hentry

Last week at TED, Wired and Adobe unveiled an iPad app that they’ve both been working on. Looks interesting doesn’t it? But wait a minute - isn’t Flash banned from the iPad for being a crashtastic battery hog?

So how does the iPad App work? Apparently it’s build using Air. Ah well that’s all right then becuase Air’s a much more stable, lightweight platform than Flash…

O.K. despite the sarcasm, the Wired App looks interesting, and definitely suggests a more interesting future for multimedia storytelling. I just hope that it doesn’t perform like almost every other horrible Air app I’ve ever had the misfortune of installing.

Sci-fi author and futurist manque Bruce Sterling, discusses art, literature, past and future at Transmediale. The first half is the most interesting, in particular the section on the impact of network culture on our grand narratives, and the parallels between digital and physical cultures.

neave1

TV mash-up Neave TV. From Paul Neave. If you watch it for 15 minutes it induces a kind of cultural nausea that I last experienced when I watched the Love Island catch-up show on ITV2.

I spent a little time a couple of days ago catching up on the latest winners of the IAB creative showcase. The December winner was Monopoly City Streets from Tribal DBB. Which looks brilliant - it’s some kind of multi-player version of the game played on Google Maps, and I would tell you more, but the only problem is that Monopoly City Streets has ended!

In Understanding Media, McLuhan observes that when a new medium comes along people try to apply to it the rules that govern pre-existing media (I paraphrase).

And while we’ve learned much about the nature of new digital media in the last ten years, we’re still trying to apply the rules of the old paradigm to the new one. In my opinion, this is nowhere more evident than in the persistence of the campaign, i.e. short-term, tactical and concentrated bursts of communications activity.

In a broadcast media environment these short concentrated bursts of communications activity worked well, because broadcast content was for the most part ephemeral in nature, that is to say, it didn’t persist over time. For the most part there was no publicly accessible archive.

The web is different though, perhaps most significantly because of the expression of the temporal dimension in Google Page Rank.


I call them jumpers, too, or sometimes ganzies.

We are entering an age where content is commissioned, created, read and acted upon by machines. This is something that’s been happening with numeric data for some time, however, language-based content is a different matter. But how exactly does this work? And what are the implications? Is it, for example, really possible for a computer to edit and write a newspaper?

Commissioning Content
Demand Media is perhaps the best known proponent of machine-commissioned content.

Demand Media has created a virtual factory that pumps out 4,000 videoclips and articles a day. It starts with an algorithm. The algorithm is fed inputs from three sources: search terms (popular terms from more than 100 sources comprising 2 billion searches a day), the ad market (a snapshot of which keywords are sought after and how much they are fetching), and the competition (what’s online already and where a term ranks in search results).

An interesting panel hosted by MIT professor Henry Jenkins on the links between participatory digital culture and political/social action, looking at amongst others the work of Shepard Fairey and the Harry Potter Alliance.

There’s a clause in every blogger’s contract which states that they must, at the end of each year, produce some kind of retrospective Top 10 list. Unfortunately for my part, instead of doing something useful like providing mp3s of the year’s Top 50 hardhouse bangers, I’ve compiled a themed Top 10 list of posts about this year’s mediaquake, as someone is bound to have called it.

1. The nature of the media crisis
You’ve all read Tapscott and Shirky, but in case you needed a refresher on what’s happening, then Advergirl concisely explains how and why ‘big media’ is struggling:

The Media Crisis: Part 1, Overview of an Implosion

The Media Crisis, Part 2: Publishers and Creators (working for scratch)

The Media Crisis, Part 3: Advertisers (looking for their lost sheep)

The Media Crisis, Part 4: Consumers (will people buy their eyeballs back?)

2. The technical and sociological causes
Henry Jenkins succinctly explains how we’re moving from a media culture where we spectate to one where we participate.

3. The wider economic impact
Randall Rothenburg of the IAB asks Is Marketing a Strategic Resource or a Procured Commodity?
A question that Randall argues underpins the future shape of all media, much of which is, of course, supported by marketing money. (It’s a long post, but if you read one from this list then it probably should be this one).

4. The empire strikes back
Rupert Murdoch’s announcement earlier in the year that he was going to put paywalls on his newspaper sites was a big news story in itself (and one that no doubt lost him money on his own sites). The jury’s still out on whether he’ll be able to make money with this strategy.

5. Small furry mammals and new business models
In the Content Republic (PDF), digital strategist, Faris Yakob, explains how brands and agencies might consider making the shift from buying space next to other people’s media to producing it themselves. That is to say disintermediating (how I loved to use that word 10 years ago) the publishers and broadcasters.

6. Does that mean content is still king?
Jeff Levick, Global Strategy Chief at AOL, explains why he believes that the third wave of the web is about content.
Levick believes that the life cycle of online is entering its third stage: the first, between 1990 and 2000 was about getting people online, between 2000 and 2010 it was all about connectivity and platforms; beyond this, the “third act” is all about content.

7. What kind of content?
If you want to know more about what this content might be like then, you’d better get over to the rather brilliant Jawbone.tv which aggregates transmedia and other interactive content, like the game, graphic novel hybrid Teamgeist or the participatory animation, Exquisite Corpse.

8. A sceptical note
But what about oversupply? Content, which used to be scare, no longer is, it’s attention that’s scarce. And who’s going to fund all this new content, because no one’s paying attention to those adverts any more? And the public’s not willing to pay for anything other than live sport. And are ARGs and transmedia really that compelling? And…and…

9. The future
O.K., I won’t even pretend to be able to answer all those questions, however, I think that we’ll see a greater range of hybrid media funding models in the next few years, with some organisations and brands electing to go straight to audiences, in part because they have the right and because it’s more cost effective, while others choose to stick with the old communications model which will go on working for some time yet. Everything will become much more participatory, and we’re not just talking about getting people to make ads for you to stick on your YouTube channel.

As far as content is concerned there is some hope, albeit faint, that Kindle, the Apple tablet and other similar propositions may yet prove the saviour of the subscription based content industry. If these devices can deliver highly-integrated rich-media experiences that are difficult to replicate, unlike simple web text or video, they will drive subscription uptake. These are more expensive, and it’s questionable whether they really deliver greater utility, but it certainly seems possible with certain types of content, i.e. sports, will still be seen as valuable enough to ensure this model has some future.

The exact shape of web/TV/mobile convergence is still unclear despite 10 years of competing claims. One screen, two screens, set top boxes, PVRs, media servers, are all still in play. What does seem certain is that content will drive technology uptake, e.g. Sky +, with the mass market paying for a point and click solution, while more technically adept audiences, able to use and configure computers will, as they do now, continue to get most of their content for free. Live sports will be the next big piracy battle ground.

Further complicating matters is identity and the social graph. If 2003 saw the ‘death of the homepage’, then 2009 saw the ‘death of the website’, i.e. with social media truly coming of age it’s now necessary to go to where users are, rather than expect them to come to your site. In addition, the old media programming model is being rapidly replaced by social content sharing, with targeted services like Boxee taking a early lead.

Identity and the implied ownership of the social graph is the key battle ground in the next two to three years, Facebook Connect and to a lesser extent Twitter, represent threats to Google which has been, like Microsoft and even Apple, relatively poor at unifying users identities across their various platforms and more importantly connecting them with their social graph in a seamless way. Despite this I predict that these communication platforms will become increasingly similar, with different identities appealing to different demographics. Branding and positioning will become more important than technical advance.

O.K., enough already, I could say more about AR or the semantic web or the dozen other things happening in digital content at the moment, but but if you’ve made it this far then congratulations, and enjoy the music.

10. I lied about the mp3s
Taped Together is @melex and @brainpicker’s crowdsourced Christmas themed mp3 blog, a great source of reasonably obscure Christmassy tunes that you don’t hate because they play them in every shop on the planet for two months every year. I think I’m the curator for day 16.

The COI launched a report yesterday, entitled ‘Communications and Behaviour Change’, outlining their approach to making large scale changes in public behaviour using communication campaigns and tools. Drawing on theoretical work from social psychology, economics and behavioural economics the report outlines some of the most successful approaches and examples of their implementation.

O.K., I know it’s Government, and the preamble sounds a little on the dry side, but trust me there’s some really interesting stuff in there, though you do have to wade through a fair amount of policy speak to get to it.

I was particularly struck by the section on the recent drink-driving campaign, specifically targeted at young men between the ages of 17 and 29, who research showed were becoming inured to more ‘traditional’ anti drink-driving messages.

In the past, drink-driving campaign messages have been based on a risk/reward model, contrasting
the pleasure of drinking with the risk of causing injury or death by driving under the influence. While
the number of people killed has fallen from 1,600 in 1979, it has stayed relatively stable at above
500 a year since 2000.

Working with the COI, the communications agency, Leo Burnett, set out to re­-evaluate the assumptions behind the campaign. Attitudinal research found that a small but growing number of people, particularly men aged 17– 29, refused to acknowledge the risk of having a crash when driving after drinking, while qualitative research suggested that trying to shock viewers with the most extreme consequences was becoming less effective for this group, who did not see drink drive-related crashes as relevant to them.

Applying insights from some of the theoretical approaches outlined in the COI model the team at Leo Burnett focussed on the specific moment when a drinker decides to have a second drink that he knows will probably take them over the limit, making a clear connection between the decision and specific personal consequences, i.e. not abstract people dying unpleasantly, but the very real possibility of getting a criminal record or being banned from driving, losing a job, etc.

Specifically speaking, the team looked to create cognitive dissonance (see page 16 of the COI report) at the point of decision, highlighting specific negative outcomes (knowing that most of us are loss-averse, i.e. we are more keenly aware of what we might lose than what we might gain) as well as placing emphasis on the individual’s self-efficacy or agency, thereby not allowing them to defer to peer pressure and ‘transfer’ responsibility for the decision whether or not to have another pint to the group.

The COI reports that six months after campaign launch, young men’s perception that they would be caught by the police had risen from 58 to 75 per cent and the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by drink driving fell for the first time in six years, from 560 in 2006 to 410 in 2007.

And while it may be hard to draw a specific between this particular campaign, previous experience with seatbelts, etc, shows they clearly work.

inbflat

In b flat is a site I’ve returned to several times in the few weeks since I discovered it.

Which is something I recently realised is pretty unusual. I almost never revisit digital content. I consume it and move on. Off to the next thing, perhaps pausing briefly to add it to Delicious, or more likely these days Tweet about it. And so it goes on. An endless round of ephemeral experience. I may greatly enjoy something, but I almost never return to repeat the experience. Of course there are communities, social networks, etc, that I return to again and again, but that’s different, I go there to find and discuss new things, not to look at things I’ve seen before. Indeed, in many communities posting content that’s been posted before, or that was posted yesterday on Reddit, Digg or Boing Boing is a bit of a faux pas.

Ephemeral media is nothing new. In many ways TV is more ephemeral - only a small fraction of it ends up on DVD, lots simply streams past and then disappears. There’s often a whole subsection in Booksellers’ catalogues dedicated to ephemera - the disposable media of past generations, from chromos and watchpapers back to the chapbooks and penny dreadfuls from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

In some ways digital content is much less ephemeral than print media, in the sense that it is more readily accessible over time. And if a site goes down, then there’s always the Wayback machine. Yet still I almost never return to digital content. (Perhaps the very fact that it is accessible paradoxically removes the timely imperative to return - after all it’s still going to be there in a couple of weeks or years, then I can always revisit it a little later.)

And even though the fact that I work in the digital industry makes me a bit of an outlier, my experience seems to mirror that of the general population. And this isn’t exactly a new phenomenon. Indeed, it reminds me a great deal of Walter Benjamin’s Arcades Project in which he used the 19th century Parisian arcades (shops) as a framework or metaphor for the cultural exegesis he started in the 1920s:

For Benjamin, the arcades launch an exemplary environment in which the tenets of a modern perception and experience are elaborated: a mode of perceiving and a quality of experience that is both forged by and appropriate to the modern age. It is disorienting, dreamy, chock-a-block with stimuli. His Arcades Project records facets of a commodity society with its continual flow of goods, impressions, forms. Modern experience, he characterizes through his swift shifts of focus, as a string of Momentaufnahmen – records of the moment, snapshots. And what is snapped, snapped up, snapped onto, is product, commodities. These commodities are short-lived; their life spans reveal the tempo of capitalism. Their existences are correlated to fashion’s caprices. Benjamin reviews the facets of the commodity on display, where it becomes a dream-infested body of meaning.

Replace ‘commodity’ with ‘content’ and the argument seems equally plausible.

I don’t really want to get into a debate about whether ephemeral culture is a good or bad thing (it’s probably a bit of both). What interests me more is how this influences the more practical way in which we design digital experiences, because too many of the digital projects I’ve been involved in have been tied to a model based around careful planning, large scale deployments and a central notion of permanence. A model which butters fewer and fewer parsnips in a world where real-time communication platforms like Twitter deliver digital experiences like #uksnow which are built and deployed in a matter of hours or days, and designed to last little longer than the phenomena they document.

Of course, people continue to want carefully planned media experiences, however, perhaps it’s time to take greater account of the ephemeral nature of much digital media, build teams and structures to deal with and fullt utilise this evanescence, without being burdened by the problem of longevity, of planning, sign-off and the dozen other things that make many organisations unable to capitalise fully on the benefits of digital media. I’m aware that’s not easy, but then if it were then ‘everyone would be doing it’ as my old nan used to say as she waited for the lottery numbers after the Strictly results show.

Ironically, I think it’s because In B Flat embraces emphemerality that I keep returning to it. It’s different every time. I can’t record, store or save what happens. I don’t experience it in the same way as you will.

Maybe more of our digital projects should be like this. But then perhaps creating brilliant, emphemeral, user-generated, crowdsourced, creative experiences like In B Flat is no easier than reading to the end of an overlong post about the diminishment of attention and the ephemerality of digital experience.