Bryan Maleszyk

Bryan is an interactive design consultant at Molecular. In over 13 years of designing elegant digital experiences with brands big and small, he's seen and done a lot, but always with a focus on the intersection between design, technology, business, and people. He takes the short and the long view of technology: Do what's right now, but always think about what's emerging. Whether it's mobile commerce or augmented reality, Bryan is constantly thinking about innovation and its effect on our world. An oenophile and sustainable food advocate, you can find Bryan drinking wine (in moderation, of course), cooking a mean meal, or running on Charles River.

Posts written by Bryan Maleszyk

December 3

4 Online Brand Gimmicks that Failed

By now, marketers know that brands cannot fully control their own message anymore. Consumers now have a diverse set of channels through which they can interact with their digital world, and they’ve taken rightful ownership of their own destiny when interacting with brands through those channels.

In an effort to be heard and to increase engagement, brands are turning to new, innovative ways to approach the digital marketing landscape, from social environments such as Twitter and Facebook, to blogger outreach and global alternate reality games. Like anything else new and innovative, the risk of failure in these approaches runs high, and the payoff is unknown.

But failure, if done early and often, can be more instructive than success. Let’s look at four new and innovative ways that brands attempted to engage with their consumers through digital, and see what lessons we can learn.

Lesson 1. Tell a story, but make it your story
In February 2008, 50 bloggers and gamers received mysterious packages in the mail containing clues to an online alternate reality game (ARG) with a clear call to action: Find “The Lost Ring.” These packages kicked off a six-month effort across the globe by more than 150,000 players in seven languages to uncover a lost Olympic game. The game officially ended at the Beijing Olympics, and it generated more than its share of accolades in marketing circles.

But that’s only half of the story. The game is a classic example of what’s known as “dark marketing” — a viral campaign in which the sponsoring brand (in this case, McDonald’s) is barely, if ever, acknowledged. The theory is that mentioning the brand would turn potential gameplayers off when they realize that they’re simply playing a part in a larger marketing campaign. In this case, it wasn’t revealed that McDonald’s was participating until months after the game began.

 091203_img1_mcdonalds

(more…)

December 1

Brand as a Service, circa 1900: The Michelin Guide

michelin_2010_nyc_restaurant_guide

It’s been a busy summer, which transitioned into a busy fall. The Thanksgiving break gave me an opportunity to chip away at the stack of New Yorker magazines that have accumulated on my nightstand. John Colapinto’s “Lunch with M,” from the November 23, 2009 edition, in which he tags along with a reviewer for the New York edition of the Michelin Guide, got me thinking about how brands should be thinking of themselves as as service:

Automobiles were still a rarity on roads in France. The brothers had the idea that a guidebook to hotels in the French countryside would encourage people to climb into a car (equipped with Michelin tires) and hit the open road. The first edition, published in 1900, was a five-hundred-and-seventy-five-page alphabetical listing of towns throughout France and the distances between them, with recommendations for hotels and places to refuel, and instructions on how to change a flat.

At Molecular we are passionate about helping brands provide real, valuable, sustainable service to their consumers. As the Michelin Guide proves, this isn’t a new concept at all. And it seems to have worked out pretty well for them:

Michelin has grown into one of the most successful multinational corporations in the world, a company more than three times the size of Goodyear.

I’ve come up with the following four components that I believe are necessary for a brand to execute a successful service:

  1. Deep value: Automobile owners needed a way to find out where to go and how to get there. Michelin provided this for free (initially). The few motorists at the time were given a valuable asset to plan trips, and to maintain their vehicle, and to find reliably good food on the road. As more motorists took to the road, Michelin added the three-star system to denote exceptional cooking. Taking to the road seemed safer with the Guide.
  2. Sustainable value: In the preface to the first edition of the guide, André Michelin wrote: ”This work comes out with the century; it will last as long.” There are now other guides, including the survey-based Zagat guide and the crowdsourced Yelp, but chefs in Europe still live by – and die by -  the Michelin Guide. A few years ago, the Guide launched in the United States (in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco)
  3. Edge Business: Michelin’s core competency is in producing high quality tires. The Michelin Guide complemented that business by providing its consumers a reason to drive – it lives at the edge of Michelin’s brand proposition, as opposed to the center.
  4. Openness: You don’t need to drive around on Michelin tires to use the guide.

I’m curious to hear what you think – what else makes a brand service-oriented?

October 16

Turn off the Lite: Apple Allows In App Purchases for Free Apps

Tap Tap Revenge 3's In App Purchase

Even though my team was swept by the Angels, I still follow MLB’s postseason games when I’m out and about with their great app for my iPhone. At 10 bucks, it’s not exactly cheap, but MLB provides a free “lite” version of the app to try it out before getting the full-featured version. Finding and downloading the free version was the only way I could try it  before I went ahead and bought the full app, because Apple didn’t allow “in app” purchases within applications that were offered for free.

Until yesterday.

This is great news. No longer will users need to download two apps to try before they buy — a true “freemium” app will allow upgrades and add-ons seamlessly, without having to leave the application. iPhone developers will no longer have to worry about the time and expense of maintaining two redundant applications, and designers can now think of unique and innovative ways to take advantage of the freemium model that meets users’ increasingly demanding expectations.

There are some limitations, however.

Apple won’t allow the sale of non-digital goods in the app itself, so dreams of one-touch storefronts for offline retailers will have to remain on hold. They also won’t allow any form of virtual currency, such as the Linden. And while subscription purchases are allowed, rentals are not − Netflix no doubt noticed this caveat.

Even so, the potential for in app updates is enormous. The difference between free and “nearly free” is vast — for every one person who bought Galaxy Impact (iTunes link) for $.99, roughly 400 downloaded it for free, according to their great case study. Offering the free version with seamless upsells, such as a game application that offers new levels or playable characters for a small fee, will likely prolong their app’s potential for user engagement.  Similarly, publishers such as the New York Times or NPR can charge for their premium content but can now offer the delivery mechanism for free.

And as Greg at MobileCrunch pointed out, pirating apps will be more difficult now that they can simply be free.

February 11

The New York Times as a Service Platform

Image by Joe Shlabotnik on Flickr

It’s no secret that the traditional media industry — newspapers, especially — has been disrupted by the rise of web-based services like craigslist. With traditional advertising placement plummeting, even tent pole journalism brands like the New York Times are struggling.

Despite this, the Times has been one of the innovation leaders in the newspaper industry over the last year. It has made its own news for its unique and informative visualizations of the Summer Olympics medal count and the Twitter chatter during the Super Bowl. More importantly, the Times’ have started providing open API access to their content such as movie reviews and — more recently — their entire news archive of nearly 3 million articles since 1981. The Gray Lady is changing from a newspaper brand into a news service platform.

This might seem counterproductive. The Times’ most valuable asset is their news, right? After all, Gatehouse Media just sued the Times for re-purposing (and linking to) their content,  so why would The Gray Lady give their news away, for free?

Because its most valuable asset is not (nor has it ever been) news — it’s greatest asset is eyeballs. The more the Times allows others to take their news and mash it up with other relevant content, the more unique value it provides to its readers.  And the more unique value provided, the more readers come and stay. It’s a great example of inviting interaction.

Despite the collapse of the newspaper industry, there is a still a need for quality, facts-based news in this world. One newspaper can’t possibly fill all of the media channels we consume every day, but by providing open, machine-consumable access to their content, the Times is betting that the networked world will come to its rescue. While it’s still early to tell what the return on its investment will be, the Times’ move to a platform of services is a great attempt to innovate out of a potential catastrophe.

Image by Joe Shlabotnik on Flickr

Technorati Profile

Browse posts by month

Browse by author

We're always looking for rockstars

Come take a look at careers with Molecular