CrapHammer

Co-opting co-creation and other tongue twisters

I recently stumbled across a great article by Griffin Farley at BBH Labs. He was reframing advertising as little more than co-presenting. He used Skins as an example and spoke of how brands were pulling their ads due to complaints about the show's content. They couldn't be seen as co-presenting this show.

Griffin identified an emerging opportunity for brands to be co-viewers together with their audiences.

He raised some great points. As brands shift to engaging in social media, one of the key opportunities is in identifying the role of the team responsible for engaging in these new channels.

Are they just there to publish content? 

Can they have opinions?

What if more social media teams took to participating together with us (everyday folks) in events?

Some of the greatest evangelists do just that, already. Scott Monty. Amber Cadabra.

And this got me thinking about co-creation.

All to often, co-creation is treated as a brand initiated event.

Doritos will give someone a big bag of crunchy money if we make a commercial for them. Pick the brand. They all want us to create something for them - be it a video, a photo or a social media mention to our friends.

Is there not an opportunity to co-participate (oy... there's a bad new word) with our fans in the things they love creating? 

What about embracing and supporting someone who loves your brand so much they create a commercial about it of their own volition?

And if this commercial pokes good natured fun of your brand, what then? 

In hindsight, Eric and I set out to test this theory this past Saturday.

We made a parody video of a brand we enjoy and respect - Marketing Profs.

What would you do if this video was about your brand?

Passion and Content Creation (Red Nation)

 

I talk a lot about passion and "the most passionate."

I do so because I believe it is a critical component to building vibrant and healthy communities, brands and movements.

And by studying the most passionate, we can learn things about our products, our organizations and our communities that we never considered possible.

But it requires us to rethink how we define our audience.

It's no longer about demographics, no matter what the research company says or how many technographic reports we run.

Which is not to say demographics don't matter.

Demographics tell us not to be surprised that a bunch of middle aged guys love sports.

What it doesn't tell us is who is likely to become a passionate producer of unique content.

It doesn't give us any insight into who is developing authority or a growing audience of their own.

A couple of weekends back, I spent a few hours with 3 guys who spend their free time railing against the Toronto Football Club.  

It's hard to spend more than 5 minutes with them and not think they are anti-Toronto FC.

But I'd say that these guys are actually just really passionate about great soccer.  

And they are frustrated that their local team is not being setup to win.

So they started recording their drunken rants post game.

And something happened.

Other people shared their views and started subscribing.

They recently broke the 2,000 subscribers mark and have over 20,000 listens to date.

I was given a free seat for the game.  The seat they reserve for the writers they get to do the blog post writeup for each episode of their show (in trade for a seat to the game.)

These guys are no longer just a bunch of guys venting about the game - they are now trusted personalities on this subject.

I'd go so far as to say they have blurred the line between consumer and professional.

When I arrived at their "house of operations" post game for a beer and for the podcast recording, I could only gawk as they set into well-rehearsed motion.

A spare bedroom was quickly transformed into a full blown recording studio with giant folding baffles they made themselves, wall art that upon closer inspection is actually a set of hanging sound reducers and two Audio-technica mics hacked into Garage Band.

Here's a link to the podcast.  If you are into the content and stick around, you'll hear me around the 8 minute mark and then yelling in from time to time as I get drunk in the background.

Dark Clouds over Toronto

Stephe Perry, Ian Clark (Sparky), Tim Vickery (and on this episode, moi).

 

[Image credit: wvs (note that wvs is my FAVORITE Toronto photography.  Bar none.]

 

 

Planningness 2010 Recap: Made By Many on Making Things

I'm kicking off my recap of PlanningNess 2010 with a deck by the Made by Many folks.

I've seen a lot of talk about agile and scrum.  And frankly, it's usually just someone spouting a lot of buzz words and urging agencies need to adapt.  But its generally someone from the outside without a lot of credibility on how to improve what we do.

But I've clearly never seen Made by Many talk about it.  And there are few agencies on this planet I hold in higher esteem.  And true to form, I found their presentation deck insightful, inspiring and dead on as to where we need to get to.

So many gems in here!  How about a dozen user testing and engagement tools we could be all be using in our project development processes?  God I love these guys.  I think I want to have their baby.  Shit.

How to really make something

View more presentations from Made by Many.

A Public Debate with Jen Evans

[Update: July 13, Jen Evan's response added.]
[Update: July 17, Sean's response added.]
[Update: July 28, Jen wades back in.]

I recently had the pleasure of drinks with Jen Evans, founder and chief strategist of Sequentia Environics.  Many had spoken to me over the years of Jen, but amazingly we had never connected.  Let me just say that I now join what I believe to be a long list of people who admire her spirit, intensity and intelligence.

At one point in our laughter and exploration, Jen challenged me to a public debate.  Unlike some who might have done so in jest, Jen followed up with me on Twitter the next morning with the topic for said event.  I feel like I have been transported to an era of calling cards and pistol duels.  How totally awesome is that!?  Woot!

Jen, please feel free to email me your response and I will edit this post with your reply.  Or we can use the comments area.  Your call, my lady.  ;)

Jen Evans (via Twitter - abbreviations removed)

"I think marketing can and will evolve into something I like to call the virtuous cycle of empathetic marketing: what do people need from the products and services they buy?  How do we help them diagnose that in a way that adds real value and informs?  I believe in Drucker's vision of the function of the corporation and marketing, and I believe digital really allows that vision to happen. Discuss!"

My response

I must begin by challenging the initial question.  First, because your question affirms an unfair advantage upon you as your firm excels in converting people with a stated interest in a product or service into a sale.  But more importantly, I have to wonder if this is really the opportunity on the table both for our clients and for our respective agencies.

I would ask if the opportunity we are faced with is rather this: What is it that people value, need and want?  And what role can an organization, brand, product or service play in supporting and/or fulfilling these needs?

I get and agree that we live in a world of conspicuous consumption and that products and services (in addition to affiliation with a brand) become symbols of status (in North America at least).  And the opportunity for a luxury brand in this context is so rarely fully leveraged.

But we also live in a society where significant forces are at work that I will argue are transforming organizations and individuals.  These forces are not technological in nature (though they are enabled by such).  They are social and come from a shift in beliefs.  In its rawest form, the concepts of purpose and the role of passion has become more pronounced in our day to day lives.  The drive has always existed.  Only now there is this belief that we all have the right (or even need) to find and even define our individual purpose.

"I believe wholeheartedly that a new form of capitalism is emerging.  More stakeholders, (customers, employees, shareholders, and the larger community) want their businesses to ... have a purpose bigger than their product." 
   -  Mats Lederhausen, Investor and former McDonalds executive (source)

And because this is a debate, I will turn to Ms. Evan's named source, Mr. Drucker.  I will admit I have become quite a fan of Drucker over these past few hours as I had clearly misclassified him in my head.

Well before 1996, Peter saw a shift happening in business.  Organizations would no longer be a place that supplied meaning and value to the lives of their members by virtue of the organization's stated beliefs.

"All institutions, including governments, churches, universities, and so on, will become more interdependent, more market- and customer-driven." [source]

Drucker wasn't speaking just about changes in how we market our services.  He was talking about changes within the very organization and its relationship to its employees, partners and supply chains.

"We know that knowledge people have to be managed as if they were volunteers. They have expectations, self-confidence, and, above all, a network. And that gives them mobility, which is probably the greatest change in the human condition. A very short time ago, if you were the son of a peasant, you were going to be a peasant. Even in this country, social mobility was almost unknown. Now, every one of the young people I know has his or her resume in the bottom drawer, which no blue collar worker ever did."

And I think that if Drucker were alive today he would be talking about this shift in purpose and aligning organizations with the passions and activities of its customers, employees, partners, etc.  In fact, much of what I've been able to find about him seems to say he likely saw this coming far earlier and may indeed have talked about it.  I'm just getting up to speed on Drucker, sadly.

Over to you, Jen.  If you buy my re-framing of the question, then I would be very interested in where and how you see people expressing their search for purpose, passion and meaning and what opportunities this presents for organizations, brands, products and services.

Jen Evan's Reply (July 13):

Sean, I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion as well and on our next meeting my only change in strategy will be to ply you and @interpretivist with multiple Perroni to weaken your thinking and resolve. I’m not above admitting it.

Having said that, I think your position is completely and utterly wrong. You see, I don’t believe in passion.

Passion is pre-eminent in an individualist mindset that I think has reached its apex/nadir in 21st century American politics, and is on the decline. The much bally-hooed search for personal fulfillment and passion, I think, has led to more destruction than any other single force in the West.

I think these are in many ways the most dangerous terms in modern society, and that passion is in fact killing us.

Much of consumer impulse, overacquisition and materialism, is tied up into ego, which is fed by passion and a highly developed sense of self. These destructive selfish influences create a drain on resources, create competition and envy, and cause people to always want more. This is not healthy nor sustainable. We live in cluttered homes with stuff we don’t need. We go after jobs and titles that make us a lot of money and boost our sense of self temporarily, but leave us miserable in the end. We make bad decisions about investments, resources, and much more because of ego. We start wars, we treat others poorly, all in sacrifice to this goal of personal fulfillment/passion/ego. I think we need to introduce a little nonattachment into the equation. And into the marketing equation as well.

I think the digital marketing experience, in the purest sense of marketing, in creating markets, can deliver better experiences and better decisions to people - if we focus on the outcome rather than the means to get there. We want people to have better experiences with the things they invest in and spend time with. We want people to select the right products and services and experiences – and careers, and volunteer roles, and so on. We need better information to make decisions. We want companies to have more successful technology rollouts; it’s better for everyone when things work properly, when products don’t have to be returned, when enterprise scale software implementations don’t get scuttled after hundreds of millions of dollars have been unsuccessfully spent. And the information is out there, and the explosion of digital allows us to collect, package and disseminate it in ways we never could before.

I do not believe in passion but I do believe in utility. I believe we are going to evolve – not entirely, but significantly -- away from interruptive marketing full of empty promises, toward usefulness and utility. I think this will take the form of structured information experiences delivered digitally to help people make informed objective decisions about the important things in their lives, be they work, family and friends, recreation, business or politics, along with things they own, and use every day. Imagine a pharmaceutical company surveying the families of thousands of subscribers of Alzheimers’ medication, and developing a three-year information guide to help families adjust and respond to a diagnosis, delivered as a plan in weekly information modules along with 24 hr support and monitoring. We have the collective knowledge to develop these kinds of tools. We now have the ability to efficiently capture, package and deliver it. And that is human, purposeful marketing that helps change people’s lives on a fundamental level. That is where we can get to, without having to look externally for bolt-on purpose or passion.

I am now going to take this to an entirely new level. I love the quote you selected:

"I believe wholeheartedly that a new form of capitalism is emerging.  More stakeholders, (customers, employees, shareholders, and the larger community) want their businesses to ... have a purpose bigger than their product." 
   -  Mats Lederhausen, Investor and former McDonalds executive

What I find most amazing about the entire discussion around purpose and meaning is that … we are having this dialogue as if these are things that we suddenly do externally. Businesses have a purpose bigger than their product. It’s called the quality of life of their employees, their employees’ families, and the quality of life of their customers.We have the ability to change lives and live lives of purpose every day within our sphere of influence: our workplaces, our families, the homeless guy at the corner, the new intern on her first day. Why aren’t we investing our energies in those places? Because it’s ego satisfying to find passion in big seemingly meaningful spectacular ego driving ways. We celebrate movies like The Blind Side  because that story is so exceptional (a privileged family takes a homeless boy into their home! holy cow!) that they made it into a movie, and that is just ... sad. Our purpose should be to reinvent ourselves from within, to focus on becoming kinder, less ego-driven workplaces, and kinder, less ego-driven people, kinder to each other and gentler on the resources we consume. We are individuals and we will never cease to be individuals, with strong egos and desires and passions already in place as part of our DNA.  I believe we need to try as much as we can to minimize that inner search for take our own desires out of the equation and focus on not passion, but selflessness and purpose.

My Reply (July 17)

Hey Jen,

I hate to break this to you.  But you are one of the most passionate people I now know.  Not only are you passionate, but you have this knack to collect the most passionate around you.  In fact, I would go so far as to blasphemy you in public.

"Jen Evans not only believes in passion, she practices it on a daily basis."
  - Sean Howard

But before I explain why I believe this to be so, let's recap where I believe we are in perfect, harmonious agreement.

I believe we are in agreement:

• On the opportunity to "help people make informed objective decisions about the important things in their lives" (I think digital will be like paper - one medium out of many)
• "Our purpose should be to reinvent ourselves from within, to focus on becoming kinder, less ego-driven workplaces, and kinder, less ego-driven people, kinder to each other and gentler on the resources we consume"
• "We go after jobs and titles that make us a lot of money and boost our sense of self temporarily, but leave us miserable in the end"
• "I believe we are going to evolve – not entirely, but significantly -- away from interruptive marketing full of empty promises, toward usefulness and utility"
• And the idea of the power of experience, content and utility when they are united to a measurable and positive outcome.

Back to your argument. 

I believe you may be confusing zeal with how I use the term passion.

Zeal being (according to Oxford) "great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective".  This doesn't sound so bad until we look at the root of the word.  It is from the Greek root Zelos.  The primary connotation of which is jealousy.  Eager desire.  And then we look at a zealot: "a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideal."

If I were to go through your argument and substitute zealousness in place of passion, then I would be in full agreement.  This type of emotion and encouraging it's growth have not led to good things and it could even be easily vilified as a key contributor to conspicuous consumption as well.

Passion is different to me.  And I can see where confusion comes in, as the definitions of this word are insanely broad.  Oxford has it as "an intense desire or enthusiasm for something" or "a thing arousing great enthusiasm."  Our dictionaries really suck.  It reads so similarly to Zeal.  With one caveat.  It's not about a cause that is always external.  And when I dig into the roots of the word, passio [latin] we find this idea of "suffering" and if we go all the way back to the Greek root of 'pathos', we find this sense of suffering and deep emotion.

It can be an all consuming fire.  It requires tempering.  On this, I certainly agree.  But I will argue later that it is not directly nor primarily responsible for the ills you attempt to connect to it.

I don't believe the search for passion is what has led to the inflation of ego and the drive for materialism.  I would argue that it is the inability to find real passion and purpose at a personal level that has enabled the ego to run rampant and has led to this yearning to be satisfied through rampant consumption.  I believe that the ego is actually checked by purpose and passion when these forces align.  And without alignment, the ego is easily fooled by zealots who would use and misappropriate a person's dreams, actions, etc.  Whether this zealot be a leader bent on world domination or the ex-head of GE.  :)

Let's go a bit zen for a moment.  I think we would both agree on the role purpose plays and that we both seek a world where individuals come to an understanding of their individual purpose and that this be a healthy force on the systems within which we live.  And clearly, it needs to be balanced and focused internally versus driven to achieve external signs of wealth and "greatness."

Assuming you are not running around screaming obscenities at me by this point, the potential agreement on purpose brings us to an interesting place.  Is there then a connection between passion and purpose?  I need to take a step back and turn to Jordan Peterson and his work to understand how we define and create meaning in the world.

His first tenet is that emotions do not function except in context to a goal.  As we move towards our goals, we feel good.  As we move away from our goals, we feel less good.  And each goal only exists within the context of a larger purpose.  Whether that purpose is to grow profits or help others.  And purpose only exists within the context of a social structure.  ie: our culture, a society or a company.  Which in itself lives inside a larger context.  Etc.

So Yes.  If you are a functioning member of society, passion and purpose are always connected.  But not always in a healthy way.

So what happens when we don't have internally set goals?  Let's assume we are excited to join a company that has a strong purpose.  We likely accept some of the goals that align with their purpose and this helps us feel good, have confidence and feel like a successful member of the organization.  But it doesn't stop there.  We also feel good about ourselves and our role in society.

But many corporations still live and die to drive materialism (or as they would put it - shareholder value).  Or they see purpose as the stability they bring their workers.  Stay focused on beating Pepsi.  What more do you need?

If we want to see a world where people have inner strength, then I would suggest we will want to find ways to connect individuals from the bottom up to passion and purpose and then align these individuals to organizations where the purpose and goals of the organization are not at extreme conflict with their personal beliefs.  Coke can still be focused on beating Pepsi.  Only now, the workers are allies in something bigger that is not about just driving consumption.

What's really neat is this is not just a philosophical debate.  Businesses are changing.  For Benefit (with profits) is emerging as a significant force.  For profit businesses are changing how they define their vision, purpose and objectives.  Often, they are doing so from the bottom up.  Allowing their employees to find and share in the passion, purpose and benefits.  Some of the most significant changes in business afoot today are around enabling mastery, autonomy and passion within the workforce at a positive, individual level.

Tom's Shoes.
Interface.
Google.

"The science shows that the secret to high performance isn’t our biological drive or our reward-and-punishment drive, but our third drive – our deep-seated desire to direct our own lives, to extend and expand our abilities, and to live a life of purpose."  (Daniel Pink, Drive)

I wanted to make sure I got back to the idea of zeal.  And how a zealot is someone "who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideal."  I spent some time with this statement because I think that we are in a time of significant social change and this uncompromising attitude may be the single largest threat you and I both face in our quite similar missions to create a world that is not driven by materialism or blind external faith.

If there is anything that has led to war, it is sacred beliefs.  By sacred beliefs I do not necessarily mean religious, but rather any belief that is not subject to challenge.  These beliefs are at the core of all conflicts.  There is a great bit of work being done on sacred beliefs that I was reading about in the latest Scientific American Mind, July/August 2010.  Beliefs not subject to negotiation are what drive the political landscape, negotiations and conflicts of our present day.

At the end of your article you bring things back to something you are driven to accomplish which I believe is tied in with the empathic marketing you mention in the original challenge.  I am very interested in this idea and hope you will have a chance to elaborate further on it.

But I also promised you Rumi.  So I end with my dearest Coleman Barks translation.  It is about this search for selflessness and purpose you speak of, but from a vantage point of inner passion (at least to me).

The Center of the Fire

No more wine for me!
I'm past delighting in the thick red
and the clear white.

I'm thirsty for my own blood
as it moves into a field of action.

Draw the keenest blade you have
and strike, until the head circles
about the body.

Make a mountain of skulls like that.
Split me apart.

Don't stop at the mouth!
Don't listen to anything I say.
I must enter the center of the fire.

Fire is my child
but I must be consumed
and become fire.

Why is there crackling and smoke?
Because the firewood and the flames
are still talking:

"You are too dense. Go away!"
"You are too wavering. I have solid form."

In the blackness those two friends keep arguing.
Like a wanderer with no face.
Like the most powerful bird in existence
sitting on its perch, refusing to move.

What can I say to someone so curled up with wanting,
so constricted in his love?

Break your pitcher against a rock.
We don't need any longer
to haul pieces of the ocean around.

We must drown, away from heroism,
and descriptions of heroism.

Like a pure spirit lying down, pulling
its body over it, like a bride her husband
for a cover to keep her warm.

(Mevlâna Jalâluddîn Rumi translated by Coleman Barks.  Source)

Jen's Response (July 28)

So Sean, first of all, I love that Rumi. Reminded me of reading Ondaatje's the cinnamon peeler for the first time. Gorgeous. The kind of passage that transforms you as you read it. But I'm starting to wax poetic and we're here to talk about marketing. Er, passion. And the intersection of the two.

Yes, I have the passion. Whatever you call it: zeal, enthusiasm, passion, I have it. I am passionate about a lot of things. And as a business owner, I also have a passion for profitable growth. Really, I want my business to be not only successful, but game changing! Epic! World dominating! Paradigm shifting!

And therein lies the problem. I am very passionate. I start to become attached to the outcome of my passion, the end result. And that is where passion becomes dangerous: when we are compelled to defend it. The *instant* we become attached to some outcome of that passion, it starts controlling us. I love to paint becomes attachment to the idea of being a great painter (for all but the least ego-involved.) Or producing a masterpiece. The teachings of christ are amazing! becomes: we must follow them down to the last literal letter, and anyone who disagrees with us clearly has the wrong kind of passion, so let's get rid of 'em. And so on. Bringing it back to digital: how many ridiculously defensive blog posts and comments have you read where people will tear a strip off each other - off people they don't even know - just to win a point? Not that I'm judging, but ... Ego. Dumb, hungry, endlessly unsatisfied, defensive, selfish ego.

There is a great rudyard kipling quote: if you can meet with triumph and disaster/and treat those two impostors just the same. Think about that. Success and failure are the same. Passion-fed ego makes that perception almost impossible. We read too much of our perceived selves into it. Our industry is the same. We celebrate great cool clever campaigns and mock 'failures' (all descriptors subjective). We don't celebrate effectiveness and utility. We don't push for innovation. Why? Because we are attached, through reputation, or compensation, or yes, passion, to the status quo.  

So yes, I am passionate. And I now work very consciously, and with great difficulty and continual failure, to not be attached to that passion, to observe those passionate feelings, recognize them, but not be driven by them. You have to work really hard to not be attached to the idea of being better, smarter, or the smartest. Or the best. Because the ego will do just about anything, rationalize all kinds of behaviours and delusions, to make sure it gets satisfied. And when you start to really get into the idea of non-attachment ... Well, it's the thin end of the wedge that makes you start to question the validity of cartesian thinking and being. What if my thinking has nothing to do with my being and is in fact a false symptom? Chew on that one for a minute. But I digress. Once we get through marketing and poetry we can move on to philosophy .... But first let's tie this back to the task at hand.

Marketing comms and advertising have traditionally been blunt force bait and switch. I will appeal to your emotion/ego in order to get you to buy thing x. Does it actually do or make you feel that thing? By and large, no. In other words, we sell false promises based on perceived need: an agenda that is set by marketers. It's a hideous, clumsy way of matching consumer need to object. We've also made it very sophisticated, expensive and industrialized, an unrefined blunt object that manipulates emotion to achieve its goal. The promise is rarely delivered upon, if ever. We can do better. Then, it's about utility. It's about: how do we change. How do we use the collective knowledge we now have at our fingertips to make things better and deliver more meaningful experiences.  How do we use this incredible set of tools to learn more about each other, and communicate, and make improvements on a societal level as well? That takes non-attachment. That takes moving past advertising and selling a product and into true societal utility.


I don't think we are far off. I think it is a natural evolution given these amazing digital toolsets and datasets we can now pull together. Do I have a clue what it is going to look like? I have my ideas, yes, and they revolve around the impending realization companies are going to have soon: that they actually can do a really good job of talking to their customers and prospects, directly, themselves. Now, I have a lot invested in that reality happening, so I don't pretend to be objective or have all the answers, but I will say this: it looks nothing like it does right now. Old spice was a funny example of this. You saw a lot of advertisers saying, see? SEE? There's life in the old dog yet. And yes, the old spice campaign was fun. Fleeting. Ephemera. And we need that in the world. But is it anything new? Is it a really great example of the power of connection to change how we decide what we want and why? Not really. Funny though! And there will always be room for funny and shocking and engaging based on the mores of the time. But what we have here, the thing that is different and new,  is an opportunity to change what marketing is and what it accomplishes. From meaningless, to something that reflects and helps us better understand what it really, really means to be human.

And on that grandiose note, I await your rejoinder.

The Creative Brief

The Creative Brief.

A topic that strikes fear into the hearts of some.

And rabid devotion in others.

What does it mean to question the Creative Brief?

What can we learn by tossing back the covers and looking at how we and others in our industry approach and use the brief?

Jasmin from my team recently decided to explore this topic in more detail and some totally awesome folks agreed to be interviewed.

We hope you find these findings as valuable as we did.

The Creative Brief: A Research Project

View more presentations from Jasmin Cheng.

Many thanks to:

• Tim Brunelle
• Gareth Kay
• Darryl Ohrt
• Faris Yakob
• Renee Quan
• Paul Tedesco
• Leigh Himel
• Leslie Ehm
• Ellen DiResta

Fuck yes!

Vcu 2

View more presentations from hackemer.

The Future of Physics (basic mechanics)

I was dreaming of a world where kids fought with their parents in order to spend more time learning physics.

Only it's not a dream.  It's here today and it is called "Little Big Planet" (only for PS3).

Little Big Planet is a most amazing experience.  There are no guns, wars or shooting people in the head (though there are plenty of explosives and deadly items).  It is a game where you create your own little "sack person" and you run him through a series of mini levels.  What makes this game unusual is that these mini-levels are created using the tools every user has access to.

[awesome embedded video above]

We build our own worlds or levels and then share them with the community to play.  They can be devilishly hard, beautifully sculpted or just a crazy fun fast rocket car ride someone thought up.

The most important thing about this game is that there is no logic.  There is no ability to program the system like most map editors "if X happens, then trigger Y".  Rather, you can program things, but only by mastering basic switches and general mechanics.

I spent a good couple of days chasing down and inspecting logic gates built out of wood, switches and simple sensors.  Users of all ages had created, modified and adapted these switches in an almost dizzying array of approaches.  Here is one of my favorite collections made out of wood, joints and two switches.

Danny Hillis built a computer out of tinker toys at MIT.  Today, kids are learning to build crazy things like calculators and random generators out of very similar materials using this multi-player console game.  And they are fighting their parents to spend more time playing, learning and building.

Here is a video that shows an insane random generator built out of switches and magnets.

Here is another video of how to build your own gravity defying vehicle (it climbs any surface and can jump between surfaces.)

Here is the best part.  This game incorporates something very akin to the creative commons license.  When I build a level, I feel compelled to give away prizes for other people to win when they play my level.  So I have a choice: give away things I have found or build my own prizes.  Often, I will give away something cool I created in the level they are playing.  The rights management part means I can choose whether someone can edit the creations I give them and whether they can pass them on (use them as prizes in their own levels).

Did your brain explode?  Mine did.  The users are creating the levels.  And the users are creating the prizes.  The users are also tagging and voting up the levels.  This is the future of massively multi-player games. And it's insanely addictive.

Most console games don't hold my attention for very long.  I get frustrated and tire of all the levels after a week or so.  Some of you may have noticed I haven't posted in quite some time.  I have to admit that I have become totally addicted to this game, as have some of my friends.  I am working on a level right now where a giant baby chicken is trying to find his blood hungry mother.  For the life of me, I can't get the wobbly boards to behave so I'm now watching tutorials on YouTube by other LBP creators.

Today I found myself logging in to see how many people had played my last level and what they thought of it. I love my blog, but let me tell you, LBP is a much cooler drug and I actually find it fascinating how it is opening up my creativity in how I can design forever more complicated and interactive items with nothing but basic mechanics.

I have to go, I have an idea for the baby chicken that involves a "double AND gate" made out of wood.

Image Sources: gamesweasel, Phil149, Mike Schmid

Play More: Embedded Futures

This is an experiment to enable more play in my life.  I've come to realize that - for me - to play is to create, to dream and to imagine. So I will begin with a possibility that arose when I first interacted with a Flip Video Camera.

A year ago I came across my first Flip Video Camera.  The amazement of flicking a switch and seeing a USB connector pop out amazed me so much that I went around the office demonstrating this feature over and over to the immense enjoyment of my co-workers.  Click.  Click.  Click. See!  Full frame video and audio for less than $100 and no cable!  Click.  Click.  Click. 

A neat solution to something few in the industry addressed as a problem - not having a cable on hand.  But this was not the real innovation as I saw it.  What floored me was that there was no software to install (aside from a driver issue).  Rather, the software to edit and upload your movies existed on the camera in PC and Mac formats.  Plugging in the camera caused it to appear as a drive and double clicking the software on the camera would cause it to run on your computer. 

This idea of software delivered "embedded" in a device is what got me excited.

I'm going to take a very broad and liberal view of "embedded software".  The industry views embedded software as something extremely specialized and included on a chip to better enable the hardware to interact with the real world.  But what if software came embedded on devices the way the Flip software for editing videos comes "embedded" on the Flip Video camera?

Questions for Playing

What are the human behaviors?  The unmet needs?

Devices that require software to be installed SEVERELY limit their ability to be used collaboratively with others who don't have the software installed.  As we move into a participatory culture and world, should devices that require software not come with the needed software on them?  I buy apps on my iPhone that require me to install software on my PC or Mac.  But updating my iPhone software doesn't update the computer software.  And further, to use these apps with another computer I have to find and download the software required.  Why?

What trends/changes show a shift away from software delivered via CD-ROM?

Networked computing/storage is exploding.  Google Docs, anyone?  How many people are shifting to buying and downloading software?  What if media was intelligent and DRM was less about who could use it and where it was being used from?  Networking standards have come a very long way.  I can connect my Mac and PCs to the same networks with less and less issues.

What if in the future we upgrade our "computers" by purchasing other physical devices that enable new features or capabilities in our devices?

Scenarios / Play Time!

The Car as Catalyst

Kat was late for work.  Again.  She grabbed her purse, coat and keys and shoved them under one arm, freeing up her hands to initiate a call to her assistant on her iphone.  Her car - sensing the approaching keys with an RFID signature - turned on the lights, started the engine and unlocked the doors.  Tossing everything haphazardly into the car and speaking into the bluetooth earpiece, "Jana, can you move my 8am?  I'm not gonna make it."

Her iphone beeped in her ear.  It had connected to the car and found local software standing by to run.  She began to dig through the debris on the seat beside her to find her phone while listening to Jana complain about how full her day already was.  "Aha!" she pronounced as she came up with the phone, much to Jana's surprise.  "It's cool, Jana, just reschedule Marketing to next week.  I'll call him later today."

She pressed "Proceed" on her phone, allowing it to launch the apps found in the car and quickly bypassed the signature check.  The dashboard application came to life - allowing her iPhone to take over the entertainment functions for the vehicle.  She smiled and turned to put her hands on the wheel, knowing that her favorite programming would begin as soon as this call ended. If it ended. Jana continued to ramble on about some trip the Chairman wanted her to take.  She put the car into reverse and backed out of the driveway, making a mental note to download some new audiobooks on time management to her phone.

The Printer as Enabler

Jeremy ran the office for a small not-for-profit that helped to develop sustainable building projects in the core of Toronto.  He felt good about his job but his role could be quite challenging. He was constantly tasked to accomplish the impossible on budgets that were always insufficient.  His latest task was to replace the aging office equipment as well as upgrade everyone's software in the office with a budget that was more appropriate to throwing a pizza party.

So when Jeremy decided he needed a new printer for the office, he became very interested in the new lines of multi-use printer/copier/fax/scanner/counterfeiting units.  There were so many to choose from. It was a bit daunting and he had already wasted an afternoon at one of the stores with some kid who was just reading to him from the boxes.  One model did stand out in his mind, however, and it was the new Xerox model.

He didn't really care the technology the printers used to print but he did like their story about less waste.  What really amazed him about this particular unit was that it came with a full copy of Photoshop SmallOffice - they called it "Smart Software".  He wasn't quite sure what "Smart Software" was but figured it was worth a risk.  He had 24 hours to return it with no questions asked. 

When he unpacked the printer, he was a bit surprised that there were no CD-ROMs or software to install.  The quick-start guide walked him through how to plug the printer in and how to get it on the network. Jeremy walked through the setup instructions while eating a bagel and as he pressed the last button, he had to jump back.  Like magic, a network drive began to appear on every computer in the office - Macs and PCs.

He sat down at his computer, thinking this was beyond cool.  There was a folder for drivers and another folder for software.  He clicked on the software folder and there was a Mac and a PC executable for Photoshop as well as ScanSoft.  He double clicked Photoshop and sure enough, a full copy of Photoshop SmallOffice launched.  A screen came up and said he was the only user and 2 more copies could be run at any time by any other computer on his network.  It also warned him not to copy the software to his computer as it would only run when launched from the printer.

Was this cool?  Sure, but Jeremy wasn't sure how this would be adopted.  Over the next few weeks he became a believer.  His office saw a constant flux of people as they used a lot of part-time and even seasonal staff.  Suddenly it was ridiculously easy to get people connected to the printer.  And if they needed to scan something, the software was right there for them.  No more installing of CD's and the like.  Furthermore, his graphic artist on staff was beyond happy as they had been using a copy of Photoshop that was 5 years old.  If anything, Jeremy was interested in buying more concurrent licenses for the applications...

Electronics as Enhancement

"Is that the new Samsung 3000+ Entertainment console?", Josh asked in a reverent and disbelieving tone.  Greg grinned and nodded.  Josh gulped visibly and a look of envy flashed across his face before he regained his composure.  "That's the one that turns on 5D sound in World of Warcraft 7?"  His question died at the end as he noticed the shit-eating grin on Greg's face.

Greg had to laugh as he pulled his laptop from under the coffee table and presented it to Josh.  "Here.  Try it."  Josh had been reading the reviews and his hand trembled as he went to launch World of Warcraft from the Start menu only to have Greg bat his mouse hand away.  "Dude.  Please.  You have to run the special version off the console."

Josh looked like a geek who had been shown up by a small child.  Greg grinned and double clicked the network drive for his sound console and launched the icon located there under games.  It quickly searched his hard drive for the other needed game components and then launched the advanced version that took advantage of the unique capabilities of the house-shaking sound system that the packaging promised "came close to bending time and space."

Play with Me, It's Fun!

This is about playing, not predicting.  It's about unlearning and exploring without the normal boundaries in place.  What emerges and what other ideas come up are totally a bonus.  So wade on in.

P.S.  Come on Alan, you can't let that last title "get off" so easily.  ;)

Creating Experiences that Bring About Change - Part 1

When Experiences Must Do Something

I feel it is important to start with a simple hypothesis - that what we are able to think of is constrained directly by what we are able to imagine.  So if we can't imagine different futures beyond the present situation, then we can't effectively explore new ideas, cover new ground or innovate.

Now imagine we are on a project with a large team and our role as a planner or as a UX person is to help the group frame the challenges and opportunities facing the client/organization. Some would say this is our only role.  Here I turn to a much needed conversation going on between Matthew Milan and Adrian about the overlap and state of affairs within planning and UX.

"As a planner I saw my job as creating new possibilities. I wanted to always be on the side of providing an opening for my brands and my colleagues to explore and play within a completely different and unexpected context."  Adrian

I agree and feel quite strongly that we have to "change" the audience so that they have the ability to "see" different realities in a world where few people spend time imagining things differently.  How we accomplish this is the "black art" of our field.  Do we draw a picture, create a powerpoint or tell a story?I

I propose that we must do what they are asking us to do - create an experience that has the potential to involve the viewer and enable the change to occur.

A Model For Creating Change
Hillis spoke some time back (2004) at the Long Now Foundation about the "Progress on the 10,000-year Clock".  Hillis is attempting the impossible by many accounts.  He is looking to change how we see the world, the future and - by extension - what is possible.

37 minutes into his presentation, he stops presenting what has been built to date and begins talking about how the clock is more than a thing - how it is an experience designed to change the viewer/visitor. 

He presents a model for the stages of an experience that can change the participant. (I was surprised to find out that he had spent time at Disney focused on creating experiences.)

• Picture:  we require a picture in our mind of what it is we are going to accomplish. 
• Commit:  the moment where we choose to engage - to commit.
• Glimpse:  a glimpse of something that pulls us forward - the "weenie in front of the dog."
• Trial:  a period of confusion where we leave behind our old ways of thinking - where we are unsure and even frightened enough to look for something different or new.
• Arrive:  we achieve what we set out to accomplish.
• Payoff:  the "high". A moment of reflection.
• Secrete Payoff: secret and personal payoff that only the people who have the experience can realize.
• Return:  start over at the beginning.

((Rituals appear to share many of these.  Future article?))

7 simple stages to think about in crafting an experience (or series of experiences) with a loop back to the beginning.  For this article, I want to call our attention to the very first step.  To have a picture.  A step so very often overlooked and yet so critically important.

It seems simple enough.  We paint a "picture" of what the experience is going to be like and use our media people to get this picture in front of everyone that matters.  If only it was that simple.  Going back to the opening hypothesis, our audience has to believe something is possible and be able to imagine it before they can even have a hope of "seeing it" let alone believing it.  So what do we do when we are trying to invent something "out of the box" or "new/different"?

Role of Comics
I've spoken about comics a few times now and I've been using them as a prototyping tool in a variety of situations.  This has been great, but it is becoming clear that comics are applicable for far more than just prototyping. 

They excel at the first step in the Hillis model.  They not only present a picture, they give the user the tools to imagine a different world and slowly change their perception to the point they can consider an idea.

There's been some high profile and really amazing uses of comics recently in just this context.

Google Chrome: Google wanted to introduce a new browser into the market that redefined a whole slew of protocols, technologies and methods used to build a browser.  They needed to generate awareness and buy-in on the concepts and why a new browser is needed - topics generally beyond most people's interest or ability to comprehend.   Yet critical if one were to imagine a new standard for browsers.  Their initial launch idea?  A brilliant comic by Scott McCloud.

Akoha: Akoha is attempting to bring "pay it forward" into a social networking environment.  This requires that people be engaged in learning what "pay it forward" is and then to be interested and willing to explore how Akoha works.  A lot of work when the goal is to create sign-ups and growth in the usage of the site.

 

I'm interested in what others in the field have to say about experiences that can bring about change, the Hillis model and/or the role of comics in this context.  Join in!

The Role of Serious Play in the Boardroom

I recently penned an article on my consulting blog that I thought might be of interest to readers here.

I remember my first real experimentation with play to solve a serious business problem and it occurred way back in 2001.  I was a Senior Strategist with ICE and we were working on the second largest e-commerce initiative in Canada for a packaged travel company (packaged vacations).  We had recently wrapped up a 2 months planning phase that culminated in a dangerously heavy set of bound documentation.

continue reading

I look at one of the first times I used a "Serious Play" exercise in a boardroom with "suits" and how it led to a major insight on the project.