Posted by Jason

A new J.D. Power survey finds that most people don’t use the new technology auto makers are putting into their cars. According to the survey:

At least 20 percent of new-vehicle owners have never used 16 of the 33 technology features measured. The five features owners most commonly report that they “never use” are in-vehicle concierge (43%); mobile routers (38%); automatic parking systems (35%); head-up display (33%); and built-in apps (32%). There are 14 technology features that 20 percent or more of owners do not want in their next vehicle, including Apple CarPlay and Google Android Auto, in-vehicle concierge services and in-vehicle voice texting. Among Gen Y, the number of features unwanted by at least 20 percent of owners increases to 23, specifically technologies related to entertainment and connectivity systems.

The angle of the survey can be seen in the headline of its press release, “Automakers Spending Billions on Technologies That Many Consumers Don’t Use.” That’s a relatively fair angle. But then again, how many of the built-in features of anything do we use? Like in our phones, the thing we fiddle with the most? Or Microsoft Office? Or video cameras? Most people use only a fraction of the features in any technology.

The study itself cites the predilection of people bringing in their own tech into the car, making many of the features redundant. It also mentions the very important point that the main purpose of a car is to drive it. It’s designed to drive, and for most of us, that’s all we’ll do with it.

But really, this is all part of the inevitable evolution to self-driving cars. After all, it’s real easy to see the headline of the article go from, “Most people don’t use the tech in their cars” to “Most people don’t use anything in their cars.” Except maybe the seat, of course.

Photo credit: Abdullah AlBargan

Posted by Jason

It’s been said for years: Every business is a software business. Whatever your product or service, whatever your industry, how your clients interact with what you provide will more often then not be through a user interface. That app will be your touchpoint, your brand impression, your differentiator, and often, it will become your product. It will be the experience that you are actually selling while selling other things. So everybody needs to get good at the branded software experience or hire somebody good to help them with it.

But a recent Bloomberg Business piece highlights a surprising-but-I-guess-not-surprising outcome of that shift.

The LeBron James Family Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to helping students succeed academically, needed an app to track how its students were doing. So, since they had a world-famous figurehead, they naturally went after a world-famous software developer…JP Morgan.

Seriously. They went to a bank to develop an app. And I don’t mean for a loan to fund the app, but to build the actual app.

And this isn’t an anomaly. The story cites Wells Fargo developing a Christmas app for a mall client and Goldman Sachs building an app store.

There’s a few reasons that the story lists for JP Morgan doing this, including as an add-on value for financial customers and a way to fight off those pesky financial start-ups that are software to the bone. But it really all comes down to the fact that the company realized it needed that software to be competitive for its financial clients, developed the capabilities for it, and can now sell those capabilities separate from their main business.

If there was only a financial services term for what that is.

They end the article conservatively but appropriately, that JP Morgan isn’t looking to be in the pure software business, but can see itself evolving into a consultant that brings in third-party developers. Then again, we’re third-party developers here, so of course we think that’s a good idea.

Making app development capabilities a priority, whether you build those expert capabilities in-house or partner to bring in those expert capabilities, is the only way a modern business will compete and innovate. And who knows what other doors those capabilities will open.

Photo credit: Karen Roe

Posted by Jason

By this point in the technology cycle, the recent Cisco and IMD survey findings that four out of 10 top-ranked companies within their industries won’t last the next five years is not surprising. Even the study authors note that there is an “historical parallel to what occurred after the advent of the Web in the mid 1990s: Just 25 percent of the Fortune 100 top U.S. companies were still in existence 15 years later.”

We get it. Businesses need to reinvent what they do and how they do it, and they need do it at the speed of digital. But that’s hard, and there are a lot of reasons why businesses, and especially B2B ones, can’t just wave a magic app and “do” that. But there is a group within every B2B that doesn’t have any excuses for not innovating: The Marketing Department.

Consumer marketing is defined by its innovation, by its ability to come up with new ways to get to consumers, new ways to be memorable. B2B marketers should be sharing that same imperative to innovate for the same reasons.

But B2B marketing is often stuck in the same old dinosaur tracks, doing the same old things and hoping to Warren Buffet that the status quo will hide them. That’s why B2B marketing is often just a factory for quick collateral, amateur presentations, emails, and conference booth wrappings. In other words, things that are low-risk and expected.

But as a marketer, it’s your job to make your company stand out—and to stand out inside your company while you do so. And today, there are all kinds of ways to do that.

We’re in the experience era, where everything must be contributing to a unique, high-quality, brandable experience, whether that’s a simple microsite or a PowerPoint presentation. We’re in the apps era, where new tools are being invented every day to aid the sales force. We’re in, well, a lot of eras. So there’s no reason to not jump in and start experimenting and innovating. Well, there is a reason, it’s called “hide, squirrel away budget, and hope to survive.” But that’s not a good one.

When B2B companies inevitably tighten belts, it’s often the marketing department that’s sliced. Why? Sure, it’s partly because in the B2B world, it’s easy to mistake marketing for a luxury as it’s not easy to gauge its impact on sales. But mostly, they’re in danger because it’s extremely obvious that the marketing part of the business isn’t innovating, so the loss is a minimal one that can be remedied later in more liquid times.

The marketing department is there to help make the sale, either indirectly through brand awareness or directly through how it equips its sales force. Just like the digital business, to continue to do that effectively, the marketing department must disrupt itself. Before it gets disrupted.

Photo credit: Karen Roe

Posted by Mike

This was the question that we arrived at when we were thinking through some of the fundamental business challenges our telecommunications industry customers were facing a couple of years ago. We wondered on their behalf, “What revenue-generating opportunities are adjacent to the communications services they offer today?”

We landed on text.

We looked at SMS, and we looked at Twitter - what’s essentially a public SMS service - and we thought, “Imagine if you could use text messaging to do things?” This line of thinking lead us to a concept that we called, MetaText. At the core of MetaText was the idea of using the hashtag - a common “meta” texting tool - to add interactivity to text messaging. For instance, what if I could text, “#Pay $25 for lunch” to my friend and the transaction would just occur seamlessly…no websites…no apps…just text. What if I could text, “Do you want to see #JurassicWorld tonight?” to a friend and the movie trailer along with showtimes and ticketing options showed up in my SMS window? Again, right there in the context of our conversation, I could interact with rich web content, make a multilateral decision, and conduct commerce.

The work that we did on MetaText is what made me so fascinated by this recent Wired article, The Future of UI Design? The Old-School Text Message. It looks like text is finally an idea whose time has come. The thought-provoking question the article begs about the future of information interaction is an exciting one. We’ve already written about the continued rise of AI, and with it the seemingly inevitable end of the interface. Whether it is text, speech, or just pure thought, it seems that we will soon be interacting with information in a far more intuitive way. To that we say, “Finally!”

The other exciting thing about this article is that it is a reminder about how much fun it is to work at Maark. To see an idea that we published years ago finally gain momentum focuses us on what it means to be an Innovation Agency. Every agency like ours wants to be an Innovation Agency, but the truth is, we don’t always get to be one. Sometimes we are a Production Agency, serving as an extra set of hands for clients too busy to focus on anything past their immediate need. Sometimes we are an Ad Agency, creating clever messages and neat advertising to reach discreetly targeted audiences. But at the end of the day, when we get to be an Innovation Agency we get to help our clients imagine the future and discover where they fit into it. That’s a huge challenge, and an awesome opportunity.

It’s here that we are most useful, and have the most fun. And it’s this mission that catalyzes both great stories and our best ideas for how to tell them. It’s always inspiring to see ideas move forward, hastening what is to us, our sometimes-imaginable future. #WhatsNext

Every once in a while, I think of popular ideas in terms of “What would VH1 do with it?” I wonder that when the cable channel eventually does its I Love the 2010s show, how will they look at things we find worth our time today? And, of course, it’s real easy to do that with tech, especially wearables. I mean, if our future is indeed continued human-small device interaction (and that is arguable), wearables seem inevitable. But it seems real easy for pop culture comedians to make fun of how we do it these days: strapping sensors on our wrists.

There are a few ways to approach this idea with skepticism. First, that the data is even that valuable. Does my sleep patterns, steps taken, and heartbeat over weeks, months, or years matter that much? Certainly in the doctor’s office, they spend the least amount of time on my pulse and are fine with single-word answers to their question, “How are you sleeping?”. Again, continuing in that skeptical vein, it’s real easy to paint these health-tracking wearables as a way for device makers who’ve hit the wall on phone technology to sell us something new.

But a bigger problem that is becoming more and more talked about is the accuracy of these devices in the first place. Like this recent MIT Technology Review piece:

Results varied, and sometimes they varied a lot. The [Microsoft] Band’s average heart-rate measurements were consistently closer to the results of the Polar chest strap—sometimes within a beat or two per minute, but they could be as many as 13 beats off. The Apple Watch, meanwhile, gave readings as many as 77 beats per minute different from the Polar device. Measurements of calories burned (something all three bands, including the Up3, track) were also somewhat inconsistent; on one morning commute, for instance, they ranged from 143 to 187.

And it’s not a rare view. The doubt is happening everywhere, enough so that these fitness device makers are already spinning it, that it’s not about accuracy, it’s about health engagement.

Even analysts are jumping in on the doubt-fest:

Global research and advisory firm Forrester Research thinks that wearables will go the way of ”the Flip camera or the single-purpose e-reader,” according to Re/Code, meaning they will grow in popularity for a few years before petering out. While some technology, like smartphones, are able to gain true ubiquity, some believe that wearable tech is not likely to do the same.

The problems with these health-tracking wearables is manifold, that they are mass-marketed devices for people who aren’t mass-marketed, that the range of data they can track is too tiny to deliver any worthwhile conclusions about our overall health, that the technology just isn’t there yet for any meaningful data.

So, basically, the chances of an aging Hal Sparks comparing Fitbit to the copper bracelets of yore seems more and more like how it’ll go.

Photo credit: TeppoTK