As I was reading this article I found myself questioning the whole concept of ‘collections’. Back in my days of toy collecting and playing Pokemon, a collection meant a pool of things you truly valued and would not part with for any amount of money. Fast forward to today’s world and the word is just a compartmentalized word for the latest celebrity’s favorite clothes; a marketing device.

Devaluing my childhood pursuits aside, I thought about the actual impact of using a collection and just how much more attractive things get when a name is attached to it. Unfortunately, I can’t exactly perform a controlled experiment to test this problem but I can definitely speak my mind about the issue (this is the internet after all).

All in all, I think this is a fairly smart move. What Ebay is essentially doing is allowing users to compile lists, similar to Pinterest and its boards, to better categorize shopping lists.

In strictly organizational terms, this just makes shopping more efficient from both buyers’ and sellers’ perspectives. Buyers see grouped up items of a similar nature without reliance on Ebay’s recommendation algorithms (accompanied by associated flaws). While sellers on the other hand, can easily suggest similar products and influence further purchases, again without relying on non-perfect algorithms.

In less strict terms, the power of influential people in persuading consumers to purchase is definitely a proven factor. Collections with high profile names like singers and actors carry far higher price tags than other similar items. Pairing up with popular bloggers and giving them another avenue to monetize is also an interesting point in this campaign. People flock to dress, act, and live like their idols and Ebay is doing nothing wrong by capitalizing on that. The pursuit of likeness is always there, Ebay is just sweetening the deal for everyone.

Earlier this year, our feeds were flooded with pictures, links and videos of these funny critters showed above. ‘Dumb ways to die’ sounded like some warped reincarnation of Happy Tree Friends if any of you have heard of that disturbingly popular cartoon of the 2000s but it was a pleasant surprise to me as I watched the original iteration.

The ad is essentially a fun mix of everything you would ever want in a viral video (catchy music, funny lyrics, lovable characters) and a relatively grim message, all in a singsong bundle of carnage. It was a PSA released by the Australian government as a way to mitigate the amount of accidents on the metro (that’s their train system for the uninitiated). The result? An unprecedented 21% decrease in accidents on the metro when compared to the same time period last year.

It’s not necessarily a case of something extraordinarily novel, but the execution and appeal of the video was just something that resonated so well within, well, everyone. Kids were attracted, adults found it humorous, I wouldn’t even be surprised if grumpy bosses everywhere got a snicker out of it. It put together the strongest facets of virality and executed it so well.

Building up on that, other companies would just take this as a win and start making their way toward the podium but they took it further. They saw this PSA, something that shouldn’t have profits mixed in its goals, and converted it into something they actually reaped revenues off of. They created campaigns to stimulate user generated content (singing their own karaoke versions of the song and sending it over), syndicated their song over typical media outlets and basically just had a field day with it.

Pushing up the bottom line, entertaining saps like me AND saving people from falling into train tracks? You have my thanks Metro Trains, Australia.

PS: A little article detailing a few of the figures and numbers I hinted on.

I’m not going to lie, I have a strong love-hate relationship with fast food and it’s been an ongoing struggle for way too long. On the one hand, it’s horrible. It’s nutritional value is something to be laughed at and clearly the cons are far greater than the pros. On the other hand, it’s just so darn convenient. Food in my stomach after just swiping a card? Convenient locations such as a 5 minute walk from my apartment?

I don’t fully understand my reaction to this in all honesty. It’s streamlining something I’m diverting so many of my resources into avoiding but I just can’t get over the fact that it’s such a brilliant idea. Basically, the Go Cup is a new product launched by KFC that is a customizable (you can choose which food items go in it) cup of their products you can easily place in any car seat cup holder. Yes, it’s that simple. It’s taking something that people naturally know as fast food and just making faster. It’s already been a prevalent idea that’s been backed by tons of data that there is a huge ratio of users who purchase fast food on the go and eat it in their cars and how it took so long to come up with an idea like this is beyond me.

It’s a classic demonstration of catering to your market. They’ve collected data, they’ve observed their consumers and they are simply adapting to something that is just so blatantly simple and obvious. I’m well on my way to a healthier lifestyle but if KFC and those other unnamed fast food giants continue doing stupidly brilliant things like this, consumers like me unfortunately have no choice. End satirical rant.

I read this article recently on AdAge and this really brought up the questions of whether conversations between company and consumer were always worth it. As described in the article, frictionless communication between companies and consumers are wholly possible and are actually the norm nowadays. How does one selectively reply to consumers? Is it worth it to reply to non-threatening comments? Has the industry really transitioned from bouts with the disgruntled customer to everyday chit-chat with random pancake enthusiasts?

First off, I’d actually like to sum up the article. The article is about a certain writer’s exchange with IHOP’s Twitter account; a funny little back and forth about really nothing in particular.

@IHOP: #WhyIDidntTextYouBack I was busy eating pancakes.

 

I couldn’t resist tweeting back:

 

@simondumenco: @IHOP That’s no excuse. You can eat pancakes any time you want! It’s clear you really don’t care about me.

 

Within a few minutes, to my surprise, @IHOP wrote back, which led to a slow-motion exchange over roughly the next half hour:

 

@IHOP: @simondumenco Don’t say that, Simon! You know that we care about you, don’t be silly!

 

@simondumenco: @IHOP Well, then put down the fork and let’s talk.

 

@IHOP: @simondumenco Forks down. What would you like to chat about? 🙂

 

@simondumenco: @IHOP I just need to feel like this relationship is going somewhere.

 

@IHOP: @simondumenco Let’s take it one pancake at a time. 😉

 

@simondumenco: @IHOP I stopped seeing @WaffleHouse because I thought you were serious about us. And now you want to take it one pancake at a time?

 

@IHOP: @simondumenco No need to rush things, the right breakfast companion is worth the wait.

 

@simondumenco: @IHOP Wow, did I just get friendzoned by IHOP?

 

@IHOP: @simondumenco We need a little time, we just got out of a relationship with French toast.

After poking some fun at it, the writer then goes on to point out that IHOP actually does this with regular everyday consumers that interacts with their Twitter handle. It’s fantastic to think that companies are willing to go out and do things like this, but from the back end of things, is this really something worth their time? In this manner, one would guess that the writer’s handle was recognized as a writer from a well known news outlet but otherwise, would interacting with any random person really do anything for a company’s brand or its bottom line? It’s a study in micromanagement that probably entails more than a tiny blog post but it’s an interesting sentiment to mull over.