erniesblog

The Big Reveal vs. Perpetual Beta

I've been thinking a lot about perpetual beta.  A couple of articles I've written in the past week or so have alluded to it -- here's one I noted in the last post, on the BBdigital blog, and here's a new one that just broke as my first monthly column for adotas.com.

The Fast Company profile of Google, probably, is the thing that cemented my recent obsession with the subject.  Because perpetual beta forms the fiber of Google's being.  Get it out fast, make it work better as you go.  The idea might scare you, but there's little arguing Google's success.

Perpetual beta is a natural inclination, I think, for a digital shop.  And it's a terrifyingly alien thought to most traditional creatives.  Think about it.  The drive -- the NEED -- to polish, to produce an ultra-gloss sheen before the client ever even gets a peek -- never mind before the thing actually breaks -- is ingrained.  It's the very source of that most ubiquitous of client presentation climax moments:  The Big Reveal.

Before the Mac, The Big Reveal was a real song and dance.  Sometimes, literally. You had to do something to paint the picture in the client's mind.  Marker comps and silent storyboards could only go so far. If nothing else, it was a good case for never, ever, ever casting agency personnel for the actual production.  To be fair, though, clients expected the song and dance, and we provided, and it worked. Then technology happened.

Now, there are no comps.  Not really.  Now, finished pieces go to the client as concepts.  And almost as much time is spent finishing the not-really-finished thing as will be spent on the really-finished thing once the client approves the direction.  All that remains, a lot of the time, is to actually shoot images to replace the stock, or shoot footage to replace the rips, or heck, just buy the hi-res stock, instead of the lo-res you bought because you didn't want the watermark on the concept board.  Oh, yeah, you'll have to compose or buy some music, too, 'cause the piece can't really run with that Chemical Brothers mp3 you ripped.

Clients expect to see finished stuff at the concept stage now.  So we deliver.  Because we can -- because we have the technology to deliver.  And it works.  But...what if?

What if the process of producing finished pieces for concept presentations actually hindered creativity?  What if you got used to the fact that comps had to look real, so you started all your concepting sessions on stock photo or stock footage sites, or with production company reels, looking for scenes to rip?  Think that might ever happen?  Think you might think of something else if you just sat down and, well, thought about it?

What if the client were brought into the process earlier?  Would it lead them -- could you lead them -- down the same sixteen dead ends you went down to show them the thinking that went into the route you ended up taking?  Would it help avoid an execution that gets planted firmly at one of those dead ends because the client can't see the logic or the process that told you it was wrong?

What if you launched something that didn't work?  Do you have the technology to change it?  The budget?  The time?  What if you did?  Would it change the way you would have approached the thing in the first place?

Before I go any farther, I have to clarify a few things:  One, I believe in showmanship.  Two, I know you can shoot yourself in the foot by going off half-cocked.  And Three, I know the idea of perpetual beta just isn't possible for all executions -- and that it's less possible in many traditional executions than it is in digital.  I guess my "What ifs" are me just wondering out loud if, in fact, some of the elements or principles of perpetual beta might actually create better executions across non-digital media, and also, if The Big Creative Reveal is, or should become, a thing of the past.  Just wondering.

Clients expect finished pieces at the concept stage because we've trained them to expect that.  What if we trained them to expect something that would change and evolve over time?  Something that continues to get better, based on the positive and negative responses it gets from the people we're talking to? If you develop anything for clients that has anything to do with social networks, you know you have to launch in beta.  And if you do anything else in digital, you know it's always beta, because it's always changeable, regardless of whether you call it finished.  I guess I'm just wondering, what if we could apply that thinking to other forms of communications, as well?

At the very least, it'll train our clients (and ourselves) to recognize the fact that being wrong is valuable, just as being right is.  But what it might also do is recapture some of the client-agency spirit of partnership that has been steadily disappearing from our industry.

Think about it: When you have a partner, you tell them what you're thinking.  Because you trust each other's judgment.  And you work together. Which means, there's no longer a need for The Big Reveal.

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this      

Digital Creative in a Downturn

On the bbDigital Blog.

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this      

Making Salad

I've always liked making things.  Early in my directing career, I remember catching a trade pub interviewer off guard when I told her that moving through the commercial ranks to direct a feature wasn't the ultimate goal for me.  Truth was then, and still is now, I simply like the process. Making things. Writing, directing, editing, concepting, photographing, tweaking, developing strategy -- when I'm making things I'm happy.  Heck, when I go home, I make stuff for, and with, my kids.  As I write this, my 6-year-old is making an animated robot on the Mac next to mine.  He gets it honestly.  The more complicated, challenging, and artistic the thing, typically, the more I like making it.

Lately, what I make most is transitions.  Whether I make them myself, or help others make their own, that seems to be our industry's biggest output, and sometimes, biggest headache.  Traditional shops want to transition into digital.  Digital shops see opportunities to bring more than digital to the table, so they want to transition, too.  Creatives want to transition their skills to new media. Clients who are used to working offline want to get on, and vice-versa.  A big part of my job is helping all that happen.  And a big part of my personal observation time is spent watching it happen, or watching attempts to make it happen, across not just advertising -- but the whole communications industry.

There are blogs and books, and probably encyclopedias, written about the ways people succeed or fail at these transitions -- so I'm not gonna re-write it all here -- nor would you want to read it all here.  What I want to do, instead, is point out something big, and obvious.  Why?  Because one of the things I like about making complicated things is that most times, things can be broken down into bigger, simpler concepts.  And it seems to me that a lot of folks are missing the biggest, simplest, most obvious concept of the whole big transition -- and it's leading them to make decisions they wouldn't make if they stopped for a second and considered it.  I mean really considered it, rather than just mouthing the words.  Here it is:

Everything works together.  Online, offline -- all of it.  It works together.

"Duh," you say.  And, "duh" is right.  Simple, and obvious.  Ah, but now, here's where it gets tricky:  The parts that have to work together, by nature, work very differently from each other.  They don't always fit naturally together.  Which makes putting them together anything but simple.  And it makes the end result more of a salad than a smoothie. 

So, what's so hard about a salad? Most chefs will tell you it's all about getting the right amounts of the right ingredients.  Sometimes that's harder than it sounds.

One thing traditional agencies do, especially smaller traditional agencies, to make the transition from purely traditional to having a digital arrow in their quiver, is to hire a web designer.  And only a web designer.  There.  Mission accomplished, right?  Sorry, but, no.

Clearly, I have nothing against digital designers. In fact, they're my favorite kind of designers, because they work not only visually, but with user preferences, motion, depth, concept, and with all kinds of file-size restrictions and platform differences.  But most web designers are specialists.  As more and more digital natives come online, the more specialized they get.  Which means it's not always in their nature to be able to think about how, conceptually and strategically, all the parts -- online and off -- fit together.  Doesn't mean they can't learn.  They can.  But in and of itself, the hiring of a web designer does not a digital practice make.

Another thing lots of agencies do is to try to force-fit traditional concepts into digital spaces.  I've written a bunch on why this doesn't work.  You wouldn't take a screen grab of your homepage and run it as a print ad.  Don't think it'll work in the opposite direction.

So what about digital shops transitioning the other way?  The opportunities certainly arise.  Many digital efforts depend on offline executions to drive to the web.  Seeing those opportunities, it's natural to attempt the transition.  When I see it miss, I see it miss most on a cultural level.  This will take a little explanation:

We digital people like to do stuff simply because we can.  That's why hackers hack, and it's why developers love developing.  We like figuring out how to make stuff happen.  But too often, we forget that just because we can, it doesn’t mean we should.  I'm gonna get in trouble with my techie friends here, but I have to call this out: Witness the massive proliferation of widgets, and all the Web 2.0 stuff nobody has figured out how to monetize yet.  (It goes without saying, but I'll say it -- there are lots and lots of really great, usable widgets, and Web 2.0 has changed the way people communicate.)  But still.  How many people really need or want a widget that displays a new and different Chuck Norris fact every day?  I'm sure there are some, but how many, really?  Understanding broader culture, offline, as well as on, is a key to getting the stuff to work together.

So what's the solution to helping everything work together, and thus, making the transition?  I'm glad you asked.  In my agency, I'm part of it.  And the operative word is "part."  Because I think, to work, the transition has to be a collective effort. Everybody has a part, because, as someone once said, everything works together. 

Now, I'm not talking about feel-good campfire Kumbayah sessions.  Those don't do crap.  I'm talking about serious effort on the part of specialists to at least grasp a bit more of the world other specialists live in.  Non digital natives must spend more time online.  Useful time, accomplishing day to day tasks -- not just looking at galleries of offline ads.  And digital creatives must step back from what they're making, and go ask the folks in accounting if they might ever -- ever -- even consider having a use for it.  That way, you don't have people trying to wedge a print ad into the shape of a website, and other people building social networks for an audience that can barely operate a remote control.

Collectively, though, with work -- you can make a pretty good salad.

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this      

WTBT (When trends become trouble)

These things are out of control.  I saw a car yesterday with about twelve of them. 

When I was a kid, you'd see them occasionally on European sports cars.  But those were the real thing, usually, placed by the owner to authenticate and identify his MG or Triumph or Alfa with the country that made it.  A friend of mine thinks ACK (Nantucket) was the first to co-opt the Euro oval.  I won't proffer a guess, but I will guess that there are more of these things with more different letter combinations in my immediate neighborhood than all the Peeing Calvins on all the pickup trucks in America.

OBX (Outer Banks) is a favorite. Get on the beltway, and you'll see a lot of ANA (Annapolis).  Both OC (Ocean City) and VB (Virginia Beach) are popular.  This being a political town, there are still quite a few, aging, ovals with a W, and  we're seeing lots and lots of new ones, with either an H or an O.  (I'm assuming someone, somewhere, is working on a McC). Those are the ones you can figure out.  But there are so many, for so many places, organizations, and for all I know, individuals, it's become impossible to decode.  It's as if giant boxes of sticky oval Scrabble tiles were dropped randomly from the air onto every parking lot in the Mid Atlantic.  A Google search for "euro oval stickers" turned up several vendors, including this one, a cafepress shop, that has pretty much everything you can think of.  Even XML -- geek stickers.

I have to admit, I'm slightly tempted by both the BBQ sticker (also available as a T-shirt,) and the ABC one that's pictured at the top of the page.  But before I could even click "add to cart," common sense kicked in, and I realized this thing is so far gone, it's even too late for irony.  Maybe an oval sticker of a Peeing Calvin... never mind.

So, at what point did this happen?  When did it tip?  And no, I'm not just noticing -- I know it tipped some time ago, but I'm making a point.  Besides, I've been busy trying to decode oval stickers.  Back to the thought....

For a moment, let's skip past official use, and jump to unofficial use, here, in the US.

It started as code, within a very narrow niche.  The meaning was the same, essentially, as the original intended purpose:  Identifying an automobile with its country of origin.

Then somebody (let's say in Nantucket) co-opted a niche item for a different niche.  ACK became a symbol for something else, but it benefited and identified somewhat with the original purpose. (Nantucket is upscale, owners of restored Euro sportscars, and the cars themselves, are upscale. There's some sociological synergy there.)

From here on out, I'm making it up.  As I see it, Martha's Vineyard decided they wouldn't let ACK one-up them, so along came MV.  Someone on the Outer Banks decided their beaches were just as nice, just as preppy, and warmer, to boot, than the aforementioned  beaches, so OBX came to be.  Soon MB (Myrtle Beach), OC, and VB followed, taking the trend more mainstream, and thus, more downscale.  Before long, every beach town on the Atlantic coast had an oval of its own.  From there, it moved inland like a weakening tropical depression, covering ATL, and COLA (Columbia, South Carolina), before heading to CHI.  When all 26 letters ran out, pictures of stuff started up, and here we are today, as far away from the original purpose of the oval decal as we can possibly be.  Just exactly which European country is represented by a silhouette of a moose?

Lest you think I'm not thinking about advertising, I'll finally get to the point.  We, like everyone else in the world, follow trends.  We look for them, we try to exploit them, and ride them, and we deny it until we're blue.  Trends?  We only buck them, right?  But thumb through the pages of any awards book -- then pick up the same book from three years earlier.  You'll see solid evidence that trends, do, in fact, have a strong role in our business, like it or not.  Not only that, they reap rewards. 

The key, though, is knowing when to jump on, and when to get out.  (How're those round corners looking on your blog these days?)  The good news, of course, is that new media is infinitely more malleable than the old.  It's not carved in stone, or even in ink.  The bad news: not everything is, or should be, designed to change in a few months -- even if it's only pixels.  Judicious use of trends, at the right stage in the trend, can work in your favor, and make you one of the cool kids (ACK, MV, possibly OBX.)  Fail to see the avalanche coming, though, and you're SOL.

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this      

An advertising post that's not about the super bowl spots: What do you think? More importantly, what does your audience think?

Here it is, Super Sunday, and as I've taken to writing my posts on Sunday, and publishing for Monday, I'm, by default, writing on Super Sunday.  So it stands to reason that I should write about The Spots.  After all, isn't that all anyone in our industry is thinking about today?  So much so, that, simply by capitalizing "The Spots,"  you know the ones I'm talking about? 

Can't do it.  Gotta write about something else.

Besides, many of The Spots have been leaked already, and Adrants has told us what to think of them, so there.  And isn't that the nature of our business?  Telling people what to think of this and that, and listening to whomever all the other kids are listening to, so we can form our own opinions that are just exactly like the cool kids' opinions?  I mean, there's the old joke:  Q: How many Ad Execs does it take to change a light bulb?  A: I dunno, what do you think? 

We're an industry built on mass, on popularity, pop culture, and, well, reach -- that hopefully turns into positive waves -- not trickles, WAVES, dammit --  of numbers for our clients.  We promote what the cool kids think until the masses think the same thing -- which makes it not so cool anymore, perpetuating the cycle, and our own jobs.  That's what we do, for cryin' out loud. 

Sorry, momentary rant there, no need to dis Adrants, I like what they write.  And clearly I like what we do, or I wouldn't have done it for so long.  But the rant leads to what I was going to write about, so I'll slide right in. 

I'm going to think of this post as a reminder, rather than a primer, because the personalization and individual nature of web experiences is a huge topic that has been written about a LOT by pretty much everyone who writes about marketing and communications on the web.  But I do want it to be a reminder, because sometimes, we all need one.

I got a reminder last week, and that's what inspired this.  As it is, in fact Super Sunday, a post about how not everyone thinks like we think just sort of fit.

My son has the opportunity of a lifetime this week.  He's going to the White House to meet the President.  Now, you can have any opinion of the current President you want, but the fact remains, a chance to meet any President in the White House is a cool thing.  Exponentially cool if you're 6.

We live in a part of Alexandria where it seems everyone but me does something with, for, or about the government, at a pretty high level.  Everyone is seriously connected.  These aren't the people you see on TV, but they work closely with and for the people you see on TV.  Which means dads and moms in this neighborhood have a lot of juice.  Which means, this week, at least, if your kid plays on the Ice Dogs, the hockey team that comes from this neighborhood, your kid gets to go to the White House.

Here's the deal:  The Anaheim Mighty Ducks are in town, and they have the Stanley Cup with them, and they have an appointment with the President, and an Ice Dog's mom or dad was able to get the Ice Dogs in on the action.  I think that's extraordinarily cool.  So does my wife.  My Canadian wife. She thinks it's so cool, she didn't even bother to ask me if I wanted to be the parent who accompanies our son (only one can.)  She took the slot immediately.  Which, I thought, was wonderful.  Here's my Canadian wife, who, after five years here, has clearly embraced the U.S.  She's, lately, obsessed with presidential politics.  (Far more conservative than I ever thought possible, btw.)  Constantly taking the kids to places where they (and she) can learn more about the principles of our democracy.  So, it's natural that she would (and should) jump at the chance to go to the White House and actually meet the President.

Except, she's not thinking what I'm thinking. 

She's thinking about the Stanley Cup. 

She wants to touch it.

Ok.  I did not see that coming.

But it sure got me thinking about how important it is, especially now, to think about what your audience might be thinking.  And to fight the urge to group your audience into one big fat homogeneous group, addressed, simply, as your "audience."  And to remember that there's a chunk of that big fat homogeneous group that simply won't, no matter what, think like you.  The web has made people who don't think like you (or like the majority, or like what you expect) important, and powerful.  You need to take that into consideration.

It used to matter somewhat, but now it matters more.  What makes a copywriter in New York laugh won't necessarily make a citrus grower in Florida laugh.  Might actually make him mad.  That's always been an issue in our business, but now it's a bigger issue, because now, with the web, you're targeting gets way, way tighter.  You'll never personally know all the individuals you're creating for, but it sure pays to pay attention to more of them now. And to recognize the ones who aren't thinking like everyone else.

The good news is, on the web you can do that.  Pretty easily, it turns out.  The bad news, though, is that most of the time, especially during concepting time, you don't think to. Or don't think you need to.  But that's a mistake.  It can cost you opportunity.

I'm not necessarily one who thinks the niche will replace the mass.  But I'm not on the other side of the fence, thinking the mass is all that matters.  The niche, now, represents opportunity that couldn't be capitalized on with traditional, more expensive methods.  But now those restrictions are largely gone, so it pays to think about how you might play in a world with fewer big chunks, and lots more little ones.

It doesn't matter to me how or why my son gets to go to the White House -- only that he does, in fact, get to.  It doesn't matter to my wife how she gets close to the Cup.  If you were tasked with targeting both of us, it seems you might, sometimes, have better luck targeting each of us.

Something to think about while the game's on, in-between commercials.

Technorati Tags:
Advertising  Marketing   Creative   Interactive   Online Marketing Design  Digital Design Blattner Brunner  Ernie Mosteller  BB Digital 

del.icio.us this