Hot Commodity

We’re all familiar with bio tech and nano tech, green tech and clean tech, but according to researchers at Carnegie Mellon, the newest trend will be kind tech- technology whose goal is not only to make you more productive but also to make you happy.

First, a little background: when visitors enter the main lobby of Carnegie Mellon’s School of Computer Science they are greeted by a quirky “Roboceptionist” named Marion “Tank” LeFleur who calls out “Welcome to Newell- Simon Hall, how can I help you?” But he’s not just programmed to spit out welcome messages every few minutes; he also likes to chat incessantly about anything and everything with anyone and everyone that sticks around. “Tank” is one of the first of his kind- a fully automated robotic receptionist designed to help visitors find their way around the building. Not gonna lie, he kind of reminds me of Zordon from the Power Rangers (don’t even try to pretend you didn’t watch that show)! Anyway, while “Tank” is a great experiment in human machine interaction, the real cutting edge technology has more to do with understanding the humanity of the user, say the experts.

The newest technologies seek not only to make our lives easier but also to learn from us, adapt to our lives, fill our emotional needs, compensate for our handicaps, and ultimately, “make us better people”.  It seems that for too long technological innovation has approached the problems of everyday life with a single dimensional attitude. It aims to minimize or eliminate the effort needed to get things done- and that’s it. Despite all the gains in convenience, however, the researchers at CMU seem to think we have sacrificed a broader sense of fulfillment. So they want the next wave of technology to help restore that feeling with machines that “work with us, not instead of us”.This technology, they say, can be defined as “kind”.

For example, Jodi Forlizzi, a professor at CMU, has recently developed a new product called the Hug. It is about the size of an overstuffed pillow and uses wireless technology to enable physical interaction despite physical distance. You basically squeeze the Hug on your end and it will record the motion and send a signal to someone else’s Hug so that when your counterpart holds the Hug to his or her chest it will electronically mimic your embrace. Other products that are beginning to fill this space include the Chumby, an electronic clock that also enables you to look at your favorite blogs, rock out to Internet radio stations, look at your friends’ Facebook status updates, or check today’s weather report, as well as the Ikan, a countertop digital device that I’ve written about previously that helps you keep track of your groceries, print out custom made and categorized shopping lists, etc.

Across CMU, and across the country really, researchers and scientists are enabling technology to learn our specific routines and habits, our unique likes and dislikes, and our personal tics and neurosis. And then they are using that information to try and custom design our everyday lives.

Personally, I’m not sure how much I like this new wave of technology because in all honesty, it’s kind of creepy. I don’t know how I feel about a virtual hug. And even though it’s cool, I’m not sure who would buy it. But I’ll admit that there is great potential for some true innovation in the human-computer interaction space and it’s refreshing to see that some people are aggressively tapping into it.

 I recently came across a very unique company, Despair Inc., which claims that since true motivation can only come from within, the multi-billion dollar indstury that thrives on the sale of motivational products and services is really a bunch of hot air. Motivational products create unrealistic expectations they say, which is how they justify their own “soul-crushing depressing” Demotivator designs.

While it’s doubtful that anyone would actually hang one of Despair Inc.’s posters on a wall in an office, they are pretty entertaining… and kind of grounding. Plus no one can deny that at a time like this, with our economy spiraling downward uncontrollably after yet another bubble, perhaps there is some truth to their views.

Among my favorites:

 So true! People that are physically attractive or people with attractive personalities always get away with so much more- even if their ideas aren’t very good or their reasoning isn’t very sound. I’d say this applies to companies as well. It seems that several sexy web2.0 startups with snazzy interfaces and striking homepages are somehow blinding people as to the fact that they have yet to develop a business model and/or revenue model…

Not sure I really have to explain this one right now…

And finally…

Too bad I like being opinionated too much to stop now. Besides, if I weren’t blogging you never would have known about Despair, Inc. in the first place!

I’m taking a marketing class this semester and we’re always talking about the four P’s (product, promotion, price, place), the five C’s (company, competition, context, collaborators, customer) and other such “analytical tools” that can help us evaluate the finest marketing methods for any given company, but in the midst of all these mnemonics I’ve come to a very simple conclusion about one of the best advertising techniques out there: the more imitatable your advertisements, the better. Experts and gurus in every industry are always preaching about the importance of being unique, whether in regards to products, customer service, marketing, or any other dimension that a company can differentiate itself on, and I think sometimes people interpret that as meaning that the more imitatable you are, the less valuable you are and that “ordinary” is unacceptable. Based on observation, however, these statements are far from the truth.

Ordinary and simple campaigns are the ones we remember the best, the ones that we most identify with, and the ones we find ourselves quoting. These are the ones we use in presentations and skits to make a point, the ones we find countless copycat Youtube videos of, and the ones that continue to live beyond their debuts and their demises.

The classic example is the ubiquitous “got milk?” campaign that debuted in California in 1993 and went national in 1995. Launched by the California Milk Processor Board, it has inspired dozens of copycat campaigns. Other such ads include the “Is it in you?” campaign by Gatorade, Mastercard’s “priceless” campaign, Intel’s “Intel Inside” campaign, and even Apple’s “Mac vs. PC” campaign. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve seen people use the “Mac vs. PC” campaign format to “compare” products or other things completely unrelated to Apple. What makes these campaigns similar? They’re simple, universal, and highly imitatable. In fact, part of the motivation for this post came when I was walking through downtown Philly the other day and saw a man standing on the side of the street holding a sign that said “got change?” in that familiar white font on a solid black background. I couldn’t help laughing, thinking about the “got milk?” campaign, and giving him some money. Fraternities and sororities on Penn’s campus and elsewhere are constantly donning shirts that say “got greek?” or “Greek Life…Is it in you?”

So why are they especially useful for the original company? Well every imitation just expands their reach, because when you see a copycat ad you can’t help but remember the original. And sometimes they become so pervasive that your competition gets desperate, freaks out, and imitates you too! (i.e. think Microsoft’s new “I’m a PC” campaign- Apple can just sit back, relax, and watch Microsoft do the work for them!)

Long story short, keep it simple and replicable and let the copycats do the work for you. Just do it.

A new burger joint called Top This just opened up on Penn’s campus. The restaurant has a creative name, and an even more creative pricing strategy. Take a look:

See anything strange? In case you didn’t catch it, the Fries & Beverage “combo” actually costs more than purchasing the fries and a beverage separately… 1 cent more to be exact. Creative no? Trick your customers into thinking that since it’s convention for combos to be cheaper than buying the individual components, they are probably getting a better deal with the combo and they probably don’t need to check…

Except when they do. A friend noticed this, took a picture, and showed me, and of course he’s not the only one that’s noticed. The 1 cent difference isn’t even the issue, it’s more about principle, and it’s justifiably pissing people off. Strategic pricing is an art, and firms pour tons of money into research in this area, but there some basic no-no’s. This is one of them.