Peter Jaworowski (of Syzygy) has taken 20 seminal events from the Internet in 2011 and weaved them into a single artwork. Your challenge? Name all 20.
I can name 12, how about you?
Digital billboard crash yields floating error message in the sky on a foggy night in Odessa, Ukraine. It feels like an omen. or like the eyes in the Great Gatsby.
Today’s Google Doodle is a based on a microchip in honor of the the 84th birth anniversary of Robert Noyce, the co-founder of Intel who is widely regarded as the “the Mayor of Silicon Valley” for his warm mentoring of others coming up in the field. He was also a total badass: went to Grinnell College in Iowa, was way into flying planes, extreme skiing and singing madrigals. Such a cool guy.
He died on June 3, 1990 - my 6th birthday. For this reason, for the awesome social / digital work I got to be a part of on behalf of his brainchild mega-brand, and for my dear love of semi-conducting and processors and all they have spawned, I feel semi-connected (pun intended) to Robert Noyce. Clearly Google does too. :)
Will the social gaming bubble burst? Gaming industry veteran Denis Dyack thinks so:
“It is damaging traditional gaming for sure but… how it’s going to work out is anyone’s guess. The trend that I see is it’s probably going to be one of the biggest bubbles and explosions that our industry’s seen in a long time and I think when it crashes it’s going to crash very hard. I don’t think there’s an economy there…
I don’t know about Zynga – I think that’s a big micro, but I think that the amount of venture that’s being poured in, in general, that’s most of the video game industry investment. As far as I know right now, it’s going into pure social gaming. It looks like marketing to me. It doesn’t look like real gaming. And maybe it’ll change, I don’t know. It looks very, very dangerous. I think Zynga’s valuated more than some traditional publishers right now that have been in the industry for decades. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see it. It seems imaginary to me… it doesn’t look long term healthy to me.”
(via ARTICLE by @excaliburps for @deltagamer)
Dyack certainly makes some good points about overvaluation, but I think he’s missing the demographic differences between “true” gamers vs “social” gamers. The people that play Dyack’s games are true gamers and the Zynga masses are in large part new to the world of gaming. Facebook gaming engages users who want to be social and share with their friends while they play, rather than maintain a special and somewhat separate subgroup of gamer friends who they connect with via XBox or WoW that they may or may not know in real life.
The social or casual gamers that have only recently started to move online to play. These are people who likely haven’t owned a game console and entered into gaming through social (Mafia Wars / Farmville) or mobile (Angry Birds). It’s simply a different — and much bigger — segment. Even if users join and burn out in predictable waves of say 3 months of enthusiasm for a given game, there’s a big population of new Facebook users who are just now dipping their toe into the gaming water.
What do you think? Will the “bubble” of social gaming burst?
TLBTGNTR (Too Long But Too Good Not To Read).
Highlights include but are not limited to:
(1) big insights
(2) obligatory inclusion of Mad Men
(3) badass dogs
(4) facts that are interesting and also factual
(5) things which with I do not necessarily agree
(6) use of the word “expurgated”
(7) amusing number choice
(8) harsh truth-telling
The following is an expurgated version of the presentation I made last Friday, April 29th, 2011, at the Brandcenter at Virginia Commonwealth University to the Brandcenter Masters students, undergraduate VCU advertising students, faculty and local professionals. While I spoke about my past and growing up in an advertising family and also explored a tangent about psychology (to be covered in a separate post), here I’ll focus on my philosophies about mobile and emerging technologies, and how their importance will inform the way the most successful advertising agencies will be constructed in the future. In addition, I’ll cover how I believe changes need to be made not only on a departmental level and a creative team-structure level, but also on a personnel level; from entry level to C-suite, I believe the right kind of people will increase success without excessive human resource cost increases.
First, let’s talk mobile. It’s the future. Period. In my lifetime, it may evolve from a smartphone to a mini tablet to a wristwatch to a solid state drive and jack implanted in the back of my head—who knows? What I do know is that it will be as small as possible, while still providing a positive user experience.
There was a time when the revolution was to be televised. In the past six months, actual revolutions were socialized via twitter and Facebook. In the western world, we’re constantly on the go. Multitasking. We value time more than ever. One device that can function as the focal point for communication as well as content delivery, whether coming in the form of education, entertainment, news or utility? Vital. In the immediate future this will remain the smartphone. And though I mention the western world, make no mistake: the mobile device is a global device:
Seventy seven percent. And nearly seventy five percent of those people have the phone within an arm’s reach, 24 hours a day. How long until the majority of those phones are smart phones? Well, with AT&T selling the iPhone 3GS for $49, it won’t be very long. Android will be no different. And as the hardware becomes more affordable, more end users gravitate to the platforms, which stimulates platform development. Brands respond by increasing their ad-spend exponentially. Don’t think so?
Take a look at that chart. Brands spent under $800 million on mobile in 2010. That’s expected to triple by 2014. And people aren’t only buying mobile phones in greater quantity to place calls; twenty five percent of internet users surf the web using mobile only. A better experience? No, a convenient one. So users are out of the house, surfing the web, getting branding messages in the wild — near places they can spend money. And soon they’ll be using their phones to make payments; seventy percent of retailers are developing or exploring capabilities for mobile commerce right now. That’s nearly three in four. Despite that increase, online shopping (via mobile) is going nowhere but through the roof, tripling from 2009 to 2010, from one to four billion dollars. And some purchase and fulfillment never even leaves the phone; 350,000 applications are available in Apple’s app store alone. Unbelievable.
What does this all mean? Well, from my selfish POV, it means that if you’re a company like MIR that builds mobile ads or iAds, develops mobile sites, designs mobile apps and creates quality UX mobile commerce systems, you’re in pretty good shape moving forward. But before I seem like I’m all code and no theory, I’ll say and underscore this:
Now I need to choose my words carefully, to avoid being misunderstood. I do believe in the big idea. Shh…don’t tell anyone, but I still love traditional. I still love broadcast. And I still love print. And I can see by saying these things, one might imagine I’m the anti-digital, the Lex Luthor to Michael Lebowitz’ Superman. But you’re totally wrong. I’d imagine Michael and I agree philosophically on many things surrounding this topic (Note: Despite the laws of probability and outcome that would predict two people who interact with many of the same associates and friends would know each other, Michael and I have actually never met). And I think we’re actually saying the same thing in different ways; Michael might say a mediocre idea made with great tech is better than a big idea sitting on the shelf that can’t be or never is made. He’d likely also say that creativity itself often straddles both the editorial and technological ideating of what we do. He’d be right. I say no matter how advanced the technology, it will not succeed (from a branding standpoint) without a creative idea behind it. I’m right. And ultimately, I’m sure we both want the best brand storytelling married to the best technology. We’re right. And though mobile, digital and emerging technology is going to become the focus moving forward, the reality is that if you’ve cracked the brief for an overall campaign, the creative idea should be able to live anywhere.
Still, we have a big dilemma these days:
We have very forward thinking, digitally savvy technological people, and we have seasoned, track-proven traditional creative people. It begs three very big questions:
And most importantly:
Back to question 1: Traditional agencies CANNOT survive without change. The fundamental need for change relies upon EDUCATION. More often than not, educating is the first thing I do when meeting with an agency or a brand partner, because they’re not familiar with how anything other than traditional advertising works. They rarely know the difference between a wireframe and a comp. And the first time you show a wireframe to a brand CEO who’s expecting to see full color comps because he or she doesn’t know the difference, you’re in for some shit. Agencies and brands not familiar with digital and mobile processes need to understand what we do and how we do it. It will better prepare them for what to expect at various stages of development, will provide them the ability to comment on work from a more confident position, and moving forward, it will allow them to be a contributor rather than an observer or burden.
Question 2: Can traditional and digital people co-exist in an evolving agency? Short answer? Without communication, not for very long. Traditional ad people who refuse to communicate with technologists will first find themselves at a disadvantage, and ultimately find themselves unemployed. I’m not saying the technologists shouldn’t be helping, by providing somewhat remedial instruction and exercising a great deal of patience, but the burden of learning the technical side of what we do (in greater amounts each day) falls to the traditional creatives. And I’m not excluding non-creatives; strategists, account people and especially project managers must be proficient in speaking and understanding the language of tech. Still…
This is a creative business. The more we expand the channels in which we deliver stories and messages, the more vital it is to have a seamless communication between those who do the dreaming and those who nurture those dreams and turn them into emerging technology reality. And until those out of the loop catch up, I believe there may be a new role at traditional agencies that will be vital for the next few years:
And that’s the bridge builder. A hybrid traditional/digital thinker who can educate the pure traditionals in the language of digital, and play the part of conduit between the traditionals and the digital in everyday business. Make no mistake: I’m not saying Martin Sorrell is going to shell out money for this new position. This will likely fall to creatives within the agencies who can already play this role, making them even more indispensable.
The way creative teams are constructed will change as well. They have to. I think we’re already starting to see a change. Before long, I believe the main structure of a creative team will change from the left to the right diagram, below:
That brings us to Question 3: What does the agency of the future look like?
When it comes to agency departments, I think the siloed vs. integrated agency debate is over; integrated is the obvious way to go. And we just covered teams. But I believe that moving forward, agencies will survive and thrive not only based upon the structure of departments and teams, but even more upon the structure of the people themselves. Because as long as the same types of people are put together in more or less the same kinds of teams, the results will be the same.Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results? Know what that is?
Right. Einstein’s definition of insanity. So who are these people I’m talking about? Who should be leading agencies moving forward? It may be a philosophy based in generalities, but it’s one to which I subscribe. The great majority of people in this world can be divided into one of three groups when it comes to innate ability and the aptitude to develop specific advanced intellectual talents. The two MAIN groups are left and right brain thinkers:
Left brain thinkers are rooted in fact and process, while right brainers focus on emotion and creativity. I did say there were three groups. The third group is exactly who I believe are the prime choice to be bridge builders today and the ideal candidates to be leading agencies tomorrow. They are both left and right brained and have the capacity to not only understand exactly what the creatives and the technologists are doing, they can mediate between the two, and most importantly, they can explain all of it to a client who doesn’t know what the hell any of it means. It’s part teacher, part counselor, part psychologist. It’s not always fun, but it is absolutely vital for agency survival.
Now, I can imagine what you’re thinking. ruminating upon. It’s nagging you:
Am I both left and right brained? Let’s see…
This is not a definitive test, but let’s look at a question. Think honestly about how you react to it:
If your mind’s tendency is to think the above, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with you. But you might not be equally left and right brained. However, it’s absolutely possible for one to develop a greater understanding and mastery of what was once a deficiency. It behooves people to gain the knowledge they lack in order to make them more indispensable at the workplace. And it’s essential for anyone contemplating a start-up of their own.
There’s someone else who I imagine I’ll be at odds with based on my opinions presented here, and that’s Daniel H. Pink, author of the best-selling book “A Whole New Mind - Why Right Brainers Will Rule the Future.” In it, Pink discusses how the Industrial Age of the 19th century was replaced by the Information Age of the 20th, which has now given way to the Conception Age of the 21st. And though there is much in those pages that I agree with wholeheartedly, I still believe that much of its content and even the title (on its surface) seem to intimate a devaluation of left brain thinking, which I completely disagree with. Professing design visualization as a pillar of the right brain future (which Pink does) without taking into consideration the mathematics inherent in spacial analysis, angles, symmetry and balance is just wrong in my opinion.
Only time will tell if I’m even remotely prophetic and how agencies (and mobile technology) will evolve and flourish, or fail and be replaced by whatever’s next. For now, survival depends upon knowing the rules and being able to play the game(s). I made that plural because we do so much more than brand building these days. The lines between what we do and what many in Silicon Valley now do have blurred tremendously. Intellectual property is more on the minds of agencies today than ever; it has to be, simply because the buying public is so accessible and there’s too much money to be made via apps and platform development. And to me, it’s just another piece of evidence in the argument for change on an organizational and personnel level that embraces digital and technological thinking and processes as an organic part of the creative process from the beginning rather than an appendage dialed up like a pinch hitter with two out in the bottom of the ninth.
Did you make it through?
Shareist - Content Curation Platform
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(via newcurator)
this is really funny. and yes to all of the above, i guess. Although the copy above kind of cracks me up and makes me wince — I did write an earnest plea to be considered for the beta test. This is a strong feature of an overshared snapshot in time. Our industry is becoming fried by nonstop overlapping content curation minutiae (or at least I am at times), so perhaps Shareist can help. Still “hobbyist” & a few other verbal stylings are cringeworthy.
(via newcurator)
![While researching on children & user experience yesterday, I briefly fell down the Google Image Search wormhole, landing on the above image. Although it was completely useless for what I was looking for I put it aside & later, continued searching for stock images of children using touchscreen devices. The results of this accidental search were intriguing.
A survey of the stock image titans (Corbis, Shutterstock, Getty) around the keywords “touchscreen” and “child” or “kid” with the selection criteria that [1] all images must not be device specific (e.g. not showing an ipad) and [2] images must include a full face to the camera, yielded over half a dozen very similar images. These images all feature male children that appear to be Kindergarden age and have very similar blue/ green coloring and shimmery lighting and tech themed backgrounds. Uncanny!
There’s magical about these images: maybe it’s the combination of little kids knowing how to use the touchscreens as if it’s nothing? That emotion is amplified by the oddly alike radial gradient lighting in each image appearing as halos. The silly, trite numbers background graphics work against the quiet intrigue here, rendering a palpable juxtaposition.
Although I haven’t spent time truly generating a watertight and robust dip into this apparent coincidence of stock imagery, i feel like there’s something here. These images are haunting & evocative — capturing a generation of never not knowing-technology.
awkward ones for laughs:
and one that’s rather Minority Report:
It’s as if these kids are seeing the world through technology, but it’s invisible to them— an invisible screen. Gazing into the intra-interfaces of babes (& beyond).](http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljaqawukZx1qbnq8oo1_500.jpg)
While researching on children & user experience yesterday, I briefly fell down the Google Image Search wormhole, landing on the above image. Although it was completely useless for what I was looking for I put it aside & later, continued searching for stock images of children using touchscreen devices. The results of this accidental search were intriguing.
A survey of the stock image titans (Corbis, Shutterstock, Getty) around the keywords “touchscreen” and “child” or “kid” with the selection criteria that [1] all images must not be device specific (e.g. not showing an ipad) and [2] images must include a full face to the camera, yielded over half a dozen very similar images. These images all feature male children that appear to be Kindergarden age and have very similar blue/ green coloring and shimmery lighting and tech themed backgrounds. Uncanny!
There’s magical about these images: maybe it’s the combination of little kids knowing how to use the touchscreens as if it’s nothing? That emotion is amplified by the oddly alike radial gradient lighting in each image appearing as halos. The silly, trite numbers background graphics work against the quiet intrigue here, rendering a palpable juxtaposition.
Although I haven’t spent time truly generating a watertight and robust dip into this apparent coincidence of stock imagery, i feel like there’s something here. These images are haunting & evocative — capturing a generation of never not knowing-technology.
awkward ones for laughs:
and one that’s rather Minority Report:
It’s as if these kids are seeing the world through technology, but it’s invisible to them— an invisible screen. Gazing into the intra-interfaces of babes (& beyond).
hi, so as you can see, these are my feelings about the fact that tonight’s Performing Arts & Technology meetup (which is sure to be totally awesome) sold out WAY in advance.
allll day I continued to think “OK MAYBE IT WILL GET UNCROWDED SOMEHOW BY RSVP CANCELZ?” noop. And so, presumably along with teh other 32 waitlisted, I am bummed it’s sold out.
That said, I’ll be keeping one ear up. Plz take notes if you’re going…during these two sections especially for Liubo Borrisov:
Liubo Borissov is a bricoleur working with digital and organic media. In his works, he explores the interface between art, science and technology. His multimedia installations, performances and digital video works have been featured internationally, including the New Interfaces for Musical Expression, ICMC and SIGGRAPH conferences, the Lincoln Center Summer Festival, NYC and the Kennedy Center, Washington, DC. http://vimeo.com/album/14350
“Your Brain on Computers” is the series in which this article appears: from “An Ugly Toll of Technology” to “Digital Devices Deprive Brain of Needed Downtime,” these articles provide a fair and balanced perspective on the impact of technology on the brain. Except—wait—they don’t. My own bias is reflected though: I’m reading all of these articles online (of course). But I’m pretty sure they were intended to be read online; otherwise, why would there be an interactive feature? Why would there be on online forum for debate on the topic “first steps to digital detox”? (I’m sure many a smug online reader has noted this irony).
….
A 2009 study conducted by Gary Small’s research group investigated the neural correlates of technology use in older adults by conducting an fMRI of the brain during an internet search task. (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, one of my favorite technologies, is a recently-discovered type of brain scan that can highlight active neural regions based on blood flow changes during a task performance). The group was separated into ‘net-naïve’ and ‘net-savvy’ adults; they showed dramatic differential neural activation, with the net-savvy group demonstrating a twofold increase in neural activation during the search task compared to net-naïve participants; in fact, the net-savvy group showed significantly higher activation in regions controlling decision making, complex reasoning, and vision than in reading tasks. Preliminary conclusions of the study postulate that internet search tasks are extremely stimulating, and may engage a greater extent of neural circuitry not activated by simple text.
— Camilla Nord’s really great retort to the luddite propaganda that seems to be so in fashion right now. Full YPulse article.
this was really great work. it’s pretty incredible to think about the decade as a whole and filter out what big ideas ENDURE. the ones that do are almost myth that enter collective cultural consciousness. In 2005 this was fresh and nearly 6 years later it still is a case study of a killer concept launching a brand into a new market.
Wow doubly good morning. This is kind of awesome.
Also, the rest of that list is pretty much exactly what should be on it, I think. Maybe one exception. But still a solid list. Axe probably deserves to be on there (or was that “this decade” and thus disqualified?)
That chicken. Six years later and I still worry it’ll be all any of us are remembered for. Well, you know, as much as any one is remembered for anything. Ashes to ashes.
__
William Gibson, Book Expo America 2010 Luncheon Talk (via kenyatta)
//
this is so bigtime I don’t even know how to digest it, let alone add to it. Suffice to say that Gibson gets it in such a major way.
The notion of prosthetic memory alludes to cyborg theory and that offshoot of feminism that addresses the Barbie / cyborg phenom, but it also brings up some of the most salient points from Alison Landsberg’s brilliant book. Rather than compartmentalizing American experience, she basically says that technologies of mass culture allow us to assimilate experiences and events — even ones that we havent ourselves lived through. So there’s potential here to have a range of memories some privately (or actually felt) and some public (collective) memories but they all still impact us the same. Result being that a new kind of public cultural memory—a zeitgeist that is made into a metaphorical “prosthetic” memory—that awakens a spirit of alliance in us. Perhaps stimulating an increased social responsibility or a depth of unity or simulation thereof.
It’s kind of like that feeling you get from discussing trending topics on twitter — we’re all in this together and time is something that we experience as a vast collective as the events occur vs. alone in our own subjective lives.
(via slavin)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD GIRL TALK’S NEW ALBUM “ALL DAY”
you’ll be listening to it ALL DAY. lately i’ve been thinking a lot about environmentalism and how it applies to things like music. How it’s so much more green to buy music electronically vs tangibly. Seems like there should be more of a push behind that to pressure artists and labels to go exclusively digital?
