attention industry

Sometimes I think of side projects.

Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:45:07 -0400

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...

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:21:32 -0400

To paraphrase Thatcher, starting a movement is like being powerful: if you need to say it, you aren’t.

Long comments are blog posts, right?

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 10:15:00 -0400

[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 vs Iteration.

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:31:56 -0400

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 Websites.

Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:31:00 -0400

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...

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:07:54 -0400

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..."

Tue, 10 Aug 2010 23:39:57 -0400

“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.

Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:20:29 -0400

Work in progress.

Unfinished: Fear of Dumb

Fri, 06 Aug 2010 10:22:48 -0400

[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.

Reminding Myself: Panopticon

Fri, 06 Aug 2010 00:05:14 -0400

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.

Deliberate Accountability: an idea.

Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:53:28 -0400

Imagine a brand had an online help desk. Not just a phone number, or an email address, but an actual online help desk, where you could see the person who was about to help you, on skype-esque streaming video.

You click through, and are assigned to a person who can see you, a person you can see. You are having a genuine, real time, one on one interaction with a person who has publicly, and individually pledged to help you.

This would be expensive. It would be complex. You’d need to empower your staff to make replacement and repair decisions, in person, without a flowchart. You’d run the risk of a screengrab every time an employee absentmindedly picked their nose, and a YouTube video every time they misrepresented the brand.

It would be completely worth it.

Because you already risk the bad press with every potential interaction. Because we live in a democratized panopticon: we are all (potentially) on video, all of the time.

Because he next phase of the Internet is about accountability. Not the ‘gotcha’ accountability enforced by wikileaks.org. The kind of accountability that comes with using your real name as a twitter handle, linking your LinkedIn profile with your Facebook page. The accountability that comes with WANTING to be googled.

The brands that get ahead of the accountability curve, and stop using potential risk as an excuse to avoid awesomeness, will develop a trust that is generally reserved for people.

Because embracing that accountability is about blowing up a company: from a whole to a collective of individual parts moving with unified purpose.

Show us your face, or we’ll assume you have something to hide.

Death by Process.

Wed, 04 Aug 2010 15:18:52 -0400

Do you have a process, or a cage?

A process is a massively useful tool. It’s a powerful way to make sure you don’t miss any steps, and that the finished product reaches the standards for quality you set.

But a process is also inherently limiting. By establishing steps, procedures and specific measurements of quality across the board, you run the risk of creating a factory that generates one kind of solution, rather than a method of determining the best solution for each unique problem.

And no, brainstorming doesn’t ‘fix’ this situation. Inserting a creative act into a box that limits its shape and scope does not make a process creative, or original.

That said, you need a process of some kind. Creativity, when aimless, rarely ships anything of value.

Things that I consider key parts of my process:

Open ended questions that get me to consider what the actual problem, and actual solution are
Identifying creative elements that each project requires (from myself, and others)
Listing un-executable but awesome solutions (then dissecting why they are un-executable)
Identifying the end behavior desired, then working backwards
Screwing around: that is, diverting focus to tangentially related content for inspiration and insight (WARNING: not billable)

If every action is identified in advance, the range of potential outcomes is limited. When playing an instrument, there’s a limited number of notes, and pleasing combinations thereof. You are already inherently limited by the extent of what your chosen canvas (whether it be artistic, or professional) can incorporate.

Consider this before creating a rigid process that turns your ideas into widgets, all coming off the same assembly line.

So impressed. The most recent issue of Wired for iPad includes a...

Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:47:48 -0400

So impressed. The most recent issue of Wired for iPad includes a tweetstream of the #attfail hashtag, live updating within the app.

Doing it right. Pay attention, publishers.

halcyonheist: Meet Flipboard. (via InsideFlipboard) This app...

Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:09:16 -0400

halcyonheist:

Meet Flipboard. (via InsideFlipboard) This app justifies the purchase of my iPad. Ingenious.

Wow. More info at Flipboard.com

I’m really impressed at the way the iPad has inspired applications focused on aggregating content in smarter ways. That said, this will inevitably lead someone to make the “echo chamber” argument, but the assumption Flipboard will be your only source of content is the straw man of all straw men.

Looking for Digital Marketing Interns.

Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:51:51 -0400

Looking for Digital Marketing Interns.:

Click the link for more info, contact me with questions, be awesome.

The Harry Potter Principle.

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 10:00:00 -0400

JK Rowling isn’t successful just because she tapped into a need for wonder that drives most children to explore literature. Her most intelligent move was to create a property that matured with the audience. The first Harry Potter book was, for all intents and purposes, a young adult novel. The book was short, accessible in terms of language and subject matter, and filled with relatable moments for children of the appropriate age.

By the end of the series (I will admit I only read until book 5) each book was a tome of several hundred pages, deadling with adult concepts, and serious issues of morality and mortality.

Rowling let her product mature at a rate that kept her existing audience engaged. If she’d written seven 150 page young adult novels, she would have needed to find a new audience, and new evangelists, by midway through the series. Instead, a generation of kids grew up with Harry Potter as a series, and grew up with Harry Potter as a character. When you’ve been interacting with the same product for seven or more years, you evangelize it constantly. It becomes part of you.

Facebook has to take this into account, and it’s likely related to (according to eMarketer) some teens losing interest in Facebook.

I’m not going to indulge in ‘the sky is falling’ paranoia, because when it comes to numbers Facebook still has reach and engagement that the rest of the social networking space would kill for. At the same time, it’s worth noting that technologies and social networks need to mature with the people involved.

As such, facebook is faced with a complex and inenviable task - how do you mature with the generation of university students that launched the site into success, while still attracting an upcoming generation of teens and tweens whose older siblings, and at times parents, have already claimed the site as their own?

It’s the Harry Potter Principle: to succeed in maintaining a connection with an audience over time, you need to mature with them. To continue growing that audience, you also need accessibility across multiple maturity levels (which can relate to age, or to knowledge of the material).

"This means that while we love our technology, we also somehow believe we are rock stars, and should..."

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 13:15:36 -0400

“This means that while we love our technology, we also somehow believe we are rock stars, and should wear jeans of a corresponding tightness. Through casual research I’ve discovered that on average an Apple users jeans are 33% tighter than a PC user, and a shocking 90% tighter than a Linux user. Apple fans are also hamstrung by a lack of cargo pockets on their pants that these other users enjoy. The problem is bad with a pair of Earnest Sewns, and becomes increasingly critical when I switch to, say, my Levis 501 XX Shrink to Fit 1947 Selvedge Cone Denim.”

- iphone 4 bumpers - the shocking flaw : ryan mcmanus’s blog : : the barbarian group (via heyitsnoah)

Authenticity vs Transparency.

Mon, 05 Jul 2010 19:04:30 -0400

A common error I see online is the conflation of authenticity and transparency. In general, if I see someone using the two terms interchangeably, I assume they don’t understand either concept.

Transparency is a lack of obfuscation. To be transparent is to make information publicly available, to a significant (but not complete) degree.

Authenticity, as I define it, is predictability mixed with honesty. “Authentic” actions are those which wouldn’t surprise a fairly familiar observer, while “inauthentic” ones fall outside of the persona projected on the actor by outsiders.

Authenticity is a judgement based on assumptions without complete information, regardless of how popular a buzzword it has become. Transparency is an attempt to avoid mistaken assumptions, by providing enough information that people will understand your actions and motives.

This post owes a debt of inspiration to The Authenticity Hoax, which I finally hunkered down and read this weekend while cottaging. Highly recommended.

evangotlib: butlerunboxed: Durex’s mating iPhone app: Taking...

Sun, 13 Jun 2010 21:33:44 -0400

evangotlib:

butlerunboxed:

Durex’s mating iPhone app: Taking viral marketing to another level

This is advertising nirvana. Wow. Wow. Wow.

Well done.

Can’t believe I’m this late to the party, but this is awesome. Especially impressed by leveraging the social dynamics of Facebook connect as a reinforcement.

Print Deathwatch: Closing the design gap.

Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:24:00 -0400

Using the Reeder for iPad application this morning (it’s brilliant) I started thinking about the value and profit chain surrounding the free content I read from blogs. The short version is, Reeder filled the final gap in that chain, and combined with the iPad, upgraded the content consumption experience with reference to blogging.

Let me expand on that.

A blogger writes to gain a voice, gain an audience, create a store of ideas, or to establish credibility or expertise. Some of these pursuits are motivated by personal needs, but others directly feed to business or monetary needs. “Establishing credibility or expertise” has an unmistakable ROI - and if you told coworkers you were spending an hour a day doing that, no one would question you. At this top level, the value (monetary and otherwise) should be clear.

Direct income from blogging usually comes down to advertising or sponsored content. The options range from Google AdWords, or networks like Federated Media (who I am quite intrigued by), to full on branded content, where posts are created in the “publication voice” to draw attention to an upcoming product. This isn’t “save the content industry” money, but it’s another economy within the chain, supporting the urge and inclination to create free content.

What I’m interested in this morning is the monetization of the design gap, between content published and aggregated online, and a fully designed print publication. I was floored by the beauty and interface of the Wired ipad application, because it felt like a digital magazine. I’m having the same reaction to the Reeder application, which interests me - this is a design solution for my personal collection of RSS feeds, a curated list of blogs which represent my interests. Constantly updating, and now designed in a consistent and fluid manner.

What I’m saying is: Reeder for iPad is the first piece of software that made my blog / RSS reading seem a direct competitor for my magazine reading.

A paid piece of software, adding another micro economy to the blogging process. And it has me thinking that maybe the “print is dead” crowd has a point. Maybe the era of the content creation leading directly to the pay cheque is over. As glossed over above, direct pay for content creation is probably going to be supplemental in a lot of cases. The money comes from leveraging what you and others have created, whether it be reputation you’ve built via your writing, filling the design gap, or creating the best device to consume that content from.

We’ve watched the music industry collapse due to the same disconnect - creating content does not flow directly into making money. Selling words is like selling music, it’s based on a fundamental failure to understand what digital means.

Put another way: I’m reading free content through a $5 application that runs on my tablet. And it’s hitting a point where the advantage in targeting, plus the closing gap in experience, is trumping the thin lead in quality that some print outlets still have.