Are the Forthcoming Snapchat Spectacles Better than Google Glass?

As a marketing professor, one of the best things I can do for my students is to expose them to the latest and greatest technologies to provide them with a competitive advantage against older and more experienced professionals whose education took place before these latest and greatest technologies permeated our world.  Thus, when I read the recent article by Shelly Palmer in Ad Age entitled, "Snapchat's Spectacles Can Succeed Where Google Glass Failed,” I was very intrigued.

You see, I truly believe that virtual reality, augmented reality and wearable technologies have the ability to transform the way we will live our lives tomorrow.  The impact of these technologies on marketing and business will be tremendous and powerful.  If you are convinced of the power of experiential marketing, these technologies have the ability to take experiences to an entire new level with even stronger impacts on consumers’ buying and consumption habits.

To that end, I often introduce students to the idea of Google Glass (great explanation in this video by Marques Brownlee) and Microsoft HoloLens (check out these demonstration videos) in my classes.  Palmer’s Ad Age article calls Google Glass a failed technology.  Why would I show my students a “failed technology”?  The reason is because with a few tweaks, this technology could be made awesome and perhaps one of my students will do it!  The reason is because it might not be Google Glass, but it will be something similar and it will transform our lives and our work!  The truth is, I believe that Google learned a lot from their launch and will ultimately deliver something bigger and better before any formidable competitors enter the competitive landscape.  But whatever the future may be…it will look something like this!

However, I was kind of disappointed in the future that Snap Inc. (Snapchat’s new company name) promised in its forthcoming Snapchat Spectacles based on this article.  It sounds like you will have the ability to use a pair of glasses to make videos from a first-person perspective and have the video automatically saved to your Snapchat Memories.  One feature that combats some of the privacy issues that Google Glass faced is that there will be a visible circle on people’s classes to let others know that the video camera is on.  I like the price point at $129!  However, I don’t see the need to have another device to do what my cell phone and GoPro can already do!  Plus, Google Glass was so much more than just a first-person video recorder.  I do not feel it is appropriate to even put this new Snap Inc. product in the same product class.

Regardless, technologies in the class of Google Glass or Microsoft HoloLens will transform our lives.  I see virtual reality videos helping members of the extensive do-it-yourself culture to build and fix anything in their houses!  I see product sampling moving beyond products that can be broken down into pieces, but still deliver the full product benefits (i.e. food).  I see the ability for my child to explore cultures around the world first-hand without ever leaving his classroom.  Think of the potential for the hospitality/tourism industry!  For marketing!  For education!  Wow!  What are some of the future uses you see for this technology?

How Should Companies Deal with Global Tragedies in their Marketing Communications Efforts?

Fifteen years later, I am still always surprised by the number of marketing fails that surround the anniversary of September 11th.  Among the failures of 2016 was this gem:

Why does this happen year after year?  While it is probably clear to most readers why the above mattress commercial is inappropriate, I don’t think the answer is always clear cut to marketers.  For instance, this commercial that aired during the 2002 Super Bowl gained a lot of positive attention on social media since the 10th anniversary of September 11th:

However, when this commercial first aired, Budweiser angered a lot of people who were not ready for companies to begin commercializing such a tragic incident in U.S. history.  The obvious lesson here is that Americans became more accepting of tastefully done tributes to the heroes and victims of September 11th over time.  However, the big question is:  what makes a tastefully done tribute?

For instance, this highly controversial AT&T ad from 2011 is very often very well responded to when I use it as an example in my Promotions and Branding and Integrated Marketing Communications classes:

The photography and creativity of this advertisement is brilliant.  It is like a work of art.  However, the advertisement was controversial because the product and brand was front and center.  Consumers perceived this as AT&T presenting itself as more important than the tragedy and lives lost.  Consumers still felt this way 10 years after the incident. 

Yet, I love this example in class because it is a mistake that students can actually see making themselves.  They are captured by the photography and creativity and lose sight of other potential ways consumers may negatively interpret the advertisements.  It’s a powerful example because students cannot see making the mistakes of other marketing fails that I bring into class.  It also is a great jumping point into the discussion of how to tastefully and respectfully acknowledge the tragedy of September 11th (or any tragedy for that matter).

Heidi Rottier, a colleague that teaches Social Media Marketing at Bradley University, provided me with the best visual to help explain the fine lines of acceptability to students:

I think that the best lesson is to make sure that you do not put the brand and company front and center in any tribute to a tragedy impacting human lives.  Any good tribute should feature the heroes and victims as the centerpiece of the advertisement.  In fact, we shouldn’t even think of these pieces of marketing communication as advertisements and instead frame them as tributes.  Paying tribute to the heroes and victims of these tragedies shows that your heart is in the right place as a company.

What do you think…are there any other important lessons as to what is acceptable or not when it comes to paying tribute to a world tragedy in a piece of marketing communication?  Do the lines of acceptability change in other countries and cultures?

Children and Advertising

Before I had a child, I never had any strong thoughts on the controversial topic of advertising toward children. I would even go as far as to say that I thought it was a non-issue and that if parents were so upset about television advertising, they shouldn't let their kids watch TV. While I may have agreed that it was not an ethical or wise marketing decision to place Joe Camel billboards near schools, I also did not really believe that Joe Camel billboards (or the character itself) was a major factor in young people's decision to experiment with cigarettes.

Government agencies like CARU (Children's Advertising Review Unit) provide marketers with some guidance as to what constitutes responsible marketing toward children (in case marketers lack common sense or a basis understanding of business ethics). These recommendations are based upon the assumptions that: 1) children cannot understand the selling intent of commercials and 2) children cannot understand the content of commercials. Some of these smart recommendations include:

1. Advertising should not be deceptive or unfair 
2. Advertising should distinguish between reality and fantasy (and commercials and programing) 
3. Advertising should show children how to use the product appropriately taking the proper safety precautions 
4. Disclaimers should be stated in terms that children understand 
5. Advertisements should not tell children that a product will enhance their social status or that their parents are better than others for having bought the advertised product 

However, after having a child and watching his reactions to different forms of advertising, I have come to realize that advertisements have a very strange power and influence on children that is perhaps a little scary. Here are some examples:

1. Before talking, our one year old would become entranced whenever this popular Norfolk Southern commercial came on - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOtQgM8Hc60. You could not detract his attention away from the television when it was on. 
2. While on vacation at two years old, planes would fly over the beach with banners. Our son particularly liked the Geico banner featuring the Gecko. Afterward, anytime he saw an airplane, he would say, "Look Mom. It's Geico!" 
3. At age three, our child’s letter to Santa included a complete list of every single boy’s toy advertised on Disney or Nick Jr. He did not ask for anything he had seen at a friend’s house or at preschool. 
4. At age three, our son also lectures us (and Santa, in his letter) about the difference between boys and girls toys by describing who he sees playing with different types of toys on Disney and Nick Jr. 

I’m not saying that current regulations and best practices are not enough. But having a child has definitely taught me a lot about the power of commercials on young children – and I do not like it. More research needs to go into understanding how children process content from advertisements. Social and regulatory controls will definitely need to evolve with this research. On the positive side, my college students do not seem to pay much attention to commercials. So, the strange influence of commercials on my child will probably get better over time and hopefully not do any lasting harm.

Any other thoughts out there about the issue of children and advertising and what should be done from a parental, societal or regulatory standpoint? Does anyone have any clever ideas about potential research studies that could fill in some of the knowledge gaps in this area?