Happy Raging Christmas

Lost in information

When researching a new project or reading up on something for fun, I can't help but get consumed in related links, pictures, videos, opinions (the works) and before you know it I'm on wikipedia checking out Guatamalan poetry (not really, but you get the idea).

Anyway, I guess the point is that there is just too much information out there.

It's all consuming, in a great way, but are we not just becoming a little too distracted? The internet is no longer used for finding out what we want to know, but instead leads us to enjoy all the tangents that come out of that question. A great organic library of random facts, trivia and observations, basically a never ending episode of QI.

Quote from Mitchell Kapor

What Facebook is for...

Facebook gives you cancer (Fact?)

I read the best (ie. worst) Daily Mail article recently. They are currenlty peddaling the idea that new evil is social media. The title of this piece of wonder was 'How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer' a double whammy of Daily mail goodness.

In a nutshell the argument is that sites such as Facebook are causing us to spend less time physically with our friends and more time on the web. From a medical point of view Dr Aric Sigman (who may or may not actually be Dr Nick from the Simpsons) believes some genes, including ones involved with our immune systems, act differently according to how much social interaction a person had with others.

Clearly the headline is a red herring, and pointing the finger to a specific site is a big creative embellishment, but I love this article.

1) The article was online - ah sweet irony!
2) The thought from Robin (Rhondda Valley, Wales) on the comments page was genius (if a little disturbing):
'I think the real issue people are forgetting here is that using Facebook MUST be having some effect on house prices?'
3) Finally as a resultof reading this people took it upon themslevs to unleash an unforgiving and cutting response.

www.doessocialnetworkinggiveyoucancer.com

God bless the Internet!

The power of now

I've loved this campaign ever since I saw it last November, three months on and I've finally got hold of a widget for it. To me it is a perfect embodiment of what digital advertising is all about...

Creating pieces of accesible content that inspires users and brings a brand's DNA to life.

Beautiful data

After recently reading through a lot of old emails in search of something else, I got really distracted by an old post in Ping Mag, which had an interview with Boris Muller. In an attempt to share some other great examples here are some edited highlights:

Based on Buckminster Fuller’s legendary Dymaxion map

Gorgeous 3D mapping
You’ll know this one...
Napoleon’s march to Moscow
History flow – visualisations of a topic’s life story on wikipedia
Feltron annual report
TED talk with some great stuff
Loads of lovely ways into Digg data
Dopplr’s raumzeitgeist map
Facebook friend wheel
Live US flight paths
The Wattson – see how much electricity your home is using
Nike Plus
Movie charts

The ultimate brand

Millward Brown have just announced Google as the world's most powerful brand. This may be true and is yet further evidence of the shift towrads a internet centric life.

But working off the premise that "a brand exists entirely in people's heads. Therefore, whatever it is they say a brand is, is what it is", how do you think Google would hold up?

Brand Tags is a site that allows you to tag brands with whatever words you associate with the brand and then converts the brand into a weighted tag cloud of associations. The bubble may not have burst for Google, but if the internet is to become the great media democracy then sites like Brand Tags may well threaten the empire!

Interesting to look at and compare competitor brands, though probably worth taking with a pinch of salt...

What is the point of digital

I sometimes feel I have become un-naturally bias towards advertising and the role of digital in particular. Clearly this could be seen as a good thing, I should be excited by the work I do but I am willing to concede that it may also sometimes come across as a horrible result of industry propoganda! Even so I can't help but fall for the argument and this now means that I have a well rehearsed response to the inevitable question...

"What is the point of digital"

The Internet is not just another "media", as the Old Media insists, but mostly I think a "space", similar to the American Continent immediately after it was discovered – anything that can be found on the Web has a physical presence. It occupies real estate. To encounter a logo, a picture or an animation on the Internet is a totally different experience than to find the same stuff in a magazine or on the television. "Things" in the Internet exist in a specific location, while in magazines and on TV contents are mostly cold, passive, bullets of information. Online they constitute a body: they are parts of a new genre. They are Web Entities.

The digital world is all about experiencing things, engaging with something because it's entertaining or fulfilling or useful or all three and more. Whilst there are of course drawbacks to this argument, some sites are simply too old or cumbersome to have any impact, web 2.0 and onwards will see a huge change in how people use the net, in a way that no other media can.

Viral Trends

Duncan Watts recently wrote “If society is ready to embrace a trend, almost anyone can start one–and if it isn’t, then almost no one can”. 

Essentially his theory is, that to succeed with a new product, it’s less a matter of finding the perfect hipster to infect and more a matter of gauging the public’s mood. There will always be a first mover in a trend, but since they generally stumble into that role by chance, they are basically an “accidental Influential.”

The difficulty in viral trends is that the online world can be incredibly volatile. Brands are desperately seeking to find a comfortable transparency with which to embrace their customers and yet retain some control of the message. Online PR groups try to start trends or opinion by involving key influencers to kick start further discussion, but this can't work every time.

So perhaps the disease metaphor is misleading. 

Trends are more like forest fires: There are thousands a year, but only a few become roaring monsters. That’s because in those rare situations, the landscape was ripe: sparse rain, dry woods, badly equipped fire departments. If these conditions exist, any old match will do. 

User generated TV

In the crowd-funded arena, one name keeps popping up: Mark Bowness the man behind Tribe Wanted, the experimental island community he founded, was the focus of a BBC documentary series. Two other ventures - VIPbandmanager and the Liverpool Culture cafe - haven't taken off as quickly, but Mark has high hopes for his latest project: Have you got the nerve TV.

Have You Got The Nerve aims to be a new type of TV production company: one that's created, lead and inspired by a group of 3,000 executive producers. Fusing the collaborative power of the internet and the enduring mass appeal of television, Nerve will take on three genres: documentary, drama and entertainment. Content will be made both for TV and online viewing.

To sign up as an executive producer, anyone can pledge to pay a one-off fee of GBP 60 as soon as 2,999 others have agreed to do the same. Once the 3,000 execs have joined, Nerve will be open to more people, who will pay a small monthly fee have access to the the platform. These members will also have input into programming, but only the executive producers will share in Nerve's profits. Revenue sources will be the traditional 10% cut of production value that TV production companies get, plus earnings from book deals, online social networks, games, mobile content, etc.

Will the crowds be able to create content that's more engaging than traditional producers? And will Nerve be able to reach a wider audience than user-generated Current TV? I'll be watching ;-)

Website: www.haveyougotthenerve.tv