Aug/110
The Semantic Web and Its Limitations on New Human Experiences
If it were up to the semantic web, I would have never discovered Coldplay.
I was having a conversation with a co-worker about what was going to be my next blog post, and something she said inspired me to switch gears and take a slight detour.
Not that I’m an expert on the subject, but I find the semantic web, and its theorized possibilities, absolutely fascinating. Imagine a world where everything is meticulously tailored to you. Not just the advertising. But search results; music and films; and even new friends. THAT is what I think social is here to do. It’s not just a breakthrough in communication. That’s far too limiting, and honestly, I think a bit shortsighted.
We’ve been seeing it for years in targeted ads, Amazon recommendations, and Netflix suggestions. The internet has made enormous strides in personalizing its recommendations based on our connections and experiences. But that’s exactly what scares my colleague about the semantic web. When is the internet no longer connecting us with the things it believes we will enjoy, but instead shielding us from wildly different experiences that we may in fact love?
My co-worker is a Groupon junkie, and prides herself on having no niche. The deals she buys vary far and wide, and if the semantic web were to try to tailor experiences to her it would brilliantly fail.
For most, the semantic web isn’t a problem. But for those who don’t want to be put in a box; for those who never want to do the same thing twice; the semantic web has an ugly side. For all the relevance it promises to bring, an argument can be made that it also threatens to bring an insular view of the world.
I pretty much exclusively listen to Hip-Hop and R&B. And if it weren’t for a conversation between two co-workers I overheard years ago, I would have never downloaded Coldplay’s “Viva La Vida”. An album I love, and which led me to buy all of their previous works, as well as discover John Mayer, Jason Mraz, and Jack Johnson. Don’t judge me.
There’s a fine line between what’s junk, and what could be a new, and interesting experience. Where is that line drawn? The more you submit yourself to the wonders of this new way of the web, the more custom-fit your experience becomes. But at what cost?
Apr/105
The Soul of Social Media, And Why “Agency” Shouldn’t Be A Bad Word
There’s something I’ve thought about for some time, and was perpetuated by Zach Lieberman, a speaker at the PSFK Conference last week. Lieberman, who is a creative technologist, had a talk about Engaging the Human Element, and “making deeply engaging, entertaining and meaningful interactions” through art and technology. He talked about the power of individuals, and touched on a trend of the shift from DIY to DIWO (Do It With Others); an interesting notion that speaks to to the heart of social.
Joseph (Jaffe) would say that social’s purpose for brands is to Acknowledge, Incentivize, Dialogue, and Activate (AIDA as opposed to ADIA) its customers who would then act as advocates for the brand, bringing new customers into the fold. That’s one way of looking at it, and a legitimate way to use it.
Many others in the industry see social is an opportunity for brands to go to where their customers are (online), in order to listen and engage in dialogue. And if there’s a real opportunity for it, act as a unifier, bringing like-minded people together around a common idea, belief, or hobby through a branded community.
But when I had a conversation with a peer of mine, a third angle came up; one that speaks to the point Lieberman made at the conference. Is social capable of being more than just a response/support/inducement tool? What is the purpose of launching a branded community? Are we facilitating conversations for the sake of having conversations? What is the end goal? Lieberman’s work, such as the Eyewriter and Drawn, is about leaving the screen behind. He talked about the “Open Mouth Moment”, when a person drops their jaw in amazement at something they just experienced. He described this as “the pathway to someone’s heart.” How do we create these social experiences? How do we move beyond the Facebooks, Twitters, and YouTubes of the world and get people talking again?
The advent of social media did not mark the beginning of people talking to each other, or about brands. It merely facilitates conversations, but it isn’t the reason why people talk. People talked about Lieberman’s Drawn because it was an “Open Mouth Moment”. It’s about a strong message or idea that’s worth sharing. Most self-proclaimed “social media experts” are internetologists (a point I won’t contend) who rely on incentives over emotions. Dare I say it, this is something social marketers stand to learn from the Big Dumb Agencies (BDA), as George Parker would call them. Whether it sits well with you or not, before Facebook’s founders were even born, these agencies rose to prominence on the backs of people’s emotions. And even then, people talked about and recommended brands.
An "Open Mouth Moment" at the Draw art installation by Zach Lieberman
Griffin Farley, a Strategy Director at BBH and author of Propagation Planning, recently discussed something missing from social media that has long guided traditional advertising: Brand Mantras.
“Good creative briefs can do a great job of inspiring advertising but recently I have discovered that they don’t do a great job of grounding social media actions. I think Brand Mantras do a much better job of this because they describe an emotion, a theme, a writing style that can be used as the guide for the voice of the brand in social media.”
He went on to cite a Brand Mantra in the form of a poem written for CNN. Guess who wrote it. Mother New York; Creativity Magazine’s pick for 2009 Agency of the Year.
“Agency” shouldn’t be a bad word. It’s only begun to take on negative connotations, but we shouldn’t equate the term to immorality. We should instead take hold of it, reshape it, and bring it back to a point of distinction. There are many things BDAs do well, and there are many things that they do poorly, like thinking small. But that same point can be turned around and said about smaller boutiques; most especially social shops. Logistics aside, like the inability to scale, social marketers have forgotten the pathway to people’s hearts. They’ve embroiled themselves so deeply in “Activation” strategies that they’ve forgotten human strategies.
Social media is missing its soul, if it ever had one. Strong ideas and “Open Mouth Moments” are all the reason people need to propagate an idea; not free shipping offers and discount coupons. The tools are merely there to help spread the word, but they shouldn’t be the idea itself. The Obama campaign had one strong, succinct idea that used the tools simply as a way to circulate it: “Change”. It was simple; but it’s that simplicity which made it stir the collective emotions of a nation.
Lieberman said “The process of creating art is in many ways an R & D department for humanity”. I implore this industry to remember back to what made us smile and cry as humans. To capture that raw emotion, and recreate that pathway to people’s hearts.
Dec/090
Is The Apple Tablet The Future of Print Media? Multimedia? Everything?
As a gadget junkie, my primary interest has always been emerging technologies. Somehow, I’ve always had the room on my credit cards to support my habit, and the mentors to help foster it.
The forthcoming Apple Tablet has always been something of much interest to me. I’ve been following its “development” for the better part of this year, eagerly anticipating any news of its release. As we draw closer to its expected January unveiling, I’m beginning to wonder what exactly we can come to expect out of Cupertino?
I spend too much money on Apple products these days. And after buying an iPhone 3GS and 27-inch iMac this year alone, it’s getting hard to justify the estimated cost (about $800) of an Apple Tablet next Spring. I know I’m lying to myself about it, and will likely own one at release, but I like to pretend I can exercise free will.
But the question for the ages is if it’s just going to be an oversized iPod Touch?
I’m scared of getting caught up in the early adopter craze and snatching one up without justification. What void is the Tablet going to fill that my iPhone, MacBook, and iMac don’t already?
And then I think of something I read in an article: There’s a good chance I simply can’t see the future as clearly as Steve Jobs can. The man is a visionary, no matter what side of the fence you sit on. He’s a thought leader among thought leaders. And before the iPhone, I had no idea the things it can do were even possible. He reshaped the wireless telecom industry with one device. And being that after many years of stop-start attempts, he’s “extremely happy with the new tablet,” I would imagine that wherever it stands, it’s got to be awesome.
As we get closer, the picture is becoming clearer. It’s hard to tell exactly what kinds of multitouch gestures and interactive experiences we can expect to see come from the Tablet. But a recent Popular Science demo out of BERG and Bonnier R&D, dubbed Mag+, explores the possibilities of an interactive magazine, and gets me hot and bothered for the future.
Two other notable demos were created for Wired magazine, and Sports Illustrated. The Sports Illustrated demo was actually done by my old employer, The Wonderfactory. But something I read on Gizmodo brought up a good point:
“I’m sorry, Time Inc. and Condé Nast and Murdochs of the world, but magazines are not dying because they are printed on paper. They are going under because many other factors. Here are some of them: Reduced attention spans, reader’s demand for instant satisfaction, and a general change in visual culture and codes that have rendered the page concept obsolete in favor of more anarchic, time-organized information structures, as well as non-linear ones.”
Is the future of print media on the Tablet simply glorified PDFs with Facebook Connect integration? The Mag+ demo is easily the most impressive, and perhaps the most likely of the three design schemes to succeed. It does, what I believe, the most efficient job of marrying an old stodgy medium with the web-influenced nature of today’s consumer.
I think the key to the Tablet’s success isn’t in what it can do, it’s in what it can deliver. Apple holds a house full of multitouch patents. And apparently we’ll be “very surprised how you interact with the new tablet,” according to a New York Times blog post. So, I don’t doubt that it’ll be fun to use. The question is what it will be used for. And I think that’s where distribution becomes the X-factor in this whole thing.
If the Tablet can deliver Mag+ level interactivity to all of our favorite magazines, newspapers, textbooks, comic books, and shopping catalogs (this IKEA demo is a must-see), and establish a streamlined distribution channel (probably through iTunes), then the future of print media is locked. With the proper content publishers on board, a new way of interacting with content that reinvents the way we thought about print, and an easy and especially cheap way of getting that content into your hands, you’re looking at a fundamental shift in the print publishing business.
Add to all of this, the developing rumors of an iTunes subscription service for television content, and access to the iTunes App Store, and you have a perfect storm for the future of multimedia on-the-go. Anyone can create an awesome device chock full of features (albeit, it may not look as attractive). But the content distribution infrastructure that Apple has worked meticulously on for nearly a decade has put them in a position that no other device maker can compete with; not even Microsoft.
I don’t believe this was all a serendipitous mistake. I believe Steve Jobs and the folks at Apple have been planning this coup d’état of our multimedia content for a long time coming; slowly and very cautiously putting the right pieces in place to checkmate its competitors into submission.
Apple has become the Walmart of digital content, with the Tablet potentially acting as the first missing link between the physical world, and the digital content we love. And now that Jobs is satisfied, the only thing that could could kill this idea is exorbitantly expensive cellular service by a greedy mobile carrier, severely limiting its consumer adoption appeal.
Nonetheless, naysayers who wish to cling to their tired old ways, just may find themselves digging an early grave…if they haven’t already.
Hurrah, Hurrah! Print is dead.