Archive for the 'Web 2.0' Category

When copyright goes wrong

Some interesting developments in the area of online copyright infringement this week…

Fans of the cult show Mad Men had been tuning in to in-character tweets from fans posing as Don Draper and colleagues from fictional 60’s ad agency Sterling Cooper. Earlier this week the show’s producers, AMC, issued a DMCA takedown notice requiring Twitter to cancel the user accounts of those concerned, leading to widespread condemnation from fans. AMC has now realised that – get this – having fans is actually a good thing, and have withdrawn their complaint. The Twitter accounts in question have now been restored. Hopefully this will serve as a lesson to copyright holders that sometimes it’s better just to let the fans have their fun rather than jumping in and playing the bad guy.

Case in Point – Hasbro. At the insistence of the shortsighted North American rights-holder’s considerable legal might, Facebook has blocked Scrabulous access for all users (with the possible exception of India?). Fans of the game are not exactly flocking to adopt the official version released by Mattel (the International rights-holder). It appears they have taken zero usability cues from Scrabulous (fear of a copyright infringement lawsuit? LOL), making the game a very poor substitute for what was a pretty addictive gaming experience.

Good news is, fans can still play Scrabulous outside of Facebook via the Scrabulous.com website. And they are. I don’t know about you fine folks, but prior to the axing I’d say 60% of my facebook visits were Scrabulous-driven. Now I’m spending a hell of a lot of time at Scrabulous.com, and hitting Facebook maybe once every couple of days. Ironically (as opposed to Alanically), the only real losers in this one appear to be Hasbro, Mattel and Facebook. The big winners? Their lawyers, of course!*

*Yuh. We all know how smart lawyers are, right?

Where do people find the time?

Nobody who works in television has the right to ask that question.

– Clay Shirky

I’ve mentioned before that one of the common responses I get when encouraging people to give blogging a try is that they don’t feel they have anything worth writing about. Although I honestly believe that, no matter how mundane our lives and musings might appear, we all have somebody out there who’d be interested to read about them, I can accept that some people just aren’t in touch with their inner writer and will either figure it out one day or they won’t. Good luck to ‘em, I say.

Others claim that the only stuff they’d care to write about is so deeply personal that they couldn’t bear to share it so openly. Fair enough – I’ve used that excuse myself at times when personal circumstances have caused me to temporarily abandon my blog. The way I see it, if you’re trying to choose between sharing deeply personal thoughts you’d really rather keep to yourself and writing about stuff that’s really not important to you just so you can post something (something that isn’t deeply personal thoughts you’d rather keep to yourself), posting nothing is an acceptable third option. I’m waaaaaaaaaaaay too young to cut my ear off just so you’ve got something to read during your morning coffee.

Then there are the deluded, self-important assholes who smugly claim that they simply don’t have the time to blog and can’t understand how I manage. It’s hard to ignore the implicit accusation that the time I spend tinkering with my various online projects (blogs I maintain, communities I belong to, wikis I contribute to etc) is somehow wasted, a sink into which I pour my otherwise productive time.

I found the clip below about a month ago, showing author Clay Shirky speaking at a web 2.0 conference earlier in the year. It’s an insightful and well-delivered perspective on where this shift to online is taking us, starting with the wry observation that if gin was the critical technology of the industrial revolution (numbing the upheaval of transitioning to an industrial society), the critical technology of the post-war years must have been the sitcom.

Shirky makes a brilliant point in that we – individually and as a society – have a massive ‘cognitive surplus’ that we just don’t have a use for (if we did, there wouldn’t be a surplus). Throughout history this had never been a problem, because we used to spend all our time hunting mammoths, tending fields, and slogging it out in Mr Bumble’s work house. The dawn of the 40-hour week may have freed us from servitude in many respects, but it also created a problem we’d never faced before – what to do with all that spare time? For decades, television has been the sponge that soaked up all this latent time and energy, but now we’re finding new and better things to do with our time. Many of these new pastimes – such as playing elf warrior in Warcraft, or trading pictures of kittens with amusing facial expressions – might not be considered productive in the traditional sense, but it’s something, and watching television is nothing. And as the man says, it’s better to do something than nothing.

The numbers are astonishing. The estimated 100 million man-hours that have gone into Wikipedia to date may seem like a hell of a lot, but bear in mind that the Internet-connected population watches a TRILLION hours of television per year – enough to build 10,000 Wikipedias. That’s one hell of an asset, if we could only figure out how to use it – imagine the possibilities!

No, seriously, please imagine the possibilities. How do I find the time to create things online? How can you not?

Click here to watch part 2. If you’d rather just read about it, Shirky’s written account of the talk can be found here.

On Blogging…

I’ve had this idea floating around for some time but haven’t quite been able to articulate it. So here’s a feeble first attempt – bear with me and I’ll hope you get my point. Any and all comments / suggestions etc appreciated…

I’ve been posting to this blog pretty regularly for quite some time, and those of you who have been reading for a while will have noticed some substantial variations in content matter. I’d like to think that some of my posts are pretty insightful and well written. I’ve had a lot of positive feedback and recognition this past year – both in links and comments, as well as a surprisingly high readership.

Other posts, for example last year’s ranting about Grampa Joe and the Cat in the Hat, could be regarded as off colour at best. Given that I’m currently looking for work (as you can tell, I get bored quickly and the consequences can be dire), it has occurred to me that I may not be doing myself any favours by tainting the ‘good’ posts with what others (potential employers, clients, business partners, whatever…) may find disturbing.

So why post them? The fact of the matter is, I feel that to post anything based on what I feel ‘people’ (whoever they might be) want to read as opposed to what I have to say would be dishonest. It’d also be a hell of a lot harder to manage (keeping track of who my readers are and what they’re interested in before I even begin to write anything). I also firmly believe it would be the end of what up to this point has become a pretty sizeable and loyal following.

In your traditional publishing environment (TV, newspapers, radio, magazines, and most ‘web 1.0′ sites), you start with your audience and work backwards. E.g. ‘We want to appeal to 18 to 35 year-old men, so this is the kind of content we’ll create/source and this is the style in which we’ll deliver it’. What you are effectively doing is constructing a persona for the publication based around a pre-conceived notion of what viewers / readers / listeners will identify with, and then attempting to provide content in a style consistent with that persona.

Blogging – or rather, good blogging – is a different animal. To put it simply, this is all about me. I didn’t need to create a persona for this blog, because I already had one (mine). I didn’t need to decide on a theme or style either, because I just write about the things that interest me in the style that comes naturally. And here’s the rub – you’ll either like what I write or you won’t, but if you do, you’ll be back. Why?

Let’s take an analogy from the world of dating…

Bill is looking to hook up with the girl of his dreams. He’s set his heart on landing a 19 year-old fashion model. Bill does some research and figures out that models tend to like rich, muscle-bound party boys, so he starts hitting the gym and throwing a lot of money around at the hottest clubs in town.

Bob is also looking to get loved-up. He doesn’t have anyone in mind, other than that she needs to love him for who he is. So he puts himself out there and makes an effort to get to know people, but takes pains to ensure people get to know the real him.

Aftert a while, Bill and Bob have both met people. Who do you think has the stronger relationship? My guess is Bob. She may not be the girl he had in mind (she couldn’t be, as he started out with no such preconceptions), but she loves him for who he is, rather than for his efforts to be who he thinks she wants him to be. Bill has based his relationship on two critical assumptions – he thinks he knows what the object of his desire wants, and he also thinks he can be that man. Sounds like a house of cards to me.

What does this have to do with blogging? Let me answer by asking you another question: There are millions of blogs out there, so why are you reading this one? My guess is that if this isn’t your first time here, it has more to do with how well you relate to me than anything I’ve written. See, this blog is a nothing more than a reflection of the stuff I find interesting expressed in my own personal style. You’ll either dig it (me) or you won’t.

Perez Hilton. Rob Scoble. Om Malik. Matt Drudge (not a blogger as such, but I think he deserves mention here – will explain later). These are some of the web’s new superstars, and they sure as hell didn’t get there via market research, brand workshops, focus groups and Deputy Assistant Sub-Editors. Think about that, people.

**Afterthought**

Does this mean I was faking it back when I was working at Marker and regularly contributing to the company blog? I don’t think so. Like Eddie said, we all wear a bunch of different hats, and when I was blogging at Marker I was wearing my Marker hat (I know I’m deviating from the point de Bono was making, but the analogy still fits). Avoiding cursewords and not posting about porn (ok, bad example) and child-molesting children’s book characters was in no way dishonest, because ‘Marker Stuart’ didn’t feel the need to write about such things or in that style.

What’s the lesson here? Still trying to work that one out. The first thing that occurs to me is that a lot of people I know are reluctant to blog and I think many are simply afraid people won’t like what they have to say. The way I see it, no matter what you write some people will love it and some people will hate it. That being the case, the only sensible option is to be true to yourself and your readers by writing what comes naturally – be yourself instead of attempting to please the faceless masses. I’m sure more will occur to me over the next wee while now that I’ve got this off my chest, so stay tuned.

Thanks for dropping by.

My new favourite song

I know I’ve been saying it for over a year and it hasn’t happened yet… but it’ll happen. The bubble will burst, and I for one will be laughing my ass off*.

*Sour grapes? Probably

Roll up! Roll up! The tote is open!

DP2008 is open

I’ve been getting a hell of a lot of chain letters and ‘virus alerts’ via Facebook lately. I’m really not bothered by it, but it looks like a lot of my friends are getting sucked in so for what it’s worth…

  1. There has NEVER been a genuine online appeal of the ‘for every person who forwards this email, [name of well-known rich guy/company] will donate [amount] towards little Jimmy’s cancer treatment’ kind. This should be obvious – can you really picture Bill Gates sitting at home thinking “fuck him, he only got 276 forwards, let him die of leukemia”? [*]
  2. The most effective means of keeping safe from hackers & viruses is to regularly update your antivirus software. Use a good one like Norton’s, or AVG – which has a really good free version. If you really want to keep track of what the latest viruses are, go to Symantec.com – but God only knows why you would ‘cos that’s like my grandmother reading medical journals to see what she’d liable to come down with next. Does is really do any good? Either way, please understand that ALL ‘virus alert’ emails are fake. Most of them have been doing the rounds for years – see: http://www.symantec.com/business/security_response/threatexplorer/risks/hoaxes.jsp
  3. As a rule, any communication that instructs you to ’send this to everyone you know’ is likely to be either malicious or inane – and either way will not be well received by the people you pass it on to. If you really want to make the world a better place, show the originators of this crap that we mean business by simply IGNORING them!
  4. Finally, and most importantly…

The end of the year is nearly upon us and you know what that means? Yup – time to get your entries in for Dead Pool 2008. It’s simple:

  1. Pick 10 celebs you think will kick the bucket next year.
  2. Send them to me (the names, not the celebs themselves – with the possible exception of Salma Hayek. If you have Salma Hayek, let me know and I will break my ‘keep those crazy bastards away from me‘ rule and send you my home address). All other entries must be online, method tbc – probably email, but am thinking about building a Facebook app
  3. When some lucky punter’s pony ’shuffles off their mortal coil’, they receive (100- the pony’s age) points.
  4. Most points at end of 2008 wins bragging rights and title as most cynical bastard I know.

This year’s picks and scores (a TERRIBLE crop this year) can be found here.

Ok so start thinking about your picks and I’ll get back to you when entry details are confirmed.

Cheers!

The trick to creating great viral video

Dan Ackerman Greenberg posted a great article to TechCrunch last week, sharing his insight into what makes a truely effective viral video. I like the article because it speaks to a lot of thinkgs I’d wondered recently about exploiting video sharing sites for publicity purposes.

**And before you all jump in and give me shit about siding with a spammer… Yes, I accept that a lot of what Dan talks about isn’t exactly ethical. As the saying goes, however, this ain’t show friends this is show business. Show me the money! Show me the money! Show me the money!

Sorry, must be having another one of them Jerry Maguire moments.

In terms of traffic generation, online video is a hugely underestimated opportunity. There is an entire industry dedicated to mastering the Google algorithm (for all its complexity), but promotion and dissemination of video content is still in its infancy by comparison. Given that contributors can assign their own tags and categories to video content (unlike web pages, which are assessed by the search engine and subjected to a veeeeeeeeeeeery complex classification algorithm), a little foresight and imagination can go a long way in terms of exposure and appeal.

Example: they’ve probably blocked this now, but about 6 months ago I got thousands of views on a stupid clip of my dog chasing a stick simply by applying the tags PORN SEX and NAKED when I uploaded it to YouTube. A rather inane experiment, I know, but you would get NOWHERE pulling that crap with traditional SEO.

Anyhoo, the article is a little long winded but I definitely recommend you make some time to take it all in. For those of you working on their next heart attack here’s the abridged version…

Secret #1: Not all viral videos are what they seem

2. Content is NOT King

Here are some guidelines we follow:

* Make it short
* Design for remixing
* Don’t make an outright ad
* Make it shocking
* Use fake headlines
* Appeal to sex

3. Core Strategy: Getting onto the “Most Viewed” page

So how do we get the first 50,000 views we need to get our videos onto the Most Viewed list?

* Blogs
* Forums
* MySpace
* Facebook
* Email lists
* Friends

4. Title Optimization

5. Thumbnail Optimization

6. Commenting: Having a conversation with yourself

7. Releasing all videos simultaneously

8. Strategic Tagging: Leading viewers down the rabbit hole

9. Metrics/Tracking: How we measure effectiveness

Have a great week!

Stickin’ it to the man (ok, to the woman)

If it’s not completely obvious, this Electoral Finance Bill thing has really rubbed me the wrong way. If you read my blog on a regular basis, odds are you like what I have to say and/or the way I say it. The value (artistic or otherwise) of what I write is debateable, as evident by some of the hate mail I’ve received over the years, but if you dig beneath the fart jokes and ranting I believe that the dialogical act of blogging is a beaufiful expression of our (endangered) democratic freedom.

You’ve probably guessed by now that my own political leanings sit just a little to the right of Ghengis Khan’s. You either agree with me or you don’t, but that’s ok – I have a right to my beliefs, you have a right to your own, and we both have the freedom to try and sway each other with reasoned discourse and hopefully make the world a better place along the way.

Anyhoo, I’ve been thinking…

As much as there are many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many … *gasp!* many many many many many political idealogies out there that I disagree with, the one that pisses me off the most is the one that attacks the essense of democracy, the basest human right beyond the right to life itself – freedom of speech.

The Electoral Finance Bill was designed to restrict free expression of ideas by limiting the money that could be spent attempting to reach people. Ok fine. If you want to play that way, the gloves are off. Leave your checkbook at home. ‘Free’ speech it is.

As of January 1st 2008 I will publish any and all information (press releases, promotional videos, event invitations, policy statements etc) provided to me by any organisation hoping to influence the outcome of the general election. Send me your material or a link / RSS feed to your material (e.g. your video stuff really should be at YouTube etc) and I’ll do my damndest to make sure as many voters see it as possible. I’ll post it to my own blog, apply social bookmarks, email it to my friends, and I’ll also compile it into a custom ‘NZ elections’ RSS feed that I’ll encourage other bloggers to pick up.

Who’s with me?

ps. Don’t worry, kids – the fart jokes and ranting will still be here in abundance.

Big ups to the big man

Love him or hate him, you’ve gotta respect Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his personal blog*. He’s certainly not the most prolific poster, but he does appear to have at least grasped the basics:

  1. If you claim it’s a personal blog, write it yourself. People can smell bullshit, and I could show you dozens of examples where it’s completely obvious all posts have come out of the PR or Comms departments.
  2. Blogging is a dialogue. If you’re going to state your views you should be open to hear other people’s. I HATE blogs that don’t support comments, and don’t feel much better about those that moderate.

Are Ahmadinejad’s comments moderated? Let’s look at a few (my comments in paretheses)

I hate you. you are retarted. that simple mentally retarted – john jacobs, USA (USA? No shit!)

You are a terrible, despicable human being. You WILL be attacked by the US or Israel and will be destroyed! – Your Gone (a.k.a. I’m Illiterate), UK

How does it feel to be the most hated person on the planet? – Martha Washington, USA (‘the planet’, in this instance, no doubt meaning the city of Incest Alabama or whatever middle-of-nowhere slum is was that this chick was born in and never left)

Um… I think it’s safe to assume they’re not being moderated. So what do you think – reckon Bush or Clark would have the stones to give blogging a try?

Don’t ever forget – open democracy begins and ends with the free expression of ideas.

*I know I’ve mentioned this before. I just dropped in today to see if he was still posting. Sporadic at best, but I’m surprised and impressed to see it’s still on his radar.

MySpace and Facebook launch new Advertising products, why Hyper Targeting, Social Ads and rise of the “Fan-Sumer” matter to brands

As you may or may not know, Facebook and MySpace have both recently launched new advertising products. I haven’t taken the time as yet to look through these in detail and form my own conclusions, so will save that for a later post. In the meantime, for those of you who are wondering what this is all about and what this means to marketers, I highly recommend checking out Jeremiah Owyang’s blog**.

Both Facebook and MySpace have launched profile and network targeted advertising and marketing products. As they both use member interests and the communities which they are part of, trust continues to become key in adoption as information is passed along the network. The sheer size of MySpace’s member base, as well as the thriving local business membership will lead to success. Facebook, which brings a unique solution evolves advertisements to endorsements and encourages members to subscribe to a brand in what we are calling “Fan-Sumers” (an evolution of the consumer). As consumers share their affinities, brands can advertise using trusted social relationships. More>>>

**Recommended reading for anyone with even a passing interest in digital media. Copy this link and add it to your favourite RSS reader. Go on – you know you want to!

How fuzzy are you?

While in Chicago recently I was fortunate to be invited to a presentation given by David Armano, VP of Experience Design at Critical Mass. There was also a great speaker from Microsoft (IIRC one of their professional evangelists), but I can’t for the life of me remember what he spoke about so I’ll spare you that one).

A friend just sent me a link to David’s presentation, and I’d really like to share it with you for a number of reasons:

First up, delivery method. SlideShare is really neat – kind of like a Flickr for sharing presentations. This makes sense to me on so many levels. For a start, it makes it easy to share your work without worrying about having it ripped off (believe me, it happens). Like Flickr and YouTube there’s a one-click feature for embedding in blogs (as you can see below), which is a hell of a lot more compelling than simply providing a link to a ppt file. Together these mean that if you really believe in your message, it can find an audience beyond those who attend in person (case in point – this presentation has had 8,707 views so far, which is a hell of a lot more than you can squeeze into the ballroom of the Hard Rock Hotel). I also think it’s a good way of honing your presentation skills. If you don’t feel comfortable sharing your presenation with your online community, you probably shouldn’t inflict it on anyone at all.

I also really like the visuals. I am sick and tired of the same old ‘Header-Bullet Point-Sub Bullet Point…’ format. It’s boring, lazy and quite ineffective. The purpose of any presentation is to take your audience on a journey from where their thinking is at the start, through to where you want their thinking to be at the end. PowerPoint can be a great help in that regard, but your visuals have to SUPPORT the presentation, and not be the presentation itself. (John Steel makes this point a hell of a lot better than I do in his recent book, “Perfect Pitch: The Art of Selling Ideas and Winning New Business” – I really recommend it). Anyhoo, to cut a long story short I’ve seen quite a few presentations lately in a similar style to the one David used (one point per slide, juxtaposed with relevant supporting imagery) and I really like it. Enough information so you can follow his jist, but not so much that you get confused or stop listing. I’ll definitely try this the next chance I get.

Finally, of course, I really like the point he’s making. It’s a pretty simple one, but at the same time critical and largely overlooked at this point in time. Our industry (this whole crazy Interweb thingy) is evolving, and we need to evolve also. ‘Website development’ is now a commodity business, with sound design and development a zero-one proposition (looking good and working properly are required just be in the business, and are certainly not a solid means of differentiation). David proposes the need for us to be ‘fuzzy’ in the way we approach and do our work – blurring the lines between areas of expertise (to be honest I found this point to be quite a relief, as I have often had difficulty explaining to people what I actually do – I guess I must be one of them ‘fuzzy people) and ‘unlearning’ our old methods in the drive to be innovative.

We can no longer afford to over-analyze our challenges. We must try to get things launched—learn from these experiences and refine. We must define ourselves and what we do more broadly while retaining the potency of our our crafts. It’s about going from left brain to right brain and ending up on “light brain”. We must become “fuzzy”.

(Being fuzzy) is about unlearning everything we think we know—so we can actually learn and adapt. It’s about less focus on rigid tasks and job descriptions and more focus on bringing our efforts together in the overlaps—where our skills compliment each other. It’s about being more nimble and adopting “fuzzy” processes to compliment our tried and true methods that have served us well in the past.

The Fuzzy Tail is my way of saying “we won’t become the blacksmiths of our time”. It’s about pushing past the commodity—the end product or service which can be outsourced. It’s about putting aside egos, getting out of silos and mixing it up with each other—I mean really mixing it up. Planners who think like designers—designers who obsess about business—information architects who write—writers who act like strategists—project managers who can direct creative and creative directors who are willing to let them. People who are willing to let others play in their sandbox.

I will concede that he puts it a lot better than I do, but this meshes well with my own thoughts on why most digital agencies are fucked (see posts 1 2 3). Times they are a changing, and the old breed (of digital professionals and agencies) just aren’t going to cut it. So let me ask you, and be honest:

How fuzzy are you?

Next Page »