Experience Manifesto

Brand Appeal Among Young Adults

I wonder if this is a change due to the economy or if this has always been the case. One thing that was really a shock was:

Sixty-five percent of the teens and young adults surveyed felt seeing a brand on TV created a sense of quality, though how much varied from country to country. Seventy-seven percent of respondents in India thought TV equaled brand quality, followed by residents of the UK, US, Japan and Germany.

Could this mean that mass marketing, like TV, still plays an important role in how people choose products? Well, that's a horse of a different color, isn't it? The balance was that the internet made it easier to find brands. As they say in the article, it's important to get your message out on multiple channels.

If you want your brand to be associated with young people, then image isn’t everything, at least not according to a study by MTV Networks, the long-time arbiter of cool—and what’s hot—among young audiences.

For the study, Internet users ages 12 to 24 in five countries—Germany, India, Japan, the UK and the US—were surveyed.

According to respondents ages 18 to 24, the most popular features of a brand were good quality, trustworthiness and workability (emphasis mine) —three traits not usually associated with the stereotypical image of free-wheeling youth.

Brand Appeal Among Young Adults - eMarketer .

Burger King's Big Misstep - BusinessWeek

Not surprising that people are starting to questions how well the Burger King ads are working. If you go all the way back to Subservient Chicken, people in the ad industry have talked about what cool things they do, but we've always wondered whether or not they were having any impact with either the consumer or with their sales. But, what's really interested though, is when you read through the comments, you'll see how important the role of experience is in advertising.

burger king food is rally not that bad.but the place just yells sleezy at you as soon as you drive in the parking lot.its the whole package that needs redone. trh commenting on the Burger King article.

I've said here before, we eat at the Burger King in West Orange at least once/week. We like the food, true, but the main reason we go there is the indoor playground, a 3rd place for Sydney. She likes to go and play with other children and that's why we go. Although, she's starting to get a little old to keep playing there, but that's another (sad) story.

The Burger King we go to seems fairly clean and we go there oftern enough that they know us now, so that's nice. And I think that the staff is generally on their game. We've had the occasional mistake, but they take care of it right away.

Forget the commercials, better hire some people with half a brain that can acutally make the sandwiches. Last 6 orders I've made at the Spruce Pine, NC store weren't worth eating or not what I ordered. I'm tired of it. I like to get what I pay for and what I order. keril commenting on BusinessWeek article.

Nanette Byrnes, who wrote the article, made this comment while reading through all of the comments on the article:

I'm the author of the story and am reading this thread with great interest. It especially jumps out at me that a number of people who are negative on BK -- Cici and Terry among them -- actually think the food is better than McDonald's. Drive through is the biggest single business for both chains, so food would seem most important. But cleanliness is still a big negative for BK, and quality doesn't seem able to overcome that.

Yes, cleanliness is important to people in deciding where to eat, especially for children. Depending upon our tastes, we can put up with varying levels of cleanliness, I mean I eat street food, but we don't like our restaurants really dirty. And we want the staff to be able to handle our food requests.

Management at Burger King is trying to build the chain from the top down instead of how they should do it from the bottom up. The majority of the BK's in eastern OH, WV, and western PA (Pittsburgh) could care less if your sandwiches are cooked right. If I were to choose a burger from a fast food restaurant I would rather a Whopper than a McD burger of any kind. However BK needs to take some of those ad $$$'s and start training their help better to bring back the customers who have left for various reasons posted here. To BK the comments here seem to be constructive criticism read and then do something about your stores. Terry commenting on the Burger King article

See, here's the thing. NOTHING, not cool ads, or a great campaign on Twitter or doing some UGC on youtube overcomes a bad experience. There will always be people who don't like the ads you create, although I think the SpongeBob commercials were in very bad taste.

What people really dislike is when your your marketing tactics don't match your actual experience.

The other day I made the comment on Twitter that there is no such thing as WOMM, only people talking about great experiences. We really try to get our clients to understand that at the end of the day, your advertising tactics can enhance your brand, but it can never make up or replace for bad experiences.

Burger King (BKC) gets a lot of buzz for its irreverent, often sexy ads. There's the "manthem," sung by men turning up their noses at "chick food" to get their hands on a Texas Double Whopper, and its Texican Whopper commercial featuring a short man in a colorful cape who's simply known as "a little spicy Mexican." This spring, the company has run a TV ad tie-in with SpongeBob SquarePants in which the fast-food chain's mascot, "The King," dances alongside curvy women with rectangular derrieres.

Chuckles and kudos aside, CEO John W. Chidsey now has a problem. He has missed a sharp turn in consumer spending and sentiment. While competitors like McDonald's (MCD) blanketed the market with dollar deals this spring, Burger King stuck with ads that wooed its male "superfans"—and alienated thousands of parents. And sales in April alone show the results: a 7% rise for McDonald's as Burger King revenues remained weak in many markets after a dramatic fall in March. "That caught us a bit off guard," admits Chidsey, 46.

Burger King's Big Misstep - BusinessWeek.

Click here to go directly to comments.

Baby's Got SpongeBob?

Come on, it's a commercial for kids meals, folks. Meals for people under like 8 years old. Is Sir Mix-a-Lot really the right artist for a commercial promoting kids meals? I get the square butt thing, but it's not working for me here. I might like it if it was promoting a meal for adults although admittedly it wouldn't make any sense at all for adults.

I also really didn't like the Wanna get withcha', cause you make me richer line. Sure, it's all in your face about how much money BK will make selling kids meals, but I think it's a little too in your face for me.

A few years ago, my wife & I went to see Eyes Wide Shut, the last film by great director Stanley Kubrick. At one point in the film, I asked my wife why no one told Stanley that the film wasn't that good. They could see the dailey's and clearly the film wasn't working. Our guess is that no one wanted to be the person to tell Stanley Kubrick, a truly great filmmaker, that this one was a stinker.

Is Burger King now in that position with Crispin? Do they now all sit in the room when Crispin shows them new work, all nodding & enthusiastic while internally hoping that someone else will say "Huh?" Someone in the room should've at least thought about the fact that this was advertising a kids meal and maybe not the most appropriate way to do so.

Who Owns Social Media?

This article by Joseph Jaffe over at Adweek generated a whole lot of negative comments when it was put up earlier this week. Most of the comments seems to take Jaffe top task personally, for using the Adweek platform to support his own company, which may well be the case. The problem, however, is that a real message is getting buried in a lot of language that's not really the point.

Where I disagree with him is that social media is something that sits at the intersection of everything. And I certainly don't agree that it is "arguably-the most transformational opportunity we've been given in our professional lifetimes," as Jaffe claims. I think it's cool, it can be powerful and it can even generate some great results. But for everything he listed in his article that wasn't SM, I haven't really seen anyone define what was SM.

Of course, in our language, it's the experience that sits in the middle since SM still actually leaves out lots of place-based activities. Retailers are scrambling to keep up with online social tools, and yet almost none of them are looking to create SM at their physical locations.

We spent about an hour yesterday at the Burton store here in Soho with a group of retailers from South Africa and one thing that came through loud and clear is that they use the store as social media. Buses run every Saturday to a local ski resort and they've created a real community around the store. Yes, they use online tools to reinforce their relationships, but they start at the store, with the store employees. I'm not sure those relationships would be as strong as they are if it didn't involve the in-store experience.

As reader's of my blog know, I don't think that social media is something that should be broken out from everything else. I don't think there should be a social media AOR, it's sort of ridiculus when you think about it. With SM being so broadly defined as it usually is, so many parts of the company should be involved in the SM process. Today, no one form of advertising should sit in it's own silo. I actually agree with with Jaffe's conclusion that there needs to be someone sitting in the middle and I agree with his reasoning.

I won't go as far as to say everyone does it, but when agencies with different skill sets sit down at the table, even when they're part of one, big, happy, holding company family, they're still fighting for their piece of the pie. So most times, they're pitching that the most important thing a client can do is whatever they do. If it's an interactive agency, then interactive is the solution and the best use of their money. If it's an event marketing company, then event marketing is the answer to their question and the best use of their funds. I know that not everyone does this, but face it, when your salary & potential bonus are tied to your P&L, that might occasionally cloud your thinking.

When we started the Lab 6 years ago, we talked about brands needing a master storyteller. That brands needed someone who sat in the middle and protected the brand's interest. Yes, it should be someone at the brand, but they don't always have the skills needed to do this either. It was pretty easy in the older days of traditional media, when you only had a view ways to reach your audience.

Now, with so many choices available to communicate the brand message, brands really do need someone without a vested interest in a specific tool or tactic, to help them navigate the waters. As I've said before:

But the discussion by most in the ad industry about social media is just the latest tactic du jour. We had branded content, Second Life, viral, WOM, and on and on. Read the trades and look at how many times over the past couple of years, a slew of companies were built around chasing the tactic du jour. How many social media companies have been started in the past 6 months? But we do this instead of helping clients understand the true value of connecting with their audience by any means possible and appropriate. For many agencies and clients, they're just tactics that we jump on and jump off like they were a trampoline.

But a master storyteller, they own the story. They're making sure that the right story gets delivered to the right audience, in a way that gets that audience to act (and I don't always mean purchase. We could be asking for other action to be taken.). It doesn't matter to this person if you're using network TV (still the best way to reach my Mom) or Twitter, it's using the best tool for the audience and the brand. And, usually it's using more then one tool, all working together to deliver the same brand message.

The truth is, some of the traditional agencies could be great in this role and maybe even some are. But from what I hear happening out there today, lots of agencies are still more worried about protecting their turf then they are about delivering the right solution to their clients. That's how agencies like Naked and Mother and BBH and Crispin and R/GA and others got the foothold that they've gotten and why today we'll see even more, new agencies stepping up to really become the master storytellers. Because you should be protecting your clients turf, not your own.

And yes, we're one of the companies that we hope you'll call if you're looking for help in this area!

Perhaps the solution is to return to the clichéd "integration" drawing board and figure out how to ensure that all three sides of the equation are equally represented around the table. In this scenario, there's a definite and defined role for an "integrator" -- an independent third party (internal or external) that is the generalist to the physical, digital and virtual specialist verticals, with less interest in ensuring success in any one world than in simply ensuring your success, period.

Who Owns Social Media?.

Experience Manifesto: Social Media.

Smart Marketers Advertise During A Recession. You Should Too - Adrants

Not much I can add here, other then to say no matter how many times I've seen studies like this, companies still cut back. And then they wonder why they don't come out of the bad times as strong as they thought they would. Thanks to Adrants for the tip!

Read it. Share it. Learn it.

You know that tired old mantra as to why it's smart to advertise during a recession? Ever wonder why it's regurgitated ad naseum every time the economy tanks? Because it's true! Yes, advertising during a recession is the right thing to and there's research top back that up.

A McGraw-Hill study of 600 businesses found businesses that maintained or increased their ad spend saw higher sales growth during a recession and in the years following. In fact, the study found those who maintained or increased their ad budgets experienced a 256 percent increase in sales compared to those who cut their budgets.  (Emphasis mine)

Another study found businesses that advertised during a recession saw their market share increase 2.5 times.

And if you think waiting until the recession is over is a smart thing to do, consider this; a third study revealed 80 percent of the businesses that waited until a post-recession economic expansion to advertise saw zero increase in market share. Which, of course, is obvious since everyone else began advertising again.

Sadly, not many companies take these facts to heart. Rather, they recoil, close the wallet and pray. Other realities come into play such as the indisputable realization that if there's no budget, there's no budget. And all the desire in the world to advertise during a recession isn't going to change that sad fact.

But...if you can beg borrow and steal, study after study proves, time and again, it's the smart thing to do.

Smart Marketers Advertise During A Recession. You Should Too - Adrants.

What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate

Movie buffs know that line from the great Paul Newman movie, Cool Hand Luke. Newman, as the title character in the movie, seems to have some problems in the southern prison that he's in. Each time he breaks the rules, the warden says to him "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

I did a lot of walking today, gathering information for some upcoming walking tours and this one of the the quotes floating around my head as I thought about how brands are and should be communicating to their audiences. Another quote in my head all day comes from Herbert Simon in the early 70's:

What does an abundance of information create? A scarcity of attention

The two thoughts suddenly ran together and I began to ask myself if our abundance of information might actually be creating a failure to really communicate.

A few times when I've spoken at a conference, I've opened with a cacophony of sound, building to a crescendo of just noise. And then it all stops. I then describe two futures of advertising. One where we just try to yell louder then everyone else and one we're we're speaking in a direct voice and I ask the audience which one they'd like. Everyone says the 2nd future, but I'd bet most people spend their day working towards the 1st one.

Right now, Twitter's all the rage and I'm there a good deal myself. But I did some quick math and if you follow 5,000 people and each one of those people only sends one tweet/day and it takes you 5 seconds to read each tweet, you're spending 6.9 hours per day just reading them. Right now one of my morning frustrations is trying to catch up on all of the tweets I missed overnight. And I'm following less then 600 people. Can you have any really meaningful conversation with 5 or 10 thousand people?

So first, we have an abundance of information. Then I started to think about the instantaneousness of our communication today. Does the fact that we can communicate immediately mean that we should?

For example, I think I was one of the few people who didn't really think there was a Motrin controversy. And before people say I'm a guy and I just don't understand, I was the house Daddy for Sydney before she went to day care. She spent many hours in her Baby Bjorn strapped to my body. Sydney was 9 pounds, 6 ounces, so at the end of a day of walking around with her, I felt that I totally bonded with her (at almost 8, she's still a snugly kid with me) and my back hurt. I wasn't offended by the ad.

But I was surprised by the incredible frustration that people expressed because they had been talking about this commercial for like 24 hours -- on a Saturday, no less -- and no one from Motrin had responded yet.

Just because we can communicate 24/7, does that mean we have to respond instantly?

As I said at the time, if the complaint was that someone found rat poison or something in a bottle of Motrin, they should've responded immediately and as big as they could. But, people not liking their commercial does not create a life-threatening situation that required a response that quickly.

So if next you have a scarcity of attention, how do you break through? My previous post showed an augmented reality demo being developed at MIT and in that post I asked what happens when people actually can control all of the media that they experience.

Even with all of our talk about two-way communications and relationships and engaging the consumer, we're still frequently using the new tools just to push messages out. Hey, of course I'll tweet this post when it's done.

Most of what we call interactive really isn't. It's watching a video on-line fundamentally different then watching it on TV? Does the fact that it's on-line make it interactive? Is using Twitter for customer service really different then using any other tool for customer service? It's faster and it hits more people, but it's still, good old fashioned hearing & listening to the customer.

I while back (Experience Manifesto: Why Advertising Will Destroy Social Media), I wrote about a study that showed that companies were very excited about SM because it allowed them to listen to their customers. At the time, I said that's what's wrong with most of our business world, we thought it was a paradigm shift that could listen to our customers!

So we do we do in a world where we have an abundance of information and a scarcity of attention? Create just in time marketing that allows us to deliver the right information to the right person at the right time. When I'm shopping for a car, I want all of the car information I can find. Once I've actually bought a car, I don't want any more car information.

We believe that just-in-time marketing creates a huge opportunity, especially for placed-based media (like at retail) that we haven't even begun to explore. This is not just digital networks running content we don't really pay attention to, this is creating ways to give people the information they need to make a purchase decision when they want to and how they want it.

But that takes a lot of work and really, for the most part, I think that too often we don't really think it's worth the effort. We've got to find the balance between the abundance of information and a scarcity of attention. That's why we believe in just-in-time communication. Get people the information when they want it and you'll find that people will give you the attention you want.

Sent wirelessly from Nokia 9500 & T-Mobile

Mr. Clean Takes Car-Wash Gig - WSJ.com

I'm a big fan of this idea and hope that it will be successful for P&G. I think it's really an excellent way for P&G to put the Mr. Clean brand front & center with consumers and probably a whole lot cheaper then a large, national ad campaign!

The giant manufacturer of household staples including Pampers diapers, Crest toothpaste and Gillette razors is forging a new business model: franchising car washes.

To jump-start plans for a nationwide chain of Mr. Clean Car Wash franchises, P&G in December acquired the franchise assets of Atlanta-based Carnett's Car Wash, which has 14 locations.

"We need to look for new opportunities to allow us to grow," says Bruce Brown, P&G's chief technology officer. "That isn't limited to things within our current business model."

P&G is under mounting pressure to find new sources of revenue growth, particularly as more cash-strapped shoppers think twice about buying its premium-priced products. Wall Street is increasingly skeptical that the mammoth company can garner meaningful gains in its slow-growing product categories and a tough economy.

Known for exhaustively testing new ideas, Procter & Gamble has been quietly experimenting with service businesses in recent years. Since 2007, it has operated two Mr. Clean Car Washes near its Cincinnati headquarters. Last year, it unveiled three Tide dry-cleaning shops in Kansas City, Kan., area. Also in 2007, P&G said it bought a minority stake in membership-based medical services firm MDVIP, based in Boca Raton, Fla.

Professional car washing, which rings up about $35 billion in sales a year in the U.S., according to P&G estimates, won out as the company's first major franchise push. "We want to blow this out to a national network of car washes," Mr. Brown says.

The car-washing business has a handful of competitive advantages, says Nathan Estruth, vice president of P&G's FutureWorks, which develops new business ventures. It lacks a dominant national chain, aging baby boomers are reluctant to wash cars themselves and more water-strapped communities are pushing professional car cleaning as a conservation measure.

Mr. Clean Takes Car-Wash Gig - WSJ.com.

Publicis Shuts Down Honeyshed - Agency News - Advertising Age

We covered Honeyshed back in 2007 and we weren't that impressed with it then (see Experience Manifesto: HoneyShed) and now it seems that it's been shut down. They kept talking about it like it was something new & bold and it just never seemed to be much of either. And given most of the comments I've seen about it's closing, I'm not sure how much it's going to be missed.

The BNET Advertising Blog had this to say in their posting yesterday:

The site was hosted by painfully trendy presenters with amateurish presentation skills, making viewers wonder whether they were watching a satire of something they were too old or square to understand. There also seemed to be a high level of dependency upon girls in short-shorts.

It's another great example of people getting all caught up in cool words and shiny baubles (and, of course, scantily glad girls) and no one looking at the real value of what they're doing. I was surprised that there was no mention of any revenues in the articles I saw, but lots of talk about traffic and unique viewers and the like. But, it was supposed to be a retail site. They could've looked at Zappos or Amazon and looked at what made them work so well and then added the unique content elements that they tried.

And I know that I'm almost twice the target age, but I hated the content. Didn't find it compelling at all. I didn't get was so new and exciting about it. Even the folks at Honeyshed liked to call themselves a cross between QVC and MTV. Maybe they forgot to notice that QVC actually sells products. Maybe they spent so much working on their witty scripts that they didn't have time to work on figuring out how to actually sell products.

And given the success of Zappos, QVC, Amazon and others, I don't really see how this was the future of advertising either. Folks, it was funky infomercials! We've had those few years. Does no one remember that the commercials were actually done by the casts of radio shows and they seemed to be more a part of the show. It was only the effort to create a standard advertising buy that made us come up with the advertising world we know today.

But, I'm sure there'll be another shiny bauble that people are willing to christen the next big thing and we'll all forget about Honeyshed.

Publicis Groupe, citing economic pressures, has decided to shutter its much-watched online-shopping venture Honeyshed just months after it finally got up and running.

The ill-fated creative experiment was the brainchild of David Droga but was birthed through a partnership between Mr. Droga's agency, Droga5, hotshot production house Smuggler and funding from Publicis, which published reports put at about $25 million. Its aim was to reinvent the online-shopping experience to make it more entertaining and engaging for the 18- to 35-year-old-set. Users could digitally "window shop" brands via vignettes in which attractive youngsters peddle products on channels dubbed "Fun Shit" and "Kicks to Lids" before making online purchases.

"It's fine to be optimistic and bold about something that's new in this space, but given the economic climate, the promise of certainty is more responsible than the allure of massive potential," said Mr. Droga.

Publicis Shuts Down Honeyshed - Agency News - Advertising Age.

Publicis Closes Droga5’s Honeyshed — and Nobody Is Surprised | BNET Advertising Blog | BNET.

Burger King’s scent of love now flame broiled - BostonHerald.com

Um, OK. I'm sure that this is another C+P stunt for Burger King.

Burger King is hoping to be known as more than “The Home of the Whopper.” This weekend, the fast food chain rolled out “Flame,” a new men’s body spray billed as “the scent of seduction with a hint of flame-broiled meat.”

Burger King’s scent of love now flame broiled - BostonHerald.com.

BURGER KING® FLAME™ - Body spray of seduction, with a hint of flame-broiled meat..

2009 Social Media Predictions

Peter Kim has put together a wide range of predictions about social media for 2009 and I've listed a few of my favs below. If you click on the link below, you can go to vote for your favorites as well. My top three picks:

People will rally to support companies they love when hard times hit (remember the people who sent cash to Southwest after 9/11?). Companies that focus on earning love will thrive during hard times, and kick ass when good times return. [from Andy Sernovitz]

With money tight and tensions high, consumers will not tolerate bad service. They will flip out, very publicly, using social media. [from Andy Sernovitz]

Putting the "me" back in customer service, customers, tired of being asked to pay more for less, will look to product guarantees and service warranties to make their purchasing experience worthwhile. When denied, they'll take (or threaten to take) their case to the web. Good customer service will differentiate a mediocre brand and a superb brand. [from Scott Monty]

As usual, I tend to gravitate to simple thoughts, like that if you create a good product/service, treat people well (both externally and internally) and deliver on your promises, people will give you the same support back. Here's something I wrote in October of last year:

It does beg the question as to how much loyalty Northern Rock created with it's customers before this all began. Too many brands use a crisis as the first real time they reach out to say "Hey, we're here for you. Help us get though this and we'll be there for you when it's all over." But when the crisis is over, they go back to business as usual. Do you think they'll offer to drop the interest rates on their mortgages for people who leave their money where it is? Or will they send your nasty notes when you're a day late with your mortgage payment?

You know, since I started reading about all of this, I can't help but think about Jimmy Stewert and the Bailey Savings & Loan. I can just picture him stuttering as he asks people to leave their money in the bank because it'll be safe. Trust me, he says. I live here too and I'll take care of you.

When companies take care of people, people take care of companies! But all of this brings up an excellent point. Social media only works if the company actually does good work to begin with. We've talked about this a great deal. Too many people in our industry look at social media as a new and revolutionary tool.

What is amazing to me is that our industry has so lost touch with the consumer that we think listening to the consumer is a revolutionary idea! Engaging the consumer isn't new, companies have been doing that for centuries! Listening to the consumer certainly shouldn't be new. And it sure as hell shouldn't be considered something that's only done by revolutionary companies!

Back in March, we wrote about why advertising will destroy social media and we think that as the economy heads even further south, our desperation will mess up social media even more. Because we don't really know how to engage the audience on a long term basis. We know how to create a campaign that runs for x amount of time. In this new world, we have to engage the audience each and every day -- forever! It's not enough to get them to see our viral video or think we're cool on Twitter today. Because in the consumers mind, we're only doing these things for short term gain, not long term relationships.

Look at the recent Pizza Hut viral making the rounds. Sure, people are watching it, but most people are commenting on what jerks Pizza Hut is for doing the video. So, in fact, the potential exists in this case that the more people who see the video will translate into more people not liking Pizza Hut. As of today, it has 221,000+ hits and almost 3,000 comments. And while some people think it's funny, most comments I've read ask what it has to do with Pizza Hut. And when the description says Just me and my buddy Joey havin' some fun with our local pizza joints... Cuz why not!?, are there really people who just think these are two random guys who thought that this would be funny? Do they really think this is just an authentic piece of fun by 2 friends with nothing else to do but pull this prank? Will this really drive traffic to Pizza Hut or just make folks want to visit their local pizza joint.

So, take a look at the whole list and cast your vote. As of 3:20 PM today, my three picks above are still the leaders of the polls. And for me, that's not just a vote for social media. That's a vote for companies that create compelling, authentic & relevant brand experiences. But hey, that's just me.

But the discussion by most in the ad industry about social media is just the latest tactic du jour. We had branded content, Second Life, viral, WOM, and on and on. Read the trades and look at how many times over the past couple of years, a slew of companies were built around chasing the tactic du jour. How many social media companies have been started in the past 6 months? But we do this instead of helping clients understand the true value of connecting with their audience by any means possible and appropriate. For many agencies and clients, they're just tactics that we jump on and jump off like they were a trampoline.

And this is why I believe that, as a whole, the advertising industry will completely screw up the entire social media thing until it becomes just as useless as what we now call traditional advertising is today. Because too many of them think that listening to clients counts as doing something revolutionary.

2009 Social Media Predictions. Click here to see all of the predictions and vote for your favorite.

Being Peter Kim: Social Media Predictions 2009.

Experience Manifesto: What is Social Media?.

Experience Manifesto: Social Networks + Advertising = Amway.

Experience Manifesto: Why Advertising Will Destroy Social Media.

Experience Manifesto: BEL Predictions Overview.

Experience Manifesto: Some Predictions for 2007, Part I.