the transition from english lit to communications.

I studied English Literature for two and a half years at Wilfrid Laurier before I decided what I really loved was communication theory.  At the time, this seemed a little nuts, as I was fully committed to English as a path of study, and had taken a totally of one credit (2 courses) of Communication Studies.  I immersed myself in it anyways.

I didn’t have an explanation for why the transition felt so organic until recently.

My interest in English was mostly about techniques.  I liked reading and analyzing books because I found it rewarding to pick apart how certain effects had been used, what they accomplished for the overall story, the characters, the effects on the reader.  I liked learning about the history and range of different literary devices.

Basically, I liked media theory, studied in a Petri dish.  Arguably the most closely watched, developed medium for sophisticated, durable transmission of ideas in human history, the written word.

I was explaining recently to someone involved in Ontario Youth Parliament that getting an English degree is really about learning how to read critically.  And once you can read a novel critically, really critically, on the level of a trained expert, you can adequately dissect any piece of creative work, assuming you are willing to put in the time to learn the context, the background information, and the tropes of the medium.

The best explanation I can give for why the shift from English Literature to Communication Studies came so naturally is because English Lit is the best place I’ve seen to hone specific dissection skills for creative work, and Communication Studies is for people who want to use those skills, but have gotten bored of the novel.

the unrestrained data shadow.

A discussion with Angus of Ghostrazor about the point of Halo novels got me thinking. I support brand extension, and building a larger history to interact with, but do I support the creation of stand-alone consumables that exist expressly for this purpose? I'm still trying to figure out where I stand.

The example that came up was Star Wars, and how the expansion of the universe through games, comics, novels, action figures, etc, is what kept the brand strong until Lucas released episode one - three, and ruined all of it. Unquestionably, there was a lot of crap involved in that endless stream of product, but it served a purpose - films that were decades old remained relevant, discussed, and in possession of a fandom that is hard to argue with. That fandom is a pretty solid justification for why most sci-fi or action films immediately have a companion novel, video game, and graphic novel waiting on store shelves at release.

The part that I'm not so sold on is the apparent irrelevance of quality, or 'fit', to the benefit of this enterprise. I'd argue that Halo doesn't have enough plot, or character depth, for a novel to be of real value. I think webisodes, or ARG, or even comics could make an excellent extension of the brand, but I assume a Halo novel ignores the only non-character of note the franchise created (Master Chief) and sets up a completely separate group of characters, dealing with alien war on ring-shaped worlds. There's nothing inherent in the book that makes it connected to Halo, other than the cover. There's not really justification, excepting the value of brand extensions in building a dedicated fandom.

What depressed me, is that brand dilution isn't really a worry with creative properties like video games, because everyone already accepts and expects the cash-grab extensions like novels, regardless of how crappy. The quality of the core property carries it, as long as the fandom is 1) slightly underground, and 2) not too critical.

I include those caveats because, well, Tom Clancy. The man has written several solid books, but now his name (and brand) is pasted on anything, because someone will buy it. In my circles, at least, this has made Tom Clancy a joke. I'm wondering how much longer until brand expansion is something carefully considered, because any sub-par offering, anything done only for the financial return, will discredit an entire product line.

I think we've already reached this point in music, because there is an (absurd) expectation of authenticity in that medium. When will crap like the 24 magazine, the Lost magazine, the Heroes Magazine, novels, etc, be abandoned, because the potential influx of cash isn't worth the risk of the brand becoming more known for it's endless desire for easy money, than for the creatively viable core product.

Context is great and powerful, but injecting crap into the mix to increase the data shadow is, to me, the same as re-writing the core product to make it worse.

time and space bias, dead and dying

chartreuse examines time bias, or more bluntly, declares time dead.

I agree, but was kinda hoping this much was obvious by now. Then again, watching most media outlets makes it clear that obvious doesn't really mean a change in operations. I'm more interested in space bias - and the idea that most content owners have, that owning something in one form, shouldn't justify ownership in several formats, each suited to a location (meaning, a device, a file format, and a set of permissions and interactions tooled to that medium).

Time bias is more or less dead, and all it took was storage, compression and bandwidth. Space bias falling apart will be more of a cultural shift, and an eventual understanding that consumers are only willing to pay for something useful. Useful, very soon, is going to be defined as unilaterally useful. In other words, people might be willing to spent 15 bucks for an album again if it means they can get a physical copy, get a digital copy, and get enough context with it that the experience is tailored to each tool they use to enjoy it, from ipod to computer to car.

thoughts on viral vs brand extension.

I've in the middle of an extended thought-experiment in relation to building a brand in performing arts, in this case music.  It brought to mind an important division in building engagement and a following, that between what is marketing, and what is brand extension.

The example that first comes to mind is the one most often used here - that of the ARG for NIN's Year Zero.  It was marketing in the sense that it attracted attention, created buzz, and built anticipation.  But foremost, what made it special is it had no relation to sales in terms of content.  The Year Zero ARG was a world-expanding exercise - to the extent where understanding of the record was lessened without an understanding of the backstory.

This is what I'm interested in.  Building a backstory, a world, a datashadow, whatever you want to call it, around a creative product.  Not because it build interest, but because it builds context.  Context naturally creates points of association.  That builds discussion, without it being destroyed by too much meddling.

You aren't creating a brand, or a product, anymore.  You're creating a world, and experience, and you need to understand that products will be dragged into this space whether or not you plan on it.  You are sharing your idea with the world.  It would be nice if we were all kind enough to share instructions to go with the idea, a mindset that people can explore to give them the best view of what you are striving for with your creative product.

So, I guess I'm inherently against the idea of intentionally trying to 'go viral' with an ad, despite the vast number of excellent examples that have worked well for brands.  I'm not interested in short term asides that attract the partial attention that online advertising is settling for.  I realize it isn't plausible in every industry, but I want brand building to be inextricably tied to world building.

If what you create, whether it be art, object or solution, can't be explored on a deeper level than what it is, surrounded by intriguing content that doesn't add anything, I have trouble thinking of how you can build a community around it.

And if you can't build a community, I have trouble thinking of a situation in which you are at all secure.

the perils of new media consumption.

Too much of my information comes from the blogosphere. I realised that today when, on three separate occasions, I found a story that I had already been exposed to popped up next on my RSS feed. This doesn't bother me when there is actual commentary, but very often it's something I saw yesterday, with a link to where I saw it yesterday. Often, there's not even a quote for context.

This is an old complaint, that there's very little original content on the blogosphere. And that's true, to a point. But I read blogs not for facts, but for curation, opinion, and analysis. Curation is the hard one, because very often (and I'm guilty of this) bloggers use blogs for inspiration and information.

This is me promising to add, at the very least, commentary, context, or opinion to links posted.

ignoring cost, piracy vs. legit retailers.

Sometime in the last year, I read a Yahoo exec (Ian Rogers) talking about the future of music. His major point was that the power legal alternatives to downloading had was the ability to add context to consumption - he was willing to admit that the legal music biz had already lost in terms of what people considered the first stop, to consider developing the creation of context and extra content to go with music as an alternative business model.

This is a very good approach to the issue of competing with piracy. If music is already free, what do you sell? However, it appears that the glacial reaction times of the music industry have struck again. The Pirate Bay, beloved destination of copyright criminals everywhere, has (I know not when) started to add context to the files available for download. The kind of context that, arguably, makes the sites illegal downloads a boon to artists, as it shares the albums available from the back catalogue, upcoming shows, and similar artists.

For a look at the Justice artist page, click here.

There is no huge incentive for those at The Pirate Bay to make provisions for this information, it just makes it a better place for users, and make the tools available more complete. Justice, or their label, aren't paying anyone to do this. But it's getting done.

This is why legal music always falls short of the service offered by the illegally downloaded content available. The format is always better, it's always easier (to the suitably tech-savvy), it always works, and there are less hoops to jump through. But most importantly, the focus is always on what will make the users happier - the music industry should be focused on the same thing (considering it would sell records), but instead they skip the keep-customers-happy step, and try to focus more directly on how to sell digital music.

And they fail. Again.