Since Apple launched their iBeacons, a Bluetooth-based proximity channel, some marketers have seen them as the saviour of in-store engagement. Retailers from Macy’s to Tesco’s are trialling the technology. In France, the supermarket chain Carrefour is putting them in 1000 stores. However, beacons present a common digital marketing challenge; technology itself is never a brand marketing solution. In the late 90s nearly $200 million was put into a scanning device called Cue Cat. It was sent to over 1.5m million people in the hope that they would scan bar codes printed in magazines instead of typing in URLs. In spite of the backing from major brands and publishers, the project was a failure. From a user perspective it didn’t solve any problems. When Beacons first launched I wrong a blog, Bluetooth the Revenge, pointing out the limitations of beacons as a marketing technology. The two practical hurdles are that people need an app installed and their Bluetooth turned on. Whenever I have researched it, that number is around 30% of people (there’s some research here). So 70% don’t have their Bluetooth on. For brands, as always, the key is to get the engagement right. They need to give their customers some pretty good reasons to use iBeacons. I’m not sure if giving offers is enough. To get users to engage, brands will need to use it to solve real problems, not just encourage more purchases. There have been a couple of recent studies, that suggest, unsurprisingly, that users don’t want to be stalked by brands in store. Opinion Lab, for example found that 77% of people don’t want to be tracked in shops. Our phones are personal and it seems like we have enough marketing already. My worry with beacons is that they will simply be consigned to the dustbin of technology history. In a few years time will we look back and say ‘do you remember iBeacons’, along with the Apple Newton and the Cue Cat?
Whilst some are calling the iWatch a game changer, many tech observers have missed the point. The iWatch is a fashion accessory and it makes Apple a fashion brand. Whilst previous products from the iPod onwards have had a lifestyle element to their branding, the watch puts Apple firmly into the fashion accessory market. The industry bible, Women’s Wear Daily pointed out that Apple’s real competition is not from other tech providers such as Samsung, but the from the mid-range watch manufacturers such as Swatch and Guess. Both of these companies are developing their own products due out within the next 12 months.
Apple understand the importance of being a fashion brand. They have made significant hires from Burberry and Gap, not to mention the addition of leading designer Marc Newson. A number of fashion and watch journalists were invited to the launch event, which further demonstrates the importance of the sector to Apple.
What was the fashion industry’s reaction to the iWatch? Generally favourable, but not totally blown away. It’s probably best summed up by Alex Blanter from A.T. Kearney, who specialises in fashion insight:
“Everybody is still trying to figure out how to make a smartwatch a truly must-have device, rather than an interesting and curious novelty,”
An interesting take on the iWatch came from HSBC Research who looked at the market for the product in China. They pointed out that luxury watches are bought not to tell the time, but as a status symbol. Is the iWatch a sufficient status symbol for that marketing? They pointed out that the most significant market in this area were as gifts. On that basis, Louis Vuitton or high end sporting goods are competitors as much as watch brands. Perhaps that is Apple’s biggest challenge. Whilst smartphones are (arguably) an essential item, the iWatch is not. As an accessory, watches are replaced much less frequently than smartphones. Whilst there is clearly a market amongst the early adopters, does it have what it takes to compete in the higher end accessories market?
One thing that is in Apple’s favour is that they’ve created a product that has watchmaker’s credentials. The Hodinkee watch blog declared the iWatch to be a bona fide time-piece, from the overall design, through to the straps, the astronomy face and the rotating crown. The review makes a convincing case for the iWatch as a genuine watch. An odd press release from Guess also suggests that Apple have made a significant entry (or threat, even) to the market. In A Letter to CEO of Apple, From CEO of Guess Watches, Cindy Livingston said:
‘We personally welcome this new challenge to remain relevant to our young, sexy and adventurous consumers.’
This is not the first time that Apple has entered an existing market saturated with products. Aside from the brief partnership with Motorola, Apple had never launched a phone before the iPhone. Whilst the success of the iWatch as a tech product remains to be seen, when it comes to a fashion audience maybe Apple have got it right.
I recently spoke at an event about the role of mobile and big data. The two most useful examples related to health. The first was how the movement of mobile phones in Kenya helps to identify the movement of mosquitos and thus the spread of Malaria. The second was how Swedish and US researchers used mobile movements track people in the Haiti disaster area, and the number who had left subsequently. From this they could identify the number of missing people.
Could the same approach be made to manage the spread of Ebola? If health organisations could use location from the mobile operators it would be possible to see where people from infected areas have moved to (including overseas). From this they could spot where the virus might appear next. That could deliver a much faster response and to isolate the outbreaks more quickly. Just a thought. Or maybe it’s already being done?
How can brand marketers leverage ‘big data’ to engage more users? That’s pretty much the question that I was asked to speak about recently at the DMA. The explosion of mobile is certainly creating a lot of data, from active channels such as social media updates or sharing, to passive data such as location services or WiFi connections. However, using that information in brand marketing is not that simple. Whilst it’s straight forward on a technical level, but even where individuals are not identified, they are wary of intrusion because mobile devices are so personal. Perhaps the answer lies in focusing on the user, being useful and delivering a better service. The best examples of this come not form brands, but from using mobile data to bring improvements in areas such as healthcare.
The following Slideshare is from my talk, ‘Mobile and The Big Data Question’.
- TV Wrist Watches
- GPS watches
- Bluetooth earpieces (popular with taxi drivers and nightclub bouncers)
- VR headsets
- LED T-Shirts
Predictions for wearable sales show growing numbers:
- Juniper estimates 70m wearable devices sold by 2017 of which 10m will be smartglasses.
- ABI research predicts that 90m wearables will be sold in 2014
Sounds like a lot? Compare that to smartphones, where 456m were sold in the third quarter in 2013, making sales of close to 1 billion per year. To give wearable uptake a bit more context, think about the rapid adoption rates of iPads or apps. There’s a long way to go for wearables.
I think there are three primary reasons why wearable uptake will be so slow:
- Most of these are essentially prototypes and just don’t work that well – Google Glass is still in beta, for example. Nearly 1/3rd of the first batch of Galaxy Gear watches were returned to the store
- Battery technology has lagged behind the development of computing. For example, many users have complained that life logging devices offer little more than an hour’s use (one hour doesn’t really count as life logging)
- Many people just don’t see the point. In a 2013 study, 20% of people in the UK said that they would like Glass banned in public. More recently, another survey found that 50% of owners didn’t use their fitness bands any longer.
This last point is the greatest barrier to adoption. Whilst online news and blogging sites are full of technologists who love all the gadgets, that doesn’t seem to represent the majority. Most people just aren’t that bothered. We love our smartphones, which have become the centre of our digital lives. Health is certainly one area where wearables can offer real benefits, but aside from specific applications, wearables have a long way to go before they become truly useful.
Remember Bluetooth marketing? Well it’s back, kind of, in the form of Beacons and Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE). It’s a proximity device that connects to smartphones via BLE and can send information and take payments seamlessly. There was much talk in marketing circles about the potential of Apple’s iBeacon, but what are the possibilities for marketers? And is it a realistic proposition?
At 2013’s launch of the iPhone 5S/C one feature slipped by barely noticed – iBeacons. The system makes use of a function called Bluetooth Low Energy. It has been available in high end smartphones for a few years, and unlike its earlier predecessor, it uses tiny amounts of power to connect to nearby devices. Beacons are small units (2-3cm long) that can be powered off a lithium watch battery for a couple of years. These can then be situated around a store and send data to and from smartphones via an app.
Imagine I go in to a department store, and I have their app on my smartphone. As I enter it, a Beacon picks up my presence and alert pops up on my mobile to tell me of an offer in a particular department. As I reach the relevant department, the app tells me where the product is. If I decide to purchase, then I can simply confirm that through the app. At the till, a photo pops up to confirm my identity and I leave the store. For many brands, that kind of scenario seems to offer a great solution to problems such as ‘showrooming’. It allows them to have a consumer conversation precisely at the point of purchase.
The system has already been tested by Shopkick in Macy’s and will shortly be rolled out to over 100 Amerian Eagle Stores. . There are also companies such as Estimote who are supplying beacons that can be cheaply purchased. Some commentators have suggested that they will become an important, distruptive technology this year
Of course, Beacons are not without their problems, many of them are similar to the old-style Bluetooth. For starters, the handset needs to have the right features available; BLE and location services turned on, and a relevant app installed (according to TNS, around 35% of people in the UK use the Bluetooth feature on their handset). But as with other marketing technologies, there are also issues of user permissions and expectations. Whilst Beacons can be used to precisely monitor and guide customers through a store, the question is whether they will find this acceptable. For example, will consumers allow their photo to pop-up on the store till in order to allow them to make an automated payment on their smartphone? Given recent privacy issues from the NSA to the WiFi tracking in London, it is unlikely that consumers will trust brands enough to allow it (there will be the inevitable cry of ‘Minority Report’).
In many ways, Beacons are a slightly more targeted version of Bluetooth marketing. Some people think it could change the world, but history suggests that the take up by consumers will be pretty small.
In his book 23 Things They Don’t Tell You about Capitalism, Ha-Joon Chang, suggests that the invention of the washing machine has brought about major social change. In the US, it allowed women to enter the world of work much more easily, thus driving significant changes in the social structure. Clearly, the invention of the washing machine addressed an important problem. On the other hand, LG’s texting washing machine does not (Charles Arthur explained the problem very well, in last week’s Observer). The washing machine is just one of a number of objects that connect through LGs system, HomeChat.
At the recent Consumer Electronics Show the talk in the tech world lately has been around connecteds and wearables. The low cost of computing and ease of development is seeing a plethora of products from both major electronic companies and start-up businesses. CES was packed with them … as someone pointed out, there were more wearables than wrists available.
‘Who buys an internet fridge and doesn’t already own a tablet? Who goes “I’ve got an iPad but I’d rather listen to music on my fridge”?’
Tom Coates, Mind the Product 2012
The problem that many of these products have is that they don’t address any real problems, nor make my life better. Of course if the machine could dry, fold and put the clothes away, then that would be interesting to me. Or better still, invent self cleaning fabrics that required no washing and no water or power usage. CES has therefore demonstrated the problem with the next generation of computing (or the Internet of Things or Connecteds and Wearables, or whatever you’d like to call them). There are many possibilities for the technology, but very few uses. It looks like we’re in for a phase of slightly useless ‘enhancements’ that we just don’t need.
This Tumblr probably explains the problem best: http://fuckyeahinternetfridge.tumblr.com/
The world of wearable computing is not just a human affair. Otto, a UK Startup has developed a connected collar, feeder and cloud services for dogs and cats. Think Nike Fuel for animals (but with knobs on). Otto addresses a real problem, that of the growing obesity in dogs and cats. There are 130 million overweight animals in the US, UK and France alone.
The company has developed an activity tracker that attaches to a collar. It measures the energy used by a dog and cat, which is then mapped against the size and breed to deliver a feeding plan, all controlled by a smarphone app. Additionally, a feeder can be added that automatically dispenses the right amount of food based on the energy used by the pet.
Otto is currently at the prototype stage, and the company has just launched an Indiegogo campaign to raise funds for full production here: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/otto-petcare-systems/x/5668585
The Re:Work conference was a multi-disciplinary event packed with some interesting tech, from health to connected objects to urban design. Here’s just some of the things that caught my eye:
Bots, bots and bots …
- Mobile Bots – Some very handy tech from Helical Robotics that solve problems in hard to access places. They’ve developed climbing bots that are able to inspect and repair wind turbines. Most impressive were a set of autonomous mobile bots that could assemble pipelines in remote environments.
- Shape shifting robots – using the principles of Origami, these are small robots that can reconfigure themselves – called ‘Robogami’. There are a many applications for the tech, but these bots are particularly useful in the medical field – they can help with facial paralysis by becoming a therapy tool that fits the shape of the wearer’s head.
- Pancake making bots – whilst it’s not exactly going to take the drudgery out of everyday life, here’s an example of a bot that taught itself to make pancakes with instructions from Wikihow. Is it churlish to say that using pre-mix pancakes is cheating? Next up, the blini making bot.
2D, 3D and 4D Objects …
- Connected print (2D) – I love simple, accessible solutions that harness existing technologies. Using conductive inks, Novalia showed a poster of a fully working drum kit. Their examples connected to small, cheap soundboards, but the printing could also connect Makey Makey, Arduino or Raspberry Pi boards.
- The 3D printed house – many people have talked about the concept, but DUS Architects in The Netherlands are actually doing it. Using a giant 3D printer they are building a canal-side house over the course of 6 months.
- 4D Objects – Yes, 4D! The fourth dimension is time. Printing complex objects in 3D is all very well, but putting them together can be a very time consuming, manual process. The solution is to create self-assembling objects that use little or no energy. Skyler Tibbits from MIT’s Self Assembly Lab http://selfassemblylab.net/ is part of a cross disciplinary team developing 4D. Of course, we’re probably all thinking one thing; wouldn’t it be great if our Ikea furniture could assemble itself. See this video to understand how it works:
And a few more interesting bits …
- The invisible cycle helmet – An elegant solution to the problem of looking silly in a cycle helmet. It’s been widely covered in the tech press, but if you missed it, here’s see how the helmet works.
- Interaction – Joel Gethin Lewis (from Hellicar and Lewis) has made some really cool work. Some for brands (such as Coca Cola/Maroon 5), some are health projects and others as pure art.
Two great examplesfrom Hellicar and Lewis are:
Somantics – a superb fee app that helps young people on the autistic spectrum to express themselves – download the app!
Hello Cube – an art interactive art project designed by Yayoi Kusama and controlled by Twitter users
Best of all, they open source all their work, even the brand projects. You can download some useful code their Github site.
For more on the Re:Work conference, there’s a useful Storify here: http://storify.com/elisenardin/re-work-tech-2013-a-recap or visit the Re:work site.
A good example of innovation is this. A defibrillator that can be delivered to remote areas, quickly, by a drone quadracopter and managed from a smartphone. The reason why it is innovative is not the use of technology, but the application of it to address a real problem.
You can read more on it here: http://www.fastcoexist.com/3017084/this-drone-defibrillator-can-fix-your-heart-in-the-middle-of-nowhere#3