The Value of a #Creative

Recently I’ve noticed an increase in the amount of creative which has a #tag somewhere in its midst; such as:

The typical copywriter’s justification for such an insert is that it “adds a social element to the campaign”.  However I would broadly contend this. 

The inherent nature of the #tag inevitably adds a “social element” to a campaign.  However unless the #tag leads to a conversation or something more than a singular tweet/post, it can be argued that any such action is not truly social.

Additionally, a tenuous link between the #tag and product/service offered – as with the example above - doesn’t indicate any value exchange that may occur in return for the consumer’s social action.  This, alongside the fact that consumers are typically exposed to such creative in internet bereft tube stations, and consequently meant to remember to respond to these randomly placed #tags, vastly decreases the volume of responses[1].

It could even be said that incorrect use of #tags can actively hinder a campaign; as whilst many consumers are now using Twitter, far more aren’t.  So using language that is foreign and potentially confusing to a consumer, is not only is a cardinal creative sin, but may alienate the target audience and devalue the authority of the brand to the consumer.

*

The moral of this rant is that whilst users may treat #tags as throwaway signatures of irony, an affiliation to group or topic, etc, advertisers can’t. 

In the absence of something particularly entertaining or interesting that consumers will actively want to mention, #tags should only be used in copy as part of a wider consumer experience, with clearly defined objectives.  There needs to be back end content (ideally alluded to in the creative) to incite participation and facilitate a positive brand experience for the user.  

Though this isn’t a walk in the park, inter-agency collaboration at the point of the initial communications brief can ensure that all sections of the campaign ultimately come together to deliver a meaningful journey and experience for the consumer[2].  Without it, the often confusing or disjointed journey (if there is one) that consumers are taken will result in a user journey the consumer will not so willingly embark upon again.

---

[1] This example has only received 7 tweets in the last 7 days

[2] A simple example would be:  A drive to sign x number people up for a charity run through Facebook.  Some creative running cross media shows an asset of theirs e.g. Paula Radcliffe signed up, suggesting people #runwithPaula on y date.  On Twitter, search for the #tag are links for training tips and stories on who you’re helping if you sign up to facebook via the link, where you can find additional content (though also being encourage to sign up for the run - where you get a goody bag or something).  This would entice people into starting the user journey, and at each stage encouraging them to go further to the point at which they've signed up, whilst being able to measure the volume and nature of each social interaction to the point of achieving the KPI of signing up.

Pinterest: Examining the User Experience

                                         

So, Pinterest.  Heard of it?  Probably.  Using it?  Well if you’re reading this from the UK, it’s unlikely you’ve done much more than had a quick browse, or maybe repined the odd thing.  However if you’re reading this from over the other side of the Atlantic, you’re likely to be one of many who’ve contributed to their 4000% growth over the past year – especially if you’re a woman.

But what exactly is it about the site that’s caused this level of growth and excitement?

Firstly, What is it?

Getting fed up with numerous files and folders Evan Sharp formed Pinterest, in order to “create a place where you can go to upload or collect things on the web and simply organize it the way you want”.

At its simplest level, users can “pin”, and aggregate individual pieces of content to a “board”.  Pins on other users’ boards can be “repinned” (placed) to one of yours, or you can “like” or comment on the pin.

To find content, you can select a topic, see what’s “popular”, or search by keyword.  Alternatively you can look for potential gifts by selecting a price range to browse.

Why it’s good

Pinterest appears to provide users with a more sharable and varied means of personal amplification than other social networks, whilst building in graded degrees of personal gratification (that “feel good” factor) at all levels of the user journey. 

Straight from the get-go, standard and video searches immediately result in content for users to engage with.  As the person builds their profile by pinning, repining, liking, commenting and following, each action has the potential for a reciprocal action, most of which amplify the user’s presence on Pinterest and increase the user’s enjoyment of the site.

Similarly to Twitter, it’s this constant creation, sharing and enjoyment of “pull” content that has played heavily in it’s growth, every action spreading in a Google+esque Ripple.  I.e. Only one person has to upload content for numerous people to consequently find and share it, with each link feeling positive that their content was deemed interesting/funny enough to interact with.

It is suggested that this is happening, not just because that’s how you interact with the site, but because users have the confidence to do so.  What’s meant by this is that with 80% of pins currently being repinns, users generally aren’t accountable for the content pinned on their board.  This removes the fear of anything more than superficial judgment from an action - i.e. Sarah will be less bothered about people disliking the picture of some pretty flowerpots that she repined, than if she knows the photo album she created will be pushed out on all her friends’ Facebook walls or on their Twitter feeds – a worry that’s beautifully displayed by the Facebook post-night-out-detagging ritual.

This is reinforced by the fact that (as previously said) the pin/repinn isn’t pushed onto anyone.  Conversely to Facebook, it’s the content that creates the profile/person, not the other way around.  This, alongside the fact that consumers are given choice and selectivity over the content they view - in a way other social networks don’t - is another huge factor in Pinterest’s rise to fame.

Everyone has different interests, and most importantly, different interests that they share with different people.  Allowing people to follow singular boards of others enables a Circles - type effect and lets consumers segment their interests, and ensure they see content that’s relevant to them on an individual level.

Whilst the potential for “going viral” is somewhat hampered at the moment by the majoritatively tame subject matter, that the relevant content is organically growing creates the potential for more niche, semi-viral incidences.  E.g. A Fantastic pic of a new Thompson holiday destination that a celeb went to, whilst unlikely to go viral in its traditional sense, could well get wide and fast reach through people interested in holidays, celebs, or nice landscapes.

Conclusion

Whilst at the moment, the 200,000 uniques in the UK are dwarfed by the 12,000,000 in the US, Pinterest’s engaging, relevant and gratifying user experience and organic growth is likely to ensure an impact over here.

Whilst who’s currently using Pinterest and the way they’re using it here in the UK is vastly different to in the States, that’s a topic for another time.  But rest assured, if you don’t currently have a Pinterest account, you should, as otherwise you could become uncool very, very soon.

GADABOUT: 6OneD Review (written for and first shown on the IPA's Gradvantage blog)

On the 28^th November 2011, six of the Direct Marketing sector’s most creative and accomplished minds[1] walked out onto the dimly lit Charing Cross stage.  Their challenge?  To address an issue that currently faces all those involved in the DM sector - creative excellence. 

The evening kicked off with each panellist presenting a DM case study in an attempt to woo the audience into deeming their proffered piece the best DM campaign.

A variety of campaigns were submitted to the house, ranging from Wunderman’s sublimely simple “Hitchhiker” campaign for The AA, to the cross-platform Tour de Force of Nike/Livestrong’s “Chalkbot” campaign.  Ultimately, Sav’s submission of how ROM (a chocolate bar) incited patriotism across the entire nation of Romania was victorious – though personally I liked the Chalkbot campaign (see [2] for a list of the other campaigns – have a look and see what your favourite is). 

Having adequately roused the minds of the collective, the second – more interactive half - of the evening got underway.  The floor was opened up with the goal of inducing industry furthering discussion and debate.  A goal that was undoubtedly achieved.

Prior to recent initiatives such as 6OneD, the DM industry and those who make it up have often found themselves outshouted by the more grandiose ATL agencies that typically dominate pitch shortlists.  Those at 6OneD however relished the opportunity to not only celebrate DM creativity, but discuss industry-wide issues and seek ways to address them. 

The main takeout I obtained from the seminar was that whilst in the modern Adland agencies of varying natures are competing for the same space, there will always be room for DM. 

The current reluctance of DMarketeers to be courageous in their copy or (in comparison to ATL agencies) shout about it when they do, results in a lack of client appreciation for the craft. So in order to remedy this, in what is becoming an increasingly cross-media/platform industry, DM must take the opportunity to push creativity, be audacious, and blur their “line” position that currently stigmatises them.

Overall, the evening was great, and the debate appeared to be highly constructive for all that attended.  With the IPA offering DM a forum in which to exercise their voice, I doubt it’ll be long before they’re shouting loud and proud about their creative excellence.  It’ll be a challenge, but one which all at 6OneD are clearly are fired up for.  Epitomising the vibe of the room was Nicky Bullard’s simple statement:  “Bring it on.”

Owen Lee (@oven121), Starcom MediaVest

Click here for more photos from the event.

[1] The panel:  Cooking and book loving sportophobe Caitlin Ryan, Executive Creative Director of Proximity; failed spy with a love of young “talent” Neil Francis, Creative Director of SFW; youthful playwright-to-be Nicky Bullard, Creative Director of LIDA, tech-loving (aka nerd) Rik Haslam, Chief Creative Officer at RAPP, (I couldn’t find anything out about him from his bio) Sav Evangelou, Executive Creative Director, Kittcatt Nohr Digitas; and finally, a man who’s magnificently overcome his self-confessed permanently poor hairstyle, Steve Aldridge, Co-Founder, Creative Partner and Chairman of Partners Andrews Aldridge.

[2] Others including the nationalistic “The American ROM” campaign, the subliminally Direct “Live Rescue” campaign, the e-comedic “HP ePrint Live” campaign, and T-Mobile’s recent Parking Ticket campaign – don’t ask me how Neil managed to convince us this was DM, but he did.

"Engagement": Accepting an Inadequate Metric

"Engagement".  It's a term that's often bandied about in media, and has been deconstructed and reinvented many times over.  However whilst within the digital sphere, conversation and debate over the concept of consumer "engagement" has evolved, consideration as to its appropriateness as a metric has somewhat fallen by the way-side.

Is it Engagement?  Or is it something else?

Recently speaking at the IAB Engage conference, Michelle Klein stated her belief that the currently used "engagement" metrics of dwell time, sharing, etc, don't accurately reflect the nature of a truly "engaging" experience.  Too often it is assumed that a consumer that plays a game, signs up for a Facebook competition or watches a video has had an "engaging" experience.  Realistically, the only certainty that can be taken from the resultant data is that the consumer interacted with the campaign.  Any meaningful brand connection as a result of that interaction is generally inferred.

Engagement goes beyond interaction or enjoyment of content.  It's an interaction that results in an emotional connection and association with the brand. 

Think of the last brilliant dramatic film you went to see.  One where all of a sudden you realise that your eyes hurt from watching the screen so intently.  Now that's engagement.  That's engagement to a point of personal immersion.  Whilst this isn't achievable (yet) at a campaign level, this example serves to show the extent of what a fully engaging experience can do to you.  This is what the goal should be.  Not the eye-watering part, but that feeling of unbiased personal connectivity to the previously unknown content put in front of you.  Judging whether a user achieved this connectivity through examining whether or not they entered their details or clicked through is clearly insufficient.  Generally, such interactions serve a more functional purpose, it taking a lot more to elevate them to the realms of becoming an engaging experience.

An Unfortunate Acceptance

It would be preferable to measure campaigns in terms of brand perception, consideration, preference, etc due to their superiority in measuring levels of a consumer’s engagement with a brand following content interaction.  Unfortunately however, the lack of science and direct accountability behind such methods renders them to be perceived as less efficient metrics than those currently used.

That said, despite the inappropriateness of current engagement metrics, they are far more preferable for branding campaigns than the more commonly used alternatives of CTRs and CPAs.

Why?  Because they fail to reflect the notion of what branding is.  Clients appear to be constantly asking for branding campaigns; though insist on measuring such campaigns on what are essentially performance metrics.  It'd be nice to say that this is solvable through a snazzy presentation on digital, but the reality is that it's not that simple.  Unfortunately, such demands are generally a result of those in the upper echelons of the client’s hierarchy stubbornly handing demands down to those that have no choice but to follow. 

Whilst a wish to focus on ROI is understandable, just as it would be fine to consciously state a wish to intermix branding and performance.  However to ask for performance metrics to be used on what’s been briefed as a solely branding campaign makes achieving communications goals tricky to say the least.  Not only does it make digital teams less likely to choose more "engaging" rich media over its more ROI-friendly brothers of standard display, but it causes a lack of creativity.  This generally results in a campaign that leaves clients scratching their heads as to why people still don't have a positive brand perception, or haven't increased their consideration levels.

Conclusion

So whilst the current use of engagement metrics is perhaps slightly unsatisfactory, if given budget to engage consumers in a digital landscape, I'd say "go for it".  Affording creatives and planner/buyers much more scope for creativity, it's a far superior branding metric to the currently favoured CPC/CPA system that's frustrating the industry.  Unfortunately, until either the client big-wigs get to grips of what a branding campaign is truly about (or those that do get their jobs), or engagement is measured in enough of a scientific way to sell it in to clients, engagement and branding will continue to be left in a confusing state.

Google+ v Facebook: A Modern Day David vs Goliath?

An Introduction of Biblical Proportions

Who'd have thought that The Bible’s author failed to mention that Goliath-defeater David's last name was actually Googleplus?  Well that may not be the case (in fact it definitely isn't), but apart from using money and not rocks to try and fell the social media giant Facebook, the match-up appears identical.  But is David up to the challenge? 

  

A Clever Cop-out

Though Larry Page recently revealed that their user base has passed the 40 million mark, if playing social by numbers, newbie - barring their floundering attempts in '09 and '10 with Wave and Buzz - Google+ is dwarfed by Facebook's mammoth 800+m user base by roughly 20:1.

More interestingly however, whilst Facebook happily admit that over 50% of their total user base returns monthly, Google refuse to promulgate any reciprocal stats.   

Despite reportedly being grilled at Web 2.0 Summit for some numbers, the only water anyone's managed to get out of the stone-faced execs is that they're "happy with the figures". 

Now if you're like me, you're thinking this is likely to equate to "not many", and you're probably right.  However according to the Google's big-wigs they’re simply not bothered about such "hard user metrics".  Instead, their MO is apparently "user engagement and cross platform integration".

  

Whilst appearing to be a bit of a cop-out, it's actually not a bad response.  The approach well reflecting the industry's new(ish) focus on engaging consumers/users beyond the mere impression level. 

Though it's the necessary monetisation of the £585m project that'll likely reveal just how "engaged" these users are, get some smooth-talking Googleites in a room with your budget conscious clients, and they could well lap up the idea of +Advertising.

"Improved ROI" being the in vogue buzz-phrase for media agencies, the supposed opportunity to reach these grail-shaped users that are ripe for their transformation into a brand ambassadors, could be tempting to clients.  Especially since their brand message will allegedly be received crystal clear from these super engaged users, and no longer falling on the deaf ears of the masses, hoping to get that click through.

“I’m Still not Going to go on it”...Or are you?

So, G+ has an up to date approach that will please brands upon the site’s monetisation.  Big whoop. Unfortunately however, as much as they want to avoid it, if they want to have any real clout they need to back up these propositions with some hard facts.  I don't think I've ever been in a presentation where I haven't been smugly shown some impressive stats, which at that moment in time prove that site/product is superior.  Google+ needs more of these stats.

Recently, agency Chitika has reported that over the past month, traffic to Google+ is in a fairly stale state of affairs.  Whilst not necessarily negative, it's far from breaking any records either.  But is Google+ capable off upping their game in order to take on the big guns? 

Yes.  They’ll have to be mighty clever in order to convert the thus far unconverted, but they have the weapons to do so.  With an arsenal containing: 200m Google Chrome users, the Android mobile operating system, the Chromebook, Google TV, and YouTube (with their recent announcement of 100 TV channels), there's certainly an opportunity to get Google+ into your hands. 

At the moment they’re still opting for the art of persuasion to pull people to the site.  However, for example, if they could get Google+ preloaded on Android devices, whilst people would grumble and gripe it’s likely that they’ll at least give it a go.  As is often the way with new/resisted technology, it’s the initial trial that’s the tricky part.  Once achieved, if your product is good they’ll start to realise its benefits, and (importantly for Google) tell others about their conversion to the device.

  

OK, So I Know About “Circles”, but What’s New on There?

You know what they say "Out with the new, in with the newer" - or at least that appears to be G+'s approach - as on the 27th October, Google+ got its first revamp.  Beyond their original USP of creating “circles” of friends to choose who you share content with, they’ve come up with a couple of new additions:

What’s Hot?

Basically a more visual Trending topic.  Appearing in your main stream or standing along, it shows you the most popular content on Google+.

Ripples

Visualises how content has organically spread throughout Google+, letting you identify specific events and top contributors that helped your story spread

Creative Kit

A rudimentary photo editing tool that lets you add effects to you pictures and then share them on Google+.

Hangout

Have video conversations with up to 10 of your friends at once.

(see some videos from Google introducing the new features here http://bit.ly/w182AN)

Not all that impressed? That’s what I thought.  Now group chats could be useful, and everyone likes their ego massaged by seeing that their post reached 426,947 people.  However I’ve never needed to speak to that many people outside of work at the same time, nor have I posted anything interesting enough to extend my “ripple” far beyond my friend Bob.  Additionally, whilst Twitter-rip-off  What’s Hot is a fairly commonsensical addition, the Creative Kit is little more than the photo editing tools you had on your Nokia 5 years ago.

Conclusion

Overall, at the moment Google+ just isn't good enough to take on Facebook.  It's not large enough for it's semi-useless intricacies to have a worthwhile affect on users, and it isn't useful enough to drive enough traffic to afford it such extravagances.

That said, whilst their most recent renovations aren't likely to entice users into utilising the site, at least it's a start.  In order to draw users into willingly joining and using Google+, it has to be differentiated from Facebook by useful quirks and features.  They need to make people go beyond wanting to have it, to having to have it – and more importantly, use it!

So if they can keep positively improving and differentiating their site, whilst gradually integrating it across the platforms available to them, there's a (albeit very slim) chance that David could end up a pretty good match for Goliath.  The victor?  Well that's up to the public to decide.

Google Wallet: Will it Catch On, and How Will it Impact Brands?

Intro

After its recent unveiling in the US, the Google Wallet is expected to fly over to English shores pretty soon.  But what exactly is this “Wallet” that Google are plying as “the next big shift” in personal payment?

Seeking to make redundant that tatty piece of leather currently occupying your back pocket, Google have increased your mobile phone’s capabilities to allow wireless payments for consumer purchases.  Using “Near Field Communication” (NFC), a secondary microchip inside the mobile phone - though SK Telecom have shown that this could be integrated into the SIM in the future (see here)- allows the wireless payment of items when held next to the retailer’s corresponding device.  In addition to currently holding offers, credit cards (currently only the Citi Mastercard and their prepaid card) and loyalty cards, Google prophesise that the Wallet’s future shall entail the storage of boarding passes, receipts and tickets amongst other things.

Sounds cool eh?  But then there’s that little issue of security that automatically springs to the minds of all.  Well Google believe that they’ve got this covered.  Because Wallet’s use requires a PIN, Google asserted it to be actually safer than having a wallet.  Whilst the likelihood of your phone being stolen (and possibly hacked) may make this belief contentious, without a promise of security no-one would ever give it a second thought. 

Will it Catch on?

Whilst a brilliant concept and a seemingly inevitable next step in purchase payment, will the Google Wallet actually catch on?  Though I’m sure CEO Larry Page would suggest this question has as having a resoundingly affirmative answer, the lack of use – at least domestically - of the supposedly “revolutionary” QR codes means it requires scrutiny.

Firstly, the Google Wallet is only being launched with the fairly underused Citi Mastercard (and their own prepaid card).  Yes it’s quite a coup for Citibank, but unless more banks get on board and invoke real competition, it’s unlikely that retailers will consider the benefits of the technology to outweigh the costs of installation and use.  Though Visa’s recent touch payment partnership with McDonalds indicates a push forward towards a competitive market, it also suggests that (considering the sizeable investment in such a venture) they’re unlikely to progress from this stage for a while.  That said, such a heavy commitment may be seen by other banks as an opportunity to exploit.  Either way, the Wallet’s launch looks likely to be fairly more fizzle than fireworks.

Conversely however, considering the now substantial power that Google have in the mobile market, and that they've stated that the technology shall become available on the Android platform, manufacturers will soon be rolling out the majority of their phone devices with Wallet capabilities.  This would likely increase both consumer awareness and demand for the technology and pressurise both retailers and banks to get on board. 

If it works, what are the implications for brands

This latest step towards all things wireless could well be an enormous step forward in commerce, but the Wallet's capability to automatically obtain and apply the latest offers could heavily impact brands at both ends of the pricing spectrum. 

Those willing to discount their products will have the ability to increase the likelihood of their brand being front of mind to consumers when they are at their most receptive to influence. 

The vouchers being in the consumer's personal space - their phone - gives them more control over what offers they pay attention to, and ultimately how they shop in the now overcrowded, offer-strewn streets and shop isles.  To make customers aware of such promotions, there could be a rise in direct mail, particularly with mobile compatible techniques in order to secure at least an impression if not a sale.

With the availability of such offers having the potential to entice consumer trial and brand consideration where otherwise it might not have occurred, more "premium" brands could suffer. How to fight this?  By ensuring that the customer experience and emotional connection the brand provides outweighs the benefits of cheaper, value brands.  Whilst this may not be a new concept, the new and more personalised way that brand loyalty can be interjected by alternatives may mean that this is more important than ever.  As such, such brands may wish to start considering focusing campaigns on brand loyalty well in advance to the mass uptake of the Google Wallet.

Also, the increasingly large amount of gift vouchers bought over the seasonal period may provide another opportunity for brands to exploit.  Using Google Wallet, Christmas shoppers will (assumedly) being able to give gift cards at the touch of a button.  As such, ensuring friends/family members perceive a specific brand to be to the recipient’s taste could be highly profitable for the brand, and also affect general awareness.  But to guarantee this, due to the likely lack of proximity between the gift card purchaser and recipient (for gift suggestions), work must be done on the brand’s perceived demographic and perception.  I.e. If Auntie Jo’s shopping for her 14 year old nephew Sam that she hasn’t seen in 6 months, her thought of “what shop would Sam like”, is answered by the desired brand and not a competitor.

Finally (and perhaps most importantly), should Google Wallet take off, the amount of data that Google and marketers could gain would be phenomenal.  Imagine a world where all purchases and vouchers are trackable at an individual level.  This would provide companies with fantastic amounts of data on the effectiveness of voucher ads to specifically targeted demographics and consumers, potentially eliminating the anonymity of newspaper torn vouchers and providing consumer insights that are currently out of reach.  For a marketer, this world would be a magical and highly profitable place to live. 

               

Conclusion

Overall, it would appear that Google Wallet may be a bit of a slow burner, and is unlikely to have much initial impact.  That said, whilst NFC technology is likely to merely supplement touchpayment for a while - now being automatically on most new bank cards - considering Google's track record of flinging large amounts of cash at new market ventures, it's arrival as a shopping norm appears a near certainty.  As such, brands need to start preparing now.

Does SM + TV = Zeebox?

Intro

This October, Zeebox - the latest brainchild of BBC iPlayer head Anthony Rose - is set to go live.

Though sounding more like an 80's rapper than revolutionary piece of software, as you'd expect from technowizz Rose, it looks to be a decent piece of kit.  But is it a game changer, and will it last?

What is it?

Seeking to bridge the gap between TV and Social Media, the website and iPad app (to be subsequently released on iPhone and Android platforms) makes watching the box both an interactive and sociable experience.

On its most basic level, users manually or automatically - with compatible 2010/2011 TVs - log into the programme that they're watching.  Others can not only view this, but are capable of inviting or being invited to join them on that channel.  With TVs connected to the app, the internet signal not only then changes the channel for you, but does so quicker than the majority of infrared remotes.

Though pretty nifty in itself, what makes it stand out is the what lies beyond the app's most primal capabilities.  Using an audio fingerprinting "secret recipe" - seemingly one stage on from the technology used in Wieden + Kennedy's "This Unpredictable Life" Honda ad - users can not only interact with the programme they're watching, but can do so in real time. 

Providing a "next generation Red button", the capability exists for relevant, third party content links to arise during a programme.  The example CEO Ernesto Schmitt is giving is that whilst Tom Cruise is interviewed on Top Gear, the app will auto-display "infotags" for spoken topics (say "Ferrari 458", "Abu Dhabi", "Sebastian Vettel" and "Tom Cruise" himself), as Cruise is speaking.

Finally, Rose has said that they'll  "experiment with the full infrastructure" and may eventually allow Zeebox compatible devices to control on-demand episodes.

Will people use it?

Whilst a brilliantly bringing together social media and TV, will it catch on, and what is the benefit to marketers?

Though the number of iPads in circulation is increasing daily, not enough exist for users to create adequate friend circles.  30% of internet usage being in front of the TV meaning people will be able to also access the software by their laptops.  However, to ensure Zeebox arrives with a bang and not a mere fizzle, the software needs to be made available on mobile platforms as soon as possible, if not by the launch date.

Additionally, whilst facebook brings social experiences to  consumers everywhere, will they be willing to let them physically into their home?  The individuality in viewing that the plethora of channels offers, affords people their guilty pleasures of the Gilmore Girls or Jeremy Kyle that they may not want to share.  That said, popular programmes such as X factor and The Apprentice that are predisposed to controversy and discussion may thrive with Zeebox.

Furthermore, it is accepted that drawing friends to QVC to buy a set of towels you know they want is highly plausible.  However, to get them to join the middle of an episode out of context is not.  This is especially true when considering the ease by which people can record TV or watch it on-demand.

That said, considering the number of relevant tweets a trending topic draws on Twitter, a programme similarly trending on Zeebox may well invoke curiosity and cause people to accept invitations to watch programmes they would otherwise neglect. 

What's the marketing potential?

Purchasing these "infotags" clearly provides a great new way for brands to target and measure consumers' actions in real time.  However, the real time nature of these tags means that the constant bombardment that consumers may become swamped by may cause a brand to become zoned out as nuisance spam.

That said, considering that tags can be used to provide nothing more than a link to a landing page, purchasing these tags should be inexpensive enough to experiment and test.  However, much testing need to be done on the consumer susceptibility to the tags, ROI, number of times and length of time a tag is shown etc.

The software having an open API means that developers can produce a multitude of add-ons to Zeebox.  Whilst providing a further opportunity for brands to take advantage of, the software has a narrower use than iPads and smartphones.  This means that whilst such devices can have large amounts of mutually exclusive apps, this could cause Zeebox to become cluttered and gimmicky.

Conclusion

Though it's not certain for Zeebox to be a game changer, there's definite potential there.  In spite of having some big names behind it, to ensure adequate penetration the app needs to be released on all platforms as soon as possible.  Otherwise, providing an innovative new method of social interaction may not be enough. 

Though a highly measurable real-time opportunity for brands, all but the most creative of them may end up losing their voice in what could become an overcrowded environment. 

Whatever the outcome, it will be interesting to see what lies in store for Mr Rose and Zeebox.