We are smarter than the smartest among us

Collective wisdom, crowdsourcing, and a host of other terms are used to describe the notion of tackling complex problems using teamwork. Online tools enable large numbers of individuals to work on a common problem in an organized fashion. Wikipedia is certainly an example focused on creating a near-realtime encyclopedia. The OpenSource software movement is another good example.

My son and I participated in a project called GalaxyZoo, which helped professional astronomers do real science 'in record time' by engaging the passion of interested amateurs to catalog more than 1 million images of galaxies collected by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Telescope.

Businesses are making effective use of their customers and stakeholder's interest in designing better mousetraps. Dell Computer's Ideastorm, and Nokia's Beta Labs are two examples. These companies are sharing ideas and getting feedback from customers using 'rating tools' or by sharing technology--some of it developed by the participants themselves--in soft launch mode tied to a continuous feedback loop.

And then there is Google. Google announced and is revealing its plans for Android, an open source mobile computing platform. Unlike Apple's iPhone, the Android platform will enable users to make, deploy and run applications on Android-compatible handsets...no permission required from carriers or Google. Taking the idea of the anytime, anywhere network and placing it's power in the hands of the crowd.

For a quick rundown and a revealing chart on the Google-enabled mobile platform future, see Ars Technica article.

For a Homer Simpson perspective on what happens when average customers become product designers, see here

Play ball!

As the baseball season kicks into gear, Seth Godin has a post about a post at squidoo that breaks online interactions into two groups: catchers and throwers (well, ok, I would have called it pitchers and catchers).

Seth's premise is that the end result of spam on your brand--where spam is anything that is impersonal and that hasn't earned the recipient's time--is corrosive. He relates an example that many business to business professionals have surely encountered: Faux personal messages asking for your time and engagement in an exclusive opportunity...often from very reputable and well known brands...only to reveal that they are neither personal, exclusive, or interested in your needs. A whole host of company newsletters are just one category.

So what?

In any meaningful relationship (inside or outside of commerce), the dialogue has to be personal and respectful if either party is to earn the right to make a request. For marketers, the right to make a request of prospects is even more one-sided in favor of the prospect. It would seem that our effforts require that the form of the dialogue follow the function to which the prospect would apply it...and that marketers would do well to get the quality of the conversation right before we worry over the quantity.

Somebody's watching me...

...and you...and apparently it makes us uncomfortable. Or at least some of us.

Harris Interactive released a poll concerning US internet users concern with websites that customize content based on user profiles, including the use of behavior-based advertising.

Principle researcher Dr. ALan Westing of Columbia University observed:

"Websites pursuing customized or behavioral marketing maintain that the benefits to online users that advertising revenues make possible – such as free emails or free searches and potential lessening of irrelevant ads – should persuade most online users that this is a good tradeoff. Though our question flagged this position, 59 percent of current online users clearly do not accept it."

And although the oldest users seemed least comfortable with content targetting, younger age groups were markedly more comfortable when the privacy and security policies were visible and explicit.

So what?

Consumers have shown their willingness to provide personal information for loyalty programs, rebates and the like in exchange for a clearly articulated return of value (e.g., discounts, coupons, preference satisfaction). Online advertisers (and the online properties that rely on them) attempting to engage users via content and behavior targetting would seem to be best served by the common courtesies of transparency and permission.

Gratuitous headline musical reference

Google Analytics: Benchmarking beta

Benchmarking a business' performance is a time-tested approach for understanding where one's business stands in relation to peers, partners and clients.

Google launched a set of benchmarking tools (free and in perpetual beta, of course!) for its web analytics offering in Mid March. By agreeing to share your site data (anonymously), you can compare your website performance against the industry category of your choice.

Here's a screen shot from our site for one month:




We've been testing out the becnhmarking feature on the R+K site for a couple of weeks and the results look very promising. We're able to compare our site metrics in several commonly used analytics areas including:

1. Visits
2. Pageviews
3. TIme on site
4. Pages per visit
5. New visits
6. Bounce rate

Users can drill down in each of these areas for more detail including conversion rates, traffic sources and visitor loyalty. We can see how our site stacks up against PR, Marketing and even client industry vertical category sites.

All of the usual Google Analytics dashboard features (such as easy to read graphs, flexible report configuration and point and click interaction) are available in the benchmarking toolset.

One downside appears to be in the way that Google categorizes peer sites in each category...it does so by site size, using the uber-technical categories of small, medium and large. Unfortunately, you cannot benchmark your site against industry vertical sites that are smaller or larger than yours. I understand the value of the categorization by size, but I don;t understand the restrictions on viewing your site data against sites from different size categories.

So if you aspire to create small, efficient sites, you may find that your peers who have bloated inefficient (but large) sites are not part of the benchmark group to which you belong.

For the complete FAQs on Google Benchmarking, see this

Code for...Nerd

Not a big tatoo fan, but here's one that certainly makes a statement.

I've seen an explosion of tshirts and other clothing celebrating net-worthy self expression...say it loud, I'm nerd and I'm proud...in this case, even for budding gen millens:




Cafe Press item

Moving Pictures (on Flickr)

The photo sharing site Flickr (owned by Yahoo) now allows it's Pro users to add video next to their photos (which poses the problem of how to henceforth describe what Flickr is!). See here for how Flickr describes the whole thing.

But wait, doesn't YouTube have the lock on video sharing? Well, yes. Flickr does not appear to be competing with YouTube for the following reasons:

1. Only paying 'Pro' members have access to upload video (everyone can see them)
2. Videos are limited in length to 90 seconds and 150MB

So what's the dealio then?

Mostly, I it's the idea that 'slice of life' video as often taken from a camera phone or cheap camcorder is now indistinguishable from the 'slice of life' photos that Flickr has always enabled.
In other words, it's simply taking the core function of the site (photo sharing) and expanding it to include short segments of moving photos.

Maybe your slice of life is event photos and videos? Maybe you are a sales rep diagnosing a problem on location with a brief video of the issue. You upload it, and someone in support has diagnostic context? Flickr users will determine how it serves their needs best.

Here's one example: A narcoleptic cat


All the usual features of Flickr are applied to video, including tagging, thumbnails, creative commons licensing and uploads directly from camera phones. In addition, the videos are able to be embedded elsewhere on the 'net using a player provided by Flickr (though as a free user I am unable to make it work easily).

Gratuitous headline musical reference

Do you twitter?

TOTH to Faisal who forwards a nice YouTube link explaining Twitter. Think microblogging...from your mobile phone or web page...to those who choose to follow you (and vice-versa) on a mobile phone or a webpage.

No universal purpose is served other than to answer the question 'What are you doing?' (Personally, I mostly use it to send myself and a few others notes on what I am thinking or doing for later action).

What it is, is another example of a social networking tool supporting anytime, anywhere, anyone communication. What it also is, is an example of a tool (like many products) that requires only that its users define how it best serves their needs.

Schadenfreuden: Blogging kills

NYTimes Sunday edition has an article entitled "In Web World of 24/7 Stress, Writers Blog Till They Drop".

Like so many stories on afflictions of the Always-on, All ways connected world, the NYT article leads with death to introduce the downsides of hard work in the information age. IN this case, the hard work of a few who choose blogging as their obsession.

It strikes me that online tools--just like hammers, shovels or any industrial age tool--are not moral actors. But that doesn;t sell newspapers online or off.

One blogger, Marc Andreesen (Creator of the first web browser, Mosaic), has a funny take on the NYTimes approach to these type of stories with just the right amount of humor.

Bite the big apple

Apple Computer has been known to protect its trademark vigorously...in this case, they are going after the City of New York (sometimes known as 'The Big Apple') over a trademark application by the City's GreeNYC campaign...

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2008/04/apple_vs_apple#

From the article:

"The Cupertino, California, company calls for the trademark to be denied, claiming the city's logo will confuse people and "seriously injure the reputation which [Apple] has established for its goods and services."

"Trademark protection extends to sight, sound and meaning, Goldman says, and if a company can prove there's confusion over such matters, it may very well have a case. "

"The ultimate arbiter is the consumer," Goldman says."

Can one envision a day where perception is polled by the courts--a' la Collective Wisdom--to determine the relatvie merits of a trademark suit over 'confusion' or 'meaning'? The tools are available online.

In the meantime, we'll have to rely on a handful of lawyers and judges to make the decision for each of us...or maybe the lawyers at Apple will assess the perception of their actions from blogs, portals and other online feedback loops. Is suing taxpayers a wise strategy for protecting a brand? Is Apple's reputation as a friend of the earth? Or is Apple something not-so-different after all?

You be the judge of the 'trademark infringement' in this case: Yes? No? Maybe?




















Headline explained here if you really need it

Shine on you crazy yahoos

Tip o' the hat to Diane who forwards a story on Yahoo's latest effort that "..targets women between ages 25 and 54."

From the CNN article
(http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/03/31/shine.yahoo.ap/index.html )

"With Shine, Yahoo plans to expand its offerings in parenting, sex and love, healthy living, food, career and money, entertainment, fashion, beauty, home life, and astrology. Shine likely will replace the existing Food site over time, although Yahoo plans to keep its Health site operating to serve men and women of other age groups.

"It is Yahoo's first site aimed at a single demographic, although other Yahoo sites like Finance and Sports already draw specific audiences."

Good luck and everything, I really like many of Yahoo's tools...but there is something wrong here. In nearly every other area of commerce and public life, collectivist notions of gender, age and race are outdated means of describing individuals. And while the mass media has always been somewhat limited in its ability to individualize it offerings, this is online. Online we're supposed to know better. And we expect to be treated as individuals.

Then again, in the world of MeCommerce, one might excuse even Yahoo for suffering confirmation bias in it's research agenda:

"Amy Iorio, vice president for Yahoo Lifestyles, said internal research also shows women are looking for a site to combine various content and communications tools.

"These women were sort of caretakers for everybody in their lives," she said. "They didn't feel like there was a place that was looking at the whole them -- as a parent, as a spouse, as a daughter. They were looking for one place that gave them everything."

One thing is for sure...there will be real data to show whether this insight is, in fact, insightful.

Yes, but...

Presented to a client group today on opportunities afforded marketers in the webfacemysocial world, release 2.x

Like many other marketers in the b2b world that we've heard from, there is a clear desire to 'think different' about their marketing. Consistently, a common point of discussion revolves around the obstacles to change...when discussing blogs, for instance, these concerns are mostly associated with the 'risk' of having someone say something not-so-nice and on company property to boot.

Of course these are all valid concerns. So here's a quick list of what's worked in our experience:

1. Start small: pick a project where the risk is small if it blows up.

2. Do what you already do: Sending out newsletters? Have experts who offer points of view? Try posting the content to a blog or board.

3. Find champions: Find those who are passionate about the connected world and get them involved...regardless of org chart titles.

4. Do it for yourself, then your customers: Try a project that helps your own organization's communications, then take what you learn and pursue the external audience.

5. Build on success: Find something that works and tweak it. If something doesn't work, move on.

6. Don't wait: Perfect is the enemy of good when the customer is on the line...

Alt+64

Just returned from the Dominican Republic where I suffered withdrawal symptoms from my connected devices (yes, I know...pathetic. The warm temperature and powdery sand helped however, so need for any sympathy ;).

It took a couple of days to get comfortable with the idea of having only 15 minutes of access a day--from a shared terminal--to check email and the like, epecially when part of the 15 minutes was spent trying to remember alt-code keyboard references for characters that are not part of the standard spanish language set.

Alt+64 for instance being the code for the ubiquitous "@". Alt+69 for '\' and so on. A subtle reminder that sometimes the always on, always present online world has some built in friction...and that sometimes a vacation from 'always on' helps reduce it.

Faster, better, stronger...

No, it's not about Kanye West or, for old schoolers, Col. Steve Austin. It's faster, better, stronger consumer research.

Hat tip to Sue LaBarbera who forwarded an article (PDF) about building a better research platofrm using "the tools of web 2.0." According to Sue:

“Quantilitative” research is what Andrew Piece [Senior Partner at Prophet Research] coins this integrated, web-based approach to gaining valuable insights in an effective and efficient manner.

Hopefully, the coin on this term is worth more than the US dollar. Either way, the article describes uses of online tools to engage customers in online brainstorming, concept testing, and product design with an eye toward the more traditional purposes of research:

...yield[ing] deeper, more impactful insights about the who, what, when, where, why and how about their customers and brands.

A key point of the article is the ability of the online methods and tools to obtain these insights in a rapid, iterative, learn-as-you-go manner... without, one presumes, a $6million dollar pricetag!

Does Apple make you think different?

Researchers from the University of Waterloo and Duke University have attempted to answer the questions:

"Does the [subliminal] impact of brand exposure end with purchasing decisions or can it extend to behaviors unrelated to the products the brand represents? In other words, can brands cause people to behave rudely or win more points at Trivial Pursuit?"

You can read a summary here or the 'Prepublished' paper (which will appear in the Journal of Consumer Research) here .

Despite the headlines claiming evidence that Apple's brand "makes you think creatively" and Disney "makes you behave more honestly", there are reasons to be skeptical. In the authors own words, "...brands play a less central role in life than do people, and one of less affective value." This would seem self-evident, of course, to anyone participating in the social media/social influence evolution.

Though it appears well designed, the experiment uses subliminal exposure to brand logos and then measures the amount and degree of 'creativity' or 'honesty' that results. Hard not to define these as soft measures. And while I think the researchers have done an admirable job of constructing a solid experimental method, it isn't the experimental construct that appears fallible...rather, it's that the hypothesis...(does subliminal brand exposure influence behavior) is built on a premise (brand impact) that remains itself the subject of great debate.

Also telling may be the conclusions of the researchers themselves:

“Instead of spending the majority of their money on traditional print and television advertising, companies with established brand associations such as Apple may want to give serious consideration to shifting more marketing resources to product placement opportunities and other forms of outreach that emphasize brief brand exposures,” Gavan Fitzsimons said.

As someone once said "I'll see it when I beleive it".

Selling awareness through advertising

If you sell advertising based solely on its ability to generate awareness, this clip may encourage you to rethink the pitch...it might cause the buyers to rethink their purchase - unintentionally of course:

http://www.dothetest.co.uk/

There will be blood...

...in the web/agency future.

The question is whose blood and how much?

A dialogue that may become a debate...

Chris Bernard User Experience Evangelist, Silverlight/Microsoft Corp Kevin Flatt Exe Creative Dir, Tribal DDB (Chicago); Garrick Schmitt VP, User Experience, Avenue A Razorfish Brooke Nanberg Exec Creative Dir, ip pixel Peter Eckert Chief Creative Officer, Projekt202

1. Is trouble here?...lots of people in advertising know that many of the messages we create are not authentic...the degree of trouble may be determined by where you are now. Are you nimble? You will probably be fine. Nimble probably needs to be modified to incorporate 'a bias for learning'.

2. Traditional agencies are getting savvy about new technologies. But does viewing the interwebs as 'just another media' say something about how savvy?

3. General agreement about the primacy of 'The idea", but the execution requires the heavy lifting and this reflects the culture of how things get done in an agency...and how ideas abot collaboration and control may be different in interactive.

4. Master data...in this medium you cannot be successful if you can't analyze and draw conclusions from data about behavior. Data is native to the web/net platform...a tougher task for traditional viewpoints, though some media departments would seem natural fits.

So whose blood will be spilled? Here's a list based on the discussin:

• Their will be blood from those who think it is about building a website or creating an email.
• There will be blood from those brands who attempt to force their way into social spaces uninvited.
• There will be blood from those who don't center design around the user's needs/desires.
• There will be blood from those who use outdated ideas about people's passions and behaviours that are based on notions of gender, age, and factors that fail to recognize individuality....the power of who defines you shifts to you.

Top Secrets

Frank Warren who created Post Secrets discusses where it came from and what he thinks secrerts mean to people.

http://postsecret.blogspot.com/

Like the Zuckerberg keynote, there was a bit of audience upstaging that took place during the audience question segment...Someone had a secret…they took the mike and asked a woman in the audience to marry him. She said...yes.

Anyway, an interesting notion about why the popularity of the Post Secrets site also came up in audience discussion...the idea that there is an intimacy revolution…people seeking authenticity (e.g., sharing secrets, posting photos on myspace). Brought to Warren's mind that post secrets is a brand, but, in the search for authenticity and open source and community, this brand exists outside the realm of commerce. Can you put a price on passion and connectedness? That would be the question I guess.

If you are not familiar, people send their secrets via postcards that they make...very artful in many instances. Original project was set up because he handed out cards and got about 90 that were used in an exhibition. But then he continued to receive them…word of mouth…so he created blog to post what he got. The group organizes itself as it develops around community functions online. He allowed the band All American Rejects ((dirty little secret)) to use postcards from the project in their video for no money…just a contribution of $2000 to suicide prevention hotline organization.

A couple of the funny secrets (many are serious or sad) included:

“I serve decaf to customers who are rude to me. “

“You called me an idiot…oops! I sent your bags to the wrong destination. I guess you are right.”

In the spirit of Picasso’s quote about there being an artists in everyone, Warren hopes that the idea and the site/books that connect us to each our common secrets will expand the role of art in the world and the people who the world sees as artists.

Ten things for managing creative environments

What can we learn about managing creative environments by interviewing theater groups (steppenwolf and neofuturists), symphonies (philly) tech design shops and restaurants? Here are ten things that the Adaptive Path team has found...

1. Cross train people on other's discipline.
2. Rotate the creative leadership.
3. Identifyi the point when divergence of ideas must become convergence.
4. Know the roles each member plays
5. Practice with each other
6. Make your mission explicit and actionable to the team
7. Kill your darlings (with respect...positive or silence...no negative)
8. Leadership is the ultimate service position (not a dictatorship)
9. Generate projects around the groups interests (if you do it for the money only it won't keep people engaged)
10. Remember your audience...you are doing it for other people.

Boy I wish they wouldn't have made so many references to food

Xray specs

Make magazine has a booth...here's someone demonstrating a brain stimulating device...you can make your very own for $30 and your free time

The Future of Consumer Electronics is here...

It’s just unevenly distributed!...

Robert Scoble, formerly of Microsoft and now with FastCompany TV, moderates a wide ranging discussion on what’s driving the future of consumer electronics. Product Development and marketing directors from Seagate, Logitech, Sling Media, Revision 3 discuss.

The question: Where do you guys see consumer electronics going?

• Everything goes through IP stack…things like Wii’s attached to electronic devices (Like HD TV).
• Software becomes the common area of focus to integrate hardware pieces. Hardware is easier to build. What’s hard is the software.
• Open source development is a ‘collective wisdom’ approach to solving hard problems.
• Techhnology in general is moving toward open environment (as opposed to proprietary schemas…Can you say Blu-ray?).
• Large blocks of data present challenges to distribution into the home (for instance, HD video), especially over wireless broadband/broadcast.
• Many of the issues in consumer electronics are not technical, they are regulatory and deal with issues like intellectual property (digital rights management, RIAA, MPAA). But when technology and regulation collide, regulatory usually ends up frustrated.
• What’s really important in the new electronics world is batteries (True Dat!).
• The Bug Labs device is interesting. It’s basically a motherboard that allows you to snap in TV screen, Music player, Camera…it’s a build your own consumer electronics device.
• Everything about it is open source.
• The user experience becomes the focus of moving design forward. Design of the software to use processing power for presentation layer is trend (like the iPhone..again software is hard).
• Embedded devices as a future trend (e.g., implants in clothes, under skin). Open source enables the collective intelligence to figure out how to develop the desirable devices and electronics.
• Notion of productivity of an individual’s time as a purpose that mobile and connected devices serve…not work productivity but doing something when you are doing nothing. (Not the time in a life but the life in a time).
• With voice commanded devices, what’s the future of buttons? (besides a large 'Mute' button)