Whatever...

Wimbledon has a social makeover

By Hannah Townsend

There’s no doubt that this year is the most social Wimbledon ever. With enhanced mobile apps, SlamTracker and the introduction of The Wimbledon Social Command Centre, organisers are actively encouraging fans to post their Wimbledon comments and questions on Twitter. Whether it’s praising Federer’s volley, commenting on Nadal’s forearm or cheering on Murray, everyone is joining in and having their say on the famous tennis tournament. 

British patriotism is renowned for blossoming around big sporting events (remember the Olympics?) and social media is playing a big part in maintaining the spirit of last year’s success. In support of our reigning champ, a social campaign has been set up where fans can tweet using the hashtag #WelcomeBackAndy, in a bid to win a personalised, signed digital photo of the man himself. Other social campaigns and activities include a ‘Twitter Mirror’ for all those selfie lovers in the queue, live action replays on Twitter and real-time Q&As between fans on the big screens on Henman Hill. 

An interesting aspect from the growing use of social media at events such as Wimbledon is the insight it can provide. By analysing discussions, organisers can see which countries are the hottest tweeters, which players create the biggest social buzz and whether centre court games generate more conversations than the others. In short, it gives them a better understanding of how the tournament is perceived by tennis fans around the world. 

However, for those fans without tickets and who have no desire to queue for hours in the (slim) hope of gaining entry, Alexandra Willis, content and communications manager at Wimbledon, sums up the biggest reason why the increased social media presence is such a good thing: "Only half a million people get to come to Wimbledon, whereas we have a digital audience of over 20 million, so it’s about making our digital channels the next best thing to being here."

Technology wins the World Cup [beats England 4-3 on penalties]

By Mike Marquiss

It’s the World Cup and I, along with many others I’m sure, care about little else right now. Goodbye family and friends. Hello Gary Lineker, Thiery Henry and (unfortunately) Phil Neville. Guten tag penalty heartache and crushing defeat, good to see you again. As sad as that sounds, I really couldn’t be happier.

But let’s talk technology. After all, this is a technology blog and this World Cup is set to be the most technologically advanced ever – although that’s hardly saying much.

We’re only at the group stages but already I’m struck by technology’s role in the beautiful game. On-field, this is the first World Cup to make use of goal-line technology. Provided you didn’t have it explained to you by Jonathan Pearce, you’ll know that this nifty piece of kit helps the referee decide whether or not the ball has indeed crossed the line. Even if you don’t know much about football, you probably recognise that knowing if the ball has crossed the line and whether a goal should be awarded is a pretty important part of the game. There’s also vanishing spray, which is extremely low-tech (at best), but I still think it’s marvellous.

Moving away from the pitch, you’ll see technology’s role is equally pronounced this World Cup. For me, the tournament is a unique and powerful demonstration of how the internet has developed over the last four years and how far online communities have grown and changed in this time, as has the viewing experience. A case in point, watching an incredibly dull game such as Iran vs Nigeria is almost enjoyable provided you can follow the Twitter commentary and the creative arm-chair punditry of friends, celebs and (let’s be honest) total strangers too. I’m not sure I would’ve said the same four years ago and may have switched off.

Likewise the World Cup serves as a great internet barometer, highlighting the significant growth of sites like Reddit and Buzzfeed. For example, Reddit’s popular /r/soccer thread for the first match of this year's World Cup has ~3,500 upvotes and ~15,000 comments. To put this into perspective, the thread for the 2010 final managed just ~314 upvotes and ~1,400 comments. Similarly, Buzzfeed is now very much a go-to site for post-match content and analysis – a miraculous transformation for a website famous cat videos.

I for one can’t wait to see how technology will be used for the rest of the tournament and will make sure to revisit this blog in four years time, during the 2018 WC, to see how things have changed by then. Hover-board referees anyone?

[UPDATE] A German colleague, who shall remain nameless, emailed the Germany vs Portugal score on Monday afternoon, which I had recorded on Sky+. Ignore the enthusiasm above; I’m now boycotting all forms of technology until after the World Cup final on Sun 13 July.

#Awkward: You can’t fake authenticity

By Claire Ayles

If you want to be taken seriously by the media, being authentic, credible and genuine are just as important as having a flashy new product to announce.  That means talking in a tone of voice that suits your personality and the brand values of your company or organisation.  It sounds dead simple, but there are plenty of cringeworthy examples of when spokespeople try to fake authenticity and end up getting it very, very wrong. 

Take for example this week’s rowing boat trip by Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Mark Rutte and Fredrik Reinfeldt:   

Under what circumstances can you ever imagine the political leaders of Germany, The UK, The Netherlands and Sweden getting in a boat together, apart from for a staged photo?  That’s right – there are none.  Ten out of ten for effort, but this one definitely fails the authenticity test. 

Politicians get this wrong an awful lot. Take a look at this brilliant article from the BBC which showcases some of the lamest attempts to look like an ordinary person. I mean, George Bush and Vladimir Putin in matching Vietnamese tunics? Really?

 Last but by no means least, who can forget Ed Milliband’s manufactured ‘natural’ smile?  

 Do you have other examples? We’d love to see them!

 

Is it soon to be farewell to the handheld gamer?

By Astor Sonnen

While innovation in technology continues to create new and exciting ways to make our lives easier, let’s take a moment to consider the pieces of technology that have been lost along the way. In particular, let’s look at the fate of a piece of design that was once dear to my heart…

Last week, Sony announced that it is going to stop shipping its landmark PSP console. Whilst the PSP itself is not something I was particularly attached to, I was attached to the handheld gaming consoles of old. Nintendo set the standards with the Game Boy in 1989, before providing us with a conveyor belt of devices and a plethora of games, which included famous names like Mario, Donkey Kong, Zelda and Pikachu. It was a time of basic and fun gaming, and I defy anyone to make a game with a more satisfying theme tune than Nintendo’s original ‘8-bit Tetris’.

Mobiles are the biggest reason for the handheld gaming decline. Apple, HTC, Samsung and so on already make up a long list of companies producing phones that are more powerful than handheld consoles. The effortlessness of transitioning between your Twitter feed and a game or, just the stigma attached to an adult playing a games console on the train, means sales have been declining. King Dedede and his hammer have been hovering over the nail in the coffin for a while.

Arguably, the lack of competition has also led to the market demise. Only Sony and Nintendo currently produce handheld systems, and the two companies are targeting different consumers. Some would say it’s difficult to stay innovative when there isn’t anything to keep driving you forward. The mobile gaming market is now the leader when it comes to ‘gaming on the go,’ and with the Internet of Things becoming more and more prominent, it’s unlikely that any company will see a handheld console, which is purely designed for gaming, as a worthwhile investment.

So whilst some will argue that the handheld gaming era had already ended with the introduction of the iPhone, Sony’s announcement does mean that the end is perhaps now clearly visible on the horizon – a sad occasion for any 90’s gamer. Maybe I’m just nostalgic for the gaming of old, or maybe, I just really still like Pokémon. 

Google stretches its marketing muscles

By Mike King

It is widely known that Google has been experimenting with driverless car technology for a number of years, initially focusing on retro-fitting existing vehicles.  However, the company’s recent announcement that it is now manufacturing its own driverless cars is a marketing masterstroke.

Years ago, during some brand development training that we undertook with the excellent Peter Finch, we did some interesting brand stretching exercises (as an aside, Peter was so good that we got him to author a Johnson King white paper on branding).  Brand stretching entails taking a well-known brand and applying its brand values and attributes to a new area of business.  For example, if McDonald’s were to move into the mobile phone market what would its offer be; or how would Aston Martin tackle the cosmetics industry?

Coincidentally, one of the brand stretching exercises we were given during the training centred on Google and we were tasked with defining the characteristics of a Google Hotel and it was fun to do. 

Google is one of the biggest brands in the world and its brand values centre on simplicity, ease of use, fast response, fun and innovation.  Perfect attributes for a driverless car, making this latest move a perfect stretch for the Google brand.   Recent news coverage about its driverless car has reinforced the company’s brand even further.  Regardless of whether it ever becomes a commercial reality, the Google brand has gained tremendously from this move. 

I only hope it doesn’t go horribly wrong, after all the IT industry doesn’t have the greatest track record in product reliability.  At a COMDEX trade show in the distant past, Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the automotive industry saying "if General Motors had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving $25.00 cars that got 1,000 miles to the gallon."

General Motors response was simply "Yes, but would you want your car to crash twice a day?"

Let’s hope Google has the technical prowess to back its undoubted marketing muscle.