Last week at the office, we segued into a conversation about the absurdity of the award show gift bag. The idea that the most famous people in the world, who already get to attend something as exclusive as the Oscars, need a $20,000+ bag of swag to make them feel valued.
And I started to think: what is the total value of all of those bags, at auction.
And I started to think: what is the simplest way to reach out to as many award show attendees as possible, asking them if they’d be willing to donate their bag to an online charity auction.
And I started to think: how much would the perceptual value of the goods (iPods, Swarovski crystals, designer clothing, etc) included in these bags increase due to the connection with 1) the event itself, and 2) individual celebrities.
A system that would let celebrities (or their reps) make a public pledge, some sponsorship to reduce the costs of shipping, and a nice chunk of human hours, could create a nice amount of money, and awareness for charities, directly out of one of the clearest examples of unnecessary excess that I can think of.
That said, I’d not passionate enough about the idea to actually see it through, even if I think it’s a neat idea. So, someone should probably steal it.
To paraphrase Thatcher, starting a movement is like being powerful: if you need to say it, you aren’t.
[The following is a comment I made in regard to Spencer Fry’s blog post “Down with Social.”]
I think you’ve made a false (but interesting) divide between what is and isn’t ‘social’.
If you’re arguing that companies don’t need someone tweeting and using facebook exclusively, sure, you may have a point. But the assumption that CRM through email is measurably more valuable than CRM via twitter, facebook, or blog comments doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
If an email response is your definition of ‘measureable’ (even though 1 of your 2 criteria, ‘thorough’ is a qual judgement) then simply counting replies to mentions is the same version of measurable. Twitter is people talking. Facebook is people talking.
If email isn’t people talking, I’ve been using it wrong for 13 years.
The core issue seems to be your definition - you’re argument makes perfect sense if, asLaporte said, social media is exclusively an echo chamber to talk about yourself.
Laporte’s argument was that no one noticed when his tweets weren’t sending, him included. That tells me he was using a conversation tool as a broadcast tool, and probably shouldn’t be calling his use of twitter ‘social’.
”pumping content into the void”? I’d argue that someone who considers a social channel a place to ‘pump content’ isn’t the voice of reason, here.
Anyway, you’re obviously entitled to your opinion, and I may just be misunderstanding your argument. Thanks for sharing.
Evolution, as a strategy, is judging semi-random actions solely by outcome, and building any successes into your enduring structure or strategy. Iteration, on the other had, is judging planned stages on many criteria, and at completion re-envisioning your overall process to incorporate the valuable aspects of the idea tested at that stage.
Evolution is making success the only criteria to alter the DNA of your company, your product, or your vision.
Iteration is tactical, building the best overall version possible, with the knowledge that a change of landscape means a change of approach.
Evolving to chase successes has worked wonderfully for many companies, but it doesn’t have a master plan beyond chasing more success. Evolution pushes you only in the direction you past successes have created. And when a product, model, or approach becomes irrelevant, most evolutionary modeled companies face extinction.
Ecosystems evolve. Watching the record or film industries try to adapt a world of hard physical launch dates and international release windows to a post-internet reality should tell you how an evolved ecosystem adapts to disruptive change.
These industries are in need of a new iteration, because there are no more successes to chase. To mix metaphors, they’ve evolved into hammers, in a world without nails.
Iteration is strategic progression. Evolution is finding the best fit solutions in near-random chance.
Location based applications are great. I’m a huge fan. The idea of connecting physical action to online communication speaks to me both as someone whose personal life is immersed in digital, and as a marketer who spends a significant chunk of every day looking for new and innovative ways to facilitate connecting with people through digital technologies.
[This may be why my job title is ‘Digital Facilitator’. Alternately, it could have nothing to do with it.]
I’ve been thinking about the Nintendo DS launch, lately. Not the slim sexy version of a few years back, or the DSi with cameras built in, or the upcoming 3DS (aka virtual boy 2.0), but the initial silver, oversized, somewhat awkward DS. I bought one the first week it was available, because I 1) trusted nintendo to do something interesting, and 2) was excited about the potential of a touch screen as an input / control device.
It should not be surprising I own an iPhone and an iPad.
When the DS launched initially, Nintendo took advantage of it’s WiFi capabilities, creating demo games that could be downloaded only through specific locations (usually kiosks at gaming retailers, or on the convention floor). This is a different kind of location based messaging, essentially incentivizing one specific locale, rather than incentivizing the action of checking in at a location at all (i.e., the Foursquare model).
Why not build a mobile website that exists solely on a location specific WiFi hotspot? Create content relevant to the location, information that is most valuable there, and offers that are tailored to the geography, and audience.
And then leave it locked to that one wireless network.
I’d leave the network open to access other sites, after stopping at the key location based content, just because encouraging people to stay around a hotspot, and providing utility, doesn’t really have a downside.
But for all the talk of driving traffic in-store, LBM (in my mind) focuses on a different goal - adding a branded and interactive layer to existing behaviour. An LBW gives you a reason to visit, to stay, and to explore - as well as taking content to another level of specialization, and interaction.
Most importantly, it gives you something to talk about, an experience that requires more than loading an application to create. If the content, and the design, are effective enough, this is an experience worth introducing other people to.
Creating artificial scarcity is a meaningful way of creating experiential value. If you don’t believe me, research the diamond cartels.
I’ve been intrigued lately by Devour.
A fairly simple premise (curating web video so you don’t have to) isn’t enough to grab me, but the curation itself is well done.
More importantly (to me) I find their advertising offerings intriguing, in their simplicity.
The custom background option is a perfect example of (term lifted from PSFK) branded utility - it’s not an ad, it’s offering the opportunity for users who WISH to change the look of the site, to pick a branded alternative. This is the polar opposite of invasive.
Sticky video is an option I’m less sold on, not because it’s short on value, but because unless the approval process is stringent, it could cause the curation aspect to decline in user value.
Anyway, check out Devour. Curated videos, fun to watch, work great on my iPad as a bonus.
“If it needs to be a success, don’t focus on making sure it isn’t a failure. These are totally different goals.” — Me, in conversation.
Work in progress.
[From time to time, I’ll start writing a post, and never complete it. After enough time has passed, I’ll just post the fragment, because I don’t believe in leaving ideas in a drawer to die - if I haven’t built it or used it, maybe the fragment will inspire something else.]
I don’t mean a fear of actual stupidity. Fear of Dumb is something that’s visible all over the tech industry - it’s not a label or a trend, it’s the beginning of a sentence.
Fear of being dumb labour. Fear of selling ‘dumb pipe’ (in the case of ISPs). Fear of conducting a service, without providing value beyond execution.
Because Fear of Dumb is really just fear of irrelevance. If all you do is put input through a process that outputs a result, you’re essentially a placeholder for a future robot, program, or younger cheaper version of yourself.
No one wants to be irrelevant.
Out of curiosity, would anyone be interested in a longer, in depth exploration of the “democratized panopticon” concept I haphazardly mentioned in my last post?
In this case, interested means “I’m going to do it no matter what, but would appreciate people to bounce ideas off of / discuss with, outside of my standard (and beloved and trusted) usual circle”.
Current thought is to start with the initial Panopticon concept, and then talk about technology reshaping it, how society has adapted, a few specific examples, and what it means for key elements of present (and future) human identity and interaction.
I needed a new project anyway.