When Facebook becomes a public company-it’s obvious that it will be forced to generate ever increasing revenues from its user base. The only way the company can deliver these revenues is by selling more advertising and making more money through user transactions.

The advertising issue is key- currently Facebook is being use by brands to finely target messages to discrete audiences and with below average CTRs, it’s really all about branding. For most brands, it’s all about going where the eyeballs are, so it’s an imperative to be on Facebook, but questions remain around effectiveness and the real ROI on these efforts.

Clearly, with the move timeline and greater integration of applications, Facebook is gathering masses of data that can be used by brands for even better targeting. The challenge is obviously to find a way to go beyond simple exposures and to do something more compelling and powerful for both brands and users. I am not sure we are quite there yet- everyone is looking for the way to crack this and maybe Facebook will do it, or someone in the ecosystem that surrounds it-maybe the next great “start-up”.

The big challenge is how to expand the advertising offering, including in its currently under utilized mobile platform, without creating more clutter and thus undermining the user experience. A recent analysis of the S1 filing suggests that the company will have to “monetize their users by a rate of 5-10X what they are currently doing.”

The privacy issue is also fundamental with the EU already wanting to restrict the amount and level of data collected, which could put the brakes on some other company’s plans for deeper advertising opportunities.

Facebook’s success has been based on delivering a brilliant user experience that facilitates and manages connections in an entirely new way. Its brand power comes from the strength of the emotional ties it helps to build and in from the content individuals use to create and “cultivate” their personal identities.

However, as Zuckerberg understood from the earliest days, there’s a very fine line to tread and the pressures of being public, plus the incentives being offered to its sales people etc, could push the company close.

In the end, like most things, it’s ultimately about trust- if the brand can continue to win consumer trust it will develop and grow revenues, not just through advertising, but also in credits and payments, which could be even bigger than the ad business.

Facebook’s ability to manage its way to future success depends entirely on what it does to maintain the very delicate balance.

Author Jonathan Franzen (The Corrections, Freedom) does not appear to have many positive things to say about technology, in fact, he’s something of a Luddite.

In a recent talk given at the Hay Festival in Columbia, Franzen argues that e-books are bad for both the reader and the writer, explaining how hard it is to concentrate as a writer with all the technology around you and how the lack of a physical object with e-books, changes the relationship the reader has with the content.

It’s a theme that Franzen has covered in his work and was expressed by his character Walter Beglund in the 2010 novel Freedom.

“‘This fragmentation. Because it’s the same problem everywhere. It’s like the internet, or cable TV – there’s never any centre, there’s no communal agreement, there’s just a trillion bits of distracting noise … All the real things, the authentic things, the honest things, are dying off.’”

It might be easy to take issue with Walter’s perspective, because in reality the “centers” are almost bigger than ever; this week’s Superbowl audience will be huge and there are certainly centers around other appointment television programs, movies and of course, news stories.

What’s true is that our behaviors and attention are changing- as way of example, it looks like this year could be the first “two screen” Superbowl with brands like Chevy trying to deepen the engagement of their television advertising, by providing an additional communication experience for tablets and encouraging users to “Don’t just watch, play along with the Superbowl.”

Looking forward to the future, Edelman’s report indicates that business needs to think much more about societal issues in order to gain that all important trust.

The reports data shows that currently, trust is being driven by success with operational issues like; financial returns, innovation and leadership. These drivers seem to match with the current preoccupations of most company’s CEOs and senior management, with innovation having been the “buzzword” for the past decade.

Winning trust in the future appears to be all about understanding and delivering against what Edelman terms “societal” issues; the most important of these is placing greater importance on the needs of consumers- listening to customer needs and feedback ranks no1 and placing customers ahead of profits is no 4. People issues appear to be dominant, because treating employees well ranks no 3.

Broader ethical issues follow these “people issues” with taking actions to address issues and crises and having ethical business practices ranking no4 and no6 on the list.

It’s interesting that while so much emphasis in the past has been placed on the environment as an issue, it still matters, but “people” are now a bigger issue. Perhaps it’s because the environment is abstract and how a company acts with consumers and employees is more tangible, easier to relate to and a good barometer for the ethics of a company.

These results should make companies think much more about their communication efforts and encourage them to focus on demonstrating that they are acting in the interests of their customers,  listening to them, value their employees and their contributions.

These seems to demand more active and sophisticated strategies with social media, than just a Facebook page with coupons and promotions. Companies need to find the right social media channels and platforms to connect with consumers in order to genuinely solicit their input and demonstrate and update customers on how this input is being used, but also to find ways to bring the people behind the company and the humanity of the business to life in a real and transparent manner.

Listening to Terry Gross interview Trent Reznor, I was struck by the musician’s drive for constant experimentation.

He explained in the interview that in the process of recording the soundtrack for the new movie, The Girl with Dragon Tattoo, Reznor and his creative partner Atticus Ross, purchased 3 beat-up pianos and then preceded to mess with them in order to create and generate interesting sounds.

As we enter a period of morphing creative hybrids and a world where know one quite knows what works, it’s amazing to see the dearth of experimentation in the world of advertising and communication.

While we have masses of tech start-ups emerging everyday with new ideas for utility and functionality that can enhance our existing processes, this isn’t going on when it comes to pure creative communication.

Every year, there are a handful of standout examples of some really smart, fresh, lateral thinking, but of the millions of executions and thousands of campaigns, a handful isn’t that great a strike rate.

Now is precisely the time to take chances and experiment for a couple of reasons.

1. There’s never been a better time- technology is there, the audience is there
2. You can’t learn, unless you experiment
3. The bar to breakthrough right now is so high- to achieve it, you’ve simply got to experiment

While many agencies are thinking about tech labs, incubators and finding ideas that can become business worthy for themselves and clients, which is smart, but don’t we also need the C21st equivalent of Charles and Ray Eames’ Los Angeles studio or Andy Warhol’s factory?

Where are our places where we can break old pianos to see what sounds they make and the brands that want us to do that for them?

One thing Apple has taught us over the past decade is that there can be such a thing as “mass cool”.

Originally, cool was found in niches and pockets and sub-cultures, cool was divisive and it sorted people out; there’s were cool things and then the stuff that everyone else had, which was mass.

Somehow Apple managed to make it’s cool accessible to everyone that’s probably the single most important factor behind its incredible growth,

Nike has been a partner with Apple for a while and obviously learned a great deal along the way. In the period of their working relationship on Nike+, the athletic giant has learned a fair bit about the allure of technology and the next iteration, Nike Fuel seems to be an interesting consolidation of learning experiences.

What interests me most me most about the idea is how equalizing it is- instead of splitting active individuals into camps according to discipline, the world is one and it has a universal currency which is even branded- “Nike Fuel”. It seems so accessible and easy- I can see grandmothers using it with their grandchildren- the cool band being the bond that they share.

Suddenly, I have a vision of participating with my peers and also comparing myself to the greats- the possibilities and application of this data both social and beyond are pretty infinite. I can see televised basketball games with Fuel data running on a ticker, I can see challenges between athletes across different sports- the list goes on and that’s not even considering the opportunity to drive consumers directly to product.

With all the benefits that are heading Nike’s way, the darn thing should be free, but they are smart enough to charge $150 for the privilege of you giving them your precious athletic data.

Fuel is the latest iteration and build on the already iconic Nike+, which still is the “go to”case study that defines brand utility and it’s been around for years and we don’t yet
really have anything comparable from anyone else, what are brands waiting for?

A nice piece of long-form content from the WSJ that explains the European crisis.

Black Squid Design in Australia faced this challenge when they were given a brief to design a package for pre-packed cauliflowers, surely one of the most dull and un-interesting vegetables around?

Their solution was to find a way that consumers could make a personal connection to the dullest vegetable on the planet, they did this by giving the cauliflowers four different names, but the only thing different about them was the package copy.

Interestingly they picked Bob, Doug, Doris and Shirl as the names because they wanted names that would be familiar and comforting, perhaps even similar names to their grandparents, who they might have fond memories of them serving the vegetable.

Each pack had a different serving suggestion designed to encourage consumers to come back again to try something new.

It’s a great example how with a little creativity you can bring personality into even the dullest commodities,  it’s also a reminder that the next time you put a brief together think about how you can disrupt the norm.

It’s just reward for the brand’s commitment to re-engineer itself to be relevant to today’s shopper.

The brand has been determined to re-position itself in a world where it’s challenged on all sides and its Marketing Director openly admits its internal CRM systems are 15 years behind the leaders in the retail space.

What’s so interesting about John Lewis’ success is that it’s been primarily driven by television and a couple of iconic and very powerful TV spots; last year’s focused on women and this year on kids.

While the brand runs a bunch of retail TV, it’s these brand spots that have shifted the perception, they demonstrate the brand gets people and take an elevated stance to play on higher order emotions, well beyond on what you expect from most retailers.

Always A Woman- 2010

Christmas Campaign 2011

It’s surprising that in the day of sophisticated new media options John Lewis used the power of an “old fashioned” medium to present themselves in a new way and leveraged social media to give their TV buy more power.

What’s worth admiring is how this has all been calculated and planned; the brand has taken a well-thought out, dare one say, strategic, approach to re-positioning itself.

It started out with a mission to be the UK’s best loved retailer and focused in on the soul of the brand, its promise to consumers “Never Knowingly Undersold”…which it updated as shown below…

“Never Knowingly Undersold is our lifelong commitment to giving you the best value through great products, at great prices, supported by great service.

We know price is really important, and that´s why we put so much effort into getting it right. We check and match the online and shop prices of our high street competitors, and when we match a national price, this applies in all our shops and on our website. We even match competitors’ sale prices. For John Lewis own brand products, our buyers are charged with making sure we offer the best quality for the price in the market.

Our commitment to value is about much more than highly competitive prices, it´s about all those extra things that are worth a lot – like expert and impartial advice, or feeling confident that the product you´ve just bought will last. It might even be the knowledge that we´re responsible in our sourcing.

We truly believe Never Knowingly Undersold is as important today as it was when we introduced it over 85 years ago. After all, value is something that should last a lifetime.

So, if you see or buy a product from us and find it cheaper with a high street competitor (that excludes online-only or mail order businesses such as Dixons, Amazon or Play.com, who don’t have shops), as long as their service conditions are comparable, such as delivery charges and guarantee terms, then we´ll match that price for you when you buy, or refund the difference for up to 28 days afterwards if you’ve already purchased.”

Importantly, it’s not just about ads, the brand has also strengthened multichannel operations and CRM, made concerted efforts to improve the experience in stores and introduced a new brand of smaller format stores.

To accomplish all of this, the brand has had to move fast and importantly take risks that have forced it out of its comfort zone, but these risks appear to have produced their; obviously the retailer is winning a number of awards, but the work is working and producing very impressive sales results.

There’s much talk around the web today about a printer that’s been developed by a London consulting company called-BERG.

Here’s the film.

Hello Little Printer, available 2012 from BERG on Vimeo.

Here’s what’s important…

1. Printers are the most boring things around-(we worked on Epson and know the challenges) these guys managed to make one that’s cool

2. It’s cool because it has personality- “little printer” shifts it from a inanimate object to something personal and cute

3. It’s cool because the form factor plays with our conception and expectations of a printer

4. Small is the way to go because it matches and fits with our other devices- it’s a printer that doesn’t look out of place with our mobile devices and it looks like we can take it wherever we go

5. It recognizes and demonstrates to us that we might have things on our mobile devices that warrant printing- smart user understanding

6. HP dominates the business and has spent millions trying to make printers cool and they have failed every single time

7. Anyone can have an idea, but not everyone brings them to life

8. You need to bring it to life in a clever way- Berg’s film is great and agencies should have no problem doing this part

9. If you can dream it up- why not make it real? There’s nothing stopping you from dreaming up a product, bringing it to life and selling it- why not make your own products?