Who is Farhan Lalji?

There’s an interesting article from the Economist this week on Bill Gates and the future for Microsoft. I was skimming through it when one particular point caught my eye,

Microsoft will launch a $300m rebranding campaign later this year. To make Microsoft hip again, the firm has hired one of America’s coolest advertising agencies, Crispin Porter+Boguski.

I don’t think dumping money into branding will help MSFT become hip again. At the end of the day consumers can see through false messages.

Unless Microsoft backs up the branding dollars with openness, supporting the tech community, and innovating in a way that users really find engaging and attractive all the dollars they spend on branding might have been better spent as a grant to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.

Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference is kicking off in a couple of minutes. I don’t own a Macbook or an iPhone (yet) but I’m pretty excited. As I mentioned earlier I’m a guy who waits for a couple of product iterations and when the price comes down a bit before I dive in. In addition my phone contract is up later this year and I’ll be relocating in the next couple of months which will mean it’s time for some new toys – hello Apple… or blackberry, it depends on what’s announced later today.

It’s incredible how much excitement is generated from the WWDC, with speculation running rampant from tech blogs to the BBC. Flickr has over 11,000 pictures tagged with the term wwdc. My favourite is this picture that has the covered banner from inside the conference space.

What Apple does really well is create products and get people excited about them. People are so excited that when they release a newer cheaper version a few months’ later people aren’t ticked that they bought the more expensive version, instead their lining up to buy another phone.

It all comes down to innovation, design and execution. Apple does this well, they build innovative products, they ensure the design has a “wow” factor and they execute early, often and iterate like crazy. That’s a great model for tech businesses if you ask me.

SAI had a post the other day talking about how much the US presidential candidates were raising and spending online. The bottom line was that they were spending little but raising lots.

That’s been my whole argument around interaction and brand advertising. The candidates don’t need to spend money to get their messages online, but online is a powerful channel to make money.

Did a back of the envelope type analysis of the 3 main candidates still in the running and how they were doing on one of the most powerful channels online, YouTube. A search on “Barack Obama” brings up over 50,000 results. Just looking at the first five, there have been over a 1.2 million views, and they all average 4.5 stars. For Hilary Clinton, again over 50,000 views, the kicker here was there was one video with over 4.6 million views and nearly 25,000 comments, but the video was a mash up from the community taking the apple 1984 superbowl ad and using Clinton’s message as Big Brother, ending with a mashed up Apple logo for Barack Obama. The other four messages are fairly positive for Clinton though.

That’s the Democrats, the Republican candidate (or likely candidate, I still don’t get how this works fully) John McCain has over 11,000 videos. The first five videos all paint him in a pretty negative light.

What’s my point? It’s that you don’t need to spend online to have a huge presence online. The candidates have over 20,000 videos online, many of them put together by the community. Then there are the tens of millions of views of these videos, and hundreds of thousands of comments around these messages. Putting display ads on sites for this many views would have cost the candidates hundreds of thousands of dollars at moderate costs per thousand impressions, but they don’t have to spend this amount online. Because the message their pushing, because interaction with these brands, because the user base community driven campaigns online are much, much, much more powerful then a banner ad could ever be.

Now if only companies could focus on delivering engaging user focused interaction rather then trying to spend money on improving the brand maybe they could leverage or harness the real power of the internet.

In a nutshell interaction is becoming cheaper so the investment in the brand promise doesn’t have to be high, as people can just interact with the brand. Simply genius in my opinion. UPDATE - now embedded.

More from Umair on his blog post.