En pleno verano Bostoniano, tirados con Euge una tarde de calor en el Public Garden, lei esta nota del NYT sobre una nueva startup llamada Howcast. Fundada por ex-googlers y ex-youtubers, Howcast se dedica a hacer videos How-To, que te explican paso a paso como hacer alguna tarea o armar algo interesante. Ejemplos que hay ahora en el home page del site: How to prevent and recognize symptoms os swine flu, How to be smart about saving, How to create your own rigntone on an iPhone, etc. Como verán las temáticas son de los más variadas, pero se trata de un formato realmente atractivo que engancha mucho a la audiencia, que puede aprender en 2 minutos como hacer algo de forma engaging y divertida.

La cuetión es que esa tarde se me ocurrió que un video How-To sería ideal para nuestra aplicación móbil Vlingo. Por varias razones: 1) para lo que estan indecisos sobre si Vlingo vale la pena, te permite “experimentar” viendo casos de uso sin necesidad de tengas que instalarlo en tu teléfono para entender de que se trata, 2) para los que ya usan Vlingo, los educa sobre como usarlo más efectivamente (por ejemplo en qué posición colocar el teléfono para que el reconocimiento de voz sea preciso).

La gente de Howcast hizo un excelente trabajo a mi entender, y logramos ya más de 25,000 views (entre Youtube, Howcast y los otros canales de distribución) en 20 días. Si trabajan promocionando productos con barreras de adopción y que requieren educación del consumidor, les recomiendo que consideren Howcast. Acá les dejo lo que hicieron para nosotros:

http://www.howcast.com/videos/258569-How-To-Do-Things-Faster-With-Your-Mobile-Phone-Using-Vlingo

Hoy Fred Wilson escribió un buen post sobre los nuevos “arquitectos urbanos”. Según Fred estos son una nueva generación de desarrolladores de aplicaciones móbiles que le permiten a la gente navegar mejor las ciudades, y hacerlas más usables. Usable es un término raro pero creo que describe muy bien lo que hacen aplicaciones como Foursquare, Yelp, UrbanSpoon, Twitter, y otras cuando de las usa para recorrer el espacio urbano.

En mi caso, uno de los mejores usos que le doy a mi iPhone es como una herramienta indispensable en los viajes. Es como si fuera mi swiss army knife. En el último viaje que hicimos con Euge a Europa, por ejemplo, page $100 para tener cobertura de datos en todas las ciudades que visitamos. Parece carísimo de antemano, pero cuando pensas todas las cosas que te resuelve seguro que tranquilamente reemplaza varias guias y te hace gastar mejor la plata. Desde mapas y cronogramas de subte, recomendaciones de lugares para comer, compra de tickets, etc, etc.

Ahora para mi la nueva estrella de este tipo de aplicaciones es Foursquare. Esta sólo disponible en unas pocas ciudades de USA por ahora, y es difícil describir lo que hace si nunca la usaste. Te permite registrarte (la aplicación usa la palabra check-in) cada vez que visitas un lugar. Asi podes ver que otras personas y amigos estan en el mismo lugar que vos, y si estuvieron antes podés leer que te recomiendan hacer. Por ejemplo, si vas a la sandwicheria Darwin que esta cerca de mi oficina, abris Foursquare y te enterás que tenes que pedirte un Mt.Auburn porque la rompe. Además después te da estadísticas de todo lo que hiciste en el mes, acá por ejemplo están las mías.

Como un entusiasta de las ciudades y de descrubrirlas en profundidad, esta nueva tendencia móvil me motiva mucho y creo que tiene un futuro enorme.

Hoy salió una buena nota en el WSJ que habla sobre la pérdida de empleos en el sector financiero de USA. Si bien esto como noticia aislada es malo yo creo que el efecto en el largo plazo va a ser muy positivo. Una cosa que me impactó cuando hice mi MBA fue cuanto más populares y deseados eran los puestos en finananzas (investment banking, hedge funds, M&A,  investment management, etc) que en cualquier otro sector. Mis compañeros me miraban un poco raro cuando les decía que las finanzas no me interesan. No tengo el número exacto ahora, pero estoy bastante seguro que alrededor del 40% de mi clase fue a parar a finanzas. Según el artículo del WSJ el 30% de todos los estudiantes de MIT (no sólo los del MBA) era reclutado por este sector.

Ahora los dos factores que hacían estas posiciones tan atractivas desaparecieron. Ya no tienen el aura de prestigio de antes, porque la crisis y las quiebras dejaron a los bancos muy hundidos en la consideración de la gente. Y tampoco tienen los bonus exhorbitantes de años anteriores (normalmente el primer año de graduado podías ganar 3 veces más en finanzas que en un trabajo en la industria por ejemplo). Lo bueno de todo esto es que los talentos se están yendo para otro lado: son reclutados por empresas de tecnología, ingeniería, farmaceuticas, etc, o se dedican a arrancar su propio emprendimiento. A mi me parece una tendencia muy positiva por lo siguiente:

Even a modest of shift of talent could have an effect on society. When smart people become entrepreneurs, "they improve technology in the line of business they pursue, and, as a result, productivity and income grow," said a study by economists Kevin M. Murphy, Robert W. Vishny and Andrei Schleifer in 1990. By contrast, they said, allocation of talent to professions such as finance and law -- where returns come from distribution of wealth from others rather than wealth creation -- leads to lower productivity growth, fewer technological opportunities and slower economic growth.

Que el 30% de los graduados de MIT se fueran a la banca era a mi entender una gran pérdida de productividad. Ahora van a estár creando innovadores productos y servicios, un mucho mejor uso del talento sin dudas.

Estuvimos con Euge en Disney este find de semana pasado. Es la tercera vez que voy, pero al ser la primera con una mirada de adulto descubrí cosas que antes no me llamaron la atención (la cantidad de gente obesa que hay dando vueltas fue una cosa que me impactó pero que voy a analizar en otro post).

No es ninguna novedad mi primera impresión. La verdadera magia de los parques temáticos de Disney está en la atención que le prestan al mínimo detalle. Porque rides o juegos tienen muchos parques de diversiones, y quizás hay algunos más novedosos técnológicamente. Pero como los tipos de Disney convierten cada juego en una experiencia completa, donde parece que te transportas a un mundo diferente, no tiene igual.  Las escenografías, la vestimenta de los “cast members” (como les llaman a los empleados), las historia creativas que cada juego tiene detrás, todo es genial.

Segundo, son maestros en vender múltiples veces el mismo contenido. Como bien dice el último Economist en esta nota sobre la adquisición de Marvel:  “In recent years Disney has proved the undisputed master at exploiting the same basic content through multiple channels, including films, websites, video games, merchandising, live shows and theme parks.”. De cada juego salís directo al store correspondiente donde te venden todo el merchandise relacionado con la experiencia que acaba de terminar. Te sacan fotos por todo el parque con un sistema que llaman Photopass y que después podés comprar por internet (a 12 dólares la foto!). Si te quedás en un hotel de Disney te facilitan todos los traslados de las cosas que compraste en el parque. Tienen todo pensado para maximizar el revenue, hay que sacarse el sombrero – y actuar con racionalidad porque sino dejas la billetera en Disney!

Último, entiendo porque Walt Disney es un ícono del capitalismo americano y símbolo de lo que el emprendimiento puede generar de la nada. Empezó dibujando historietas y terminó convirtiendo un pantano en el medio de la península de Florida, donde no había ni un aeropuerto, en un fenómeno global que atrae a 50 millones de personas por año. Ahora que esta todo armado uno pierde perspectiva de lo descabellada que debía sonar su visión en su momento. Los mismos ingenieros de la empresa llamaban al proyecto waltutopia. Sin dudas, el único pais de mundo donde algo así pudo ser posible es Estados Unidos. Abajo dejo un video que encontré que describe un poco la magnitud de la obra:

Cool videos based on photography instead of films. They are less expensive to produce and that is why we are considering this technique for a Vlingo how-to video.

Tide Turns 'Basic' for P&G in Slump

By ELLEN BYRON

DALLAS -- Procter & Gamble Co., under assault by penny-pinching consumers, has quietly rolled out a version of Tide detergent that the company freely admits isn't "new and improved."

The product, Tide Basic, is currently for sale in about 100 stores throughout the South. It lacks some of the cleaning capabilities of the iconic brand -- and costs about 20% less. Its very existence is one of the most telling signs to date of how the sour U.S. economy is forcing mass marketers to shift course. On Wednesday, the company reported an 18% plunge in fiscal fourth-quarter profits as sales of its premium-priced brands shrank amid tightened consumer budgets.

P&G Gets Back to Basics

View Slideshow

The decision to develop Tide Basic didn't come easily. For decades, P&G had held fast to a strategy of promoting new features to convince shoppers to pay a premium for detergent, shampoo and other household staples. Then, as cheaper store brands gained traction in the aisles, P&G began offering lower-priced versions of some products -- Charmin toilet paper, Bounty paper towels -- to suit leaner budgets.

P&G agonized over whether to go down a similar path with Tide, its top-selling brand in the U.S. A more "basic" version would balance Tide's premium prices. It could also help expand its market share, which while dominant, has been slipping. For the four weeks ended July 12, Tide held 41.4% of the liquid laundry-detergent category and 44% of the powder detergent category, both down from a year ago, according to estimates by Information Resources Inc. Figures don't include data from Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Executives feared that a cheaper version might cannibalize sales of regular Tide, which accounts for more than $3 billion of P&G's $79 billion in annual revenues. Marketers at the company have been so loath to sully their prized soap brand that they've wrestled with the matter at least eight times in the past three decades.

Last November, two managers at P&G's Cincinnati headquarters walked into a roomful of executives to gently suggest another try. "Just listen and keep an open mind," Suzanne Watson, an associate marketing director, told them.

There was good reason to pay attention. Many people for the first time are clipping coupons, trying cheaper brands and buckling down in ways they never had to before. Economists aren't sure how long the trend will last. But a recent report from IRI identified a new class of fiscally cautious consumers. Some 52% of respondents said that in the coming year they plan to buy store brands to save money; 47% plan to eat at restaurants less frequently; and 48% plan to use home beauty treatments rather than visit a salon.

In Houston, Jaime Ball, a marketing director for a local apparel maker, says she hasn't really felt the effects of the recession but has started trimming her spending anyway, cutting down on trips to the mall and resisting impulse buys.

After years of spending $17 on bottles of Matrix shampoo and conditioner, 28-year-old Ms. Ball recently bought $5 Pantene instead. "Buying the more expensive stuff just isn't as exciting to me -- it's not as important," she says. "I don't know that you can even tell the difference."

High-End Focus

Her quandary cuts to the heart of P&G's current dilemma. The 172-year-old company built its fortunes after World War II on Americans' growing affluence and inclination to equate "better" with a higher price. P&G flooded radio and television with ads promising its products delivered superior performance in everything from teeth cleaning to floor shining. In return, P&G got a superior price.

The approach made household staples out of Mr. Clean cleaning liquid, Crest toothpaste and Tide laundry detergent. P&G sold lower-end brands but gave them scant advertising.

Now P&G's model is under attack as retailers like Wal-Mart, Target Corp. and supermarket chains nationwide improve the quality and selection of their own brands, tempting penny-pinching consumers to forgo P&G's pricier products and eroding the giant's dominant market-share positions.

P&G reported that profits for the quarter ended June 30 fell to $2.47 billion, or 80 cents a share, from $3.02 billion, or 92 cents, the year before. Sales fell 11% to $18.7 billion. Company executives blamed the drop partly on wider price gaps between its brands and less expensive items. During the period, the company said it lost market share in its fabric-care, batteries, and snacks units. In 4 p.m. composite trading on the New York Stock Exchange Wednesday, P&G shares fell 2.79% to $53.91.

In response, P&G is trying to stretch its premium brand names across a wider range of prices. In a single store, shoppers can choose from what P&G executives call a "portfolio," including Olay skin creams that run from $7 to a kit for $68 and versions of Crest toothpaste that range from $2.25 to $4.25. Pampers Baby Dry diapers sell for about 20% less than Pampers Cruisers.

"Every one of our businesses needs a portfolio strategy," says Robert McDonald, a veteran of the Tide business who became chief executive in July. "Before I do anything else, I want to invest in getting our portfolio bigger and broader."

For P&G, Tide Basic is one of the company's most daring marketing moves to date. "This product brings the enormous risk of tarnishing years of brand loyalty and emotional connections because shoppers start asking, 'Why have I been spending all this money all along?'" says Eli Portnoy, chief brand strategist with Portnoy Group, a Los Angeles consulting firm. "With Tide Basic, you make price the marketing story, and Tide was never about price."

P&G introduced Tide powder in 1946, just as the spread of automatic washing machines revolutionized the way Americans did laundry. The company heralded Tide as the first heavy-duty synthetic detergent, a technological breakthrough superior to all other soap.

Tide quickly became the No. 1 detergent in the U.S. and its profits fueled P&G's creation of other major brands, including Mr. Clean, Cascade dish detergent and Crest.

For ambitious P&G employees, the Tide business became a coveted stopover on the way up the corporate ladder. P&G Chairman A.G. Lafley worked on the brand, as did Mr. McDonald, the chief executive.

But last fall as the impact of the housing bubble rippled through the economy, the famous detergent started showing cracks. P&G forecast in October that the coming months would bring lower overall sales growth and profits. In the three months leading to November, Tide's unit sales posted year-over-year declines as private-label and other bargain detergents sales rose, stealing market share from P&G.

The erosion helped revive the question of whether P&G should again attempt a cut-rate Tide. Ms. Watson, the associate marketing manager, teamed up with Mark Christenson, a Tide brand manager, to try again.

Their first chore was to win support from P&G's Laundry Leadership Team, a council of a dozen executives that oversees the company's $6 billion North American detergent business. Beginning at 10 a.m. every Thursday, the team bears down on strategic issues for seven hours straight. P&G's cafeteria delivers lunch.

At the group's Nov. 6 meeting, Ms. Watson and Mr. Christenson pitched their plan, highlighting P&G's successful launch in 2005 of cheaper Charmin and Bounty paper towels. The basic versions gradually drew new users while fighting off cheaper private-label products.

"Before we shut this idea down, let's take some baby steps; we just want to test this," Ms. Watson said.

The managers supported the idea but had concerns. Decades of marketing and sales of hundreds of millions of bottles and boxes of detergent had made Tide synonymous with one color, orange. Members of the laundry team were apprehensive over whether a less expensive version should be encased in orange, too.

The council also cautioned Ms. Watson and Mr. Christenson about costs. The pair couldn't buy new materials for the detergent and instead had to use the company's existing fragrances, whitening agents, stain-fighting enzymes and other technologies.

The decision to go with a test fell to Alex Tosolini, a P&G vice president responsible for its North American fabric-care business, which includes detergents.

"The first question was powder versus liquid," says Mr. Tosolini. About 75% of Tide's detergent dollar sales are in liquid, though category-wide sales of powder detergent, which is slightly less expensive, have been increasing during the recession, he says.

Testing powder also carried less risk. "Given the importance of Tide, it's better to learn first on a smaller segment of the business," Mr. Tosolini said.

In a subsequent meeting with Tide marketers, the packaging discussion focused on whether to abandon Tide's trademark orange. Shoppers on average spend 45 to 60 seconds in the laundry aisle, devoting just seven seconds to choosing a product, making color a crucial guide for finding the right product, P&G research found.

The group considered yellow and blue, the other colors of Tide's famous bull's eye. A handful of other laundry brands used blue but few had yellow. "People kept insisting, 'Tide isn't yellow,'" says Mr. Tosolini. "But then we thought maybe it could discourage current Tide users, which is what we wanted."

As the meeting extended past dinner, Mr. Christenson and Ms. Watson suggested naming the product "Tide Basic," mirroring the success of Charmin Basic and Bounty Basic.

Again, red flags flared. The name raised concerns that "basic" contradicted Tide's high-end image. Huddled over a thesaurus, the marketers found about 25 alternatives, including Just Tide, Simply Tide and Tide Essential. Tide Basico, inspired by a P&G detergent in Spain, might appeal to Hispanics in the U.S. They wrote down all suggestions, including Tidey Up.

Preliminary tests with consumers, held soon after the meeting, included Tide Simply Clean, Tide Basico and Tide Basic. Tests also judged yellow versus orange package mock-ups. Tide Basic, in yellow, won with consumers, who didn't see Tide Basic as an oxymoron.

By January, Tide Basic was officially a go.

P&G scientists had long focused on concocting "new and improved" formulas, but in recent years had become better at developing low-priced goods for the company's expansion into developing countries. "Now, some of the biggest innovations in our company are geared toward making products more affordable," says P&G Chief Technology Officer Bruce Brown.

With Tide Basic, that meant reducing features like anti-pilling and color-preservation technologies embedded in regular Tide.

By late June, P&G began stocking Tide Basic in Wal-Mart and Kroger Co. stores across the South, including Baton Rogue, La., New Orleans and Houston. Tide Assistant Brand Manager Lauren Stafford and several colleagues gathered in late July in Dallas to scrutinize the detergent in store settings.

Imitating the approach of a shopper, Ms. Stafford strolled down the laundry aisle. She was struck by how easily she noticed Tide Basic's yellow boxes. In an orange Tide notebook, Ms. Stafford quickly jotted down the prices of P&G's powder detergents and those of the competition.

"They've got [Tide Basic] down here with these midtier brands, exactly who we're going after," says Ms. Stafford, pointing to All, made by Sun Products Corp., and Church & Dwight Co.'s Arm & Hammer.

In the coming months, P&G will closely monitor these test markets to determine whether Tide Basic can attract new users to the brand without also tempting current Tide buyers. Only then will executives decide the product's long-term fate.