Outsource Digital – Part of Outsource UK Ltd. We're committed to bringing you the most interesting headlines and latest industry insight.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Space: The final frontier for advertising.

Can on the moon.
(credit: the verge)



Japanese company Otsuka is sending a drink called ‘sweat’ (Pocari Sweat in full) to the ‘Lake of Death’ on the moon for the value of the public and media attention it will bring.

The plan is to send a payload over 236,000 miles to put a can of powdered sports drink to the moon. There’s an added bonus for the makers of the lander, Astrobiotic Technologies, in the shape of  Google’s Lunar X price for successful moon exploration.

In part it’s the scale, expense and popular opposition to the commercialisation of space that’s meant that there hasn’t been much advertising in space prior to this.

The Russian space programme was less perturbed by the idea though, blowing up an inflatable Pepsi can on Mir in 1996, before Israeli milk company Tnuva filmed a whole ad there in 1997. 

Russian astronauts inflate their space Pepsi
(credit: capcomespace)


The first ad ever filmed in space. Milk doesn't look too appetising in zero gravity, I'm afraid.

By 2001 the Russians were back at it but with the global stage of the International Space Station; accepting deliveries from Pizza Hut, shortly after slapping their logo on rockets.



Amazingly before all this in 1993 a proposal was made for a 1km squared billboard, on a low orbit above the Earth, that’d be about the same size and visibility as the moon. It was promptly abandoned when it was realised everyone was more than happy with having one actual moon, the fact that night should essentially be dark and that space is pretty packed with things that’d smash into a billboard of that size. Faced with a such a spectacularly bad idea the US government banned space advertising later that year but that was scaled back in 2005 to exclude advertising that wasn’t “obtrusive” such as on the astronaut’s suit. Right now the US is the only country that officially prohibits space advertising.

It may seem a bit of an unnecessary leap for advertising to thrust itself into space, but it might be more likely than it seems at first glance. The modern consumers' life (and let’s be realistic, we’re a long way from stopping consuming) is dominated by marketing, branding and advertising.  Even the wonderful, open and seemingly limitless web you’re reading this on is largely supported by ad revenue. If a company stands to represent the experience of the web it could easily be Google, a company that generates more than 90% of its revenue from advertising.

There comes a time when we compromise and innovate, we push messaging into places it hasn’t been before, like the first time a sponsorappeared on a football kit or an ad came through on the radio. Ads are going up into space, bit by bit and in greater numbers – whether it’s a positive democratisation of space technology, or a negative commercialisation of a wondrous frontier we're yet to even graze is a question for the same audience as always, the viewers back on the ground.

For now it’s one not so small step for a drinks can, but one giant leap (good or bad) for advertising.
Read More
Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Ridiculous Samsung ad sees mobile-augmented footballers save Earth.
#Galaxy11. Yeah, we know, there's 13, but when Landon Donovan arrives who could turn him away?


Korean electronics giant Samsung has gone way beyond the ordinary with its ludicrously scaled battle to save the planet to promote its newest smartphone the Galaxy S5 - racking up half a million views in only a day. There’s a certain charm to the premise, plus its amazingly tenuous attempts to show the S5's key features and the 4 minute spot, ‘The Training’, certainly isn’t short on entertainment value. Also  it marks possibly the only time we’ll see Messi and Ronaldo working together, despite a relatively contemptuous glance afterwards.



Under its sci-fi skin it offers some not unlikely world cup scenarios – an English player (Rooney) fails to score a penalty, Casillas gets to play a cup game and Victor Moses appears, inexplicably, but with little impact- in fact the ball actively gets up and walks away from him. More unlikely though is the six armed robot goalkeeper and hopefully the prospect of alien invasion.


If you’re going for the full experience check out to the precursor trailer, setting the scene for ‘The Training’ – aptly named ‘The Beginning’, or even the comprehensive microsite. Personally, despite not having waited all my life for a weird cocktail of Tron, District 9, Portal and football, I’m interested to see where Samsung takes the campaign next. The blockbuster approach from agency, RGA, means it certainly won’t be lost amongst shallow, unadventurous World Cup cash-in ads.
Read More
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Why no one buys anything for 9.99 online.
Money is obviously important - and no one wants to overpay - but money isn't the only thing our purchases cost us. Time is a fair bit more important than money to the customer. More than likely we'll spend our money and then get more money, money is in theory infinite (wages aren't though unfortunately). But time - once we start our undeviating shuffle towards death, the moment we're born, the less and less time we have.

Pick one. Are you picking on price or an experience? 


The phenomenon of selling a brand on the experience is down to the time lost being a more worthwhile expense than any money could be. It's not new either, there's promises older than me in this list; Apple will improve your time as you'll be compelled to 'Think Different', Nike's urging you to take most the of your time with 'Just Do It' or you could simply take a minute to 'Enjoy Coca Cola'. It's behaviour that's likely to only increase as the next generation is going to amazing lengths to avoid being 'owned by their possessions' and status symbols increasingly relate to experience rather than expense. 'Psychological pricing' such as the old school idea that pricing things at '.99' makes them seems better value is having to adapt the review-powered nature of e-commerce.

In the golden age of advertising the advertiser relied on their reputation to sell an experience - now it falls to dozens of unbiased peer reviews with each product.
(credit: neat-stuff-blog)



These two factors have conspired together as a strange death knell for the humble '.99'. People don't care enough about the penny or nickle they're saving. People aren't sitting there wasting their time adding '.99' into a search for an item they'd happily buy at a penny more or less. People aren't searching with a '.99' price in mind. Searchers are mixing their terms, throwing in product names, specifications and then adding in a round price to make sure they get their results in the region of what they're prepared to spend. Psychological pricing depended on the object being directly in front of the consumer, without millions of competitive items and appreciated from the standpoint of its worth being a deceptively-smaller looking pricepoint. The web offers countless storefronts, full of real-world reviews at a huge range of prices.


This shows the return of ".99" searches against rounded numbers
(credit: social-media.co.uk)


So if you want to sell all your '.99' items, set them to '1.00', surround them with positive reviews and a compelling brand that makes the customers most valuable expenditure, their time, seem justified... and as an added plus you'll make an extra penny.



Read More
Monday, May 12, 2014

World Cup Posters: 1930 - 2014
It’s exactly a month until the whistle blows on the world’s biggest sporting tournament in arguably the world’s biggest footballing superpower, Brazil, and understandably a wave of excitement has swept all before it like Yaya Toure in full flow.

(Click to enlarge)


Here we are to celebrate the art of the humble World Cup poster – (we’ve already doffed our hat to the best World Cup Nike ads). As a specialist digital recruitment agency, it’s a challenge any of our creative clients or candidates can appreciate; to create a beautiful artefact for the world audience while representing the nationality of the hosts and the spirit (and brand) of the tournament. It's a nice stroll through the history of design in the period too, with its Art Deco start, through the odd Saul Bass-looking poster into some beautiful Swiss design influenced masterpieces. Then into the 1990's urge to use every colour all at once, with as little order as possible, before finishing on the friendly, simplistic designs of the present day. 


We’re big fans of England 1966, somewhat inevitably, the halftone treatment of Argentina 1978 and Chile 1962's minimalist but ominous football moon. Mexico repeatedly deserve some credit for abandoning every principle, first the brown ball and then words all together, but it’s a shame 2002 onwards are following more and more of a formula. 

Which is your favourite?
Read More
Friday, May 09, 2014

Apple + Beats: Buying headphones or buying 'cool'?
(credit: idownload)


The world’s most valuable technology company is apparently set to finally spend some of its not inconsiderable war-chest on making a major acquisition – the sort of thing that Facebook and Google do every other week. In its sights is headphone super-brand Beats, for a cool $3.2 billion (£1.9 billion).
Created by Jimmy Iovine and Dr Dre, who is doing his best to make sure no-one has ‘forgot about Dre’, the headphone brand has gone from strength to strength.

The proposed buy has been met with some fervent support and some stiff opposition, so here’s a brief rundown of what Apple stands to gain or lose:

Apple’s buying ‘cool’ – While there’s no doubt Apple’s star still shines brightly, it’s definitely lost a bit of its glow to the younger generation. This is partly down to a perceived lack-of-innovation and partly down to the fact an emotive challenger brand has become a stable, dominant industry leader.

Many have claimed Apple buying Beats equates to Apple to buying some ‘cool’ back. That sounds a bit desperate for an incomparably large tech-giant and it’s hard to know exactly how Apple would cash in on that ‘cool’. That’s ignoring it’s pretty uncool in itself to need to buy cool. Even so if Apple can come out of that relatively unscathed they’ll own one of the world’s most prominent audio brands at the moment, with the opportunity to incorporate the attractiveness of Beats into Apple’s own offering wherever they like. Free Beats headphones with iPhones for example could become something that Samsung and HTC find impossible to match.

Beats is one of the most celebrity led brands on the planet. Here's Lil Wayne. 
(credit: hiphopwired)


Apple’s buying audio credibility (if not quality) – Beats certainly come with credibility, I’m sure it wouldn’t be too hard to argue Dr Dre knows a bit more about music than Tim Cook. But the critics aren’t actually all that fond of Beats either, with them being regarded as heavily over-priced for how good they really sound. Not to mention accusation on it being reliant on style over substance. Some commentators are claiming with Apple’s past reputation for striving for the best of everything in hardware that buying Beats doesn’t represent a quality-led acquisition. Nevertheless they’re much better than Apple’s current headphones which represent one of Apple’s most common sticking points in the consumer markets – but it’s a $3bn spend on a technology Apple already fundamentally has.

Dr Dre's tagline for the Beats campaign


Apple’s getting a leading streaming service – Beats has a streaming service, Beats Music, it’s not the best or the biggest, but its successful and unlike many others it’s paid subscription only and so far people have been willing to pay $10 a month for the service. Apple on the other hand has seen its iTunes market greatly eroded by streaming services, something iTunes Radio (their one year old streaming offering) has been unable to compete with. Realistically though, if Apple were desperately after a streaming service then Spotify, Rdio or Pandora would be much better buys, so that suggests the Cupertino company are at least partly interested in Beats hardware and brand equity.

Beats Music features personalised playlist and majors on attractive design.
(credit: engadget)


What Apple’s really getting – All of those things, but not without drawbacks.
All in all despite it being Apple and Beats, two brands known for their showstopping drama, it’s a bit of a safe buy. Just how wrong can it go? It’s a solid brand with a solid product with a bonus streaming service. There’s nothing there Apple doesn’t want, but nothing that’s going to fundamentally change the landscape of consumer tech. It's neither marketing victory, nor marketing disaster.

The can of worms that’s potentially being opened though is – are Beats headphones without an Apple logo cooler than those with an apple logo? Does it matter if they are.

With all the money in the world Apple is going out and buying something it largely has, with a not outstanding reputation of quality or innovation. From my perspective this acquisition is all very ‘new’ Apple, not ‘old’ Apple – safe, rational and loosely uninspiring – but with the potential to masquerade as the opposite. The fact that we're talking about Apple buying someone who just makes headphones, rather than Apple's latest jaw-dropping innovation says more than almost any acquisition could.


Read More