Comments on: What Brands (Should) Do http://www.annoyingdesign.org/blog/2008/05/30/what-brands-should-do/ redesign the world Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:09:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Paula Thornton http://www.annoyingdesign.org/blog/2008/05/30/what-brands-should-do/comment-page-1/#comment-139 Paula Thornton Fri, 30 May 2008 23:11:47 +0000 http://www.annoyingdesign.org/blog/2008/05/30/what-brands-should-do/#comment-139 I absolutely agree with the first state you represent here, but not the second. Consumers should stand both as individuals and as collectives in circles like David's influence ripples (http://twurl.nl/nyo7wu), where the brands should simply be one in the crowd, or off to the side capturing the observations (to assess for trends/patterns). The ripple model is ideal in two other critical ways. 1. The one you've portrayed here is hierarchical, an artifact of a linear universe. 2.0 is non-linear, constantly moving and changing. The ripple model implies action, movement, engagement. 2. While 1-to-1 may seem ideal, it is not economically effective/sound. The ripple model specifically focuses on 'energy for free' -- capitalizing on existing energy lowers the cost of doing business (or increases positive results). There has to be a balance in dealing with customers as close to 'personal' as possible, but doing it in somewhat calculated, repeatable ways....approaching the Algorithm in the Design Thinking continuum (http://twurl.nl/35k47x), but making sure that the algorithm is not 'fixed' that it adapts to critical mass changes in the heuristics (patterns). I absolutely agree with the first state you represent here, but not the second.

Consumers should stand both as individuals and as collectives in circles like David’s influence ripples (http://twurl.nl/nyo7wu), where the brands should simply be one in the crowd, or off to the side capturing the observations (to assess for trends/patterns).

The ripple model is ideal in two other critical ways.
1. The one you’ve portrayed here is hierarchical, an artifact of a linear universe. 2.0 is non-linear, constantly moving and changing. The ripple model implies action, movement, engagement.

2. While 1-to-1 may seem ideal, it is not economically effective/sound. The ripple model specifically focuses on ‘energy for free’ — capitalizing on existing energy lowers the cost of doing business (or increases positive results).

There has to be a balance in dealing with customers as close to ‘personal’ as possible, but doing it in somewhat calculated, repeatable ways….approaching the Algorithm in the Design Thinking continuum (http://twurl.nl/35k47x), but making sure that the algorithm is not ‘fixed’ that it adapts to critical mass changes in the heuristics (patterns).

]]>