Social Mode

,

  • Good news.  The boy was just hiding in the attic.

    The bad news… the real time web (twitter) and news outlets went haywire.  These outlets are fighting for credibility and this ain’t going to help.

    Oh, and this story is hardly over…

    There’s no point in judging the media, the parents, etc. etc.   Everyone is a product of their environment and learning… start putting these pieces together and its straightforward how such a “strange” set of events can unfold and will continue to unfold.

    This going to generate big ratings for post event interviews, conspiracy stories, internet videos… I bet someone even invents a Balloon Boy toy or tshirt or something.  And what’s balloon boy going to learn from all of this?

    Colorado Balloon Boy Found Alive… more to come…

    –––––––

    Oct 15
  • BOMBS AWAY!

    LCROSS Centaur Separation occurred at 9:50 p.m. EDT (6:50 p.m. PDT), Oct. 8. After separation, the spacecraft performed a 180 degree pitch maneuver (turning around) to reorient the LCROSS science payload towards the receding Centaur.

    Read more from NASA

    This is going to be so great!

    LCROSS Moon Bombing

    –––––––

    Oct 8
  • … I would stop making movies altogether and just focus on making video games.

    HALO franchise has sold more than 27 million units worldwide.  $1.6 billion or so in cash money.  This from a game that probably only cost $40 million to make.  and far less than that to market.

    Beyond just unit sales the number of impressions generated by Halo and its online machinima, books, boardgames and other offshoots is pretty staggering.  Factor in additional sales of XBox hardware and peripherals.   Movies would be very hard pressed to beat this.  And, no, this isn’t the only game franchise with these kinds of numbers.

    If you want a really neat look into games, gamer numbers and recent gaming behavior, this is a great preso.

    Halo 3 ODST Sales OR If I were a movie studio…

    –––––––

    Oct 8
  • Paul Carr nailed this.

    Geekiness is now cool enough to invade pop culture in a non-patronizing way.  It goes much deeper and further back than than Carr presents in his funny (and weird!) post this morning.

    Super Cool Geek
    Super Cool Geek

    The “geek” used to stand for values and behaviors counter to fame, fortune and romance. And, in general, geekery didn’t lead to fame, fortune and romance.  There’s no real simple cause and effect chain of when geekery broke through.  A combination of hi-tech business success, the gadget as status symbol, the Internet and TXT as major communication medium, and the shift from blue collar to knowledge worker jobs generated a demand for pop culture representing the world and then the success of that pop culture reinforced further geek-to-cool.

    Above I have a picture of Robert Redford from Sneakers (from 1992).  I think this is one of those early hi-tech geeks can be cool and sexy movies.   It’s distinctly different than say War Games – where the geek is still counter-culture.   I think the Matrix pushed geekery officially into cool.   In some ways the Matrix gave a message of “geeks shall save us all” as well as pushed geeks to be as cool as Neo – a celebration and a challenge.  The success of South Park’s creators, Simpsons’ writers, Model-turned-Punk’d-turned-TwitterLeader Ashton and countless other recent examples…. have only further cemented the reality that celebrity without geekery just isn’t possible anymore.

    Now geekery is reinforced by the iPhone, distribution of viral videos, facebook, youtube.  Carr thinks it’s “weird” but in reality celebrities and media folks who don’t get their geek on are flat out not making as much money and gaining fans.   The geek vocabulary is now mainstream (and you might wonder if there is a deeper geekery developing that is counter culture to mainstream geekery… probably….).  Geekery is a part of how regular folks will meet boyfriends/girlfriends, get their first job, notify each other of life’s happenings, make their cash and so on.   The pop culture reflects this.

    Geeky Celebrities and Celebrity Geeks

    –––––––

    Oct 4
  • Straight Shot:  The Zune HD is a better gadget than the iPOD touch.

    Still needs work:  The Zune HD has only a handful of games available and almost no apps.

    Frustrating:  Despite a decent browser, most websites kick the Zune browser to their crappy mobile sites.

    Long Wind:   I’ve been a avid user of the ipod touch since it’s launch.  I love mine.  However, it’s starting to annoy me.  The battery with wifi is weak on the touch.  The itunes store doesn’t save your password and prompts you incessantly.  I hate the way apps come up and shut down.  It’s heavy.  The headphone jack is on bottom… blargh (so is the zune’s… double blargh).

    my biggest beef though is that the itunes experience is old and the track by track business model annoys me.  I much prefer the amazon mp3 approach for track buying (buy once and it’s yours) and the Zune pass for all-you-can-eat subscriptions.

    The Zune HD is a great little device.  I mean it is little… very light and thin.  Touch screen is crisp and responsive.  The user interface is nice and seems fresh.  The HD radio is very nice.   Ok, i’ll admit it’s still a bit geeky looking compared to the sexy ipod/iphone curvey/shiny/flashy cases…. but geeky is the new sexy, right?

    Mark My Words:  The Zune and the Microsoft entertainment ecosystem will continue to chip away at Apple’s dominance.  From gaming  to VOD to music players Microsoft has a better line up and that will win out over time.

    Zune HD vs. iPOD Touch

    –––––––

    Oct 3
  • I can tell you this article is WRONG about why we love zombies.  and by love, we mean, we fear them and we love the adrenaline they produce.

    Channeling my evolutionary psycho/bio/social – ist… it’s because mostly mindless stuff has chased us/stood in our way of survival for eons.

    no really.   we fear the random beasts that come to chase us from the stuff we need/love/want.  The more human it appears, the more dangerous it seems.  I suspect this holds for vampires too.  They just look like creatures that would eat us and are smart enough to trick us.

    For all these creatures the fancy stories are just gloss on a really simple thing… we fear the unrelenting beast that can’t be talked out of taking us out.

    Why We Love Zombies

    –––––––

    Oct 2
  • Here’s a list of what I think are the most effective branding campaigns in the last 10 or so years.   Effective = brand awareness + sales generation + longevity of creative (reduced cost overtime!).  Please note that Effective Branding Campaigns does not necessarily mean Best Commercial or Best Creative.   Branding is a much bigger concept.  There are certainly better commercials out there… but many great commercials fail the brands they represent… but I digress…

    Here they are:

    1.   Easy Button from Staples – McCann Erikson NYC

    2. Geico Cash from Geico – The Martin Agency

    3.  Stay Smart: I stayed at a Holiday Inn Last Night from Holiday Inn – Fallon

    4. Most Interesting Man in the World by Dos Equis – Euro RSCG

    5. Got Milk – Goodby Silverstein & Partners

    None of these campaigns were fully baked the day they launched – they emerged overtime, shaped by consumer response.  What makes them special is that they have runway… these concepts can be pushed across mediums and can stand without complicated commercials, backstory or even motion.  They also all leave room for a great deal of consumer ownership and application of the concept to other concepts.

    I don’t think it’s EASY to come up with these winning campaigns.  I do think in the above we can suss out the NECESSARY structure and elements of killer branding campaigns.

    Then again… sometimes hunting for structure and formulas in some logical way takes longer than just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks.

    Top Integrated Branding Campaigns in Recent Memory

    –––––––

    Oct 2
  • There’s an amazing thing going on.  It’s a small little product release that few folks outside of the techworld cover.  The release and tech uproar over Google Chrome Frame.

    Why do I say this?  Oh, well, some folks at Google woke up and realized there are such things as platform dependencies and you pick the platform that makes it efficient to produce and distribute your product.  So… it produced a WRAPPER for the platform most widely distributed (windows/IE) AND reduced its dev costs (produce a runtime that runs on anything.).

    We could continue in this fashion, but using Google Chrome Frame instead lets us invest all that engineering time in more features for all our users, without leaving Internet Explorer users behind,” argued Lars Rasmussen and Adam Schuck of Google’s Wave team last week.

    Beyond Google making such an aggressive move to stash Chrome inside IE as a stab at Microsoft, this move demonstrates  that BROWSERS determine a BIG PART of business on the Internet.  Netscape was right, just way too early.  The browser is the new OS – both in user function and business line.    All the players are pitching users on various propositions.  Do you care about security? compatibility?  native software?  cool features?  It can be bought, sold, and managed just like any other piece of commercial software.  The browsers are not immune to real business.  The require real capital to build and real support to maintain.  Firefox is hanging on… but how long does it have with its main benefactors producing competitive products and forging competitive alliances?

    Basically, the browser as a community project – Free Software Thing – is losing ground to browser as front door to lots of revenue.

    It’s well known, and extremely frustrating, to many software vendors that whatever ships with the computer is what wins and trying to get a mass of users to install the platform is a losing battle.  As a result Google is trying very hard to make Android and Chrome OS a default shipping system, but it’s not there yet.    If Google is to ever grow as big as MSFT it MUST own the default software on the majority of systems.

    I predict eventually Google has to ship hardware – perhaps in deep partnerships (tmobile MyTouch with Google is just the beginning).  It will definitely start shipping Google branded hardware that has Google OS and Google search, Google apps capable of doing real work and real entertainment.   Apple, PC Makers, Cell Carriers and others will divorce Google slowly over time as Google takes more and more of their core business.

    As a very interesting side note…. the biggest eyeball engine every created still doesn’t have enough advertising revenue growth to power long term business growth.  That’s right… SELLING ACTUAL STUFF IS STILL WHERE BUSINESS LIES.  Just hawking someone else’s stuff isn’t enough…. and so it goes.

    Welcome, Internet, to long term business.  Reality bites.

    OR

    Maybe I’m completely wrong and this helter-skelter game of pushing open source and community projects strategically can disrupt competitors enough to keep growing and further distribute the Google eyeball engine… hmmmm….

    Google Chrome Frame, Mozilla and IE- Internet Wakes Up and Learns it’s in BUSINESS

    –––––––

    Sep 29
  • Though TIME completely misrepresents the article with the title of this piece the article is quite nice.  Most of the findings are quite straightforward and the utility of the article is that it does a nice job of illustrating how genetics and learning combine to explain behavior (and “intelligence”).

    Here’s a nice example from the article:

    Once dogs became comfortable in our company, humans began to speed up dogs’ social evolution. They may have started by giving extra food to helpful dogs–ones that barked to warn of danger, say. Dogs that paid close attention to humans got more rewards and eventually became partners with humans, helping with hunts or herding other animals. Along the way, the dogs’ social intelligence became eerily like ours, and not just in their ability to follow a pointed finger. Indeed, they even started to make very human mistakes.

    A team led by cognitive scientist Josef Topál of the Research Institute for Psychology in Hungary recently ran an experiment to study how 10-month-old babies pay attention to people. The scientists put a toy under one of two cups and then let the children choose which cup to pick up. The children, of course, picked the right cup–no surprise since they saw the toy being hidden. Topál and his colleagues repeated the trial several times, always hiding the toy under the same cup, until finally they hid it under the other one. Despite the evidence of their eyes, the kids picked the original cup–the one that had hidden the toy before but did not now.

    To investigate why the kids made this counterintuitive mistake, the scientists rigged the cups to wires and then lowered them over the toy. Without the distraction of a human being, the babies were far more likely to pick the right cup. Small children, it seems, are hardwired to pay such close attention to people that they disregard their other observations. Topál and his colleagues ran the same experiment on dogs–and the results were the same. When they administered the test to wolves, however, the animals did not make the mistake the babies and dogs did. They relied on their own observations rather than focusing on a human.

    There are a few mistakes in this article and/or researcher’s thinking though.

    One question the research of Topál, Hare and others raises is why chimpanzees–who are in most ways much smarter than dogs–lack the ability to read gestures. Hare believes that the chimps’ poor performance is one more piece of proof that the talent is rooted not in raw intelligence but in personality. Our ape cousins are simply too distracted by their aggression and competitiveness to fathom gestures easily. Chimps can cooperate to get food that they can’t get on their own, but if there’s the slightest chance for them to fight over it, they will. For humans to evolve as we did, Hare says, “We had to not get freaked out about sharing.”

    This paragraph is a bit misleading.  There isn’t this thing called Personality.  The same mechanisms at play in dog behavior, pertain to primates too.  Evolution and learning shape the chimps behavior, just differently than humans and/or dogs.  In reading articles like this it’s important to sift out the trap words like mind, personality, “human nature”, and intelligence.

    All in all though, and enjoyable piece.

    Now back to football….

    Dog Behavior and “Intelligence”

    –––––––

    Sep 20
  • Having myself dug through at least 30 companies traffic and sales data over the last decade I agree with these Wharton researchers.

    The Wharton researchers also disagree with Anderson’s theory and its implicit challenge to the Pareto principle, or so-called 80-20 rule, which in this case would state that 20% of the movie titles generate 80% of sales. Anderson argues that as demand shifts down the tail, the effect would diminish. Using Netflix data, Netessine and Tan show the opposite — an even stronger effect, with demand for the top 20% of movies increasing from 86% in 2000 to 90% in 2005.

    The most overlooked part of the long tail is that it typically only applies to “power users”.  The researchers correctly note that even though retailers and media companies can offer endless digital goods, they actually need to find a way to introduce consumers to the long tail goods.  And new users/new consumers/new customers typically gravitate/are pushed into the top shelf items (yet again keeping the Pareto principle alive and well).

    The Wharton researchers find that the Long Tail effect holds true in some cases, but when factoring in expanding product variety and consumer demand, mass appeal products retain their importance. The researchers argue that new movies appear so fast that consumers do not have time to discover them, and that niche movies are not any more well-liked than hits.

    According to Netessine, the Long Tail effect may be present in some cases, but few companies operate in a pure digital distribution system. Instead, they must weigh supply chain costs of physical products against the potential gain of capturing single customers of obscure offerings in a rapidly expanding marketplace. Companies, they add, must also consider the time it takes for consumers to locate off-beat items they may want.

    What’s more damning than all these reports and books is actually trying to run a business on the long tail.   I have a lot of experience in trying to do this from search engines to video sites to offline and online retail – the long tail isn’t viable to most businesses.  Consumers just don’t consume that way and products (digital or otherwise) aren’t all created equal (hits are hits for a reason…)

    The Long Tail is a powerful marketing message.  It helps start ups justify ridiculous valuations. It helps search engines entice niche advertisers.   It speaks to power users who want to think they are cool.   It’s very much like what happens on Wall Street – economists and financial wizards invent a theory that SELLS their product or service.  These concepts are wrapped up as theory to legitimize them but in the end they are just a sales tactics.  A more advanced version of One Minute Millionaire type books (“buy this book and you can make a million dollars!… for me!)

    Anderson did make some of these points in his original article.  He suggests that companies that are long tail and hit sales seem to be best.

    By contrast, the success of Netflix, Amazon, and the commercial music services shows that you need both ends of the curve. Their huge libraries of less-mainstream fare set them apart, but hits still matter in attracting consumers in the first place. Great Long Tail businesses can then guide consumers further afield by following the contours of their likes and dislikes, easing their exploration of the unknown.

    Let’s be clear though.  LONG TAIL doesn’t exist as a physical reality.  Consumers behave.  Retailers attempt to shape the behavior. … it’s about attending to various consumer behavior sets: the power users vs. new consumers vs. casual consumers.   If you only attend to power consumers  it’s hard to grow big enough to be a mass market leader (if that’s your goal).   If you focus only on hits and new consumers, you’ll never gain long term traction.  It’s pretty obvious why… the hits drive general consumer knowledge.  the long tail products have to be uncovered slowly.  Most media impressions go to hits (so the mass marketing is geared towards hits) because of the positive ROI against media spends.  The hits marketing is arbitraged into long tail products. and so on.  (for data proof just go look at the advertising spend globally…)

    “Such is the power myth of the Long Tail. Its time has come gone.”

    The Tale of The Long Tail – Anderson wasn’t all that right

    –––––––

    Sep 20
Previous Page Next Page

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Social Mode
    • Join 99 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Social Mode
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar