Photosynth concept to map experience

I really don't say this too often, but today I was pleasantly surprised, and amazed by Microsoft. What the boring, yet super clever people at Microsoft have done is infused two different technologies and concepts, and come up with one rather clever piece of kit.

By adding the Photosynth concept to Bing maps, they've created a truly unique map experience. Sometimes visuals speak so much louder than words, so have a look at this...

Size Matters

A brand exists entirely in peoples minds. Therefore a brand is whatever they say or think it is. Words can only go so far in emphasizing meaning or substance. However visual aide and simple imagery can help decifer the most complex, or ubiquitous of data.

So here's a few brands to see how well you know your brands...and yes, the most obvious of words have been excluded, but I'm sure it won't be too difficult...

From looking at some of the 'tags', surely certain brands need to look a whole lot closer at their brand image and consumer perception.

Is Microsoft really to blame?

With the recent revelations of Microsoft playing about with the colour preferences of their marketing photograph and now apologising for the 'mishap', surely the more significant issue is why they feel they needed to make such changes.

Marketing is after all only relevant and correct if aimed precisely at it's given target-market, and is culturally effective. Therefore adaptations of this kind are only a result of what a region or country is willing to accept, or morally adhere to. I would argue Microsoft were merely adapting their marketing photo for a specific region, in this case Poland, to make it more socially and culturally acceptable. Whether that be right or wrong is something we most definitely will discuss in the coming days, but what is evident and concerning, is the level of disintegration that still exists in some parts of the world.

Microsoft has apologized for the incident and taken the offending image down, as well as stating they would be looking further into the matter. A spokesman said: 'The image has been removed. Diversity and inclusion are core values and business imperatives of Microsoft and we apologise for any offence that might have been taken.'

From a marketing viewpoint Microsoft were both right and wrong in adapting their marketing photograph for a sensitive market, and allowing such minorities to manipulate their values and beliefs. What should be taken from this incident is to identify that differences and inequalities still exist in some parts of the world. It should be our aim to overcome these differences for a more unified and equal world, and if mishaps of this kind do nothing but remind us of the single minded minorities that are still among us, then let that be the drive for us to continue in our efforts.

However, one final note, whether Microsoft thought they would be able to integrate and merge the body of an Afro-Caribbean, with the head of a Caucasian and get away with it so easily is still both questionable, and stupid.

Creatively controversial or Creatively cunning

Creative, if you can call it that or 'boundary pushing' controversial work can help generate more than just an advert. Sometimes, a campaign can become very well known for all the wrong reasons. Publicity is a funny little thing. Is good publicity really good and bad publicity really bad? Or on the other hand, is good publicity really bad, and bad publicity really good? Or is any publicity good publicity, as long as it helps generate more awareness, more exposure and more conversation?

It's clearly evident from past experiences that controversial advertising will get you noticed, it will also help you get pages and pages of free, widespread publicity. Articles in newspapers, mentions on TV, links on websites, discussions in blogs, and tweets on Twitter, all a resulting factor of a 'bad' campaign. What we must ask ourselves though is, if we get that much exposure, that much interaction, and that much interest, then is it really a 'bad' campaign? In some cases you couldn't afford to buy the type of exposure some campaigns get for a controversial piece of advertising. So do agencies and clients alike, put such pieces of work out there for our scouring eyes, knowing full well that a reaction of some kind is very prominent and very likely, and is that reaction, in some cases, what they are looking for?

In all honesty, I don't feel it damages a brand, as long as the campaign is morally, and ethically correct, to an extent. Most recently, the banned Microsoft campaign has not had any positive effects on the brand. It's direct connection with race and colour is something Microsoft would have preferred to strayed well away from. This shows a distinct difference between 'cunningly creative' and boundary pushing work, as appose to discriminating, and socially sensitive work.

Creatively controversial work can have a big impact on a brand and it's presence in the industry, and within the media. However, only when it is executed correctly and precisely will it provide a beneficial outcome. It is also imperative to understand and take into consideration the target market of a brand, and how they may, or may not react or perceive to such 'cunning' creativity.

Whether acts of such 'controversial' or 'cunning' nature are ethically or morally correct for the industry is up for debate, but thats not to say we won't see many more boundary pushing campaigns in the near future. If there's a line, it's always going to get stepped over.

I love my Mac!!

I recently made the 'big switch'..from PC to the new world that is Mac, and I must admit, its one of the best things I've done!

I did the initial reading and research into the world of Apple, and considered all the flaws and disadvantages against the benefits and advantages. I had a number of individuals to assist me too, a good friend telling me to definitely switch over, my brother telling me its a marketing ploy, my sister pointing out the facts of price VS spec..and all I really wanted was to buy into the brand...

Being sucked into the whole branding of Apple was absolutely fine for me, it is a better product after all (not sure if thats me talking or the marketing I've bought into), but value for money was also a concern, albeit for a very small amount of time. The only other major concern I had was for the compatibility of existing documents and files, as well as softwares, and the ease of transition. But that I found was extremely easy, even for a rather novice light user of the computer like myself. My new Apple iMac is absolutely amazing!! I love everything about it, from how it looks, to the screen quality, to the desktop and beyond. If anything I find it far easier to use than any PC I've owned, without all of that virus and spyware nonsense, it's an absolute dream.

Having initially wanting to merely buy into the brand, and the glossy feel of an Apple computer, I can now confidently say it is a worthy, and yes, better product than any PC. Yes I accept some of the specs are limited, and the price is a little inflated, but what you get is a high quality, efficient, precise bit of kit, which works effortlessly within itself.

If you buy into the brand, you'll definitely more than enjoy your product.