INTERACTIVE AXIOM #3 : Embrace The Limitations

INTERACTIVE AXIOM #3 : Embrace The Limitations

EMBRACE THE LIMITATIONS OF THE TECHNOLOGY

Arguably more commandment than axiom, this was, and still is, the most often repeated, most useful, and most practical axiom to come out of my years in interactive development. One might’ve called it “Embrace the way of the medium” but that does not honor the challenge in interactive where the technology - the very medium itself - constantly changes.

Embracing the limitations of the technology - as a fundamental part of your creative concept and execution - will make your work look, behave, and function better than the vast majority of the world's web sites, apps and other digital executions.

It requires that you follow these basic steps:

a.  Set the Bar High

Before you even begin approaching development, you must first prepare to judge your eventual work, your project, with a high, medium-agnostic, qualitative bias.  You must demand and expect intentional grace, beauty, and perfection in the work that manifests through it, regardless of the medium it exists in.

You must never, NEVER, offer up the technology as an excuse for less than intended perfection.  I often hear my contemporaries saying "Check it out, that's pretty good for the web!"  Such a forgiving qualifier as "…good for the web" was never tolerated by Red Sky creative directors.  Either it was excellent, relative to the best work anyone could find in any medium, or it was bad.  The medium's unique weaknesses had to be irrelevant when judging a project's quality.  If the work didn't present itself with medium agnostic perfection, it was considered flawed.  That's a damn high bar today.  And I can tell you it was a damned higher bar in the 90s.  I still encourage my creative teams to work in other mediums every chance they get.  Among other things, it keeps you objective.  Keeps you from falling into the excuse trap.

b.  Identify the Limitations

As project concepting is about to begin, you must first fully understand, internalize and accept the technology's strengths and weaknesses.  And don't be fooled, identifying technical strengths Vs. weaknesses is a tricky art-form itself.  One must go to great effort to distinguish between mere capabilities and strengths.  Often the developers of a new technology will be quite excited by aspects of their new updates and tools. And if you are correctly approaching this evaluation with your medium-agnostic glasses on, you will - rather often - not be as excited by it yourself.  Creators of the new tool will hyperventilate that it does X, Y and Z.  But you then must decide that it does X well, but actually does Y and Z rather poorly.  This is a difficult discipline to learn.  It's so easy to get caught up in the hype and novelty of some new function or feature.  Weak creative teams jump on these new updates and technologies because it seems novel, exciting and fresh.  But this is a junior mistake.  Your concept must be exciting and fresh, and technology is irrelevant there.  

(Related Axiom: Don't mistake technical advancement for creative solutions)

To facilitate this step at Red Sky the creatives and engineers (teams that critically shared a common language, having worked together on many projects previously - this is key) would often sit down before project work was to begin, solely to explore the technical landscape in detail.  These were a dialogue between the creatives and the engineers that would typically start with the engineers showing freshly researched tools and features that they thought were exciting and relevant, and the creatives asking a lot of questions aimed at finding the stress points.  These questions would usually result in the engineers having to do some digging - some testing of the tools - to find where the tools would choke.  Naturally this is how we identified the current state of LIMITATION relative to our creative process.  As a result of these regular sessions Red Sky's creatives typically had a better grasp of the technology than their creative contemporaries.  Where some perhaps didn't code, they at least had a solid gut understanding of the tech that made them easy for engineers to work with at this stage.

Incidentally these in-house sessions were one of the reasons Red Sky utterly ate the lunch of ad agencies who ventured into interactive advertising at the time.  Big Ad Agencies were (and most still are!) loathe to hire significant teams of broadly skilled engineers - engineers who don't just work in Flash, say.  This aversion to investment in ongoing in-house technical research and development is really the worst position one can take where the technology - the very medium - is a constantly flowing river of "change".  Preferring to outsource development, the big ad agencies rarely manage to embrace the limitations effectively, because they don't live with them.  They don't understand them.  They aren't current.

c.  Develop A Concept That Behaves The Way The Technology Does

With the limitations of the technology solidly identified and internalized, you can begin concepting.  Every creative has an internal set of filters that tells him/her whether an idea is a good one or not.  Now knowledge of those technical limitations and strengths must layer onto the creative's filter stack.  If in concepting, the creative team utilizes this knowledge, the final piece will be gorgeous.  It's almost impossible for it not to be.

More often, in teams where this process is not practiced (and sadly, that is most of what's out there), you will see oh so common markings.  You will see the clear effect of technology that is working too hard to do things it doesn't do well.  Long load times, jerky animation, slow frame-rates, ambitious gymnastic interfaces that don't behave well, items that stutter and pop on screen in unintended ways, laggy response to interaction, generally poor behavior.

Embracing the limitations of the technology means that none of this will happen (except through anomaly).  The piece will move smoothly, gracefully, and it will be responsive.  Frame rates will never be an issue, they will run at appropriate speeds and the effect will be smooth.  Any weaknesses in the technology will not reveal themselves.

Here is a very simplistic, literal example.Let's compare two different solutions where dynamic text is in motion.The junior creative imagines some sophisticated, full screen motion graphic - like something you'd see on TV.  Sounds exciting and cool.  The concept art looks killer, it's beautiful. In production, each discrete frame looks lovely.  The engineers and production artists optimize as much as they can, but there is only so much they can do. The concept demands the movement of a lot of pixels.  And then it gets implemented.  The piece loads slowly.  The motion is broad and complicated, and it's running in a browser so it quickly chokes the standard PC system resulting in a frame rate of maybe 10 or 12 frames per second (FPS).  The animation therefor appears jittery and staccato - common for the web, but not the smooth, graceful effect the creative had designed.  If this animation instance was airing on TV you would assume it was animated by someone with limited skill.

On the other hand, the team that understands the limitations came upon a concept that requires text to be displayed as though it was a neon sign.  This art too is beautiful.  It's also full-screen.  It's photo-real, and once animated the neon pops on and off in a choreographed sequence. One of the letters is even "damaged" and realistically flickers as the neon goes through its cycle.  In this case the frame rate selected was 8 frames per second, but you had no idea.  Neon behaves naturally at 8 FPS.  The team chose that frame rate, but could have chosen a faster one.  They just didn't need to because the concept worked hand-in-hand with the limitations.Basically the weakness in the technology is invisible because it doesn't show through the content.

Don't let this simple example deceive you.  This axiom works - no matter how sophisticated and powerful your tools are.You may have realized as I did, that really, it's not so much about merely embracing limitations - only the negative - as it is embracing the full, true condition.  Strengths as well as weaknesses.  But I have found that developers have very little trouble embracing technical strengths.  That all too often we do that to a fault as we will embrace all advertised features, strong or weak, as strengths.  When that happens we are rather embracing the promise of the tool - as opposed to it's actual state.  So I have found that focusing this axiom on the limitations ultimately results in better work.

Lastly - this axiom is unique among my other axioms in that it can be applied to virtually all aspects of development. And maybe I'm taking it too far - but "Embrace the Limitations" can even be applied to any aspect of one's life and work.  I have no doubt there is some Zen teaching that puts this axiom to shame where living one's life is concerned - but it continues to inspire me to problem solve in all aspects of my life none-the-less.

Hey Adobe, Flash is about to get Hyped

Hey Adobe, Flash is about to get Hyped

No, no, not the way it sounds, but I do love the irony.I'll admit it.  I hate Flash.  I've hated it for years.  I hated it when it replaced Shockwave with a time-line based interface that bore every resemblance to every other time-line based interface, except that it didn't behave like any other time-line based interface.  And not in a "wow, welcome to the future!" way either.  No more of a "uh… why doesn't that just work intuitively?" way.  So we all had to start over and learn to fiddle with Adobe's cryptic tool so we could create interactive pieces that were lighter than a .dcr.  Learning Flash was a pain.  You were especially challenged if you were already fluent with Director and After Effects - Flash looked like these apps but good luck finding any other similarity.   It was some screwed up parallel dimension.

So flash forward 12 years to iOS and the beginning of the end for Flash.  Career Flash developers understandably get their panties all bunched up about it, but those of us old enough to have been through this before knew Flash's demise was inevitable. They all go poof eventually.  Naturally a suite of standardized, plug-in-free options arrived on the scene to replace the bulk of Flash's output quite handily.  There is a delta of features still in Flash's domain, but apart from the contentious promise of exporting iOS apps, they aren't all that commonly required.

(Interactive Axiom #11: Never depend on a sole technology as the whole of your expertise and source of livelihood.)

The problem with the arrival of the new formats however, is that they are, well, still rather new.  There have been no development tools that allow us to create all the promised non-Flash interactive experiences without getting our hands all dirty with code.  That has limited development of rich HTML5 executions to only those which front-end developers are willing to bite off.Enter Hype.  A frigging brilliant new tool that launched just last month from a fresh little start up called Tumult, Inc.

Hype is a no-coding-required GUI interface that allows you to create animated interactive experiences that may be saved as HTML5 web content (with CSS3 and Javascript) that will run not only on desktops, but smartphones (including Android and iPhone) and iPads too.  What's more, the experiences take multiple browser conditions into account and gracefully adapt to the supported technologies.

Hype is a mere $29.99 in the Mac App Store (how much is Flash again?  Oh yeah, $699.00!)  And folks, it's insanely easy.

After downloading Hype, naturally I did what I always do - I opened the app, didn't read a word of the documentation, and started poking around.  In 3 minutes, by following intuition alone, I created graceful, looping animations that further changed based on mouse states.  I mean - literally in 3 minutes - a new user to the app.  Compare that to Flash - an opaque, lead-weight that a new user will beat his forehead flat with before he'll get any intentional result on screen.

Honestly I'm humbled by what a great job the Tumult founders did with V1 of this app.  It is a well-thought out tool, the interfaces make sense, its features are richer than I have the patience to itemize here - but you can read about it on their site.

Ex-Flash developers may argue that Hype is light on extended features, but I think they will agree, based on the fit and finish of V1, that a year or two of further development will likely take care of that.

Yes, the near future of interactive web development just popped on the scene folks.  It's called Hype, and in this case it's a whole lot more than its name.

Check it out.

No Animated Gifs? You Must Be Lame... Again

No Animated Gifs? You Must Be Lame... Again

If you have a computer machine that's connected to the interweb this week you have probably been sent a few messages from excited web enthusiasts containing links to compilations of subtly animated gifs. Some of them are very nicely done. Some less so. They generally involve pseudo-cinematic scenes looping at, gasp, reasonable frame-rates. The art in this approach to gif-crafting is in carefully compositing the discrete object in motion, and returning it to its start position gracefully such that the loop can repeat near seamlessly.It's an old trick. And yet I have just received a dozen of these messages.

Anecdotally, it would appear that animated gifs are weirdly blipping the viral radar this week. At least for certain web developers eager to do something "cool". Most of the messages I received included suggestions that it would be so cool to "add this to our site(s)!"

Whoa whoa whoa. Guys, I can't be the only one in the room old enough to remember the last time people hyperventilated up the animated gif flagpole, am I? It was around 1997, and your messages were worded exactly the same way. "We should totally do this on our site - it's so cool." Only back then you were talking about jerky rotating logos and offers that blinked. Now you're talking about hair blowing in the wind, and with all due respect - it's the same thing.News flash: we could do every bit of this subtle gif animation back in the 90s. And some did. Technical limitations considered. But like so many excellent pieces of work in the 90s, they fell largely lost against a tidal wave of random newness and novelty that made qualitative distinction a coarse affair. The medium was indeed new at the time, and amidst an overwhelming surge of changing data points, users (and most developers) simply didn't have enough solid ground - consistency - a base-line - with which to develop a collective discriminating palette.

In many ways this condition undermined some of the most impressive, visionary work that was produced before the bubble burst. Creative threads were invented then which would still utterly challenge the state of the art today - if only they hadn't been lost to the collective aesthetic dimwittery. And ultimately that work vanished into the Digital Dark Ages. Once the economic bubble burst, anything that wasn't profitable was immediately marginalized and disregarded, despite the fact that there was indeed a strong body of interactive inventions available then, creative solutions, which would have illustrated the true future of the medium as we experience it today. You won't ever get to see most of those now.

And that's why - only now - 15 years later - subtle animated gifs seem novel. We finally have a collective qualitative base-line. It's nothing earth-shattering - but we have one.Now that we do - don't make the same mistake you made in the 90s.Don't mistake technical advancement or an advancement in sheer craft, for a creative concept. The novelty of some new functionality or effect should not pre-empt leading site development with a creative concept, an idea. As we saw the first time, novelty wears off. And pretty damn fast too.  Maybe before your development cycle completes.

Start with a concept. A story you want to tell. And if executing that concept happens to require a woman whose hair is subtly blowing in the wind, well psych! You can now debate the numerous support tools with which you could achieve that same effect gracefully.

Because for 15 years, an animated gif has been one of them.

Why Teenage Users Do Not Indicate Your Technical Future

Two teens predicting the future

Why Teenage Users Do Not Indicate Your Technical Future

So I had to sit through yet another meeting today where some breathless 30-something expert urgently asserted that email is going away because, as we all know, "teens" signal what's coming in the future.  And since teens use Facebook and Twitter and SMS, and don't use email, that naturally means email will soon go away for all of us.

Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg earlier defended this idea, employing a recent PEW report that only 11% of teens email daily (a significant generational drop).  Then she said:

"If you want to know what people like us will do tomorrow, you look at what teenagers are doing today."

You've heard this elsewhere right?  A bunch of times probably.

And it makes a terrific little sound bite, and feels all edgy and smart and progressive.

And it would be - except for the fact that it's completely dumb and wrong.  Maybe even backwards.

Theoretical beneficiaries like Sandberg's Facebook, but also countless other less-well-positioned wannabe visionaries, parrot this meme because they love the idea that this mystical teenage behavior might be a reliable predictor of our future.

Depending on who you ask, the logic behind this theoried prediction tool follows one or both of the following threads:

a) Digital-immigrants that they are, those poor professional adults are so out of touch, so weakened by requirement for metaphor and instruction, and mystified by digital tools in general, that their use-case must naturally be antiquated and waning.  Whereas those brilliant little digital-native rag-a-muffins just seem like they can pick up any interface or game and play without instruction, so they must be the only ones who genuinely understand the true-use of digital media.

And/or,

b) Teens current technical preferences will inexorably follow them as they age and enter the workforce, ushering in sweeping infrastructural changes that will impact us all.

"So," the expert goes, "uber-smart companies will prepare for that change, not get caught scrambling when it's too late.  We should be progressive and develop new corporate communication policies that minimize reliance on email and involve the preferred tools of our upcoming workforce: Facebook and Twitter and SMS."

OK, look people-- the reason teens appear to inordinately prefer Twitter and Facebook and SMS over email is so simple -  they're just talking.  Got it?  Chit-chatting.  Socializing.  Partying, labeling, posturing.  It's what their life-phase destines them to do.  And like verbal communication, there is a high value on short response-time and convenience.  Conversely there's not much use for persistence and record-keeping. So Twitter/Facebook/SMS make perfect sense - they are arguably the right tools for the requirement.

Now let's project ahead to the forewarned, paradigm-shifted time when these teens enter the workforce.  What is often ignored in the analysis is that those previously myopically social teens will suddenly be saddled with something completely new, something they did not carry as teens; suddenly they will have responsibility.  It's a new life-phase and a related set of new needs will enter their use-case - the need to communicate officially and discretely, to record and execute plans, to manage interaction across teams, most importantly in all of these is the need to keep a persistent paper-trail, a record of their work and communication.

And all of a sudden email looks a whole lot less lame.  In fact - it looks indispensable.

Skype (or something like it) - not even on the panicky email-is-going-awayers' list of tools for consideration - can do some of this and is way better suited to carry the torch, assuming it undergoes some significant design changes.  But email remains the best tool for that ubiquitous work-place requirement.

Will email go away?  The specific technical approach will.  Someday.  But not because teens don't use it today.

Whatever as yet unnamed tool eventually rises to replace email - you can be sure that it will behave quite a lot like email.  Rather, it will essentially be email - only maybe faster with a lot more features.  But it won't be Twitter, or Facebook, unless they reinvent themselves to be, well, emaily.

Blogs are another story.  Why don't teens keep blogs?  They sort of did in the 90's, what happened?  Well everyone did stupid things in the 90s.  But the truth is teens had no more reason to keep blogs in the 90s than they do now.  They just didn't know any better then.  None of us did.  But again the lovers of those meddling teens predictive abilities don't seem to recognize the fundamental difference in use-case between Facebook, Twitter, SMS and a Blog.

Blogs serve a very different purpose.  Most bloggers have reached a phase in their lives where they feel they have something to share with the world.  They have lived a certain amount of life, and or have acquired unique experiences they deem worth sharing. This can happen early for some, later for others.   As such, you might argue that blogging is a "mentor's" life-phase tool.

And with all due respect to teens -  they are still experiencing the world.  By-in-large they are not yet the mentors/experts/teachers.  They are still filling their lives with experiences and knowledge that - someday - they will feel a strong desire to pass on.

And when they do enter that phase of their lives, they will look for a tool that does something a lot like a blog does.  Or they will write a book, or maybe start a company.

Teens are not tapped into some sort of advanced, predictive, knowledge-base.  There is no magic here.  Yes, they are "digital natives" and as such can learn to operate some technologies somewhat faster on average than "digital immigrants". About the scan of an instruction manual faster, if I'm being generous.  But the frequency with which they use a technology once they've learned it, is no indication of changes to come for anyone but teens right then.

Most technologies will fall in and out of relevance over the phases of a user's life and career, because as you age and advance, your needs change.  Adoption of one tool as a teen user, may or may not have any meaning as that user ages and gains responsibility into adult-hood and a career.

In short, teenagers will only dictate what technologies they themselves use.  And as they enter the next phase of their lives, don't be surprised when it ends up looking quite a lot like what the rest of us are already using today.

If you want to know what people like us will do tomorrow, you look for solutions that improve your life today.

And then maybe tell a teenager about it - because they'll probably have to learn to do whatever it is when they get older.

If There Were A Marketing God

MyMarketingGod

If There Were A Marketing God

Sometimes I like to imagine what ads would be like if there were an omnipresent Marketing God.  Some supreme, completely honest marketing voice that knew all.  All about the products and companies that we have access to.In order to draw fair and complete comparisons between complicated products and conditions you have to think that ads created by the Lord our Marketer, would be pretty wordy, but because the Marketing God really wants to make sure I know the truth, and knows I am lazy, all the words would go into my head in the form of a native thought.  Pop!  Full understanding.

Like an ad for a pen might go:

"My Son‚ " My marketing God always starts his advertising copy that way.

"My Son, on the one hand at 50% off, Writemate's New Gel Premium Grip pen is well worth its monetary price, costing you $0.02 less than the cost of materials, production, packaging and distribution.  On the other, I beg that you weigheth the claim of "disposable".  Alas, it is not disposable in a compositional sense, excepting that once it runs out of ink you will simply wish to discard it.    In fact, if you buy now, the specific pen you are holding will persist intact for 357 years at which time it will be mistaken for a silverfish and swallowed by an as-yet un-evolved Sea Lion species near South American shores.  That will be on a Sunday.  It will puncture her esophagus which will make the sea lion deceased by the following thursday and will further render the unborn cub of the sea lion stillborn.  The remnants of the pen will then degrade over the following 1,263 years.  And anyway the ink will leaketh onto thine new, white Zara shirt next wednesday on a flight to Tampa due to low air pressure.  So you will have to keep your suit jacket buttoned, enduring scorching Florida heat to avoid embarrassment at the board meeting.  Also - some of the ink will get on the skin of your abdomen.  There is a new nano-particle in the ink that BioCenterLabs managed to get approved for commercial use without enough long-term testing to record its full impact on an entire human life span.  The chemical can pass through your skin; it enters the blood stream and eventually is filtered by your liver.  Unfortunately it will stay in your liver and will be a .082 percent contributing factor to your fatal organ failure at the age of 87.  That might sound old to you now - but actually people who avoid that chemical (and a couple others we need to talk about, my Son) will be living to 102 years on average by then.  Even so, if you do decide to purchase it, you will be able to use this pen to jimmy your backdoor open when you get locked out on Monday morning - so hey, it's your call."

And he puts the whole thing into a little yellow starburst in the corner of the package.  Somehow it's magically and instantly legible.  And there isn't a picture of some hot chick using the Pen either.  It's a picture of me, jimmying my back door in my boxers next to a choking sea lion.

My marketing Lord's ad messages are often inconclusive. Loaded with trade-offs and complexities.  He says that's life. Things are always more complicated than one might wish.

That said, He IS pretty conclusive with spam.  The last spam message I got from Him read:

"My Son, these Male Enhancement Pills will NOT increaseth the size of your penis.  Not in the slightest.  They will however give you a stomach ache.  I could go on about where your money will go, and what the herbs will do in your body - and the fact that some of them come from a company that employs little kids the same age as your son.  But anyway - your penis is bigger than that annoying guy at your office whom you disliketh, so feel good about that and don't bother with this product."

I was at the Super Market yesterday and so overwhelmed was He that my Marketing Lord had to stop to rest part way through.  I was at the dairy section when I saw an ad on a carton of Milk:

"My Son, Have you seen this Child?  Last seen voluntarily leaving his mother's house gleefully hugging and kissing his estranged father who loved the little boy more deeply than life itself.  The clinically neurotic, smoking, self-centered mother, had unfairly acquired custody of the boy when said father failed to show up at the custody court hearing.  He was at the time sitting by his son's side at the hospital as the boy recovered from injuries having suffered a fall in the mother's backyard while she ignored him the day prior watching Jerry Springer lounging slothfully next to her ashtray.  Of course this fact was not mentioned at the hearing.  So don't call the number below if you have information.  The kid is now happy and well care for."

No not that ad - I meant the one on the other side of the carton:

"Got Milk, My Son?  You might ask why you should.  For that matter, consider why you think of it as "milk" at all, and not, say, "fluid secreted from several mildly-tortured animal's teats?"  Or at least "Cow milk?"  My Son, human breast milk is required by human infants to start life healthily.  That is the only type of milk the human body ever requires in its lifetime. As such it should logically be what you think of when you hear the generic use of the word "milk".  But the Dairy Board has issued some very effective, multifaceted marketing strategies since well before you were born to compel your parents, and now you, to think of cow milk as some sort of wholesome, important, even mandatory part of an adult's diet.  In reality, after 2 or 3 years of age the average human body stops producing the enzymes required to digest milk.  Any milk - including this carton of cow milk.  Weened humans do not need milk.  At all, unless of course one were in an utter vacuum of other more healthy food sources.  Further consider the fact that the milk secreted from cows' udders rather specifically occurs to add an incredible 700 pounds of body weight to a comparatively dumb animal infant over only 9 months - this is far from the kind of nutrition a small, intelligent human requires.  And you have wondered why dairy is so fattening?  Anyway, whatever worthwhile nutrients one might find in cow milk can be all obtained via other easily available sources, in healthier forms.  If you're still not sure, take this test my Son: ask yourself if you would drink a tall, cool glass of homogenized rat milk.  Be honest.  Or dog milk.  Now, aside from availability issues there is no meaningful, health-based difference between these and cow milk.  Now, what about a glass of human breast milk?  My Son, it is more fit for you than cow milk, and your grimace at that thought is cause enough for you to reflect seriously on your reflexive acceptance of swallowing cow secretions.  With my deepest respect my Son, you are merely non-critically used to it.  Cow milk is simply abundant.  That is the only reason it was adopted by agribusiness.  I could go on about the rough treatment and generally miserable lives of these animals, and the hormones and drugs that are used to keep these cows in a state of pseudo-pregnancy - producing unnaturally large quantities of milk so as to feed a country's population, and how these drugs and hormones not only negatively affect the animal's health but yours too.  And that contrary to human marketing, osteoporosis is literally worsened by the ongoing consumption of large amounts of cow milk after puberty, not improved.  Instead my Son, I would simply turn your attention to the Rice Milk over there, some nuts and collard greens."

Pop!  All understood in an instant.  And there isn't a cute cartoon of a cow on the box either, no, it's a color photo of a fleshy, slightly milking-sleeve-infected cow teat dripping a squirt of delicious wholesome yellowy-white fluid.

Total honestly.  Full disclosure.

There are several aisles in my super market where my Marketing God simply screams really loud and panicky, and stutters things like "M..M..Monsanto..!" and "... CLONED BEEF!", and I have learned not to go down those aisles at all.

I wish.

Unfortunately, I don't really have a supreme Marketing God.  I'm bombarded by the sometimes overt, and sometimes surreptitious, marketing tactics of companies that operate under a type of self-preservation, survival motivation of their own with messages that are usually intentionally incomplete- lacking sincere and helpful full-disclosure at best, and often misleading, dishonest or dangerous at worst.  My only tools are books, the Internet, common sense, my wife (the previous two are interchangeable), and a willingness to question the basic status quo of every single purchase decision I encounter.

That's hard work.  The system isn't designed to support access to the truth.

It is designed and maintained to compel you to purchase and consume without such a critical thought.

Gap is the Biggest Wussy on Earth

gaplogo

Gap is the Biggest Wussy on Earth

So we all saw the new Gap logo. It looked weird. It looked wrong. It looked like all sorts of other unbecoming words that were broadcast over Twitter and Facebook within hours of its unveiling.

Then, in what is going to be (or should be) remembered as the biggest corporate branding fail of the last decade, Gap caved in to all the little whiny Tweeters and defensively pulled its shiny, new logo.

Anyone who thinks that move was rational - that pulling the new logo was the best thing Gap could have done in the situation - is somewhere between equally ball-less and an idiot.

No, it was the worst thing Gap could have done in the situation. I've read a few posters who think the whole thing was an intentional rouse to gain attention. Far fetched. There are better ways of gaining attention than intentionally making your company look like a bunch of bumbling idiots. That's not it.

I'm sure Gap thinks they were "using the medium intelligently to respond to consumer opinion" or something one might read in a Forrester report on social marketing. But really they are just pussies.

The fact is, any time you launch a logo redesign you have some people who complain. The new logo always "feels weird". It feels weird because it's different. Like the...mirror image of a photograph which never feels "better" than the original orientation - until you get used to the novel nature of it.

Critics crawled out of the woodwork - and the internet lets their short-term opinions sound big. But a company has to differentiate between that kind of blip, and the long-term strategic reasoning behind their decisions.The truth is - all those whiners would have gotten used to the new logo. And they would have come to associate it positively with the brand, so long as Gap continued to invest in it and in their creative marketing efforts as they have done.

When the iPad was announced by Apple - the whole world spent 2 weeks laughing at it and making comparisons to tampons. It was ridiculed. SNL did skits about it. People made YouTube videos roasting it. It was the laughing stock.Who's laughing now?

Apple had the balls to commit (this kind of thing really doesn't take much in the way of balls - just the basics - which is why Gap is such a colossal wuss). And iPad's critical consumer responses naturally waned, like all these things do. This wasn't an oil spill for christ sake, it was a brand.

You know, I hate to say it now - but I sort of liked the new logo. I mean it was Helvetica, sure. One might argue that seems old. But so are 5 dozen other logos that use it quite well. And Gap, maybe even uniquely, has the minimalist heritage to have owned the execution. The black and white was refreshing.

So the little blue square was sort of lame at first glance - but who knows how it all would have manifested across other products and marketing devices over time. Guaranteed, Gap, the nay-sayers would have wound down, and a new crop of less outspoken advocates would have embraced the new logo quite well.

You just had to have the very slightest teensy little balls a company can have.Instead you have displayed yourself to the world as an utter corporate whip. You've done more damage to your brand equity by pulling the new logo, than the blip of negativity that naturally comes with anything new.

Now I don't give a crap how "tough" or cool your models are styled to look.Now we all know - Gap is just a self-conscious little wuss.

Confessions of an Apple Freemason

apple-freemasons

Confessions of an Apple Freemason

I love Apple products. But something has been troubling me...

People have been calling me and my kind Apple Fanboys for many years.   Before that term was trendy they called us Apple fanatics. I used to resist these labels since from my point of view I was just reporting the obviousness between Macs and PCs. It wasn't my fault Apple products were superior.

Anyway this isn't about who's better or who's right . That's old news.   Apple is kicking butt these days and most of the anti-Apple people I've known have finally let go of their irrational embrace of a Windows PC-only paradigm, bought iPhones, iPods, iPads and iMacs and we can finally move on.

And my story starts there.

Because as any true Apple Fanboy will tell you, it feels oddly disorienting to see Apple kicking butt .  Yeah, it's what we fought for over the last quarter century, and yet now that we have arrived, the universe is out of balance, only perhaps not in the way you might expect...

iTudes

The other day I was ordering a bound photo album I made in iPhoto. The fastest shipping option I saw was still going to take too long, so I went in search of a more expensive overnight shipping option. I didn't find mention of such an option, so I called the Apple Web Store Support line - since they would know about shipping Apple's products. The first sales person I talked to naturally sounded cool - like a "Mac". When I asked if I could overnight the shipping of my iPhoto Album, after it was printed, the line went dead. I was on my iPhone so figured AT&T's connection dropped. I called back on a landline and this time got another cool-sounding "Mac". Once again I asked about paying more money for an overnight shipping option, and this time I think the "Mac" mumbled: "Oh we ble..." he trailed off unintelligibly and the line went dead again. This time it was clear - he hung up. In my ear. Mid-mumbled-sentance.And that's how I learned, or intuited rather, that buying Apple products online through iPhoto is unrelated to say, buying iPhoto itself.Thus started my troubling, mulling and stewing. Obviously, I shouldn't have taken being hung up on twice by Apple representatives personally. There is obviously a rational explanation. And yet I did take it personally.

"Made in California"

An important part of Apple's brand is it's personality, embodied by a slightly cooler than you, slightly smug, rather naturally stylish Californian called "Mac" (and this was true decades before any commercials featuring Justin Long were deployed). And if you're Apple, you'd recognize it would undermine your brand personality if US consumers dialed the Apple Store and were directed to random, heavily-accented operators in India who sounded like they had been hired by the floor-full, to save a few bucks. No, you would hire considerably more expensive, self-entitled, young Californian-sounding American College Students and you would save the money back by issuing a punishable edict that directed all "Macs" (operators) to move through those calls as ungodly fast as possible - even if it meant outright hanging up in the ear of some dumb customer who didn't figure out that the information vacuum surrounding Overnight Shipping for iPhoto Products meant Apple doesn't do that. Click - "Sorry, application 'telephone call' unexpectedly quit".

Little Dog

Apple has always had a little dog attitude. You know- the way a Jack Russell will act all self-important, and snarl and snap like he's all that. He has to do that because he's so small and powerless. Otherwise he would be eaten. That was Apple for it's first 20 years. But like me, maybe you have wondered what you would do if your Jack Russell Freaky Friday'ed into the body of a Great Dane or a Rottweiler. There is no room in our civilization for such a vicious K9, and Animal Control would probably put it down.

Well Apple has grown. And by grown I mean it has inserted itself into the body of a Microsoft, a gigantic swath of the population with iPhones, iPods and now trailing, Mac computers. Apple is enjoying more users than ever before in its history. You might argue that in areas, Apple has become a big dog. The problem, and the reason I currently think I would prefer Google own the digital universe despite their utter lack of aesthetic sensibility, is that Apple still carries itself like a small dog. Utterly arrogant, overly aggressive; a little dictator.

It was cute when the company had no power, it was necessary, endearing even. But now that so many lives are intertwined with that personality, now that a virtual ecosystem has begun to build itself around the company and its behavior, Apple's personality needs an adjustment; the arrogance, once an asset, has turned destructive.

Knights of the Apple Table

If you spend any time in the Apple Discussion boards you have come across a recurring comment convention. Some aspect of Apple's service or products pisses a customer off and by way of expressing the injustice, the customer will start by listing, in detail, all the Apple products he has owned over so many years; a precious few can even assert that they owned the first Macintosh Computer in 1984. As if such credentials should entitle them to some premier frequent flier status.

I used to laugh at those people - how lame, I thought, this is a company - you just buy their products or you don't. Apple doesn't owe you any more than that. The number of products you willfully purchased is a meaningless datapoint with regard to the little issue you are upset about now....and yet... I have begun to understand why they felt that way. Why some of them intuitively felt that Apple owed them a little bit more, perhaps more than all these new, fair-weather, iPod-gateway, converts. Why being shuttled through the same long cues and dismissiveness, as everyone else felt unjust. And why, after some real soul-searching - I now sincerely feel that way too.Apple does owe us. Some of us. For we are the loyal minority. The long-timers. The knights of the Apple table. They owe us because we were the kids who fought off the countless bullies on Apple's behalf at a time that Apple was weakest. We were Apple's first line of defense. The ones who tucked our precious Mac OS under our arms and carried it away from threat of disaster. We protected it.We defended Apple's honor against an inescapable and humiliating tidal wave of proof that Apple was the weakling of the personal computing party.

We fought these countless adversaries with the most valuable weapon of all:Our own credibility. Because Apple carried so precious little then.To keep the company alive - in effort of defending the unacknowledged rightness of Apple's mission, we put our very faces and reputations on the line in defense of an ideal that had not managed to manifest a meaningful footprint. Apple was weak, it faltered, it was shrinking to toy-like proportions, so as far as anyone knew at the time our assertive actions were reckless, self-destructive and ultimately doomed. But through it all - we fanned the Apple embers tirelessly.

These were the darkest years. Seriously, Gil Amelio? Really?  It took a level of courage and self-confidence to be an Apple supporter then.

My minuscule part in this legend was as the creative head of a highly-awarded Interactive firm at that time, and there was not one technologist, IT executive, or engineer who thought we should have a Mac in the shop. Like vultures they circled, "Apple is about to fold, Photoshop runs on Windows now, we need to move to PCs now"; it was their repeated and logical assertion.  It became an IT mantra.  And yet we fought.  My business partner and I, against the obviousness, we fought. So my company bought more ugly beige boxes from Gil because "Damnit," I said, "the OS is BETTER. And I believe in their rightness.  They'll come back." Obviously I had no clue Apple could come back - just a deeply wishful belief in the justice of it all.And I wasn't the only one. There were more of us. A well-documented, miniscule percentage of the personal computing population - we evangelized, consistently, passionately, angrily even - to the near-death of our professional relationships.

Frequent i-er Program

Apple's Steve Jobs died and was reborn to rule once more.

Could this have been possible had the believers ceased believing?   I don't think so.  When I recall the relative viscousness of our fight, no, I don't think so.

So I stand before you today, Apple, with the scars, and sacrifice that you survived long enough to rise to new power upon, and I ask you to remember.  Not to forget us.Maybe... maybe you do owe those few something after all? Those few who stayed with you from the 80s onward?  It wouldn't take much.

You could acknowledge our greater-than-mere-consumerism sacrifice by instituting a literal premier customer status that it takes years to acquire. A good friend of mine, had a simple suggestion: Lifetime Applecare.

Or maybe we just need you to grow up. Go the extra distance and show us all how such a great company - who survived thanks to a relative few fighting proponents - can mature gracefully. Lose the little dog attitude, and for Christ sake - respect your evangelists.  Find out who you're talking to before you treat them like annoyances.  I know you think "Hey - this is awesome, look at all the new customers we have now!" But look more closely and you won't see any evangelism in that body of new users. You'll just see users. Uninvested users who follow trends. And that's great, so long as you remain the trend.

Similarly, when you lose your loyal soldiers, the lifers - you'll have another problem. A population of trained, outspoken digerati who know your strengths and weaknesses intimately and who share a new mission. Look at this post. It's the inevitable byproduct of such a scenario. And a pretty mild one at this point.Now that you are strong, it wouldn't take a lot to get me back. But I... we, are not like the rest of your new customers.

We had an income in 1984. We bought every OS you have ever released and more hardware than some companies do.

The people who call us 'Fanboys', who lump us in with this iPod generation of trenders, totally miss the point.

We are not Fanboys.We are the proud Apple Freemasons, and membership has been closed for a long time.

Apple Freemason Medals of Service

I started with a Macintosh Computer in 1985. I bought half a dozen beige boxes with names like Performa, LC, and Quadra. I bought a Duo. I bought the first iMac (bondi blue). And the second iMac (blueberry). I bought three Powerbooks. I bought the Cube. I loved my Cube. I bought another iMac (AV graphite). I bought two G3 towers(beige and blue), and two G4 towers. I bought several tube Monitors, and on the day it was available bought a 20" flat Cinema Screen and then the 23" Cinema Screen. I bought the first iBook. Naturally I bought the first G5 Tower, and then another faster G5. I bought two MacBooks (one white, one black), and I bought the first 30" cinema screen (with the necessary video card upgrade). I bought an iSight webcam. I bought the first iPod with mechanical spinning click-wheel and surrounding buttons, the iPod with four red glowy buttons, The first iPod Mini, the first Nano (still the best iPod design), and the clip-on Shuffle. I bought the first iPhone, the iPhone 3G, the 3GS, and now 4. I bought the first Airport Base Station. The first Airport Extreme. Numerous Airport Express bricks. The new Airport Extreme 802.11n. And I bought a coveted AppleTV. I recently bought a spanking new Nehalem MacPro Tower. I bought a new 15" MacBook Pro and an iPad.I bought every Mac OS ever released. Every version of iLife and iWork. I bought Final Cut. I bought all manner of Apple adapter and cable and battery and mouse and keyboard in multiples.

Apple, you kind of made me buy those adapters.

I have spent untally-able dollars at the iTunes Store on music, movies, TV shows, apps and books, as well as photobooks and cards through iPhoto (minus overnight shipping). I have been a dual-account holder of mac.com since it was launched (boasting Virex!), and maintain two Apple developer accounts.

I didn't buy the iPod Hi-Fi. Sorry, that was the stupidest product I have ever seen. For a while I tried to pretend like I never saw it. So I guess I saved $349 there.

By my rough estimation, I have personally purchased well in excess of $70,000 of Apple products.

I additionally was directly responsible for ensuring that Apple products remained the dominant tools in my company of 550 people for the worst decade of Apple's lifespan to date.

And this is just what I remember.During the same period, I purchased maybe 4 versions of Microsoft Office.

You too?  Welcome to the Apple Freemasons.

Going Social On Your Ass

go social

Going Social On Your Ass

Three years ago some ad agency dweeb leaned into my office and smirked "Dude, our campaign just went social".

And I think, after a brief pause, my immediate reaction was to throw up in my mouth.  I silently hoped I would never hear that stupid little term again. That something "went social".

But boy it's catchy isn't it?  Sounds all proactive and edgy and exciting, right?  If you work in an ad agency, you probably just enthusiastically thought 'Hell yeah'.

Those of you who know me know I hate these little, after-the-fact terms.  Badges that agency people glom onto in an attempt to own the things that happen to them by accident.  To claim it somehow, despite the fact that they exist outside the users' intent.  "Viral", "Word of Mouth", and now "Going social".

Hello!?  It's all the same thing, people.  Yeah yeah, someone will feel compelled to bloviate on behalf of the need for, and variances between these dumb little labels.  And it still won't change the fact that users are in complete control - share what they want, how they want, only when they feel like it - and that advertisers have never actually had permission to interrupt or effect a desire of their own upon users no matter where they do it.  And if, in wishful disregard, the advertiser still has some desire for proactivity of any sort, may at best, bow low and deep, and beggingly offer service to the king, the user.

But they rarely do.  Advertising seems meaningless unless advertisers think they have control.  So we now spend a lot of money developing and executing marketing plans that will "go social".

In the words of my old friend Nick, Social "this."

Ad agency people: in a couple short years you will no longer be uttering that term.  So save yourself the pleated, acid-washed embarrassment, and don't utter it today either.

Look at the big picture.  Make things that are valuable.  Then be silently grateful that something you created isn't held in utterly dull regard by the user.

And then maybe I won't be forced to keep swallowing my own vomit.

The Best Thing On The Internet Right Now

flash

The Best Thing On The Internet Right Now

So after a particularly frustrating day of having Flash-based content crash my browser, I finally buckled under and succumbed to the recommendation of my old business partner Tim Smith and downloaded a little, free Mac Safari plugin called "ClickToFlash".

ClickToFlash is a simple tool that blocks Flash content in the Safari browser and replaces it with a pleasant, ignorable graphic.  And if you choose to click the ignorable graphic - the Flash movie loads normally.  Simple.

But why would the average person want it?  Most advocates will tell you because it will significantly reduce browser crashing.  Which it does.  But there is something else.  Something I found infinitely more satisfying.I'd resisted ClickToFlash previously because I thought, at the time, I wouldn't want to miss out on all those cool experiences, those grey boxes would probably annoy me, and any extra clicking would degrade my experience.

Was I ever wrong on all counts.

ClickToFlash has made surfing the web a pleasant - no, a delightful experience.

The surprise came when I landed on my first page, a news site, which I was fairly sure had no Flash content on it anyway.  Naturally when I landed I saw the article, but what surprised me was what I didn't see.  What I didn't see - were ADS.  Just a nice clean page and the content I wanted.I went to another site, and another, and the obvious realization kicked in that most of the prominently positioned, above the fold and therefore expensive to place ads on the web today are Flash-based (read: sexiest and therefor deserving of being in the expensive locations).

At that moment, with great thrill, I realized ClickToFlash might just as well have been named "ClickToBeAnnoyedByAdvertising."Ah… control.  This is what Interactive media is supposed to be!  In an instant I had muted the visual screechings of thousands of uninvited, self-important, flagrant 1st-Axiom-of-Interactive violating Advertisers.

Of course this will all end come the day that the engineering teams relegated down the food chain to advertising agencies finally fire their Flash developers and start focusing on the emerging web spec HTML 5 as a platform of choice.But don't worry - that's not going to happen anytime soon.  The spec is only partially deployed, and fortunately for me, advertisers love Flash.

Way behind the curve, agencies are still staffing up with Flash developers as though the technology can replace creative ideas, as though that one technology can pull them out of the ad industry's chaotic spiral, as though it were - "the future." To them, Flash is still cool.Such is the state of creative teams in most ad agencies.  These poor guys are literally just starting to feel solid ground under their feet after a decade of "viral this" and "social that".  The desperate wishing that TV spots would just stay important forever has finally waned and most agency creatives have finally, grudgingly, begun to accept interactive media as the centerpiece of their campaigns.  See, advertising creatives don't like it when the medium carpet is pulled out from under them.  It's only happened once before and it took them over a decade to accept it;  It's hard to develop creative solutions when your palette changes so fundamentally everyday.  If technology is not in your blood - you struggle trying to track the advancements and incorporate them into something resembling a mature creative execution that doesn't smack of novelty-chasing.  So now that Flash has been embraced ubiquitously by advertisers, it will take quite a lot to move that big ship off the Flash gulf stream.  You can rest assured that advertisers will still be using Adobe's somewhat clunky tool for a long, long time.

And that suits my ClickToFlash self just fine.  That's right boys.  Graphic banners are boring.  And what the heck is Ajax or JQuery anyway?  HTML 5 (or 6?) couldn't possibly kill Flash.  Because with Flash you can create "experiences!"  Who knows maybe it will go "viral" or even better, "social".

Just you keep spending your clients' money on really humongous, big Flash campaigns.  Buy up all the available ad space for that gorgeous, experiential, Flashtrubation.  Please, I'm begging you.

And the rest of you Mac users - download ClickToFlash.

Internet nirvana awaits.

Ba Da Bing!

Ba Da Bing!

It's cold in hell today.  Well, in my private corner of it anyway.

That's because my default home page - across all my browsers - was just changed to Microsoft's Bing.com.

In my world - that's really big news.  I have friends who have responded with utter disbelief.

For the last 24 years I have been, you might say, generally anti-Microsoft.  Or rather - I wasn't impressed with this company that had defaulted, and then bullied it's way, into ubiquity slightly ahead of availability of vastly better designed systems (cough - Mac OS - cough).

Yes, of course I was, and to a large degree, still am, an Apple fanboy.  And yet when I think about the companies that I would prefer to have rule the universe, I have always thought Google makes a slightly more benevolent ruler than either of the former.

Over the last 24 years I repeatedly asserted that the day Microsoft developed a product that is better than Apple, and later Google, that I would have no problem adopting it.  And of course that was so easy to say because such a thing had never happened.  Like ever.B

ut for the last month I have been trying Bing, and guess what, it doesn't suck.In fact, it doesn't suck so much that it's actually really great.  Dare I say - the greatest Internet search engine available today.

For over 10 years Google has held the status as the top subject in my private Internet kingdom.  The first logo I saw every morning, and the most used internet tool every day.  But all that changed today.

Using Bing, it's pretty obvious that search results are more relevant, videos more immediate, dynamic and easy to navigate, and images are more relevant, numerous and easy to view.And, gird yourself Google, I'm about to utter an alien phrase... it's cooler.

Using Bing, I realized that Google, the search engine, just slipped, unceremoniously, into the bottom half of the hour glass as an artifact of a previous time.  A time when aesthetics necessarily fell by the wayside in favor of functionality and conservative technical etiquette.  Business models had to actually work after the bubble burst- imagine that.  And the growing tidal wave of newbie mom and pop internet users were still a little confused by all them thar buttons and interwebs and emails and such.  Google's child-like branding and minimalist (read: mundane) approach to interface design and aesthetics made the company and it's site friendly and accessible.   ...Back then.

However, today, Google's obvious repulsion against anything remotely related to aesthetic beauty or adventurous U.I. has left it with all the design gravitas of a pocket calculator.  Yeah, it works, but there is no joy in using, it's not delightful, it's not cool.

As a Google corporate outsider it's hard to tell how much of Google's home page (and logo) - which has changed glacially in the last decade - was initially accidental or the result of advanced calculation, but in either case it worked at that time, and it's unlikely that anyone inside Google has been willing to take responsibility for messing with that success by fundamentally refreshing the product's appearance and behavior.

"DON'T TOUCH IT!" is the more likely conscience on the primary-colored campus.

But technology runs to commodity.  And one day you wake up and the only difference between two competing products is aesthetics and an implied lifestyle.In hindsight, "change it" is something Google needed to do some time ago.  Embracing the risk, reward and uncertainty of great design would have given the company a chance.  Might have pre-empted Microsoft's bid altogether.  But you don't write algorithms to do that, you employ artists, and unconventional U.I experts, you trust their intuition and taste, and you relegate to them some directorial control.  You don't drown them in statistics, limitations and testing.  That procedurally kills good design.Look at Apple - the poster-child of industrial design and aesthetics working hand-in-hand with great technology.

Apple gets it.  Pretty much always has.  Except for maybe when Gil Amelio was there.  And it's not like they don't do consumer testing.  They do - but they value great design.  And Google could learn a few things about consumers and marketing from the design powerhouse, if they would just pull away from the ones and zeros long enough to appreciate organic, intuitive creativity.  But alas, outside the occasional visiting artist who is paid to perform during the lunch-break (the videos we have all envied), Google does not seem to have any idea how to incorporate the intuitive creative sensibility into it's products in a meaningful way.I'm not saying Bing is some design nirvana - it's far from it.  It even shares many similarities with Google.  And I'm not saying that it is so advanced that Bing can't be unseated, but for now, it's just better than Google.  And in the small, small world of search engine powerhouses, that's all that matters.I will add that it appeared to be a rather unbecoming defensive move when Google announced an operating system initiative - just as the obvious superiority of Bing's search over Google's was settling into the Internet stream of consciousness.  Perhaps a bid to steal some of Microsoft's thunder - or keep them feeling the pressure of an inferiority complex that should be pretty well entrenched at Microsoft by now.For now, Google's well documented subservience to testing and data, and it's aversion to artistic intuition has done it this one infinitesimally small disservice: it has turned at least one staunch Apple Fanboy and Google advocate into a Microsoft convert.I'm writing this on a Mac.  One that has never revealed a positive thing about Microsoft.  And I even still want Google, with it's slightly more trustworthy corporate mission to "do no evil", to ultimately rule the technical universe.  And yet...

Bing is now my home page.

Sorry Google, you have some work to do, Buddy.

How the Apple Dress Code Undermined the iPhone

iPhone Collar Tug

How the Apple Dress Code Undermined the iPhone

I can't be the only one. The only lifelong Apple fan boy who wears shirts with collars on occasion. Am I?

I ask because if there were others, if maybe even one of us worked for Apple on the iPhone team, the iPhone headphones would be designed differently. It's a fact - no two ways about it. That somehow this critical design flaw should never have survived the Apple design process, unless of course, they really all do wear t-shirts - exclusively.

Hey, I wear t shirts. Cool ones too. But now and again - and maybe more often than some, I wear similarly stylish button-down shirts with collars. And this is where the design flaw reveals itself.

See, the wired iPhone mic catches on your shirt collar. And by catches on your collar, I mean the sharp edge of the mic invariably snags your collar with enough force to tug the earpiece out of you ear, and then the earpiece and mic fall 4 feet to your knees mid-conversation. It never fails. Turn your head an inch too far and - pop.

"Wait, HELLO!? Hold on, I can't hear you - sorry! Hello? you still there? Oh hi, sorry - my headphone just popped out of my...."

Never fails. I really don't get it.

Oh sure, it looks nice. It looks awesome. And it even feels nice in your fingers; that little wired mic. But by God, as sure as I am writing "mac genius" that headphone catches on my collar and pops out of my ear.

genious

Maybe like you, I've become subconsciously sensitive to the problem. I have developed this acute reflex due to "the pull". That feeling when the cord tugs at my earbud, the mic having snagged my collar. At the slightest resistance, my head freezes and I carefully bring it back to center, just shy of popping the earbud from my ear. There was a point where I would use my patented oval-head-move to release the mic from said collar. I'd gotten pretty good at that too, that oval-head-move; made me look like a pigeon walking down the street. But alas - whatever momentary satisfaction I may have had at releasing the mic - it only caught again a moment later. Without fail.

As a result I finally gave up and now walk around with one hand holding the mic to my mouth. Just like I did years ago with poorer sets designed by your average run-of-the-mill, low-end industrial designers. It would appear to most passersby that I am actually holding the mic to my mouth so that my voice is better heard, but no. The mic works fine without that. No, I am simply trying to keep the earbud in place, simple as that.Naturally, this never happens when I wear a t shirt. And maybe that's the idea.

.......................... UPDATE ..........................

earpodmic

With the release of the iPhone 5, Apple has introduced Ear Pods.  Apple has clearly attempted to address this problem with the new Ear Pod mic (pictured right) which now has rounded edges at the top of the mic - limiting the likelihood of catching.  Additionally the functionality of the mic buttons feel improved - they are much more responsive and easily controlled. The sound quality of Ear Pods is better, the fit, in-ear, is also vastly improved.  To be honest, I'm not sure what they could do to make these much better.  An "untangle" button maybe?

Indeed I can report that if the previous mic made you crazy, you will be quite please with Ear Pods.  What a relief.If you would like to get Ear Pods - and forego the added cost of a new iPhone 5, they can be purchased at Apple's website. I did, and for less than 30 bucks it was totally wort it.

Hey Apple, The 90s Called and Wants It's White iPhone Back

hasbro idog

Hey Apple, The 90s Called and Wants It's White iPhone Back

When Apple started using the color white as it's industrial design foundation back in the late 90s - it evoked all the coolest parts of Star Wars' Storm Troopers, 2001: A Space Odyssey - and bathroom fixtures all at once.  It was a powerful design conceit that differentiated the company assertively for a decade - and big-banged out trends that are still rippling their way down the lower design food-chain today.

Then, with the advent of multicolored aluminum iPods, Black MacBooks and silver iMacs, Airs and Mac Pros, it looked as though His whiteness was finally, at long gasping last, bowing out.  And none too soon.

The fact is, the whole white consumer technology thing has been done to death.  There is all manner of non-Apple, white and plastic-chrome "iWhatevers" on the market.  So ubiquitous is the white and "chromed" plastic look that anything done that way today usually has "made in taiwan" embossed on the side or comes from a gum ball machine.And then

Apple unveiled the iPhone 3G.

When I saw the white and chrome iPhone 3G - an exclusive color way for the premium 16GB model - I remember mildly deflating and uttering, "...really...?"  And then I think I just squinted at it - waiting for the coolness to kick in.  A reality distortion field.  A different angle.  Anything.

But no - with all the industrial design 'tump'* of Hasbro's plastic iDog, here was my favorite company's most awesomest product announcement on Earth and it carried itself in the housing of a 10-year old Hello Kitty school supplies compartment.  With free pink eraser.  I half expected to see a keychain ring hanging off one corner.

The application of ancient white plastic to the high-end iPhone model smacked of an obvious attempt to re-invigorate the material.  To wrest ownership of the scheme back from the i-mitators.  To scotch tape the bastard if necessary, back onto a pedestal, by serving as an indication of one having afforded the "high-end" model.

But instead, the thing felt old and just made me wonder if the exceptionally cooler looking 8GB model in black would be fine after all.Turns out it is by the way.

I do have an old friend who chose the white model.  On purpose.  He said he thought it was cool. I said, "...really...?"  And he said, "Yeah it's totally cool."  I wasn't totally convinced.  I know him better than you do.  I think, like a lot of people, he just liked the idea that it would passively communicate the status of his greater purchase price.I asked my wife what she thought about the design choice - she told me that it was probably just targeting girls.  I look forward to my friend reading that.

Either way - I hope it's the last time we see such a cheap use of shiny white plastic in Apple's industrial design for a long time.

The Apple I love sets trends.  I'm willing to forget this ever happened if the next iPhone has that sweet black anodized metal border of the iPod Touch, and... it's gone? Oh now that's too bad.

*Footnote:  "TUMP" is a word I learned years ago from my friend and business partner Tim Smith, who's southern roots go a little too deep to entirely shed the stigma of banjo playing on the porch.  As it was described to me, it's a cross between "tip over", and dump and thump.  Both evoking an action and a sound, I have come to find it a surprisingly useful word, even when describing the unfortunate unveiling of the white iPhone.

Why Do Music Ringtones Suck So Bad?

Why Do Music Ringtones Suck So Bad?

Sorry for the belligerent title. But you know it, I know it, and everyone you know knows it, except maybe those 11-year-old-girls at the mall who smell like strawberry lip-smacker and buy Live Strong-knock-off rubber bracelets that say "I'm Rad" at Wet Seal, that music-based ringtones are so very lame.

I've used them. I confess. At a time when there were no other options, before phones networked with PCs. And yet, like most others, I can honestly say - the following is always true:

• If you liked the song before you made it into a ringtone, you come to dislike it after it's a ringtone.

• No matter how cool or witty the song choice may have seemed when you assigned it, all humor and hipness mysteriously evaporates into embarrassment the instant it rings in public.

• You only hear the first 6 seconds of the song, which on repetition generates a kind of pavlovian annoyance for you and everyone around you in ear-shot.

• You realize that at some point you actually started answering your phone to make it stop ringing - not to have a conversation with the caller.

• You either a) start apologizing to the nearest ears every time your phone rings, or b) try to ignore their stares and honestly pretend like you didn't notice them there.

• Having been interrupted or annoyed by your ringtone, associates start cracking jokes and making fun of it, so you get pretty good at telling the story of why you chose that song, via one of two tactics, either you try to make the song sound emotionally meaningful to you, or you try to paint yourself as a fun, free-spirit who is just so fun and, well, free-spirited that having a silly song on your phone is just a sign of how fun and free-spirited you are. No matter your story-tactic, ultimately you're just hoping your sincerity will convince these people to no longer think of you as somewhat dim and immature.

• You find yourself changing the song choice often in an ultimately futile effort to find one that does not result in all of the above. Through this process you spend a lot of money.

• You occasionally have to remind yourself that everyone else uses music ringtones, so yeah, it's totally cool and there's nothing wrong with you doing it too. At some point you realize that you're reminding yourself of this more often than you would if it were true.

• And finally, as music alone, the song sounds like crap on the phone's scratchy, tiny, treble speaker.

Did I miss anything?

Are we so desperate for customization that we swallow any half-baked business plan the carriers spoon feed us?

Maybe not. Some people use online tools to side-step the carriers and convert their songs into ringtones - on purpose. Which must mean that those users actually want music-based ringtones. We think the more sophisticated of those users are just too busy to explore the landscape enough to find cooler alternatives.

There are even music-based ringtone hawkers on the net who write custom songs - specifically to be used as ringtones. With lyrics and everything. I've never met anyone who actually uses such a thing, but assume someone does.

Then you have the adults among us, the sophisticated, mature set, who choose "classical" music as ringtones. As though somehow appreciation of these classic sonnets by kings over the centuries makes their beepy midi better than the latest Baby Mozart puppet show. Spare me.

Yes, music has a place on a phone, in a media player app.  And someday users across the globe, who have insanely stylish alerts, will look back at this time in history and softly chuckle at the music-based ringtone users of today.

The Myth of Viral Marketing And The Rise Of Status

The Myth of Viral Marketing And The Rise Of Status

"Viral Marketing" is a myth. Always has been. It never existed. And as you'll see, even if it had, you would want nothing to do with it. "Word of Mouth"? Less toxic, but critically, equally incomplete. Social Network Marketing? Swarm Marketing? Mobile Marketing? Just more opaque containers. In a revealing display of the industry's ongoing struggle with interactive, none of the terms in use today comes close to illuminating how an advertiser can approach inspiring that Holy Grail of interactive marketing, a User-distributive spread...  Until now.

The term Viral Marketing (or "v-marketing") was coined by Harvard Business School professor, Jeffrey Rayport, in a rational December 1996 article for Fast Company The Virus of Marketing. Rayport is a passionate, engaging public speaker, and a brilliant thinker. And in 1996, a time when ad agency executives were still uttering the words, "...'new media', huh?", "Viral marketing" might have resonated for some and brought an easy mental image to this strange new behavior of consumers online. Unfortunately, Rayport's metaphoric, arm's-length reference to the term "viral" was almost immediately shortened to nil and ham-fistedly adopted as the all-purpose agency weapon of choice, it's obvious limitations unrecognized by over eager marketers, desperate for answers.

Despite Rayport's loose analogy, the fact of the matter is that there never was a practicable connection between a virus and any form of legal marketing that any of us have employed in the last 15 years. And yet - walk into any ad agency in the country today and say you want a "viral campaign", and they'll smile knowingly and give you the thumbs up.Before I go further, we've got to do this, here's the definition of "virus", really, humor me here:

virus |ˈvīrəs| noun• Any of various simple submicroscopic parasites that cause disease- unable to replicate without a host cell.• An infectious disease caused by a virus.• A harmful or morbid corrupting influence on morals or the intellect. Something that poisons the mind or the soul.• (also computer virus) a segment of self-replicating code planted illegally in a computer program, that has a detrimental effect, such as corrupting the system or destroying data.(from the Latin "virus" meaning "toxin" or "poison")

...that, plus "Marketing".

You can see why marketers loved this term. Seriously. In the face of a strange, new medium, where content was suddenly, confoundedly, intertwined with a rapid stream of complicated, new technology, where audiences had become vapor- diffused, elusive and unpredictable, behaving nothing like the reliably passive, pre-aggregated viewership that marketers were so used to, the "there" no longer being there, where virtually none of advertising's old skills and tactics got traction - and ultimately, where an utter lack of control hung thick in the air of every ad agency conference room across the country, "Viral Marketing" brought an immediate sense of relief and comfort, because "Viral Marketing" seemed to promise control.

To a population of office workers suffering under an ongoing reign of computer viruses, where the viruses were clearly a type of offensively potent "winner" over the Internet-connected masses, this term brilliantly dovetailed two perviously disparate data points, and in doing so, created the first sensation of power any advertiser had ever had relative to Interactive.

Just imagine, being able to create an ad that you could literally unleash on unsuspecting Internet consumers - one that would spread surreptitiously and offensively mind you, "infecting" vast multiples across the consumer population- powerfully, virilely, unstoppably changing brand preferences as it devoured it's unwitting hosts, until the World succumbed to the disease of your clients' brand positioning.

That's admittedly extreme, but never-the-less it is "Viral Marketing"'s clear linguistic suggestion. And too many advertisers allowed this not-so-subtle suggestion to color their unconscious hopes and expectations, falling victim to one of advertising's own superficial methods of persuasion.

The Myth Persists

Ultimately, it was to the decade-long (and still running strong) detriment of advertisers who eagerly drank this infected kool-aid. The true virus is the subconscious subtext that Viral Marketing is some sort of actual deployment tactic that gives advertisers control over the medium or their audiences. Or a valid deliverable an advertiser might offer a client. All of which placated advertisers, pulling their innovative attention away from the real challenges.  This was the critically destructive impact of the misnomer. Such was the perfect storm in advertising then that virtually no one questioned or challenged the term, rather it was fervently embraced and espoused across all levels of the industry - despite the fact that no one really knew what to do with the idea.  And so it remains, for good reason.

A vast majority of advertisers who still use the term today, have probably not read Rayport's article and recognized it's undercurrent of proposed misrepresentation and unintentional User behavior, which just doesn't ring true today.  Wish as marketers might.  And ultimately it's this suggestion of power and control that is the concept's undoing.Some have had to learn the hard way, that "Viral Marketing" isn't really. Today, when the term is spoken, advertisers now in the know experience a reflexive double-take that "Viral" doesn't mean "Viral" at all, it means "...something cool... that will hopefully be embraced by Users and shared".

A lot of terms have been employed over recent years to try to explain the nature of such a spread. At Red Sky in 1996, we called this phenomenon (the sudden user-distributed spread of a piece of content or an ad)  "Friend to Friends Marketing". If unwieldy, to this day I think that name rings truer than "Viral", because "Friend to Friends" connects, if ever so naively, with the actual, functional, activity that causes such a spread.

Today the term "Word of Mouth" is often used in place of, or in addition to "Viral". "Word of Mouth" is generally considered an advance in the thinking, and different than "Viral" to the extent that WOM perhaps is not dependent on a distributable digital item, but rather a good impression of a product or brand that can be communicated through the users' network, both in, and out of the medium. WOM never-the-less does not sufficiently suggest any actual strategy or tactic that an advertiser might use to market in a way. If "Viral" is the worst offender, grossly referring to the mere spread of a meme via an inaccurate functional metaphor, Word of Mouth comes in second revealing nothing but a past-tense condition, void of an approach to marketing. Then there's "Swarm Marketing". Do you see a pattern? A swarm may be an interesting behavioral metaphor with respect to users' interconnectedness, perhaps more accurate in its distantly observed behavior than a mere "social network" but again, it does not illuminate a direction, a plan of action that marketers can act against. Just another coat of paint on a box we've never figured out how to open.

Ultimately, each of these terms only do service in assessing a previously generated condition, what happened - after the fact. Long after the campaign ran it's course, long after the planners and strategists and creatives did their work, and after the media buy, after, by some stroke of good luck, some critical mass of users saw fit to share the thing or idea with their friends and connected networks, only then do these terms find any relevance. Advertisers step back, and look at what happened, and where it happened and announce that it spread "virally". That it was spread, and consumed through "word of mouth"... by a swarm... in a social network.  ...via Mobile.

And all of this matters to those of us who wish to understand and recreate the phenomenon.  To work in front of, and through the opaque walls of those terms.  If you're like me, you want to know what you can actually do, proactively, to make that kind of spread happen.

Peeling Back The First Layer

I've heard a lot of smart people opine on this subject. And I have not liked their answers. The more naive answers have centered around facilitation of a spread, such as variants from adding "a send to a friend button" to "seeding communities". But clearly these do not inspire a user to send a piece of content to his friends. Others circle around the idea that the content (the ad) must be "relevant". As you have probably seen in other posts on this site, I agree with that premise. However, again, in terms of inspiring a "Viral Effect", a successful Word of Mouth campaign, it is incomplete. Relevance to the target User is unquestionably necessary, but let me draw a distinction, it must be relevant for an individual User to adequately consume and positively regard a piece of content. But that does not reveal why a user will pass it on in multiples.

Inspiring Distribution

To understand, facilitate the creation of, and incidentally perhaps better label this type of marketing, one must first understand the psychology that drives this kind of interaction at all, this kind of content and meme sharing. One must understand the psychology of communication.Human beings are story-telling animals. We are, at our core, communicators. Always have been. This core need to communicate spans cultures and time. It’s how we survive as a species. As members of a society we are constantly measured against others; where communication is our primary tool for managing that measurement. Look at communication behavior closely and you will see that we do not communicate with altruism. We have a goal. Our goal is the increase of our individual status compared to others in the society.

Within Maslowe's "Esteem Needs" (the level it's safe to assume most Americans experience most of the time), literally all human interactions are governed by the continuous adjustment of status. Status is the very currency of human communication. Status, in one form or another is the basis for all communication. Also note that status is a relative measure - to gain higher status I can either increase mine or decrease everyone else’s. Most people are constantly and unconsciously engaged in ongoing status battles. You see this dynamic being played out in virtually every conversation. In virtually every exchange. It is universal in our society.

And folks - therein lies the answer.

The distribution of digital content and communication by an interactive media User can be interpreted as an attempt on the part of that User to increase His social status within the online society.

When a User's recipient responds with any level of praise-- "That was hilarious, Dude! Thanks!" (I say "Dude"... sue me) an increase in status is confirmed. Conversely consider the deflation that accompanies the reply "Yeah, I saw that last month, you just saw that now?". The user's status has lowered. And pray the recipient is so kind. Even a lack of response is the tactic of some for managing status. The range and subtleties of these interactions, and the emotions they impact are powerful evidence of Status jockeying.

Now, we must take this insight one step further, we must bring "Status" into the advertisers' toolbox, and identify our role, as the creators of ideas, of content- of relevant value. As I hope you can see, it is not enough merely to provide relevant content or a relevant experience. Let's connect this insight to the first rule of Interactive:

Interactive AXIOM #1: The User Is Your King, & You, The Content Creator, Are A Subject.

What does it mean then, to serve our King if we now know that the King, confronting communication in this medium, is in point of fact, always engaged in a war for status? That when he considers sending a piece of content, or sharing a view, or even responding to someone else's blog (hopefully with our marketing message), his primary goal in doing so is that it result in an increase in His status and/or a decrease in his recipients'?Got it?  Clearly our role, as the creators of content that we hope He will send on, as the creators of positive brand memes that we hope He will share, is to provide our King with content or ideas that will, as He perceives it, raise His status.I call this proactive planning approach to inspiring the User-distributive spread of an ad, or a meme, "Status Marketing".

Status Marketing

Status Marketing is a proactive strategy that results in positive "word of mouth", that results in a "viral effect". Status Marketing must be the foundation of every online marketing campaign being planned today.

This is a very different exercise than merely attempting to create a "powerful brand message", "relevant content", a hilarious ad, or seeding a swarm or mobile network. These approaches, these types of marketing, are simply lacking in the direction necessary for motivating audiences who are entirely in control.If you look at the main components of every single successful online campaign throughout the life if the commercial Internet, you will find effective "Status Marketing" plans at work - not "Viral" marketing plans, not "Word of Mouth", and not "Social Network Marketing" or any of the other after-the-fact or container observations. You will find Status Marketing strategies and executions that either intentionally, or unintentionally, tapped into this single powerful principle.Conversely look at those campaigns that failed to achieve wide-spread, "viral" distribution, and you will see an utter failure to acknowledge the Status concept, or you'll see an ineffectively executed attempt to raise the target audience's status among their peers. Either way, this is the key, folks.Identify what will help your King raise His status among His peers and network, what kind of content, tools,  images, ideas, and data, will provide Him with that result, should He send it, and you will have discovered the Holy Grail of online marketing.

Status Factors

In a bit of an arm's race, the form of ideas and items that are going to raise a user's status will change over time, based on numerous dynamics.  But there are a number of basic factors that will enhance the likelihood that your User will subconsciously perceive the potential for an increase in His status.  To wit, one might argue that what's important is not whether an ad actually does raise the User's status, but that the User believes it will, if only He sends it on. That said, if the belief isn't paid off, your brand may not get another chance with that User (see: AXIOM #2 - section: Branding the Promise).  Here is an admittedly incomplete short list of status-enhancing factors:

1)  Relevance - I give you permission to say: "No Duh".  And while critical, this topic, alone, is usually the extent of the discussion in other Viral Marketing / Word of Mouth circles. The distinction in this context is that relevance will be measured by the User not necessarily just on whether the item resonated with Him, but how He feels it may resonate within His network.  Remember you are providing tools for the user to, Himself, enhance His brand. It's a skew that should dramatically change the way you approach the subject of "relevance" for your audience, and the creation of your marketing plans.  Typically, this topic relates to the perceived value in the offering.  If it's a joke - how funny is it?  If it's news, how timely is it?  If it's a tool, how useful is it?  But in this context, most importantly - how valuable will He feel His network will feel it is?

2)  Discovery - This is key.  The User must have the sense that He discovered it. That He has unearthed the find.   On the contrary, are you likely to share an item or idea if you feel it is commonly known or previously distributed?  Will you send it, or announce it if you feel it may have already been "discovered" by your network?  What would that do to your status?  To honor this factor on behalf of your User, consider what it means to make your ad/idea appear to be rare.  To have it, in fact, intentionally appear largely unknown or previously unseen.  A piece of work that appears to be well travelled or well marketed - will that help, or hurt the likelihood that your User will send it on?  Consider executions like "Subservient Chicken" and the ancient "Blair Witch Project", the grandfather of "look what I discovered" viral marketing.  These arguably "best of class" executions well demonstrated that items need not be polished and "professional" in the graphic sense, and in fact, the raw, unprofessional aesthetic of the work rather enhances it's "unlikely to have been seen before" perception.  Conversely, pieces that are beautifully polished and appear to be the result of large, well-funded teams, may not hold the same knee-jerk sense of scarcity (and therefor value!) that something appearing to have been created by teams of one or two people do.  Consider that strange little one-man video clips on YouTube achieve a critical mass of sheer distribution that any Fortune 100 Company would kill for.  It's about relevance, but it's also about your User believing that "it probably hasn't been seen before".

3)  Own-ability - The Users' brand must be allowed to dominate the "conversation", and own the exchange.  This critically applies any rise in status to Him.  Items that allow the User to customize content, create, and exert His creativity are powerful examples of "own-ability".  Excellent examples include OfficeMax's "ElfYourself", and Burger King's"SimpsonizeMe".   Further, when a user espouses His own thoughts, he entirely owns that exchange.  Thus providing him with data, or information that He feels confident will make him appear smarter, righter, funnier, etc, can be effective.  Conversely, items that are too-heavily branded with product logos and messaging or too thick with brand or product references can undermine this factor, wresting perceived shares of status away from a User and minimizing the likelihood that He will wish to share or send it on.

4)  Control - The User must feel He is in control of the content, His actions, and His status.  Prescriptive marketing distribution tactics ("send this ad to a friend!") can actually weaken the likelihood that the User will comply.  Give up- the User is in control.  You're not.  The User must be allowed to "invent" the idea to send something on or share an idea.  This runs to the heart of what so many comedians will tell you is a critical component of comedy - trusting the intelligence of the audience.  Similarly here, we must trust that the User will a) invent the idea to send it along, and b) know how to send an appropriately designed item on- should He decide to.  On the surface, this means that some items should appear to be for the User's sole enjoyment- even though it is hoped that He will forward the item.  Facilitate the downloading or saving of the item for the User's "personal use".  Post it in a format that interfaces with popular social networks - without "suggesting" what to do with it.  He'll know what do do after that.  To a degree these tactics, and the extra effort that may be required by Him to distribute an item, can also enhance the perception of its scarcity.  Which can be a good thing.This is nowhere near an exhaustive list, nor must all of these factors be in place to their full extent to generate sufficient distribution.  But it hopefully illuminates some of the most basic principles impacting Users' perception of Status-Building.

The term Status Marketing reminds us what ultimately drives the distributive online interaction that our Users engage in every day, and further, what our job is, as servants to our interactive Kings.  Ultimately we must empower Users to be smarter, funnier, more insightful, talented, and connected, in their battles, amidst their societies, for Status.  This is the one and only engine that drives online distribution.Take Status Marketing to heart - no matter who your target User is - and your campaign will succeed.

INTERACTIVE AXIOM #2: The Interactive Trade Agreement

INTERACTIVE AXIOM #2: The Interactive Trade Agreement

EVERY INTERACTIVE CONSTRUCT MUST PROVIDE REIMBURSEMENT OF VALUE EQUAL TO, OR IN EXCESS OF, THE USER’S SELF-APPRAISED INVESTMENT OF TIME, ATTENTION AND EFFORT OF ACTION.

All the rules of economics apply to this system- though nothing physical is exchanged. In this economic exchange the User must perceive being the inordinate beneficiary, where time, attention and action are His currency.  Whereas, promise and (not "or") payoff of value are the currency of the Interactive content creator.

Ultimately value - and not the communication of value - is the light that attracts the moths in this system.

Some of you are thinking this is obvious.  And yet, all too often, more often than not, advertisers do not demonstrate such an understanding.  How often are we asked to "register" before gaining access to content of undisclosed value?  How often does a click on a banner ad result in redirection to more marketing messaging?  How often does "Click Here" reside, where rather, something wonderful that creates a sense of curiosity should?

This axiom operates both at the macro and the micro.  On the one hand it is the foundation of an ongoing relationship with the user, and on the other it drives every unique rollover and click.

Every click or interaction represents a User's investment- a prepayment that is based on a perceived promise, and must be rewarded with a payoff.

Not a tagline, a payoff. Failure to pay off every such prepayment is akin to thievery.  No wonder users are so skeptical of most online advertising.

BRANDING THE PROMISE

Have you ever wondered why, on the one hand, visitors to Disneyland will go to such great personal cost to get to the theme park, and wait in line for up to 3 hours or more to experience a 4 minute ride?  And further, why these same humans won't give your proposition so much as a click?

Disney has done an excellent job branding their promise.  They have consistently (not occasionally, or once) paid off the "users'" prepayment with inordinate value.  Consistently, the pay off at the end of the line was "worth it".  Thus the willingness to prepay again.

What is the pay off at the end of your click?  And at a higher level, what is the payoff at the end of all your clicks?  Do you pay off with inordinate value?  Do you even think in those terms?   If you do pay off, have you done it consistently for years, and plan on continuing for many more?

There is an opportunity for every brand out there that is willing to make a commitment to paying off every marketing based click- for years to come.  Should a brand take such a stance, it will be rewarded with a huge and consistent user response.  Users will come to trust the brand. They'll know that when that brand says "click here" it's worth it.  More specifically, they will come to trust the marketing.  They will seek the marketing out.  They will go to great effort to find that button to click.

One of the admitted issues here, is that advertising tends not to work that way.  Campaigns are changed quarterly, or more frequently, few in the advertising industry contemplate multi-year initiatives.

And yet.  That's what is required. In order to brand the promise of your brand.  Got it?

HP PONG: Advertising's Atom Smasher

Sorry this used to be animated and fully interactive. Thank you, Digital Dark Ages!

HP PONG: Advertising's Atom Smasher

In 1996, at Red Sky Interactive, in partnership with a rebellious band of talented individuals, I developed the HP PONG Banner Ad: the first interactive banner ad on the net, and the web's first example of "rich media".  But behind the scenes, that banner was an atom-smasher, revealing the very principles of interactive advertising- and sweeping industry changes yet to come.    

The HP Pong Banner was created in service to Hewlett-Packard's campaign at the time: “Built by Engineers, used by Normal People” (by Goodby, Silverstien & Partners). As you can hopefully see, it was a full-working version of the classic video game Pong, coded into a banner. GS&P's campaign was smart and put the focus on the brilliant, if often eccentric, HP engineers, and as represented, the Pong banner was created by an Engineer named "Jerry", after drinking quite a lot of coffee.

But GS&P had only hired Red Sky to do what everyone else was doing at the time - create static and, if we could manage within the budget, animated banners (GIF 89 files).

In those days Red Sky Interactive was a little like Fantasy Island, you know, you came in thinking you wanted "X", and Mr. Roarke sent you off with what you needed - usually not "X".  That was Red Sky's DNA. And the HP PONG Banner was one of those instances. Actually, it wasn't an easy sell. No one had done anything like it before, and if you are in anyway involved with deploying ads online today, then you know how restrictive the media owners can be with regard to formats and "unusual" technology.  None of which helped us in making the case to Goodby and HP.

Ultimately, Goodby and HP bought the idea - and together we all fought the fight to strike agreements with the media owners to get it posted.

By video game standards, the banner was mildly entertaining, it was only Pong after all. But after it’s release MSNBC and CNET both reported that it had the highest click-through of any other banner on the Internet for it's three month deployment (Yeah I know - that's back when we measured click-through, sue me). It’s admittedly possible that a good percentage of those click-throughs were merely users confronting banner interactivity for the first time, but it was nevertheless considered a success for those involved.

I don't think this banner does much eyebrow raising today, but at the time, it seemed as though few had considered degrees of interactivity within a banner. My argument in defense of the model back then had been that a longer, narrower stage didn’t mean a user couldn’t have a deeper experience that lasted as long as the user wanted. I am surprised that the creators of banner ads today still have yet to take this basic conceit to it’s most valuable extreme.

After the Pong Banner’s initial attention, we assumed that was about as much as we would see from that.But what happened next was a turning point for those of us at Red Sky.

We began to see the Pong banner stolen. No kidding, users were digging through thier cache folders, copying the .dcr file (Shockwave) and posting it to sites outside the media buy. And maybe more profoundly, they were attaching it to e-mails and sending it to their friends. Keep in mind - this behavior wasn't easily done - it took some effort and technical know-how. There was no such thing as "viral marketing" in 1996 (actually, there still isn't - that's another posting). Nor was there such thing as "Word of Mouth" as in today's popular online nomenclature. No one put buttons on web sites that said "Send to a friend". No one was making games-as-advertisements; this was before all that. Or rather, this revealed all that.

Not entirely unlike it’s contemporaries of the time (and boy am I dating myself), the “Dancing Baby”, or the “Nieman Marcus Cookie Recipe” (told you) the Pong Banner spread. Not because it had a funny tag-line, or the HP logo, but because it provided value to an online audience. Was it a novelty? Absolutely. But it was novel enough to want to share.

It's important now to stop and talk about value.  I'm not talking about the kind of value you get from finding a good sale price, I'm talking about something that's either: entertainment, information, or a service.

Let me further qualify those words with the following semantics: a feature film is "entertainment", a dictionary is "information", a cell phone is "a service".  Where does traditional advertising sit on that spectrum?  Well, it sort of doesn't.  And that's the point.

In answer to this question, more often than not, advertisers will tell you that advertising is entertaining.  Hard-core advertisers will tell you it's a mixture of all three.  And while the case can be intelligently argued, that ads are entertaining, and /or that they provide information and that in doing so provide a service, let's draw a relevant (if my own bias) distinction:

Ads may be "entertaining", but they are not "entertainment".

Before you go there, I've probably heard it. That "lots of people read the fashion magazines for the ads", that "so many people watch the SuperBowl for the spots", and that "people in Europe go to the movies early for the commercials". These are memes that have circulated the ad industry since before the dawn of the commercial Internet.  Old industry lore, a small collection of unscalable, partially true, case-studies that serve to keep a lot of industry executives and creatives engaged everyday while they generate a bell curve that rather doesn't reflect these stories.

For better or worse, interactive media and the audiences that wield it, don't hold any respect for our sense of self-worth and the selectively adjusted context that we, as an industry, have constructed to nobelize our efforts. In fact, for the most part, we are in interactive audiences' way.

Those of us in advertising today, now more than ever before in our industry's history, have the sober responsibility to shake off any ancient, self aggrandizing dust, stare coldly at our body of work, and remind ourselves of this basic conceit:  That advertising, for all it's creativity and arguable value, serves a master other than our audience, other than the creative muse, other than  our King, and is therefore starting from a deeply compromised position, where we must wield our very best creative powers just to make up the deficit.

Nowhere is this more urgently drawn than online, where the User is King. Where an interruption of any kind in our King's desired path, be it a timed delay, or an occupation of screen real estate that might have otherwise been filled with His chosen content, is utterly, patently inauthentic. This is, in part, why we must compensate the King with such excessive value.

And here's the main argument of this section: set against a traditional media landscape of pre-aggregated audiences and interruptive tactics where we'd become an industry of messagers- of communicators of value, that now, with the advent of interactive media, with the ubiquitous penetration of audiences in control, have no choice but to become an industry of value creators.  To cease merely communicating value, and to actually, honest-to-goodness provide it.  To start creating the kind of value that audiences will seek out. More than that, to start creating value that audiences will pay for, short of it being funded by an advertiser.

More specifically, and with respect to my semantic comments earlier, this means that successful interactive "advertisements" must take the form of content, products and services.

In contrast, over the years since Pong, our response to the amazing potential of interactive media has been incremental. Our ways are well traveled, and as an industry, due to size, maturity, experience, training, and so many other factors, we are loathe to rethink such sweeping, integral components, though everyone I know says they are.

Traditionally, advertising's creative bar has been set at a level that requires creative teams to produce work that, at its base, will keep audiences from looking away. Our audience has always been collected for us. You might say we've been spoiled by that. The very existence of "art director & copywriter" teams, by definition, are in place to produce messages that meet this bar, not reach the greater value we're contemplating here. Soon, this team structure will change. And so will many other elements, including our relationships with media owners, clients, our compensation models, our planning methods, deliverables, our training and staffing. And this must seem daunting. But the other side of the coin is exciting.

If you do this right,  you will find that you are no longer in the business of highly-creative communication, if you do this right you are in the business of entrepreneurialism. You will develop valuable offerings that squarely compete in an entrepreneurial landscape.  You will be creating products that compete, side-by-side, against the product companies.  You will be creating service-oriented businesses that effectively compete in the service industry.  And yes, you will also create content that competes with for-pay television, movies, books, etc.

And this (not messaging) is the future of advertising.

This doesn't mean we cease to employ any of our existing skills, really, it's a different type of communication.  Remember the old writers' adage, "Show, don't tell?"  This new era in advertising will be "Be, don't show."

The art of advertising at that point will be in conceiving business propositions that, through their very existence, stemming from the very process and product of this parallel business, will embody the client's brand values while measurably expanding it's business, and even forming new profit centers. Profit centers that the agency would most certainly be justified in participating in.

I call this type of value-based ad a "symbiotic business unit" (SBU).  A fully functioning business proposition that integrates at some level with the client's core business. Funded by ad dollars, these executions will be particularly well adept at attracting the target audience digitally, and then dovetailing them into the advertiser's primary offering.

MOVING FORWARD

If you're an agency - start thinking in terms of building a start-up team, staffed with strong business minds, consultant types with a background in launching products and services of their own. Don't wait for your client to request this- charge this new team with developing the odd SBU proposal for the right clients, unsolicited, in addition to your current deliverables. Based on their concept, consider what the agency is willing to invest in the SBU, and contemplate contracts in advance of the proposal that either:

a) procure some ongoing percentage of related new revenue,

b) retain ownership of the underlying intellectual property (software, systems, etc),

c) retain a degree of non-exclusivity such that you can redeploy the SBU on behalf of other clients, or such that you can take the product straight to consumer after some agreeable period of exclusivity,

d) consider filing patents - I doubt many ad agencies have actually gone to the effort of writing a patent for anything, but it's a key part of operating any newly invented business. Be aware of the recent availability of "Business Method Patents", a relatively new but highly relevant tool within the landscape of sweeping new technologies and their application to new businesses and innovation.

As you determine pricing for your client, do so such that you are indifferent as to which option the client agrees to (buy Vs lease for example). And if you're walking in the door with a sound business plan, that shows skin in the game and tells a story of growth and expansion, they'll agree.

Yeah, HP Pong was just a banner-based game, but I can report to you with sincerity that this vision is what it showed us all, with vivid clarity, back in 1996.

In case you were watching.

The Digital Dark Ages

The Digital Dark Ages

I have been developing Interactive work for over 15 years, and sadly, my son may never see any of it. That's because we are living in what future generations will undoubtedly call: The Digital Dark Ages.

This all came to a head with renewed force for me a few weeks ago, when an interactive agency contacted me as part of a vendor pitch. They were very proud of themselves for having "innovated a brand new kind of banner ad". One that allowed the user to interact with the brand/store/product within the banner itself, all  without leaving page the banner was on.  They went on to imply that it was the first time this had ever been done, and wasn't it a brilliant solution.

I generally agreed with it being the right direction - well, righter than the static alternative - except that it had been done before, and frankly, many times.  I know because, my old company, Red Sky Interactive, did it, to name one.  A lot.  And as far back as 10 years ago.  And it worked then.

This isn't the first time I've come across such a disconnect from past efforts.  Especially in advertising.  It seems to me that advertisers "discover" the same basic, big ideas, a couple times each decade.  And each time it's hailed as a "truly innovative solution" all over again, as if it hadn't happened the first time.  This doesn't just happen with banner ads either, but all sorts of basic interactive principles, interface techniques, and solutions based on newly observed user-behavior.  I honestly don't think this is a case of selective memory, to their credit I think they truly believe they invented the idea.  In part because they probably had to.  Redundant though it may have been.

---

Many years ago I was working on a project and needed to reference what I recalled was some aesthetically innovative interactive work in its time.  I had the CD-ROM on my bookshelf - "The Dark Eye".  It was an awesome piece of work, created by animator Doug Beswick and featured really ground-breaking components including beautifully designed stop-motion puppets.  The packaging still looked awesome.  Looks innovative even still by today's standards.  It was created in 1995,  and when I attempted to run it, ..."the application that created it could not be found".  I realized with some degree of concern that I had created a fair number of projects around that time, and before.  I saved those old interactive projects- all manner of files, dutifully copied and transferred and burned, from machine to machine over the years- because they represented the bulk of my own body of work, and contained ideas and experiences that I wanted to keep for posterity.  Many were first of kind innovations that won coveted awards and in some cases set industry bars.  

I held my breath and double-clicked one of the pieces I was most proud of, and discovered that neither could it's application be found.  I tried every way at my access to open it, and only then fuzzily remembered that I'd created it with a program called "Video Works II" - long before its name was changed to Macromind Director - which was incidentally before the company changed it's name to Macromedia, before the popular Internet, most certainly before Shockwave plugins, not to mention the arrival of Flash, and it's subsequent acquisition by Adobe.  Needless to say, I no longer had the tools that I'd created the piece with. 

The implications slowly setting in, I rapidly double-clicked, and watched in breathless horror as project after coveted project sadly faded into digital abstraction- unreadable data- like film trapped on a reel.  That the only way they might see the light of day again is if I went to tremendous effort to, technologically, go back in time and bring them forward with me, version-by-version, adjusting code along the way.  The most recent of the "lost" pieces were roughly 5 years old.  

That's the day I decided I lived in the Digital Dark Ages.

I believe that future generations will look back at these days, and except for those few who are trying to "archive" portions and thin, top layers of the Internet, will have little idea of what was actually happening in Interactive media today.  There will simply be a hole in our history, and no physical artifacts to remember it by.  Lessons will be lost, only to be relearned.  When you consider the mass of interactive work being created daily, it's virtually unreasonable to think that all of that innovation will be effectively captured en-masse and stored in a form that can be meaningfully revisited across a changing medium.

Our language, messages and artwork, are only made possible through tools and platforms that will relentlessly evolve out from under our work.  Confronted with this scenario, a surprising number of people have suggested "video taping my work for posterity".  But to me - an Interactivist, that entirely defeats the purpose.  This is interactive work.  You haven't experienced it unless you interact with it.  Frankly, at the moment, it's interactive work that requires a mouse and keyboard.  But even this hardware- the mouse- is on its way out.  If we don't purposefully pursue a solution, we will need to admit that it's okay to let our place in History diminish with our work.

When I created it, I had imagined, years from now, finding myself contemplating my waning life, but being able to look back at the great work I'd created. To show my son.  I'd hoped naively, that like the painters, sculptors, writers, film-makers of the past, that perhaps my work would persist for future generations, and maybe even serve as a touch point in instances.  I see now that that isn't likely for any of us.

There are a few possible solutions to this issue:

1. Update.  Commit to regularly upgrading work, advancing it into new platforms.  This would require a scheduled effort, and will require re-coding as a frequent measure.  As platforms change, creators will have to rethink interface elements.  Admittedly, this solution becomes exponentially more difficult over time. 

2. Emulate.  It may yet be possible - and hopefully will be in the future- to load any OS and software configuration from the past into what will undoubtedly be very capable computing environments.  Hardware will have to be emulated as well... which poses some interesting design challenges, but hey - I can run Windows on my Mac, so maybe this isn't too far fetched. I expect this is still a way off however.

3. Museum.  A museum of old systems/platforms could potentially display key work to future audiences.  And I'll admit, that's how I view some of my work today.  Unfortunately this does not extend well, and is restricted by physical limitations.

4. Let go.  It now appears to me that, as Interactivists, we may be working much closer to live performance than we had ever imagined.  Technology is merely our stage.  Perhaps we need to cozy up to that idea, and walk in with our eyes wide open.  The illusion of "persistent content" comes with the ability to "Save", "Duplicate" and "Burn". But in fact, Interactive work rests on a flowing stream of technology - a stream that ultimately carries it away, even while traditional media persists.

5. There is a 5th option.  Development of the Human Computer Interface Preservation Society.  This effort is underway, and we will announce details as they become available.

In the mean time, interactive media, and more specifically, the language of interactivity, is still hovering in this awkward adolescent stage, a position it's been in for over a decade.  The most expedient way that we'll move beyond this state is if the innovative efforts of our current crop of talent, industry creatives and engineers, more decisively builds off of what was done before - not replicate it.  

My advice to younger Interactive developers: find and interact with a seasoned mentor(s).  They're out there, and I'm sure you'll find them willing to recall hidden efforts.  Unlike any other "recorded medium", the Charlie Chaplins, the Leonardo DaVincis, the relative "masters" of Interactive media are still alive today, and for better or worse, the best, most complete source of information on the subject rests with them, not on the net in circulation.  At least in the short-term it's the only way we can effectively build off the innovation and invention that came before us.

INTERACTIVE AXIOM #1: The Grand Interactive Order

INTERACTIVE AXIOM #1: The Grand Interactive Order

THE USER IS YOUR KING.  YOU ARE THE SUBJECT.

Like it or not the User is in control. The User is the ultimate master. The User is King.

Those of us who create interactive experiences must accept our lowly positions in the Grand Interactive Order, serving, amusing, and satisfying; ready and able to wield every ton of technical prowess and creative ingenuity we can muster to completely conform to each user’s unique interest, desire, whim and disposition. To delight the user when she grows bored. To shuttle the user to the very thing she needs or wants instantly- with nary a second spent indulging interests of our own. Don't bow to this Axiom, and you will fail...

No matter where you sit on the Interactive Content Creator’s side of the table, be you a writer, programmer, advertiser, financier, artist, producer, or huge, really important fortune 500 client who receives deep, humble, bowing greetings from your ad agencies; it doesn’t matter- you beggingly serve the User. You serve your King before all else.

This fact is well understood in certain circles.Entrepreneurs, video game developers, film-makers, writers, product developers, inventors – anyone whose customer is the general public, they tend to understand this rule – even if they don’t fully grasp it’s primal gravity in the Interactive space.

In my experience, the least versed, of course, are advertisers and marketers. For reasons that go to the heart of advertising’s very existance, this mammoth industry struggles to comprehend this most basic of constructs; unthinkingly breaking the rule with virtually every execution.

The servant who commits the sin of indulging himself, of misdirecting the King even for an instant to satisfy his own “business objectives” or “marketing plan”, spends that instant in polar opposition to the Masters’ interests.

It’s simple, don’t do what the Master wants, and your user will simply dismiss you and choose the next servant in line, hoping that this plebe will recognize his true place in the unspoken pact of the Grand Interactive Order.  Interactive Developers and Marketers are servants, jesters, and monkeys performing for change.

We may have no pride or motivation of our own unless we are willing to narrow our Users’ embrace.

Take the classic example of a DVD.  Do you remember those? If you ever used one you had this experience - you insert the DVD, you sit with the remote waiting for the start of the movie, then, uninvited, an FBI Warning appears.  You hit the "skip" button.  ...and nothing happens.  You hit it again to discover that your skip functionality has been silently disabled, forcing you to sit through the entirety of the static segment.  It's happened to you dozens of times, and yet I'm sure we'll agree, it nevertheless has the effect of raising your blood pressure.  That's because the 1st Axiom was broken.  You sit there with the unspoken promise of control - and yet that control was wrested away from you - that promise was broken - broken by your servant.  You, the King, were denied, you were forced to submit, to mutedly concede.  And no, yelling at the screen doesn't count.  Though it's what I do.

 I do the same thing today when YouTube shows the utter audacity to trial those un-skippable ads. And sometimes they try to post more than one.

If get annoyed at Youtube when that happens you are right to feel that way. It’s the correct feeling.

Because YouTube has broken this first rule of interactive.

While the feeling is fresh, I would encourage every content developer to consider what promises of control you have broken with your audiences.

The biggest problem with conventional interactive content, the reason that so few interactive pieces satisfy their users and thus ultimately fail to meet business objectives, is that content-creators unthinkingly break this rule every day. Every banner ad, every interstitial, every linear intro, every presumptive registration page, slow download, low resolution video clip, cookie request, pop-up newsletter ad, virtually everything that we regularly hear users complain about are immediately traceable to a breaking of the Grand Interactive Order. For each of these, in one form or another, represents an action or admission the user must make to conform to the Developer, the Content Creator. And this is the opposite of Interactive truth.

Further, every disruption to the Grand Interactive Order typically falls into one of two categories:

• Those that demonstrate that the developer is selfish, too directive or self-indulgent. This is commonly the result of traditional, interruptive advertising tactics like banner ads, interstitials, etc. and all ranges of registration barriers, or

• Those that demonstrate that the developer is weak. Often through experiences marked by low technical quality, poor design and poorly engineered systems resulting in slow processing, slow downloads, poor resolution, confusion etc. Or related, those that demonstrate that the developer is cheap, as through low economic investment resulting in limited user options and insufficient depth and breadth.

As you will hear me repeat in future axiom posts, any of my axioms may be broken- even the Grand Interactive Order- but one must know when one is breaking a rule- especially one as fundamental as this. In this instance, a developer must seek out ways of achieving his objectives even as he pays respect to the developer's natural, subservient position. Far too few developers acknowledge, let alone respect, the Grand Interactive Order, a mistake that has become the greatest single offender, under the developers' control, in negatively impacting the using-audiences' embrace of the Interactive medium at large.

Tooth Hackers & The Ultimate Technology

Tooth Hackers & The Ultimate Technology

Some time ago, I found myself thinking about all our amazing technical advances - especially those that beg moral questions- and I began a journey that changed the way I approach technology, and changed how I think of humanity... and headphones.  

"Should we be doing that?"  I thought.

Should we be cloning humans?  Developing implantable chips, artificial intelligence or nano-technology that may some day advance beyond our control?  Will our technology unquestionably remain at our service?  Will it's advance really improve our odds of survival, or will it just change it?

Is technology good?  

Virtually every really bad doomsday movie launched from this string of questions.  But even so, there are few certainties in life.  Death being one.  And, I need to add one other absolute certainty to that short-list: 

  -  Man-made technology fails. 

I have never used a technology that was perfect.   It always breaks - it always reveals vulnerabilities - it always, always fails at some point.  The safety features have safety features, and yet they still experience absolute breakage and miscalculation, and breeches, and failures.  We humans have never- ever - created a technology that does not ultimately fail in totality.  

Oh, and headphones suck.

When I was 12 I got my first Walkman.  That's back when it was the Walkman.  If your family owned a B&W TV, then I bet you remember this moment too - trying it in the store and putting those small headphones to your ears and being stunned at the audio quality.  It really was rich and vibrant.  A huge improvement over the big ostrich egg headphones of the previous decade.  A few weeks ago it occurred to me that the headphones I have attached to my computer today are roughly identical to the pair that came bundled with my Walkman in the early 80s.  Actually, my new ones are a little clunkier.  That was almost 30 years ago.  30 years.

I mean, I see people walking down the street today with headphones on, wires dangling, twisted, draped into some inner pocket, and the whole thing looks so ..a-really-long-time-ago-ish.  Definitely not futuristic.  Definitely not the audio equivalent of, say, the iPhone.  Oh, so now you can shove them in your ear.  Hi-tech.

And then there's the blocky blinky blue wireless light that the really important high-powered executives opt for.  Cyborg Lawyering their way through lunch.  As an aside - is there anything more passively annoying than those guys that leave their little blinky Bluetooth headsets hanging over their ears when they're not even talking to anyone?  Eesh. It's always guys in suits with the WSJ. The look-at-my-cell-phone-attached-to-my-belt-guy, ten years later.  "No no, you look really cool."

Anyway, then I read about a chip that could be implanted into my tooth, like a filling, and this chip would receive a WiFi signal, vibrate my jaw bone, which is very, very close to my inner ear, and I would hear crystal clear music, and make invisible phone calls.  My first thought was that the brand "Bluetooth" was wasted on the current state, and that blinky, blue teeth might be kind of cool at a concert.  But my second thought was that this type of implant must be the inevitable advancement of headsets - the shedding of a "thing" that I need to carry altogether.  And maybe that's still right.  Seems like a logical progression.  I mean, I would never do it, but I'm a technical immigrant.  My son, who was born the same month as the first iPhone?  He will, despite my protests.

And that's where these two strings reconnect for me - that chip in your tooth is going to go bad.  Or worse - maybe some complete ass with a good sense of humor decides to hack it.  You know, hacking isn't something you can stop.  If it is decided that a thing should be hacked, it will be.  And someone will most certainly wish to hack all the literal blueteeth that all the futurey people use to listen to their iThings.  I imagine a large percentage of the population suddenly doubling over in pain as that scene from Superman The Movie involuntarily blasts through their jaws.  "Only one thing alive with less than four legs can hear this frequency, Superman..."  

My son will still get one.   ...and yeah, that was Lex Luthor.

But this thread caused me to realize that all of this - is inevitable.  Technical development does not stop.   It can't, because it's flawed.  Or rather, we are.  And we have to fix it, or us rather.  Because technological development is an inexorable part of being human - a primal, fundamental outgrowth of tool-use, our instinctual drive to decrease pain and seek pleasure as a means to survival - linked to our very biology.  Our minds are tools that we can't turn off or put away, and with reason, and with creativity, comes the ability to envision improvements in our condition.  It's not limited to culture or time. 

We all contribute to the advance of technology - with every thermostatic adjustment, every new pair of shoes, and how much Air makes them soft enough? -  we continuously try to improve our condition through the use of our tools, no matter where on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs we sit.  It is the very basis of human existence, and our life's activity until death, and if only we could put that off a little longer, and then maybe a little longer still, and you quickly find yourself wondering where all the advancement ends.

 At what point have we achieved perfection, such that no further technical development is necessary?  Incidentally, the answer to that can be found embedded deeply in virtually every religion.

When we live forever, in eternally-increasing ecstasy.  The ideal state.  Then we'll be done.

Until we reach that state of being - you know, we will always see room for improvement in our current technology.

Can we stop the advancement of technology?  To consider such an idea is to contemplate the end of humanity.  There is no line separating human from technology.  And there is no line separating technical advancement from survival of the individual, or the species.

As we survive, we use technology.  As we imagine, we advance technology.

Should we be doing that?  I don't think we have a choice.  The advance of technology is a law of humanity.

Technology is not good or bad.  It is us.

HLello world!

HLello World!

The last thing the web needs - no, the last thing the world needs is another Blog.  I admit that. Or at least that's what I thought 10 years ago. But a decade later we're still struggling to advance this medium past the point of base comfort.

I had a brilliant roommate in art school who was an exchange student from Hong Kong. English was his second language, and he came into the country with very little ability to communicate. His accent was thick and his vocabulary limited. Years into his time in the US, his accent still just as thick and his vocabulary still limited, he admitted to me that at some point shortly after arriving he'd lost the drive to work on his language skills because he was getting by. He was functional. At least that's what I think he said.

And I guess that's where I think we, as members of the interactive industry, are resting at the moment. Glowing in our vague Web 2.0 awareness, we are functional.  We're getting by.  We lived through a time of extreme and chaotic experimentation, then the bubble burst, and a lot of people got scared, and now we're resting on the resulting knowledge base. We're content in our current understanding of Interactive Language. It's even reassuring after all that unknown expansiveness of the mid 90s.

Well, I'm not at all happy about that. From where I sit, innovation, real creative innovation, the kind of innovation that expands the language and changes everything, has cooled to a quiet drip.  We've fallen into a process of dull incrementalism. And yet-

We have a long way to go before the children born today will cut us the slack we'll want 10 years from now.

Before they look at what we're doing with a nostalgic understanding, as opposed to the snort and rolling eyes I think we deserve at the moment.

In this nascent age of MultiTouch interaction, what have you done, what has your company done to expand our language?I hope, as time passes, and I manage to extricate the concepts and principles I've been sitting on and researching during my years in this industry, I can participate, in some way, in expanding your appreciation for Interactive Language.It's what this blog is meant to do.