oppositional proof-reading.

Walking to work today I saw a Tim Horton's billboard that got me thinking.

The ad consists of the Tim's logo, a full pot of coffee with the time '10:27' written on it, and handwriting-style text to the tune of 'this pot of coffee has 20 minutes to live'.  Simple, fairly easy to understand - they are letting you know that any coffee you buy at Timmy Ho's will be no more than 20 minutes old.

However, my immediate thought was 1) 'What an absurd waste of coffee', and 2) 'I wonder how much energy that wastes?'

Clearly, this wasn't the reading that the creators of the ad intended.  And it was easy to see the meaning they had intended the ad to create.  But at the same time, I have to wonder if I wouldn't do better work if I looked at every sentence I wrote, and considered the knee-jerk oppositional readings that are most likely, when I created it.

All any of us can do is create something, and make it available to others.  At that point, we lose control over meaning.  If I can make it even slightly harder to find a point of disagreement with what I create, it's probably worth it.  I do this to a certain extent already, but I'm going to endeavour to make it a more standard part of my creative process / workflow.

words to live by.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

In my opinion this quote very clearly explains the shifting stages in power dynamics, and the messaging that changes between large and small companies.  Which is why I've been applying it constantly, without realizing, to far too many conversations I've been having.

The important thing isn't applying this to yourself only when you are the little guy.  The truly important thing is to remember the dominant role in the story - if you can continue indefinitely against a competitor, either ignoring them or laughing at them, you are probably in good shape.  However, a competitior only gains status when you decide to start fighting them.  Don't give them the opportunity to win.

Keep laughing.

slideshows.

I'm obsessed with the art of presentation.  I've always cared more than most people about public speaking, but now I'm starting to get into powerpoint style slideshows as more than just a tool.  I'm fairly convinced they are one of the least utilized and most versatile forms of digital media available.

A slideshow can be expressed in a massive number of ways, using the exact same designs and words.  Taking the slides and using them as images, with the read text printed as words, and you have a magazine style article.  Take the slides themselves, and you can save them as individual images, a slideshare prezo, PDFs, or even printed copies that create a take home that will jog the memory of an audience.  Encode an MP3 album in iTunes format, with each slide being the album art for a 30 second vocal track.  Make a YouTube video that's just the stills and the audio.

This is all without the major use, standing in front of a group of people, regardless of size, and shaping their attention and time into a learning experience.

I'm obsessed with slideshows for the same reason I'm obsessed with memes.  You can throw a fully formed idea out there, in discrete units, and let it propagate on it's own, throughout a nearly endless list of forms.

More important than any of that is the fact that a good slideshow is one of the most impressive, interactive and multimedia things that someone can do on a computer with minimal ability, next to no equipment, and infinite repeatability.

I don't make enough slideshows.

five signs of fail: ads.

1. The ad content and form is defined by the messaging of competitors, thereby validating their claims / insults.
2. The focus is a direct reaction to opposing messages, and the campaign would not exist if those messages hadn't provoked it.
3. The campaign intrigues without offering the audience anywhere to go for further information, even if they research independently.
4. The images / messages contradict either the reality of the product, the reality of the brand, or other elements of the same campaign.
5. The ad is based on an internet meme that is either lacking in mainstream appeal, or has already passed out of public consciousness.  Related: the ad directly copies an established meme, adding nothing original.

These are my five signs of fail for advertising.  Feel free to guess which specific campaigns inspired each point - I am giving away no-prizes.

the importance of persuasive communication in leadership.

Just thought I'd stop in and link to a post explaining my stance on whether a leadership candidate being a 'Marketing Genius' is a good or bad thing.

Also, I'm leaving the country in not too long, so another week will be added to the long, long, long drought in new posts.

'the medium is the message' and 'messages by the medium' - corporate social media.

Everyone remembers 'The Medium is the Message' - it's succinct, and is a great reminder that means of delivery alters potential interpretation.  It's a classic for a reason.

We're reaching the era of 'Message for the Medium' - your content will have to be defined by, and tailored to, the limitations and most importantly cultures of each medium.  Regurgitating the same creative across social networks, banner ads, billboards and TV spots won't work unless your creative operates like a native, to the natives on each platform.  Awkwardness is tantamount to invasion, and will be responded to as such.

Corporate blogging is almost always terrible, mostly because it's usually press release content, advertising content, or marketing content designed for another channel, spooged into blog form.

[Spooged is, if I remember right, taken from Douglas Coupland's Microserfs - the context is in taking an application made for one OS, and then screwing with it until it works on another one.]

Spooging content is poised to become an even bigger problem, for many reasons.  First, social media has larger corporations in a panic, and they are starting to demand a presence without understanding that they don't fit.  Second, old business models are being made less relevant by the second, so content and business plan are being spooged into new media in an attempt to 'modernize' without having to completely re-create a revenue stream.  Third, mobile internet, and mobile social media, are going to be dead easy to sell (who wouldn't want to advertise in someone's pocket) and hard to execute.  The first iteration of this will be horrid, like most first iterations.

Some corporations have such a perfect angle, though, I wish I could convince them to blog just so I could enjoy it.  The one I want most: 3M's Research and Development Division.  A bunch of geniuses with a colossal budget creating tiny outbursts of the future, and sharing it with us step by step and constructive narratives by both the research team, and the project.  But it won't happen, due to trade secrets and the simple fact that it's too alien a concept for the higher ups to approve.  But it's an example where a corporate element would actually fit into the character and requirements of blogging, as opposed to trying to turn the medium into something more familiar.

the artifical persona and transparency: revisited

One of my major themes, at the start of this blog, was the importance of persona as a medium, both in day-to-day life, and on a broader scale. What is interesting is, completely independent of this, I have ended up working in Public Relations. I am in the persona business, and I feel I have to explain how I can reconcile that, with the earlier ideas of artificial persona that dominated my writing here.

Persona is both the first, and most vital medium we have to express ourselves, our ideologies, and our agendas. It’s also the first medium we learn to manipulate, although many do not see it this way. Persona Management is a skill we all develop to varying degrees. We keep emotions, or opinions, to ourselves. We carefully monitor our expression, actions, tone, and words to make sure we convey only certain information.

In this sense, all persona is artificial.

My commentary on artificial persona, however, was the idea of pushing beyond this, and creating a public persona that was more carefully managed than an actual identity. Monitoring all output, all traceable action, and making all decisions that relate to public information based on maintaining that desired persona. The purpose of this was as a response to the state of privacy in our modern world. Everything is public, and nothing is private, assuming a suitable lack of anonymity.

This approach requires subjugating ‘actual’ identity for ‘projected’ persona, and therefore is entirely unacceptable to the average person. Some would argue that there are examples of fully artificial persona in the celebrity community, and I would have to agree this isn’t out of the realm of possibility. But by and large, all a famous person is doing is the standard practice of projecting a ‘best-of-self’ persona, and ignoring / downplaying negative aspects of one’s identity.

Transparency, in some ways, if the opposite of artificiality. It demands making all information available, in an attempt to earn goodwill – an ‘open’ identity means that negative aspects observed are more likely to be forgiven. The issue here, is that no sane person would want to be completely transparent. Instead we deal with the illusion of transparency, and the hope that it will keep people from digging much deeper.

My current theory is persona management. It’s a selective mix of transparency and artificiality, while operating on what my inner English Major demands I call a thesis. Core truth must be preserved, otherwise the effect will ‘feel’ off. The key to artificiality is that it be a perfect simulacra – this is next to impossible in real life. People notice the cracks. So, the logical choice is to be open about some of the cracks, those that are integral to believability, and to operate on a less transparent basis when those flaws overwhelm the thesis. The core idea behind artificial persona was the creation of a consistent message and whole, one that was reflected by all elements. The creation of that with the inclusion of beneficial truths AND beneficial but true flaws, creates a more believable image.

That believable, positive persona is what matters, and what most communication is an attempt to create. The right field theory on how to do that is, to me, priceless. That, in a nutshell, is why I’m rambling on about it.

Click for other posts on Artificiality, Persona, and Transparency.

what love?

Of all the things to bring me out of a blogging slump, Microsoft for the win. Who expected that? Anyways this 'Bring the love back' video and probable campaign is a very interesting beast.

First things first. Well done, kinda funny, but hardly a new message. Reading the project blog that I linked, the idea of conversation as the 'new' thing in the world of reaching customers online is floated at the end of april. This is not remotely a new idea. I can't even being to come up with the correct person to connect the idea to, but the internet as medium for conversation, and conversation as a medium for reaching consumers, is spoken about ad nauseum online. Not that it isn't completely true, but still.

The interesting part, however, is what is presented. It felt, to an extent, like an anti-advertising screed. The consumer complains about being ignored, is shown to be considered as only a section of a demographic, and desires something more than a discounted price or other form of 'bribery' for loyalty. Up until this point, it felt something like reading Adbusters. Advertising is the soulless pretty boy who doesn't care about the consumer at all, and the consumer has had enough. Except this isn't about rejecting marketing in all of it's forms, and arguing against urban spam. This is entirely about what messages are being shown to you via the channels you choose. This is about the tailoring of the message to the consumer.

I find this so amusing, because in essence, it's an anti-advertising clip, by Microsoft, and it might as well be a big ball of praise for Google.

The blog for this clip makes a comment about wanting to offer the "unique assets [...] to help advertisers to reconnect with today’s consumer (look at in-game advertising, personal expressions in messenger, Xbox, etc)" but these are doors already opened. I like the idea (and constant repetition) of the importance of creating a conversation as a means of reaching people, but at the same time, I feel this one is started under false pretenses, essentially an argument that consumer don't want discounts, and the 'same old' advertising practices, but instead deeply desire losing every last refuge from advertising, including in-game worlds, personal messages and emails, etc. For some reason, I doubt that being out of touch with your consumer base is something that is changed by the medium you choose to reach them. The first thing that pops to mind while looking into this 'Bring the love back' idea is that the conversation would be just as unsatisfying for the consumer whether it had been face to face, on Live Messenger, in email, written in a letter, through a tv screen, on a blog, or via messenger pigeon.

It doesn't matter how closely you stalk someone's interests in the attempt to find a new arena to throw your message at them. What matters is actually creating messages carefully tailored to the current interests and habits of the individuals in question. The 'Bring back the love' clip alludes to that. Google does it every time I check my email.

gorillaz.

[Disclosure: I love the Gorillaz, fictional though they may be. I have all four releases (which should point out the level of obsession, because who digs for dub remix albums that no one else knows exist), two of the dvds, and the book. ]

So, it's all ending. Hopefully it will end with us getting an animated Gorillaz movie, and the score to it, as indicated here, but ending all the same.

I found the theory behind Albarn and Hewlett's experiment more intriguing than the music at first, but only at first. The idea that pop had become so fictional and so false that cartoons were the perfect basis for the music. The idea was held to so strongly in almost all press related to the band, and it was stunning to read the two competing narratives behind the music, the 'actual' one according the the band itself, and the reality.

The amazing thing was how well it worked, at least in my eyes. Not musically, but as a means of distraction from all the other crap that comes with pop music these days. Albarn was already massively famous for his years in Blur, but it felt to a somewhat objective observer that the taking of a step back from the 'role' of artist as pitchman for the music made it all a glorious play, instead of the usual picking apart and tabloid style coverage. Albarn and Hewlett created fake people, fake lives, and did so artfully and intentionally. Murdoc, Noodle, Russell and 2-D are messed up fictional individuals, a mixture of parody and homage for the music worlds stock personalities.

In many ways, I link this to the promotional campaign for Year Zero, the new Nine Inch Nails album. In both cases, one of the elements of the music business that leads to consumers feeling either cynical or irritated, was replaced with something carefully orchestrated to be useful content that people would want to enjoy. Instead of allowing the Entertainment Tonight / US Weekly style media outlets to define the 'creators' of the music, Albarn and Hewlett carefully orchestrated that element of the music experience. Instead of focusing on billboards to generate interest, Nine Inch Nails (and whoever was in charge of the massive game / conspiracy / promotion) created an experience that had the side effect of making people want the music.

I'm going to miss the Gorillaz, because I didn't really care about the actual, I cared about the fictional (and I'm a massive fan of all of Albarn's work, and Hewlett's comics, illustrations, and animation). The brilliance of it was that it wasn't, in my estimation, about managing interest in the real world creators, or minimalising the association of their real world lives with the music, it was another element of the experience created, with beneficial side effects. The care and detail that went into the creation of the Gorillaz characters is why they work so well, and also the proof, to me, that they were created for a loftier purpose than to do some PR heavy lifting.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to watch the video for El Manana again and again and again.

a nice real life proof.

It was with some hesitation that I switched from a massive list of blogs that I would read in tabs, to a single list of RSS feeds that I check, dealing only with new material. The reason against the switch was something vague about being a design enthusiast, and wanting to see content in it's original context. This is still true, to a point. But RSS is faster, easier, and helps me to avoid missing new content.

It has also made something clear to me.

One of the major anti-internet arguments I hear, in relation to news, is that endless niche production means that unless you want to, you will never have to hear something you disagree with. While I usually counter by saying the same applies to television, the switch to RSS has made it clear that there is some serious inbreeding in my information feed, specifically relating to design. Today I actually went back and checked to make sure that I wasn't just re-reading the posts from earlier in the day, as the images were exact, and the text was, though different, identical in meaning. On the plus side, the blogs I read are meticulous about linking back to where they found things, so I can see how the inspiration or interest spreads. At the same time, I've found a little network where I'm reading a bunch of people who are reading one another.

At the same time, I can hardly see a downside to only being exposed to good design.

I won't even go into the blogs I read that deal with politics, because, as mentioned earlier, no one reads the political coverage that they strongly disagree with, in the same way I wouldn't watch Fox news. The issue, in my mind, is more that I am running the risk of being trapped in a limited web of new material for inspiration. Obviously, I need to read more blogs. Or go outside. Maybe when the weather changes.

fixing protest (2).

The major flaws with protest, when considered as a medium:

• Inability to attract and keep attention.
• Very little information is shared with those who DO end up paying attention.
• At the end of the day, it’s still a bunch of people talking about someone else’s problem, in terms that in no way make it your problem.

Using the African AIDS epidemic as the issue in question, this is what I would suggest:

Juxtaposition: If people do not respond to someone else’s problem, you present it as theirs. By this I don’t mean to suggest that you can teach someone to value the life of people they have never met. Instead, you alter the terms of the conversation. Present the facts of AIDS, lack of access to treatment, and the relative prices of retroviral medications, and in no way embellish them, EXCEPT, frame the conversation as about West Nile Virus, or the Bird Flu, or whatever current health scare is active in the imaginations of the target people, the target society. I am going to assume that this will be in a fairly large metropolitan area. The important thing is to not lie about what is being said. Talk about the disease, how many it kills, and then inform the individuals you speak to that there is treatment, but pharmaceutical companies aren’t willing to negotiate price. Tell them how much it would cost for someone to get a needed supply of the medication, adjusting prices for the average income of a North American, rather than an African individual. Talk about how the government refuses to bypass the patent. Talk about anything you can find a reference point for, speaking about AIDS in Africa under the guise of Bird Flu in North America.

Present to someone the mortal threat of another, as though it was their own. Let them know, even for a second, how stupid and how hopeless the situation would be.

Presentation: Faux man-on-the-street interviews. Two person teams, both dressed the part as cameraman and interviewee, providing the information, and taping responses. These interviews will be actually taped, and will be under the pretence of an independent website talking about this ‘impending’ insanity. Hopefully, this will both make it easier to convince people that it isn’t a ruse. Each interview ends with giving the person spoken to a business card, or possibly a pamphlet, with little to no real information, other than a website to be open to the public in a short time.

Assuming even 50 people acting together in the ‘protest’, the video interviews could make a pretty interesting addition to a website that would reveal the hoax. Visitors would come to get more information, and find out that what they were afraid of was actually happening to someone else, and they were ignoring it. On the website could be included information on what can be done, more facts, as well as petitions, the ability to donate to relief programs, and links to other organisations, etc. Information on how to help, and people who will actually have a reason to seek it out.

In the plus column, this idea could be almost entirely volunteer-driven, with little in the way of expenses other than the website itself. Enough people have video cameras now that volunteers could borrow them, or use their own. As well, this is massively scalable, and could work with nearly any sized group that would be small enough not to break silence. It personalises tragedy, is based on actual interaction, and presents options for actual positive direct action, as opposed to attempting to guilt the world into changing. As well, something like this is pretty ripe for coverage in the mass media.

I recognise that this is somewhat dishonest, but I think it is excusable, considering the cause, and the fact that even minor research, such as looking at the site, sets the record straight. Luckily, ground level protest and dissent doesn’t have to maintain a squeaky clean public image; not everyone is Bono, trading on near universal appeal. This doesn’t actually hurt anyone. It’s disinformation with a purpose, and not based on personal gain.

Inspiration for this approach came in chunks, from sources including an abandoned short story of mine called The Artificials, The Yes Men, and an Artificials related idea for ‘performance art’ that was in part abandoned for the ethical concerns of screwing with people for personal gain / entertainment only.

four points on fixing protest.

1a) pick a battle. by this i mean several things, but i think an example is in order. have any of you attended a protest recently? i did not too long ago (i think canice was taking pictures) and i couldn't tell you what it was about. there were signs and speeches on everything from palestinian apartheid, to genocide in darfur, and i think i remember conversation about islam, somalia, and probably foreign aid. all of these are important problems with the modern world, and there is no real arguing that. but at the same time, if protest is to be at all useful, you can be generalists on dissent. if someone comes up to you, and asks 'what is it about the world that you are trying to change?' your answer needs to be short enough that there is a chance they will listen. pick a battle. fight like hell for your one battle.

1b) pick a battle. there is no place in this world, sad though it is, where you will be able to both challenge the acceptability standards for appearance, and the workings of governance. i am sorry. this is unfair, it's discriminatory, and it is undeniably true. if you desperately need to drive home the point that you can look however you want and still be successful and smart, then your appearance is your cause. you are sacrificing many things to that altar, and one of them is the ability to have controversial opinions taken seriously by mass groups of people. this isn't some kind of pro-conservative dress rant. but if the people whose minds you are attempting to change dismiss you out of hand, it doesn't matter if they are wrong. it only matters that they have stopped listening.

2) don't be a fucking child. do you want to know what killed the anti-globalisation movement? the battle of seattle. not because the sheer power of the activist mindset so scared the foolish capitalist that they went crazy with security, but because the entire movement was discredited with every smashed window, and every store that was closed afterwards. it got harder for protesters to show up to summits, because the police were waiting with teargas and riot gear. reading press from the time, the activist explanation was that they had done so much already, that they had the bad guys running scared. wrong. they had the completely harmless people, the ones they might have convinced, horrified that the anti-globalisation movement was really just a bunch of young, militant psychos who were going to trash their mini-mall. if you throw your fucking tantrum, if you attack goods and services in a misplaced outrage at CEOs, the people are going to see you, rightfully, as a threat. if the counterargument is that non-violent protest isn't working, then refer to the first sentence of this point. only children resort to violence against those who are merely ignoring them, not acting directly against them.

3) pick a battle you can win. you will not eliminate capitalism in north america, and then worldwide. you won't. impressive goal, i see your reasons, i've read naomi klein too, i get it. but it isn't going to happen, at least not by your hand, for many reasons. first, you haven't presented a good alternative yet. if ethical capitalism (yes, it IS possible) isn't an option for you, if all capitalism is evil, than you need to start your own society, because you are asking for the dissolution of this one. when you try to change something that has become intrinsic (i am not saying natural) to the state of the world, you are essentially asking everyone who is on the working side of the equation, to throw away the system they know and work within, for no guaranteed gain. i understand fears of being co-opted by those in power, and why working within the system is ideologically abhorrent to many. regardless. if you want to change things, you need people on your side. if you are going to try to win them over with the promise to tear down their house, without any blueprints for a rebuild, they aren't going to listen.

4) don't do it for you. i don't mean to suggest that protest is inherently selfish. i'm just making the point that almost every protest is designed in a way that appeals to those who agree, and further alienates everyone who doesn't. if your numbers were so great that you didn't DESPERATELY NEED to bring those on the boundary into the fold, the would would be the way you want it. don't throw a protest that, at best, serves to recruit more people who are either identical in ideology to you, or, at worst, a mass of idiot teens who are rebelling simply for the temporary buzz of stepping outside the mainstream. the design of an act of protest is usually why most people walk by with half a glance and a chuckle at the one last true believer from the vietnam era, shaking his ponytail as he screams into the 11th grade masses.

i would be more than happy to work with someone to create a more viable, and less self-defeating plan for an act of organised dissent, if and when anyone contacts me to do so. i respect ethics and hard work aimed at a desire for a better world. i don't respect the way protest has become a dead horse race.