Social driven by anti-social trends?

Seeing the Best Buy 'vending machine' at the airport reminded me of the ongoing trend towards self-service. It began back with the self-pump at gas stations (yes, I am old enough to remember when an attendant would fill the tank). Fast forward and it now includes ATM's that take deposits, airline kiosks for self check-in, automated customer service call centers, Zappos (buying shoes without trying them on first?), the return of the vendo-matic for fast food, McD's touch screen order stations, on and on. Self service does offer efficiencies and it certainly promises that old customer want called 'control', but it also further separates human from human.

Good or bad? (That's a different post.)

I find it interesting that as interactions become less person-to-person the web is seeing a continued surge in social connections and expressions. Could it be that humans still crave personal interactions but prefer the anonymity and feeling of control when the nuances of real life, and live, interactions are removed? For instance, is Twitter popular in part because one can express an opinion and feel secure that any opposition can simply be ignored? It's very one way at it's core. In real live conversations there's always the risk of differences heating up. Could it be that Facebook is hugely popular because one can 'control' one's persona? It certainly is an environment where one can manage what others know about you. That's a far cry from the reality of people knowing you and your business transparently.

Another track--I recently read that 'geeks' are the most social online. Because they can now present themselves as they'd like to be seen vs. as they really are. Personally, I doubt that geeks are the driving force behind social--as the majority of users seem to be highly social people bent on widening their circles of voice, influence, and knowledge. However it does ring true--the part about presenting one's self as they'd like to be seen vs. how one really is.

This drives my two main curiosities; 1) Are social mediums popular because they fill a void left by decreasing live human-to-human interactions? 2) Are social mediums popular because people cherish the feeling of control minus the dynamics of face-to-face contact?

I'm sure there are more reasons. Regardless, it does make for an interesting study--to understand how one dynamic effects another. And in this case, the possibility that as real life social interactions become more automated, virtual ones become more desirable.

That and the fact I have a feeling digital spaces are popular simply because one can be anything they want whenever they want. And that digital offers the advantage of a lot more control over the interactions.

Now, I need to do some banking online, text some friends, post some preferred pictures to Facebook, make a few intelligent tweets regarding smart thoughts I've picked up elsewhere, and then do some shopping (online so I don't have to deal with any mindless banter at the cash register).

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Great Quote

I've seen this said in many ways but this one does it ever so simply.

"Build awesome things that people will use and enjoy." Noah Brier, The Barbarian Group

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

My official position = "Whatever Works Best!"

I worked for a moderately famous CD once who liked to say, "Better work works better."

I've held to that standard my entire career and I believe it has served me well. And now, I find myself thinking about it even more. And evolving it to "Best works best".

Or, "Whatever Works Best!"

The reason why that rings true now more than ever is because of the pressure to build to systems, to frameworks, out-of-the box solutions, on and on. Everyone from the CEO down, client-side and internal, pushes for adhering to what's already in place. Rightly so in many cases given so many CTO's went out pre-recession and bought into expensive platforms before knowing what exactly would be best for their customers. (Slight vent...)

But past decisions are no guarantee of future success.

For example--I've heard this so many times, "We bought ATG so you have to build in personalization!" But when asked if they want to support implicit or explicit personalization they simply look at me with blank stares. Then when pushed as to where the business rules will come from to support the decisioning logic they simply get irritated. BTW--they really get mad then when you ask if customers want or will benefit from some form of personalization. I'm just sayin...

I understand how decisions are made but I also understand their implications. Questions still need asking.

My point is, regardless of the efficacy of decisions made, we're in a precarious state where all too often the cart is driving the horse (as my Dad used to quip). Too many decisions are being driven by personal agendas (whatever the motivation) rather than what's right for the customer and their branded interactions.

Time out: I can hear the voices of the devil's advocates (and they do work for the devil) saying, "Yeah, but we have to work within the client's parameters, you can't be so idealistic, blah blah blah...on and on."

Look, I'm experienced enough, and enough of a realist, to know all the complexities and stakeholder's circumstances and those are to be taken into consideration. BUT--and it's a big BUT--if it comes down to doing what's best for the customer or doing what's most palatable for the client I will always step forward and declare, "Do what's right for the little man, not just The Man". I will always recommend taking an agnostic look at the technology and a zealous look at the branded interaction.

So, 'Whatever Works Best!' is the best recommendation--always.

One last for instance: I recently had a conversation where we were thinking through whether to use WordPress for a project vs. a custom build. One part of the conversation was around missed opportunity--if we used WordPress would we be missing an opportunity to do something new and remarkable that showcases our design chops? Upon further thought I concluded, in my mind, that the issue wasn't WordPress vs. custom design or not but what would best support and deliver the right experience AND meet the business objectives? If WordPress has everything necessary to deliver on the concept then by all means. But we shouldn't be force fitting ideas into a platform or constraining an experience just to fit a pre-existing condition.

Ugh--the voices are at it again, "If your client has BroadVision are you going to tell them to scrap it? (The big 'Gotcha!")

For you black and white folks who think when I say one thing it automatically excludes another slow down. That's not what I am saying. Even though I would love to.

I am saying that all great ideas for moving a brand forward begin with looking at all the angles--even challenging conventions, thinking without restraint, and championing ideas over technology. Actionable insights should drive concepting and an idea should drive the solution. I don't think Edison would have invented the light bulb if he'd held to the fact that America had warehouses full of candles and kerosene. Or Ford would've changed transportation if he'd been satisfied with the fact horses were all the rage. Dare to think beyond the parameters given.

Bottom line, don't be rude and ignore the client's reality but be responsible to the end customer and all will be good for the client, their business, and brand.

Better work does work better.

Thanks ex-boss for that enduring nugget of inspiration.

BTW--vote to further this discussion at SXSW. http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/index/interactive/q:icrossing

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

RIFF'ing

Let me share a pet peeve: It's when a creative says, "MY idea is..."

The backstory to that is seeing so many instances where creatives, and others not called creatives, seem unhappy unless the idea is "theirs" in full. Meaning they don't want others to add to it, change it, critique it, etc. I've seen so many folks put their idea out there and get great feedback but then totally ignore it and come back with a new idea entirely theirs. As a CD it's driven me nuts to see a talent come back with an entirely new direction rather than eveolve the one shown prior and "directed".

Consider improv theatrics: One is taught to build on, or play off of, another's direction. If each actor simply went their own new way it would result in a fragmented, likely nonsensical, piece of work. Instead, the good ones know how to take their peer's direction and run with it--exploring it, growing it, all for the good of the end result.

Creative in our niche is no different.

RIFF is a term used in improv, music or otherwise, to suggest "adding to" or "playing off of" another direction.

As it relates to us, it means brainstorming in a way that is additive vs. shooting down ideas or pursuing one's individual direction. My experience is the best ideas are the product of intense collaboration. Contrary to popular TV, great ideas are seldom the shower epiphany but the result of a lot of grueling back and forth. In the end, it shouldn't be about who had the idea but that the idea was had.

Great experienced creatives know that the best ideas are usually nameless. And ownership isn't important. The best ideas are a combination of a lot of ideas that evolve to greatness.

My recommendation: Learn to feel really good about working with talent better than yourself and learn to celebrate thoughts from everywhere. Being good in this business is as much about recognizing great ideas as it is inventing them.

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

The Shack

Anyone notice the ongoing campaign from Radio Shack? Where they appear to be transitioning from Radio Shack to The Shack? Whether by name or identity, it's a move that is likely right for the times and for evolving their brand. Personally, I've always been amazed that they are still around. I always knew them as a sort of a geek shop--you could find spare parts for just about anything electronic. I know they've come a long way in product lines and inventory but they still carry an old perception. And to the younger set I am sure the brand is confusing.

So the move to drop "Radio" from their moniker is probably a good one. And they appear to be doing it the right way--introducing the new before dropping the old. It's a classic transition strategy.

It's nice to see a brand recognizing the need to move gently. It seems so many companies just throw out a new name or positioning without any regard for the nature of humans to resist uncertainty (new). It's also a good nod to their inherent brand equity--a nod to what made them what they are while also promising a new direction.

Now, while I like the strategy and actually like the creative of the campaign, I do pity them with being burdened with the remaining name "The Shack". If that indeed becomes their only name over time, how much will they have to invest in always explaining what the Shack is and sells? It's not exactly a name one would pick if starting a new competitor to Best Buy, or to fill the void of Circuit City.

But they do deserve creds for doing the change the right way--with respect for the customers.

Now if only I can erase the song "Love Shack" from my mind every time I see the name...

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Some shameless self promotion

My apologies for reverting to badgering...but it's for a cause. A conversation around hanging on to ideation. Hanging on to the belief that powerful ideas drive success for brands. Pushing for aspiring to greater things and challenging conventions.

So please vote to make this conversation happen.

http://panelpicker.sxsw.com/ideas/view/3991

"Vote, and vote often."

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous

Formula painters

Over the years I've noticed many painters basically paint the same thing over and over again--just varying the angles, poses, etc. Some sell quite nicely--as if the artist made a successful painting and then simply worked to recreate it over and over again. I am sure that's good commerce but is it art?

I won't attempt to put that question to rest here but I will say, for me, it's not the work of an artist if it's not evolving. I know I admire the artists who over time reinvent themselves and their work on an ongoing basis. Sure, style exists--it's good to be able to be identifiably unique. But to just repeat one's self seems like a sell out.

Now, I know first hand the pressures of art and those who profit off of it (gallery owners, collectors, publishers, etc.) and how they would like an artist to keep producing what has sold before. I can't tell you how many of them have told me to paint more like this other artist, or do more of that one thing they liked, or to paint in a more popular medium. That certainly discourages ongoing exploration and experimentation.

Every true artist walks a path of constant examination of self, work, and value. And that makes the art evolve. Just like the great musicians try new things with each CD (to many exec's distaste) artists keep pushing themselves to push their work.

So when I see an artist whose work now looks nearly identical to their work 10 years ago, or even a year ago, I disappointingly categorize them as a formula painter. Those who I can spot (due to a distinct style) yet be excited because of something refreshing I call an artist.

I want to be an artist.

Posted via email from Stephen Thompson Western Art

New Post of an Old Post

http://greatfinds.icrossing.com/

Posted via email from stephenspeaks's posterous