mellomting

Real fiction and fictitious reality

By now the second of six digital fiction pieces on Penguin's We Tell Stories is out. Last week's story, The 21 Steps, was told on Google maps. That, I thought, worked out rather nicely. The characters were still yours to imagine, but the maps provided the setting giving the story a feeling of being a little bit film and game at the same time.

Considering what storytelling on the web might look like in the future, which is what Penguin set out to explore, that seemed right.

The second of Penguin's stories, Slice, looks even more promising. Slice is fiction for two blogs and twitter. This makes the future of storytelling point even more strongly. The story is told from several perspectives and will unfold over the next days. It also uses various formats like blog posts and fictitious lifestreams. The interesting part here is, that whereas in The 21 Steps the same path unfolds for every reader, it is (theoretically) possible to read Slice from only one perspective, only as a lifestream etc. Whether the story can indeed be read this way, remains to see.

Anyway, this fragmentation of the story is a huge challenge when telling stories on the web. One common answer is to make the whole story rather cinematic. This is often seen in games or ARGs: The plot or overarching idea can then be explained in a trailer, which helps to keep things together (see Find The Lost Ring, via Contagious, for an example). I'd love to see examples, which work out in a more subtle manner. It seems right and good that web-storytelling can learn a lot from films and games. Still I believe there must be newer and  less linear ways. In the end these are stories in endless-dimensional spaces. It appears already, that Slice might show how some aspects of these rooms might connect.

Brave new collaboration?

This TED-talk by Howard Rheingold, author of Smart Mobs, sets collaboration in a very, very big perspective. This, slightly economic, perspective very much helps to understand (and support) various more focused ideas on various aspects of the social media.

Rheingold argues that new technologies enable collaboration, thereby creating new social institutions, which pave way for a new definition of wealth. This again allows for a society less driven by competitive structures. (I hope I got that right.)
Based on research in the area of tragedy of the commons and the prisoners dilemma, he enlists some key-criteria for collaborative spaces:

• Easy to use
• Enable connections
• Group forming
• Self-instructing
• Leverage self interest

I'll watch this again, whenever I feel a bit too far down in the nitty-gritty details of a convincing someone that user generated content or social media marketing is not just a new distribution channel.   

Manah manah

As always, the new post on adliterate - about coherence being more important for brands than consistency - is a great one. The argument, very briefly, goes something likes this: as audiences and channels diverge, consistency across channels becomes less and less important (and possible). Instead coherence, based on a (big) brand idea, arises as the new solution.

I very much agree, but still have some trouble with the concept of this big brand idea. What is it? To me it seems that, in order to make this work properly, we to find something at very core of the company: An idea, concept, belief, whatever, that pulls the whole organisation together. Only then, can this ideas live, be communicated, be experienced, and so on throughout.  I believe Coca Cola has somehow (re)discovered a core of their onion. The coke side of life campaign works nicely in various media with a great range of international and local adaptations. Arguably, much praised Dove fails at being in touch with their real inner self. As much as I do like the campaign and the idea behind it, I agree that it is hard believing that Unilever actually cares. Which again leads to a possibly interesting discussion of big vs. smaller companies and branding.

So how do brands connect? Does it necessarily need an idea to connect to? It rather confuses me. Somehow this Muppet-manah-manah-clip makes a good point. I suppose Statler's comment is a rather typical reaction to much communication. Still, it works for me. This is, by no means, meant to be a defence for more sponsored jokes. But I suspect a lot of things works for a lot of people, and in many cases only intuition or chance can help pick the right one. Just do it.

Technology isn't the medium

Robert Scoble offers some very interesting on Microsoft and social networks (via Personal Insights). Scoble's sees Microsoft as being to tech and ad revenue driven to understand what actually makes social networks work. In their purest form both tech and ad revenue are both rather asocial - or more simply, intrusive. People want to be with people and things they like. Everything else is a potential disturbance and being intrusive in a social network has obvious dangers. The interesting thing is that today's NYT-newsletter underscored the timeliness of Scoble's argument:

TECHNOLOGY                                     
  Microsoft Updates Its iPod Competitor
By JEFF LEEDS
Microsoft has revamped its slow-selling Zune digital music players and created a MySpace-style social-networking site in its drive to compete with Apple.

Microsoft to Increase Ad Business
By VICTORIA SHANNON
Steve Ballmer, the company’s chief executive, said Tuesday that advertising would become 25 percent of Microsoft’s business within a few years.

The first article is about Zune and how the new version has, allegedly, better social networking functions. The second is about Microsoft's goals for on line advertising. It seems Microsoft is indeed very much still struggling where to go. Also, ignoring Microsoft, the post is more than worth reading just for its insights into social networks.

A new solution to an old problem?

Pattern Recognition, as always interesting, triggered a new post, which I just avoided giving a slightly different title, more in the manner of the post quoted.

The topic is the claimed disruptiveness of digital agencies. In fact where I work now, we almost claim this as well. Still seeing myself as an advertising planner, I often feel a bit uncomfortable about that. Anyway, the supposed new nature of digital agencies is very well captured in this picture from the post:

Manging to fill this middle space, obviously, would be great. However, I suspect that the fact that digital agencies think that they fill it is not only due to the brilliance of these agencies. Digital technology still being rather immature calls for a more integrated approach to organising projects.

Ad agencies used to be much closer linked to production (and media for that sake), but as things evolved managing the interfaces between the two seemingly became easier, and specialised organisations evolved. My feeling is that something similar will happen in the digital realm. At the moment production of good digital products depend on a strong integration of content and concept. Using different agencies for different parts of the solution adds organisational complexity. This is less grave for digital campaigns, and more so for, say, bigger web solutions. Arguably excellent advertising agencies, still work rather integrated and get better work done. However, as technology evolves, most digital agencies might follow down the track of most advertising agencies, and the middle field of a new matrix is set to be filled again.

Not sure about this, but at least I got the odd bi-monthly post out.

Virtual heritage

Heritage has always been an important thing for brands. The new TIAA-CREFF campaign by Modernista featured in NYT is no exception. Except that it is, as the reference is totally virtual. Arguably every reference to heritage is virtual. Take Swissness, which obviously refers to connotations and stereotypes just as much as to the actual country.
Yet, the TIAA-CREF campaign is different in another way as it refers to a heritage as an internet domain: the power of.org. It is kind of a statement as to how the internet has come to be something way beyond a medium and is turning into an integral part of, well, everything. Second Life and the like has been a fair argument for this so far, but this is quite a bit more mainstream. And, ever heard of a .mainstream crash? (Pardon.)

Me, myself and my story

This is getting a bit old, but a very interesting article in the New York Times (via Brand New) cites research showing how people's personal narrative influences their behaviour. It's tempting to boil it down to perception is reality, but there's probably quite a bit more to it.

It made me think that maybe brands work in a bit the same way. As a planner in a very classical agency, I was always a bit annoyed by our lack of understanding of how an organisation as a whole conveys the brand. I believe that that good advertising springs from a brand idea, which captures the essence of a company's culture. This seems the best way to make consistent  communication and convey the brand as such and not solely as an ad-idea. (I have long thought this to be the reason for  Wiedens success. They seem to have learnt it with Nike, and decided to go on, and on, and on.)

Anyway, a company's history, which is incorporated as a corporate narrative, is obviously very important for the company culture, as is the leadership, procedures, etc. So, understanding this narrative is important and there are several (planning) tools for doing this. The interesting aspect, is that this theory of narratives also help explain how communication can be just as important as an internal as an external measure. Advertising and other communication can, put bluntly, reinforce an existing or create a new corporate understanding. The article cites some examples of how this works on a personal level. Maybe, after the prophesied death of advertising, agencies will reinvent themselves as brand therapists.

Money for nothing

Surprisingly, there seems to be no such thing as a free ad. As this NYT article points out, running a user generated ad project is just as expensive as an ordinary one. If one expects the same output, that is. Obviously it is very difficult to create user generated anything campaigns that really take off. However, if one expects the outcome to be a good ad in the classical sense, I suppose the expectations are the real problem.

Last week I went to a great presentation by the guy behind the 55DSL Junior Lucky Bastard campaign. The JLB campaign proves rather nicely that user generated campaigns can indeed work quite well. Obviously the goal in this case was not to create classical ads - it was to hire someone for one of the better jobs imaginable. Cleverly crafted as it was, the campaign has by all means been a huge success and is now starting in its second season. And, it did not cost a lot. Actually in a very, very cheap way it generated quite a bit of quite interesting  content for the brand.

There are obvious arguments about how fashion / youth / small brands are different. But then again, in this brave new age, there are great ways of picking just one part of engaging just one limited segment in a conversation. All the other segments need not know, and mostly aren't too bothered even if they do. The crux? Ask people to do what they like to, like showing off, having fun, getting together etc. Asking them to make ads might not be on that list of likable activities.

Play, create, do

Digital Digression sums up some excellently simple points by Mitchel Resnick on creativity:

1. Imagine - open your mind to possibilities, imagine, be creative
2. Create - Based on your ideas, create something!
3. Play with it, try it out, experiment with it, does it work like you intended, why? or why not?
4. Share it with others, find out what they think?
5. Reflect - what does it all mean, the experiences playing with it, sharing it, maybe something can be improved?
6. Imagine how it could be improved, what else could be done, start a new cycle of ideas.

The playful approach to this rather jellylike subject seems very useful. I have always believed creative organisations to be more dependent on culture than other organisations or firm. The crux being that creative organisations cannot compensate by, say, routines, rules, processes etc. Mr. Resnick's six points seem a good foundation for such a culture.

Andy Law, when still at St. Lukes, compared a good creative environment to a roller coaster: frightening but ultimately safe. (At least on a short term, one could add.) Michael Eisner, when still (successful) at Disney, stressed friction in an organisation, as a necessity for creativity. In hindsight both quotes highlight the very fine balance between sufficient amounts of friction and safeness. I suppose that's why creative organisations often feel like they are on the brink of collapsing. In this context Mr Resnick's points, as good as they are, might make creativity seem a bit simpler than it really is. Yet, a good start they certainly are.

Out of everything

The last month has been rather busy: Change of job, change of country, change of business. Anyway, I think I will try to pick up blogging again. Having read up on my netvibes favourites, and been thrown into several exciting projects I believe it's time to start over. (For the 4th time or so.)

But; first things first: A little sentimental film about Switzerland, homesickness and Fernweh. The interesting thing is that it is a Swiss Airlines spot celebrating Campari Soda. Campari, obviously was thrilled, and ran an inflight promotion.