Going Digital: The Met’s Efforts to Modernize its Image

By Blaire Townshend

March has already been a busy month for The Metropolitan Museum of Art—and we’re only two days in. Yesterday, the museum officially launched its freshly-minted new logo, a bold and modern design created by the London-based firm Wolff Olins that has met harsh criticism from the arts community and even been described as a “typographic bush crash” (Davidson 2.17.16). However, The Met has not only changed its logo—it has done a comprehensive overhaul of its digital image, in an effort to make itself “more visually consistent and navigable” (Rhodes 2.19.16). Undoubtedly this overhaul is intended to complement the launch of The Met’s newest venture, The Met Breuer—a new branch opening later this month.

In keeping with its new brand identity, The Met has revealed a “wholly redesigned, simplified website” that ties in to the new logo, presents a straightforward interface, and focuses on being mobile-friendly (Titlow 2.29.16). This move not only contributes to The Met’s new image, but also directly caters to the astounding 91% of visitors who bring mobile devices with them to the museum (Titlow). The website syncs to the mobile apps that the museum has already created to enhance users’ digital experience of their collection.

The Met has previously made moves to utilize social media, as well, such as Instagram, Pinterest, Facebook, Twitter, and SoundCloud, and has even looked to YouTube and Periscope to broadcast its events and increase exposure. It seems to do well on these platforms, boasting 1.1 million followers on Instagram and 7 million views on YouTube. It will be interesting to see how these social media platforms interact with the new website, and how—or if—The Met’s digital marketing managers integrate these elements into a cohesive brand identity.

According to Wolff Olins strategy director Amy Lee, “The Met’s incredible breadth and depth is its biggest asset, but also its biggest challenge” (Rhodes). The next month will certainly be a test of The Met’s ability to grapple with this disparity, as well as its effectiveness in navigating the complexities of a 21^st century digital market as a 19^th century institution. Will it succeed? Or, in the words of Jennifer Bostic, will it become the “Meh-tropolitan Museum of Art” (Bostic 2.23.16)? Only time will tell.

Bostic, Jennifer. "The Meh-tropolitan Museum of Art’s Rebranding." Hyperallergic. 23 Feb. 2016. Web. 2 Mar. 2016.

Davidson, Justin. "The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s New Logo Is a Typographic Bus Crash." Vulture Devouring Culture. New York Media, 17 Feb. 2016. Web. 2 Mar. 2016.

Rhodes, Margaret. "The Met Explains Its Controversial New Logo." Wired. 19 Feb. 2016. Web. 2 Mar. 2016.

Titlow, John Paul. "How A 145-Year-Old Art Museum Stays Relevant In The Smartphone Age." Fast Company. 29 Feb. 2016. Web. 2 Mar. 2016.

One Tweet Can Define Your Brand (Forever)

If anyone still doubts the power of social media, look no further than the case of Justine Sacco (story available here).

While en route between NYC and Cape Town she posted several insensitive tweets. By the time her flight had landed, her tweets had gone viral, becoming the number one trending topic on Twitter- and it wasn't a positive response. Even though her Twitter account was deleted and the posts taken down, her name will now be inextricably linked with those posts forever.

Her comments were incredibly stupid, inappropriate, and indefensible. At the same time we have all dealt with the frustrations of travel and I'm sure can understand her mindset at the time of posting these tweets. Should she have lost her job (in PR, nonetheless)? Absolutely. However, should Justine Sacco be forever defined by one careless mistake? I'm not so sure...but permanence and virality are the rules of the social media landscape, and by playing the social media game you are tacitly agreeing to abide by its rules.

There is a lesson here not only for individuals, but brands as well. As brands dive headfirst into social media as new way to connect with customers, structure needs to be put in place. Social media can be a powerful tool for defining a brand, but is wrought with the same dangers that individuals face, and more.

There are numerous examples of successful social media campaigns reinvigorating brands (see some examples here), but there are also instances of rogue tweets/posts tarnishing brands, sometimes irreparably. Companies should have a clearly defined process, with checks and balances or editorial oversight, to ensure all social media posts are on message and don't cause any (unintended) controversy.

On a personal note, I do feel concerned about how social media will impact future generations. Most of my youthful transgressions preceded the existence of Facebook, but our children may not have the same freedom to make mistakes and learn from them- instead of being defined by them.


Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?_r=0

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/here-are-finalists-years-best-brands-twitter-vine-and-everywhere-else-156122

Content is King in Brand Awareness

Despite all of the focus on keywords and catchphrases, the single best way to optimize your copy for search is to have great content with motivation and substance.

It can be hard to convince a company to put money behind content they are giving away for free. But the days of people coming to visit a website or a facebook page just because they're there are over (if they ever existed at all). Users have to see more than just marketing blather on a page to want to visit a site more than once. Meaningful content also acts as 'link bait', improving SEO for the company not just because keywords appear, but because people find it valuable enough to share.

Of course there are mechanics that can be learned to help with SEO, but the core values for creating a great brand awareness promotion are no different than they are for 'traditional' media. Create a branded promotional item that is useful, and people will remember your company's name. Think of the recipe for Rice Krispie treats that made the cereal both a breakfast and a desert food. The Maxwell House Haggadah continues to make the coffee brand a must-have at seders, and a product to remember throughout the year. The Betty Crocker cookbook has cemented the brand as a go-to cooking resource.

There are sites that are doing this very well. One of my favorites is King Arthur Flour, which offers a wealth of recipes that serve a variety of needs -- including a whole section on gluten-free baking -- plus a baking blog that updates regularly. Stride Rite offers a section on keeping your child's feet healthy, as well as a downloadable sizing chart. On the non-profit front, the NRDC has a treasure trove of link bait, including sections on 'Smarter Living' and 'Smarter Business' that offer practical tips and suggestions for improving health and environmental well-being in the lives of people.

The idea of offering free value to build brand awareness isn't new. But it is more powerful than ever. Online distribution is cheap and allows for previously unheard of viral spread of useful material. Keywords are important, but even more important: create a promotion that people want and need.

How Important is Branding?

Digital media has undeniably changed branding strategy for existing and emerging corporations. URL availability is a primary determinant when choosing a name, but associative naming is still important, and naturally at odds with URL availability. This has led to a new wave of word invention, nonsensical combinations and creative spellings. I have two questions about this new wave:
1.) Is it sustainable?
The limited set of URLS available make this unsustainable. The limiting factor is the availability of URLs and the huge number of squatters sitting on or bidding up valuable URL properties. A new naming schema is going to be necessary but the main obstacle has been normalizing a .com alternative. Alternative top-level domains have not been widely embraced, and a .com address is still regarded as a requirement for a successful brand.

2.) How important is the associative power of the brand name?
This is a much more fluid question, especially as the nature of products in the digital space don’t always line up with previously established industries. I would even go so far as to generalize that the names do not have to be related to core of the service. For example, Google, a creative misspelling of Googol, is entirely unrelated to the search functionality at the core of its business. Twitter, likewise has a name that has nothing to do with its core service. Another question is spelling; here I believe that the phonetics of the naming is the more important factor. As illustrated in class by the blueberries versus blueberrys finding, accuracy is not the determining factor in choosing a good name. Another factor that we discussed in class was the meta tagging of a site could be a more important tool for discovery and visiting, because it is even possible that more people use search to enter sites rather than using conventional URLs.

Reality - Coming to an iPhone near you

You may or may not have heard of the next big wave to hit consumer products/marketing/gaming or just about every part of our lives - Augmented Reality (AR).

AR is basically the use of advanced technology to present digitized content & information projected into the real world or some representation of it. You can then interact with the digitized information in real time. This article details some of the applications and expectations of this new phenomenon. Brands such as Adidas and Nissan have already started using this as a marketing tool and the possibilities seem endless as experts expect to one day (very soon) for us to walk down the street seeing localized information about the buildings, people, companies and opportunities all around us projected onto special AR eyewear.

Something else interesting is that AR was at least partially pioneered right here at Columbia, with Professor Steven Feiner of the Department of Computer Science being a noted leader.

Bing's issue is more than technology.

Two weeks ago, Professor Kagan opens the lecture by reporting on the current news events of the week. He spoke briefly about Google's Wave, a new online communication and collaboration tool, and Microsoft's Bing, an improved search engine. Last week, I decided to explore both applications. I watched the Wave preview video for only 20 minutes, and used the Bing search engine searched occasionally throughout the week. My first impression of Wave's integrated instant messaging and e-mail platforms was very positive, and continued view Google as an innovative company. However, the Bing user interface is impressive, but I had no "Wow!" effect. In the short run, I will use Bing occasionally, but I will most likely remain with Google as my default search engine. I introduced Bing to a co-worker, but he did not seem too excited about the search engine. Bing has two big issues: Google's reputation as the leader in the internet industry, and Microsoft image as a Windows company that stifles innovation. Microsoft evolved from an era where the company controlled technology and dominated its sector. On the contrary, Google evolved in the era of the World Wide Web where open source software and free software are the norm. Microsoft's reputation as a controlling company may have, also, hurt its brand and the recent product launch of Bing. Making matters worst, in the article by Ben Parr (http://mashable.com/2009/06/07/blindsearch/) that compared the results of Google's search engine with Bing's was not positive for Microsoft. The blind test shows that users perceive that Google's search results are more accurate and relevant than Bing's and Yahoo's. Google with be force that Microsoft will have to reckon with in the future. Although Microsoft has financial and intellectual resources to sustain the company as player in the internet era, Microsoft my have to play from the back seat until it changes its mindset and image.