chroma

Making It Hackable

More disjointed notes on design and game/play, focusing on open vs. closed systems. It's inspired by a Brian Oberkirch post (which hit me like a ton of bricks) quoting Dick Costolo:

pay careful attention to the things that people do with your technology/service/product, because some of them may have discovered a powerful use for it that has completely evaded you. Note that this is another reason to strongly believe that services and products that are more open and adaptive will always prevail over solutions that are less open. Open solutions enable the ecosystem to discover the optimal value of the solution, whereas less open systems are at the mercy of their creator having guessed at the optimal solution in the first place.

OK, it's good enough to note that open systems have the advantage of adapting over time, and to a certain extent this is what Google CEO Eric Schmidt alluded to in an article a little while ago ("don't bet against the internet"). The social aspect of harnessing collective intelligence to solve problems is a bit of a given, unless your name is Andrew Keen. As Brian points out, this is at the heart of what Umair calls the "edgeconomy".

What interests me here are the actual processes, tools and executions that can take the concept of an open system and extend the idea of a "co-created brand" beyond just a metaphor. Specifically, how do brands fit into this picture, especially when we consider that the way they have been mostly thought of and managed has been as tightly controlled, closed constructs.

Again, in attempting to move beyond "inviting" consumers into a vague process without really meaning it (and 99% of social media efforts probably fall into this category), the starting point might be to figure out ways of reconstructing the DNA to actually accomodate more open and adaptive processes, and then tackling the deeper question of why anyone should actually give a shit to begin with. (Hint: something should be in it for them, first and foremost). Without these two things thought about carefully, everything is shallow rhetoric and/or short-term tactics, in my opinion.

Just some ideas for starters: What are the effective ways of inspiring remixability? Or play with the brand? How does the design (of the content or mediated experience) facilitate adaptivity? How does this work, or does it work, with the idea of building an "ecosystem", where everyone derives something out of the process (if ecosystems are sustained by selfish motives, does this change?).

(This is how Brian puts it another brilliant post:)

In a world where anyone can create, mimic, remix Web components, the ideas that spread most easily and completely, win. Simple. You want attention? Make it simple for people to give you attention and to retell your story. Designing for hackability means giving people the things they need to retell your story in their own terms.

More to come soon on this. As I said, these are just disjointed thoughts as I try to get my head around how some of these ideas intersect.

Dear Body

Here's an artful and interesting way to extend the Dove Real Beauty idea: a real-life play in which real women show that "beauty has no age limit". The play will run right here in good ol' Toronto, Canada.

The audition process involves video submissions using an online "Dear Body" audition kit. They're looking for three women to round out the cast of twelve, and the whole thing will be directed by playwright Judith Thompson. I don't know her, but apparently she's "esteemed".

via

Play Me a Story

I want to try to tie together a couple of themes that have been kicking around here regarding games/play, creativity and co-creation. I'm inspired by some excellent thoughts from German Dziebel posted on John Winsor's weblog, who suggests that a better understanding of games and storytelling deals with the "tip of an iceberg whose base is planted deep in the interface of culture, media, and business".

Dziebel goes on to state:

We live in the world of mass customization and, most recently, co-creation. Brands are RAW files these days. [RAW meaning non-digital?!]. Instead of defining their product once and for all, companies increasingly encourage their customers to co-create and co-innovate. They engage them in a game in which every party takes turns in production and consumption, and out of this turbulent dialogue many stories are born.

Co-creation is often talked about as a way s of getting consumers to become part of the process of crafting brand meanings, and the mode of game/play (and how that shapes individual storytelling) is a very useful way of thinking about how this can actually take place.  The only thing I might add to the above is that the customization and co-creation that Dziebel refers to takes place in an increasingly particular social context. Without meaning to split hairs, I just think that this only reinforces the importance of those behaviours, and probably makes them an even more valuable mode of behaviour that brands need to get a better handle on. Brands exist as social constructs.

Some of these thought echo ideas I posted about regarding the open-ended architecture of games, and how just enough leaves to be left available in the design of experiences to be navigated, changed and determined by the user with game-like functions. Customizaton and co-creation help to explain the morphing of storytelling, from fixed to changeable across a number of platforms (music, printed content and so on). But I think that two things need to be emphasized here:

1. "games" and "play" do not need to be taken too literally. the idea of "play" can include many forms of creative expression and even social interaction. two quick examples that might illustrate this: the Cadbury Gorilla ad remixes and even the Dora clip posted below are in my mind a form of play. content is played with and re-spun into something new and fresh. (Faris has written a lot about remix culture, as I'm sure a lot of you have already read).

Another example of how play enters into the experience of social interaction is the very architecture of sharing on You Tube itself: the architecture of game mechanics might help to explain the "flow" state of consuming and sharing content on You Tube. Designing interactions and experiences that are geared toward producing flow-like states is an area I'd love to know more about; I think there's a lot to learn about this (certainly more than what I know now).

2. consumers/people don't really give that much of a shit about too many brands (see Iain's recent comments about the scary future of marketing: "I often think about it when I see brands out there doing wholly inappropriate things like trying to engage in conversations that no-one wants to be part of"); most brands/marketers need to get their head out of their own ass. begging them to be "part of the conversation" is not the answer. thinking about what people actually like to do is a much better place to start.

with the rare exception of a handful of brands that manage to generate real enthusiasm around an idea or cause (Dove Real Beauty being the obvious example), most other brands would do well to think about experiences and interactions that are about people first (not their brand) and the unique behaviours people are engaged in, in whatever context they are reaching/communicating with them.

again, the Cadbury Gorilla spot is almost tailored made for the consumption/creation/remixing/sharing environment of video-sharing websites. it works there, and it's simplicity affords the remixing and loose community that has sprung up around it. (if anyone at Cadbury prefers to believe that people were just waiting to "co-create the brand meaning" in such a cool 2.0-way, who I am to stop them?).

other interesting examples include the M&M Dark puzzle from last year that Jason wrote about (another form of game-play spinning off into community) or the interactions and creativity generating the storyline of Where Are The Joneses. these transmedia examples suggest to me that the smart path to co-creation emerges from a real, practical level (rather than a make-believe artificial "conversation" with The Brand, which is usually just a fiction of marketers' imagination), and whose behaviour is explained much better via game mechanics than abstract theory.

If, as Dziebel argues, the dynamic of games and storytelling (and the behaviours attached to its evolution) only scratches at the surface of deeper relationships between culture, media and business, I think we're just at the beginning of really understanding that relationship. The question of media consumption, creation and distribution, and how that shapes culture in new ways (and how brands fit into that picture) needs to be answered by thinking about the sequence in which that relationship progresses in a clearer way.

I still think that old models (and our old brains) are being assigned the task of trying to figure this one out. To my mind, the balance of thinking still favours top-down culture/media thinking; even a lot of the language betrays this: "invite the consumer into the act of co-creation" being a favourite term I love to hate. In any case, I'll end the ramble here, and hope to pick it up again ;)

People on the Internet

So, to recap the last couple of years or so:

via The Verve

In The Air

(Is this it? Or,

Is this it!)

I'm late joining the party on this as I've been trying to extend my break from blogging as long as possible, but for what it's worth, I'll chime in with an opinion: I like this, a lot.

It seems to be generating a pretty sharp love it/hate it divide (or, as Jason so rightly puts it, a clever vs. clear debate). But that's OK; even if that wasn't the intention, what else would you expect from a clip of a gorilla playing the drums?

Personally, I always measure bits of communication and creative ideas on their ability to evoke emotions, to move people. Linking those emotions to brands, in my mind, is what it's all about, but I certainly say that more from the POV of a career DJ first, where I've spent thousands of hours making people feel something via music. I'm no expert on the value of this as an "ad" (but then again, judging from the varied opinions expressed by people in the marketing world with far more experience than me, I don't know who is an expert on whether this "works" or not).

All I know is that this is the kind of stuff that I'd be proud to work on, but obviously, that's just me. I'd be pleased as punch to have convinced a client that producing this short bit of entertainment was the right thing to do. But, to each his own. 

One thing that this clip seems to have crystallized, however, is that everyone seems to be waiting on the sidelines for something to point to: those that like it champion it as part of the "answer" (whether of branded entertainment, or the dreaded "engagement", or some aspect of new marketing). Ah ha! So, this is what the future looks like! I think this is just as wrong as the critics, who likewise seem eager to argue that it's ineffective, and that it isn't the answer to the question ("what does the future look like?").

In reality, it's just a short film of a gorilla playing drums. It probably shouldn't be isolated as an example of "it", if you catch my drift. It's one piece of the puzzle. We always talk about fragmentation, and doing a lot of little things, and this one fits the bill, doesnt' it? It's generating conversation on You Tube, decent numbers of viewers, and fits overall into the vibe of that platform (miscellaneous weirdness).

For what was likely a relatively small amount of money to produce, I think it's a success.

As for the question of whether or not it will "make" anyone buy Cadbury chocolate, I'll hand it over to one of the many You Tube comments, which are far more insightful on this than I can hope to be:

I don't think it entices you to buy chocolate, I mean who needs an excuse to buy chocolate.. just good entertainment.

(basstutor)

[BTW, the remixes of this are filtering through onto You Tube, some of which are quite good. But if you want a great example of remixing video with music in a very silly (but great) way, check out the Dora clip in the post just below this]

Dora Leans Like a Cholo

 

I'm taking a break from my break to post this clip of Dora remixed with the track "Lean Like a Cholo", it's amazing. (And I'd forget to post it if I don't do it now).

Razor-sharp editing here, every word of the song is synched to scenes from the show.

It's never too early to introduce the kids to UGC and remix-culture. Is it?!)