You’ve probably already seen this, but it’s so bloody cool I thought I’d blog it anyway.
Phil Clandillon and Steve Milbourne, who work for Sony/BMG in London, have created what they call “the world’s first music video in Excel format,” for AC/DC:
“Basically, it’s come about because we recognized that a lot of people have fairly restrictive internet and security policies at work. What we really liked was that we could actually subvert the corporate firewalls by including AC/DC’s music in an Excel spreadsheet, because that’s allowed through every corporate firewall there is.”
Download the video in all its spreadsheety goodness here
So yesterday I went to the presentation of Hall & Partners ‘The Big Digital Experiment’, which promised to “get under the skin of what consumers really think” about digital.
Except that it didn’t quite do that. They did a shedload of in-depth research all about consumer perceptions of online advertising (banners, MPUs & microsites), which is all well and good, except that it’s a very small piece of the digital pie. So to then say that the vast majority of digital communication is focused on direct response and lacking in creativity, is a bit like only trying plain biscuits and saying that all confectionary is crap.
And a slightly sweeping conclusion to observe that digital communication isn’t being used very effectively for brand-building, without having looked beyond straightforward advertising to see how brands are using digital to engage with consumers.
You would have thought that a research piece called ‘The Big Digital Experiment’ would have drawn out the fairly obvious point that online advertising ≠ digital communication, no?
Whilst most of us are probably slightly uneasy about the sheer volume of data held by Google, and might occasionally ponder the rapidity of their growth, I think many of us are just as guilty of accepting the onslaught of Google as a certainty, turning a blind eye to any uneasiness because - let’s face it - apps like Gmail and Google Docs are just too bloody useful.
However it’s astonishing to think that Google’s original mission statement was simply to “make it easier to find high-quality information on the Web” - and has quickly evolved into the all-encompassing ambition to “organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”. At the heart of which is a radically expanded definition of ‘information’ - no longer simply indexing the web, Google wants to digitally capture all and any information its algorithms might potentially one day be able to parse: coming up with increasingly creative methods of collecting data (e.g. the launch of free telephone DQ in the US to harvest voice data, in preparation for future voice-activated search).
Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt reckons that c. 2-3% of today’s information has been converted to searchable form - and estimates that in 300 years time, Google will have sorted and indexed 100% of the world’s information. By which time Sergey Brin hopes Google will have achieved HAL-like artifical intelligence.
As Stross put it; “the ultimate goal is to provide Google’s software with enough personal detail about each of its visitors that it could provide customised answers to the questions ‘What shall I do tomorrow?’ and ‘What job shall I take?’”. In effect, Google wants to index and capture the inner workings of our minds. Pretty scary when you consider that via much of our behaviour in Googleworld, we tell Google things we don’t tell anyone else.
Both speakers touched on some really interesting issues, such as the inherent conflict of interest between Google as an indexer of the web vs. as a provider of information (and the shift from trying to get you to wherever you wanted to go as quickly as possible, to trying to keep you in Googleworld as long as possible); the heart of the algorithm as the ultimate expression of the wisdom of crowds; whether in fact Google is just a scapegoat for our more general nervousness about the evolution of the net?
For me the most thought-provoking part of the discussion focused on the role of a carefully-built brand in shaping our perceptions of Google, and the extent to which we’ve permitted it unprecedented access to our lives.
It’s pretty striking when you compare the sinister overtones of the company’s mission to “organise the world’s information” with the brand credo of “don’t be evil”. Why aren’t we more uncomfortable with Google holding the level of information they do?
Obviously one factor is that people simply aren’t aware of the scope of data Google hold on us. But another, posed by Stross, is that the benign and friendly brand image that Google have created helps to distract us from their rather more ominous business practices. A brand image that’s been built without advertising - from the lighthearted daily logo change, to the widespread promotion of their relaxed working culture. US college students rated Google as the #1 company they’d like to work for - Microsoft didn’t rate nearly as highly, because the Microsoft brand didn’t engender the same feelings of warmth or admiration.
Which is fascinating, when you consider that Microsoft’s abortive Hailstorm project was shelved due to concerns about one company holding too much sensitive personal data. Microsoft was - and is - felt to be a corporate behemoth who had to prove they could be trusted to hold that much consumer data (they couldn’t). Yet Google, Stross argues, have gone far beyond what Microsoft sought to achieve with Hailstorm, largely unchallenged - in no small part because they’re simply perceived to be a more benign, trusted organisation than Microsoft.
Whether or not the numerati - the data geeks - will eventually rule the world remains to be seen, but Google are certainly giving it a damn good go…
“Writing a weblog today isn’t the bright idea it was four years ago. The blogosphere, once a freshwater oasis of folksy self-expression and clever thought, has been flooded by a tsunami of paid bilge. Cut-rate journalists and underground marketing campaigns now drown out the authentic voices of amateur wordsmiths. It’s almost impossible to get noticed, except by hecklers. And why bother? The time it takes to craft sharp, witty blog prose is better spent expressing yourself on Flickr, Facebook, or Twitter…
…Further, text-based Web sites aren’t where the buzz is anymore. The reason blogs took off is that they made publishing easy for non-techies. Part of that simplicity was a lack of support for pictures, audio, and videoclips. At the time, multimedia content was too hard to upload, too unlikely to play back, and too hungry for bandwidth.”
In case Boutin hasn’t noticed, the purpose of all these tools is to enable users to share stuff that interests them - whether that be a link, a photo, a video, a tweet, a lengthy blog post or any other piece of content, how they do it is wholly irrelevant. What tool they use to do it is irrelevant. It’s the same behaviour.
And in any case, most people aren’t using these as an either / or choice - they’re choosing to mix and match different tools and services to let them publish different forms of content in the way that suits them best. The fact that Jason Calcanis has ditched his blog because it became “simply too big, too impersonal” for him doesn’t mean that blogging’s dead. It just means that as someone with a hugely public online profile found that actually how he wanted to interact with others online changed.
Boutin goes on to say that today’s bloggers are “expected to write clever, insightful, witty prose to compete with Huffington and The New York Times” - which may be true for a commercial blogger whose salary depended on the traffic his blog posts generated, but this doesn’t make it the rule for the rest of the blogosphere. So to say that Twitter is better than blogging because the character limit puts everyone back on equal footing, letting “amateurs quit agonising over their writing and cut to the chase” seems bloody ludicrous. Especially because it’s the same bloody behaviour.
Nokia is to launch a global ad campaign involving more than 3,000 pieces of content, from Facebook posts and text messages to TV ads, giving the public the chance to follow in real-time the mobile-centric lives of three twentysomethings.
The concept behind the campaign is that in a digital age a mobile phone can provide a window into someone’s entire life.
Content for the Nokia campaign encompasses Facebook pages on which the public can post messages; while fictional friends build the plot by sending text messages, posting comments and leaving video and voicemails. There will also be TV, press and outdoor ads.
Each of the characters also has their own website where people can go to see the interactions they are having with friends and family. The mobile numbers of each of the characters will be made available so those following the campaign can influence the direction of their lives.
At least once a week there will be TV ads, on youth-oriented channels such as E4 and MTV, that will round up the story so far. At the end of the six-week campaign, which aims to promote Nokia’s youth-focused range of Supernova handsets, the stories will end with the characters needing to make crucial decisions.
There’s no question they’ve built in some wonderfully rich depth into the story - e.g. Anna Randall is a model from/living on Fårö Island who’s leaing to move to London, her brother Lennon’s a surgeon, and she’s got a fashionista friend called Serena who has her own group on facebook (only 2 members so far!). And it’s great that users can interact with the characters as the story plays out.
However as rich a tapestry as they’ve created, the fact is that it’s still essentially a campaign, albeit a campaign with a cracking back-story that users can interact with - it’s not, as some users had hoped, an ARG that they could truly play along with
Which is a little surprising when you consider that Nokia are (as one of the posters on the unfiction.com boards put it) purveyers of vintage ARGs - since Nokia Game, first launched in 1999, actually prefigured The Beast and I Love Bees, traditionally cited as the progenitors of the genre.
Nokia Game incorporated pervasive play but did admittedly lack the narrative element we’ve come to expect from ARGs. However the genre’s moved on since then, brands have learned a lot, users have come to expect a LOT more - so it’s perhaps a little disappointing that Somebody Else’s Phone has incorporated the narrative element, but lost the pervasive play along the way.
I’m not trying to knock it, because it’s still terrifically exciting, and a hell of a lot more interesting than most digital marketing out there. And the insight behind the campaign, that “phones are now much more than just a means of communication… they hold people’s hopes, fears and dreams and provide a window into someone’s life” has undoubtedly given rise to an intriguing and involving creative campaign. It definitely ticks the boxes of true cross-platform entertainment - a story told across a variety of channels which wraps the audiences in a unique, immersive experience
But given that Nokia were the trailblazers of using immersive play to engage with consumers, doesn’t it feel like they’ve missed a bit of a trick here?
Update: my mate Tom has blogged a cracking riposte to this post - well worth a look. Probably the one point I think I’ve failed to articulate clearly enough is the fact that with ARGs there’s a reason for people to interact with the campaign - there’s a payoff: both in the thrill of the puzzle and in the ultimate prize. As a colleague observed, this campaign feels like it’s from the Kevin Costner school of marketing - build it and they shall come. The fact that they’ve produced “more than 3700 pieces of content” as part of the back stories is all well and good - but just because it’s there isn’t a good enough reason to join in - what’s in it for the user?
Very nifty installation from the ICA running over the next three days [8-10 Oct]: Memory Cloud combines the 5,000 year old medium of smoke, with the 20th century medium of text messaging. Visitors can text any message they like to the artists’ creation, and that message will be grafted onto plumes of smoke and lit up for display in Trafalgar Square.
The method of textual inscription works with light as virtual ink that perceptually writes and erases through a cinematic interplay with the external environment. Memory Cloud aims to motivate social interaction through the construction of an environment that is given form through a collective act of writing space.
Alongside the predictable marriage proposals, pop philosophy and jokey messages, you might expect that brands would try and hijack this: hence advertising and political messages are off limits.
Either way, I love it when old meets new. Very cool.
You might remember the novel in its earlier form; it had a cover, and many pages, forethought of plot, editors and agents weighing in, and, oh yes, it generally had sentences and punctuation. And, finally, some poor suckers had to take the time out of their busy days to actually read it…
…Who has time for all those niceties? They’re so first half of 2008.
In my case, I’ve for the last two months been using Twitter to write a real-time thriller. Hence: Twiller.
However, while the technology might be new, as I’ve previously observed, the microblogged novel follows in that grand tradition of serialised fiction which was the height of fashion in the Victorian era. The fact that the greatest novelists of the time (such as Dickens, Eliot & Thackeray) chose to publish their newest works of fiction in installment - which was more affordable than purchasing bound hardcover books - democratised the consumption of fiction, sparking growth in the number of people desiring to read, and also in literacy rates.
Yet other forms of Twitlit are striking out in an entirely new model - self contained content in microformats. Copyblogger’s Twitter writing contest and Smithereen’s Can you put the wit in Twitter? respectively challenged participants to tell a short story and come up with witty wordplay in 140 characters.
Will this catch on?
Well, let’s check out the winners:
Time travel works!” the note read. “However you can only travel to the past and one-way.” I recognized my own handwriting and felt a chill.
Nowadays who we are - or at least how others perceive us - is increasingly defined by our online identity.
Our own personal histories are recorded on our blogs, twitter feeds, flickr streams, youtube channels, facebook pages and the like. We can create and shape our personal record, to build up a picture of the life we lead and ultimately who we are.
Of course, this isn’t a new behaviour, since people have been recording diaries, family histories and photo albums for years - it’s just the technology that’s new, making it easier than ever to record our personal histories for posterity.
But it’s also allowed us to record the history of others who went before us - who weren’t able to leave their own personal records.
In the case of me and my family, I’m thinking of Yad Vashem, the foundation which documents the history the history of the Holocaust period and seeks to preserve the memory and story of its six million victims. They’ve set up a central database to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust, which features the following quotation on its front page:
“…I should like someone to remember that there once lived a person named David Berger”
David Berger in his last letter, Vilna 1941
It’s an attempt to reconstruct the names and stories of those who died in the Holocaust, featuring an estimated three million names. As such, building the database is a work in progress, which they’ve opened up to contributions from the public to help them build it further. Families and friends are encouraged to submit unrecorded names, and to add any further details to existing records so that their histories may be recorded.
Most of the Lindemann family was lucky enough to have been able to flee Nazi Germany, and it’s thanks to their escape that I’m here. My great great uncle Nathan was not so lucky, and was taken to a camp in Riga for the crime of being a Jew.
But thanks to the database at Yad Vashem, we’ve been able to add to Nathan Lindemann’s listing - submitting information about who he was in life, and uploading a photo to give a face to his record.
“When the Nazis rounded us up, they took away our names and gave us numbers. What we are doing here is taking away the numbers and giving them back their names.”
Arthur Kurzweil
It’s immensely pleasing that technology has allowed us to record his history so that his identity should be recorded for posterity, and that his memory may live on.
Our online identities aren’t who we are - they’re just one window into our personalities, and who we are in life may be very different from who we are online. But for those who aren’t able to record their own histories, an online identity is pretty bloody powerful.
Hi. I'm Katy Lindemann and kitschbitch is a home for things that interest me, which I hope may also interest you - bits 'n' pieces from on and off the interweb and my own thoughts about planning, communications, media, music, art, geeky stuff and so on ...more
Currently
is unplugging for a week #2008/11/14
Follow me on Twitter
All the words and opinions expressed here are mine, and don't represent the views of my employer, any of my previous employers, my friends or my family. Just sayin'.
0 Comments | Save to del.icio.us | Digg this 
