2 Kinds of Wearables: Info display vs. creation, and how they work with time

Note: I’m keynoting about wearables at the Brand Innovators Fashion Week event on Friday, February 14, 2014.  The kind folks at Brand Innovators have published this piece as a white paper. You can learn more about the event and download the white paper here.

People talk about wearable computers in one lumpy category, but doing this erases a key difference between two overlapping — and often opposing — orientations of wearables: the display of old information and the creation of new information.

These orientations have a lot to do with time and whether at a given moment we prioritize present or future.

Being thoughtful about these two orientations can help people use wearables in productive ways that improve their lives, and doing so can also help people seize special moments.  On the flip side, wearables can also add new layers of distraction to our already information-overloaded lives.

When it comes to industry — from media to health and wellness to CPG and beyond — understanding the differences between display and creation can help companies determine the right strategies for using wearables to help build businesses through analytics, advertising and partnership.

Display: here I’m talking about wearable computers that take information coming in from the world and stick it onto new spots on your body.  This is translation in the literal, Latin-root sense of trans locare “to carry across.”

Google Glass perches on a user’s face: the device is a prominent prism in the upper right corner of a user’s glasses, which is a spot nobody paid much attention to before.

Although it has received a ton of press and even a witty new term — “Glasshole” — for people who wear it all the time, Google Glass isn’t the world-changing iPhone of HUD (“heads up display” or “on your face” information), it’s the Apple Newton.

There are other versions of HUD, including an interesting contact lenses plus glasses approach by iOptics and Meta’s “I gotta buy this— wait! it’s $3,000” Iron Man interface.

Display is also the orientation of most Smart Watches, a bit humbler than HUD but with a rich Dick Tracy history.

DickTracy

The Pebble brings text messages and phone calls to your wrist so you don’t have to fumble for your phone, so do the Samsung Galaxy Gear, the Qualcomm Toq, the LG, the Razer Nabu and so on.

Creation starts with the lowly pedometer that counts how many steps you take each day and moves forward to more sophisticated measurements that link a bracelet with sensors and an accelerometer to give a fuller picture of your physical activity.  Some folks call this “m-health.”

The Nike FuelBand and various Fitbit devices (the Flex, the Force) are prominent examples here with Fitbit owning two thirds of the market and enjoying broad compatibility with various smart phone apps to make tracking and analyzing information easier.  The new Force also has an altimeter that is useful for runners.

Creation also embraces all sorts of medical devices, from the much-covered Google Contact Lenses that will help diabetics measure blood sugar to Medtronic’s wireless telemetry that lets its cardiac pacemakers download data from a patient’s pacemaker over wifi to a home network that then sends the data directly to a doctor.

Information creation is at the heart of the Quantified Self movement that turns your body’s activity into accessible and actionable data.  GroupM’s Rob Norman recently quipped on Twitter that this has also created a new genre:

“The Quantified Selfie” definition: sharing the details of your run, walk, or cycle via a wearable device to a social network. Question: why?

Of course, these two information orientations — display and creation — overlap.  The FuelBand and Force creation devices also tell time; the Basis watch has more skin sensors than other fitness wearables.  Google Glass can take pictures and videos— and historically we’ve seen with Facebook and smart phones that photo sharing can drive massive, exponential adoption.

But even if the same device encompasses both orientations, who we are when we use them differs in the moments when we use them for display and creation.

How we think about time

Google CEO Larry Page has said, “Our goal is to reduce the time between intention and action,” but intention, like wearables, is complex.

Deliberate intention expands over the course of time: it is conical.  When we speak, for example, we intend what we say (unless we are lying) but we also mean everything that is implied by what we say even if we haven’t thought out those results in detail.  (In their work on relevance Dan Sperber and Deirdre Wilson call these “implicatures.”)

Intent and action can mean our best laid plans and the work we do to achieve them, but they can also mean impulse and reaction.  One gets us to the gym to work out and the other says, “screw it” and reminds us about the yummy bag of chips in the pantry.  Intent is the superego.  Impulse is the id.  We’re all ego trapped in the middle.

Information creation wearables orient towards the future: who we want to be.  They are devices of intent.

With these devices we work towards fitness goals, or collaborate with our doctors to manage our medical care.  Although there is a big social component (e.g. people geographically separated sharing runs and achievements), that sharing tends to happen after the activity in question.

Wearable information creation devices, in other words, can help us get where we have decided to go: seven hours of sleep each night with 10,000 steps of activity, for example.  They can help us build towards flow states, Mihaly Csíkszentmihályi’s delectable, ephemeral total immersion that happens with practice and focus.

In contrast, information display wearables orient towards the now: who I am at this moment.  They are impulsive rather than considered intent.

When we strap on a SmartWatch or HUD we are inviting the universe to interrupt us, telling the mere meat space reality where our bodies live in that it and its inhabitants are less important than the invisible, alluring universe of information floating just out of sight.

These interruptions — texts, calls, reminders — are even more urgent and intrusive than email with its 67 trillion messages per year because they slide from the supercomputers in our pockets directly onto our wrists or eyes like pickpockets in reverse.

Where information creation devices give us ample chances to share later, information display devices lure us into sharing right this second without fumbling for a device.  Press a button or murmur “OK Glass” and we can broadcast our passing thoughts at any and every moment.

This is not necessarily a bad thing.  We live, after all, in endless progression of moments that build on the shaky foundation of yesterday and lead in a drunkard’s walk into tomorrow.  And we are social beings, pack animals, who need to connect with each other: information display devices help us connect.

But we need to make thoughtful choices about our information diets just like we do with our food diets.  Given my druthers, I’ll always pick the mini-can of Pringles rather than a handful of salted hazelnuts.  But my bigger druther is not to look like Fat Bastard from the Austin Powers movies.  So I only choose the Pringles sometimes.

An entire fitness industry exists to help people mediate between our present urges and future plans, but we don’t have that for our information diets.  Wearables, paradoxically, can accelerate both our discipline and our dissipation.

devil_angel_animal_house_forumVoice Recognition software like Apple’s Siri, Intel’s “Jarvis” prototype, and the compelling Samantha character in the Spike Jonze movie “Her” can also speed up our flow states or distraction.

These services are not wearables in the strict sense (although with Blue Tooth headsets and headphones they do extend onto our bodies), but the voice in our ear can help us find information supporting whatever task we have at hand without having to drop everything and go looking for it.

 

On the other hand, the revenue models for voice recognition software include interruption by advertisers.  The user may be taking a thoughtful walk in the park to help himself think through an idea only to have a friendly voice chirp directly into his ear that the sneakers he was eyeing the other day are on sale at the Foot Locker store just steps away.  Bye bye, idea.  Hello, new kicks.

What all this means for business

As businesses think about building their own wearables, acquiring companies in the space or partnering with wearable companies it will help to think about the two different orientations— information display and information creation.

A fatty snacks company, for example, should orient towards information display when thinking about wearables since people make impulse purchases when they are in the moment rather than contemplating growing waistlines.  The right advertisement on the wrist or displayed directly onto the eyes at the right instant can be powerful and profitable.

Wearables can also intervene in impulsive behavior, as demonstrated by the prototype mood bra from Microsoft that helps dieting women avoid eating driven by emotion rather than nutrition.  Like I said before, these categories bump into each other.

A food company interested in health and wellness might focus on information creation, partnering with a Fitbit-like data platform to create applications that helps people use their data to achieve their goals, acting as a partner to the user and, with luck, later reaping the rewards created by the user’s loyalty.

Gigantic CPG companies with both healthy and fatty snacks could use both approaches for different products.

These different orientations don’t just work for CPG: an auto manufacturer might invite a prospective customer into a dealership with the right test drive promotion displayed on Google Glass as the prospect drives by in her old car (information display).

A maker of bed linens might connect to a body temperature sensor worn at night (information creation) to pump up the temperature in an electric blanket to keep a sleeper warm, or then to lower it when it’s time to get out of bed in the morning.

Conclusion

In “Song of Myself” (1855) the poet Walt Whitman wrote, “Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself.  I am large, I contain multitudes.”  In the 160 years since, social scientists like Dan Ariely and Erving Goffman have shown us the twisty complications of our intentions and identities.

Although we feel like unified beings with coherent identities that transcend all the different hours in the day, we also know that we are different with our children than with our coworkers and that each new situations calls forth a different aspect of ourselves.

We are wide.  We contain multitudes.

For most of us, just 10 or at most 15 years ago our first personal computing experiences were via desktop computer in the disused guest room over a mind-numbingly slow dial-up connection.  Moments of instantaneous computation now spread into every corner of our lives, onto every surface in our homes and even on top of and inside our bodies.

Wearables are new sources of discipline and temptation.  Thoughtful consideration about their orientations towards information and time — rather than as one category — can help us achieve our goals as individuals and businesses.

So long as we don’t get distracted along the way.

 

Sources & Links 

Image of the Dick Tracy stamp found on “MarketingLand.com

Image from “National Lampoon’s Animal House” (1978) found on “TheDissolve.com

http://oldcomputers.net/apple-newton.html

http://www.unevenlydistributed.com/article/details/first-glasses-now-contact-lenses#.Ut1dwGTTl8Y

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/11/5297162/meta-developing-iron-man-interface-augmented-reality-glasses

http://www.medtronic.com/for-healthcare-professionals/products-therapies/cardiac-rhythm/therapies/unique-features/conexus-wireless-telemetry/

http://www.economist.com/news/business/21595461-those-pouring-money-health-related-mobile-gadgets-and-apps-believe-they-can-work

http://thenextweb.com/google/2014/01/17/forget-glass-googlex-testing-smart-contact-lens-diabetics/

https://twitter.com/robnorman

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/Starner-Project-Glass-IEEE.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Relevance-Communication-Cognition-Dan-Sperber/dp/0631198784

http://www.ted.com/talks/mihaly_csikszentmihalyi_on_flow.html

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/disruptions-looking-for-relief-from-a-flood-of-email/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Bastard_(character)

http://qz.com/170668/intels-voice-recognition-will-blow-siri-out-of-the-water-because-it-doesnt-use-the-cloud/

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-12/06/microsoft-smart-bra

 

What should I ask Google’s Susan Wojcicki onstage at ad:tech SF?

I’m delighted to be interviewing Google’s SVP of Advertising Susan Wojcicki next week at ad:tech San Francisco 2013. She’ll make a brief presentation and then the two of us will sit down for a fireside chat.

So what should I ask her?  What burning questions do you have for Google when it comes to their advertising plans?  I have my own list, but would love to supplement via the wisdom of the crowd.

WSJ misses the point of “Recipe Rehab” going to ABC

This morning’s Wall Street Journal has a informative piece by Amir Efrati about how Everyday Health’s popular YouTube show “Recipe Rehab” is heading to syndication on ABC stations and how the YouTube and ABC incarnations of the show will cross-promote each other.

Most importantly, the Journal reports that YouTube is hoping that it’s $150 million original content initiative “will challenge the supremacy of TV and cable in the minds of advertisers.”

But today’s news does nothing to challenge TV, and that’s what the article misses.

While ABC grabbing a YouTube show — the way Cartoon Network grabbed “Annoying Orange” earlier this year — is a triumph for the content creators and (one hopes) an economic win for Google’s YouTube as well, it reinforces that the big screen in the living room is still the big daddy when it comes to advertising.

Right now, YouTube functions as an effective and powerful farm team for TV content producers and an incredible set of data for Google’s search algorithm, but the real win — the magical “I Love Lucy” moment  for online video — will only happen when advertisers flock to a series of online video content that can be measured in GRPs and offer TV dollars… and without additional distribution of that content to TV.

Will a YouTube video ever hit TV impact?

Yes, but probably not the way we expect. As TV audiences continue to fragment (see UM exec David Cohen’s remarks on this in the WSJ article) and as YouTube’s ability to distribute its content to the big screen increases via widgets on Blu-Ray players and the like, we’ll see a glacial leveling of the playing field where TV and online disappear as categories and we just have video.

The advent of heads-up displays like Google’s own Project Glass might inflect how we watch video in ways I cannot predict.

And as DVRs slowly increase their penetration and use — which means that most content will become on-demand content rather than appointment viewing where lots of folks watch the same thing at the same time — the usage and advertising playing fields will level even more.

But that’s not what happened with “Recipe Rehab.”

 

Amazon.com answers your questions!

I’m thrilled that Amazon.com VP Lisa Utzschneider is opening ad:tech San Francisco next week with her keynote address, “Amazon: It’s Day 1 for Advertisers.” At the end of her session I’ll ask Lisa questions posed by readers of this blog– so ask away in the comments!

Background: Amazon first transformed book buying, then all retail, then the books themselves, then added cloud computing, and now they’ve set their sites on digital advertising. How will their combination of customer reach, technology and personalization to serve brands? To paraphrase Urban Airship CEO Scott Kveton, can Amazon own the entire value chain?

Here’s a sample question to get your juices flowing:

“How should marketers be thinking about Amazon in their media mix – can it be both brand and e-commerce?”

Can you ask a better one?

See you at ad:tech San Francisco!

Ecosystem Shakeups: Q&A with Urban Airship CEO Scott Kveton… Or… Amazon, Apple & Android: Oh My!

Matthew Ingram’s GigaOm article last week, “Amazon shows media companies the future of the web,” provocatively argued that the e-commerce giant’s Kindle Cloud Reader was more than just a way around the 30% cut that Apple charges for books purchased via the Kindle app on the iPad or iPhone.

 What the e-book retailer has also done is provide a great example of how media companies should be looking beyond the world of apps to the future of the web: one in which websites behave like apps, thanks to the magic of HTML5, and publishers can get the benefits of both without having to sell their souls to one app-store provider after another.

Passionately pro-HTML5, Ingram’s article suggests that after the last few years of of app frenzy we might well be seeing the decline of apps.

Seeking additional insight into the future of native handset and appliance apps vs. HTML5 web apps, I reached out to Scott Kveton, founder and CEO of Urban Airship, which is “a mobile services provider powering in-app communications and purchases for tens of thousands of mobile apps” and serves companies like ESPN, Tapulous, Groupon, dictionary.com, misnbc.com and Newsweek.

Scott Kveton

Prior to Urban Airship, Scott worked at companies including Amazon.com, Rulespace, JanRain and Vidoop, and he gets the mobile app ecosystem at a deep and helpful level.

Then, in the middle of our interview we heard this morning’s surprising news about Google buying Motorola Mobility, and so we widened the scope of our chat towards the end.

Brad Berens: you’ve built your business on powering in-app notifications and e-commerce. Every time Steve Jobs sneezes there’s a press release, but how big a deal is this Amazon vs. Apple conflict REALLY? Walk me through the ecosystem as you see it.

Scott Kveton: I think that the Amazon vs. Apple conflict is a hint at things to come. For the last couple of years, publishers, retailers and anyone with a customer relationship have bristled at the idea of having to pay a “platform tax” (the 30% Apple, Android and others take). It was inevitable that Amazon and others would look for ways around this and natural that they would turn to the web to make it so.

Amazon has to play nice with Apple right now. Amazon’s customers are on iPads and other mobile devices. If the rumors are true, we’ll see an Amazon Kindle tablet based on the Android operating system sometime soon. If that is the case, then Amazon can start building their own eco-system where they completely own the value chain. That could be huge. The Amazon Kindle tablet would be like a massively distributed point-of-sale device.

Not only can I already do a lot of what I do on iTunes on Amazon’s website (buy music, books, movies, TV shows), but with a Kindle tablet I’d also be able to use it to buy things I need at home. That poises Amazon to take an even bigger piece of the retail market. Why have a shopping list on your tablet when you could just place the order right there? Throw some benefits to Amazon Prime users and now you have real motivation for those customers to sign up and lock in.

The reality is we’re still in the early stages of this market. Content is all about delivery today, but that’s just the start. Diving deeper into that content, discovering content from your friends or what is recommended to you by the cloud is all coming soon. Access to the platforms that provide us what we want, when we want it will be the key drivers and differentiators for these successful platforms.

The triple-A threat (Android, Amazon and Apple) is looking to be in the right place to build a whole new eco-system and be the gatekeepers for content to consumers everywhere.

Berens: What advantages do native apps have over HTML5 apps?

Kveton: What we keep seeing in the conversations are descriptions of HTML5 as bringing an “app-like experience,” with the “experience” being the key difference.

Native apps are designed specifically for the devices where they live and as such take advantage of the unique properties of mobile devices. Things like cameras, sensors, geo-location, NFC, accelerometers. The next wave of native apps is going to integrate these features into the functions of their apps in order to provide much richer contextualized and personal experiences.

And we’re not talking about which ads get served here. We’re talking sophisticated, predictive communications between apps and individuals — past behavior, preferences, where that user is going and at what speed — to predict what the user wants at that very minute. Users will love this: they’re going to be disappointed with HTML5 apps that fail to provide that individual attention.

I can see a whole industry of middleware provider who will help HtML5 developers hook into these functionalities. They can save themselves a lot of effort by focusing their development on native apps and continuing to innovate around mobile specifically.

Berens: I’m intrigued by what you just said: “I can see a whole industry of middleware provider who will help HtML5 developers hook into these functionalities. They can save themselves a lot of effort by focusing their development on native apps and continuing to innovate around mobile specifically.”  I’m not sure I quite understand it: are you saying that the ostensible middleware providers would take care of connecting an HTML5 web app to the more intimate affordances of the handset? Or that the middleware providers are an unnecessary evil?

Kveton: Yes, the middleware providers will help both connect to the more intimate affordances of the handset (camera, sensors, accelerometers, et cetera), but also provide a layer of compatibility that hooks into existing workflows. I will want to be able to send notifications, deliver content and understand usage more than ever before and that will only get more complicated as each of these platforms has its own tools and eco-systems. Today’s Google/Motorola Mobility announcement puts an exclamation point on that.

We’re going to see companies go with tighter integrations of device and OS, which means they will be able to expose more to developers/publishers. Again, middleware providers will be there to make sure those publishers can address the wide-range of sophisticated devices without the hassle of having to learn all of the gory details.

Berens: What is the biggest challenge facing HTML5 developers?

Kveton: The same challenge that all mobile developers face: how to get noticed, downloaded and — most importantly — how to get the apps used frequently.

Native app developers have a leg up here because they can use push notifications to create ongoing conversations with their users. Push is one of the most important features an app can have, and it’s not available to HTML5 apps. So they are going to be hamstrung once the apps get installed on the device. Our developer community has already solved this problem with native apps for iOS, Android and RIM platforms, and we’re seeing a ton of them succeed in attaining ongoing, frequent app engagement. The importance of push cannot be underestimated.

Berens: Let’s flip this around. Given Urban Airship’s revenue model you are, obviously, a proponent of native apps, but aside from the “get around the 30% vig” issue, what other benefits are there from choosing HTML5 over a native app?

Kveton: One of benefits of HTML5 apps is that you can immediately get your website mobile-enabled. So many companies jump right in with an app and forget about their own website. Websites need to be optimized for mobile viewing– the phone number has to be linkable to make a call. So HTML5 can solve a lot of things right out of the gate: you can mobilize a website and get your brand on a device with an app at one time. HTML5 also helps with cross-platform compatibility. Apple, Android and other platforms already support HTML5.

Eventually, it will be write once, be everywhere much like it is on the web today. We’ll never be 100% HTML5 apps (just like we aren’t 100% web apps on the desktop today) but we’ll see the value of HTML5 grow over time.

Berens: Last week in Advertising Age, Jay Habegger had an interesting column about a different Amazon initiative, which is to use their data to power targeting of online display media on third party sites.

To me, this seems like a natural extension of your thoughts about Amazon owning the entire value chain— do you agree?  And what about other potential players in this sort of competition?  Wouldn’t Google compete with this Amazon tablet? And what about other app-rich mobile operating systems like Microsoft or Nokia Ovi?

Kveton: These fully-integrated stacks are really interesting. Again, Google/Motorola comes into play. Now Google is going to be able to ship a complete phone (hardware & OS). I firmly believe this is going to force Microsoft’s hand in this space as well. You can see that Nokia’s stock is up this morning on the news. Owning the entire value chain is really compelling (see Apple) but its really, really hard to pull off.

If I’m Google I would be VERY nervous about someone like Amazon coming into the advertising space. Amazon’s impending Android tablet is another piece of the puzzle for them to own even more of the value chain and coupling that with their data for an advertising play is really compelling.

[Cross-posted with the iMedia Connection blogs.]



Portland Startups to work with Target, Coca-Cola, Nike, Google, Wieden + Kennedy

Our industry has relapsed into a high digital startup fever, but this time with a new twist— brands working directly with entrepreneurs in order to find the next hot digital companies at the earliest possible stage and to stay at the sharpest edge of marketing innovation.

We’ve seen this elsewhere with the PepsiCo10 in New York and Europe, the Brandery in Cincinnati, and now PIE, the Portland Incubator Experiment, is about to launch its fall class right here in my town — Portland, Oregon – smack dab in the middle of the Silicon Forest.

What’s in it for the startup? $18,000, office space for three months and a rich community of other startups, PIE alums, the digital team at W+K and a mentor network that includes thought leaders from companies including Target, Coca-Cola, Nike and – as of just last week — Google.

You don’t have to be a Portlander to apply—applications so far have come in from the Northwest and as far as Vermont and Tennessee.

The deadline is August 8 at 11:59pm, so don’t wait—get cracking on that application today!

Imagine being an entrepreneur with a nifty idea who gets to work directly with folks who have rich startup experience of their own from Google and YouTube.

And on the flip side, many young digital companies begin with technology, then move to a terrific user experience, and only then do they think, “Hmmm, what about revenue? I know, let’s sell some ads!”

But that’s not how major brands want to get involved—they want to get baked into the process early, and they want opportunities beyond advertising, including strategic, technological and other communications-related innovations.

And what terrific advocates for brand-centric development in Target, Coca-Cola and Nike!

Apply today!

 

Further reading:

The Death of Media Channel Loyalty: What the New Pew Data Shows Us

Over the holiday weekend the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project released data showing that 24% of internet users have placed calls online, up from 8% of internet users in 2007.

The precise wording of the question was:

“Please tell me if you ever use the internet to make a phone call online, using a service such as Skype or Vonage? Did you happen to do this yesterday, or not?” This was the first time that we asked the question and specifically referred to Skype, the popular global service that was recently purchased by Microsoft for $8.5 billion.

Unclear from the press release was whether or not the researchers at Pew indicated that triple play TV/Internet/Phone service from Cable/MSO companies like Comcast and Time Warner Cable also count as “making phone calls online,” and if they did not then the number could spike higher than 24%.

This report is in keeping with a bunch of other recent findings about folks abandoning legacy land lines in favor of mobile-only, the ongoing debate about whether “cord cutting” in favor of IPTV services is a present or future danger to MSOs, and a general trend toward what my friend Shelly Palmer calls “WIW WIW WIW” (or “Wee Wee Wee” a la “This Little Piggy…”) — that is, “what I want, when I want it, where I want it.”

What it means for the advertising industry: whether it’s making calls online, catching a favorite show on Hulu rather than via the cable box, or accessing current events through Google News rather than a newspaper, internet users won’t stay with a channel just because they used it in the past or because their parents used it. To paraphrase the old Playtex campaign: this is not your mother’s media landscape.

Advertisers, particularly digital ones, have to work harder, longer and smarter to get messages in front of an audience that used to come as easy ride alongs to content. And this squares nicely with the fact that TV advertising is having a banner year and that eMarketer — among others –predicts it will continue to grow through the Olympics and Presidential election of 2012 and then taper off.

TV is still the best bet for reaching a mass audience, but that bet gets a little worse with each passing quarter.

Nobody knows when, but we’ll soon reach a tipping point where it costs less and is just as easy for users to get high-interest TV content over the internet. In 2012 NBC won’t alienate its conventional advertisers by creating something like the “ESPN on Xbox” experience.

But what about 2016?

Imagine if Microsoft used display inventory on its newly-acquired Skype platform to advertise that users can get access to all the Olympic coverage on the Xbox as part of a Gold membership? We know that something like this is coming given that Microsoft made a play for Conan O’Brien to host his new talk show on the Xbox platform before O’Brien went with TBS.

It’s not a matter of “if?” It’s a matter of “when?” And the answer is “soon.”

[Cross-posted with the iMedia Connection blogs.]

Sat AM Quick Updates on Urban Outfitters

Quick updates:

Urban Outfitters finally spoke out both via Twitter and on the blog to which they link:

Hey everyone, please read our statement regarding the I Heart Destination Necklace. http://urbout.co/kqdecK

Why the company waited until the Saturday morning of a holiday weekend is beyond me.

Note also that my friend Marshall Kirkpatrick of ReadWriteWeb found a different take on the story that showed that Tru.che did not originate the design in question:

Late night RT: if you’ve read about UrbanOutfitters vs Etsy, this might make you reconsider the story @Regretsy: Urban Outrage bit.ly/iNYW9A

Here’s a link to my original overview from Friday morning, with ongoing thanks to @kathiiberens for first surfacing this story to my attention.

@tallasiandude had quipped to me yesterday:

@bradberens I would think the “most chilling thing from an industry perspective” is its lack of ethics WRT design theft. #urbanoutfitters

To which I riposted:

@tallasiandude don’t want to presume guilt– except for bad marketing tactics.

In light of Marshall’s gemcutting tweet, I’m doubly glad of that exchange with @tallasiandude.

The Take Home: Whether or not Urban Outfitters is guilty of design theft, the company is definitely guilty of having a poorly-conceived social media crisis policy, which after the Domino’s 2009 debacle (see my overview post) is just plain foolish.  Whether or not a proposed boycott was justified is immaterial– UO needed to get out there in a hurry and didn’t.

I’ll be curious as to whether or not we see shareholder erosion for Urban Outfitters.

Urban Outfitters’ Massive Social Media FAIL

Please check out my latest post over at iMedia Connection about how Urban Outfitters is following in the dubious footsteps of Domino’s Pizza back in 2009 in their failure to address a massively negative social media campaign.

Domino’s learned this lesson the hard way — and is now doing social media right — so let’s hope that Urban Outfitters figures this out faster.