A team at Ogilvy spent last week on the West Coast. Among other things, we visited 4 of our partners in quick succession: Apple, Google, Facebook and Twitter. There is nothing like popping in on these folks in this serial fashion to provoke comparisons.
The reason we visited in the first place was informed not just by the fact that we already do some great business together but that these 4 companies represent the most successful ventures in the Valley. I have deep admiration for each and remain enthusiastic about how our businesses will be connected long into the future. Every major marketer and brand shoudl have a strategy (and practice) of working with each of these companies. They will not just innovate their own forms of advertising but will each change how brands are built.
Facebook vs. Google
Google felt like the mature one out of the three software-based companies. That makes sense of course as they are older and their business model is proven. They reflected a curiosity in how people behave and how their services might support them. Interestingly, they also shared a POV on how to foster innovation and look for the "innovators" in an organization. I sensed a deeply curious culture, one that had arisen and not been forced upon the new recruits.
Facebook was more about the platform, the software and the engineers who keep it alive and growing. Their insight into people seems to come from the interactions they have with that software. No one could be more committed to Facebook.Their 24-hour Hack-a-thons are a piece of their culture now and symbolize that drive to push individual limits to achieve something cool. Both companies feature similar support systems for workers that enable them to focus more on work and less on picking up dry cleaning or the mundane chores many of us wrestle with. That, like stock options, is an attribute of Valley life. Workers considering a gig at the big guys come to expect that.
Apple vs. Twitter
Apple is a product company. Twitter is an information network. Apple has more than endured, they have prevailed. Twitter is still punching itself up from start-up fervor to true business. interestingly, they do share something. They both know who they are. I was struck by the self-awareness at each company about what business they are in. I admit, I often thought Apple was on the road to becoming a software company where, in fact, the software is completely in service to the hardware.
Meanwhile, Twitter continues to deflect comparisons to Facebook which are unfair. The differences are clear. The Social Network connects people in ever-expanding ways. The Information Network gets us all news and information via the filter that matters most - people and sources we have affinity for and select.
Apple's iAds, born from their successful acquisition/integration of Admob are impressive. They certainly look better that most other onlne ad experiments going on out there. Traditional agencies love them as they challenge a highly visual creativity. The best work will be defined as the work that delivers enough value via entertainment, information or utility. That is a bit of a universal recipe these days and the iPad and iPhone will be defined by it.
Twitter has three interesting ad solutions - promoted tweets, accounts and trends. Used by great Twitter accounts (those who really deliver value and engage their followers), these solutions can do great things like bump follower acquisition by 10-15%. While nascent, Twitter's advertising reflects options that are in sync with its service.
Four great companies. Each quite different yet each will define how marketing and communications evolves over the next 5 years.
Helpful resources:
Comments