The Sharing Economy meets the Internet of Things

This post has been reblogged by IBM and is reproduced on their Tumblr sites. The original is available below in its entirety.

Noise over what has been called Collaborative Consumption – and elsewhere The Sharing Economy – has been increasing in volume for some months now. Kickstarter, a crowdfunding business that exists to let people from anywhere in the world donate to singular projects, is a great example of this new philosophy. The company has played roles in funding films, games consoles and civic projects like the construction of bridges. Zeitgeist has made use of sites likes AirBnB and Housetrip to stay in lovely, very affordable apartments in places like Paris and New York. These diverse businesses aren’t necessarily united in a single cause to drive the sharing economy, but they are all trying to make use of what some economies, particularly in the West, excel at producing: surplus.

It’s an acknowledgment that there are physical items we own that we don’t actually need, which are eminently transferable – for a certain period of time – to others, with the market more or less dictating price (it’s this last point that removes any assertions or complaints of the idea being some sort of socialist utopia). At its root, the idea has been seen in media consumption for several years now; we’ve written often about the new customer mantra of ‘access trumps ownership’, where people prefer to stream their content rather than have it on a shelf. This is a bit of a sea-change in how we view ourselves. As a very astute article in The New Yorker pointed out earlier this month, we have often defined ourselves by what we own,

“For most of the past century, Americans have been the world’s greatest consumers. And usually consumption has meant ownership: just before the Great Recession, the average American household owned 2.28 cars, and had more television sets than people. But these days a host of new companies are trying to disrupt the paradigm… beneath all the hype is a sensible idea: there are a lot of slack resources in the economy. Assets sit idle—the average car is driven just an hour a day—and workers have time and skills that go unused. If you can connect the people who have the assets to people who are willing to pay to rent them, you reduce waste and end up with a more efficient system.

Zeitgeist believes that the increasing popularity of another evolution in business – that of connected devices – will dovetail nicely with the sharing economy. The widespread use of connected devices, known as the Internet of Things, is broadly based on the idea of having products that are intelligent enough to know what they are being used for, when they are being used, and how to make sure the user gets the most productivity out them. Connecting said product to the Internet is usually a pretty good way of doing this. At its simplest, it is the much-ballyhooed Smart Fridge, that knows when it’s running out of milk and orders more for you online without having to bother asking you. In reality, it is things like the Nest device, a (very) smart and (very) beautiful thermostat device.

Zeitgeist was at London’s Bloomberg HQ earlier this week for Social Media Week, a series of events usually dominated by a great deal of hot air. Fortunately this was not the case with the Internet of Things event. It quickly became clear that without the Internet of Things, collaborative consumption would plateau very quickly. There were fascinating projects like Pachube, which relied on crowdsourcing data in real-time via Twitter from an aggregation of sensors, allowing them to communicate with one another and at the same time. This information is not only not proprietary, it is meant to be built upon. It was used during Japan’s Fukushima disaster for crowdsourcing radiation data. 2000 feeds were set up after 10 days; Android apps, SMS alerts were built, all by different people, a great example of product and information being shared and being improved by being open to collaboration. On a more humorous level, Zeitgeist was also privy to hearing about Addicted Toasters, where the toaster is not just connected to the owner’s smartphone, or to the Internet, but also to other toaster’s in the network. If it sees that others are toasting more bread, it gets ‘jealous’. By which we mean of course that if it decides it is being under-utilised, it will decide it is time to go to the next person on the waiting list who wants to use a toaster. It does this by dialling into the FedEx API and getting itself shipped to that next person in line. The speakers, Usman Haque, said this was not just about “remote monitoring or control, but participation with others in how people make sense of local environments and how products are shared”. While the Addicted Toaster may be smart, and ostensibly aware of a network of other toasters, many aren’t holistically connected with a wider infrastructure. The driverless car, which companies like Tesla and Google are road-testing as I type, is set to bring about this next evolution, as described last week in an excellent article in the Financial Times. If we do come to a time when – as was suggested at the Bloomberg event – every product has its own IP address, then it means that every product is a lot more easy to track, and necessarily a lot more easy to lend to others. For, if a device is unique and ‘intelligent’, it should hypothetically recognise your own needs when you need it, and another’s when someone else has need of it. A world with fewer items can be pretty cool, too, if pretty small, as entrepreneur Graham Hill demonstrates with his New York apartment that is one room, or eight, depending on how you look at it.

All this sharing undoubtedly has positive implications for sustainability; a lot less produced means a lot less waste. There are potentially huge lifestyle impacts as well, which may not be as comforting. The New Yorker, again:

“It isn’t just companies and regulators who will have to be flexible, though. Workers will, too, since the sharing economy requires people to function as micro-entrepreneurs… They are all independent contractors, working for themselves and giving the companies a cut of the action. This has certain attractions: no boss, the ability to set your own hours, control over working conditions. It also means no benefits, no steady paycheck, and the need to always be hustling; in that sense, it fits all too well with the free-agent nation we’re increasingly becoming. Sharing, it turns out, is often a hell of a lot of work.”

The “Jaws” of death? – Rethinking film industry strategy

Steven Spielberg on-set for “Jaws”. The Leviathan gave birth to the summer blockbuster

This past week, Zeitgeist had the pleasure of enjoying a new adaptation of Shakespeare’s “Much Ado about Nothing”. This adaptation was not performed at the theatre but at the cinema. It was not directed by Kenneth Branagh or any other luminary of the legitimate stage, but rather by the quiet, modest, nerdy Joss Whedon, who until a few years ago was best known to millions as the brains behind the cult TV series phenomenon “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” (full disclosure: Zeitgeist worked on the show in his days of youth). Whedon was picked to direct a film released last year that can, without much difficulty, be seen as the apotheosis of the Hollywood film industry; “The Avengers”. A mise-en-abyme of a concept, involving disparate characters, some of whom already have their own fully-fledged franchises, coming together to form another vehicle for future iterations. “The Avengers” became the third-highest grossing film of all time, and it is a thoroughly enjoyable romp. Moreover, to go from directing on such a broad canvas to shooting a film mostly with friends in one’s own home – as with “Much Ado…” – displays an impressive range of creative ingenuity.

Sadly for shareholders and studio executives’ career aspirations, not every film is as sure-fire a hit as “The Avengers”, try though as they might (and do) to replicate the same mercurial ingredients that lead to success. Marvel, which originally conceived of the myriad characters surrounding The Avengers mythology, was bought in 2009 by Disney for $4bn. Disney for all intents and purposes have a steady strategic head on their shareholders. They parted ways with the quixotic Weinstein brothers while welcoming Pixar back into the fold. They were one of the first to concede the inevitability of closed platforms release windows – something Zeitgeist has written about in the past – they are debuting a game-changing platform, Infinity, which might revolutionise the way children interact with the plethora of memorable characters the studio have dreamt up over the years. However, such sound business strategy could not save them from the uber-flop that was 2012’s “John Carter”, which lost the studio $200m. This summer, the rationale for their biggest release has been built on what appears to be sound logic; taking the on- and off-screen talent behind their massively successful “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise, and bringing them together again for another reboot in the form of “The Lone Ranger”. The New York Times said the film “descends into nerve-racking incoherence”; it has severely underperformed at the box office, after a budget of $250m. Sony’s “After Earth” similarly underperformed, suddenly throwing Will Smith’s bullet-proof reputation for producing hits into jeopardy.

These summer films – “tentpoles” to use the terminology bandied about in Los Angeles – are where the money is made (or not) for studios. As an industry over the past ten years, Zeitgeist has watched as these tentpoles have become more concentrated, more risk-averse and therefore less original, more expensive and more likely either to produce either stratospheric results or spectacular failures. Paramount is an interesting example of a studio that has made itself leaner recently, releasing far fewer films, and relying on franchises to keep the ship afloat. Edtorial Director of Variety Peter Bart seems to think there’s a point when avoiding risk leads to courting entropy. It’s an evolution that has escaped few, yet is was still notable when, last month, famed directors Steven Spielberg and George Lucas spoke out publicly against the way the industry seemed to be headed. Indeed, the atmosphere at studios in Hollywood seems to mimic that of a pre-2008 financial sector; leveraging ever more collateral against assets with significant – and unsustainable – levels of risk. The financial sector uses arcane algorithms and has a large number of Wharton grads whose aim should be to preserve stability and profit. Yet even with all this analysis, they failed to see the gigantic readjustment that was imminent. In the film industry, Relativity Media’s reputation for rigorous predictive models on what will make a film successful is rare enough to have earned it a feature in Vanity Fair. So what hope is there the film industry will change its tune before it is too late? Spielberg pontificates,

“There’s eventually going to be a big meltdown. There’s going to be an implosion where three or four or maybe even a half-dozen of these mega-budgeted movies go crashing into the ground and that’s going to change the paradigm again.”

Instead of correcting course as failures at the box office failed to abate, studios have dug in harder. Said Lucas,

“They’re going for gold, but that isn’t going to work forever. And as a result they’re getting narrower and narrower in their focus. People are going to get tired of it. They’re not going to know how to do anything else.”

Such artistic ennui in audiences is admittedly sclerotic in its visibility at the moment. “Man of Steel”, another attempt at rebooting a franchise – coming only seven years after the last attempt – is performing admirably, with a position still firmly in the top ten at the US box office after four weeks of release, with over $275m taken domestically. It’s interesting to note that audiences have been happy to embrace the new version so quickly after the last franchise launch failed; though actor James Franco finds it contentious, the same has been true with the “Spider-Man” franchise relaunch.

Is M&A finally out of vogue in the Media and Entertainment sector?

Part of the problem in the industry, some say, is to do with those at the top running the various film studios. In “Curse of the Mogul”, written by lecturers at Columbia University, the authors contend that since 2005 the industry as a whole has underperformed versus the S&P stock index, yet such stocks are still eminently attractive to investors. The reason, the authors say, is that those running the businesses frame the notion of success differently. They argue that it takes a very special type of person (i.e. them) to be able to manage not only different media and the different audiences they reach and the different trends that come out of that, but more importantly (in their eyes) to be able to manage the talent. They asked to be judged on Academy Awards rather than bottom lines. The most striking thing in the book – which Zeitgeist is still reading – is the continual pursuit by said mogul of strategic synergies. This M&A activity excites shareholders but has historically led to minimal returns (think Vivendi or AOL Time Warner), often because what was presented as operational or content-based synergy is actually nothing of the sort. It’s a point Richard Rumelt makes in his excellent book, “Good Strategy / Bad Strategy”. Some companies are beginning to get the idea. Viacom seemed an outlier in 2006 when it divested CBS. Lately, News Corporation has followed a similar tack, albeit under duress after suffering from scandalous revelations about hacking in its news division. A recent article in The Economist states,

“Most shareholders now see that television networks, newspapers, film studios, music labels and other sundry assets add little value by sharing a parent. Their proximity can even hinder performance by distracting management… they have become more assertive and less likely to believe the moguls’ flannel about ‘synergies’.”

So in some ways it was of little surprise that Sony came under the microscope recently as well, part of this larger trend of scrutiny. The company has experienced dark times of late, with shares having plunged 85% over the past 13 years. The departure of Howard Stringer in 2012 coincided with an annual loss of some $6.4bn. Now headed up by Kazuo Hirai, the company has undoubtedly become more focused, with much more being made of their mobile division. Losses have been stemmed, but the company is still floundering, with an annual loss reported in May of $4.6bn. It was only a couple of weeks later that hedge-fun billionaire Dan Loeb – instrumental in getting Marissa Meyer to lead Yahoo – upped his ownership stake in Sony, calling on it to divest its entertainment division in a letter to CEO Hirai. Part of the issue with Sony is a cultural one, where Japan’s ways of working differ strongly from the West’s. This is covered in some detail in a profile with Stringer featured in The New Yorker. In a speech he gave last year, Stringer said, “Japan is a harmonious society which cherishes its social values, including full employment. That leads to conflicts in a world where shareholder value calls for ever greater efficiency”. But Sony’s film division – which includes the James Bond franchise – is performing well; in the year to March 2013 Sony’s film and music businesses produced $905m of operating income, compared with combined losses of $1.9 billion in mobile phones, according to The Economist. It ended 2012 first place among the other film studios in market share. Sony is the last studio to consistently deliver hits across genres, reports The New York Times in an excellent article. The article quotes an anonymous Sony exeuctive, “We may not look like the rest of Hollywood, but that doesn’t mean this isn’t a painstakingly thought-through strategy and a profitable one”. Sadly the strategy behind films like ‘After Earth’ begin to look flimsy when one glances at the box office results. While Hirai and the Sony board concede that have met to discuss the possibility of honouring Mr. Loeb’s suggestion – offering 15-20% of it as an IPO rather than selling it off in full – Mr. Hirai also commented in an interview with CNBC, “We definitely want to make sure we can continue a successful business in the entertainment space. That is for me, first and foremost, the top priority”. In mid-June Loeb sent a second letter, advocating the IPO proposal and saying “Our research has confirmed media reports depicting Entertainment as lacking the discipline an accountability that exist at many of its competitors”. The question is whether selling off its entertainment assets would remove any synergies with other divisions, thus making the divisions left over less profitable, or whether such synergies even existed in the first place. For Loeb, the “most valuable untapped synergies” are still in the studio and music divisions yet after decades as one company they still remain untapped. That point won’t make for pleasant reading at Sony HQ.

Another problem is the changing nature of media consumption habits. Not only are we watching films in different ways over different platforms, we are also doing much else besides, from playing video games, which have successfully transitioned beyond the nerdy clique of yesteryear, to general mobile use and second screening. This transition – and with it a realisation that competition is not likely to come from across regional boarders but from startup platforms – is largely being ignored by the French as they insist on trade talks with the US that centre on the preservation of l’exception culturelle. Such trends are evident in business dealings. The Financial Times this weekend detailed Google’s significant foray into developing content, setting up YouTube Space LA. The project gives free soundstage space to artists who are likely to guarantee eyeballs on YouTube, and lead to advertising revenue for the platform. From the stellar success of the first season of “House of Cards”, to DreamWorks Animation’s original content partnership announced last month, Netflix has become the bête noire for traditional content producers as it shakes up traditional models. We have written before about the IHS Screen Digest data from earlier this year, showing worrying trends for the industry; as predicted, audiences are beginning to favour access over ownership, preferring to rent rather than own, which means less profit for the studio. As much due to a decline in revenue from other platforms as growth in of itself, cinemas are expected to be the major area of profit going forward to 2016 (see above chart). We’ve written before about the power cinema still has. Spielberg and Lucas pick up on this;

“You’re going to end up with fewer theaters, bigger theaters with a lot of nice things. Going to the movies will cost 50 bucks or 100 or 150 bucks, like what Broadway costs today, or a football game. It’ll be an expensive thing… [Films] will sit in the theaters for a year, like a Broadway show does. That will be called the ‘movie’ business.”

In a conversation over Twitter, (excerpts of which are featured above), Cameron Saunders, MD of 20th Century Fox UK told Zeitgeist that “major changes were afoot”. Such potential disruption is by no means unique to the film industry, and should come as a surprise to one. Zeitgeist recently went to see Columbia faculty member Rita McGrath speak at a Harvard Business Review event. In her latest book, “The End of Competitive Advantage”, McGrath discounts the old management consultant attempts at providing sustainable competitive advantages to business. Her assertion is that any advantage is transient, that incumbency and success often lead to entropy, unless there is constant innovation to build on that success. Such a verdict of entropy could well be applied to the film industry. The model has worked well for decades, despite predictions of doom at the advent of television, the VCR, the DVD, et cetera ad nauseum. But fundamental behavioural shifts are now at play, and the way we devise strategies for what content people want to see and how they wish to see it need to be readdressed, quickly. Otherwise all this deliberation will eventually become much ado about nothing.

UPDATE (15/4/13): Of course, context is everything. The New York Times published an interesting article today saying investing in Hollywood is less risky than investing in Silicon Valley, though the returns in the latter are likely to be greater. Neither are seen as reliable.

This issue isn’t going away. We write again about it, here.

Sustaining the Green Push for Brands

Zeitgeist was recently asked to write an article on sustainability trends for the coming year. The following is an altered excerpt of the original article…

There is a hotel in Italy, nestling in the heart of the Tuscan countryside. It literally blends in to the surrounding hills; they form part of the architecture of the building. The Klima Hotel is not just an aesthetic triumph, however, for the soil that forms the roof of also helps keep the building insulated, saving on both cost as well as emissions that would otherwise be generated from artificial heating.

Today, sustainability issues are more prevalent than ever, as organisations and corporations desperately try to set themselves apart from their peers, creating a manifesto for their brand. Often though these efforts can amount to little more than lip service, a practice in danger of becoming as saturated in use as the phrase ‘lip service’. So many brands are exploiting these issues that it no longer suffices merely to say x amount of the paper used in the office is being recycled. There has to be a point, a purpose to the policy that goes beyond cosmetic dalliance. It’s not just about having a solar panel here or a wind turbine there, though these are important things. It’s about recognising changing shopper habits; since the recession, people want to be able to keep items for longer, reuse them, pass them on or put them to a different use entirely.

Pepsi’s Refresh Project has been an earnest attempt at promoting issues of sustainability, and not just environmental. Several supermarkets are currently making an impressive effort in this area too… Sainsbury’s take their sustainability credentials out of store, with beehives to help sustain the bee population, and even treehouses for, well, who wouldn’t want a treehouse? The Sainsbury’s in Gloucester Quay has employed an impressive array of sustainable initiatives, one of the most interesting being a device that takes the kinetic energy of cars as they pass into the car park and uses it to help power the store. It’s technology like this that can be taken a step further; can these touch-sensitive pads be used to monitor where free spaces exist, to direct shoppers using digital signage? 7-Eleven in Japan are planning to use LED lighting and solar panels on 1,000 of their stores, but the key point is their desire for charging points for the Prius. It illustrates that sustainability is not just relegated to specific areas, it is a way of life, a lifestyle that encourages responsibility as well as innovation. So far we’re lacking the impetus for that innovation…

What constitutes the next step? One trend is that of upcycling, that of not just dumping your goods into a big box with a swirly arrow on it, rather actually stretching the efficiency of your products once their initial purpose has expired and reconstituting them for entirely different purposes. At a recent LS:N trends briefing, London designer James Gilpin’s latest work was mentioned; it involves using urine from diabetics (therefore with a heavy sugar content) and turning it into a premium, single malt ‘Gilpin Family Whisky’. In this instance, the material is such that it is already labeled as ‘waste’, but actually still has the potential to be something else. While shopper habits might preclude a desire to see old urine sitting on supermarket shelves any time in the near future, as consumers get more thrifty, such a philosophy would go down well in homeware.

There is more than enough room then for aesthetic beauty and sustainability to co-exist. Fashion brand Hermès recently launched a line of accessories created from upcycled materials. The copy for a brand of upcycled wooden watches is beautiful in of itself; “Completely absent of artificial and toxic materials, the WEWOOD Timepiece is as natural as your wrist. It respects your skin as you respect nature by choosing it… the perfect natural mate, whose story also becomes yours”. Selfridge’s recently unveiled its Project Ocean, “aiming to raise awareness of the dangers of over-fishing”, Contagious reports. One very whimsical example recently highlighted by PSFK was the creation of furniture from old parts of the fair on New York’s Coney Island. Not only is this sustainable production, but it also imbues these “new” items with an in-built past, a piece of history that people can continue to live with (and eat off of, too, I suppose). And we all know how things get better with age.

Gambling with Engagement

Understanding + Innovation = Real Engagement

Though not yet quite falling into the category of a degenerate gambler, Zeitgeist regularly receives communications from various bookmakers keen to incentivise a bet or two. Indeed we’ve previously commented on the activities of bookmakers and the gambling industry both good and bad.

It is an unusual category, one where the consumer has a number of suppliers to choose from and the product is abstract.

Consquently the service is essentially the same across brands – anyone can take a bet – and punters can visit sites like oddschecker.com to find out the best odds on a given event.

In such a market, the equity each brand has, from a long heritage in a given sport to their brand attitude and from levels of innovation to ease of use, becomes ever more important as a means to differentiate them from their myriad competitors. Marketing activity becomes crucial as brands try to establish their territory in a cluttered category.

Event Based Promotions

Some activities are based around major sporting or cultural events such as the flyer below which was distributed in Paddington Station during the Cheltenham Festival a couple of months ago.

From the tone of the copy and the reference to a girlfriend rather than wife, one might infer that the target audience for this communication was a male up to the age of 40. However, this particular flyer was handed to a female colleague who indignantly passed it on in exasperation at such a poor piece of targeting.

While some media platforms don’t allow brands to ensure their message only reaches their target demographic, it is one of the benefits that handing out flyers does offer.

It’s simple really. If the message on the leaflet isn’t relevant to someone, don’t give it to them.

Given that there are more women than men in the UK it is entirely possible that some might like a wager or two.  Indeed the recipient of the flyer is a sports enthusiast who regularly places bets.

So why didn’t Boylesports produce a flyer that would appeal to women too? Or failing that, why didn’t they educate the people giving out the leaflets as to who they should be targeting?

They may only be leaflets handed out in a busy railway station, but just because an activity is intended to be quick and cheap doesn’t mean brands can be lazy and allow standards to slip.

In addition to short term tactical executions such as the poorly executed Boylesports example, some bookmakers also invest in attempting to build longer term engagement with initiatives that show an understanding of their target customer and the kinds of things that will appeal to them.

Trends

Since Conspicious Consumption and the Age of Bling disappeared along with our wealth, consumers have increasingly sought cool experiences that not only break the stress of daily life but also act as a form of social currency. By providing or enhancing such experiences, brands are able to create an emotional connection with consumers.

Whereas boasting about material wealth is seen as crass, sharing the fantastic things you’ve been up to with friends is perfectly fine.

As we live our lives ever more publicly, we can begin to experience a low level sense of peer pressure as we try to keep up with our more exciting friends. Tools such as Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare allow us to share what we are up to before we do it, while we are doing it and then upload photos after the event.

Another unsurprising consequence of the economic downturn is that people don’t have quite as much money to spend and as such want to get value out of any money they do spend.

For some, gambling might seem like a way out of financial strife but for the majority it is something that makes sporting events a bit more exciting and let’s us back up our hunches.

Innovative Engagement

For the past few weeks Zeitgeist recently been monitoring the development of a new initiative called BetDash which has been created by Paddy Power, a brand that is all too aware of the need to differentiate and maintain a high profile.

The site, currently in beta, claims to be Europe’s number one ‘Social Betting’ site and allows players to ‘buy’ a £100,000 bankroll to gamble on real events. The cost of the intial £100,000 is variable, ranging from free, then increasing by £5 to up to £50 and directly influences the potential winnings.

After 21 days the player wins cash depending on how well they have done – if they’ve been lucky enough to turn their money into a million pounds they win twenty times their original stake, otherwise they have to settle for smaller rewards, all the way down to nothing if they’ve blown the lot.

The site works because it simultaneously allows people to experience the thrill of making a bet worth tens of thousands of pounds with the safety blanket of not losing more than their initial stake. Importantly, it also allows people to compete with their friends and make the experience a shared one.

The site has a Twitter account which updates occassionally with news of new ‘millionaires’ and the odd retweet and a Facebook fan page, though they appear to be more of an exercise in getting ready for when the service is fully developed.

To that end, BetDash impressively crowdsources improvements via a page through which users can recommend improvements to the service.

With ‘gamification‘ a hot topic, Betdash taps into the trend and offers players rewards, such as free bets and badges for returning to the site on a daily basis and achieving feats, like winning three bets in a row. You can also challenge other players bets and laugh at their wagers.

And for those who still find it hard to pick a winner, there is a list of the trending bets so you can see what everyone else is betting on. If 96% of bettors think Watford will win and 94% have bet on a Federer victory then maybe you’ll feel safer putting money on a double.

With the curtain having just come down on the current football season players will have to try and make their fortune on summer sports, though with each round lasting 21 days that’s only three rounds until the 2011/2012 seasons kicks off.

In the meantime, the BetDash development team will be no doubt be busy implementing the ideas users recommend so that the site is ready for next season.

The site hopes to create a behaviour amongst users that gets them thinking and talking about bets they’ve placed socially. From gambling being something personal and secretive it will become something to be shared – there will be little stigma as you are gambling with imaginary money. The aim will be to make BetDash one of those handful of sites you visit with regularity.

And of course, if you see a bet that you think is too good to pass up, PaddyPower will no doubt be delighted to let you stake some real money.

Since we opened our account (for research purposes!), Zeitgeist has already bet on football matches from Poland, Russia, Japan and South America, not to mention Boxing, Tennis and Horse Racing with mixed success as we try to grow our bankroll.

We’ll be keeping an eye on BetDash to see how it evolves, but in a category where differentiation and staying front of mind are key, we’d bet that this type of innovative activity will prove more popular than poorly distributed flyers in train stations.

They think it’s all over. It never even started.

The lessons marketers can learn from Englands World Cup bid.

One of the things Zeitgeist likes to do when not identifying first class insights is finding inspiration in the real world that can be brought into the world of marketing.

Sometimes it is as simple as this deconstruction of the Rolling Stones Gimme Shelter that demonstrates how a fantastic creative execution is made during the fusion and collaboration of individual genius contributing their own part to the mix.

However over the past week one half of Zeitgeist has been lucky enough to be given an insight of their own into the pitch process.

Last week I was lucky enough to attend the excellent APG Battle of Big Thinking which pitted planners from around the industry against each other as they debated their big thoughts.

In the semi-informal atmosphere of the architecturally interesting British Library the style and charisma of the presenters was often more influential that their actual idea.

Trapped by the snow and a lack of faith in the UK rail infrastructure, Zeitgeist was able to watch the doomed English bid for the FIFA 2018 World Cup from the comfort of the sofa.

It is rare to be able to watch another team pitch and in the much more serious arena of the Messe Zurich it provided a few more lessons that we can bring into our own business.

Lesson One
The most important of which is to understand the criteria against which you will be judged. This isn’t always as simple as looking at the brief. You have to understand what your audience really want and why you are there.

England received a glowing report for infrastructure and facilities and a 100% rating by McKinsey. They were even acknowledged as being the only bidders who could ‘hold the World Cup tomorrow‘.

However a quick look at previous World Cup hosts suggests that much of that is irrelevant and what FIFA want is to enter new markets and leave a legacy.

Up to 1990 the World Cup was alternatively hosted between South and Central America and Europe. In the 90’s with the break up of the Eastern Bloc and growth of technology like the internet and mass broadcasting the world and the world of football changed dramatically.

By the time those changes began to take effect the 1994 and 1998 World Cups had already been awarded to USA and France respectively.

Then in 1996, FIFA awarded the 2002 World Cup to Japan and South Korea for what was the first Asian World Cup.

The 2006 World Cup went to Germany but was supposed to go to South Africa. The influence of Kaiser Franz Beckenbauer and other shenanigans saw to that.

In 2010 the World Cup was indeed held in South Africa breaking a new frontier.

In 2014 it will be held in Brazil, the nation that puts the ‘B’ into ‘BRIC’. They haven’t hosted it since 1950 and it will be the first time the event has been hosted in South America since Argentina invited the world to sample the delights of a military dictatorship in 1978.

So with this knowledge at hand the question arises as to whether England really thought they stood a chance of winning the 2018 bid. All the attributes that would have made them a stand out candidate as hosts before 2000 now count against them. The irony is that before then, the Taylor Report had only just forced clubs to upgrade their dilapidated facilities so they wouldn’t have been ideal candidates for earlier World Cups either.

The pitch itself was excellent.

If FIFA president Sepp Blatter was a balloon he’d have popped as he introduced the future King, current Prime Minister and icon David Beckham to plead with him and his mates for the right to host the World Cup.

Opened by the excellent Eddy Afekafe the presentation answered exactly what England would have wanted to see if they were choosing the venue.

Unfortunately FIFA’s criteria was different and that’s why the bid failed.

So what other lessons can we learn that will help us when we pitch to prospective clients?

Lesson Two
It doesn’t matter how well you present if you don’t tick their requirements.

Lesson Three
It doesn’t matter who pitches if you don’t meet their requirements.

Lesson Four
It doesn’t matter how in love you are with your own solution if it doesn’t meet their requirements.

For all the claims of corruption and a stitch up, England were fighting a losing battle from the beginning. In any case, the idea that good Olde English values of fair play would somehow infect an international cabal of sports administrators when national and personal fortunes are waiting to be made does seem naive to say the least.

With the newly branded St George’s Park finally getting the go-ahead after years of delay it looks as though we might finally be investing in training a team of World Cup winners rather than trying to get home advantage. Maybe our efforts should have been spent getting it finished sooner instead of chasing impossible dreams.

And that’s the fifth and final lesson for agencies. Next time you get the chance to pitch, stop and think about whether you actually really stand a chance.

Does this company always appoint local or global agencies? Is the pitch just an excuse to justify giving it to the incumbant? What is your role in the process? Are they just after some new ideas? Who is actually making the decision?

Be brutally honest. If you don’t think you stand a chance, work out how much you would have wasted pitching and instead invest it in developing your own staff and boosting their morale. They already believe in you and will service your existing accounts all the better for it.

“If you can dream, and not make dreams your master…”

From the November Zeitgeist…

When we think of the depiction of a typical man, our mind tends to drift toward a suit, a dinner jacket, or something similarly familiar, stable and unchanging. In truth, menʼs fashion – moreover our interpretation of masculinity – is very fluid and varies wildly according to time and culture.

At the V&A museum in London currently, an exhibition on the Maharaja is a good example of just how open to interpretation are the symbols of masculinity and power. In this case, “teardrops of diamonds dangling from succulent pearls” represent the pinnacle of masculinity. The bygone days of a world that celebrated “the effervescent elegance of a male world” serve to illustrate that the definition of what makes a man manly is inherently arbitrary, and therefore malleable. In this case, power and divinity were symbolised by an extraordinary amount of jewellery that even MC Zeitgeist would have been jealous of. The New York Times review says that with the independence of India so ended an era “when the male peacock finally folded its wings”.

Did it though? Pages of editorial are still detailing the rise of the metrosexual, seemingly one of the slowest ʻrisesʼ of anything ever. While one might be inclined to think that a womanʼs ideal man as sporting some kind of ill-fitting firemanʼs ensemble, with over-developed muscles straining underneath, in truth women in the UK apparently find willingness to do housework a most attractive asset. Perhaps increasingly then, it is responsibility that takes precedence over a more base hunter-gatherer, physical appeal.

In Japan, news of Toyotaʼs withdrawal from Formula 1 and itʼs first earnings loss in fifty years caused Tadashi Yamashina to break down in tears at a public press conference, specifically apologising for the F1 teamʼs failure to win a single race in nine years. Business failure in Japan equates to personal shame for the heads of organisations, and such a display of emotion is presumably intended to illustrate a full mea culpa and to show they are affected by the decisions they make for their employees, rather than appearing stone-faced and passive. This latter description is something of a stereotype for men – oblivious to the more sensitive side of their personality – and in this case shows the public that they truly care about the institution they preside over. As The Mirror comments “if the bullet train is delayed, you will see the CEO on TV bowing as low as he can. It’s about honour and showing sincerity”. Thus, while crying may not be seen by some as sign of manliness, in this context it is a conduit for showing you are a man of principles and respect, both tenets traditionally associated with masculinity.

Perhaps in another hundred years, when the current V&A is underwater, a future exhibition will remind us that brute force and intimidation, even from beyond the grave, once represented manhood. In Russia, the tombstones of erstwhile Mafiosi stand proud and very tall; several are life size depictions of the eternal residents, gazing menacingly outwards. These grotesque images are reminders that not all markets approach the concept of masculinity in the same way.