As we speak more and more about getting outside of our cubes, outside of the agency walls, and outside of our own environments or ways of thinking, it helps to get a little direction on the new things to check out. In that light, I want to share a guitar-playing duo from Mexico City – Rodrigo y Gabriela. If you have not seen or heard these two perform, prepare to be blown away!
Thinking of all the wonderful words we use to express ourselves, all of the combinations of those words that create sayings, and how people express themselves differently, it’s great to take a look at other languages too to see if there are some words that just don’t translate to English.
From the Matador Network, “20 Awesomely Untranslatable Words from Around the World”, here are a few of my favorites:
Mamihlapinatapei – Yagan (indigenous language of Tierra del Fuego) – the wordless, yet meaningful look shared by two people who both desire to initiate something but are both reluctant to start
Jayus – Indonesian – a joke so poorly told and so unfunny that one cannot help but laugh
Tartle – Scottish – the act of hesitating while introducing someone because you’ve forgotten their name
Ilunga – Tshiluba (Southwest Congo) – a person who is ready to forgive and forget any first abuse, tolerate it the second time, but never forgive nor tolerate on the third offense
Wabi-Sabi – Japanese – a way of living that focuses on finding beauty within the imperfections of life and accepting peacefully the natural cycle of growth and decay
Ya’aburnee – Arabic – both morbid and beautiful at once, this incantatory word means “You bury me,” a declaration of one’s hope that they’ll die before another person because of how difficult it would be to live without them
The post ends with some great thoughts on not only understanding the definition of a word but also its “texture.” There is an emotion and context to words spoken that get at deeper meanings. Perhaps we can start using some of these words to express that which we have not been able to express fully ourselves.
Mashable is trying to create a real-life Facebook Wall in their office and want 500,000 Facebook “Likes” to make this happen. It could look something like this:
As of right now they have 352,552 people that “Like” Mashable. It’s a fun idea and, granted, I have 37 Facebook friends that currently “Like” Mashable. The most interesting part is how they are delivering this information. Each morning I look forward to a Mashable email that has all the stories from the previous day. It explains why so many of my blog posts are inspired by this source. This morning, I was surprised to see in my email a section dedicated to my Facebook friends that also like Mashable.
Theoretically lots of people get the same email as me and yet Mashable customized it. So, I followed the link to the same post on the Mashable website and it happened again! Some of the friends were different, but I am still fascinated.
Not to totally weird myself out, I found the post organically in a different browser and the people who “Like” Mashable were not friends. Phew!
Fascinating and terrifying all at the same time. Which makes me think how we often want to customize content because it can perform better. At the same time, is there a line and where is it? At what point have we customized content enough to freak people out? Something to ponder…
Memes crack me up and are worth noting to see their evolution.
Sometimes we get so excited about our own stuff we forget how others will see everything. I have two examples to back this up. Back in March RadioShack said they had a big announcement. I was super excited and even retweeted that the announcement was coming, something I rarely do.
The announcement was an older model iPhone would go on sale for $99. Was this cool news? Some friends wondered.
More recently, Apple made a big announcement. They were jazzed to have Beatles music available on iTunes. Momentous, yes, but was this really cool? Some of my friends didn’t think so.
But, were these actually cool announcements? I say let the research inform us as to what is and isn’t working. Apparently, 2,000,000 Beatles songs were sold in the first week on iTunes! Yep, cool for several people. Now I wonder how the $99 iPhone did for RadioShack.
In a 1972 study among members of congress unveiled that more legislators were first borns (51) in their famillies, than middle (39) or youngest (31), signifying that there are some common traits among children dependent on birth order, including a higher desire for achievement.
According to this article from NPR, “One factor is that firstborns tend to get undivided parental resources.” It appears that it takes a child or two after the firstborn for parents to relax a bit and let the chips fall where they may, thus lessening the expectations for subsequent siblings.
Of course, as with any human behavior assessment, this article makes sure we understand that there are many cases in which the firstborn effect (aka primogeniture) does not manifest in its classic form. Case in point, six and half years younger, my brother still refers to me as “Big Sister.”
Just something to keep us centered about brands on Facebook and how quickly everything changes.
There seems to be a mobile application for everything one would want to do with their phone. Not really, but “there’s an app for that” is frequently tossed around among smart phone users, especially iPhone and Android users.
However, more people actually prefer mobile websites over apps right now. At the same time, many brands feel like they need to develop an app, even if the functionality is minimal and many consumers expect brands to have mobile apps. So what gives? This seems contradictory. Well, the idea is that an app will be easier to use from a mobile device compared to a traditional website, but many apps can’t do all the things consumers want and so many consumers revert back to a website, especially if there is a mobile website. Clear as mud?
Essentially we have a need that is only partially filled and until brands become smarter about mobile apps, consumers will continue to explore multiple mobile brand interaction points until they find the one that works best for them. The only concern with this approach is that brands could be missing an important moment. If an app is only adequate or even “buggy” in the beginning, consumers could dismiss it, even write a bad review, and then never return. A lost opportunity.
Moral of the story: Don’t Create an App for App’s Sake
After seeing the excitement that Kristen expressed in the previous post, I had to take a look at “Mary Meeker’s Awesome Web 2.0 Presentation About The State Of The Web.” I agree that the way the data is presented is hyper compelling and helps me continue to push myself on the issue. I was also jazzed by this slide.
The information is important because it shows the future of marketing. Consumers want things fast, easy, fun, and accessible. Especially when content is delivered through their mobile device, and it should be.
For a long time I had a sign up on my wall that read, “Numbers are Rarely Inspiring.” And it’s true. Most of us have been stuck in a room with a statistical presentation. You know, those dark rooms in which slides of bar charts and pie graphs click by as you struggle to keep your eyes from rolling back in your head and drool from seeping out of the corners of your mouth. You come out in a half zombie state wondering if you are actually smarter than when you walked in.
I mention this so you know that I know the below presentation of media usage and brand insights is almost nothing but charts. However Morgan Stanley’s Mary Meeker makes a point. There’s a mass movement of change occurring — and the statistics are what make this believable, visual and worth studying. I was at the point that while I was reviewing this presentation I wanted to skip the text slides in anticipation of the next bar chart. Sick, I know.
See the presentation by clicking here.
TM Front Burner 