doctrinaire

Startupbootcamp Virtual Demo Day – Decarbonize

Posted on February 8, 2022 by Content in Context

This week, another shout out to the team at Startupbootcamp (SBC), for not only nurturing some of the most interesting startups emerging in key tech sectors, but also for managing to co-ordinate accelerator programmes and virtual demo-days in the very challenging circumstances of the past two years. The most recent virtual demo day I attended was Decarbonize last December, which was backed by corporate partners Mitsubishi Corporation and NYK Line.

Here is a summary of the ten participating projects (links are in the project names):

Electro-Active Technologies

According to the presenters, more than a third of all food is wasted – and all that food ending up in landfill is generating tonnes of methane. Using a biological-electrochemical process, this team is developing the use of electron-generating bacteria to convert food waste into hydrogen, powered by renewable energy. The bacteria-powered system can be installed onsite for commercial applications (which reduces transportation costs), and can contribute to the decarbonisation of food and waste transportation and associated industrial processes. As a further bonus, this waste management solution is also a source of carbon credits.

Urchinomics

Sea urchins are responsible for devastating swathes of kelp forests. This project is designed to re-home the echinoderms in land-based farms (“ranches”) with natural feed, and re-position them as a premium sea-food (especially sushi restaurants, who are willing to pay above-average prices). In doing so, vital kelp stocks will be replenished.

Nozama

With its origins as a solution to defining and achieving “measurable sustainability”, Nozama is designed to track the amounts of carbon dioxide emitted, reduced and extracted from the environment. This particular presentation focused on single-use plastics, which makes sense given we all need to do a better job of reducing/removing these items from the environment, and at every stage in the manufacturing, packaging, distribution, consumption and disposal life-cycle. However, they have chosen to complicate the process. As part of the tracking solution, the project has decoded to introduce blockchain technology, in the form of smart contracts and non-fungible tokens (NFTs). They aim to do this by capturing the data associated with waste collection and processing, to demonstrate that no waste has gone into landfill or the environment, and that it has been repurposed or recycled. So far, so good, but then it gets even trickier. This recycling data is converted into an NFT, and sold via the “Plastiks” marketplace, which acts as a form of recycling guarantee, and a “proof of capture”. The NFT minting occurs at the point of invoice to the waste customer, by uploading the recycling data and issuing a certificate. from waste collection and processing. Further, the NFT is combined with art, to “create an emotional engagement with recycling”. The re-cyler selects art to be associated with the NFT, or the artist selects the re-cycler. Finally, the plastics producers need to buy the NFT (certificate plus the linked artwork?) and offset it against appropriate waste/carbon/energy credits. What wasn’t clear is whether the re-cycler has to keep the art, as continued proof of certification…

Clean Hydrogen Technologies

This is a project that produces hydrogen without using water, and by using less energy, and at less cost. Natural gas is a stop-gap solution for hydrogen production, and current solutions create too many carbon dioxide emissions, or they are energy hungry or they are too expensive. Instead, the process “extracts” hydrogen from natural gas – not by burning it, but using a patented catalyst to produce “turquoise” hydrogen, along with conductive carbon (which can be used to build batteries).

Handprint

With a tagline of “Grow with the Planet”, Handprint have an ambitious goal to turn 30% of the world’s land and oceans into natural reserves by 2030. They plan to achieve this by connecting companies to regeneration projects like planting mangrove swamps, and then divert part of their customer revenue towards funding of those projects. The founders believe that this combines company values with market credibility and customer engagement. Further, they claim that consumer transactions (at the point of purchase) in themselves generate regeneration actions (and repeat transactions).

Primary Ocean

The premise for this project is that seaweed is better at absorbing carbon dioxide than trees. And once harvested from the ocean, seaweed can be added to the soil as a natural fertiliser. In this way, giant kelp plants become offshore seaweed farms, and also contribute to decarbonising transportation (from the production of bio-fertiliser and bio-fuel). The combined effect is also carbon negative.

Aerial

Positioning their product as “Fitbit for carbon”, the founders want to remove the “guilt” associated with measuring, tracking and reducing our carbon footprint. The resulting data analytics (from enterprise customers as well as individual consumers) can help change behaviours. Initially launched as a solution for business (to track the carbon footprints of companies and their employees), the analysis is designed to not only track carbon emissions but also provide tips for footprint management and offset. Then there’s “Aerial for Crypto”, which seems to be a way for NFT creators (musicians, artists and designers) to “reduce the environmental impact of their work”.

SungreenH2

This project deploys nano technology to produce hydrogen via water electrolysis, but at a lower production cost by using low-cost and earth-abundant materials as electrolytes. Under this patented solution, the founders expect to reduce the cost of green hydrogen from #2 per kg to less than $1 per kg.

Carbon Asset Solutions

The task of soil carbon sequestration needs accurate measurement, and is currently uneconomic. This project has developed a patented digital system, using high-precision soil carbon measurement technology. By connecting this measurement process to advanced software, the team can offer instant tracking, and they are currently seeking ISO certification. Serving both the supply-side (via carbon farming) and the buy-side (financial institutions and carbon markets) they can support trading of carbon credits (with plans to use blockchain technology to track the credits?). Essentially “Carbon as a Service”, the founders believe their solution is also attractive to investors, who want access to reliable carbon credits (without necessarily having to be part of the supply chain). However, some regulatory hurdles remain, particularly licensing laws in respect of financial products and market places. But, it seems that the emerging voluntary carbon market could be one of the fastest-growing financial markets, so no doubt smart capital will find a way to overcome these regulatory barriers.

Teraloop

Finally, a project looking at renewables storage, still one of the major challenges to renewable energy, thanks to the cost and (in)efficiency of existing battery technology. This team is looking beyond their current kinetic storage technology, to achieve “rapid response power on demand”. This will have the the combined benefits of prolonged life on energy distribution assets (and therefore, greater ROI), electric vehicle fast-charge points, and a path towards scalable manufacturing and deployment.

Overall, each of these projects has a clear value proposition, although some are more developed or were better articulated than others. Also, it was evident that most of these startups are working in complementary technologies and solutions, such that the combination of two or more of these projects could create some significant development progress and enhanced decarbonization outcomes. It also felt that much of this work is being done in spite of (rather than thanks to) government policy and public sector efforts in this area. Let’s hope the founders manage to raise the capital they need to bring their solutions to a wider (and willing) audience.

Next week: How digital brands are advertising

Gratitude and the Great Recharge

Posted on February 1, 2022 by Content in Context

As I ease myself back into regular blogging following a summer hiatus, I’d like to begin by expressing an enormous sense of gratitude.

Last November, when I mentioned I was taking a break from blogging, I was pleasantly surprised by the number of readers who contacted me to check I was OK, several of whom let me know how much they appreciate reading my posts. To each of them (and they know who they are) I am extremely grateful. It’s that level of connection and feedback that helps to make the effort worthwhile.

One of my objectives in going offline for a few weeks was to take stock after nearly two years of disruption, and come back refreshed and re-energised. Like many other people, I was feeling drained and demoralised after multiple lockdowns, extended social disconnection, pitiful political failures, and increasing verbal (and physical) assaults on our notions of liberal democracy. I badly needed a change of perspective.

I was trying to come up with a suitable tag to summarise this goal, and realised that so many terms I thought of have come to be associated with pejorative meanings: the Great Reset, the Great Awakening (or Awokening, depending on your viewpoint), and the Great Resignation were among them.

So instead, I landed upon the Great Recharge.

For me, it evokes a physical energy boost, as well as a mental reframing on how to reflect on the past two years, and identify a way forward. The latter is about more than developing a coping mechanism. It is about retuning my responses to the information we are bombarded with – daily news, social media, advertising, propaganda, mis- and dis-information – and not letting it annoy me or provoke me. Because that is the reaction that the protagonists are looking for, and many of them are not being honest about their agenda, their vested interests, or their sponsors and backers.

As a result, I am trying to block out what is unimportant (not worth the effort of engagement), and not worry about those things I don’t have any immediate control over. By prioritising what really interests me, I feel I can be more creative, positive, enthusiastic and energising. Hopefully, I can be more connected to what really matters (and in the end, focus on what gives me joy). That way, I believe I can create less stress and inflict less emotional damage by not perpetuating the negative energy generated by protagonists who only want their audience to rise to the bait.

If I don’t like something, and as long as I’m not being forced to watch, read or listen to it, then I can simply choose not to give it air time. (“If you can’t say something constructive, it’s better to say nothing.”)

It’s not always easy – look at all the trash talk, sledging and character assassination that permeates politics, sport, academia, culture and media. It’s pervasive, corrosive, and debilitating – and what makes it worse is that most times, the perpetrators are being paid to bad mouth the targets of their bile. Perhaps we can take a lead from Rafael Nadal, and let the ball do the talking….

Next week: Startupbootcamp Virtual Demo Day – Decarbonize

Federation. Is. Broken. Surely?

Posted on January 25, 2022 by Content in Context

Why don’t we celebrate the Australian Federation? Logically, it would make more sense to mark the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia (January 1, 1901), rather than the highly contentious Australia Day (January 26). The former offers the notion of nationhood and a sense of progress; the latter is tainted with invasion and colonization.

Part of the problem is that we don’t really believe in the Federation (or more likely, we don’t understand or know enough about it). Queensland and New South Wales were initially cold to lukewarm about joining the Federation, and Western Australia only came around once the Constitution Act was passed in 1900. (There’s even a argument to suggest that New Zealand may have joined the Federation before or instead of Western Australia, but I’ll leave that to the historians.)

More significant is the fact that the past two years have revealed considerable cracks in the Federation. States have been taking very different approaches to the current pandemic, with both Western Australia and Queensland at times acting as if they had already seceded. We’ve seen huge inconsistencies in how each State and Territory has responded to Covid – there was little to no national consensus on defining “hot spots”, “red zones”, “clusters”, “complex cases”, “mystery cases” or “close contact”. The respective public health measures and administrative responses were also very different, leading to confusion, frustration and anger over external and internal border controls, hotel quarantine, home isolation, track’n’trace, density limits, social distancing and vaccine roll-out. Overlay that with cack-handed management by the Commonwealth itself, and it’s easy to see why many people feel no love for Federation.

The former Premier of NSW let the cat out of the bag when she referred to “our New South Wales citizens”. Last time I looked, Australian citizenship is conferred at the Federal level, not by individual States or Territories. This Freudian slip just confirms the many fault lines that exist as between the Commonwealth and the States, and as between the States themselves. About the only thing that unites Australians is when a national sports team is competing at international level…

In fact, there are many areas of public policy, administration and infrastructure where the States and Territories adopt different standards and models – for example, we don’t yet have a fully integrated national energy grid, daylight savings results in five different time zones during summer (as opposed to the three during winter), and there are differences in parliamentary structures (bicameral vs unicameral) and election cycles.

The issue of Federation is also fraught from a financial and budgetary perspective. States and Territories have limited options for raising their own revenue, namely payroll tax, land tax, stamp duty and licenses. While they can generate revenue from commercial ventures such as public-private infrastructure projects (and from mining and resources royalties), the bulk of their funding comes from the distribution of Federal income tax and GST (sales tax). (Or they borrow in the public debt markets.) And of course, there is always some aggro on these allocations at COAG meetings (now known as National Cabinet….).

It might also be the case that just as we have too many professional football codes (none of which are truly “national”), we have too many layers of government for a population of just 25 million people (Federal, State, Local). Given that Local Government is not actually provided for in the Constitution, and given the antagonism between States, perhaps there is a case to be made for change. Most people live within a few coastal conurbations. Moreover, many people identify closely with their city, region or rural locality, even more so than their State. Think of border twin towns such as Albury-Wodonga on the River Murray and Tweed Heads-Coolangata on the East Coast. So, why not abolish the States and Territories (as well as dismantling the current local government structure), and instead establish functional municipal, regional and rural governments that are more representative of their local communities, and which are charged with distributing resources and coordinating public services on behalf of the Commonwealth (especially in the areas of health, education, welfare and transport).

One thing is certain: Australia needs to sort out the Constitution before it can re-visit the idea of becoming a Republic. Apart from the issue of a Treaty for indigenous recognition and native title land rights (and resolving the anomaly that is Local Government), the structure of our political institutions also needs reforming. Having Federal elections every three years reinforces short-term policies. Consider also the negative impact the current state of the party political system has on the quality of policy debate and implementation. Look also at the wonky versions of proportional representation we have in the form of single transferable votes and dodgy preference deals, plus Senate party slates and “Captain’s picks”.

This all means that even though we may think we are voting for individual candidates to represent our interests in Parliament, we are in fact voting for party machines. Those party structures are rife with factional warfare, internecine disputes, branch stacking and shady backroom deals – hence, we don’t directly vote for the Prime Minister (who can be rolled by their own parties, as we know to our cost), and we can’t hold our constituent representatives accountable except at the next Federal election.

Even if we acknowledge that we are voting for a candidate based on their stated party allegiance, there is no guarantee that they will vote (or even stay) with that party, so we don’t get the representation we voted for. Add to the mix the continued problems with party donations, campaign funding, Parliamentary lobbying and electoral pork barrelling, and it’s no wonder we have given up on the party political system and have lost all respect for our elected representatives and their party leaders. Plus, the perpetual rent-seeking from entrenched vested interests (coupled with monopolistic institutions and cozy industry duopolies) means there is inertia in favour of this status quo.

The proposed model for a Republic seems to be predicated on having a President as the Head of State (to replace the British monarch and their local representative in the form of the Governor-General). Beyond that there seems to be little agreement on how the the President will be appointed, or what Constitutional and/or political powers will be vested in them. Recent proposals for a nomination and election process have been met with both support and opposition from former Prime Ministers. But until we define what role the President will perform, we can’t begin to think about the process for their elevation to the position.

For example, is the Presidency going to be a mere figurehead, with no decision-making authority apart from confirming the Will of Parliament? Should the President be directly elected via universal suffrage, under a single, popular vote and “first past the post” method (rather than via a fudged proportional representation model? If we have an electoral college system (as in the USA), who gets to participate, how are they appointed and how do they get to cast their votes? How long should the President hold office? Is the Office of President designed to “keep the bastards honest” in Parliament, or to intervene when the Parliamentary party system breaks down, or to sue the Commonwealth on behalf of affected citizens when the Constitution is breached? Will the President have any role in forming public policy, or negotiating international treaties? Or will the President be voted in under a popularity contest, and as a reward for past public service, kind of like a plebiscite for Australian of the Year?

Another thing may also be certain: the timing (and likelihood) of Australia becoming a Republic will depend on the politicians of the day, how they advocate for it, and the model they propose. Because wrongly or rightly, the form and substance of the Republic will be linked to the character of the Prime Minister who has to invoke the necessary Constitutional reforms, and the nature of the Government they lead to implement it. Which is a large reason why the Referendum on the Republic failed last time – the proposed model was not clear enough to the electorate, and Australian voters may have feared the outcome would result in a President who did not represent them, or who did not reflect the choice of the people. A bit like our recent run of Prime Ministers, and the revolving door at the Lodge!

Next week: Gratitude and the Great Recharge