New data and trends from the iTunes store

The release of iOS 2.0 in July 2008 is arguably the defining moment of the smartphone era, contributing (along with 3G connectivity) to the iPhone moving from a good if limited device to the archetype that, even 5 years later, all other mobiles are striving to first replicate and then improve upon.

The App store has been a major success for Apple, with Horace Dediu estimating that they produce $1.6bn in revenue per quarter. We are approaching the occasion of the 50 billionth worldwide app download, and to coincide Apple have updated their all-time charts for a number of territories.

They previously did this on the occasion of the 25 billionth app download, in March of last year. 25 billion apps downloaded in 14 months equates to an average of around 60m downloads a day (with Horace Dediu putting the current daily rate at around 70m).

Last time I took a look at some of the trends within the charts. I’ve repeated that here, with ten bullets below. All data correct (apart from any typos that slipped through) as of May 2^nd 2013.

• Stability: The majority of the top apps are holdovers from the previous list – 13 of the 50 paid apps are new, and 20 of the 50 free apps. I’ve counted YouTube and Google Maps as new apps, although different builds did exist previously
• Games still dominate: 17 of the top 25 paid apps on both iPhone and iPad are games
• But What’s App stands alone: What’s App is the most popular paid for iPhone app, and is the only paid-for social networking app fits in the list. Although existing downloads won’t be discounted, it will be interesting to see whether the mooted 69p a year fee will deter new users from downloading
• Franchises have emerged: Although there are exceptions, many of the top apps are from major companies and even those grassroots successes – Angry Birds, Draw Something – have been sucked up into either major merchandising and sequelitis, or bought out. Angry Birds is the poster-child for success, and Angry Birds Rio is the only title of theirs not to make the chart
• But it is still possible to break through: 4 Pics 1 Word has become this year’s Draw Something, and has made both the top iPad and iPhone free charts despite being out for less than 3 months
• Price homogeneity: The rise of in-app purchases as a legitimate – if controversial – revenue generator means that prices have dropped to around the 69p mark. Electronic Arts have heavily discounted their titles, including FIFA 13, to raise the user base and drive in-app purchases
• Few five star games: Inevitably, scale can lead to hype and disappointment and so only 3 of the 100 apps featured have 5 star ratings – Cut the Rope and Plants vs Zombies in iPhone, and The Room on iPad
• Free entertainment apps lag in score: Free music and entertainment apps score relatively lowly – with the exception of TV Catchup, the highest score is 3.5. YouTube trails with a score of 2, presumably due to complaints that the previous pre-installed app was removed (at Apple’s behest)
• Device differences remain: 12 free apps and 9 paid apps appear in both iPad and iPhone lists, but the differences point to how the devices remain distinct. The iPhone is a personal device used on the go for timely information; the iPad is a lean-back device, that can also be used for creation
• The future: How will the list differ when the next milestone (100 billion?) is reached? Will we see Vine or Snapchat enter the free charts? Will the next wave of franchise games prove more popular than the last? Will the TV companion app to beat all other companion apps truly emerge? I’m going to chicken out of making any predictions, but any or all of the above could happen

Pictures of the charts are below, and can be clicked on to expand into a more readable version.

sk

Google Firestarters 8: The Agency Innovation Conundrum

The latest in the series of Firestarters events hosted by Google and curated by Neil Perkin was all about Agency innovation. With 8 speakers each having a 10 minute slot, a great deal of ground was covered. I’ve synthesised my main thoughts and recollections below, but I’d recommend clicking through the links at the bottom of this post in order to get the full goodness of the speakers – particularly since I haven’t attributed specific points to individuals.

The speakers all had a slightly different perspectives, but there were several common threads running across the talks – notably muppets, memes and motherfather fruity language.

One major question was why we should be innovating at all. Lots of great stuff already exists, so why try and change things just for the sake of it? Well, on one hand, customers are constantly evolving their behaviours so innovation is required just to keep up with them. But also, and quite self-servingly, agencies are employed to be the smartest people in the room and so there is an implicit requirement to innovate in order to justify their hiring.

This can understandably be a problem, because if you are an agency specialising in x, then the answer to the business question will obviously be x, irrespective of what the question is. There can also be a tension between “innovation snobbery” and appreciation of the target audience: people in Cannes and Campaign magazine might appreciate the shiny new idea, but the general public may not.

For innovation to be effective, it needs to be beyond an idea. It should be about ends and not means. Innovations should affect our audience’s behaviours, and to do this we need to influence their motivations and opportunities.

To reflect that, innovation shouldn’t be limited to processes or environments, but to entire business models. It shouldn’t be about answering the how, but the what. And even beyond the what, the why: Why are we in this business? What are we trying to achieve? This requires investment, to fully appraise and understand the situation, and to experiment. Because innovation requires bets – strategic risks that may or may not pay off. But before that can happen, the role of innovation needs to be properly defined.

And coming up with a specific definition can be problematic. Innovation is such a wide and fuzzy topic that the disparity between theory and practice can be wide. Which is apt, as it facilitates creative experimentation to close the gap.

The talks were:

• Why innovative ≠ innovation by Pats McDonald of Isobar
• A talk by Anjali Ramachandran of PHD
• Resign Thinking by Antony Mayfield of Brilliant Noise
• A talk by Beeker Northam, a freelancer
• Innovation is a bet not an experiment by Phil Adams of Blonde
• Innovation = Uncertainty by Glyn Britton of Albion
• Mapping media innovation by Graeme Wood of LBi
• A talk by Nadya Powell of Dare

sk

Image credit: Neil Perkin

Will Netflix break into the mainstream?

Certain people are paid a lot of money to prognosticate on the next big thing. I’m not one of those (in either payment, or size of payment). Many factors influence, but one I’m particularly interested in is media buzz. In my opinion, traditional media is important in moving new technology products and services from early adopters towards the mainstream.

Important, but not necessary – and certainly not sufficient. Not all of the media hype cycles have come to pass – Second Life being an oft-cited example.

However, the likes of Myspace, Facebook and Twitter have seen mass media exposure prior to mass adoption. Twitter in particular has seen a big discrepancy between media coverage and actual usage. But while it remains in the minority, it continues to grow and I think it is safe to say it is part of the mainstream.

What differs between Second Life and the successful social networks? In addition to the profile among influencers (and I do think traditional media is an influencer), I’d argue that they are aspirational in that they can connect you to people you admire – whether your near friends or favourite celebrities or bands – with whom you can exchange social currency. It might be clouded by hindsight, but I recall the coverage of Second Life being more aloof, treating it more like a curio than a natural development of the internet.

In terms of social currency, TV remains central (e.g. one third of all tweets are about TV), and therefore developments with TV are always going to be treated with interest. Shazam is getting some good coverage at the moment, but nothing to the extent of Netflix. Netflix is still a relatively new proposition in the UK, but it’s original content strategy has meant that it has already pushed past Lovefilm in the media consciousness (I’m not sure about subscriptions). Could mainstream media coverage push Netflix into widespread adoption?

Now, traditional media will be covering Netflix with a note of caution, given concern of existing business models and the now infamous quote from Reed Hastings that “the goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us”. And there is no guarantee that future releases such as the upcoming Ricky Gervais project will receive the same volume of coverage as House of Cards. In fact that is probably likely, though I was surprised by the sheer scale of the coverage this time given a) their previous release Lilyhammer didn’t b) the model of pre-paying for and filming an entire series is – unlike in the US, where shows such as 30 Rock have reacted to response to the early episodes – well-established in the UK and c) it’s not as if series-stacking is a new phenomenon.

Unlike the social sites that can receive continuous coverage bolstered by specific events, Netflix is relying on several big bang launches scheduled across the year. This might make it more difficult to replicate, but a few early successes can set the template for subsequent releases, in the manner that Apple’s iLaunches do.

Without taking into account the other factors (audience benefit, price point etc), the volume of media coverage does put Netflix in a solid position to challenge the existing TV landscape, and break into the mainstream.

Now I’m not on Netflix yet, but could I be? Well, it would be a more cost-efficient process than building upon my DVD collection and given that I’m a big fan of Arrested Development (Netflix’s next release), then my reaction to any forthcoming trial offers would be “Come on!“.

sk

My five fives of 2012

Previous lists for 2011, 2010 and 2009.

Top 5 Films

(Released in UK cinemas in 2012, which I have seen)

1. The Artist
2. Amour
3. The Imposter
4. The Cabin In The Woods
5. Beasts of the Southern Wild

Top 5 Albums

(Released in the UK in 2012, which I have heard. Links point to Spotify)

1. channel ORANGE by Frank Ocean
2. Celebration Rock by Japandroids
3. The Idler Wheel… by Fiona Apple
4. Bloom by Beach House
5. Put Your Back N 2 It by Perfume Genius

Top 5 Gigs

(That I attended in 2012)

1. M83 @ Somerset House
2. At The Drive-In @ Brixton Academy
3. Robyn @ Pitchfork Festival, Parc de Villette
4. Explosions In The Sky @ Brixton Academy
5. 65daysofstatic @ Highbury Garage

Top 5 TV series

(That I watched in 2012. Links point to IMDB)

1. Breaking Bad Series 3
2. Sherlock Series 2
3. Game of Thrones Series 2
4. The Hour Series 2
5. Community Series 1

Top 5 books

(That I read in 2012. Links point to Amazon)

1. A Song of Fire and Ice by George R.R. Martin
2. From Hell by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell
3. Wolf Hall by Hillary Mantel
4. The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
5. Netherland by Joseph O’Neill

Bring on 2013.

sk

Personal Twitter accounts: The good, the bad and the ugly

Generally speaking, Twitter users prefer to follow personal accounts to branded accounts. 18 of the top 20 twenty Twitter accounts (as of end of November 2012) are personal accounts, with only YouTube and Twitter representing brands.

This isn’t surprising. Branded accounts retain the official corporate line. Personal accounts go beyond (or give the illusion of going beyond) the controlled publicity to see what an individual is really life; fans can follow their idols, and vicariously get a feel of what their lives are like.

With TV and radio programmes, there is also the issue of scheduling – celebrities live their lives 24/7 whereas programmes have a limited run. News is the exception to this – and this is borne out by accounts such as BBC Breaking have higher follower counts than individual reporters, who while prolific ultimately will work in shifts.

Does this mean brands should forego official accounts, and instead concentrate on a mixture of staff accounts and hired celebrity spokespeople? No. Branded accounts have a useful role to play, albeit perhaps not on the scale of celebrities. Examples of successful branded accounts include:

• The QI Elves: Interesting facts and trivia, and upcoming scheduling information, to complement the broadcast
• Waterstones: Quotes, offers, and information about book signings
• Betfair Poker: Mostly irreverent, comedic posts entertaining in their own right

These accounts work because they retain a consistent tone of voice that is coherent with the brand, but offer value in their own right.

However, brands can and should try to work alongside personal accounts, to tap into their legion of loyal followers to help amplify key messages.

Unfortunately, this isn’t without its dangers. The good, the bad and the ugly of Twitter personal accounts runs something like:

The Good:

• A picture of Barack and Michelle Obama after re-election is the most retweeted post of all time (817,00 and counting), highlighting the power of the personal touch
• One Direction updated their millions of followers about their appearances on Children in Need – this tweet from Harry Styles, which included their official account, was retweeted over 23,000 times
• Modern Family utilise Twitter’s curated pages to bring together their cast for live-tweeting, increasing the allure of the live broadcast (which helps advertising and ratings), and improving audience engagement with the content
• Question Time capitalised on the popularity of the Twitter conversation to introduce an Extra Guest account, to help further the debate around the hashtag #bbcqt

The Bad:

• Accuracy can not always be verified, as people such as Sally Bercow have found to their potential cost
• Enthusiastic tweeters may send out information that their employers would rather they didn’t, such as when Lewis Hamilton tweeted sensitive information around his telemetry
• Twitter can take control away from the brand or individual, so initiatives such as hashtags shouldn’t be encouraged when there is considerable ill-feeling, as Steven Gerrard and adidas found out
• Individuals tend to carry their phone with them all day, which means they have the potential to reach to Twitter when they are off-duty and inebriated. Huey Morgan had to apologise to his Radio 6 Music colleague Lauren Laverne after a drunken rant.

The Ugly:

• The asymmetric nature of Twitter means anyone can reply to anyone else – whether it is good or bad. There have been notable incidents of people leaving Twitter (such as Helen Skelton, who later returned) due to the abuse they received
• The opposite reaction is to retaliate. This is rarely for the better, as it can distract from the initial offensive incident – as Rihanna found out.
• A lot of abuse is hurtful, but in some instances it can border on illegality. The highest profile incident of the past few months was with regard to Tom Daley
• The internet doesn’t forget, and some individuals can often find past incidents repeatedly mentioned. He may not be the most repentant of individuals, but Chris Brown is often reminded of domestic abuse.

While there are many benefits, there are also many obstacles to using personal accounts. This doesn’t mean that brands shouldn’t seek to work with key individuals. But it does mean a lot of caution is required – both in ensuring editorial best practice is maintained, but also in ensuring that the individual’s well-being remains protected. Both of these can be achieved through up-front training and periodic reminders.

sk

PS This is my first time using the new WordPress post layout, heavily “inspired” by Tumblr. Once I got over the surprise, I realised I quite liked it.

The death of (my) blogging

A trolling title, because “the death of x” has become an overused trope. And of course N.E.R.D.

My blog isn’t dead but it is less frequently updated – going from around twice-weekly to fortnightly to now around bi-monthly. I’m not alone, with many of the blogs I bookmark or subscribe to having become far less active. If I’d retained the same energy in blogging as I had several years ago I’d refresh my blogroll. But…

Is Clay Shirky’s utopian vision of cognitive surplus channelled not into consumption but in creation less likely to come true? It depends on definitions – creation is easier than ever. We can automate actions or post photos from our phone. Why expend more effort, when there is much media to be consumed. It is almost perverse not to want to consume media, given the surfeit of options available. I didn’t blog at all in August, because I felt my personal time was better spent catching up with box sets, reading epic fantasy novels, listening to re-formed bands,  playing computer games and getting caught up in the craze of sporting events, among many other media choices. My interests are unique to me, but I found more than enough things to occupy my attention.

Some of the reasons for my blogging less frequently are particular to me – such as an internal-facing job restricting the amount of interesting work-related things I can talk about. But there also seems to be broader trends that has reduced the prominence of blogging:

• Alternatives: Online participation is getting simpler and quicker – why construct a detailed blog when you can quickly update via Twitter, Instagram or Pinterest
• Aggregators: RSS never really took off (though I still use Google Reader) and Twitter links can get swallowed by the stream. In short, it is difficult for individual blogs to surface – instead it is far easier to write a column on a widely read website, whether it be Buzzfeed, Huffington Post or a more niche site.
• Tighter corporate policies: Corporations are now savvier to social media. They will have policies, and encourage employees to channel their energies into official destinations rather than personal ones. I don’t think it is coincidental that most of the blogs I read that remain vibrant are those written by either consultants or business owners.
• No more novelty: A blog is initially filled with things people have been waiting to say for ages. Eventually, we run out of things to say. And once the novelty wears off, we try less hard to think of something to say.
• The hive mind: We gravitate towards people who have similar interests or opinions to ourselves. In blogging, that means certain topics can become a flavour of the month, and it can become difficult to add to existing noise regarding a certain topic. I referenced Cognitive Surplus earlier. I’ve never read it. Nor have I read Predictably Irrational, Groundswell, How We Decide, Thinking Fast & Slow etc. I’ve never needed to – I’ve absorbed all of the key points multiple times over from blogs on the subjects.

Blogging won’t die, and this blog won’t die. As this post proves, occasionally there is the need to write something more considered or more verbose than a tweet. But the gaps between these needs arising are becoming longer.

A few years ago I purchased a URL and some storage, with the intention of self-hosting a personal website. I never got around to transferring this blog. Sadly, it appears like I never will…

sk

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/helico/1568566210

Will the general public become tablet owners?

Way back in January 2010, I wrote a blog post entitled “The general public doesn’t need an iPad“. I felt that the iPad would struggle to achieve mainstream success as it was a disruptive technology that people had little reference to – it was competing with something that didn’t exist rather than something inferior. Furthermore, I argued that none of its features were truly unique, and that the functionality could be enjoyed using other devices.

Since then?

“U.S. tablet usage hits ‘critical mass,’ ComScore reports”

“iPods changed the media industry, iPhones ramped even faster; iPad growth leaves siblings in the dark” – Mary Meeker.

Tablets have been more successful than I envisaged.

However, we’re not quite in “mea culpa” territory yet. Comscore’s stat is among smartphone owners, not adults, while the iPad has benefited from iPod and iPhone’s introduction and success – from production and distribution mechanisms to consumer desire of the Apple brand. Also, just because last year saw x% growth doesn’t mean this year will see x% growth. And finally, semantically, people still don’t need an iPad. People just want one.

Tablets aren’t mainstream. Yet. Could they be?

Potentially, the main barrier to tablets becoming mainstream is category distinction. There is a dotted line going from the iPhone’s 3.5 inch screen to the Galaxy Note’s 5.3 inches to the Kindle Fire’s 7 inches to the iPad’s 9.8 inches to the Galaxy tab’s 10.1 inches. With the Asus Transformer Prime paving the way for touch-screen laptops, tablets could get squeezed between smartphones and next generation computers into oblivion. The battle could be less about size, and more about open vs closed ecosystems.

But if the tablet market stabilises at one or two form factors – say 7 and 10 inches – could it achieve mainstream success? Possibly, though I think game console ownership could be a useful comparison point in that tablet computers are desirable but not essential.

Their desirability stems from their usage occasions, which is the key component I overlooked in my 2010 post. Tablet use does not compete directly with phones (out and about) or computers (largely fixed location at home/office) – instead they are used primarily in the living room, bedroom and on holiday (Source). Why is that?

• Living rooms are a social space. The tablet is the most social device – it is tactile and better than either a mobile or laptop for showing and sharing
• Living rooms are dominated by the television. The tablet is the best device to switch out of standby and begin browsing or chatting – whether as a companion experience or independent to the viewing
• Living rooms are a place of relaxation. Casual gaming is now huge. Angry Birds on a tablet is a far better user experience than on a phone (particularly for the less dexterous), and casual games aren’t as visible on laptops
• Bedrooms are for preparing for sleep as well as sleeping. E-readers and tablets are fundamentally changing the book-reading industry (and potentially the newspaper and magazine industry, though I think this will be more difficult given that a book is a coherent narrative, and newspapers and magazines are great at editing disparate content)
• Holidays and travel in general require equipment that can do as much as possible in as little space as possible. A tablet is ideal.

All of these functions can be performed by phones, laptops or traditional media but the tablet hits the sweet spot. Hence penetration grows, and with the introduction of the Kindle Fire, Nexus 7, Surface etc it will continue to do so for a while yet. Though I’m still not certain tablets will become mass, they can certainly become mainstream.

sk

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pswansen/5680074913