tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13249007601468997212024-03-14T08:51:39.081+00:00together-in-betweenTracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-11902419994772938492015-01-04T23:04:00.003+00:002015-01-05T08:21:18.403+00:00The Future of Brand Building is Triangular <div class="MsoNormal">
<b>This essay was submitted to, and shortlisted for, the Admap Prize 2014 and is reproduced with the kind permission of warc.</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This essay is an argument for a new shape. In order to
recognize how to now shape a brand in the post-digital world one needs to
acknowledge the shape of events around it. I will argue that everything in the
communications world should now take on a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">triangular
</i>shape. Brands are no longer built in a bilateral way by building
relationships with consumers alone; they are now built in a triangular way by
building relationships with three partners: consumers, government/regulators
and the wider community. In order to build the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">triangular </i>brands of the future, we are going to need triangular
skillsets, and that means nurturing and recruiting <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">triangular </i>people<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">.</i> <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">People Build Brands <o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Are brands built by people or built by ideas? We most often
reference the Brand Idea or the Advertising Idea as the best method to build a
brand, and much commentary has been devoted to how these ideas, big or small,
and their models and frameworks, have changed since the coming of the
information age and communications became ‘digital’. But it is an often
over-looked fact that brands are as much built and sustained by <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">people</i>, as they are built and sustained
by an idea. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When I recently interviewed around twenty of the
first-generation planners who had worked in JWT and BMP around 1968 to
investigate the origins of planning, I was struck by just how much these
planners moulded, influenced and in some cases created the brands they worked
with. Brands like Persil, Oxo, Kellogs’s Cornflakes, whose fate often lay in the
imagination of the planner, alongside their understanding of consumer
behaviour, in order to drive what the brand would say and do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It made me reconsider the importance of the
people who build brands, particularly with regard to the post-digital era of
communication in which we now find ourselves. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Now more so than ever,
brands have people behind them.</i> That is to say not only visible
spokespeople but also the invisible hoards of people literally behind the brand
communication, typing away on Twitter and Facebook and all kinds of other
social media, posing as the human side of the corporate brand and having a
‘personal’ or ‘one to one’ conversation with anyone who wants to engage. Who
are these people? How much control do they have over what the brand says? And
to whom it speaks? It sounds a trivial question but it isn’t at all. These days
every idea is pumped out into social media in the form of ‘beta’ testing and if
it is taken up immediately by enough people it is considered a success. It
certainly is one way to create momentum and ‘noise’ around a brand but is it
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">right</i> way to build a brand, in a
digital world?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I would argue that the industry has lost its brand-building
leaders. In the hands of social media or community managers, brands have become
reactive rather than responsive; have sacrificed depth of meaning for breadth
of attention; and in many cases are always-on rather than
always-to-be-counted-on. And the net effect is like that of a wind-tunnel test
in the car market: brands are increasingly all looking and sounding the same.
It’s time to fix that. Let’s create a new generation of brand leaders to build
and maintain brands in the digital world and let’s allow them to do this
important job properly. As we now enter the fully digital world in which
everything and everyone is connected, there has been no more important job in
the history of brands, than the one to be done now. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I say this because I believe that, in a digital world,
brands are no longer built in a bilateral way through a simplistic relationship
between a manufacturer and a consumer. That was the case for many years in a
world in which products, in particular, fast moving consumer goods products,
dominated our lives; a world in which efficiency was our primary need and the
solution that brands could supply. Now we don’t seek efficiency so much as we
seek connectivity. In a digital world we need to be connected in order to make
anything work for us or around us. In a connected world, at any moment at which
you are ‘disconnected’ you are vulnerable. And that goes for brands too. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the last few years we have seen a few brands become
literally ‘disconnected’. And the net effect of this is a feeling that they have
somehow been ‘caught out’. They deserve to be <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
punished by consumers if government isn’t going to meter out
any retribution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do I really want to
place my savings in a bank that has been found guilty of fixing the Libor rate?
Do I really want to buy my books and DVDs from an online general store that
avoids paying tax? Do I really want to spend 1 in 8 of my hard-earned pounds at
a supermarket that serves me horsemeat in my ready meals rather than the beef
its packaging claims is inside? Do I want to spend my money anywhere that is
not prepared to pay its employees a living wage? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The reason these situations have become so public and have
continued to form part of the discussion and debate is because we now expect <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">everything</i>, including brands, to be connected.
The world of brands is now interconnected, and in a digitally interconnected
world a brand cannot wear two faces. It cannot show one face to consumers and
then another to the local community it impacts or employs, and perhaps yet
other face to government and regulators. In a connected world it only has
permission to show one face, the same face, to all and everyone. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The Rise of the
Triangular Brand</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Hence the emergence of what I would call the Triangular
Brand<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">:</b> the brand that has three
sides, three corners, points in three separate directions but itself has a
congruent, stable and honest shape. A brand that is the same from every angle
you look at it. In fact, in ancient history or philosophical terms, the
triangle is the shape that symbolizes <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">harmony</i>
and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">creativity.</i> And that is what
brand-builders in the digital world of the 21<sup>st</sup> Century should be
aiming for when they steward a brand, they should be ‘building’ into their
brand, harmony and creativity. They should be building a Triangular Brand.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
How can one build a triangular brand? A brand that is
connected and has truth and consistency across its consumer, government and
social community communication?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am reminded of some classic Toblerone advertising:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Toblerone out on its own. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Triangular chocolate, that’s Toblerone.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Made from triangular honey from triangular bees <o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">and triangular almonds from triangular trees”<o:p></o:p></i></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you want to build a triangular brand, you have to build
it using elements that are themselves, triangular. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That means people who have the skill-set to bridge the
current divides between consumer, government and society. One could argue I
suppose that all one needs to do is find individuals from each of these areas
and build a super-triangular team. But as I argued earlier, what is lacking in
the digital world, is not collaboration across teams of diverse people; what is
lacking is leadership. A ‘fish rots from the head down’ as the Chinese would
say, and if your leader is not triangular themself, then what hope is there for
those that take their direction from him or her; what hope is there for the
brand that they are building? A triangular brand needs a triangular element at
the top: it needs a triangular leader. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To investigate this further, we need to go on a slight
detour, via the Harvard Business Review, into the world of management
science.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In an article entitled ‘Triple
Strength Leadership’, Nick Grove and Matthew Thomas highlighted why and how
executives need to move easily amongst business, government and social spheres.
They used an example of a Coca-Cola executive solving a major problem the
company was facing in South India. The company was facing opposition to its
water consumption and had been banned from soft-drink production in the region
as a result. An external consultant, Jeff Seabright, was brought into Coca-Cola
to develop a strategy for sustainable water stewardship in the position of Head
of Environment. To cut a long story short, he solved the problem but much of
his success was put down to, what the authors would call, tri-sector skills. To
quote them:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Jeff Seabright is a rare breed. He epitomizes
what Joseph Nye has called a “tri-sector athlete”, someone who can engage and
collaborate across the private, public and social sectors. Drawing on his
cross-sector experience, Seabright can appreciate the needs, aspirations and
incentives of people in all three sectors and speak their language”.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And indeed, we should be building brands in the digital age,
that themselves are connected across all three spheres, and can speak all three
languages. But it will take leaders who are triangular themselves to create
these kinds of triangular brands. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Jeff Seabright’s career had taken him from working in policy
planning at Texaco, to that of a diplomat within the Foreign Service, the US
Senate and on President Clinton’s task force on Climate Change. He had also
worked within USAID, and in his proposals to Coca-Cola used this to good effect
when he established some joint projects with USAID as part of a sustainability
initiative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Contrast this with most of
the CMOs responsible for brand-building today, or the heads of advertising
agencies, media groups, or even planners. How many can say that they have
triangular experience? <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Are they then fit
to build brands today, let alone those of the future?</i><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are some examples though. Here in the UK, Martha
Lane-Fox, started her career at an IT and media consultancy firm where her
first project was for British Telecom, and was called ‘what is the internet?’
She then founded her own company called Lastminute.com, an online travel and
gift business and successfully floated it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>She then joined the boards of Marks & Spencer and Channel 4 and was
later appointed as the UK Government’s Digital Inclusion Champion to head a
two-year campaign to make the British public more computer literate. She then
launched the charity GO ON UK to make the UK the world’s most digitally skilled
nation. She joined the House of Lords last year becoming its youngest female
member. As stunning as her career has been imagine if some of this experience,
and its triangulation, could be used to build a brand. In some ways, it is: it
is building Brand GB, but in terms of corporate life, if she was leading the
development of a food conglomerate brand or the world’s biggest technology
platform, how coherent, how meaningful and how influential would that brand be?
Just imagine. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Searching for the
Triangular People of Tomorrow<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In a time when friction between the three sectors is at an
all time high (a cursory look at the recent TFL tube strikes in London, gives
one a glimpse of the never-ending blame game that continues, between the
government, the service providers and unions, and the end users - businesses
and consumers).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Businesses often regard
NGOs and government as bureaucratic and inept; government often see the private
sector as individualistic and opportunistic, and <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
society at large has lost trust in both government and
business with regard to their ability to build in any sense of care towards
people or planet. It is one reason that Cameron’s ‘Big Society’, hypothetically
a big thought, went nowhere. No-one could envisage the three different species
of people working together. That was because Big Society was an objective that
had the wrong strategy behind it. The right strategy would have been to find
triangular leaders who could bridge the divides and make sense of it all for
each side. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Likewise for brands, if built properly for the 21<sup>st</sup>
Century, actually brands that could broker these different positions, and in
particular should be built by triangular people with the tri-sector experience
who can speak all sectors’ language. If I were Eric Schmidt or Tim Cooke, or
Mark Zuckerburg, I would be looking to engage leaders with this kind of
triangular experience as the themes of data privacy, advertising to children,
illiteracy, and pornography come to the fore for everyone - consumers,
governments and social communities – and must be answered, rather than ignored,
by these brands<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But this is not just a concern for the technology brands,
born in the digital world, in some ways it is of most concern for some of the
most established 20<sup>th</sup> Century brands responsible for one of our most
precious global resources: our food.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> </b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">And if I were Nestle, Unilever, or P&G I
would be looking at who has the triangulation of experience that could ensure
the brands in my portfolio were triangular too. </i>As issues of health,
wellness and nutrition escalate in a world in which more people are now dying
from obesity than starvation, I would be seeking brand-builders who have the
triangular experience to build me <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">one</i>
brand that can speak <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">three languages</i>
that says the same thing, to consumers, government regulators and social
communities.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In summary, I have not argued for the new position of a
Chief Triangulation Officer because that would just be an adjunct to an
existing team. I am arguing for a rethink of the team. In fact not the team,
but a complete re-think of the kind of leader that is now required to build
brands in the digital world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are
many layers of leadership that exist as one builds a brand: the CEO, the CMO,
the brand manager, the planner, the customer experience manager, the innovation
or NPD manager, and the head of PR and communications. I am arguing that
alongside the CEO or CMO having a triangular CV, at every one of the other
layers triangulation should be encouraged.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If I am to think about career advice that I would now be giving to
planners in my own department, I would be suggesting they seriously consider how,
if they have only ever worked in the private sector, they find ways to gain
government experience and become involved in more social and community
initiatives, whether those be local or global. Today, on 16<sup>th</sup>
February, an article in the Sunday Times quotes the recent DEMOS report
findings that today’s teenagers are more highly aware than ever of social
issues, are keen to volunteer and are determined to use their digital skills to
change society for the better. In a separate survey of teachers, 66% found that
the most popular words they use to describe this generation are ‘caring’,
‘enthusiastic’ and ‘hard-working’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we
believe that these Millennials are also the most marketing-savvy too, then we
can see a generation of triangular people ready to build triangular brands, on
the horizon. And what a great portent that spells for all of us for tomorrow.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">References<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Triple-Strength Leadership”, Nick Lovegrove and Matthew
Thomas, in Harvard Business Review, published September 2013 <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Wikipedia, entry on ‘Martha Lane-Fox’ as at 16<sup>th</sup>
February 2014<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
“Today’s Teenagers do give a damn” Sunday Times, 16<sup>th</sup>
February 2014<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: -14.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: -14.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: -14.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: -14.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #888888; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Brand, CMO, Coca Cola, culture, Demos, digital, future, HBR, martha lane-fox, skills, toblerone, trends</span></div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:PixelsPerInch>96</o:PixelsPerInch>
<o:TargetScreenSize>800x600</o:TargetScreenSize>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-GB</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<!--EndFragment--><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: -14.2pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-23213984632067733422012-03-16T14:37:00.000+00:002012-03-16T14:38:22.365+00:00SXSW #3: Tactivism<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; "><p>So it's day 4 and I feel exhausted. Not because the SXSW talks are too much or the sun is sapping my energy. But because I feel under an immense pressure to be energetic about a cause or an issue every waking minute of the day.</p><p>Yesterday I attended an interesting panel on 'brands as patterns'. There were some insightful points made around the analogous areas of music and architecture - around the idea of choreographing experiences so that people feel they are both familiar and surprised by the brand. For this reason they posit that in the future interaction designers rather than marketing managers will be the brand guardians (but that's another blogpost!).</p><p>Anyway the talk then went off into the need for every brand to have 'a values based mission that empowers people'.</p><p>If felt very much that if you are going to say it's not about brand narrative anymore, (only about user experience) then you can support your case by hiding behind some lofty cause-related position that renders your argument acceptable. </p><p>Time and again I could hear the drum beat of activism underneath nearly every presentation.</p><p>Social activism came out loud and clear in Biz Stone's presentation. In a very compelling, evangelical talk he took us through the principles on which he built Twitter. Passionate about baking-in good causes to the business he creates he stated that 'the future of marketing is philanthropy'. Our businesses always have to be doing something to help people. He suggested that instead of Coke spending money on advertising they should just supply red cups to the World Food Programme, claiming 'what great marketing is that!' </p><p>No-one here seems to understand that the only reason Coke could do this is because of the equity it has built up over years, the meaning it has created and the brand story it has told.</p><p>And anyway I can't imagine that awareness of such an association would go beyond the recipients, the digerati and the left-wing press. Coca Cola, a brand built on its strength of distribution surviving by only doing this? I don't think so.</p><p>The day before, I attended a conference panel on celebrities and causes. The main thrust of the argument being that celebs should only get involved in the issues they really care about. Lady Gaga was held up as the shining model of getting this right. Her support of "don't ask, don't tell', LBGT rights and anti-bullying. Strangely these sorts of issues have helped to recruit so many little monsters that she now has something like 4m followers. Which came first though, the activism or the marketing?</p><p>Sean Parker and Al Gore preached to a packed crowd about the evils of the TV medium, about how TV has gatekeepers, how anti-democratic it is as a medium for politics and how the Internet has returned to us a form of political town-square debate that will out-popularise TV in the long run.</p><p>Sean Parker who now runs a company called 'causes' (where he matches issue based groups with politicians) and Gore talked about how TV monopolises media with the messages of only those that can afford it and what people now have with digital is a set of tools, through which they can take action. In fact it is their duty to take action.</p><p>They failed to see that only the richest too get best access to the Internet as an advertising medium; that social platforms aren't object but value-laden too; that progress lies not within a group of people who all feel compelled to say they 'like' the same thing but in conflict, dissent and debate; and that not everyone's opinion is as valid as another just because 'we all have a voice now'.</p><p>The idea that traditional media is corrupted but new media isn't just seems extremely naive to me.</p><p>The author of "You are not a gadget" was much more informed and expert around this subject in another talk on the good and bad of technology, and he said:</p><p>"Facebook has two versions of you. One you can see (your page) and one you can't (your algorithm) which determines which ads you see, when, and what happens and doesn't happen in your news feed".</p><p>He quite rightly called for democracy and empowerment in new media saying: "People have to own their own information in order to be empowered by it". Exactly.</p><p>In all this talk of collaborative consumption and shared ownership and loveliness and community - we seem to have forgotten the political power brokers who sit behind these new media platforms pulling the information-access strings!</p><p>And so overall there is an unspoken political doctrine of SXSW which says your brand must have a cause; your brand must behave like an activist; and your users must be activists too in order to be properly engaged. Activism is 'politics made popular'. And it will make your brand popular.</p><p>And then there's a smaller group encouraging us to be activists in the area of data privacy - to fight against the very platforms that enable us to be activists in social and political issues worldwide.</p><p>So whilst much of the cause-based initiatives i saw over these days are laudable I am left feeling that the constant call for very public 'activism' is often a justification for some more private marketing 'tactics'. These involve using and abusing personal data of people on a mass scale. A distraction at best; a manipulation at worst.</p><p>One thing is for sure: 'Tactivism' is the new mode of marketing; whether people see it as such or not.</p><p class="p1"> </p></span>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-83105221938858780522012-03-16T14:36:00.000+00:002012-03-16T14:37:21.421+00:00SXSW #2: L-Shaped Data<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; "><p class="p1">So there seems to be a crossover from two of the emerging themes of the first few days. One is the huge importance of personal (or Big) data; and the other is that of local and the value of information and exchanges based around locality.<br /><br />Not that anyone else is but I'm going to call this crossover, 'L-shaped data'.<br /><br />That's because I think location will prove to be the biggest disruptor of the next ten years, transforming the very nature of the lives we live, the services we enjoy, the jobs we do and the experiences we enjoy. I predict that 'local' will be a bigger transformational trend than either e-commerce, or social media has been so far and that it is locality that will unlock our willingness as individuals to freely give our data away to invisible sources and intelligent services.<br /><br />Yesterday Steven Levy (the Wired journalist and author of In The Plex) talked about the idea of Epic Tech Wars and about those of the past and those he predicted for the future. One common to both was the battle between Open and Closed; between Freedom and Control. He took us through the history of Hacktervism from as early as 1959 and it was clear that as more personal data enters the public domain, a battle between Protection ( govt control) and Privacy ( personal freedom) is set to take place.<br /><br />But there is a third way and that seems to be around setting data free within a local setting. So it's local govt control as well as local community freedoms. In fact those people and institutions that are defining a local code of behaviour are the same people and institutions that are opening up their local data. It's a local quid pro quo.<br /><br />I came to this realisation during a session entitled Cities in 2032. A company called New Urban Mechanics talked about an app they've developed called 'Street Bump' in which the sensors within the smartphone detect smooth or otherwise driving conditions, record this and upload it to form a picture of where local road repairs are required.<br /><br />Chris Volinsky of AT&T took us through the results of an experiment they conducted in New Jersey in which they took 6 months worth of data from all the phones in a particular city, anonymised and analysed it and started to identify and then solve city issues around commuter routes into town, or traffic around schools.<br /><br />And Eric Paulos shared a fascinating point of view on the growth of 'Citizen Scientists' showing how with sensors in phones everyday people could not only input local data but also analyse it themselves to start solving problems in their local area. Imagine if we could tell from aggregated local data whether a particular bus route was the most efficient for most people and as a result of the data we find a better one. People feel engaged, effective and an active part of their community. He quotes Obama "we can't win the future with the government of the past". Right. So once governments cotton on to this availability of local data thing, everything in every local community will change.<br /><br />And with burgeoning companies that have Local at their heart, like Living Social, an 'L-Shaped' revolution is guaranteed. Their CEO, Tim O'Shaughnessy talked not only about how they want to become the default choice for 'local' but how in order to do so they are expanding from online to offline in order to service local communities. He talked about their truly fascinating plan to launch a physical store/space in Washington DC to help local businesses put on events and host branded experiences. The example being a local sushi restaurant that wants to run a series of sushi classes. They can afford the teacher-chef but can't afford to close for the evening to put on the events. Enter the Living Social space to the rescue.<br /><br />And finally, Amber Case of <a href="http://geoloqi.com/">Geoloqi.com</a> took us through a mind-spinning uber-intellectual history of the Cyborg, and ended with the notion that "the next generation of location is ambient". She explained the new technologies and partnerships behind the geoloqi service: a technology that allows our actions in the real world to trigger virtual annotations to pop up that relate to our exact locations. For example one can put a 'geo-fence' around the local bus stop and as you take your bus journey, without having to think, act, press a button or pull down any data, your phone will alert you to get off at the right stop. As she explains: "information flows at you, and the interface disappears; you don't have to search or even ask a question". One of the most useful trial applications of this technology is the geo-fencing of all the local restaurants and the aggregation of all their restaurant reviews to produce "Don't Eat That", warning you not to eat somewhere you might well be about to enter.<br /><br />So local is where it's at! And after a couple of years of the machismo of BIG Data it feels like small data might triumph. The micro data contributions we make on a daily basis around our local areas are proving to be the most priceless. So I would say watch out for an increase in "L-shaped data", in "L-shaped businesses" and in "L-shaped government initiatives".<br /><br />As Bing Gordon said on the first day I arrived here, "Local is the extra vector the Internet can bring to bear on us". And everything I'm seeing and hearing would suggest that is very much the case. </p><p class="p1"> </p></span>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-16518786354720350062012-03-16T14:35:00.000+00:002012-03-16T14:36:25.660+00:00SXSW #1: Becoming SuperBetter<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small; "><p class="p1">I guess that's the overall theme of SXSW, isn't it: how do we all become a bit (or a lot) better through our gaining of knowledge; our making of new and vibrant connections; and our contributions through the brands we work on to make everyday life a bit better. </p><p class="p1">So I was intrigued to attend Jane McGonigal's 'Crash Course on becoming SuperBetter'. I have seen her TED talks, read much of her work yet still wasn't quite prepared for what a truly inspirational speaker she is. Young, attractive, energetic and above all having come back from a life-threatening accident/illness, totally irrepressible. She started the talk with her mission: 'To increase the lifespan of everyone in this room by 7.5 minutes'. OK then, she has everyone's attention! </p><p class="p1">Her argument is as follows. </p><p class="p1">People are criticising the games industry and gamers of sucking the life blood out of real world participation and as a result we're becoming a population of dumb-ass gaming droids who put mindless entertainment before meaning. </p><p class="p1">BUT her research and that of others shows that of all the biggest regrets in life that people have, actually games and gaming can alleviate and potentially address them all. </p><p class="p1">We learn that the top deathbed regrets include wishing we had worked less hard (tick); had seen more of our friends (tick); let ourselves be happier (tick); had the courage to express our true selves (tick); and lived a life true to our dreams not what others expected of us (tick tick tick)... Again she has us all. There's a weird chill of connectedness that's descended on the audience. It has made 1000 individuals in the room feel like one universal being. </p><p class="p1">Jane presses on channeling research stat after research stat proving that game-related activities actually make us better. For example: Stanford Uni have research that proves that your avatar can make you more confident and determined in real life; having just two people you can express yourself to is more important for long term health than watching what you ingest; experiencing three positive experiences for every one negative emotion keeps hope alive - if you can find three tiny things a day that make you feel good - you'll be emotionally happier. </p><p class="p1">She invited her audience to carry out four tasks that would build up our physical, emotional, mental and social resilience. And you can do them yourself right now if you download the SuperBetter app or visit SuperBetter.com. And her point was that in the time it took to carry these playful activities out, we have actually improved our resilience - that 90 seconds has given us 24 hours of better resilience. And she had; she had given us a 'Futureboost'. </p><p class="p1">But the bigger point she is making is that there is going to be an exponential growth in gaming-type learning and self-improvement, enabled through digital, interactivity and social. Her premise is that we are going to go far beyond pursuing happiness - we want to progress and achieve - and improve. "It is not the pursuit of happiness but the happiness of pursuit". Boom. </p><p class="p1">Her rock solid belief in the fact that gaming can encourage better human behaviour in us is clear. Gaming makes us Courageous (helping us determine who might be enemies and how to seek out allies). Games give us Agency, the confidence that the actions we take will have an effect in the world. And Games help us value time, and we commit time and energy to the things that are important to us. She makes the point that the definition of 'virtual' is not about un-real but is about capacity, the about-to-ness, or Possibility of something to become a reality.... </p><p class="p1">And gaming trains us into possibility - the possibility to problem solve; to find allies and fight enemies; and overcome challenges. They give us skills in the virtual world that positively enhance us in the real world. She is almost religious in her credo that a life of play is a life that is SuperBetter in every way. And you'll find it's pretty difficult to argue she is wrong. But more importantly, why would you want to?</p><p class="p1">Of course I have to point out that if we weren't having to stop every 30 minutes to recharge our phones, that there was actually some network coverage from AT&T or T-Mobile deep inside the concrete convention centre, and the registration queue could take less than the obligatory 2 hours, that wouldn't even be SuperBetter, it would just be a bit better. Which is more than enough better for me.</p></span>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-6475099666062518772011-10-30T19:39:00.004+00:002011-10-31T10:32:41.402+00:00Why should currency be common?<div><br /></div><div>The more I think about the future of money; the future of rewards; the future of social media and the future of mobile....the more i think that we're talking about just one thing, not four. </div><div><br /></div><div>Last week I saw <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/">WIRED's</a> editor, David Rowan, deliver his trends talk at the IPA 44, and whilst it covered a lot of trends we've all been thinking about for a while, the sheer number of examples he gave of initiatives, start-ups, services and platforms that are already live and exhibiting these trends really bought home the sheer pace and acceleration of everyday change that we are now undergoing. </div><div><br /></div><div>He mentioned <a href="http://blippy.com/">Blippy</a> which publishes your all your purchasing behaviour in an attempt to harness the idea of social currency and leverage it to encourage others who trust in you to purchase in similar ways. <a href="https://swipely.com/lp/unsupported">Swipely</a> geolocates your spending on your cards suggesting new places and products to followers. And <a href="http://www.whipcar.com/">Whipcar</a>, a neighbour-to-neighbour car rental scheme where you can set your own prices dependent upon whether you need to use someone's car for hours, days or weeks. No waste. No risk. No doubt. The common theme that I took away was that we are seeing a massive transformation in the very idea of value. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now, add onto all that, the idea that we are giving away more and more personal data to platforms such as Facebook and Google, who will soon recognise our identity via face recognition, our personal mobile number, or our unique position in a social circle. As we start to barter for the best deals on products and services, and we use our data (and those of others) to do so - whether that is our location, our connections, our social influence, our monthly subscription, our user content generation...and lots more besides - aren't we developing our own currencies with which we trade? </div><div><br /></div><div>The idea that currency should be macro seems to me to belong to the twentieth century. In the twenty-first century, we are developing our own individual currencies. </div><div><br /></div><div>For example, say I have a mobile on a carrier and i spend £45 a month, and because I use their location based service offers at least 10 times a month, and follow them on twitter and tweet to my 1,000 follows every time i redeem their promotions - I am worth something more as a customer to them than someone who has no social footprint, doesn't use services beyond calling, but still pays £45 a month on their contract. I have developed my own currency with which I should be able to trade with them. I agree to tweet every redemption if they cut my bill by 10%, for example. </div><div><br /></div><div>Similarly, anyone starting to use an NFC transactional system on their mobile might leverage their purchasing behaviour (whether number of transactions or total value of transactions), their social footprint and the number of '1's they register across the internet, to earn them a better deal when it comes to purchases they might come to make through the Google ecosystem. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's not difficult to see that every individual will have their own 'value' and will be seen as being of a different 'value' by brands. It's a new type of exchange in which we start to use our personal data and digital behaviour as leverage for a better deal. And brands use the same personal data to keep us loyal through rewards.</div><div><br /></div><div>So the question is will each of us develop our own currency, that is uniquely tied to our digital identity? Will I become my own currency, the value of which is based on my social footprint, the way I spend money, the things I spend it on, the amount of sustainable purchases I make, the number of positive ratings and reviews iI contribute across the web? Will 'tracey-lou's be worth more or less than pounds or pence? and how will I rank against other individuals' currencies. And who will monitor the exchange rate of a tracey-lou v another currency? Google? Amazon? Facebook?</div><div><br /></div><div>A world of 7 billion currencies is a difficult thing to contemplate but the more we do, the quicker we'll get to a world in which currency is no longer about commonality, but has individuality at its heart. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-12323956852316088332011-08-14T18:34:00.002+01:002011-08-14T18:37:20.431+01:00The Rise and Fall of Free: The week in which FREE finally went up in flames<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family:Times;font-size:small;">
<br />How shocking it was to see those pictures on TV of rioting, looters helping themselves to trainers, plasma screens and mobile phones: brazenly walking into shops and clearing the shelves of more goods than they could carry. How shocking it must have been for marketers in particular. Haven’t we been telling our clients about the declines in materialism in favour of experiences; how there is an accelerated trend in people buying on the basis of ‘values’ as much as ‘value’: and how people are redefining what makes them happy by making more mindful purchases as they start to live with less and adopt a back-to-basics mindset. Well the events of last week seem to have punctured that theory.
<br />
<br />What I saw was something closer to what has been described as ‘shopping with violence’ by groups of people who felt it their right to acquire as much as they could to get something for nothing. Some of the looters when interviewed on Radio 4 admitted that they didn’t need trainers themselves they were just taking the chance to get something for free.
<br />
<br />But is it any surprise to us that our society has spawned a certain group who feel it is their right to acquire things for free? For how long have we been peddling the ‘magic of free’? From entering a free draw; enjoying a free drink; downloading content for free; and reading our news for free, to free interest rates, and even free housing. Is it any wonder that if you push the concept of free so far, that not only do you end up with freesumers….but freeloaders?
<br />
<br />Now, of course, the reasons behind the riots are truly complex and don’t lie in just one area, but the contributing factor made by the marketing of ‘free’ is one element that has been strangely overlooked by the media, preferring to dwell on the political subject of ‘cuts’ than on the economic subject of ‘costs’. But this was a riot cultivated by a culture of acquisition, not of austerity. The evidence is right there before us in the TV pictures of looters: people who have been described as ‘mindless’, who value nothing but their ability to acquire what is not theirs to take. If this is about politics, it is about the politics of price.
<br />
<br />Because if you tell people over a long enough period of time that the things they most desire can be acquired for free, you are eroding the very frameworks for understanding value. We can theorise about the post-recessionary changes that are taking place in the ‘value exchange’ but the unkind truth is that in a market where everything is free, there IS no value exchange.
<br />
<br />Many a psychological study has been recorded on the effects of presenting products as ‘free’. Perhaps some of the best by Kristina Shampan’er and Dan Ariely’: ‘How small is zero price? The true value of free products’ in which they show that ‘zero cost’ encourages people to act in a much more irrational manner than if they had to weigh up the opportunity costs of something that came with a price tag.
<br />
<br />Interestingly, the digital noughties (which perhaps we should now rename the ‘freebies’) could perhaps be held partly accountable for the ‘mindless mindset’ that fuelled some of last week’s events. When Clay Shirky paraphrases Szabo and others who have written on the idea of ‘mental transaction costs’ (the energy required to weigh up what the cost of something might be) he comes to the conclusion that: “The only business model that delivers money from sender to receiver with no mental transaction costs is theft” – or if you like, something that you don’t own but that you can take for free. In the digital world we have an expectation of ‘free’; and as the digital world and the physical world become one and the same thing, can we really be surprised when people have rising expectations that what they want should be free?
<br />
<br />Looting online has been going on for ages, and as a society we have been happy to overlook it. But who pays for the data required to freely enjoy a Youtube clip on an iPhone? Who pays to play Farmville; who pays for the ability to send messages via BBM? The answer seems quite clear now: we all pay.
<br />
<br />Free has been used as a mass distribution mechanic. And those looters last week felt that some non-digital distribution should be coming their way. This is not at all to excuse that repugnant behaviour, but it is to raise the possibility that in a world of free, where acquisition is presented as having no consequence, that requires no thought – where no one pays, so there is no cost - we are raising not a generation of free-thinkers, but a generation of non-thinkers.
<br />
<br />A generation who do not have to calculate risk and reward. A generation that has grown up with free information, free publishing and free distribution at the heart of many of the products it now consumers. Chris Anderson wrote eloquently and convincingly about the new internet-fuelled freemium models, promising us that £0.00 would be the future of business, and that for businesses to survive they should become two-sided and learn to cross-subsidise. This is all true. But it does of course rely on ‘hiding’ the true cost of something that people might believe themselves to be getting for free.
<br />
<br />And here’s the rub: years ago, many of the Platonic philosophers, as Ariely points out, were very suspicious of zero: because zero was seen as ‘void’, and since that was a concept that was impossible, neither was zero possible. As marketers, we have used free to mean zero, and the truth is that it is just not possible. Nothing is ever truly free, nor should something we want people to truly value, be flogged as free. We must redefine free as part of a trade, and not as zero. Like freedom itself, ‘free’ is not a right; but a responsibility. As such, it always comes with consequences and we must be responsible enough to spell those out.
<br />
<br /></span>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-51058378038508036452011-06-17T23:48:00.005+01:002011-06-17T23:59:47.566+01:00The Accountable Consumer<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family:Times;font-size:small;"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family:Times;font-size:small;"><br /></span></div>Thinking a lot about the post-recessionary consumer, I went back to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONXYcN-7k1Y">John Gerzema's talk on the 'post-crisis consumer'.</a><br /><br />It's fascinating really because he gives numerous examples of how consumer mindsets and behaviour has changed as a result of the recession; and also how brands and services are responding to this to deliver to a new set of needs.<br /><br />His big point really is that consumers are now looking to buy into Value + Values - looking for brands that will deliver both great value and will do the right thing ( a bit of a Triple Bottom Line theme) but this seems a bit high falutin' to me when people can't afford to buy an extra tin of beans, or are having to feed their family for a fiver!<br /><br />But i think what is interesting is that he is highlighting the themes of responsibility, accountability and sustainability. And he seems to pick up on an important shift taking place in which consumers are starting to, and having to, take more responsibility for their spending. They are de-risking; being extra resourceful in how they spend and on what they spend, often collaborating with others (as we know from collaborative consumption); and (like in the Depression) wanting to get better educated and skilled so that they can make more informed choices - and therefore, the right decision.<br /><br />So, building on this thought, we could say that we are entering the age of 'The Accountable Consumer'.<br /><br />The value exchange is indeed changing, away from consumers just expecting to be rewarded with great value; towards an idea in which the consumer takes some responsibility for the scale and type and even timing of rewards that are due them. The consumer might be empowered - but rather than just bullying brands, he can work with brands, to gain an overall better sense of reward. Think of it as 'buying the right thing + doing the right thing + enjoying the responsible thing'. There must be a sense of satisfaction knowing that you have been more mindful in your spending (ie that is an emotional reward that sits alongside the material reward of whatever it is you have required).<br /><br />No longer are people being sold to. They are an active part of the purchasing process.<br /><br />It made me think that maybe we are seeing a journey over time from the Age of Excess (pre-recession) through to the Age of Austerity (which is now in 2010/11) and will in turn soon become The Age of Accountability.<br /><br />Of course, it's not just the consumer who is having to be more accountable; brands are too. Gerzema talks about brands now paying dividends to their customers (we might say 'rewards') and this seems a lovely mirroring of the consumer and brand sharing the same values - and hence both being equally accountable for purchasing - like a 'we're in this together' kind of mentality.<br /><br />So, we could go one step further and say that the Accountable Consumer will now choose the Accountable Brand. And the Accountable Brand now seeks an Accountable Consumer (one they can build a sustainable relationship with).<br /><br />And that could be the new value-exchange: one based on shared accountability. ie a shared accountability for spending, saving, - a sharing of responsibility. Consumers now will only have relationships with the brands, services, products, or other people who share the same values. And a brand only has a relationship with fans rather than random promiscuous purchasers - we are all taking more responsibility for what we attract and what we choose.<br /><br />So let's not pretend consumers are having it all their own way (i don't think any consumer actually feels that!).... It's far more about an accountable consumer than an empowered consumer. A combination of rights + duties, not just rights per se - because that's what got us into this mess, in the first place.<br /></span>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-48532121786727273642011-05-21T19:00:00.007+01:002011-05-21T19:37:51.398+01:00The Apple Toy Company<div><br /></div>I have been thinking about Innovation and how to create market disruption a lot lately, and it led me to think about what has made <a href="http://www.apple.com/uk/">Apple</a> innovation so disruptive. Now <a href="http://www.brandz.com/output/brandz-top-100.aspx">the most valuable brand on the planet</a>, it's easy to think of them as a computing company, or a mobile phone company, or as they describe themselves as a hardware company...But are they really any of those things?<div><br /></div><div>The one thing Apple does time and time again is to break convention, bringing to market one after another aesthetically exciting, simple and intuitive gadgets. It's tempting to think that what they do is 'simplicity'. Their stuff is simple (mostly) but that's not what they <i>do</i>. The question is: what is the convention they that systematically break, and why? I think we underestimate the biggest <i>cultural</i> context they tap into time and time again, and that is play. </div><div><br /></div><div>I think of Apple as a toy company. </div><div><br /></div><div>It sounds silly but what they did was take the 'serious' work-related PC and give it a colourful twist with the iMac; then they invented the iPOD, making listening to music not only personal but playful - randomness and shuffling bring a sense of playfulness to an otherwise dull commute. And then, the iPhone. They took a 'serious' communications tool and turned it into a TOY. You can flip it around, you can bump it, you can create your own app world on it, and most of all play games on it (little wonder <a href="http://shop.angrybirds.com/">Angry Birds</a> is still the most successful app to date). </div><div><br /></div><div>They broke the conventions of Technology by thinking about the phone as a toy. </div><div><br /></div><div>How many people have seen kids pick up the iPhone and intuitively know how to use it? How many times have we shown each other something silly to play with via an app? How many times have we complained that we can't make a call??? It doesn't matter because its 'toy-ness' outweighs its 'phone-ness'. </div><div><br /></div><div>With hindsight of course, it makes absolute sense that we now see Apple as a toy manufacturer. As we all enter the Data era, and access information as much as we make communication, we can see that the Asian markets were far ahead of us. They built out their mobile brands on the basis of a culture that relies on data; funnily enough that's the same culture that prizes play and gaming as a high priority. In <a href="http://japangamingguide.com/">Asia,</a> Technology = Data + Play. ie Toys. Consciously or not, Apple saw this too, and invented a whole new culture of technology usage for us in the West.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, that's the lesson. "Break the technological taboos by looking for cultural clues".</div><div><br /></div><div>Any technology, be it washing up liquid, food, or computing can be seen in a new light if we are only willing to break the conventions and challenge the taboos. Embed this thinking into the culture of a company and who knows how successful your next innovation will be!</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-85997604997056469472011-03-20T11:21:00.005+00:002011-03-20T13:04:56.771+00:00Subscribers: The new consumersFor ages we've known that the word 'consumer' is not quite doing its job. It isn't explaining the kind of relationship that exists between someone who produces a product and someone who consumes it. That's partly because 'consumption' is often of something that is informative, experiential and participative - it is no longer the usage or 'wasting away of' a physical product. <div><br /></div><div>The new world is going to see us selling a lot more of the former, and a lot less of the latter. The type of product we're selling and people are buying has changed. Forever. And we are as much asking them to buy into the value of our service, as we are asking them to buy into the values of it. Because we all now inhabit the world of experience rather than the world of transmission, because the experience <i>is</i> the communication, we are more likely to be asking people to buy-in to values, beliefs and communities than we are to be asking them to buy our products, packaging and proofs. </div><div><br /></div><div>And here is the big shift. We've been talking for ages about social media, story-telling, advocacy and earned media, and pondering where it will take marketing. But until we stop thinking of customers as consumers - and recognise the new dynamic and the new exchange, we won't make progress. the truth is, brands are no longer producers, and people who buy are no longer consumers. That model, that "dialogue" model does not work in the information age. The model is more iterative, and involves more than two players. People participate through co-creation and collaboration, feeding back, responding...and even customising the brand. They even "version" the brand for themselves, often advocating the participatory nature of the brand to others. They are not buying something 'off the shelf'. They are buying-in to something in their daily life. So then they are not consumers. </div><div><br /></div><div>What they are doing is buying<i>-in</i>, and selling<i>-on </i>the brand to others. They are doing some marketing for you. In this way they demonstrate they believe in the same things, share the same values, and are in a sense 'at one' with the brand. Not that the brand cannot exist without them, it can. But they are happy co-authors of the brand.</div><div><br /></div><div>Subscribing is the New Selling </div><div><br /></div><div>If we're not asking people to 'consume' because they are in fact co-creating, what are we asking them to do? I believe we are asking them to <i>subscribe. </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div>It's a funny old word, and feels like it belongs to a bygone newspaper or catalogue era of The Readers Digest...but it's not a word of the past, it is the word of the future. As more and more products become <i>services</i>, which is what happens when they get 'digitized', the job of marketing becomes one of getting people to sign-up, opt-in, and if you like 'check-in. The job of the marketeer is one of getting so under the skin of that customer that they can serve up personalised content, at the times when it is of most value....in the exact places it can be most useful...each time and every time. The job of the marketeer is to make the brand an habitual part of life for that consumer, and to make it unthinkable that this is a service one could ever do without. Tell me that isn't what Apple have done. </div><div><br /></div><div>Apple don't have consumers. They have subscribers. People who buy-in to the whole belief system and community of the Apple designed world; people who are in agreement with Apple's values and its vision for the world; people who are prepared to lock themselves into a system that makes things simple for them; and people who contribute to the whole system by exchanging their data in order for their service over time to be made better and better.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#660000;"><b>Subscribers:</b></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#660000;"><b>1. are in agreement with a group</b></span></div><div>they become part of the audience or community that are like-minded and are signing up to the beliefs of the brand, as well as the rest of the community. They are happy to be identified as part of that community.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#660000;"><b>2. make a pledge and therefore a commitment</b></span></div><div>they are ethusiastic enough to think that they will be part of that community for a fairly long time, maybe a year, maybe two, perhaps longer. And they make a pledge, usually written, for the brand to be a part of their world for the forseeable future.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#660000;"><b>3. make an ongoing contribution</b></span></div><div>as with any relationship, they contribute, and donate things of value to it. Every month they make a payment but it goes beyond this into adding 'comments' to suggesting new products, to reviewing existing services and to sharing the brand/service with, and through, others. This all has a value.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#660000;"><b>4. enjoy a relationship that gets better through <i>data</i></b></span></div><div>the more personal data that is shared, the better optimised the product will be - both for that particular subscriber but also for the total community of subscribers at large - everyone benefits from the adaption of services from the intelligent use of personal data collected. We used to offer simple personal data on a form (our address, phone number, email) but now we're subscribing to offer up data about what we do, where we go, who we're with. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#660000;">5. the relationship only ends when they actively </span></b><i><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#660000;">unsubscribe</span></b></i></div><div>the relationship only comes to an end when the brand we've subscribed to fails to deliver either on the service being provided or to uphold the values we initially bought into. The subscriber is in control. The job of the brand marketers is to never give anyone a reason to unsubscribe from that brand.</div><div><br /></div><div>Subscription is the new business model</div><div><br /></div><div>And that is the reason that subscribers is a word of the future. In the past we asked people to subscribe at a product level (do you want this magazine, or that TV channel) generally to receive media content of some kind. Now, we are asking people to subscribe at a brand level (do you sign up to these values, or that data which is of value) specifically to build a relationship over time. Subscription not consumption. Subscribers not consumers. That's the future and it's a long way away from The Reader's Digest. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-41015508549975924272011-02-25T18:02:00.006+00:002011-02-27T10:14:14.999+00:00The new class system: the "knows and know-nots"<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal">I am starting to think that our relationships with technology may well begin to re-draw class boundaries and put in place a "politics of technology". </p><p class="MsoNormal">Smart users of smart devices are accessing all kinds of valuable services that those not on smart devices cannot access or do not want. The irony is that it might be those who cannot afford an iPhone who would most value a 2 for 1 pizza deal on a week night, a free cinema ticket or 10% off high street brands.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">If there aren't the right levels of education across the customer base then we could see a class system not of ‘haves and have-nots’ but of ‘knows and know-nots’….which inevitably does lead to a separation between the 'haves and have-nots'</p><p class="MsoNormal">And that makes for friction rather than harmony within society. Not only do those who aren’t ‘smart’ with technology not get the best value; they don’t get a vote. As social media grows and participation in the political and social debates gets more voluble, there could develop a class of technologically-inequipped people who have no voice – or certainly can only whisper when it comes to having their say.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Services that help educate customers in technology are incredibly important in order to share skills and knowledge more widely. One reason why they shouldn’t become a paid for service. The most generous gesture a brand can offer in the emerging world is to offer learning, share knowledge and help transfer skills between people. Otherwise we will be creating a class of people who might be referred to as the informed and therefore 'Influential Elite". </p><p class="MsoNormal">More to come on this I hope, as I think it will be a defining feature of the next few years; whether in mobile; cloud computing, or TV, there will be those who 'know-how' and those who 'know-not' - two classes of people enjoying different levels of access, value and rewards in the post-digital age. </p> <!--EndFragment-->Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-36592076401838459402011-02-25T11:44:00.005+00:002011-02-25T20:40:35.731+00:00Tweets are news<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family:Times;font-size:medium;"><div>On <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter">twitter</a>, I'm starting to think of it much less as a social medium and much more as a real-time news channel. </div><div><br /></div><div>When the quake hit NZ I found out on twitter a full hour before the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/">BBC News</a> channel announced 'breaking news'... Moreover, the best way brands have found to use it to date is through time-sensitive promotions, and news about offers. </div><div><br /></div><div>Equally, consumers seem to be using it for communicating news back to brands about their experiences with their product or service, good or bad. </div><div><br /></div><div>Of course mostly it's used as self promotion so it feels like twitter is turning into just a set of 'news headlines' - 'a bulletin board for brands' - (whether a corporate brand or your own personal brand) rather than a truly space for groups of people to discuss. In other words a two way news channel which inevitably becomes a sales channel. Interesting. </div><div><br /></div></span>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-88100127461928107212011-02-22T23:48:00.004+00:002011-02-23T20:57:27.119+00:00The Value of Aesthetics<div><br /></div><div>One of the trends we're seeing is the move from believing that creativity exists solely or mostly in the idea, rather than the craft. In recent times, we've been rather seduced by the idea of the Big Idea. We have come to believe that the creative spark comes in the form of 'innovation', rather than 'aesthetics'. <div><br /></div><div>There is a lovely talk here from Paul Feldwick which points to the counter view, and encourages us to rebalance and rethink where creativity lies.</div></div><div><br /></div><iframe width="480" height="295" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JDIdgE68Byc?fs=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><div><br /></div><div><div>I think this point about 'aesthetic value' is key in developing a 21st Century Brand. And is becoming an increasingly important component of the overall value exchange. </div><div><br /></div><div>Brands that really work in the new spaces, in useable ways, and delight and entertain us, temd to be those with a heavily thought out 'design' narrative. Whether a technology-driven product like an Apple iPhone, or a human-centric service like First Direct 24 hour banking, there's an aesthetic quality 'designed in' to the brand, the service, the product...the experience. This is 'creativity-inside' and it is about beauty, attractiveness and, above all, sheer magnetism. As Paul quotes Bernbach...'the difference is Artisty' - we may these days call it design (sound design, visualisation, or even 'touch'...) but however we choose to tell the story of a brand it's the aesthetic that tells that story most creatively, and therefore should be designed-in to the very heart of the brand, not just its communications. In fact, it<i> is </i>the communication. </div></div>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-79438321311740594742011-02-21T22:30:00.011+00:002011-02-22T23:54:24.655+00:00In praise of UNLIKE<div><br /></div>I'm feeling increasingly uneasy about the fact that there is so much talk of 'likeminded-ness' at the moment. I know there is a healthy appetite for community, collaboration co-creation, but this 'sense of similarity' is bothering me, somehow. Whilst it is obviously true that groups of people with shared values can become a powerful force for good (or evil) in that they can create great influence and momentum in their endeavours, I wonder whether that idea of like-mindedness in itself is always <a href="http://neilperkin.typepad.com/only_dead_fish/2011/02/contamination.html">'good'. </a><div><br /></div><div>We've all observed 'group-think' in focus groups, as we see 7 people willingly be led by the one other person and their strong (often inaccurate or ill-informed) opinion. And we've all sat in workshops or brainstorms in which the like-minded-ness of the group has jettisoned any kind of breakthrough thinking right out the window before even a single croissant has been passed around. </div><div><br /></div><div>The problem, I would suggest, is that the best ideas come out of argument, debate and opposition. I know it all makes us feel better if we can agree that Apple is the most impressive brand; or that Daily Mail readers are all dimwits - but the reality is that we don't assert those things because they are <i>true</i>; rather because they make us feel we <i>'belong'.</i> </div><div><br /></div><div>Dear old Facebook has exacerbated the situation by audaciously branding the whole concept of 'like-minded-ness'. In the race to build, organise, manage and secure communities (a race in which <a href="http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/plugins/like/">Facebook</a> is clearly first over the line) they have coveted not only the word, but the 'action' of like-minded-ness by inviting people to show the things they like to other people who might also like that same thing. </div><div><br /></div><div>But it's further widespread than social media sites. When we talk about the evolution of organisational structures of companies and the re-engineering of teams, we are very prone to leap to the conclusion that a team of 'like-minded individuals' will be the answer. I'd suggest that actually, often, it won't. </div><div><br /></div><div>In the previous post, I referred to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_and_George">Gilbert & George</a> who had declared that "we are weird and normal at the same time". Now no-one can deny that they aren't breakthrough artists. And i wonder if their peculiar kind of innovation and success is due to the very fact that they have between them a sense of 'opposition that can co-exist'. </div><div><br /></div><div>I think i remember reading somewhere that diverse teams or partnerships take more time to coalesce, but that they are in the end more effective than homogenous teams when it comes to innovation. In valuing differences, teams tend to hold fewer preconceived ideas as to where the solution might lie, and through a process of debate and dialectic, come to a more informed point of view. The way to think of it is that diverse teams are engaged in more learning, than teams who are already like-minded could possibly be. </div><div><br /></div><div>Last year, I sat for two weeks on a Jury, sitting on an extremely serious and complex case. When it came to the process of deliberation, tempers flared, logic and emotion clashed, and diverse opinions were debated until it turned dark. The jury system works because it has diversity build into the very heart of it. Because it is nigh on impossible to ever get to the truth of anything, the only way to get close to that is to debate, disclose and discover...and that can only come via diversity. </div><div><br /></div><div>And finally, the future of brands is going to be extremely dependent upon their ability to offer access to knowledge they don't themselves hold. This will be through partnerships, or agreements and will therefore require companies to not only establish an '...& friends' model but an '... & frenemies' model. The value is in the strength through compensation as much as through collaboration. </div><div><br /></div><div>So, as a counter to the craze for all things 'community' I would like to praise all things and behaviours based on 'unlike'. </div><div><br /></div><div>Those who UNLIKE:</div><div><ul><li>know that they will learn less from their friends than their enemies</li><li>value originality over and above acceptability</li><li>aim to debate the strength of an idea rather than just vote for it</li><li>view likeminded-ness merely as a difference rather than a preference</li><li>know beyond doubt that the answer cannot be the thing to which everyone agrees </li></ul></div><div> ...and don't mind that their blogger peers will not agree</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-36969821681275511702011-02-19T17:08:00.007+00:002011-02-20T13:47:12.461+00:00The Future of Advertising is a Mystery<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#663333;">Problems reside in things; mysteries surround </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#663333;">people</span></i></span><br /><div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:small;"><br />Earlier this month, on This Week, Gilbert and George explained to Andrew Neil when asked whether they were conventional or eccentric, that they do not see themselves as either. They said: “we are weird and normal at the same time. We don’t believe in conventional or eccentric”. How refreshing! The idea that complete opposites can live in harmony despite the differences, makes for a much more interesting world. And it makes for a much more interesting ‘team’. And, I would argue, makes for a much more interesting environment, in which one solves more interesting problems in more interesting ways. This should be the future of advertising.<br /><br />I think we should stop seeing our job as ‘manufacturing’ messages and arguably, stop seeing our jobs as solving problems. Why don’t we start seeing our role as solving mysteries. Problems require ‘solutions’ and solutions tend to be thought of as ‘final’. But what we do, isn’t imbued with that kind of finality, or certainty , or rationality – not in the information age.<br /><br />Usually, brand problems exist in various guises, they hide amongst things, then reveal themselves, and just when we think they are extinguished pop up again elsewhere as something altogether different. Brand problems move around, they’re social – and in this digital world we live in, they don’t disappear. So I see what we do as much more akin to solving mysteries than solving problems.<br /><br />If we ‘Re-Imagine’ what we’re doing as solving mysteries, we start asking different questions. We don’t expect to ‘extinguish’ something, we expect to ‘understand’ it’; we don’t expect the solution to reside in one simple action, but in a variety of spaces; and we don’t assume the answer lies only within analysis rather from a combination of analysis and <i>imagination.</i> Like Gilbert and George, a mystery has within it both ‘weird’ and ‘normal’ and therefore requires both weird-ness and normal-ness present together to tackle it.<br /><br />In summary: We are no longer taking on a brief we are taking on a case!<br /><br />Like Holmes, Morse, or Columbo, when we take on a case, we start with behaviour; that of the suspect, that of their associates, we look for patterns and anomalies. We assume that what we’re being told is not entirely the ‘truth’ and we search for fragments of gossip, information, and other types of stories that are given from various perspectives …and whilst we do, we tend to believe our eyes more so than our ears.<br /><br />Imagine the implications for how we approach data. We should be investigating it for patterns and perspectives. Seen through the lens of ‘mystery’ we’re not simply seeing data as a way to ‘analyse’. We see it less as a stream of numbers, and more as a snapshot of behaviour and therefore ultimately, an insight into human nature.<br /><br />We would look for the human stories within the numbers. Searching not for ‘answers’ but for patterns; approaching it from various perspectives and searching for links with other things we have observed in ‘real’ life. For what we should be doing with data, is exactly the same thing we do when we sit on a park bench or at a pavement café – we’re people-watching. If we’re in the business of mystery, our data analysts are merely people-watching, albeit from their desks.<br /><br />The interesting thing about this is, whilst people sometimes don’t want to pay for ‘data’, because it’s just numbers isn’t it (!), and therefore in some sense a commodity; people do pay for stories. Over thousands and thousands of years, people have paid for access to plays, poetry and pantomimes. Because story-telling around the human condition has universal appeal – unlike problem-solving (your problem isn’t necessarily the same as mine) which is particular and seen as ‘specialist’.<br /><br />Anyway, in the realms of data if we think we’re solving a problem we’ll look for similarities; if we think we’re solving a mystery we will look for similarities as well as differences – we’ll be looking not only for the normal (the things that seem ‘true’) - but also for the things we don’t understand - the weird. For example, often it appears to no longer be ‘normal’ to be a ‘normal’ weight. What do we now perceive as ‘normal weight? Perhaps a size 8 if you read Vogue, but size 16 if you shop in M&S. so, what is ‘normal’ for someone who reads Vogue and shops in M&S? Again this moves us from framing the task as one of ‘analysis’ to framing the task to one of ‘understanding’. Problems reside in ‘things’; mysteries surround ‘people’.<br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:small;"><br />Which brings me to teams: I hope by now, it’s become clear as to why whilst a ‘collective’ might solve a problem, it will never solve a mystery. It’s for that reason that we might want to re-think not only ‘agency’, but ‘collective’ as the right format for describing the optimum team-dynamic. The team solving a mystery needs to be normal, and weird. Like Gilbert & George it should be a partnership. Which does not necessarily suggest similarity; in fact it could be made up of complete opposites; complete opposites that co-exist.<br /><br /><br />We are in an era of which I would like to term as ‘co-incidence culture’. Where people are doing lots of seemingly contradictory things at the same time. One in which people are at the same time exercising individual rational choice and being influenced by social norms; transmitting digital data whilst enjoying the physical reality; sharing whilst being completely alone; ‘liking ‘ the things they are at the same time moaning about it; and giving away one thing whilst buying another. In this crazy culture of co-occurrence, of co-existence and synchronicity, how can we isolate and identify things as ‘problems’ – as if something utterly ‘weird’ needs to be utterly ‘normalised’ by us.<br /><br />To finish where we started, the entymology of ‘mystery’, in addition to meaning ‘truth via divine revelation’, is also explained as ‘handicraft, trade or art’. The sense of craft-skills, intuition, experience and humanity is all there, and a better way of describing what we do in the world of pluralism these days. </span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:small;"><br />After all a leap requires both a ‘left’ and ‘right’ and could never come about without both.<br /><br /><br />……………………….</span></div></div></div>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-85100980060065564882010-08-24T21:54:00.006+01:002010-08-24T22:01:54.365+01:00Ode to Noticing<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEjOLW3kN1ivXwG5TkXQ1aMTa3SViry9sMs_PkQ4AvPi2xrA1NQS9j1dO3Rd3szz1tKTOMYpeH3LlRwMCyS6kLthPh5dA15RgZtpE1GprB8lOHh-dOZxPZntxArQ-k82fvZCDjDAgQl5g/s1600/Picture+140.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 258px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEjOLW3kN1ivXwG5TkXQ1aMTa3SViry9sMs_PkQ4AvPi2xrA1NQS9j1dO3Rd3szz1tKTOMYpeH3LlRwMCyS6kLthPh5dA15RgZtpE1GprB8lOHh-dOZxPZntxArQ-k82fvZCDjDAgQl5g/s320/Picture+140.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5509083726766925090" /></a><br /><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(68, 68, 68); line-height: 15px; font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;"><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></span><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" color: rgb(68, 68, 68); line-height: 15px; font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:11px;"><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-size:11px;"><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 11px; ">Lately I've been thinking about Fast Strategy and whether I really think Fast Strategy is Strategy at all. Well it might deliver strategy but does it deliver original, inventive, fundamentally differentiating strategy. Yes. Or, No...? If was a betting man (and I'm not, I'm a betting woman) I'd ultimately, and somewhat reluctantly, have to come down on the side that says 'no'. <div><br /></div><div>A couple of recent meanderings through 'The Chief Culture Officer' by Grant McCracken and various chats with creative types has got me re-thinking fast strategy, and wanting to write the "Ode to Noticing'. </div><div><br /></div><div>Grant talks about this in his book. In particular he mentions Morgan Friedman (yes, I know, disappointingly not Morgan Freeman) who runs round the city not only eavesdropping on people's conversations but stopping people and asking questions, investigating all that is going on around him - the sights, sounds, text and subtext of his environment. There's a great quote that brings this to life: 'Old people are waiting for you. they spend their days on stoops and cafes doing nothing but remembering. They're the ones at the edge between different worlds connecting them together. Ask them what has changed in their everyday life the most since their childhood. Press them for details: 'The ice-cream man use to bring us ice once a week' or 'My husband couldn't afford my dowry!'... It pays to be interested in the banal and unattractive, as he puts it. </div><div><br /></div><div>This in turn reminded me of one of Ed Morris's talks on what drives his creativity, whilst at Lowe. The way he put it was to describe what he does as 'Thinking in Slow Motion'. That captures it brilliantly: I guess I would interpret that as not only seeing, but actually 'noticing'; not only hearing but actually 'listening'; and not only touching but also 'feeling'. That sense, that hynotherapists often talk about, of noticing you're noticing. </div><div><br /></div><div>It's interesting that divergent thinkers tend to wander around their own minds looking for links whereas convergent thinkers look for the one correct answer. In the feature 'Can everyone be an Einstein' in the Sunday Times back in 2008, the author talks about "dissociated patterns'" in the brain, that seem a necessary first step in developing new and loose connections between ideas which may seem at first odd and quite implausible. Only later do some ideas collide and are eventually ordered into a creative product. </div><div><br /></div><div>The article goes on to suggest that investigating lots of different areas of interest, perhaps choosing 30 minutes a day in order to develop an in depth knowledge of a hereunto unknown subject, or just practicing observing, noticing, describing things, or just imagining - is nothing short of training for eventual creativity in the brain. These things make your brain deal with the unfamiliar as opposed to getting locked into old familiar thought patterns. </div><div><br /></div><div>So what has this to do with Fast Strategy? Well, convergent thinkers will tend to be the ones that get to the answer quicker, but may well get to the same answer as everyone else. Not what we needs to hear. And divergent thinkers who (either by accident or design) can notice more than others and can process, slowly, and accurately, all of those details, have more ammunition when it comes to searching for new connections and unfamiliar combinations. And therefore create original solutions even if it may take slightly longer for those connections to show themselves.</div><div><br /></div><div>The author sums it up nicely when he goes onto to say 'The best advice I ever heard came from a Spanish neurologist, Damaso Crespo. he said I should do 100 yards a day, not sprinting but walking. But I had to walk with a friend and talk all the time. It's the walking, the talking and the friendship that feed the brain; the sprint just feeds dumb muscles"</div><div><br /></div><div>The strategy sprint may well do just the same. </div><div><br /></div></span></div><div><br /></div></span></div></span></div>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-61680264112372966022010-08-24T21:53:00.000+01:002010-08-24T21:54:53.569+01:00Brand Generosity<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; color: rgb(68, 68, 68); line-height: 15px; ">So watching the TV one night last week, I was treated to the latest iteration of the BMW’s big idea: Joy. I say treated with a sense of cynicism actually because what joy was in it for me? It didn’t make me feel joyful, I didn’t immediately want to share any joy, and I couldn’t even intellectually understand the concept BMW were presenting to me. Even the straycat that comes to visit now and then, seemed a bit non-plussed. Why? Because this communication lacked any sense of Joy.<p></p><p>The brand was so busy ‘telling’ me that it was about Joy, that there seemed none left over for me to feel. As every one knows, Joy is a response that comes as a result of some other stimulus. If you entertain me, I might feel happy; if you interest me I might feel amazed; if you provoke me, I might feel energised. And if you show me generosity, I may well feel Joy.</p><p>I believe that in Buddhist philosophy, generosity is the first thing one must learn, it is the first teaching, because everything else that follows depends upon inherently generous behaviour. There are three kinds of generosity: first, the kind of miserly giving where you give away what you no longer want – like recycling; secondly, kindly giving, in which we give away that which we would like to receive; and thirdly, the noblest of all, generous giving, in which we have the sort of sense of non-attachment that allows us to feel unencumbered, free and light, where we literally can’t enjoy something without the sense of sharing it with another.</p><p>And that is true Joy. When we have let go to the extent that we are not attempting to control an outcome, a consequence, or another person.The brands that truly are delivering Joy, are the ones that get this concept of generous giving. Apple made its i-Phone in a way that people could create and personalise with their own apps. So much sharing has taken place that hardly anyone with an i-Phone feels anything but Joy when they discover new and interesting utilities and entertainment. O2 understood that in the new world of downloadable music, it’s ‘live’ music that becomes the most enjoyable, shareable experience, so it tries to generously give as much of that to its customers via Priority and other initiatives.</p><p>So, when will BMW give up trying to control and direct Joy, and just bring about an environment of shared experiences – albeit facilitated by the brand – out of which we can feel a sense of Joy? Presumably when it decides to ‘let go’ and allow drivers, or aspiring drivers, to experience the generosity of the brand.</p><br /></span>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-53141800391345384852010-08-24T21:52:00.000+01:002010-08-24T21:53:22.895+01:00It's Advertising Jim, but not as we know it.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; color: rgb(68, 68, 68); line-height: 15px; "><br /><p></p><p>In 2006, Jeff Howe wrote about crowdsourcing in areas such as TV content, Amazon's web-based marketplace for computing tasks, and Corporate R&D, including the story of how outsourcing had solved a problem that had stumped the in-house researchers at Colgate-Palmolive. It showed the merit in connecting with brainpower outside the company capitalizing on, as sociologist Mark Granovetter describes it, "the strength of weak ties".</p><p>Sounds good. So why should Advertising Idea Creation be excluded from the practice of low cost outsourcing, tapping a broad range of information, knowledge and experience? I think two reasons:</p><ol><li><p>Agencies already crowdsource: most creative departments use numerous teams on a brief in the early stages. Planners use ethnography. Tracking studies question hundreds of people. And consumer group feedback often shapes creative development. Much of what clients are actually paying for is not just the creative 'idea' but the journey of discovery illuminating the right idea from many possible ideas, as well as the crafting that makes that idea utterly engaging to the right people at the right time.</p></li><li><p>If your brand is service or retail, crowdsourcing for a creative idea will hardly push your brand-peanut forward. Intangible services require multifaceted messaging, that make sense at every touchpoint, and deliver coherent experiences. Crowdsourced advertising to date has been only for FMCG brands: Doritos, Heinz, Peperami etc, It's easier because they are for tangible products. More and more FMCG brands are getting closer to sponsored entertainment anyway to keep themselves top of mind but for service brands, the game is one of loyalty rather than impulse.</p></li></ol><p>The point is that whilst one can outsource execution, one can't outsource strategy. And crowdsourcing for creative executions is easier to do for FMCG brands. FMCG brands have been running competitions for consumers to star in the next ad, or create a new flavour, for years and years. This isn't advertising. It's PR. It's the creation of an idea that will be talked about due to the novelty around its creation, rather than because it tells a story about the brand in a compelling, engaging way.</p><p>But why should we be surprised at that? Is it really any different to the way in which Simon Cowell uses X factor, as he crowdsources for singing talent, supplied by the masses for the masses. The proof, as always, is in the pudding, so it remains to be seen whether the next Peperami ad is the advertising equivalent of Jedward. Or worse, the one who won it before Leona. Who? Exactly.</p><div><br /></div></span>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-3087533604773121262009-10-10T15:28:00.005+01:002009-10-10T16:23:41.365+01:00Cell Phone Stories<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_Q6ubXShlO44df_FAgbQrgdYCv6ZYlvGpzc-4YpsGkUc2TZkT1CtXk12-1_ql0oFIb_Hbx8M_ScMb5Q2tbZw85CEYiMc3aBple68zZorh_yHqGEz9KqCQqj04jOFhfTgt28mAzgjtNAU/s1600-h/images.jpeg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 84px; height: 127px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_Q6ubXShlO44df_FAgbQrgdYCv6ZYlvGpzc-4YpsGkUc2TZkT1CtXk12-1_ql0oFIb_Hbx8M_ScMb5Q2tbZw85CEYiMc3aBple68zZorh_yHqGEz9KqCQqj04jOFhfTgt28mAzgjtNAU/s320/images.jpeg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5390981380362061042" /></a><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;">arrested heart</span></span></div><div><br /></div>I wrote the first chapter of my new mobile text story today. As a long time fan and a dabbler in short story telling, I think this is going to become my new favourite hobby for the forseeable. <div><br /></div><div>I'm not sure <a href="http://www.textnovel.com/home.php">the site</a> I'm working with at the moment is 100% there yet, i had some little niggles in getting started, but it's pretty much the only one I found of any scale, where you could write in English (my Japanese just isn't quite there yet). And it is in Beta, so fair play.</div><div><br /></div><div>I'm pretty interested in this whole concept (apart from my love of short stories) becuase it's making me think about how we tell short stories: so we plan them, half plan them and make the rest up on the fly, or do we rely utterly and completely on our intuition to navigate our way through it and make everything up in real time as we type or talk...</div><div><br /></div><div>In the most part it made me think about my own life as a story. And as I do, i've realised that i am as a person fairly 'episodic'. Maybe we all are, but when i realised that, 'my own story' started to make much more sense. And actually i started to see everything in a much more future focussed, flexible, dramatic way. Rather than looking back, which we are all so prone to do, i started to only look forward. Such is the power of storytelling, and not just the content but the whole structure.</div><div><br /></div><div>I've got a fairly good idea of the storyline for this latest 'novella' *jokes*. But not 100%. It's made me think a lot more about each of the characters. Becuase as I write it, I am publishing it, my readers already have an idea of the characters, and they know how the plot is progressing and it already exists in their consciousness. I can't go back and edit anything. I haven't finished the story and even though there are many chapters to come, in some sense many things are already final. </div><div><br /></div><div>I can't believe some version of text storywriting or chapter-following can't happen here in the UK, and I'm certainly going to be championing it, as there are some brands that this makes total sense for them and their fans to get into, together.</div><div><br /></div><div>Read along at <a href="http://www.textnovel.com/stories_list_detail.php?story_id=1961">textnovel.com</a> if you dare. Or more apt for these times, ..."if you care". </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-6458673026552414092009-04-12T16:28:00.005+01:002009-04-12T17:04:34.318+01:00The Cult of Done<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgESRF8hAjPdXbukupRvRUrx0U0bfg17YEGfue2IlMeJ0lf9J_06es3ZgVkORLsTnIsspi-7w8cC-I1WgwOcxUO9CeLEMOfyc4XaNjFlNENHdM3SyjrAW8bGjaYr_1xekRh3GJidzRBumw/s1600-h/Picture+2.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 250px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgESRF8hAjPdXbukupRvRUrx0U0bfg17YEGfue2IlMeJ0lf9J_06es3ZgVkORLsTnIsspi-7w8cC-I1WgwOcxUO9CeLEMOfyc4XaNjFlNENHdM3SyjrAW8bGjaYr_1xekRh3GJidzRBumw/s320/Picture+2.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5323828034168188818" /></a><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>I got excited when i read this. Stumbled upon it via a <a href="http://www.micropersuasion.com/">Steve Rubel</a> tweet about managing your social time, directing me to <a href="http://smartdatacollective.com/Home/17848">smartdatacollective</a> but then spotted this post there and went to the original source which is <a href="http://www.brepettis.com/blog/2009/3/3/the-cult-of-done-manifesto.html">Bre Pettis' site</a>. I've struggled for years under the debilitating disease of perfectionism, and often it has lead to procrastination and in some cases complete and utter non-achievement. And I could never really understand that. This explains it all: 'laugh at perfection. It's boring and keeps you from being done'. It's Easter Sunday and that hit me like an Easter Sunday epiphany should! </div><div><br /></div><div>And it made me think again about the whole 3.0 world. everything we're doing now is about being done. Twitter: 'what are you doing', Friendfeed 'see what you're friends are doing', open source 'others doing becomes your doing too'.....i think that's one of the things that makes the newly updated Facebook status update that asks 'what's on your mind' so incongruous'....i'd rather now what someone is doing/has done/is about to do than what's in their unknowable and, in often cases terrifying, mind. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, I love (most of) this cult of done, and from now on I'm going to try to live by it more. It reminds me of the philosophy of just Being and being 'present'. Of the need to get rid of our fears of looking good, and equally the need to get out of the stands and onto the pitch if we really want to participate in our own life. Funny how technology in the hands of a collective of people can and has made that happen, rather than the individual mind working it out for itself. So finally, i think it's a great example of a 'together-in-between' idea, where the best ideas happen in the space inbetween individuals, and in a way that renders it not just an ephemeral concept sitting in someone's head that they then have to explain in written communication to someone else, but something automatically practical and behavioural, and therefore tangible, and happening (also affecting those around), from the word go. </div><div><br /></div><div>Anyway, I'm done.......</div>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-71121725201823149292009-04-04T23:34:00.013+01:002009-04-05T00:40:10.934+01:00Twit To Woo<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5Qt3-cE3yIhKyszjTz8jyQZujNdOQpzwo458XMKGpIANQWZQ2tvIL7zK119ie-5PKj0Qa92dXLJr8WGjx9XDpS14xrbkXHSJVARQO86Obn9yYunpu0AcjTBrsVI-Ms4RyIluP4ced4Fg/s1600-h/Picture+5.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 188px; height: 186px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5Qt3-cE3yIhKyszjTz8jyQZujNdOQpzwo458XMKGpIANQWZQ2tvIL7zK119ie-5PKj0Qa92dXLJr8WGjx9XDpS14xrbkXHSJVARQO86Obn9yYunpu0AcjTBrsVI-Ms4RyIluP4ced4Fg/s320/Picture+5.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5320985106060065634" /></a><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);">my 100 character story</span><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;">Here's my entry to <a href="http://www.qrcode.es/contest/index.php">QR-Tales 2009</a>. If you want to participate visit the <a href="http://www.qrcode.es/contest/index.php">qrcode site</a> where you'll also be able to get details of the <a href="http://www.qrcode.es/contest/premios.php">prizes</a> (which includes your short story qr code printed up on merchandise). Thanks to<a href="http://www.nickburcher.com/"> Nick</a>, on whose blog I originally spotted the reference to the competition. I'm very happy with my story - a modern twist on an age old fairy tale. But you'll have to use your mobile if you want it to be your bed time story tonight. </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:13px;"><br /></span></div></div>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-48589379591651827072009-04-03T12:46:00.008+01:002009-04-03T16:52:23.520+01:00Time is waiting in the wings...<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilf-PPmLVenmhpGzya46HkHF8eErLyhMNc8VNL3z1Y8BKJj45OPDwRGxO9SYyTvy2zF9kUCG1X8GCd3Bpl0lHIJKVMEHGzsYvKuduQMdBlMkFjh8uk-Cb7-VrF31luXYFo51f5I00kYFI/s1600-h/Picture+2.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 131px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilf-PPmLVenmhpGzya46HkHF8eErLyhMNc8VNL3z1Y8BKJj45OPDwRGxO9SYyTvy2zF9kUCG1X8GCd3Bpl0lHIJKVMEHGzsYvKuduQMdBlMkFjh8uk-Cb7-VrF31luXYFo51f5I00kYFI/s320/Picture+2.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5320430853248165618" /></a><br /><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);">Nicholas Bourriaud's </span></span><a href="http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/altermodern/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=""><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(102, 51, 102);">Altermodern</span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);"> exhibition</span> </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:13px;"><br /></span></div><div>What's after postmodernism. That's the question that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourriaud">Nicholas Bourriaud's</a> exhibition poses. His <a href="http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/altermodern/manifesto.shtm">manifesto</a> which attempts to answer that question puts clear water between where we've been and where we're going in the realms of art, media, communication and culture. He weaves together several macrotrends, including:</div><div><br /></div><div>- Increased communication, travel and migration</div><div>- New universalism based on translations, subtitling and generalised dubbing</div><div>- Globalisation in every aspect of everyday life</div><div><br /></div><div>to investigate what that could mean for the era that is now emerging and in which we will soon find ourselves. The Altermodern era as he calls it. </div><div><br /></div><div>One of the most interesting points he makes in the <a href="http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/altermodern/videointerview.shtm">accompanying video</a> on the Tate's site, is that 'History' is the new continent. His point (I think) is that Time itself as a concept has become a continent - has become a place - it's become spatial - rather than temporal. With the advent of Google and the ever-present nature of historical content as and when it is created, as well as forever afterwards....nothing passes away or retreats into the past. It stays in the present. And so we can mix up the past with the present and have them running in parallel in some ways, partnering up through mixed media. </div><div><br /></div><div>It made me realise more than ever that not only is creation a non-linear process but so is consumption. We've all done the path to purchase plotting out the decision making processes of a consumer, and acknowledged that it doesn't really happen like that ( a realisation - acquisition - confirmation sequence of events). But have we really taken it any further? Not really. Traditional advertising and even most integrated campaigns still follow the linear sequence of I see it, I investigate it, I buy it, I feel vindicated, I talk about it. </div><div><br /></div><div>What the Altermodern exhibition does is make us just feel it. When we are faced with <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/reviews/altermodern-tate-triennial-tate-britain-london-1603717.html"> 'Line of Control' </a>or <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/reviews/altermodern-tate-triennial-tate-britain-london-1603717.html">'The Projection Room'</a> what our senses are experiencing can't be understood in a logical, rational way. We can't work out the elements of the experience, we can only feel all the various ways the mix of media, the time and the content, is having on us at that moment. It should be the same for brands. A consumer online could be reading a recommendation on a comparison site, overhearing the TV ad, opening a new pack and throwing away the old one, seeing his friend become a fan in a newsfeed - all about the same brand - and all at the same time.</div><div><br /></div><div>We're in the continuous partial attention economy now, not the linear temporal one, and our comms strategies have to reflect this. And whilst the likes of <a href="http://www.cadbury.co.uk/home/Pages/home.aspx">Cadbury's</a> content is at least rich, participatory, shareable and mashable, it's still really following a pretty traditional linear path.</div><div><br /></div><div>Just in the way the exhibits at Altermodern often each combine lots of different media or perspectives into one piece: static and nonstatic, traditional and interactive etc, switching on <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">all</span> our senses to ensure we experience it rather than just 'look' at it or just 'hear' it, we need each of our comms to do the same. Each 'communication' we create is no longer a message, it's an experience in itself, something that exists without boundaries. If anything it's a place to be discovered rather than an event to be plotted. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-70038174328487656332009-04-02T19:03:00.008+01:002009-04-02T19:54:04.079+01:00Change in Advertising. The Full Speech<div><br /></div><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBX_WeXfanCnriNwtX4G3bZDTEEUd60_f9-Ei4EDorKM8rIdxJi2-lZdv2sTQiImkfAK7uyzNcVyGHPyGa2hqLnnOy_dD9qwXjEZ8jlghgyCMZNH3ye2xgCZE1V_cVFqnBDWYoJSqyVrk/s1600-h/Picture+8.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 242px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBX_WeXfanCnriNwtX4G3bZDTEEUd60_f9-Ei4EDorKM8rIdxJi2-lZdv2sTQiImkfAK7uyzNcVyGHPyGa2hqLnnOy_dD9qwXjEZ8jlghgyCMZNH3ye2xgCZE1V_cVFqnBDWYoJSqyVrk/s320/Picture+8.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5320159157805531970" /></a><br /><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);">Genius timing from the chaps at <a href="http://www.famous.be/">Famous</a></span></span></div><div> </div><div>Anyone in advertising (or whatever we are calling it these days) I think you might appreciate this one. This is a clever viral from the really interesting chaps at <a href="http://www.famous.be/">Famous</a> in Brussels. Timed to coincide with the very pinnacle of Obama positivity and hype, this has as much to say about the state of the world of advertising as Mr President had to say about the state of the world in general. Whether planner, creative or client, read it and weep, or if you're feeling positive about what this all means for the future of advertising....read it and feel relief. </div><div><br /></div><div> <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=1324900760146899721" classid=""clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000"" width=""400"" height=""400"" id=""obama""></a><embed src=""http://www.famous.be/obama/obama.swf"" type=""application/x-shockwave-flash"" name=""obama"" allowscriptaccess=""always"" width=""400"" height=""400""></embed><br /></div><div><br /></div>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-71521288371996181512009-04-02T17:57:00.010+01:002009-04-02T18:22:20.776+01:00We heart Tony Hart<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH4wfzwQFYqTdkP-BHToKqbAQYQTv5oqH5G1nzyRiT3EkxbHQT-l5Owum-3T_b3dKIRyRZG29H7qsOjYfALemR4f74ie5ngVVt9NhYzshLD1MG3L1JuDU0NXd3ij1gZ9-8oJN96h10N98/s1600-h/Picture+3.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 238px; height: 246px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH4wfzwQFYqTdkP-BHToKqbAQYQTv5oqH5G1nzyRiT3EkxbHQT-l5Owum-3T_b3dKIRyRZG29H7qsOjYfALemR4f74ie5ngVVt9NhYzshLD1MG3L1JuDU0NXd3ij1gZ9-8oJN96h10N98/s320/Picture+3.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5320139520808044274" /></a><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Howies T-shirt selling at <a href="http://www.tate.org.uk/shop/group.do?id=323">Tate online</a></span></span><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153);"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-size:10px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br /></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:medium;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);">I so covet this fabulous t-shirt. When I was a kid I would watch religiously <a href="http://www.tonyhart.co.uk/">Tony Hart's</a> shows, Take Hart and Hart Beat. Every episode was an inspiration, and the music that accompanied the Gallery will be with me forever...I would sit in anticipation wondering whether anything I had sent in would ever be featured. How many children were sitting at home in their living rooms, glued to the TV, wondering the very same thing. Tony Hart was an <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7836151.stm">inspiration</a> to a whole generation of kids. Not because he taught them art but because he encouraged them to use their imaginations, see things in new ways, and then bring that to life originally yet from the most very basic of materials. What a legend. What a teacher. What a t-shirt. </span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 153); font-size:10px;"><br /></span></div>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-15644354678844529292009-03-03T15:05:00.008+00:002009-03-03T15:40:55.766+00:00To Tweet or not to Tweet<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA1cIO2iBiiPPHRC9V6RbOCyS1bFyji4-QbzpWxENxardsMYuz1YsGbJwE2Wlb8lz0Pvnic2cTbvy4wWaWLa1uuYQ8DOZg4-yyKgAvDl1QtWbBB5_QBTJ9dND0Wi8dLP-Ej8bD0L0OZ-Q/s1600-h/Picture+9.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 226px; height: 320px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA1cIO2iBiiPPHRC9V6RbOCyS1bFyji4-QbzpWxENxardsMYuz1YsGbJwE2Wlb8lz0Pvnic2cTbvy4wWaWLa1uuYQ8DOZg4-yyKgAvDl1QtWbBB5_QBTJ9dND0Wi8dLP-Ej8bD0L0OZ-Q/s320/Picture+9.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5308982138969800306" /></a><br /><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">Typed copy reads: Regarding Twitter, I believe it is an excellent way to engage with the public however I receive approximately 200 pieces of correspondence from constituents a week and I feel that my time is best spent responding to their queries and concerns.</span></span></span></div><div><br /></div><div>So don't get me wrong, I think my MP is great, I mean I really do like and respect her, and in this day and age it's fantastic to get a handwritten reply on quality paper (with matching envelope), and for it to feel like a personal message, which this did.<div><br /></div><div>What I find interesting is the sentiment that Twitter is just a fad, and the job of 'engaging with the public' is secondary to answering their queries and concerns. Many of these queries and concerns from constituents will of course be serious minded and have a personal context but could it not be that using twitter to inform and engage constituents (or at least those interested enough to follow) could perhaps also prove preventative and reduce the need to mail out some of those queries and concerns in the first place. </div><div><br /></div><div>Let's say in the case of a planning application, or a local eduction issue, a Twitter group on that specific issue could inform, update, direct and answer many questions, and at the same time leave constituents feeling that they were actively given the information rather than having to go out and search for it, wouldn't that be progress of a kind. Twitter is by no means the answer to everything, but surely there are lots of ways in which twitter = community, and politics = community, so surely the two should coexist rather than compete.</div><div><br /></div><div>And the real benefit of twitter of course is that there's a 100% guarantee of never mis-spelling someone's name when you do reply. Oops. </div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">(the plaster didn't come with the letter, that was all me)</span></span></div><div><br /></div></div>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1324900760146899721.post-54704106912798452972009-03-02T15:42:00.013+00:002009-03-02T17:09:10.105+00:00Tonal PlanningI guess mainly because I am so bored with the question: 'are you more of a commercial planner or more the creative planner type?' I've begun to think about whether there might be meta-tones that exist within the planning community. <div><br /></div><div>The very dull question above presupposes that you can either be a planner who has a rational and logical approach, forensic about the commercial cause and effect of your communication, or you can be a planner who is creative, intuitive and whilst possibly inspiring to creative teams, pretty breezy about the commercial effects of your strategy. It's assumed that one planner is a good match for a hard-nosed sales driving task; the other for the creation of a brand image impact, and that never the twain shall meet. </div><div><br /></div><div>We all know that is nonsense and the job of planning is both holistic <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">and</span> forensic, but it did start me thinking about planning approaches, and whether each planner has a genre if you like, that he or she plans within. A way of looking at the world that provides a lens for the way they might see the problem, or the way in which they might express a solution. Or to put it another way, to make a distinction between a commercial planner and a creative planner is to miss the point. The question I'm asking is <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">'what kind of creativity do you bring to commercial planning'?</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span></div><div>When I read, but also when I look at the visuals and the organisational structure of <a href="http://www.adliterate.com/">Adliterate</a>, it's the closest thing to editorial. It's opinion, and point of view strongly held. It's as if Richard Huntington is a journalist, investigating the consumer and commercial landscape for insights, uncovering them with the powers of an investigative journalist. Is it surprising then that he talks about insights as 'revelations'. I think of him as the<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"> j</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">ournalist/editor planner .</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div>When I listen to Paul Feldwick and his clever use of language, as well as his inspirations from poetry, it strikes me that he is pretty simply the <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">poet-planner. </span>His papers on digital versus analogue communication takes us right back to an understanding of how language is used but how meaning is conveyed, how the two are interrelated, and the possible ways we can use language as a way of showing rather than telling, if we truly want to communicate. </div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://greenormal.blogspot.com/">John Gran</a>t has to be the <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">political planner</span>. His theories and arguments are always have huge policy or political contexts; innovation, environment, ethical production and consumption.</div><div><br /></div><div>And what of <a href="http://herd.typepad.com/">Mark Earl</a>s and <a href="http://russelldavies.typepad.com/">Russell Davies</a>? Is Earls not our social scientist of planning? Tirelessly uncovering new and fascinating ways in which we are social beings, and if he sees us as super social apes, perhaps we should see him not unlike the Attenborough-type explorer. He's the<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"> explorer-planner</span>. <a href="http://russelldavies.typepad.com/">Russell Davie</a>s on the other hand, is to me anyway, the Martin Parr of planning. He can pull out of what is on the surface the most ordinary, and perhaps dull everyday scenario, something truly enlightening and as he might say, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">interesting</span>. The tension between the interesting and the ordinary is less about 'exploring' and more akin to 'engineering'. What's really going on behind the stuff of life, how does it work, and how could it be better? When I read his blog I think of design both in terms of its visual sense and in terms of the mathematics of design. I say he's our <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">engineer</span> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">planner</span>.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><div>No doubt these planners would probably be recoiling at some of the 'labels' I've given them, some of which could be debated, and improved upon, but it's not done to give labels, it's done purely to make a point. That each planner with a view, a viewpoint, or a point of view, has a way of meeting the world, that they will bring to the discipline of planning. And thank goodness for that because each brings an artistic lens to the science of planning. And in that sense every planner worth his salt, has a signature tone to their thinking. What's yours?</div><div><br /></div>Tracey Followshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974802428339697353noreply@blogger.com3