Reaching Interactive Media Audiences - Elon University


Reaching
Interactive
Media
Audiences
Crowdsourced
from
online
resources
Edited
by
Janna
Quitney
Anderson
July
2009
2
1.
Spreadable
media
in
a
digital
age
Henry Jenkins, MIT and University of Southern California professor and expert on
convergence culture, and several of his colleagues are building a new digital media
approach to audience theory. (This is a print version; for link to an online version:
http://henryjenkins.org/2009/02/if_it_doesnt_spread_its_dead_p.html)
This is an eight-post, in-depth look at how information is shared today. It was originally
written as a white paper by Jenkins, Xiaochang Li, and Ana Domb Krauskopf with
assistance from Joshua Green. You have to read all eight posts to get the complete
context of the content. This sketch for a book was made available to us under fair use.
In explanation, the authors write: “We are proposing an alternative model which
we think better accounts for how and why media content circulates at the present
time, the idea of spreadable media. A spreadable model emphasizes the activity
of consumers - or what Grant McCracken calls "multipliers" - in shaping the
circulation of media content, often expanding potential meanings and opening up
brands to unanticipated new markets. Rather than emphasizing the direct
replication of "memes," a spreadable model assumes that the repurposing and
transformation of media content adds value, allowing media content to be
localized to diverse contexts of use. This notion of spreadability is intended as a
contrast to older models of “stickiness” which emphasize centralized control over
distribution and attempts to maintain purity of message.
This is important content. Read it well.
If
It
Doesn’t
Spread,
It’s
Dead
Introduction:
Media
Viruses
and
Memes
Use of the terms "viral" and "memes" by those in the marketing, advertising and media
industries may be creating more confusion than clarity. Both these terms rely on a
biological metaphor to explain the way media content moves through cultures, a
metaphor that confuses the actual power relations between producers, properties, brands,
and consumers.
Definitions of "viral" media suffer from being both too limiting and too allencompassing. The term has "viral" has been used to describe so many related but
ultimately distinct practices - ranging from Word-of-Mouth marketing to video mash-ups
and remixes posted to YouTube - that just what counts as viral is unclear. It is invoked
in discussions about buzz marketing and building brand recognition while also
popping up in discussions about guerilla marketing, exploiting social networks, and
mobilizing consumers and distributors. Needless, the concept of viral distribution is
useful for understanding the emergence of a spreadable media landscape. Ultimately,
however, viral media is a flawed way to think about distributing content through informal
or ad hoc networks of consumers.
3
Talking
about
memes
and
viral
media
places
an
emphasis
on
the
replication
of
the
original
idea,
which
fails
to
consider
the
everyday
reality
of
communication
‐
that
ideas
get
transformed,
repurposed,
or
distorted
as
they
pass
from
hand
to
hand,
a
process
which
has
been
accelerated
as
we
move
into
network
culture.
Arguably, those ideas that survive are those that can be most easily appropriated and
reworked by a range of different communities. In focusing on the involuntary
transmission of ideas by unaware consumers, these models allow advertisers and media
producers to hold onto an inflated sense of their own power to shape the communication
process, even as unruly behavior by consumers becomes a source of great anxiety within
the media industry. A close look at particular examples of Internet "memes" or "viruses"
highlight the ways they have mutated as they have traveled through an increasingly
participatory culture.
Given these limitations, we are proposing an alternative model which we think better
accounts for how and why media content circulates at the present time, the idea of
spreadable media. A spreadable model emphasizes the activity of consumers - or
what Grant McCracken calls "multipliers" - in shaping the circulation of media
content, often expanding potential meanings and opening up brands to
unanticipated new markets. Rather than emphasizing the direct replication of
"memes," a spreadable model assumes that the repurposing and transformation of
media content adds value, allowing media content to be localized to diverse contexts
of use. This notion of spreadability is intended as a contrast to older models of stickiness
that emphasize centralized control over distribution and attempts to maintain "purity" of
message.
In this section, we will explore the roots of the concept of viral media, looking at the
concept of the "media viruses" and its ties to the theory of the "meme." The reliance on a
potent biological metaphor to describe the process of communication reflects a particular
set of assumptions about the power relations between producers, texts, and consumers
that may obscure the realities these terms seek to explain.
The metaphor of "infection" reduces consumers to the involuntary "hosts" of media
viruses, while holding onto the idea that media producers can design "killer" texts which
can ensure circulation by being injected directly into the cultural "bloodstream." While
attractive, such a notion doesn't reflect the complexity of cultural and communicative
processes. A continued dependency on terms based in biological phenomena dramatically
limits our ability to adequately describe media circulation as a complex system of social,
technological, textual, and economic practices and relations.
In the following, we will outline the limits of these two analogies as part of making the
case for the importance of adopting a new model for thinking about the grassroots
circulation of content in the current media landscape. In the end, we are going to
propose that these concepts be retired in favor of a new framework - Spreadable
Media.
4
Definitional
Fuzziness
Consider what happened when a group of advertising executives sat down to discuss the
concept of viral media, a conversation which demonstrates the confusion about what viral
media might be, about what it is good for, and why it's worth thinking about. One panelist
began by suggesting viral media referred to situations "where the marketing messaging
was powerful enough that it spread through the population like a virus," a suggestion the
properties of viral media lie in the message itself, or perhaps in those who crafted that
message. The second, on the other hand, described viral media in terms of the activity of
consumers: "Anything you think is cool enough to send to your friends, that's viral."
Later in the same exchange, he suggested "Viral, just by definition, is something that gets
passed around by people."
As the discussion continued, it became clearer and clearer that viral media, like art and
pornography, lies in the eye of the beholder. No one knew for sure why any given
message "turned viral," though there was lots of talk about "designing the DNA" of viral
properties and being "organic" to the communities through which messages circulated.
To some degree, it seemed the strength of a viral message depends on "how easy is it to
pass," suggesting viralness has something to do with the technical properties of the
medium, yet quickly we were also told that it had to do with whether the message fit into
the ongoing conversations of the community: "If you're getting a ton of negative
comments, maybe you're not talking about it in the right place."
By the end of the exchange, no one could sort out what is meant by "viral media" or what
metrics should be deployed to measure its success. This kind of definitional fuzziness
makes it increasingly difficult to approach the process analytically. Without certainty
about what set of practices the term refers to, it is impossible to attempt to understand
how and why such practices work.
As already noted, the reliance on a biological metaphor to explain the way
communication takes place - through practices of "infection" - represents the first
dificulty with the notion of viral media. The attraction of the infection metaphor is twofold:
•
It reduces consumers, often the most unpredictable variable in the sendermessage-receiver frame, to involuntary "hosts" of media viruses.
•
While holding onto the idea that media producers can design "killer" texts which
can ensure circulation by being injected directly into the cultural "bloodstream."
Douglas Rushkoff's 1994 book Media Virus may not have invented the term "viral
media," but his ideas eloquently describe the way these texts are popularly held to
behave. The media virus, Rushkoff argues, is a Trojan horse, that surreptitiously brings
messages into our homes - messages can be encoded into a form people are compelled to
pass along and share, allowing the embedded meanings, buried inside like DNA, to
"infect" and spread, like a pathogen. There is an implicit and often explicit proposition
that this spread of ideas and messages can occur not only without the user's consent, but
5
perhaps actively against it, requiring that people be duped into passing a hidden agenda
while circulating compelling content. Rushkoff insists he is not using the term "as a
metaphor. These media events are not like viruses. They are viruses . . . (such as) the
common cold, and perhaps even AIDS" (Rushkoff, p. 9).
Media viruses spread through the datasphere the same way biological ones spread
through the body or a community. But instead of traveling along an organic circulatory
system, a media virus travels through the networks of the mediaspace.
The "protein shell" of a media virus might be an event, invention, technology,
system of thought, musical riff, visual image, scientific theory, sex scandal, clothing
style or even a pop hero - as long as it can catch our attention. Any one of these
media virus shells will search out the receptive nooks and crannies in popular culture and
stick on anywhere it is noticed. Once attached, the virus injects its more hidden
agendas into the datastream in the form of ideological code - not genes, but a
conceptual equivalent we now call "memes" (Rushkoff, p. 9-10).
The "hidden agenda" and "embedded meanings" Rushkoff mentions are the brand
messages buried at the heart of viral videos, the promotional elements in videos featuring
Mentos exploding out of soda bottles, or Gorillas playing the drumline of "In the Air
Tonight." The media virus proposition is that these marketing messages - messages
consumers may normally avoid, approach skeptically, or disregard altogether - are hidden
by the "protein shell" of compelling media properties. Nestled within interesting bits of
content, these messages are snuck into the heads of consumers, or willfully passed
between them.
These messages, Rushkoff and others suggest, constitute "memes," conceived by
evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in 1976 as a sort of cultural version of the gene.
Dawkins was looking for a way to explain cultural evolution, imagining it as a biological
system. What genes are to genetics, he suggested, memes would be to culture. Like the
gene, the meme is driven to self-create, and is possessed of three important
characteristics:
Fidelity
‐
memes
have
the
ability
to
retain
their
informational
content
as
they
pass
from
mind
to
mind.
Fecundity
‐
memes
possess
the
power
to
induce
copies
of
themselves.
Longevity
‐
memes
that
survive
longer
have
a
better
chance
of
being
copied.
The meme, then, is "a unit of information in a mind whose existence influences events
such that more copies of itself get created in other minds" (Brodie, 1996, p. 32).
Memes
are
the
ideas
at
the
center
of
virally
spread
events,
some
coherent,
self‐replicating
idea
that
moves
from
person‐to‐person,
from
mind‐to‐mind,
duplicating
itself
as
it
goes.
6
Language seems to evolve by non-genetic means and at a rate that is orders of magnitude
faster than genetic evolution. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by
leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the
meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process that, in the broad sense, can be
called imitation (Dawkins, 1976, p.189).
Dawkins remained vague about the granularity of this concept, seeing it as an all-purpose
unit that could explain everything from politics to fashion. Each of these fields are
comprised of good ideas, good ideas which, in order to survive, attach themselves to
media virii - funny, catchy, compelling bits of content - as a vehicle to infect new minds
with copies of themselves.
We are all susceptible to the pull of viral ideas. Like mass hysteria. Or a tune that gets
into your head that you keep on humming all day until you spread it to someone else.
Jokes. Urban Legends. Crackpot religions. Marxism. No matter how smart we get, there
is always this deep irrational part that makes us potential hosts for self-replicating
information. (Neil Stephenson, Snow Crash, 1992, p.399)
Though imagined long before the rise of the Internet and the Web, the idea of the meme
has been widely embraced as a way of talking about the rapid dispersion of information
and the widespread circulation of concepts that characterize the digital era. It has been a
particularly attractive way to think about the rise of Internet fads like the LOLcats or
Soulja Boy, fads considered seemingly trivial or meaningless. The content that circulates
in such a fashion is seen as simplistic, fragmentary, and essentially meaningless, though it
may shape our beliefs and actions in significant ways. Wired magazine (Miller, 2007)
recently summed it up as a culture of "media snacks":
“We now devour our pop culture the same way we enjoy candy and chips - in
conveniently packaged bite-size nuggets made to be munched easily with
increased frequency and maximum speed. This is snack culture - and boy, is it
tasty (not to mention addictive).’
This description of snacks implies that they are without nutritional value, trivial or
meaningless aspect of our culture, a time waste. And if this meaningless content is selfreplicating then consumers are "irrational," and unable to escape their infection. Yet these
models - the idea of the meme and the media virus, of self-replicating ideas hidden in
attractive, catchy content we are helpless to resist - is a problematic way to understand
cultural practices. We want to suggest that these materials travel through the web because
they are meaningful to the people who spread them. At the most fundamental level, such
an approach misunderstands the way content spreads, which is namely, through the active
practices of people. As such, we would like to suggest:
"Memes"
do
not
self‐replicate.
People
are
not
"susceptible"
to
this
viral
media.
Viral
media
and
Internet
memes
are
not
nutritionally
bereft,
meaningless
"snacks.
"
7
The
Problem
of
Agency
Central to the difficulties of both the meme and the media virus models is a particular
confusion about the role people play in passing along media content. From the start,
memetics has suffered from a confusion about the nature of agency. Unlike genetic
features, culture is not in any meaningful sense self-replicating - it relies on people to
propel, develop and sustain it. The term 'culture' originates from metaphors of
agriculture: the analogy was of cultivating the human mind much as one cultivates the
land. Culture thus represents the assertion of human will and agency upon nature. As
such, cultures are not something that happen to us, cultures are something we collectively
create. Certainly any individual can be influenced by the surrounding culture, by the
fashion, media, speech and ideas that fill daily life, but individuals make their own
contributions to their cultures through the choices they make. The language of memetics,
however, strips aside the concept of human agency.
Processes of cultural adaptation are more complex than the notion of meme circulation
makes out. Indeed, theories for understanding cultural uptake must consider two factors
not closely considered by memetics: human choice and the medium through which these
ideas are circulated. Dawkins writes not about how "people acquire ideas" but about how
"ideas acquire people." Every day humans create and circulate many more ideas than
are actually likely to gain any deep traction within a culture. Over time, only a
much smaller number of phrases, concepts, images, or stories survive. This
winnowing down of cultural options is the product not of the strength of particular
ideas but of many, many individual choices as people decide what ideas to reference,
which to share with each other, decisions based on a range of different agendas and
interests far beyond how compelling individual ideas may be. Few of the ideas get
transmitted in anything like their original form: humans adapt, transform, rework them on
the fly in response to a range of different local circumstances and personal needs.
Stripping aside the human motives and choices that shape this process reveals little about
the spread of these concepts.
By the same token, ideas circulate differently in and through different media. Some
media allow for the more or less direct transmission of these ideas in something
close to their original form -- as when a video gets replayed many times - while
others necessarily encourage much more rapid transformations - as occurs when we
play a game of "telephone" and each person passing along a message changes it in
some way. So, it makes little sense to talk about "memes" as an all-purpose unit of
thought without regard to the medium and processes of cultural transmission being
described. Indeed, discussing the emergence of Internet memes, education researchers
Michael Knobel and Colin Lankshear (2007) suggest Dawkins' notion of memetic fidelity
needs to be done away with altogether. Defining the Internet meme as the rapid uptake
and spread of a particular idea, presented as a written text, image, language, "move" or
some unit of cultural "stuff," Knobel and Lankshear suggest adaptation is central to the
propogation of memes: "Many of the online memes in this study were not passed on
entirely 'intact' in that the meme 'vehicle' was changed, modified, mixed with other
referential and expressive resources, and regularly given idiosyncratic spins by
8
participants...A concept like 'replicability' therefore needs to include remixing as an
important practice associated with many successful online memes, where remixing
includes modifying, bricolaging, splicing, reordering, superimposing, etc., original and
other images, sounds, films, music, talk, and so on. " (Knobel and Lankshear, 2007,
p.208-209)
Their argument is particularly revealing as a way to think about just what comprises the
object at the heart of the Internet meme. The recent "LOLcat" Internet meme, built so
heavily upon remixing and appropriation, is a good case study to illustrate the role of
remixing in Internet memes. "LOLcats" are pictures of animals, most commonly cats,
with digitally superimposed text for humorous effect. Officially referred to as "image
macros," the pictures often feature "LOLspeak," a type of broken English that enhances
the amusing tone of the juxtaposition. On websites such as icanhascheezburger.com,
users are invited to upload their own "LOLcats" which are then shared throughout the
web.
Over time, different contributors have stretched the "LOLcat" idea in many different
directions which would not have been anticipated by the original posters - including a
whole strand of images centering around Walruses and buckets, the use of "LOLspeak" to
translate religious texts (LOLbible) or represent complex theoretical arguments, the use
of similar image macros to engage with Emo culture, philosophy (loltheorists), and dogs
(LOLdogs, see: ihasahotdog.com).
So just what is the "meme" at the center of this Internet meme? What is the idea that is
replicated? More than the content of the pictures, the "meme" at the heart of this Internet
phenomenon is the structure of the picture itself - the juxtaposition, broken English, and
particularly the use of irreverent humor. Given the meme lies in the structure, however how to throw the pot rather than the pot itself - then the very viability of the meme is
dependent on the ability for the idea to be adapted in a variety of different ways. In this
sense, then, it is somewhat hard to see how contained within this structure is a "message"
waiting to occupy unsuspecting minds.
The re-use, remixing and adaptation of the LOLcat idea instead suggest that the spread
and replication of this form of cultural production is not due to the especially compelling
nature of the LOLcat idea but the fact it can be used to make meaning. A similar situation
can be seen in the case of the "Crank Dat" song by Soulja Boy, which some have
described as one of the most succesful Internet memes of 2007. Soulja Boy, originally an
obscure amateur performer in Atlanta, produced a music video for his first song "Crank
Dat," which he uploaded to video sharing sites such as YouTube. Soulja Boy then
encouraged his fans to appropriate, remix, and re-perform the song, spreading it through
social networks, YouTube, and the blogosphere, in the hopes of gaining greater visibility
for himself and his music.
Along the way, Crank Dat got performed countless times by very different communities from white suburban kids to black ballet dancers, from football teams to MIT graduate
students. The video was used as the basis for "mash up" videos featuring characters as
diverse as Winnie the Pooh and Dora the Explorer. People added their own steps, lyrics,
9
themes, and images to the videos they made. As the song circulated, Soulja Boy's
reputation grew - he scored a record contract, and emerged as a top recording artist - in
part as a consequence of his understanding of the mechanisms by which cultural content
circulates within a participatory culture.
The success of "Crank Dat" cannot be explained as the slavish emulation of the dance by
fans, as the self-replication of a "compelling" idea. Rather, "Crank Dat" spread the way
dance crazes have always spread - through the processes of learning and adaptation by
which people learn to dance. As CMS student Kevin Driscoll discusses, watching others
dance to learn steps and refining these steps so they express local experience or variation
are crucial to dance itself. Similarly, the adaptation of the LOLcat form to different
situations - theory, puppies, politicians - constitute processes of meaning making, as
people use tools at their disposal to explain the world around them.
Next Time: We will compare and contrast "stickiness" and "spreadability" as competing
paradigms shaping the practices of web 2.0.
References
Brodie,
Richard
(1996).
Virus
of
the
Mind:
The
New
Science
of
the
Meme,
Seattle:
Integral
Press
Dawkins,
Richard
(1976).
The
Selfish
Gene,
Oxford:
Oxford
University
Press
Knobel,
Michele
&
Lankshear,
Colin
(2007).
New
Literacies:
Everyday
Practices
&
Classroom
Learning.
Open
University
Press
McCracken,
Grant
(2005a).
"'Consumers'
or
'Multipliers':
A
New
Language
for
Marketing?,"
This
Blog
Sits
At
the
Intersection
of
Anthropology
and
Economics,
November
10.
Miller,
Nancy
(2007).
"Minifesto
for
a
New
Age,"
Wired,
March.
Rushkoff,
Douglas.
(1994)
Media
Virus:
Hidden
Agendas
in
Popular
Culture.
New
York:
Ballantine.
Stephenson,
Neil
(1992).
Snow
Crash.
New
York:
Bantam.
If
It
Doesn’t
Spread,
It’s
Dead
–
Part
One
Sticky
and
Spreadable
‐
Two
Paradigms
From
Viral
to
Spreadability
It is not hard to understand why the idea of both memes and the media virus would be
attractive to marketers. If the right meme was deployed, theory suggests, it would
successfully acquire people, reaching more and more possible consumers as goes.
Similarly, Rushkoff's notion of "viral" circulation appeals to advertisers because it allows
them to give up control over little more than the specific path of dissemination. In this
scenario, they are cast as purposeful agent zeros, unleashing a message that spreads
through its own volition, the instructions of replication imbedded in the DNA of the
campaign.
10
But if the rising anxieties over brand equity, appropriation of content, miscommunication,
lack of communication, and the ultimate value of viral campaigns is any indication, many
advertisers are well aware that this model of "viral" media, which doesn't account for
individual or social agency, does not accurately reflect the present media landscape. The
idea of the "media virus" breaks down because people are making conscious choices
about what media they are passing along and about the forms within which they are
circulating it. As we saw in the discussion of the LOLcat meme above, the core message
may be manipulated or turned against the original authors as it spreads across the
Internet. Consumers have shown a remarkable ability to turn advertising slogans and
jingles against the companies that originated them. Fans have highjacked popular stories
to express profoundly different interpretations than those of their authors.
Metaphors
of
"viral
media"
and
"memes"
emerged
during
a
period
of
transition
in
the
relationship
between
consumers
and
producers:
first,
this
terminology
reflected
a
shift
away
from
the
push‐based
model
of
the
broadcast
era
toward
the
pull‐based
model
of
the
early
internet
(characterized
by
talk
of
"stickiness");
second,
the
terminology
maintained
use
value
as
we
moved
from
an
era
of
personalized
media
toward
the
increasingly
communal
practices
associated
with
the
rise
of
social
networks
and
the
emergence
of
what
industry
guru
Tim
O'Reilly
(2005)
identified
as
"the
architecture
of
participation."
It is somewhat ironic that the idea of the media virus emerged at the same time as a shift
towards greater acknowledgment of consumers as participants in meaning making within
the networked media space. Shenja van der Graaf, in her 2003 article "Viral
Experiences: Do You Trust Your Friends?" maintains "the main feature of viral
marketing is that it heavily depends on interconnected peers. Viral Marketing is
therefore inherently social" (van der Graaf, 2003, p.8). van der Graaf uses "viral" to
describe a condition of movement and distribution of content that is linked to network
behavior, and cites participation within a socially networked system as a central
requirement of "viral" behavior.
Each step along this process made media companies more dependent upon the active
engagement of their consumers and increased the urgency of understanding how and why
cultural content circulates. Talk of "memes" and "media viruses" gave a false sense of
security at a time when the old attention economy was in flux, resulting in widespread
uncertainty about what might motivate consumer "engagement" in this new context. Such
terms promised a pseudo-scientific model for thinking about consumer behavior, one
which kept power firmly in the hands of media producers. In practice, they simply
mystified the process, limiting the industry's ability to understand the complex factors
which now shape the creation of value through the circulation of content within these
new social networks.
We believe that the confusion wrapped surrounding the concepts of "memes" and
"viruses" is not going to be easily resolved. As we have seen, the terms are at once
too encompassing and too limiting; they introduce false assumptions about how
11
cultures operate; they distort the power relations between producers and consumers
at a time when media companies and brands need to learn to respect the
increasingly empowered roles which their users are playing in the circulation and
production of meaning around their products. Given these limits, these words
mislead more than they clarify and need to be retired. To put it bluntly, the viral is
not only sick; it's pushing up the daisies.
For that reason, we are proposing an alternative terminology, one which we think allows
us to construct a more effective model that might inform future strategies. Rather than
speaking about "viral media," we prefer to think of media as spreadable. Spreadability as
a concept describes how the properties of the media environment, texts, audiences,
and business models work together to enable easy and widespread circulation of
mutually meaningful content within a networked culture. Talking about
spreadability invites us to ask four basic questions:
What
aspects
of
the
contemporary
media
environment
support
the
spread
of
media
across
different
communities?
How
do
consumers
create
value
for
themselves
and
for
companies
through
their
spread
of
media?
What
properties
of
content
make
it
more
likely
to
be
spread?
How
do
companies
benefit
from
the
spread
of
their
content?
The concept of "spreadability" preserves much of what was useful about the earlier
models - the idea that the movement of messages from person to person, from community
to community, over time increases their effectiveness, and expands their impact. It
recognizes the ways that later theorists such as van der Graaf or Knoebel and Lankshear
have revised the earliest, relatively static and passive conceptions of "memes" and
"viruses" to reflect the realities of the new social web, while suggesting this emerging
paradigm is so substantively different from the initial conceptualizations as to require a
new terminology.
This new "spreadable" model allows us to avoid metaphors of "infection" and
"contamination" which over-estimate the power of media companies and underestimate
the agency of consumers. Insofar as these metaphors distort the actual factors shaping the
spread of media content in a networked culture, they result in less than fully effective
campaigns. In this emerging model, consumers play an active role in "spreading" content
rather than being the passive carriers of viral media: their choices, their investments, their
actions determine what gets valued in the new mediascape.
Recentering
the
discussion
on
choices
consumers
make,
rather
than
choices
media
companies
make,
forces
advertising
and
entertainment
companies
to
pay
closer
attention
to
consumer's
motivations
and
thus
to
design
content
which
better
aligns
with
their
interests;
it
will
also
allow
companies
to
adopt
12
policies
which
sustain
rather
than
repress
this
desire
to
help
circulate
relevant
material
throughout
their
social
networks.
While older models of "memes" and "media viruses" focused attention on how ideas
replicate and propagate, a spreadability model assumes that value originates as much
through the act of transformation as through direct circulation. Spreadability assumes a
world where mass content gets repositioned as it enters into a range of different
niche communities. When material is produced according to a one-size-fits-all model, it
necessarily imperfectly fits the needs of any given group of consumers. As content
spreads, then, it gets remade - either literally through various forms of sampling and
remixing - or figuratively via its insertion into ongoing conversations and interactions.
Such repurposing doesn't necessarily blunt or distort the goals of the original
communicator. Rather, it may allow the message to reach new constituencies where it
would otherwise have gone unheard. C3-affiliated researcher Grant McCracken (2005)
points toward such a model when he suggests that the word "consumer" should be
replaced by a new term, "multiplier," to reflect the fact consumers expand the
potential meanings that get attached to a brand by inserting it into a range of
unpredicted contexts of use.
There is something in the term that invites us to ask whether the product, brand,
innovation, campaign does actually give the "multiplier" anything he can, er, multiply....
Furthermore, "multipliers" also bids us ask, down the road, whether indeed the product,
brand, innovation actually produced anything in the world. Did the multipliers multiply
it, or is it still just sitting there? Finally, the term "multiplier" may help marketers
acknowledge more forthrightly that whether our work is a success is in fact out of our
control. All we can do is to invite the multiplier to participate in the construction of the
brand by putting it to work for their own purposes in their own world. When we called
them "consumers" we could think of our creations as an end game and their
responses as an end state. The term "multiplier" or something like it makes it clear
that we depend on them to complete the work.
We might compare these brand "multipliers" to "lead users" (Von Hippel, 2006): lead
users (Ford, 2006) enable user innovation, helping to find and fix flaws, identify new
markets, or model new uses of manufactured goods once they have shipped to
market; these "multipliers" perform some of this same work for cultural goods,
taking them places and deploying them in ways that would not have been envisioned
by the people who produced them. Some of those uses will be tangential to the goals of
the media companies; some may generate alternative sources of profit; some may expand
the potential audience for entertainment properties or open the brand message to new
interpretations and uses.
Consumers in this model are not simply "hosts" or "carriers" of alien ideas, but rather
grassroots advocates for materials that are personally and socially meaningful to them.
They have filtered out content that they think has little relevance to their community,
while focusing attention on material that they think has a special salience in this new
context. Spreadability relies on the one true intelligent agent - the human mind - to
13
cut through the clutter of a hyper-mediated culture and to facilitate the flow of
valuable content across a fragmented marketplace. Under these conditions, media
which remains fixed in its location and static in its form fails to generate sufficient public
interest and thus drops out of these ongoing conversations.
Spreadable
and
Sticky
‐‐
Two
Models
of
Media
Contact
We can understand what we mean by spreadablity by way of a contrast with earlier
notions of "stickiness." A review of the top ten hits on Google for "stickiness" offers us a
fairly consistent sense of the word's current functional definition. The term "sticky"
first and foremost refers to websites that "grab and hold the attention of your
visitor" (Meredian, n.d.). Some writers argue that "(customers will) come back and buy
more goods, get more advice, and see more ads" (Sanchez, n.d.). Most others measure
stickiness in terms of how long the visitor stays on a single visit or how many different
pages the visitors looks at in the course of their stay.
Stickiness reflected the assumptions of personalized media: its central unit is the
individual consumer. As one writer explains, "Measuring stickiness means that you'll
have to track what individuals do, not just mass movements on your site. So you'll have
to have them register or place cookies on their computers if you really want to know that
much detail." (Nemeth-Johannes, n.d.) And stickiness is associated with pre-structured
interactivity rather than open-ended participation with games, quizzes, and polls
seen as devices for attracting and holding the interests of consumers.
This emphasis on "stickiness" was closely associated with the ongoing discussion of
"push vs. pull" technologies: stickiness reflects anxiety about attracting and holding
viewer interest in a world where consumers have to actively seek out the content
they desire. Under the stickiness model, value comes either through charging for
access to information (through some kind of subscription or service fee), by selling
merchandise to consumers through some kind of e-commerce catalog, or by selling
the eyeballs of site visitors to some outside party, most often to advertisers.
Sites such as Amazon or eBay represent the triumph of this "stickiness" model - both
sites depend greatly on the return of highly committed and strongly motivated consumers
and upon multiple transactions per visit. Yet, even these sites depend on word-of-mouth
referrals from satisfied customers, who more often than not discuss their interactions in
other contexts, thus helping "spread" the word to potential visitors. As early as 1996
Amazon launched its highly successful affiliate marketing program, which offers
designated "Associates" as much as 10 percent in referral fees for purchases made by
visitors they helped to attract to retailer's sites. Consumers are encouraged to link their
homepages or blogs back to Amazon, providing incentives for them to help increase their
community's awareness of the site's products and services.
This program reflects the core insight that different books would be of interest within
different communities, that people were more likely to buy books when they were
recommended by people they already trusted in other contexts, and that discussion of
books emerged organically in the midst of a range of other conversations and
14
interactions. The Associates program, thus, reflects the value that comes in "spreading"
one's message across a range of niche communities rather than seeking simply to attract
and hold the attention of site visitors.
Put schematically, we might map nine core distinctions between Stickiness and
Spreadability:
• Stickiness seeks to attract and hold the attention of site visitors; spreadability seeks to
motivate and facilitate the efforts of fans and enthusiasts to "spread" the word.
• Stickiness depends on concentrating the attention of all interested parties on a specific
site or through a specific channel; spreadability seeks to expand consumer awareness
by dispersing the content across many potential points of contact.
• Stickiness depends on creating a unified consumer experience as consumers enter into
branded spaces; spreadability depends on creating a diversified experience as brands
enter into the spaces where people already live and interact.
• Stickiness depends on prestructured interactivity to shape visitor experiences;
spreadability relies on open-ended participation as diversely motivated but deeply
engaged consumers retrofit content to the contours of different niche communities.
• Stickiness typically tracks the migrations of individual consumers within a site;
Spreadability maps the flow of ideas through social networks.
• Under stickiness, a sales force markets to consumers; under spreadability, grassroots
intermediaries become advocates for brands.
• Stickiness is a logical outgrowth of the shift from broadcasting's push model to the
web's pull model; spreadability restores some aspects of the push model through
relying on consumers to circulate the content within their own communities.
• Under stickiness, producers, marketers, and consumers are separate and distinct roles;
spreadability depends on increased collaboration across and even a blurring of the
distinction between these roles.
• Stickiness depends on a finite number of channels for communicating with consumers;
spreadability takes for granted an almost infinite number of often localized and many
times temporary networks through which media content circulates.
In short, for media companies to fully grasp the advantages of spreadability, they
have to unlearn the lessons of "stickiness," lessons that may be less effective than
they once seemed, as a consequence of the next phase of evolution in the media
ecology.
Not surprisingly, many sites today struggle to balance between these two competing
15
models, often resulting in disappointment. Consider, for example, the case of Sonific, an
early experiment in adopting the spreadable media model within the music industry. In
2006, Sonific offered 'customizable, flexible, Flash-based music widgets' enabling users
to stream one or more songs from the Sonific catalog to almost any webpage. Material
from Sonfic's catalog could be included in nearly any web-based application - from
modest blogs to social network pages and slideshows. Users could customize playlists
and embed music from the catalog into their sites.
Sonfic offered full-length-tracks as free, promotional streams, operating under the "You
hear, you like, you buy," rule proposed by UCE Birmingham Professor Andrew Dubber.
By early 2008 Sonific had licensed over 200,000 tracks and had 80,000 users, but as of
May 1 the service has closed operations citing unworkable licensing with the major
record labels.
"It seems that the industry's major stakeholders still prefer this turf to remain
unlicensed rather than to allow real-life, workable and market-based solutions to
emerge by working with new companies such as Sonific. This is not the way forward.
- Sonific's CEO Gerd Leonhard, 2008.
The service's demise is certainly due, in part at least, to the recording industry's resistance
to a spreadable model, a model that would actually encourage music fans to distribute
content through decentralized networks. The music industry's anxieties about piracy lead
them to want to lock down content rather than encouraging consumers to shape its
circulation. All of this suggests a moment of transition: old assumptions are going to be
hard to displace. For some industries and for some purposes, the sticky model will
maintain even as other sectors of the branded entertainment sector are moving towards a
more spreadable model. In the short term, we argue that companies need to know what
model they are choosing and why.
The focus on spreadable media requires greater attention be paid to the social
relations between media producers and consumers. There are significant differences
between what motivates consumers to spread content and what motivates producers
to seek the circulation of their brands. These differences can be understood in terms of
the contrast between commodity culture and the gift economy.
References
Ford,
Sam,
with
Henry
Jenkins,
Grant
McCracken,
Parmesh
Shahani,
Ivan
Askwith,
Geoffrey
Long
and
Ilya
Vedrashko
(2006).
Fanning
the
Audience's
Flames:
Ten
Ways
to
Embrace
and
Cultivate
Fan
Communities,
Report
Prepared
for
the
Members
of
the
MIT
Convergence
Culture
Consortium,
Cambridge.
Knobel,
Michele
&
Lankshear,
Colin
(2007).
New
Literacies:
Everyday
Practices
&
Classroom
Learning.
Open
University
Press
Leonhard,
Gerd.
"Sonific
Goes
Offline
on
May
1
2008",
Sonific.
McCracken,
Grant
(2005).
"'Consumers'
or
'Multipliers':
A
New
Language
for
Marketing?,"
This
Blog
Sits
At
the
Intersection
of
Anthropology
and
Economics,
November
10.
16
Meredian
Design
(n.d.)
"Make
It
Sticky,
Make
'Em
Stay."
Nemeth‐Johannes,
Cindy
(n.d.)
"Making
Sticky
Websites,"
The
ABCs
of
Small
Business.
O'Reilly,
Tim
(2005).
"What
is
Web
2.0?,"
September
30.
Sanchez,
Marcos
(n.d.)
"Eight
Ways
to
Sticky
Sites."
Fuse.
van
der
Graaf,
Shenja.
"Viral
Experiences:
Do
You
Trust
Your
Friends,"
(author
version),
in
Sandeep
Krishnamurthy
(ed.).
Contemporary
Research
in
E‐Marketing,
University
of
Washington.
ed..
Pennsylvania:
Idea
Publishing,
pp.166‐185
Von
Hippel,
Eric
(2006).
Democratizing
Innovation.
Cambridge:
MIT
Press.
If
It
Doesn’t
Spread,
It’s
Dead
–
Part
Two
The
Gift
Economy
and
Commodity
Culture
Spreadability
and
the
Moral
Economy
Consumers, both individually and collectively, exert agency in the spreadability model:
they are not impregnated with media messages; they select material that matters to them
from the much broader array of media content on offer. They do not simply pass along
static content; they transform the content so that it better serves their own social and
expressive needs. Content does not remain in fixed borders but rather it circulates in
unpredicted and often unpredictable directions, not the product of top-down design but
rather of a multitude of local decisions made by autonomous agents negotiating their way
through diverse cultural spaces.
Consumers do not simply consume; they recommend content they like to their friends
who recommend it to their friends who recommend it on down the line. They do not
simply "buy" cultural goods; they "buy into" a cultural economy that respects and
rewards their participation. Nothing spreads widely in the new digital economy
unless it engages and serves the interests of both consumers and producers.
Otherwise, the circulation gets blocked, either through corporations constructing road
blocks (legal or technical) upon its spread or through consumers refusing to circulate
content that fails to serve their interests. Nothing generates value in this new digital
economy unless the transaction is seen as meaningful to all involved.
Too often, Web 2.0-era companies speak about creating communities around their
products and services, rather than recognizing that they are more often courting existing
communities with their own histories, agendas, hierarchies, traditions, and practices. So,
rather than talking about the Saturn "community" as a "consumer tribe" (Cova, Kozinets,
and Shankar, 2007), we might more productively analyze what the contemporary car
company has done to capture the interests and win the loyalty of a hundred year plus
history of motorist clubs. The first model implies that Saturn can set the terms for the
consumers’ interactions with the brand. The second suggests the motorist culture created
its own values and aspirations that Saturn has to address if its car is to gain a central place
in its social life.
17
…As a rule, we are misled when we focus on what media does to people rather than
trying to understand what people are doing with media and why. We start from the
premise that consumers only help facilitate the circulation of media content when it is
personally and socially meaningful to them, when it enables them to express some aspect
of their own self-perception or enables valued transactions that strengthen their social ties
with others.
Courting communities is tricky. Forcing communities to talk about a certain
product is almost impossible. These obstacles were swiftly dealt with in the
construction of the site "Being Girl" which belongs to the Tampax and Always brands.
As Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff comment on their new book Groundswell:
Beingirl.com is not a community site about tampons. (Who would want to visit that?) It's
about everything that young girls deal with. The site is very lightly branded and it's
loaded with information about music, make-up, relationships and spaces for the girls to
talk amongst themselves and with experts… Bernoff and Li suspect that the site's success
is due in part to the fact that P&G "solved the customers' problems instead of its own,"
the costumers were willing to share. Add subtle brand messages and free samples and
P&G was able to become part of the dialogue from which it was previously excluded. A
key takeaway here is that companies should figure out what existing communities are
most likely to use their product and what they are doing with it; they should identify
basic needs of that community and develop informational resources to support
them.
Knowing that the community pre-exists, the brand or franchises engagement with it
means corporations need to legitimize their entrance into this space. In earlier white
papers (Austin 2006), we have introduced the idea that participants in economic
exchanges are governed by an implicit set of understandings about what is "right"
and what is "legitimate" for each player to do. This is what social historian E.P.
Thompson described as a "moral economy." The moral economy describes the set of
social norms and mutual understandings that make it possible for two parties to do
business with each other. In some cases, the moral economy holds in check the
aggressive pursuit of short-term self interest in favor of decisions that preserve longterm social relations between participants. In a small-scale economy, for example, a
local dealer is unlikely to "cheat" a customer because they need to count on continued
trade with this person over an extended period of time and thus need to build up their
reputation within this community.
The measure of a moral economy is the degree to which participants trust each other to
hold up their end of these implicit agreements. When there is a sudden and dramatic shift
in the economic or technological infrastructure, as has occurred with the introduction of
digital media, it can create a crisis in the "moral economy," diminishing the level of trust
within participating parties, and perhaps even wearing away the mechanisms which
ensure the legitimacy of economic exchanges. At such times, we can see all involved
proposing new models or frameworks through which parties may reach a new
understanding of what should provide the basis for fair and meaningful interactions.
18
We can see, for example, notions of "file sharing" and "piracy" as two competing
moral systems by which we might make sense of the circulation of media content,
one put forth by consumers eager to legitimate their idea of the free exchange of
content, the other put forth by the media industry eager to close off certain practices
as "illegitimate" and damaging to their long term economic interests. The excessive
rhetoric surrounding the circulation of music at the present time suggests just how
far out of balance the moral understandings of producers and consumers have
become. New technologies enable consumers to exert much greater impact on the
circulation of media content than ever before but they also enable companies to police
once private behavior as it takes on greater public dimensions. These shifts enable some
to describe a crisis in copyright, others a crisis in fair use, and all sides to be more or less
accurate in describing the tensions which have emerged.
Discussions
of
"viral
media,"
or
of
what
we
are
calling
"spreadable"
media,
point
to
places
where
a
new
moral
economy
may
be
emerging.
They
allow
us
to
map
forms
of
audience
participation
that
are
seen
as
valuable
to
advertisers
and
media
companies.
Spreadable
media
represents
an
alternative
framing
of
the
free
circulation
of
media
content
to
the
prevailing
metaphor
of
"piracy."
Focusing on what we are calling here spreadability may thus offer us some tentative
first steps toward renegotiating the social contract between media producers and
consumers in a way which may be seen as legitimate and mutually rewarding to all
involved. For this to occur, we need to understand that consumers and producers
often follow different dictates, not simply because of competing economic interests,
but because they have different motives, make different judgments about value, and
follow different social obligations; in other words, they operate within separate and
parallel economic orders. We might describe these two worlds as commodity culture
and the gift economy. Certainly, most of us who have grown up in capitalist economies
understand the set of expectations that shape the buying and selling of goods. Yet, we
also operate in another social order that centers around the giving and accepting of gifts.
One (commodity culture) places greater emphasis on economic motives, the other (gift
economy) on social motives.
Something of the mismatch between these two worlds is suggested by Ian Condry (2004)
in his discussion of file-sharing among music fans:
Unlike underwear or swimsuits, music falls into that category of things you are normally
obligated to share with your dorm mates, family, and friends. Yet to date, people who
share music files are primarily represented in media and business settings as selfish,
improperly socialized people who simply want to get something -- the fruits of someone
else's labor -- for free. In fact, if asked directly by a friend to share music, sharing is the
only reasonable thing to do.
Within commodity culture, then, sharing music is economically damaging, whereas in the
gift economy, the failure to share music is socially damaging. We are never going to
19
resolve such conflicts until we develop a better model for thinking about the interface
between the two.
Gift
Giving
and
Reciprocity
Online
In arguing that much of what goes on in cyberspace might be understood in terms of a
gift economy, we are in fact making a claim which is at least as old as the web. Howard
Rheingold's 1993 book The Virtual Community, for instance, mentions the gift economy
as central to the relationships across the online world:
Reciprocity is a key element of any market-based culture, but the arrangement I'm
describing feels more like a kind of gift economy in which people do things for one
another out of a spirit of building something between them, rather than a spreadsheetcalculated quid pro quo. When that spirit exists, everybody gets a little extra something, a
little sparkle, from their more practical transactions; different kinds of things become
possible when this mind-set pervades. Conversely, people who have valuable things to
add to the mix tend to keep their heads down and their ideas to themselves when a
mercenary or hostile zeitgeist dominates an online community. In the virtual community I
know best, elegantly presented knowledge is a valuable currency....Sometimes you give
one person more information than you would give another person in response to the same
query, simply because you recognize one of them to be more generous or funny or to-thepoint or agreeable...A sociologist might say that my perceived helpfulness increased my
pool of social capital. I can increase your knowledge capital and my social capital at the
same time by telling you something that you need to know, and I could diminish the
amount of my capital in the estimation of others by transgressing the group's social
norms. The person I help might never be in a position to help me, but someone else might
be.
Rheingold describes the gift economy operating in virtual worlds less in terms of a
tit-for-tat exchange of value but rather as part of a larger reputation system in
which one's contributions to the group are ultimately recognized and respected,
even if there is no direct and explicit negotiation of worth at the time someone
makes their contributions.
Richard Barbrook (1998), another early cybertheorist, argued that the gift economy
trumped commodity culture in the world view of those who were the first to form online
communities:
"For most of its users, the Net is somewhere to work, play, love, learn and discuss
with other people. Unrestricted by physical distance, they collaborate with each
other without the direct mediation of money or politics. Unconcerned about
copyright, they give and receive information without thought of payment. In the
absence of states or markets to mediate social bonds, network communities are
instead formed through the mutual obligations created by gifts of time and ideas.
When they go on-line, almost everyone spends most of their time participating
within the gift economy rather than engaging in market competition. Because
users receive much more information than they can ever give away, there is no
20
popular clamor for imposing the equal exchange of the marketplace on the Net.
Once again, the 'end of history' for capitalism appears to be communism."
Such values were built into the infrastructure of the web, which was designed to facilitate
the collaboration of scientists and researchers rather than to enable the metered access
expected within a commodity culture.
In the world of the web, companies were relative late-comers, even though they now
represent the dominant users of digital networks. As commercial values have spread into
the web, they have had to negotiate with the older web ethos: there still remains great
resistance to "spam," for example, as unwelcomed advertising, whereas commercials are
taken more or less for granted in traditional broadcasting. Similarly, Stewart Brand
(1995), another key thinker in the early history of web culture, evokes the idea of a gift
economy to explain how companies create valued relations to their customers within this
new cultural context. In short, Brand argues that for any company or business to succeed
online they need to join the gift economy that defines online relations. "It means often
giving away content." Online success is based on the build-up of good will that
companies can convert into economic transactions through other channels.
Many of these same assumptions about the ways that digital communities are shaped by
the norms of a gift economy surfaced much more recently in danah boyd’s (2007)
discussion of Facebook's introduction of a "gifting" function. Facebook gifts operate
within each person's profile. Gift-giving is completely decentralized so people can choose
gifts directly from their own profile page and pay Facebook through their account. Most
gifts cost $1 and every once in a while Facebook offers a gift for free. Now the system is
in place, manufacturing and reproduction costs are negligible, and, even though they
work under a direct payment revenue model, Facebook adds value to the users'
experience by letting them be in charge of distribution.
Features such as these are what make successful social networks different from a more
complete contact directory. As boyd explains, the popularity and value of gifts on
Facebook come from their somewhat intangible nature:
They do not have the same type of persistence as identity-driven purchases like
clothing in (World of Warcraft). I think that it is precisely this ephemeralness that
will make gifts popular. There are times for gift giving (predefined by
society)...People write "happy birthday" and send glitter for holidays...These
expressions are not simply altruistic kindness. By publicly performing the holiday
or birthday, the individual doing the expression looks good before her peers. It
also prompts reciprocity so that one's own profile is then also filled with
validating comments.
Yet despite their intangibility and ephemerality, Facebook's gift-driven economy is
valuable, meaningful and crucial to the participation of many members of the network. In
evoking the gift economy to talk about gifts that are bought and sold via Facebook, even
as they are given freely to those in our social networks, boyd is acknowledging a
21
permeability in the relations between commodity culture and the gift economy.
This should not be surprising: most of us purchase Christmas or birthday gifts at stores
rather than making them ourselves and do not necessarily fear that their origins as
commodities diminishes the sentiments that are expressed through their exchange.
Whatever our myths may be about "gifts of the heart" and "labors of love," most of our
gifts these days are manufactured and store bought. Yet, once we have made our
purchases, the gift economy takes over and so to understand how digital goods circulate
within and between social networks we need to develop a more nuanced understanding of
how gift economies operate.
References
Austin,
Alec.
with
Henry
Jenkins,
Joshua
Green,
Ivan
Askwith,
and
Sam
Ford,
(2006).
Turning
Pirates
into
Loyalists:
The
Moral
Economy
and
an
Alternative
Response
to
File
Sharing.
Report
Prepared
for
the
Members
of
the
MIT
Convergence
Culture
Consortium,
Cambridge.
Barbrook,
Richard
(1998).
"The
Hi‐Tech
Gift
Economy,"
First
Monday,
Vol.
3,
No.
12
(December),
accessed
30
March
2007.
Bernoff,
Josh
and
Li,
Charlene.
(2008)
Groundswell:
Winning
in
a
World
Transformed
by
Social
Technologies.
Cambridge:
Harvard
Business
School
Press
boyd,
danah
(2007).
"Facebook's
Little
Gifts."
Apophenia.
February
13.
Brand,
Stewart
(1995).
"High
Stakes
in
Cyberspace,"
Frontline,
June
15.
Condry,
Ian.
(2004)
"Cultures
of
Music
Piracy:
An
Ethnographic
Comparison
of
the
US
and
Japan,"
International
Journal
of
Cultural
Studies
7,
pp.343‐363
Cova,
Bernard,
Robert
Kozinets,
and
Avi
Shankar
(2007).
Consumer
Tribes.
New
York:
Butterworth‐Heinemann
Rheingold,
Howard
(1993)
The
Virtual
Community:
Homesteading
on
the
Electronic
Frontier.
Reading,
Mass.:
Addison‐Wesley.
Thompson,
E.P.
(1971)
"The
Moral
Economy
of
the
English
Crowd
in
the
18th
Century."
Past
and
Present,
No.
50,
pp.76‐136.
If
It
Doesn’t
Spread,
It’s
Dead
–
Part
Three
Lewis
Hyde:
Thinking
Through
the
Gift
Economy
Lewis Hyde's The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property (1983) represents
perhaps the best guide on the ways that gift economies operate within the modern world.
For that reason, we want to walk through some of his basic claims about the relations
between commodity culture and the gift economy.
22
In
a
commodity
culture,
goods
are
traded
as
wages
for
labor
or
are
purchased
directly.
Neither
transaction
shapes
the
circulation
of
materials
within
a
gift
economy: "A gift
is a thing we do not get by our own efforts. We cannot buy it; we cannot acquire it
through an act of will. It is bestowed upon us." (p.xvi). Gifts depend on altruistic
motivations; they circulate through acts of generosity and reciprocity. Their exchange is
governed by social norms rather than contractual relations.
The
circulation
of
gifts
is
socially
rather
than
economically
motivated: "Unlike the sale
of a commodity, the giving of a gift tends to establish a relationship between the parties
involved." Furthermore "when gifts circulate within a group, their commerce leaves a
series of interconnected relationships in its wake, and a kind of decentralized
cohesiveness emerges." The circulation of goods is not simply symbolic of the social
relations between participants; it helps to constitute them. Hyde identifies three core
obligations that are shared among those who participate in a gift economy: "the
obligation to give, the obligation to accept, and the obligation to reciprocate." Each of
these acts help to break down boundaries between participants.
Gift
economies
are
relatively
dynamic
in
terms
of
the
fluid
circulation
of
goods
while
commodity
cultures
are
relatively
dynamic
in
terms
of
the
fluid
social
relations
between
participants. As Hyde explains, a "clean" trade within a commodity culture
"leaves people unconnected," (p.29) since it involves no future obligation between the
buyer and seller. Under such conditions, "wealth will lose its motions and gather in
isolated pools....Property is plagued by entropy and wealth can become scarce even as it
increases." (p.29) The commodity, he suggests, moves towards wherever there is a profit
to be made, while a gift moves "towards an empty space," towards resolving conflicts or
expanding the social network. (p.29) By contrast, he writes, "To convert an idea into a
commodity means, broadly speaking, to establish a boundary of some sort so that the idea
cannot move from person to person without a toll or fee. Its benefit or usefulness must
then be reckoned and paid for before it is allowed to cross the boundary." (p.105) In so
far as the new media ecology depends on spreadability, it needs to embrace the fluidity of
exchange which enables a gift economy rather than the stasis that emerges from
commodity culture.
In
a
gift
economy,
"status, "
"prestige"
or
"esteem"
take
the
place
of
cash
renumeration
as
the
primary
drivers
of
cultural
production
and
social
transaction. Of
course, even within a commodity culture, the production of cultural goods is rarely
motivated entirely by profit. Artists also seek recognition for what they create; they seek
to influence the culture; they seek to build reputations; they seek to express personal
meanings. Only a complex set of negotiations within creative industries allow artist to
serve both sets of goals at the same time. As Mark Deuze (2006) notes, anxieties about
the free circulation of their output within a participatory culture are motivated both by a
sense of losing artistic control and by the perceived economic threat to their livelihood.
Conversely, we seem to be seeing a series of misrecognitions between Web 2.0
companies and consumers as the companies misunderstand what motivates participation.
On the one hand, consumers increasingly resent the ways that companies transform their
23
labors of love into commodities that can be bought and sold for revenue. There is a
growing recognition that profiting on freely given creative labor poses ethical challenges
that are in the long run socially damaging to both the companies and the communities
involved. On the other hand, many participants are frustrated when companies offer them
financial compensations that are at odds with their understanding of the social
transactions that are facilitated through the exchange of gifts. Fan communities, for
example, have long-standing social taboos against "exploiting" other fans for personal
gain, wanting to share their creative goods outside of commodity relations, rather than
seeking rewards for what they produce.
Hyde
sees
commodity
culture
and
the
gift
economy
as
alternative
systems
for
measuring
the
merits
of
a
transaction. He writes, "A commodity has value... A gift has
worth." (p.78) By value, here, Hyde primarily means "exchange value," that is, the rate at
which goods and services can be exchanged for money. Such exchanges are "measurable"
and "quantifiable" because there are agreed upon measurements of value. By "worth," he
means those qualities we associate with things that "you can't put a price on." Sometimes,
we refer to what he is calling "worth" as sentimental value. It is not an estimate of what
the thing costs but rather what it means to us. Worth is thus variable even among those
who participate within the same community, even among those in the same family, hence
the complex negotiations that occur around possessions when a beloved member of a
family passes away. Worth can not be measured, though it can be negotiated, but in doing
so, we have to take claims about worth at face value, since they have to do with internal
emotional states.
Commodity
culture
and
the
gift
economy
are
animated
by
different
fantasies,
which
in
turn
shape
the
kinds
of
meanings
that
are
going
to
be
produced
and
transmitted
around
the
exchange
of
goods. Hyde writes, "Because of the bonding power of gifts and
the detached nature of commodity exchange, gifts have become associated with
community and with being obliged to others, while commodities are associated with
alienation and freedom" (p. 86). The values that shape exchanges in a commodity culture
have to do with personal expression, freedom, social mobility, the escape from
constraints and limitations, the enabling of new "possibilities." We sometimes refer to
such fantasies as escapism or social experimentation; they are closely associated with the
patterns of "transformation" and "plentitude" which Grant McCracken has documented.
The fantasies that animate the exchange of gifts are often nostalgic, having to do with the
reassertion of traditional values, the strengthening of social ties, the acceptance of mutual
obligations, and the comfort of operating within familiar social patterns.
Because
the
exchange
of
goods
within
a
gift
economy
brings
with
it
social
expectations,
not
all
gifts
can
be
accepted. In that sense, there are goods and services
which literally can not be given away, because even in the absence of an explicit value
proposition, consumers are wary of hidden obligations, unstated motives, or hidden
interests which come smuggled inside the gift, much like the classic myth of the Trojan
Horse. Hyde describes some circumstances where gifts are inappropriate: "On the
simplest level, we are wary of gifts in any situation that calls for reckoning and
discrimination....A gift, no matter how well intentioned, deflects objective judgment.”
24
Even traditional societies, then, distinguish between gifts that facilitate generalized good
will and bribes that are designed to distort or corrupt process of judgment. At the same
time, the translation of gifts into commodities can be socially damaging. Hyde writes:
We do not deal in commodities when we wish to initiate or preserve ties of
affection....Emotional connection tends to preclude quantitative
evaluation....When a decision involves something that clearly cannot be priced,
we refrain from submitting our actions to the calculus of cost-benefit analysis
(p.85).
Both sets of category confusions represent potential pitfalls for companies seeking
to negotiate the boundaries between commodity culture and the gift economy.
That said, Hyde does believe it is possible for there to be valued and meaningful
transactions between these two social systems:
The boundary can be permeable....Put generally, within certain limits what has
been given us as a gift may be sold in the marketplace and what has been earned
in the marketplace may be given as gift. Within certain limits, gift wealth can be
rationalized and market wealth can be eroticized (p.357-358).
Hyde's use of the word, "erotic" here is especially evocative, meant to refer to the ways
that the exchange of goods gains emotional intensity as it mediates between two or more
participants. If "diamonds are a girl's best friend," as the old song goes, it is both because
they have extreme value within a commodity culture and because they are emotionally
meaningful within a gift economy.
We might understand spreadable media as content that passes between the
commodity culture and the gift economy. Each of the above contrasts between the two
social systems is helpful in understanding what kinds of terms might best facilitate
exchanges between them. Each also helps us to identify historic sites of conflict or
misunderstandings between the diversely motivated agents involved in the flow of
content across the current mediascape. Many of these contradictions surfaced in the
controversy that surrounded the launch of FanLib, a Web 2.0 company that sought to
capitalize on the circulation of fan fiction. Fan fiction had been a part of the gift economy
of the web for more than a decade, representing a cultural practice that dated back to Star
Trek fandom in the 1960s. Seeing their stories as a "labor of love" designed to be shared
with the community of others who shared their interests, fans have reluctantly charged
money to recoup the costs of printing zines but there was a strong prohibition against any
attempts to profit financially from the exchange of stories.
Some fans welcomed the emergence of digital distribution because it lowered the costs of
sharing stories and thus pulled fan fiction fully into the gift economy... FanLib, however,
sought to pull the production and circulation of fan fiction more fully into the commodity
culture: they wanted to monetize on the traffic that fan stories drew to their sites, a step
which provoked strong backlash from those most committed to fandom's gift economy.
They showed little grasp of what motivated the activities of the gift economy: at various
25
times, they sought to compensate fans either through a share of the revenue or through
giving them access to the media producers, neither of which reflected the system of status
and reputation which had emerged within fandom.
The threat that fan fiction might be commoditized motivated some fans to create the
Organization of Transformative Works, which would, among other things, create an
alternative web portal for distributing fan created works totally outside of commercial
imperatives. Yet, despite the controversy, FanLib did attract a significant number of
contributors. C3 researcher Xiaochang Li (2007) discovered that many of those posting
on the site did not feel strong ties to the existing fan community and did not understand
their cultural production in terms of "gifts" to fellow fans. These fans did not see a
conflict between what motivated their creative expression and the logic of a commodity
culture. That said, it was not clear that such fans were as valuable to FanLib or the rights
holders because they were less "connected" to the larger fan community, were less likely
therefore to draw other fans to the site or to help expand the potential markets for the
series being depicted.
Value,
Worth
and
the
Transfer
of
Meaning
For a good to move from commodity culture to a gift economy, there has to be some
point where value gets transformed into worth, where what has a price becomes priceless,
where economic investment gives way to sentimental investment. If we do not
understand how this occurs, we probably cannot understand what motivates consumers to
"spread" advertising and other media content within their social networks. When people
pass along branded content, they are not doing so as paid employees motivated by
economic gain; they are doing so as members of social communities involved in activities
which are meaningful to them on either an individual or social level. Symbolic goods
stop circulating when they take on such economic value that there is no longer an
incentive to give them to someone else or where their exchange fails to serve social goals
within a particular community. In other words, symbolic goods cease their movement
when they assume too much value or too little worth.
In Culture and Consumption, Grant McCracken (1988) brought together
anthropological and marketing literature to offer an account of the way "meaning
transfer" shapes the circulation of goods. McCracken starts from the premise that
the circulation of goods is accompanied by the circulation of meaning: "Meaning is
constantly flowing to and from its several locations in the social world, aided by the
collective and individual efforts of designers, producers, advertisers, and
consumers." Both designers and advertisers draw on meanings already in the culture
around them as they seek to construct offerings that will be valued by their potential
consumers. Advertising, as seen by McCracken, helps to move both the products and the
cultural claims being made about the products into the life world of consumers. Once
consumers have purchased the goods and bought into the symbolic meanings that
surround them, they perform a series of rituals that are designed to integrate both goods
and meanings into their everyday social experiences. In a later revision of this argument,
McCracken (2005b) writes "Consumers turn to their goods not only as bundles of utility
with which to serve functions and satisfy needs but also as bundles of meaning with
26
which to fashion who they are and the world in which they live." (p.102)…
For McCracken (1988), goods are "an opportunity to make culture material" (p.88). That
is, goods attach symbolic meanings to physical objects. To draw on a now tired but useful
distinction, goods are atoms. Yet, the kind of cultural goods we are discussing throughout
this white paper are much more often virtual rather than physical, bytes and not atoms.
They may still render visible the often implicit assumptions through which we organize
our culture: "The consumer system supplies individuals with the cultural materials to
realize their various and changing ideas of what it is to be a man or a woman, middleaged or elderly, a parent, a citizen, or a professional" (p.88).
We can see the widgets on our profile pages, the links on our blogs, the refinements
on our avatars, as doing a similar kind of social work - as giving expressive form to
our values and performing certain kinds of social identities. It matters, though, that
material goods are limited: they can only exist in one place at one time and to give them
to someone else is to give them up yourself. Virtual goods, however, can be shared
because they can be infinitely replicated. I can have my "cupcake" on Facebook and eat it
too, or more importantly, I can share it with you without having to give it up myself. It is
clear that personalization may play as strong if not a stronger role in such a system - as a
means of distinguishing between countless copies of the same cultural good. Yet, we may
have to spend less time with divestment rituals because the good we receive is no longer
a good taken from the hands of another.
… McCracken (1988) holds onto the idea of consumers as individuals who are motivated
by personal desires and goals, "engaged in an ongoing enterprise of self-creation," rather
than as parts of larger social networks and cultural communities. Indeed, his account of
consumption in the North American context stresses all of the ways that identity is
optional - that we choose which social categories are operative and which are irrelevant
to our presentation of ourselves. Going back to Hyde (1983), then, the fantasies he sees
expressed through consumer goods are those we associate with commodity culture - those
having to do with freedom and individuality - rather than those of the gift economy having to do with tradition and social cohesion.
As we think about why we pass along media content, though, we need to recognize that
we are both expressive individuals and social beings; we seek both to personalize content
and to share it with others… In a social network the power of evaluation and
"winnowing" is dispersed. Each member potentially assumes the role of grassroots
intermediary, contributing to a collective process that evaluates and ranks cultural goods
and thus speeds or retards their circulation.
References:
Deuze,
Mark
(2006).
"Media
Work
and
Institutional
Logics,"
Deuzeblog,
July
18.
Hyde,
Lewis.
(1983).
The
Gift:
Imagination
and
the
Erotic
Life
of
Property.
New
York:
Vintage.
McCracken,
Grant
(1986).
Culture
and
Consumption.
Bloomington:
Indiana
University
Press.
27
If
It
Doesn’t
Spread,
It’s
Dead
–
Part
Four
Communities
of
Users
‐
Formerly
Known
As
the
“Audience”
Rethinking
the
Individual
Consumer
So, does it make sense any more to speak about media audiences or for that matter,
consumers in this brave new world of spreadable media? Probably not. Witness the
profusion of new terms that seek to describe "those people formerly known as the
audience." (Rosen, 2006) Some call them (us, really) "loyals," (Jenkins 2006) stressing
the value of consumer commitment in an era of channel zapping. Some are calling them
"media-actives," (Frank 2004 stressing a generational shift with young people expecting
greater opportunities to reshape media content than their parents did. Some are calling
them "prosumers," (Toffler 1980) suggesting that as consumers produce and circulate
media, they are blurring the line between amateur and professional.
Some are calling them "inspirational consumers" (Roberts 2005), "connectors" or
"influencers," suggesting that some people play a more active role than others in shaping
media flows. Recently Facebook was struggling with definitions such as these. In an aim
to separate the users from the businesses, Facebook created a new profile category called
"pages." When relating with a business' page, instead of becoming a friend, in usual
Facebook fashion, the user becomes a fan. Six months after Facebook launched this new
category, the terms are already starting to become murkier, and now in the users profile it
no longer says "Jane is a fan of" but "Jane's Pages," the term is more open yet also more
ambiguous.
Andrew Lockhart, at the Thinking Interactive blog, suggests that companies might
want to allow the user to define what type of relationship he or she wants to have,
between, for instance, fan, advocate, friend, coworker. Such a move would also give
businesses a better understanding of how these users want to engage with them.
Sometimes we just want to buy things which are adequate to the purposes we want to use
them for but not so vital to our sense of ourselves that we want to proclaim them to other
people. The Facebook interface offered too limited a range of options for expressing our
diverse affiliations with brands. Even where consumers actively seek to spread your
content or advocate for your brand, they want to do it on their own terms and may be
very particular about the kind of language they use to describe this relationship. For some
time now it was thought that the way to insure this success was by reaching the so-called
"influencers," this term comes from Malcom Gladwell's (2000) book The Tipping Point.
As Gladwell puts it, "What we are really saying is that in a given process or system, some
people matter more than others." Gladwell's "influencer" model has become almost an
article of faith in most discussions of viral media. The most widely quoted example is the
comeback made by Hush Puppies shoes, according to Gladwell, due to their adoption by
specific Williamsburg tastemakers…
Messages move through society from one weakly connected individual to another. So the
question now becomes, not how to reach the influencers, but how do individuals choose
to behave in a networked society and what kinds of social structures best support the
spread of content. Yochai Benkler (2007) argues:
28
"Human beings are and always have been diversely motivated beings. We act
instrumentally, but also noninstrumentally. We act for material gain, but also for
psychological well-being and gratification and social connectedness.
This seemingly simple statement further more complicates the idea of a
networked society and hinders attempts to predict the way communities of users
will act. On the other hand, this more nuanced vision allows us to have a deeper
understanding of the diverse online behaviors. For instance, there are countless
explanations for why people might join a particular social network or make the
decisions they do when they come there."
According to Benkler, this shift into a networked information culture does improves
the practical capacities of individuals in that:
It
improves
their
capacity
to
do
for
and
by
themselves.
It
enhances
their
capacity
to
do
more
in
loose
commonality
with
others.
It
improves
the
capacity
of
individuals
to
do
more
in
formal
organizations
that
operate
outside
the
market
sphere.
It is because of these empowered individuals, their new capacities, and their desire for
social interactions that spreadable media is possible. If the technology was available, but
society hadn't undergone any cultural changes, we would still be operating exclusively
under a sticky model. Benkler has observed that this new society gives "individuals a
significantly greater role in authoring their own lives, by enabling them to perceive
a broader range of possibilities and by providing them a richer baseline against
which to measure the choices they in fact make."
Consumers are choosing to be part of participatory culture in diverse and fluid ways.
Forrester Research has developed a useful taxonomy of the types of participation that
occur in networked environments; it starts with the most passive users and finishes with
the most active participants that publish their own content at least once a month. It's
important to note that while this ladder helps us visualize a complex process, users don't
necessarily adhere permanently to these roles, and more than likely, behave in
different manners within different communities. Moreover, seeing it as depicting a
process of ever more intense engagement with media content may mask the degree to
which it also describes an economy, with each rung of the ladder performing tasks which
are needed to support those below and sometimes above them. So, even someone who is
a lurker may provide a sense of empowerment to contributors by expanding the
scale of the community and thus motivating them to put more effort into their work.
Someone who is a critic may create value for creators but so may someone who
collects what the creators create. And the interplay between these different kinds of
cultural participants creates opportunities for communication to take place and thus
for content to be transmitted.
29
Rethinking
Communities
Such communities are also quite diverse in themselves. In fact, games scholar James
Paul Gee (2004) has defined some of these groups as "affinity spaces," affinity that
is, for a common endeavor. He argues that the romantic notions of community do
not apply here, as engaging with one another is a secondary objective, though it may
be a primary objective. Gee is interested in the kinds of informal learning that takes
place in the cultures of gamers, for example, which depend heavily on the sharing of
knowledge towards common if sometimes contradictory goals. Such "affinity spaces" can
provide greater motivation for the production and circulation of information, may offer a
"hothouse" context where new ideas may emerge, may offer motivation for people to
intensify their participation. We form non-exclusive relationships to these kinds of
"affinity spaces": we may have multiple interests and thus we may engage with
multiple different "affinity spaces" in the course of any given day. Older notions of
community often started from assumptions of exclusive memberships, whereas this
focus on social mobility and multiple commitments helps us to understand how
content might spread quickly between different "affinity spaces" as members trade
information from one site to another.
Not all "affinity spaces" operate according to the same social dynamics. Lara Lee, from
Jump Associates, has offered a promising typography for thinking about the social
structures of different kinds of communities:
Pools:
Here
people
have
loose
associations
with
each
other,
but
a
strong
association
with
a
common
endeavor
or
with
the
values
of
the
community.
Most
brand
communities
are
pools,
so
are
most
political
organizations.
Webs:
Webs
are
organized
through
individual
social
connections,
so
the
ties
with
each
member
are
stronger
and
they
operate
in
decentralized
manner.
Hubs:
In
a
Hub,
individuals
form
loose
social
associations
around
a
central
figure,
as
in
the
case
of
fan
clubs.
Hubs
may
form
around
brands
but
they
are
more
likely
to
form
around
dynamic
figures
who
embody
the
values
of
their
company
‐
a
figure
like
Microsoft's
Bill
Gates,
say,
or
Virgin's
Richard
Branson.
Such
strategies
only
work
when
there
is
a
clear
connection
between
the
brand's
values
and
the
personality
of
this
central
figure.
Each of these social structures may be valuable from the point of view of a brand or a
media franchise. Hubs are most likely to be influenced through dominant figures,
whereas the other two may be shaped by any member. Media content which supports
shared activities is most apt to circulate through pools, while that which sustains social
connections is most apt to be valued within webs.
Lee's taxonomy seeks to understand what motivates our membership in particular kinds
of shared social spaces. Others have sought to explain the different barriers to entry
which shape alternative kinds of communities:
30
Open:
These
spaces
do
not
require
any
registration
in
order
to
participate.
Users
can
leave
anonymous
posts,
as
is
the
case
on
some
kinds
of
blogs
or
online
forums.
However,
without
some
form
of
reputation
system,
the
possibility
of
engaging
in
a
common
endeavor
is
more
limited,
resulting
in
short
lived
communal
experiences.
Members
feel
little
or
no
strong
emotional
ties
to
such
communities
that
they
enter
and
exit
on
a
whim.
They
may
move
through
many
such
social
spaces
in
the
course
of
a
single
session
online.
Free
registration:
This
is
the
most
common
way
of
implementing
a
space
for
a
community
exchange,
it's
present
in
the
majority
of
social
networks
(the
ones
that
operate
by
outside
selection
are
the
exception)
and
most
blogs
and
message
boards.
This
model
has
given
sites
like
Amazon
the
necessary
data
to
customize
itself
to
its
community's
and
individual
user's
needs.
It's
in
these
open
and
free
communities
where
the
spread
of
media
is
possible
and
successful.
Purchase:
These
spaces
function
within
the
logic
of
a
sticky
model.
They
operate
under
the
assumption
that
once
you
buy
your
way
in,
you
will
stay
in.
Evidently
most
of
the
content
within
these
spaces
is
proprietary
and
its
spread
is
limited.
The
transmission
of
desired
content
beyond
its
borders
poses
a
threat
to
its
subscription
model,
though
closing
off
that
content
from
wider
circulation
often
makes
it
harder
for
potentially
interested
consumers
to
determine
the
value
of
what
it
has
to
offer.
These
spaces
tend
to
be
hubs
with
very
little
interaction
between
the
users
and
it
is
this
lack
of
strong
social
ties
that
has
led
to
growing
skepticism
about
so‐called
corporate
communities.
Outside
Selection:
These
are
closed
spaces
with
gatekeeper.
Their
value
is
in
their
exclusivity
and
specificity,
but
due
to
their
closed‐off
nature,
they
don't
encourage
the
spread
of
media,
although
they
might
generate
buzz.
Although we've used the concept brand communities a couple of times, it's important to
reiterate that communities aren't created, they are courted. Most brands will need to
court a range of different communities and travel across pools, webs, and hubs if they
want to reach the full range of desired consumers. To achieve that, they must embrace
what filmmaker Lance Weiler calls "The Scattershot Approach." The idea is to be
available for your users in whichever way and every way they deem appropriate, be
it through a web site, widget, RSS feed or embeddable video, making the process of
finding and communicating with you as easy and enjoyable as possible. That may be
the strongest incentive for shifting from a sticky paradigm, which often is a one-sizefits-all model, towards a spreadable paradigm, which allows consumers with diverse
interests to retrofit your content to serve their local needs and interest…
References
Benkler,
Yochai
(2007).
The
Wealth
of
Networks:
How
Social
Networks
Transform
Markets
and
Freedom.
New
Haven:
Yale
University
Press.
31
Dodds,
Peter
Sheridan,
Muhammad,
Roby
and
Watts,
Duncan
J.
(2003)
"An
Experimental
Study
of
Search
in
Global
Social
Networks."
Science,
301(8),
pp.
827‐829.
Domb,
Ana.
(2008)
"Bringing
Awesome
to
Self‐Distribution,"
Convergence
Culture
Consortium
Blog,
Frank,
Betsy
(2004).
"Changing
Media,
Changing
Audiences."
Remarks
at
the
MIT
Communication
Forum,
Cambridge,
MA.
April
1.
Gee,
James
(2004).
Situated
Language
and
Learning:
A
Critique
of
Traditional
Schooling.
New
York:
Routledge.
Gladwell,
Malcolm
(2000)
The
Tipping
Point:
How
Little
Things
can
make
a
Big
Difference.
Boston:
Little
Brown.
Jenkins,
Henry
(2006).
Convergence
Culture:
Where
Old
and
New
Media
Collide.
New
York:
New
York
University
Press.
Lee,
Lara.
(2007)
"Lara
Lee
on
brand
Community
Pioneer
Harley‐Davidson."
Boston
University.
Lockhart,
Andrew
(2008).
"The
9
Types
of
Brand
Community
Expanded."
Thinking
Interactive.
Roberts,
Kevin
(2005).
Lovemarks:
The
Future
Beyond
Brands.
New
York:Powerhouse.
Rosen,
Jay
(2006).
"The
People
Formerly
Known
as
the
Audience."
PressThink,
June
27.
Toffler,
Alvin
(1980).
The
Third
Wave.
New
York:
Morrow.
If
It
Doesn’t
Spread,
It’s
Dead
–
Part
Five
Spreadable
Content
Not all media content and materials are equally spreadable. Nor it is simply a matter of
"good" or "interesting" content - we do not pass on every bit of interesting information or
every clever video. Content is spread based not on an individual evaluation of worth, but
on a perceived social value within community or group.
Not all good content is good for sharing. In a gift economy, the gifts we share say
something about our perceptions of the person we are passing them to as much as they
express our own tastes and interests. Most importantly, the exchange of gifts serves to
reinforce relations within the community and a badly chosen or ill-considered gift can
cause hard feelings…
If
we
want
to
predict
what
content
will
"spread,"
we
have
to
develop
a
fuller
understanding
of
the
ways
that
the
circulation
of
information
may
strengthen
or
damage
social
relations.
We
must
first
come
to
understand
what
function
the
circulation
of
content
and
information
serves
within
a
social
network
‐
that
is,
what
is
the
relationship
of
the
community
to
the
materials
that
it
circulates?
From
there,
we
can
determine
the
necessary
characteristics
that
advertising
content
must
exhibit
in
order
to
have
potential
for
use
within
a
gift
economy.
We
can
then
begin
to
draw
out
aesthetic
and
structural
forms
that
lend
themselves
particularly
well
to
this
process.
32
What
makes
content
worth
spreading?
There's a lot we can learn about how content circulates online by examining the existing
literature on how rumors spread in face-to-face communities. Patricia A Turner (1994)
has studied the circulation of rumors within the African American community. Turner
makes the distinction between rumors, which are informal and temporary constellations
of information, and contemporary legends, which are "more solidified rumors" (Turner
1994, p. 5) and maintain a reasonable consistency in narrative content as they are passed.
Her description of such rumors bear a striking resemblance to what we've come to think
of as “word of mouth” (WOM) advertising - testimonial accounts about a product or
service - and the circulation of advertising content itself that now most often
characterizes "viral" media.
…By circulating a story, community members are able affirm their commonality
and draw clear lines of who is friend and who is foe, express the shared concerns of
that group (racism and discriminatory treatment) and bring their anxieties under
control by responding to a symbolic embodiment of their concerns.
…The social factors that motivate sharing information and content within
communities in general are:
To
bolster
camaraderie
and
articulate
the
(presumably
shared)
experiences
and
values
that
identify
oneself
as
belong
to
a
particular
community
("bolstering
their
identity")
To
gather
information
and
explain
difficult
to
understand
events
or
circumstances.
To
establish
the
boundaries
of
an
"in‐group."
These same factors may come into play when fans advocate for a franchise or consumers
promote a brand.
They
are
doing
so
because
the
brand
expresses
something
about
themselves
or
their
community.
They
are
doing
so
because
the
brand
message
serves
some
valued
social
function.
They
are
doing
so
because
the
entertainment
content
gives
expressive
form
to
some
deeply
held
perception
or
feeling
about
the
world.
They
are
doing
so
because
individual
responses
to
such
content
helps
them
determine
who
does
or
does
not
belong
in
their
community.
…Think of the way the VW Polo spoof ad was circulated. The spot itself featured a man
of in determinant but Arabic descent pulling up alongside a cafe in a VW Polo. After
muttering a few indistinguishable words, he presses his thumb down on a detonator, at
33
which point we cut to an exterior shot that shows the Polo containing the entire
explosion. The spot was never intended as a legitimate advert for VW, but rather part of a
show reel that was leaked onto the web.
First, the spot was commented upon and passed among a number of different niche
groups online, used as a way to express a number of different sentiments, but all with the
purpose of articulating some form of value system or viewpoint. There were a number of
blogs that posted the video in the spirit in which it was probably intended, citing its
strength as an advertisement for being memorable and one discussion board post framed
it with the saying that "anything worth taking seriously is worth making fun of," aligning
the video with the humor tactics of popular media like The Daily Show.
But a quick look at the trackbacks to one of the early posts on the blog Whizbang, which
range from "disgusting" to "humor to the rescue," suggest that as the video spread more
widely, it generated a wider range of interpretations of its message. Some blogs used it as
a sort of war rally, with comments such as "perhaps we should start issuing (the Polo) to
British forces" and "If only we could ship an entire fleet of these things to the
Islamofascists world-wide." On the other side, it was framed as offensive and tasteless; It
was pointed out on the Snopes.com article that the man in the commercial not only had a
"distinctive middle eastern appearance," but was also wearing a checkered keffiyeh that
was reminiscent of Yasser Arafat, suggesting a pointed political message at work.
One blog that specializes in media surrounding the Middle East juxtaposed a description
of the video against an article about a poll which "highlights anti-Israeli feeling in
Germany," while another site listed the video as the number one most racist commercial,
even beating out ads from white supremacy organizations. The commercial was spread
through a number of different interest communities with a range of opinions, but what
they all have in common was that each used the ad to articulate specific values and
agendas. The blog about racist commercials, for instance, was able to express anxiety
over a long-standing pattern of negative stereotyping of various minorities. Other blogs
that took a pro-war stance were able to use their attitude towards the situation portrayed
in the video to create us/them distinctions on both a national level ("we" versus the
"Islamofascists") and an ideological one, implicitly drawing a line between those who
support the message and those who find the message offensive.
As we have seen, not all of these communities are clearly ... Some communities may be
pools, organized around shared interests, ranging from politics to pet care. Some
may be webs, organized through the crisscrossing social affiliations of them
members. And some may be hubs, structured around a central personality and their
friends and followers. In some cases, the motives that shape the groups activities are
clearly articulated and there is an ongoing conversation about what it means to be a
member of such a community. They may be very aware of their shared agenda and
have a critical perspective on what kinds of values shape their transactions. They
may also have a vivid conception of the borders of their community and may
aggressively police them against those who do not share their views.
They may have ambivalent or even hostile feelings about the circulation of meaningful
34
content beyond the borders of their own community…
When
advertising
spreads,
it
is
because
the
community
has
embraced
it
as
a
resource
for
expressing
its
shared
beliefs
or
pursuing
its
mutual
interests.
Community
members
have
embraced
the
content
because
it
allows
them
to
say
something
that
matters
to
them,
often
something
about
their
relations
to
other
community
members.
In
that
sense,
it
has
acquired
worth.
But
the
worth
of
an
advertisement
may
and
often
does
differ
from
one
community
to
another.
Spreadable
Texts
As this circulation occurs, the original producer no longer is able to determine what a
particular piece of content means because they are no longer able to control the context
within which it is seen. Meanings proliferate as people pass the communication on,
inserting it into a variety of different conversations. Like an elaborate game of telephone,
the message morphs and mutates as each successive viewer sees not the original intent,
but the interpretations just prior to their own.
This kind of intervention, however, is not only the product of circulation, it is also the
required precondition: content will spread only when it can serve the particular
communicative purposes of a given community or group, and only community
members can determine what those might be. Corporations cannot artificially build
communities around their brands and products, but rather must allow their brands
to be taken up by pre-existing communities by creating content that supports and
sustains this kind of expressive appropriation.
*
In
other
words,
in
the
spreadable
media
landscape,
companies
must
find
ways
not
simply
to
motivate
consumers
to
talk
about
their
brands
but
also
enable
them
to
talk
through
their
brands.
This is, of course, not a novel concept. Advertising, as Grant McCracken (1998) notes,
has always been a tool for mapping generalized cultural meanings onto specific brands
and those brands must be meaningfully inserted into the life-world of their consumers.
Advertising may convince us that particular products may become good gifts because
they convey shared values. Yet, in the spreadable media content, the advertisement may
itself become a gift that we pass along to others we care about. As they do so, they
remake the advertisement - sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively - to reflect their
perceptions of themselves and of the people to whom they are giving it.
Right now, many companies fear the loss of centralized control over the circulation and
interpretation of their brand messages. They want to hold onto the idea that a brand may
carry a highly restricted range of meanings. But in doing so, they run the risk of removing
the value of the brand as a vehicle for social and personal expression. They produce
commodities which we cannot consume and in the long run, they will become products
we will not buy. So, the challenge is how to rethink advertising strategies to generate
brand messages that support these processes of personalization and localization.
35
How
to
Make
Content
"Spreadable"
If sharing and spreading content is a sign of its popularity, then to understand what makes
videos spread, we must first figure it out what it means for media to be "popular." In
Understanding Popular Culture, media and communications scholar John Fiske (1989),
draws a distinction between mass culture, that is culture that is mass produced and
distributed, and popular culture, that is culture which has been meaningfully integrated
into the everyday lives of consumers. This act of turning mass media into popular
media involves "the active process of generating and circulating meanings and
pleasures" (Fiske, 1989, p.23).
We must be careful here not to confuse messages with meanings. For the purposes of this
discussion, messages refer to specific ideas that can be encoded into a media text by its
creators, while meanings are the active interpretations of the audience, which may or may
not align with the intended message. To return again to our previous example, in the VW
Polo ad spoof, the intended message was that the creators were witty, creative, and
irreverent. The meanings that were drawn from it were varied, ranging from patriotic to
racist. Messages are encoded into a text; meanings are decoded from the text.
Fiske argues we produce culture when we integrate products and texts into our everyday
life. When we hear a song in a music video, it is part of mass culture. When we sing it in
the shower, we turn it into popular culture. When it is under the control of its producers,
it is mass culture. When it is under the control of its consumers, it is popular culture.
Fiske, thus, puts strong emphasis on the act of interpretation that occurs as a text is
embraced by consumers. He argues a text becomes part of popular culture when
consumers recognize and embrace its potential as a vehicle for expressing their own
meanings. To read this through the lens of the gift economy, it is at that moment
when the commodity becomes a gift and when its worth gets recognized.
Cultural products or commodities, like videos, are simply what Fiske calls the "raw
material" for the production of popular culture. What makes culture popular, both widely
accepted by and belonging to the public, is the ability of people to use it to express,
define, and understand their social and cultural relationships. To bring this to "viral
video", the video itself can be seen as a cultural commodity, but its user-controlled
circulation transforms it into a cultural resource. In other words, we cannot think of
popular culture as a top-down process of mass marketing, but a bottom-up process of
creative interaction with cultural commodities, a relationship with media that is neither
simply consumption nor production, but an active negotiation between the two.
Producerly
Texts:
Cultural
commodities
that
become
cultural
resources
To imagine this simply, a video will become popular if it allows to consumers to
participate in the production of meaning and is transformed into a cultural resource
through which they communicate something that matters to other members of their
community. This sharing of texts and meanings becomes the basis for social affiliations
and often re-articulates or reconfirms the group's shared values. Fiske argues that some
texts are more apt to produce new meanings than others. He calls such texts producerly,
arguing that a producerly text "offers itself up to popular production … it has loose
36
ends that escape its control, its meanings exceed its own power to discipline them, its
gaps are wide enough for whole new texts to be produced in them - it is, in a very
real sense, beyond its own control" (Fiske, 1989, p.104).
In other words, a media product doesn't have to give up having a clearly defined message,
but in so far as it limits its potential meanings, it also limits its potential circulation.
Propaganda is not producerly because it sets too rigid a set of limits over its
interpretation. A text that articulates an overly confusing or completely incomprehensible
message might also not be producerly because it would not offer sufficient resources for
consumers. The VW Polo ad, on the other hand, was highly producerly. It had an intent
and a set of preferred meanings, but in the end it was left ambiguous enough, with
enough open-ended details, that it could be interpreted in a number of ways, depending
on the contexts into which it was spread and the ways it was deployed by consumers
within localized conversations. A producerly video then is one that can be enjoyed and
accessed on multiple levels. It can be taken at face value, but also leaves openings for
deeper, more active interpretation.
Fiske's notion of the "producerly" introduces the general guiding principle for
transforming cultural commodities into cultural resources: open, loose ends and
gaps that allow the viewer to introduce their own background and experiences. Such
openness allows them to convey something of themselves as they pass the content
along, transforming the video into a resource for self-expression.
While the media industries cannot themselves produce cultural resources, they can
produce cultural commodities that are primed to be used as cultural resources. Such
materials only become gifts when we choose to give them to someone else.
Advertising
as
"Producerly"
Cultural
Commodities
Such texts must be producerly, must be open to multiple interpretations and use, before
they are spread. The tight control over the message doesn't just break down through the
video's circulation. The loss of the producer's control over meaning is a precondition for
the video's circulation. When people feel that they can have a stake in the content, when
it can be used to represent themselves and their views somehow, they are inclined to
share a video with others. We must keep in mind, however, that a commercial is not just
any type of video. More so that general art or entertainment, commercials have an
explicit functional purpose - to help position material goods within a cultural context.
Publicity and advertising is used, for instance, to ensure that a particular brand of
designer sunglasses evokes a sense of "coolness" within a particular niche of consumers.
Historically, this has required much tighter control over their potential messages and thus
the idea that consumers may appropriate and rework brand messages may generate a high
degree of anxiety.
Media
producers
worry
about
losing
control.
The
reality
is
that
they
have
already
lost
control;
consumers
can
take
their
brands
and
do
with
them
whatever
they
want.
And
the
more
producers
do
to
reign
in
this
grassroots
37
creativity,
the
more
they
will
take
away
the
"worth"
of
their
goods
and
devalue
their
content
in
the
eyes
of
those
consumers.
Therefore, in order to become cultural commodities that can be made "producerly," ads
must sacrifice some of their functional purpose. We don't post and share clips just
because of what we have to say about the ad, but also because of what it might have to
say about us, so the ad must be capable of users expressing something beyond their
affinity for the product it promotes. Only when commercials have enough ambiguity in
meaning that they give up control of their promotional function can they develop
the gaps and spaces to become producerly. When that happens, instead of giving
meaning to a pair of sunglasses, the ad itself becomes a cultural commodity not unlike a
pair of designer sunglasses that we can "wear."
In such a context, the brand message does not entirely disappear. Each new viewer
encounters it afresh and is reminded of the brand and its potential meanings for them.
Users remain aware of the advertisement's sources and goals and thus they become part
of the process by which meaning transfer occurs.
We might consider, for example, what happens when the template created by the PC vs.
Mac advertising campaign gets used as the basis for parody videos that apply its images
to distinguish between other kinds of products, say, between Nintendo and Sony
Playstation, between DC and Marvel, or between Republicans and Democrats. When we
see these other uses of the template, we still recall, on some level, its original function as
a way of promoting Apple. The repurposing allows the brand iconography to spread to
new contexts, even as it offers us a way back to its original source.
References:
Fiske,
John.
(1989)
Understanding
Popular
Culture.
London:
Routledge.
Hendershot,
Heather
(2004).
Shaking
the
World
for
Jesus:
Media
and
Conservative
Evangelical
Culture.
Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press.
McCracken,
Grant
(1988)
Culture
and
Consumption.
Bloomington:
Indiana
University
Press.
Norris,
Chuck
(2007).
"If
I
am
elected
president,"
World
Net
Daily.
Turner,
Patricia
Ann.
(1994)
I
Heard
it
on
the
Grapevine:
Rumor
in
African‐American
Culture.
Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press.
If
It
Doesn’t
Spread,
It’s
Dead
–
Part
Six
Spreadability:
Aesthetic
and
Structural
Strategies
Cadbury's "Gorilla" spot - an ad featuring nothing but a life-size Cadbury-purple Gorilla
belting out the drumline to Phil Collins classic "Something in the Air Tonight" - didn't
spread just because it was "producerly." It was also incredibly amusing. There is still
truth in the notion that good, compelling content remains a crucial factor in the
spreadability media. If a "producerly" openness is required in order for content to
38
be adopted into the gift economy, not all gifts are equally valuable, and thus not all
content is equally spreadable. Producerly engagement encourages individuals to
take on content as their own and invest their own identity in it, making it a potential
tool of communication. But, in thinking back to what we outlined as some of the key
motivations for spreading content, we must remember that in order to become
spreadable, the content has to be able to create worth.
Openness
and
an
abundance
of
meanings
and
uses
may
make
some
advertising
material
a
potential
gift,
but
it
has
to
be
able
to
communicate
something
that
is
socially
meaningful
before
someone
will
give
it.
Humor
If one looks at the videos that have spread most successfully, a clear pattern begins to
emerge: a lot of them, like "Gorilla," are really, really funny. The success of humor
should come as no surprise - we intuitively understand that sharing funny anecdotes or
cracking jokes that everyone gets is an easy way to build camaraderie and put people at
ease in formal situations…Anthropologist Mary Douglas (1991) has noted the very thin
line which separates a joke from an insult: a joke expresses something the community is
ready to hear; an insult expresses something it doesn't want to talk about. The act of
recognizing a joke is an act of exchanging judgments about the world and thus the spread
of jokes can strengthen social ties. Humor is not simply a matter of taste: it is a vehicle by
which we articulate and validate our tastes.
If we look more closely at the spread of videos, we can identify two extremely popular
forms - parody (often in partnership with certain elements of nostalgia, usually ironic)
and humor that uses absurdity or shock/surprise. To be clear, these categories are by
no means mutually exclusive, and successful videos quite frequently use a blend of
both for added effect. Cadbury's "Gorilla" is a prime instance in which parody,
nostalgia, and absurdity are blended in order to create a provocative and spreadable ad.
To be fair, parody in general always has elements of absurdity, since its humor relies on
the intrusion of unexpected elements into a "normal" or common situation. In "Gorilla,"
however, the dominant form at work is absurdity. This is established from the very
beginning, by starting with a close-up of the gorilla, and pulling out to reveal the drum
kit. The opening moment is one of surprise, emphasized with a sudden rise in the music,
upending our expectations of what we would see following a series of shots of a gorilla's
face. The strangeness of the set-up itself becomes the punch line, rather than forcing any
complex interpretations or outside references as is more common in direct parodies.
The video is primarily funny because it asks us to confront the limits of our expectations.
The implicit parody elements present are used to keep the absurdity within the bounds of
comprehension, however. It is not purely surreal, but rather references a number of
clichés and cultural touchstones…In enacting reversals and disruptions of standard
patterns, the "Gorilla" video poses a sort of abstract challenge to formality and authority.
In effect, its informality gives users permission to transgress the audience/producer
boundary, to adopt and adapt the content for their own purposes. In other words, if the
advertisers don't take themselves too seriously, they invite users to get in on the fun.
39
This worked beautifully for Cadbury, resulting in a slew of remixes and mash-ups that
helped promote the original and turn Cadbury into a sort of cultural benchmark in its own
right…Both by depriving the video of a specific message and engaging forms that are
primed for participation, "Gorilla" serves as an exemplar of a "producerly" text that
spreads as more and more people have a go at remaking it for their own comic effects. Its
absurdity creates gaps "wide enough for whole new texts to be produced in them" (Fiske,
1989, p.104).
Parody's
Promises
and
Perils
Another thing that "Gorilla" does well is provide different levels of engagement -- the
video works whether or not you get the Phil Collins references. However, this is not
always the case with humor. The strength of parody as spreadable media is the fact
that it is a predominantly participatory form. That is to say, for something to be
recognizable as parody requires certain cultural knowledge on the part of the
viewer. This is precisely what makes parody valuable for spread - it can express
shared frameworks of reference within a community and, especially when it plays
on nostalgic references, a shared history as well, thus marking those inside as those
who "get" the joke. But as we mentioned briefly, this has the potential to alienate as
well, and unless advertisers want the spread of their content to be siloed exclusively
within small niches, they must be careful to build different levels of "insider"
knowledge…
Information
Seeking
Another characteristic of popular "viral" content is some level of ambiguity or
confusion that encourages people to seek out further information. This act
encourages the sharing of content as people enlist their network to help with the
problem solving, an act typically known as "collective intelligence" or "crowd
sourcing." In Convergence Culture, Henry Jenkins (2006) argues that a successful
media franchise is not only a cultural attractor, drawing like-minded people
together to form an audience, but also a cultural activator, giving that community
something to do. Figuring out such spots offer many different communities something to
do and thus a reason to continue to engage with its content. Often, these spots force us to
look twice because we can't believe, or understand, what it is we are seeing. We need to
verify their authenticity, intent, or simply figure out how it was accomplished.
The Cadbury Gorilla spot, for instance, did this to a certain extent, with some discussion
surrounding just who was in the Gorilla suit - Phil Collins himself was cited as a
possibility - and, to a lesser extent, whether or not the Gorilla was real. The VW Polo also
engaged this kind of participation, provoking questions of whether or not the ad was
"real" or in any way affiliated with Volkswagen. With Volkswagen's denial of any
connection to the commercial, people became wrapped up in a search for the origins of
the ad, locating information on the creators, the director, and even the budget as clues to
whether or not it was a publicity stunt.
Yet another interesting instance of this logic is the "homemade" Ford Mondeo "Desire"
video. The ad itself is a whimsical, if somewhat ambiguous, television spot composed of
a series of still and near-still shots of cars lifting off the streets of London attached to
40
colorful bunches of helium balloons. The video was uploaded to YouTube and received a
few hundred thousand hits, a decent, if unremarkable, showing. What makes the Ford
Mondeo case so interesting is that almost six months after the original ad went up on
YouTube, a video appeared of two guys from New Zealand tying balloons to a car until it
lifted off. The video, posted by a user by the name of homeschooled2, claimed to be a
"homemade" version of the Ford ad. It received far greater viral circulation than the
original, clocking in over a million YouTube views and thousands of comments, as well
as news media coverage, as people tried to prove whether or not what happened the video
was physically possible.
Two days after the initial "homemade" video went up, homeschooled2 posted a couple of
"making of" follow-up videos that showed that the video was made with aid of a crane
and some clever digital editing effects, with acknowledgment of help from the "team
from Ford" in the video description. Leaving the nature and extent of Ford's involvement
ambiguous, the "making of" videos forced us to consider whether Ford had orchestrated
the whole thing, making the original ad with the addition of a viral campaign in mind.
Many of the comments surrounding the "homemade" ad were focused on determining
whether it was "for real." Even after the follow-up videos that revealed both the crane and
the Ford involvement were posted, clearly linked from the original, discussion continued
along these lines, suggesting that it was not the answer to the question of authenticity that
was the point, but the process of questioning. What is finally at stake is not knowing, but
seeking answers. The "homemade" video thus spread by opening itself to this search for
authenticity.
This search for authenticity, origins, or purpose can be seen as yet another way of
actively constructing the meaning of content, another type of gap that encourages
producerly engagement. Here, it is the process of uncovering the "truth" that is
more important that what is found. Whether the VW ad is proven to be an intentional
stunt or an accidental leak, whether Ford had planned the "homemade" ad from the
beginning or not, whether it really is Phil Collins in the gorilla suit, the debate, allows
individuals to create and justify their interpretations by asserting control over what
information they have about the ad.
Unfinished
Content
In all of the previous examples, the "gaps" are in the meaning of the content, whether due
to general ambiguity within or hidden information surrounding the ad. Burger King's
Subservient Chicken interactive video site, launched in 2004, literally engaged users
in the creation of the video's content. Visitors to the site saw a video window with a
man in a chicken suit standing in a room. Below, there is a text input box with the words
"Get chicken just the way you like it. Type command here." Once a command is typed, it
triggers a video of the man in the chicken suit performing the command. There are nearly
300 different clips in all, each set to respond to a variety of similar commands ranging
from "jump" to "lay egg" to "moonwalk." Commands that the chicken doesn't understand
might result in a clip expressing confusion or boredom, while commands deemed
inappropriate, such as those that are sexually explicit, result in a clip of the chicken
wagging his finger in disapproval.
41
…Subservient Chicken gives up control at the level of creation. Though the videos are
pre-made, the content itself fundamentally incomplete. Not only is there no meaning, but
there is also no action, no finished content until the user enters a command. By creating
a partial work, an archive of incomplete, component parts, the Subservient Chicken
campaign offered the user agency that went beyond just access and choice, but
tangible participation in the work's creation.
Subservient Chicken becomes producerly by explicitly engaging the user in the creative
process. It also triggers an information-gathering urge, much like the Mondeo or VW
Polo ads. Users debate how its mechanism works as much as they reinterpret its meaning
or question its authenticity. Gamers often seek to test the limits of a game to see how
much actual control and agency they can exert. Here, users wanted to push against
the limits of the ad to see what flaws they could locate in its execution. Websites soon
appeared that catalogued the various commands and their responses. People worked
together to test the limits of application and in the process, spread the video to other
interested parties, trying to expand the ranks of the puzzle solvers.
According to Axel Bruns (2007), some of the key characteristics of "producage" -the "hybrid, user-and-producer position" occupied by participants in user-led
spaces such as Wikipedia and YouTube - include that content is "continually under
development" and highly collaborative. Working together, they hoped to outsmart the
original producers or at least figure out how it all worked and thereby "beat the system."
Nostalgia
and
Community
Earlier, we noted that commodity culture and the gift economy operate on the basis of
very different sets of fantasy. We turn toward commodity culture when we seek to
express our individuality, when we want to break free of social constraints, when we
want to enjoy opportunities for upward mobility or shift our status and identity. The
fantasies that shape the gift economy are concerned with social connectivity and
especially with reaffirming existing values and preserving and promoting cultural
traditions. The fantasies of a commodity culture are those of transformation while
those of a gift economy are often deeply nostalgic.
When materials move from one sphere to the other, they often get reworked to reflect the
values and fantasies associated with their current context. Jenkins (1992), for example,
argues fan media production and circulation often centers around themes of romance,
friendship, and community. These values shape the decisions fans make at every level,
starting with the choice of films and television programs that seem to offer the best
opportunities to explore these concepts. When fans rework program content through
vidding (a genre of fan music videos) or fan fiction, they tend to draw attention to those
situations where such relationships are most vividly expressed…
Other content that is commonly "spread" within the gift economy has an explicitly
nostalgic tone. For many baby boomers, there is enormous pleasure in watching older
commercials or segments from children's programs of their childhood. This is a
generation that is using eBay to repurchase all the old toys, comics, collector cards, and
other stuff that their parents threw away when they went to college. The exchange of
42
these retro or nostalgic texts helps to spark the exchange of memories, which are often
bound up to personal and collective histories of consumption and spectatorship. Robert
Kozinets (Brown, Kozinets, and Sherry, 2003) has explored how such "retromarketing"
practices have helped to revitalized older brands, giving them greater currency in the
contemporary marketplace. As Kozinets and his collaborators explain:
"Long abandoned brands, such as Aladdin (lunchboxes), Beemans (gum) and
Chuck Taylors (shoes), have been adroitly reanimated and successfully
relaunched. Ancient commercials are being re-broadcast (Ovaltine, Alka-Seltzer)
or brilliantly updated (Britney Spears sings "Come Alive" for Pepsi). On the
Internet, sites devoted to marketing a variety of retro merchandise--from candy
(nostalgiccandy.com) to fabric (reprodepotfabrics.com), games
(allretrogames.com) to home furnishings (modfurnishings.com)--have popped up.
Retro styling is de rigueur in countless product categories, ranging from cameras
and colognes to telephones and trainers. Even automobiles and detergents, long
the apotheosis of marketing's new-and-improved, washes-whiter, we-have-thetechnology worldview, are getting in on the retroactive act, as the success of the
Chrysler P.T Cruiser and Color Protection Tide daily remind us. "
In many cases, the release of these retro products sparks enormous conversation wherever
there are consumers old enough to have fond memories of their heyday. In other cases,
online discussions of long retired brands has led to a greater appreciation of their
potential within parent companies. In discussing the values that shape successful retrobrands, Kozinets and colleagues describe something very close to the animating fantasies
of the gift economy: “Utopianism is perhaps the hallmark of the retro-brand. The brand
must be capable of mobilizing an Elysian vision, of engendering a longing for an
idealized past that is satisfied through consumption. Solidarity is an important unifying
quality of the retro-brand. Whether as extreme as a cargo cult or as moderate as
fictive kinship, the brand must inspire among its users the sense of belonging.”
References:
Brown,
Stephen,
Robert
V.
Kozinets,
and
John
F.
Sherry,
Jr.
(2003).
"Sell
Me
the
Old,
Old
Story:
Retromarketing
Management
and
the
Art
of
Brand
Revival,"
Journal
of
Consumer
Behavior,
June,
2.
pp.85‐98.
Bruns,
Axel
(2007)
"Produsage,
Generation
C,
and
Their
Effects
on
the
Democratic
Process",
paper
presented
at
Media
in
Transitions
5:
Creativity,
Ownership,
and
Collaboration
in
the
Digital
Age,
April
27‐29,
Massachusetts
Institute
of
Technology,
Cambridge,
MA
USA.
Douglas,
Mary
(1991)
"Jokes,"
in
Rethinking
Popular
Culture,
Chandra
Mukerji
and
Michael
Schudson
(eds.).
Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press,
pp.291‐311.
Fiske,
John.
(1989)
Understanding
Popular
Culture.
London:
Routledge.
Jenkins,
Henry
(1992).
Textual
Poachers:
Television
Fans
and
Participatory
Culture.
New
York:
Routledge.
Jenkins,
Henry
(2006).
Convergence
Culture:
Where
Old
and
New
Media
Collide.
New
York:
New
York
University
Press.
43
Conclusion:
The
Value
of
Spreadable
Media
So far this white paper has:
•
criticized the vagueness of existing models of "viral media" or "memes."
•
outlined the differences between sticky and spreadable media.
•
identified those factors which have led to the rise of spreadable media.
•
shown why spreadable media involves a collaboration between the gift economy
and commodity culture.
•
discussed a range of different kinds of communities that are shaping the spread of
media.
•
pointed towards some properties shared by the most spreadable media content.
In this concluding section, we will return to the core question from the perspective of our
clients: Is it a good idea to allow or enable my consumers to spread my brand message or
my copyrighted content? We enter this discussion with some modesty.
The
situation
we
have
described
here
is
in
flux.
New
examples
of
spreadable
content,
new
business
plans,
and
new
policies
regarding
intellectual
property
are
announced
each
day
and
so
far,
the
verdict
is
still
out.
There's
a
lot
we
do
not
yet
know
about
spreadable
media's
benefits
and
risks
from
a
corporate
perspective.
In
this
transitional
moment,
we
advise
companies
to
proceed
with
caution
but
fear
that
those
who
remain
totally
outside
this
space
may
be
running
greater
risks
than
those
who
make
at
least
some
modest
steps
toward
embracing
spreadability.
Certainly, one can point to some great success stories from companies who have been
early to embrace this spreadable model. One such case is the Dove Evolution campaign
that was released online with a 75-second clip showing an "ordinary" woman's painful
transformation into an "object of desire." The ad boosted sales, received more than 5
million views and cost nothing to distribute online. Dove also released another version of
the spot on television during the Super bowl. Placing the ad cost the company $2.5
million and it received 2.5 million views. Granted, broadcast television provided them
with an opportunity to reach a large number of viewers in a very short period of time, but
the online version reached almost twice as many people at a fraction of the cost.
One take-away here is that television may remain a stronger venue for "just in time"
information, while the slower circulation of information online may ultimately result in
much deeper saturation within the culture.
Or consider the success of the Cadbury Gorilla advertisement that we've cited several
44
times already. In 8 weeks the ad received 5 million views, positioning Cadbury to grow
30% above the industry average that same year, increase it's sales by 7% and most
importantly, detach itself from the chocolate recall-salmonella scandal that had greatly
impacted the company's image in the UK.
Such success stories have inspired other companies to develop so-called "viral"
marketing strategies, some of which have succeeded, many of which have not. The
decentralized nature of the process, the lack of control over the flow of content means
that there are no guarantees that such content will reach their desired market segments or
for that matter, that they will circulate anywhere.
[At this point in time, in 2009,] if you want to guarantee the number of eyeballs that
consume your message, nothing is going to replace traditional broadcasting methods
anytime soon. Lowering the transaction costs, however, make it possible for companies
to minimize their risks in trying out such strategies as an add-on to existing marketing
approaches.
So
what
is
spreadable
media
good
for?
• To
generate
active
commitment
from
the
audience
• To
empower
them
and
make
them
an
integral
part
of
your
product's
success
• To
benefit
from
online
word‐of‐mouth
• To
reach
niche,
highly
interconnected
audiences
• But
most
of
all,
to
communicate
with
audiences
where
they
already
are,
and
in
a
way
that
they
value
Each of these factors suggests that such an approach may yield longer term rather than
shorter-term benefits.
Spreadability
may…
• help
to
expand
and
intensify
consumer
awareness
of
a
new
and
emerging
brand
or
transform
their
perceptions
of
an
existing
brand,
re‐affirming
its
central
place
in
their
lives.
• expand
the
range
of
potential
markets
for
a
brand
by
introducing
it,
at
low
costs
and
low
risks,
to
niches
that
previously
were
not
part
of
its
market.
• intensify
consumer
loyalty
by
increasing
emotional
attachment
to
the
brand
or
media
franchise.
• expand
the
shelf
life
of
existing
media
content
by
creating
new
ways
of
interacting
with
it
(as
occurs,
say,
around
the
modding
of
games
or
the
archiving
of
classic
television
content
on
YouTube)
and
it
may
even
rebuild
or
reshape
the
market
for
a
dormant
brand,
as
suggested
by
Robert
Kozinets
writing
on
"retro‐
brands."
45
All told, those companies that have the most to gain from this approach are those who
have the least to lose from abandoning traditional broadcasting models, those that have:
lower promotional budgets
who want to reach niche markets
who want to distribute so-called "Long Tail" content
who want to build strong emotional connections with their consumers.
•
•
•
•
Those who have the most to lose are those companies which:
•
•
•
•
have well-established brand messages
have messages that are predictably delivered through broadcast channels
who are concerned about a loss of control over their intellectual property
who have reason to fear backlash from their consumers.
Even here, remaining outside of the spreadable model altogether may cut them off from
younger and more digitally connected consumers who spend less time consuming
traditional broadcast content or who are increasingly suspicious of top-down advertising
campaigns.
Such considerations intensify when we move from brand messages, which one wants to
circulate freely, towards content, which is expected to generate revenue.
Right now, spreadability has proven more effective at generating buzz and
awareness than as a revenue generator, though this may be changing. Consider, for
example, the mobile sector. As many as 20 percent of mobile subscribers are listening to
music on their mobile devices (Minney, 2008) with similar increases occurring with other
media such as games and video.
There is also a strong rise in mobile media sharing, either directly phone-to-phone or pcto-phone, in either case mobile consumers are already embracing spreadable media by
default and companies are discovering that there is money to be made by facilitating their
activities.
So far, only a few companies are taking advantage of a potential Mobile Web 2.0,
according to Sumit Agarwal, a product manager in Google's mobile division:
"We're really at mobile Web 0.5, to be completely honest, the real thing about
Web 2.0 is people introducing applications to each other. True viral applications,
something sent from one person to another, will absolutely be a big part of
mobile." (Salz, 2007)
One such company, MoConDi Ltd. announced in September of 2007 that its Italian-based
service, MeYou, had reached more than 800,000 registered users. By January 2008, that
number had doubled. MeYou is a mobile phone application that supports distribution of a
mobile content to end users. These users can then recommend content to additional users
46
and receive credits for doing so. Users receive MMS recommendations that contain a
message and download link for the content and a link to install the MeYou application. In
this case, they are using the same marketing strategy that launched Hotmail in the 90s.
MeYou has implemented a hybrid model between the sticky and spreadable models,
between content distribution and marketing. As such, users will receive certain content
directly from MeYou or from their friends for free, but other content requires for direct
payment. Users can still share such by sending the application for which the receiver has
to then purchase the activation code. This model is particularly successful with games
where after the applications are activated, users can play against each other, creating
strong social incentives to expand its reach. MeYou works mostly with ringtones, images,
videos, animations and games. Through its parent company, MoConDi generate mobile
branded content and distribution strategies for other businesses. According to MeYou's
public information 60% of users purchase content and 64% of users send
recommendations with 24% of recommendations resulting in purchases.
We might contrast the relative success which MoConDi has enjoyed through
enfranchising its consumers to spread content with the backlash which has come as a
result of the tendency of major media companies to brand grassroots circulation as
"piracy." For quite some time, Sony-BMG and all other music majors have opted for
issuing take-down notices when content to which they hold rights to is posted on
YouTube. It now seems that Sony-BMG is finding a way to move away from that
prohibitionist model and is embracing a profit sharing, win-win philosophy based on
building stronger collaborations with their fans. They have opted for inserting a link to
the content's original site on the video post and eliminating its capacity to be embedded.
So, on one end they've limited the spread of their content in favor of increasing the
stickiness of their own site. But they also are allowing fans to share music and YouTube
to make a profit. In the process, Sony-BMG is increasing the traffic to and visibility of its
official sites, but most importantly, the company is no longer treating fans and potential
consumers as criminals.
Such an approach is spreading across other industries and throughout other mediums.
Peer-to-peer technologies have dealt with a bad reputation for years - since the days of
the Napster trials, P2P's original idea, to enable user share big files, has been demonized.
The entertainment industry has pegged it as a tool for piracy. And recently, ISPs have
blamed it for clogging their networks. Nevertheless P2P is the perfect example to
illustrate some of the models of resource-lite, user-led, pull distribution that benefit from
a spreadable mentality. Here company and user/distributors are building a completely
new relationship where the company trusts the user with the safekeeping of its content. In
spite of the bad reputation and lack of control, the same entertainment industry that one
day attacked it, has now found, both in the bit torrent technology and in P2P, a powerful
ally.
NBC is working with Pando Networks, a P2P content-delivery-technology company, to
revamp its NBC Direct service (Weprin, 2008). BBC and Showtime, amongst others, are
now working with the bit torrent distribution platform Vuze. And Fox, Lion’s Gate and
47
MTV are all working with the original BitTorrent company. Media scholar Mark Pesce
(2005) argues that many mainstream British and American television series are enjoying
commercial success in international markets because - and not in spite of -- their massive
online circulations. Pesce argues that illegal downloads helped to promote the content,
closing the temporal gap between domestic and foreign distribution, and increasing
consumer interest. Pesce argues that what he calls Hyperdistribution is here to stay.
The clock can't be turned back, BitTorrent can't be un-invented. We have to deal with the
world as it is, not as we'd like it to be. In the new, "flat world," where any program
produced anywhere in the world is immediately available everywhere in the world, the
only sustainable edge comes from entrepreneurship and innovation.
Pesce's plea for innovation is made that more urgent by the fact that, according to a study
performed in 17 countries, 29% of active technology users regularly write comments and
blogs, 27% share free music and 28% access social networking sites.
A
significant
portion
of
the
public
is
embracing
those
technologies
and
cultural
practices
that
support
spreadable
media.
They
want
to
play
active
roles
in
helping
to
shape
the
flow
of
media
within
their
own
social
communities.
This
is
part
of
what
Charlene
Li
and
Josh
Bernoff
are
calling
the
"groundswell,"
which
is
being
fueled
by
the
combined
force
of
"people's
desires
to
connect,
new
interactive
technologies
and
online
economics."
They describe the groundswell as a movement that can't be stopped but must be joined in
order to retain currency. It has changed the power relation between companies and
consumers, and, in embracing the groundswell and the spreadable media model,
companies are also redefining their relationships and their sense of self.
This is might be a painful process, but at the end there will be more to be gained
than lost. By ceding this power to its consumers companies are losing much of the
control over their distribution, but they are gaining the value of each user's personal
ties.
We may not yet have reached the point where "If it doesn't spread, it's dead," but that
time is coming and companies need to be rethinking their business models now in
anticipation of these shifts which will even more fundamentally alter the media
landscape.
References
Minney,
Jaimee
(2008).
"M:Metrics
Reports
Growth
in
Mobile
Music
Adoption"
m:metrics
Pesce,
Mark.
(2005).
"Piracy
is
Good?
How
Battlestar
Galactica
killed
Broadcast
TV",
Mindjack,
May
13.
Salz,
Peggy
Anne
(2006).
"Mobile
Web
2.0
May
Be
Too
Ambitious,
Let's
Call
It
Mobile
0.5"
Weprin,
Alex
(2008)
"NBC
Revamping
Fledgling
NBC
Direct
with
Pando
Networks
Deal",
Broadcasting
&
Cable,
February
27.
48
2.
Sampling
audience
approaches
by
experts
After you make a plan and implement it, your target audience of consumer-creators will
often expand and adapt in various ways, so continuous testing is important. Look at the
evolution of Facebook as an example; it has changed many times to expand capabilities
and offer users additional tools of connection. Our tools shape us and we shape our tools.
How do you keep up with the people you hope to serve with your messages? You stay in
contact with them and you constantly sample the ongoing online conversation about the
evolution of communications. Studying the work of others in your field is sometimes
referred to as “competitive benchmarking.” With the sharing going on today online it is
easy to accomplish. There is no official statistic to cite to support this, but it is possible
that 50 percent of the bloggers online are people who are interested in plumbing the
depths of marketing, PR or sales, and all of these people continuously offer their advice
about how to reach out to users/audiences/participants in communication. It seems as if
you could read online advice – some affirming and some contradictory – about marketing
all day every day and not even scratch the surface of what’s available.
A
great
way
to
build
your
own
philosophy
of
interactive
theory
and
audience
is
to
select
important
people
to
follow
and
then
read,
read,
read
and
ingest
as
much
discussion
as
possible,
nimbly
remaining
attuned
to
the
continual
evolution
of
the
uses
and
gratifications
of
product
users,
the
ways
in
which
they
can
be
reached
and
the
tools
by
which
their
levels
of
satisfaction
can
be
measured.
A successful interactive communicator understands that everything is subject to change.
You have to keep moving and try to stay a step ahead of the evolution of users and tools.
Continual sampling of lively discussions of issues online is paramount for your success.
In this portion of your readings we offer sample selections from a few authors and
encourage you to follow links from many voices to deepen your education. Among the
thought leaders are Steve Rubel, Seth Godin, Brian Solis, Henry Jenkins, Cindy
Chastain, Dana Chisnell and Ross Mayfield. Who else should be added to this list?
Sometimes people who aren’t well known or groups at agencies you might not have
heard of write online content that is quite instructive because they are thinking through
and combining the philosophies of the many interactive professionals who inspire them.
Following here are several random selections that serve as examples.
The
Power
Law
of
Participation
by
Ross
Mayfield,
2006
Social software brings groups together to discover and create value. The problem is,
users only have so much time for social software. The vast majority of users will not
have a high level of engagement with a given group, and most tend to be free riders upon
community value. But patterns have emerged where low threshold participation amounts
to collective intelligence and high engagement provides a different form of collaborative
intelligence. To illustrate this, lets explore the Power Law of Participation.
49
Content
here
is
excerpted
from
http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2006/04/power_law_of_pa.html
Most of Chris Anderson's Long Tail examples have focused on models of consumption,
not production, where intelligence is largely artificial. Amazonian algorithms guide
users down the long tail from Britney Spears to nobodies, made available without the
constraints of shelf space. But the interesting question is will the tail wag? Can users
discover their own power together to either discover something great, or even create it?
As we engage with the web, we leave behind breadcrumbs of attention. Even when we
read, our patterns are picked up in referral logs (especially with expressly designed tools,
like Measure Map), creating a feedback loop. But reading alone isn't enough to fulfill our
innate desire to remix our media, consumption is active for consumers turned users.
Digg is the archetype for low-threshold participation. Simply favorite something you find
of interest, a one-click action. You don't even have to log in to contribute value, you have
Permission to Participate. Del.icio.us taps both personal and social incentives for
participation through the low threshold activity of tagging. Remembering the URL is the
hardest part, and you have to establish an identity in the system. Commenting requires
such identity for sake of spam these days and is an under-developed area. Subscribing
requires a commitment of sustained attention that greatly surpasses reading alone.
Sharing is the principal activity in these communities, but much of it occurs out of band
(e-mail still lives). We network not only to connect, but leverage the social network
as a filter to fend off information overload. Some of us write, as in blog, and some of
us even have conversations. But these are all activities that can remain peripheral to
50
community. To
Refactor,
Collaborate,
Moderate
and
Lead
requires
a
different
level
of
engagement
‐
which
makes
up
the
core
of
a
community.
The byproduct of use is a Cornucopia of the Commons - the act of using the database
adds value to it. As users engage in low threshold participation (read, favorite, tag and
link) we gain a form of collective intelligence. But it is important to distinguish the
value of collective intelligence and collaborative intelligence, as first pointed out by
Mitch Kapor:
“Tons
of
interesting
types
of
collaborative
filtering,
like
Digg,
is
TiVo
like,
indicating
individual
preferences,
with
some
algorithm
logic.
Valid
and
interesting,
but
people
are
not
connecting.
Different
from
a
bunch
of
people
focusing
on
creating
something.
That
is
higher
value
than
collaborative
filtering,
my
thesis,
if
you
can
get
people
to
work
together.
Look
at
health
information,
broadly
speaking,
why
are
doctors
not
collaborating
to
build
such
a
resource
‐
the
lack
of
information,
locked
up
in
a
database
that
Harvard
publishes,
kills
people.
I
can
feel
the
opportunity.”
When users participate in high-engagement activities, connecting with one another, a
different kind of value is being created. But my core point isn't just the difference
between these forms of group intelligence - but actually how the co-exist in the best
communities. In Wikipedia, 500 people, or 0.5% of users, account for 50% of the
edits. This core community is actively dedicated to maintaining an open periphery. Part
of what makes Flickr work isn't just excellence at low threshold engagement, but the
ability to form groups. Participation in communities plots along a power law with a solid
core/periphery model - provided social software supports both low threshold
participation and high engagement.
Antony
Mayfield’s
2009
Slideshare
“Do
You
Speak
Social?”
is
online
here:
http://www.slideshare.net/amayfield/womma‐do‐you‐speak‐social
The
Slideshare
along
with
audio
by
Mayfield
from
the
WOMMA
webinar
–
52
minutes:
http://www.slideshare.net/WOMMAssociation/do‐you‐speak‐social‐social‐web‐literacy‐the‐
future‐of‐brands/1/yes
Additional
blog
posts
and
Web
content
of
recent
interest:
A. From Ruder Finn, a report in the form of a graphic visualization that includes a
fascinating look at how people use social media – it is the RF Intent Index.
http://www.ruderfinn.com/rfrelate/intent/intent-index.html
This interactive uses and gratifications chart is built from a study of the reasons people go
online. Major intent categories list and prioritize specific activities and compares and
contrasts intents for separate groups. The intent index underscores the emerging trend
that people’s online behavior is better explained and understood by similarities in
intent rather than by demographic differences between them. This has profound
51
influence for professionals embarking on PR, advertising and marketing campaigns. The
rfintentindex is updated quarterly.
Michael Schubert, Chief Innovation Officer overseeing digital strategy at Ruder Finn
says, "The way the Internet has allowed us to share knowledge laterally instead of up the
chain of command requires a new way of thinking about our online communications. The
Intent Index underscores the importance of knowing what people seek, and how we, as
communicators, can intersect with what they're looking for."
The Intent index is based on a study that asked participants how frequently they go online
for 295 different reasons. The index is updated quarterly.
Some recent statistics (2009): More than twice as many people go online to socialize
(81%) than to do business (39%) or shop (31%). 72% of people go online just to become
part of a community. Seniors are going online today for the same reasons younger people
are; to have fun (82%) and to socialize (80%). More people go online to connect via a
social networking site (41%) than to post comments or opinions (34%). More people go
online to be entertained (82%) than entertain others (48%). People seek education and
entertainment: most people go online both to learn (88%) and have fun (83%). Almost
half of people (47%) go online to learn to improve themselves and nearly one-third (31%)
to find self-help experts or books. The desire to learn drives people to the Internet; top
52
areas are new subjects (68%), the world (65%), a disease or condition (61%), eating
healthier (55%) and managing finances (37%).
Three times as many people go online to compare prices (66%) rather than people via
dating sites (21%). One-third of people (34%) go online to purchase an item; tops are
household items (49%), electronics (45%); music (35%), movies (29%), and school/work
supplies (29%). More men (42%) than women (36%) go online to do business. 55% of
women go online to find venues for personal expression compared to only 43% of men.
44% of people go online to create or update blogs and 42% of people go online to read
other people's blogs. Nearly half (48%) go online to be invisible on instant messaging,
29% to create an avatar and 28% to be somewhat different. Women (48%) are much
more likely than men (39%) to go online to advocate for an issue or position.
B. From Dosh Dosh, a blog on marketing, written by Maki, a philosophy student.
http://www.doshdosh.com/how-to-understand-your-audience/
How
to
Understand
Your
Audience:
Data
Collection
&
Analysis
The
Internet
is
a
fast‐paced
environment.
People
can
come
to
your
website
at
any
hour
from
a
wide
range
of
locations,
each
of
them
with
different
intentions
or
needs.
Unlike
physical
retail
stores,
you
can’t
see
who
is
coming
in
and
browsing
around.
You
don’t
know
much
about
the
people
reading
you.
How
can
we
develop
a
rough
profile
of
all
these
individuals?
You
already
get
a
glimpse
of
them
every
day
when
they
interact
with
your
website.
Some
may
register
for
an
account,
leave
a
comment
or
send
you
an
email.
But
many
are
invisible.
They
get
to
your
site,
see
what
you
put
out,
click
on
an
outbound
link
and
disappear.
What
you
currently
know
about
these
individuals
comes
from
a
combination
of
visible
user
actions
(e.g
comments/emails)
and
statistics
(e.g.
visit
frequency/visit
length).
Is
this
knowledge
sufficient
for
most
businesses
or
bloggers?
Yes.
But
I
think
it
would
be
tremendously
helpful
to
learn
even
more
about
your
audience.
In
marketing
and
advertising,
we
proactively
define
our
target
audience.
We
start
with
our
end
goals
and
then
structure
our
website/ads
with
the
right
buzz
phrases,
pitch,
style,
keywords
and
angle
to
appeal
to
people
we
want
to
attract
as
a
consumer/user/reader.
Gathering
information
on
visitors
to
our
website
makes
us
more
effective
marketers.
It
is
helpful
to
analyze
and
construct
a
general
profile
of
your
audience,
however
shifting
it
may
be,
because
it
provides
you
with
information
that
will
allow
you
to
better
improve
your
content
scope,
site
usability,
conversation
rate
or
marketing
campaign.
Let’s
split
this
process
up
into
two
sections:
statistical
analysis
and
data
collection.
53
Statistical
Analysis:
Start
Working
With
What
You
Already
Have
Depending
on
the
stats
tool
you’re
currently
using,
you
can
get
a
lot
of
information
on
how
visitors
are
using
your
website,
where
they
come
from
and
what
they
are
looking
at.
There
are
obviously
a
lot
of
different
metrics
to
look
at
but
I’m
listing
what
I
think
is
more
relevant
to
understanding
visitors
in
general:
Visitor
loyalty,
bounce
rate,
recency,
time
on
site.
These
sites
measure
one
critical
thing:
the
level
of
engagement.
They
reveal
how
often
people
visit
your
site,
the
last
time
they
used
it
and
the
depth
of
their
visit.
While
the
numbers
aren’t
a
definitive
interpretation
of
on‐site
user
actions,
they
are
a
gauge
of
enthusiasm.
Visitor
Location.
This
allows
you
to
make
cultural
and
linguistic
assumptions
of
your
visitors.
If
you
know
you
receive
the
most
visitors
from
a
few
specific
countries,
you
might
want
to
create
landing
pages/offers
or
content
with
a
geographic
focus.
Visitor
search
terms/keywords.
This
includes
both
search
engines
and
on‐site
search
boxes.
The
clearest
indicator
of
visitor
interest,
search
terms
tell
you
what
they
want
to
get
from
your
site
and
it
reveals
information
gaps
you
can
fill
up.
This
is
where
data
collection
gets
specific.
If
you
consistently
get
a
lot
of
queries
for
a
specific
phrase,
you
can
safely
assume
that
there
will
be
visitor
interest
in
content
or
offers
related
to
it.
Traffic
source.
This
includes
search
engines,
referrer
sites,
type‐in/bookmark
traffic
and
ad
campaigns.
Pay
attention
to
referrer
sites:
it
reveals
what
visitors
are
reading
or
using.
Traffic
sources
also
tell
you
where
to
improve
for
greater
visibility.
Take
some
time
to
look
at
these
statistics.
Instead
of
only
looking
at
them
at
each
single
point
in
time,
it
makes
more
sense
to
regularly
study
them
to
see
how
they
trend
over
the
lifespan
of
your
site
or
the
course
of
a
marketing/ad
campaign.
On
the
whole,
they
will
give
you
a
good
idea
of
what
users
want
and
what
draws
their
attention.
How
to
Get
More
Audience
Data:
Using
Polls,
Surveys
and
Features
Now
for
the
fun
part:
the
active
solicitation
of
user
information.
Instead
of
simply
monitoring
web
statistics,
you
create
opportunities
for
visitors
to
voluntarily
reveal
personal
data
and
opinions.
These
can
be
achieved
in
several
ways:
Polls.
An
excellent
and
informal
way
to
get
information
on
user
preferences,
they
are
very
easy
to
set
up
and
maintain
on
any
website.
The
questions
asked
can
be
diverse
and
they
are
a
good
way
to
gradually
accumulate
a
lot
of
information
without
being
too
invasive.
Run
a
poll
for
two
weeks
and
change
the
questions
to
pull
in
more
information.
They
can
be
integrated
on
a
regular
basis
alongside
54
articles
or
they
can
be
left
alone
on
a
visible
corner
of
the
website.
Surveys.
Depending
on
their
length
and
how
they
are
created,
surveys
may
be
more
labor
intensive.
Some
visitors
will
avoid
them
if
they
are
too
long.
They
are
ideal
when
bundled
with
competitions
or
special
offers
which
provide
incentives
for
completion.
Short
surveys
can
be
used
for
exiting
visitors
or
as
a
follow‐up
after
a
user
completes
a
specific
purchase
or
opts‐out
of
your
payment
plan/subscription.
On‐Site
User
Features.
If
you’re
running
a
community,
social
media
service
or
even
a
blog,
you
can
get
more
information
by
simply
offering
more
user
features
(ways
users
can
interact
with
each
other
and
your
site).
For
example,
allow
users
to
input
more
biographical
info
in
profiles
or
give
them
the
option
to
favorite/rate
your
blog
posts
and
the
contributions
of
other
users.
Features
also
add
value
to
users
and
increase
their
engagement
with
your
site.
Think
strategically
about
what
data
you
want
and
create
a
feature
that
allows
users
to
indirectly
reveal
it.
Facebook
is
a
good
example
of
a
site
with
features
that
generate
a
lot
of
mineable
data.
Of
course,
it
is
always
good
to
have
an
appropriate
privacy
policy
and
allow
users
to
opt
out
easily
from
their
side.
Audience
Feedback.
To
understand
your
visitors,
it’s
useful
to
ensure
that
you
monitor
your
feedback
channels.
Comments,
emails,
incoming
blog
links,
mentions
on
online
communities
and
even
tweets
allow
you
to
get
an
intuitive
feel
of
what
people
think
about
your
website.
Subscribe
to
the
right
feedback
channels
(Google
alerts,
blogsearch
etc.)
and
track
them
daily.
Either
do
it
yourself
or
get
someone
to
be
the
official
feedback/community
coordinator.
Audience
feedback
is
often
unsolicited,
although
you
can
easily
get
more
comments/emails
by
specifically
asking
for
them.
This
provides
you
with
clues
on
how
to
better
cater
to
your
target
market.
While
this
isn’t
an
exhaustive
list,
some
of
these
methods
can
be
applied
online
and
offline
simultaneously.
For
polls
and
surveys,
you
should
be
able
to
find
some
plug‐ins
or
software
available
for
your
site
platform.
Alternatively,
you
can
always
use
external
online
services
like
SurveyMonkey,
PollDaddy,
4Q
and
Wufoo.
After
obtaining
this
data,
setup
a
system
that
allows
you
to
segment
and
compare
your
findings
over
a
period
of
time.
This
can
be
a
simple
spreadsheet
or
something
more
sophisticated.
When
combined
with
the
visitor
statistics
you
already
have,
it’s
easy
to
understand
your
audience,
allowing
you
to
better
accommodate
their
needs
or
interest.
Can
you
think
of
any
other
ways
to
get
more
audience
data?
55
C. The following column by Steve Baty appeared on the UXmatters blog:
User
Research
for
Personas
and
Other
Audience
Models
By
Steve
Baty
Published:
April
27,
2009
http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2009/04/user‐research‐for‐personas‐and‐
other‐audience‐models.php
This
is
not
going
to
be
an
article
about
personas
or
even
what
distinguishes
a
good
persona
from
a
bad
one.
Instead,
this
article
is
about
the
ingredients
we
can
draw
on
when
creating
audience
models
and
some
alternative
ways
of
communicating
the
results
of
an
audience
analysis.
First,
however,
let
me
briefly
discuss
what
we
generally
mean
when
we
talk
about
personas
and
the
role
they
play
in
the
design
and
development
process.
A
Very
Brief
Introduction
to
Personas
Personas
are
archetypal
representations
of
audience
segments,
or
user
types,
that
describe
user
characteristics
that
lead
to
different
collections
of
needs
and
behaviors.
We
build
up
each
archetype
where
the
characteristics
of
users
overlap.
According
to
Alan
Cooper,
author
of
About
Face
3.0
with
Robert
Riemann
and
David
Cronin,
“The
persona
is
a
powerful,
multipurpose
design
tool
that
helps
overcome
several
problems
that
currently
plague
the
development
of
digital
products.
Personas
help
designers:
Determine
what
a
product
should
do
and
how
it
should
behave.
Communicate
with
stakeholders,
developers,
and
other
designers.
Build
consensus
and
commitment
to
the
design.
Measure
the
design’s
effectiveness.
Contribute
to
other
product‐related
efforts
such
as
marketing
and
sales
plans.”
But
where
do
we
start
looking
for
the
data
we
need
to
build
up
these
useful
archetypes.
Research
Methods
Several
research
methods
can
provide
data
upon
which
we
can
build
user
archetypes,
including
surveys
ethnographic
research
interviews
contextual
inquiries
Web
analytics
56
Surveys
Surveys
provide
a
combination
of
quantitative
(numerical)
and
qualitative
data
(non‐
statistical
studies),
depending
on
how
we
structure
the
questions.
Their
purpose
is
usually
to
generate
a
relatively
large
data
set
in
an
efficient
manner.
Compared
to
other
methods
of
research,
a
survey
is
a
fairly
inexpensive
activity
to
undertake.
Surveys
are
also
quite
flexible—in
that
you
can
ask
a
wide
variety
of
questions
and
define
the
formats
of
the
responses
you’d
like
to
see.
(Good
survey
questions
provide
a
clear
indication
to
respondents
of
the
type
of
information
desired.)
As
with
all
research
techniques,
surveys
have
their
downsides.
The
quality
of
the
data
can
be
patchy,
especially
when
gathering
responses
electronically.
Respondents
are
more
likely
to
skip
questions
or
provide
only
superficial,
brusque,
or
incomplete
answers.
This
is
particularly
true
when
respondents
perceive
questions
as
touching
on
personal
topics.
Survey
responses
can
also
be
effectively
meaningless—for
example,
when
a
respondent
doesn't
understand
a
question.
Without
a
researcher
on
hand
to
clarify
the
intent
of
questions,
responses
may
miss
the
point,
rendering
them
useless.
Good
survey
questions
can
mitigate
this
problem,
but
cannot
remove
it
entirely.
And
of
course,
we
need
to
analyze
the
larger
volume
of
data
and
all
the
responses
to
the
multiple
questions
we’ve
asked.
This
can
require
the
use
of
specialized
skills
and
software,
raising
the
required
level
of
effort.
Since
our
aim
is
to
generate
audience
segments,
we
need
to
perform
multivariate
analysis
on
the
data,
employing
techniques
like
clustering,
principal
components,
and
factorial
analysis.
It
simply
isn't
enough
to
analyze
each
question
independently
and
fall
for
the
‘average
user
fallacy’.
We
also
need
to
recognize
that
people
are
generally
fairly
poor
at
reporting
reality
in
surveys,
particularly
when
we’re
asking
them
to
report
on
an
event
that
occurred
in
the
past.
Questions
such
as
On
average,
how
often
do
you
visit
X
per
week?
are
bound
to
result
in
inaccurate
responses.
Respondents
will
offer
exceptions,
bad
estimates,
and
sometimes
make
up
responses
based
on
their
vague
recollections.
To
provide
balance
to
our
data,
we
need
other
research
sources
with
which
to
cross‐reference
survey
data.
Ethnographic
Research
Ethnographic
research
includes
a
broad
range
of
contextual,
observational
research
techniques
and
offers
a
range
of
benefits
to
UX
researchers.
We
can
learn
something
about
the
context
of
use
for
a
product
or
service
we’re
designing,
including
the
environment,
time
constraints,
and
interruptions
and
distractions
people
face
when
interacting
with
our
designs.
We
also
get
to
see
what
people
actually
do
rather
than
what
they
say
they
do,
overcoming
a
common
problem
with
surveys
and
interviews.
We
can
see
the
complex,
57
unvarnished
reality
instead
of
the
sanitized
and
tidy
version
people
tend
to
portray
in
response
to
a
question.
And
we
can
gain
an
understanding
of
both
mundane,
day‐to‐day
activities
and
the
more
rare,
extreme
cases.
Imagine
the
difference
in
the
insights
we
can
gain
from
a
series
of
survey
questions
asking
a
theater
nurse
to
describe
her
job,
versus
what
we
would
learn
by
spending
a
few
days
following
her
around
and
observing
her
work.
On
the
downside,
ethnographic
studies
can
be
time
and
resource
intensive.
Such
studies
require
researchers
to
be
on
site
with
participants
for
an
extended
period
of
time—for
days,
weeks,
or
sometimes
even
months.
And
while
the
data
we
collect
during
such
studies
is
very
rich,
it
can
also
tend
toward
the
messy,
complicating
the
analysis
process.
However,
ethnographic
studies
provide
an
excellent
source
of
real
insights
into
the
audience
for
a
product
or
service
we’re
designing.
Interviews
In
terms
of
research
styles,
asking
potential
or
current
audience
members
a
series
of
open
or
closed
questions
sits
partway
between
surveys
and
ethnographic
studies.
Interviews
are
a
good
method
for
gaining
insights
into
users’
opinions,
thoughts,
and
ideas.
In
ethnographic
studies,
researchers
look
at
the
actions
and
behaviors
of
participants.
They
interpret
what
they
see
rather
then
asking
participants.
The
interview
format
allows
some
flexibility
for
researchers
to
explore
ideas
and
motivations
that
are
not
accessible
to
an
observer.
Contextual
Inquiries
The
contextual
inquiry
research
technique
combines
observation
with
interview‐style
question
and
response.
The
aim
of
questions
is
typically
to
get
participants
to
explain
their
actions
and,
in
some
cases,
we
ask
participants
to
speak
aloud,
telling
us
whatever
they
are
thinking
as
they
work
through
a
task
or
activity.
The
downsides
to
contextual
inquiry
are
similar
to,
but
less
severe
than
those
of
ethnographic
studies.
To
gain
sufficient
insight,
it
is
necessary
to
invest
time
in
both
the
observation
and
analysis
tasks,
which
represent
a
substantial
effort.
Web
Analytics
The
user
research
techniques
I’ve
discussed
thus
far
focus
on
the
characteristics,
needs,
and
behaviors
of
individuals.
Web
analytics
let
us
look
at
the
aggregate
effect
of
these
characteristics
in
action.
Web
analytics
offer
us
a
view
of
what
happens
when
people
visit
our
Web
site
or
use
our
online
service.
We
can
identify
peaks
and
troughs
in
usage
and
other
patterns
such
as
trends
and
cycles,
as
I
described
in
my
recent
column
on
UXmatters,
“Patterns
in
UX
Research.”
Web
analytics
can
provide
insights
we
can
use
in
creating
our
personas—such
as
activity
cycles
for
different
groups
of
users’
information‐
seeking
behavior,
and
more.
Note
that
user
research
lets
us
understand
why
people
58
might
not
be
using
our
product
or
service,
while
Web
analytics
tells
us
only
about
those
who
are
using
it
already.
It’s
also
worth
noting,
for
many
UX
researchers,
the
likely
reality
is
that
their
current
Web
analytics
fall
short
of
the
objectives
I’ve
just
outlined.
Other
Sources
of
Information
As
I’ve
discussed
previously,
in
my
UXmatters
column
“Closing
the
Communication
Loop,”
we
can
gain
some
insights
into
the
concerns
and
needs
of
our
users
through
channels
such
as
call
centers
and
stories
from
our
sales
staffs.
As
removed
as
such
sources
are
from
the
primary
source—our
actual
users—we
need
to
treat
such
data
with
some
caution.
However,
it
can
highlight
issues
your
users
may
not
bring
up
themselves.
Some
Advice
on
Creating
Personas
The
list
of
research
activities
and
data
sources
I’ve
presented
here
is
by
no
means
exhaustive.
However,
these
are
some
of
the
most
commonly
used
methods
and
richest
sources
of
information
to
help
you
build
your
personas.
One
important
thing
to
consider
about
these
different
research
techniques
is
that
each
of
them
is
good
in
certain
ways
and
can
provide
insights
into
different
characteristics
of
your
audience.
A
common
refrain
among
UX
practitioners
who
are
looking
at
personas
is
to
draw
upon
as
many
different
sources
of
data
as
you
can.
This
helps
you
create
a
much
richer
representation
of
each
different
persona,
but
also
helps
you
arrive
at
much
stronger
set
of
personas.
Each
data
source
has
its
own
built‐in
bias,
so
combining
data
sets
helps
mitigate
that
bias.
Another
common
piece
of
advice
from
UX
practitioners
is
that
we
should
base
personas
on
user
research
as
their
primary
input.
Sources
such
as
Web
analytics,
call
center
logs,
or
stories
from
front‐line
staff
are
interesting,
but
are
not
necessarily
rich
enough
sources
of
information.
Todd
Zaki
Warfel,
Principal
Design
Researcher
at
Messagefirst,
encourages
designers
not
to
start
out
with
a
predefined
number
of
personas
in
mind.
Instead,
we
should
let
the
data
tell
its
own
story,
and
our
analysis
should
determine
the
proper
number
of
personas.
Todd
offers
another
piece
of
advice,
which
has
helped
personas
fulfill
an
important
role
in
his
design
process:
“We
always
use
a
real
person—someone
we
know
personally—as
the
example
user
for
each
persona.
It’ll
be
a
friend
or
a
friend
of
a
friend,
but
it’s
someone
we
can
call
and
ask
questions.
The
detail
helps
make
each
persona
more
real
and
approachable
to
everyone
on
the
team.”—Todd
Zaki
Warfel
Communicating
Your
Research
Personas
are
a
popular,
commonly
used
technique
for
communicating
the
insights
we’ve
gained
from
our
research
activities.
But
there
are
two
alternative
techniques
worth
looking
at
briefly:
mental
models
and
experience
lifecycles.
59
Indi
Young’s
recent
book,
Mental
Models:
Aligning
Design
Strategy
with
Human
Behavior,
provides
a
very
good
introduction
to
the
research,
analysis,
and
communication
of
mental
models.
They
provide
an
excellent
way
of
understanding
how
users
approach
the
context
for
which
we’re
designing
a
product.
Figure
1
shows
an
example
of
a
mental
model
from
the
book.
Figure
1—A
mental
model—from
Indi
Young’s
Mental
Models,
published
by
Rosenfeld
Media
(click
on
underlined
link
earlier
in
this
sentence
to
get
larger
size)
Experience
lifecycle
is
a
generic
term
that
represents
the
start‐to‐finish
series
of
interactions
a
customer
has
with
an
organization.
For
example,
LEGO
uses
an
experience
wheel
like
that
shown
on
Customer
Experience
Matters,
which
depicts
the
end‐to‐end
experience
of
a
frequent
flyer
traveling
to
New
York
from
London.
60
The
Experience
Wheel
(see
larger
file
online:
http://experiencematters.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/legowheel.png)
Conclusion
We
can
aggregate
and
synthesize
user
research—of
many
shapes
and
sizes—to
form
audience
segmentations
that
encapsulate
sets
of
characteristics,
needs,
and
behaviors.
Then,
analyzing
the
same
research,
we
can
produce
personas,
mental
models,
experience
lifecycles,
or
other
user‐modeling
documentation
to
inform
and
enrich
the
design
of
our
products
and
services
and,
ultimately,
help
us
deliver
better
designs.
D. The next two brief blog posts tell about the importance of data in informing…
‐
The
numbers
tell
vital
stories
–
embrace
the
data!
http://flowingdata.com/2009/06/04/rise‐of‐the‐data‐scientist/
Think
about
all
the
visualization
stuff
you've
been
most
impressed
with
or
the
groups
that
always
seem
to
put
out
the
best
work.
Martin
Wattenberg.
Stamen
Design.
Jonathan
Harris.
Golan
Levin.
Sep
Kamvar.
Why
is
their
work
always
of
such
high
61
quality?
Because
they're
not
just
students
of
computer
science,
math,
statistics,
or
graphic
design.
Statisticians
should
know
APIs,
databases,
and
how
to
scrape
data;
designers
should
learn
to
do
things
programmatically;
and
computer
scientists
should
know
how
to
analyze
and
find
meaning
in
data.
It
seems
collaborations
between
the
fields
are
growing
more
common,
but
more
importantly,
computational
information
design
edges
closer
to
reality.
We're
seeing
data
scientists
‐
people
who
can
do
it
all
‐
emerge
from
the
rest
of
the
pack.
- The rise of information visualization
http://dataspora.com/blog/sexy-data-geeks/
The
sexy
skills
of
data
geeks
Skill #1: Statistics (Studying). Statistics is
perhaps the most important skill and the hardest
to learn. It’s a deep and rigorous discipline, and
one that is actively progressing (the widely used
method of Least Angle Regression was only
recently developed in 2004). I expect to be on its
learning curve my entire life. This being the case,
people who possess a solid grasp of modern
statistics are rare. And yet problems that require
its application continue to multiply. The text that
I was exposed to in graduate school and find to
be an unparalleled survey is Hastie, Tibshirani,
and Friedman’s Elements of Statistical Learning.
Skill #2: Data Munging (Suffering). The second critical skill mentioned above is “data
munging.” Among data geek circles (you can find us with a Twitter search for #rstats),
this refers to the painful process of cleaning, parsing, and proofing one’s data before it’s
suitable for analysis. Real world data is messy. At best it’s inconsistently delimited or
packed into an unnecessarily complex XML schema. At worst, it’s a series of scraped
HTML pages or a thoroughly undocumented fixed-width format. A good data munger
excels at turning coffee into regular expressions and parsers, implemented in a high-level
scripting language of choice (often Perl, Python, even Javascript). Related to munging
but certainly far less painful is the ability to retrieve, slice, and dice well-structured data
from persistent data stores, using a combination of SQL, scripting languages (especially
Python and its SciPy and NumPy libraries), and even several oldie-but-goodie Unix
utilities (cut, join).
Skill #3: Visualization (Storytelling). This third and last skill that Google economist
Hal Varian refers to is the easiest to believe one has. Most of us have had exposure to
basic chart-making widgets of Excel (and to date myself, tools like Harvard Graphics).
But a little knowledge is a dangerous thing: these software tools are often insufficient
when faced with the visualization of large, multivariate data sets.
62
E. Avinash Kaushik writes Occam’s Razor, about Web Analytics
http://www.kaushik.net/avinash/2008/11/ultimate-web-analytics-data-reconciliationchecklist.html
The
Ultimate
Web
Analytics
Data
Reconciliation
Checklist
Ideally
you
should
only
have
one
web
analytics
tool
on
your
website.
If
you
have
nothing
and
you
are
starting
out
then
sure
have
a
few
different
ones,
stress
test
them,
pick
the
one
you
love
but
then
practice
monogamy.
At
the
heart
of
that
recommendation
is
a
painful
lesson
I
have
learned:
It
is
a
long
hard
slog
to
convert
an
organization
to
be
truly
data
driven.
And
that’s
with
one
tool.
Having
two
tools
just
complicates
life
in
many
subtle
and
sub
optimal
ways.
One
“switch”
that
commonly
occurs
is
the
shift
from
fighting
the
good
fight
of
getting
the
organization
to
use
data
to
bickering
about
data
not
matching,
having
to
do
multiple
sets
of
coding
for
campaigns,
and
so
on.
In
a
nutshell
the
efforts
become
all
about
data
and
not
the
quest
for
insights.
So
if
you
can
help
it,
have
one
tool.
Bigamy,
at
least
in
this
case,
is
undesirable.
Pontification
aside
the
reality
is
that
many
people
run
more
than
one
tool
on
their
website
(though
hopefully
they
are
all
on
their
way
to
picking
the
best
of
the
lot).
That
means
the
bane
of
every
Analyst’s
existence:
Data
reconciliation!
It
is
a
thankless
task,
takes
way
more
time
then
needed
and
the
“game”
is
so
rigged
that
1]
it
is
nearly
impossible
to
get
to
a
conclusion
and
2]
it
is
rarely
rewarding
–
i.e.
worth
it.
But
reconcile
we
must.
So
in
this
post
I
want
to
share
my
personal
checklist
of
things
I
look
for
when
going
through
a
data
reconciliation
exercise.
Usually
this
helps
get
things
to
within
95%
and
then
I
give
up.
It
is
so
totally
not
worth
it
to
get
the
rest!
*
This
post
is
a
bit
technical,
but
a
marketer
should
be
able
to
understand
it.
So
if
you
are
starting
a
data
reconciliation
project
for
your
web
analytics
tools,
make
sure
you
check
for
these
things:
#1:
Comparing
Web
Logs
vs.
JavaScript
driven
tools.
Don’t.
#2:
First
&
Third
Party
Cookies.
The
gift
that
keeps
giving!
#3:
Imprecise
website
tagging.
#4:
Torture
Your
Vendor:
Check
Definitions
of
Key
Metrics.
#5:
Sessionization.
One
Tough
Nut.
#6:
URL
Parameter
Configuration.
The
Permanent
Tripwire.
#7:
Campaign
Parameter
Configuration.
The
Problem
of
the
Big.
#8:
Data
Sampling.
The
Hidden
“Angel”.
#9:
Order
of
the
Tags.
Love
it,
Hate
it,
Happens.
63
Intrigued?
Got
your
cup
of
coffee
or
beer?
Ready
to
become
sexycool?
Let’s
deep
dive.
#1:
Comparing
Web
Logs
vs.
JavaScript
driven
tools.
Don’t.
I
know,
I
know,
you
all
get
it.
Yes
you
understand
that
this
is
not
just
comparing
apples
and
oranges
but
more
like
comparing
apples
and
monkeys.
For
the
five
of
us
that
are
not
in
that
camp:
these
two
methods
of
collecting
data
are
very
different,
the
processing
and
storage
is
different,
the
things
that
impact
each
are
very
different.
So
if
you
are
using
these
two
methods
then
know
that
your
numbers
might
often
not
even
come
close
(by
that
I
mean
within
85
–
90%).
The
primary
things
that
web
logs
have
to
deal
with
are
effective
and
extensive
filtering
of
robots
(if
you
are
not
doing
this
you
are
screwed
regardless),
the
definition
of
unique
visitor
(are
you
using
cookies?
just
IP?
IP
+
User
Agent
ids?)
and,
this
is
increasingly
minor,
but
data
caching
(at
a
browser
or
server
level)
can
also
mean
missing
data
from
logs.
There
is
also
the
Very
Important
matter
of
Rich
Media
content:
Flash,
Video,
Flex,
Apps
whatever.
Without
extensive
custom
coding
your
weblogs
are
clueless
about
all
your
rich
media
experience
(time
spent,
interactions
etc).
Most
Tag
based
solutions
now
come
with
easy
to
implement
solutions
that
will
track
rich
media.
So
if
you
have
a
rich
media
site
know
that
that
will
cause
lots
of
differences
between
numbers
you
get
from
logs
and
numbers
you
get
from
tags.
The
primary
things
that
afflict
javascript
tags,
in
this
context
(more
later),
are
browsers
that
have
javascript
turned
off
(2‐3%
typical)
and
in
that
case
will
have
their
data
missing
from
tag
based
files.
Be
careful
when
you
try
to
compare
these
two
sources.
[Bonus
Reading:
The
Great
Web
Data
Capture
Debate:
Web
Logs
or
JavaScript
Tags?]
#2:
First
&
Third
Party
Cookies.
The
gift
that
keeps
giving!
Notice
the
sarcasm
there?
:
)
It
turns
out
that
if
you
use
first
party
cookies
or
third
party
cookies
can
have
a
huge
impact
on
your
metrics.
Metrics
like
Unique
Visitors,
Returning
Visits
etc.
So
check
that.
Typically
if
you
are
3rd
party
then
your
numbers
will
be
higher
(and
of
course
wrong),
compared
to
numbers
from
your
1st
party
cookie
based
tool.
Cookie
flushing
(clearing
cookies
upon
closing
browser
or
by
your
friendly
“anti
spyware”
tool)
affects
both
the
same
way.
Cookie
rejection
is
more
complex.
Many
new
browsers
don’t
even
accept
3rd
party
cookies
(bad).
Some
users
set
their
browsers
to
not
accept
any
cookies,
which
hurts
both
types
the
same.
We
should
have
been
done
away
with
this
a
long
time
ago
but
many
vendors
(including
paid!)
continue
to
use
third
party
as
default.
I
was
just
talking
to
a
customer
of
OmniCore
yesterday
and
they
just
finished
implementation
(eight
months!)
and
were
64
using
third
party
cookies.
I
wanted
to
pull
my
hair
out.
There
are
rare
exceptions
where
you
should
use
3rd
party
cookies.
But
unless
you
know
what
you
are
doing,
demand
first
party
cookies.
If
free
web
analytics
tools
now
offer
only
first
party
cookies
standard
there
is
no
reason
for
you
not
to
use
them.
End
of
soap
box.
Check
type
of
cookies,
it
will
explain
lots
of
your
data
differences.
[Bonus
Reading:
A
Primer
On
Web
Analytics
Visitor
Tracking
Cookies.]
#3:
Imprecise
website
tagging.
Other
than
cookies
I
think
this
is
your
next
BFF
in
data
recon’ing.
Most
of
us
use
javascript
tag
based
solutions.
In
case
of
web
log
files
the
server
atleast
collects
the
minimum
data
without
much
work
because
that
is
just
built
into
web
servers.
In
case
of
javascript
solutions,
sadly,
we
are
involved.
We
the
people!
The
problem
manifests
itself
in
two
ways.
Incorrectly
implemented
tags:
The
standard
javascript
tags
are
pretty
easy
to
implement.
Copy
/
paste
and
happy
birthday.
But
then
you
can
add
/
adjust
/
caress
them
to
do
more
things
(now
you
know
why
it
takes
8
months
to
implement).
You
can
pass
sprops
and
evars
and
user_defined_values
and
variables
and
bacteria.
You
should
make
sure
your
WebTrends
/
Google
Analytics
/
IndexTools
/
Unica
are
implemented
correctly
i.e.
passing
data
back
to
the
vendor
as
you
expect.
Else
of
course
woe
be
on
you!
To
check
that
you
have
implemented
the
tags
right,
and
the
sprops
are
not
passing
evars
and
that
user
defined
values
are
not
sleeping
with
the
vars,
I
like
using
tools
like
IEWatch
Professional.
[I
am
not
affiliated
with
them
in
any
way.]
[Update:
From
my
friend
Jennifer,
if
you
are
really
really
into
this
stuff,
3
more:
Firebug,
Web
Developer
Toolkit
&
Web
Bug.]
Your
tech
person
can
use
it
and
validate
and
assure
you
that
the
various
tools
implemented
are
passing
correct
data.
Incompletely
implemented
tags:
This
one’s
simple.
Your
IT
department
(or
brother)
implemented
Omniture
tags
on
some
pages
and
Google
Analytics
on
most
pages.
Well
you
have
a
problem.
Actually
this
is
usually
the
culprit
in
a
majority
of
the
cases.
Make
sure
you
implement
both
tools
on
all
the
same
pages
(if
not
all
the
pages
on
the
site).
Mercifully
your
tech
person
(or
dare
I
say
you!)
can
use
some
affordable
tools
to
check
for
this.
You
would
have
noticed
in
my
book
Web
Analytics:
An
Hour
A
Day
I
recommended
REL
Software’s
Web
Link
Validator.
I
continue
to
like
it.
Of
course
WASP,
from
our
good
65
friend
Stephane,
did
not
exist
then
and
I
am
quite
fond
of
it
as
well.
If
you
want
to
have
a
faster
reconciliation
between
your
tools,
make
sure
you
have
implemented
all
your
analytics
tools
correctly
and
completely.
[Bonus
Reading:
Web
Analytics
JavaScript
Tags
Implementation
Best
Practices..]
#4:
Torture
Your
Vendor:
Check
Definitions
of
Key
Metrics.
Perhaps
you
noticed
in
the
very
first
image
that
StatCounter,
ClickTracks
and
Google
Analytics
were
showing
three
completely
different
numbers
for
Feb.
But
notice
that
they
also
all
give
that
metric
a
different
name.
Visits.
Visitors.
Unique
Visitors.
For
the
same
metrics,
“sessions.”
How
exasperating!
As
an
industry
we
have
grown
organically
and
each
vendor
has
hence
created
their
own
metrics
or
at
other
times
taken
standard
metrics,
and
just
to
mess
with
us,
decided
to
call
them
something
else.
Here,
honest
to
God,
are
three
definitions
of
conversion
rate
I
have
gotten
from
web
analytics
vendors:
Conversion
=
Orders
/
Unique
Visitors
Conversion
=
Orders
/
Visits
Conversion
=
Items
Ordered
/
Clicks
What!
Items
Ordered
/
Clicks?
Oh,
the
Humanity!
So
before
you
tar
and
feather
a
particular
web
analytics
tool
(or
worse
listen
to
the
vendors
talking
points)
and
decide
which
is
better,
torture
them
to
understand
exactly
what
the
precise
definition
is
of
the
metric
you
are
comparing.
It
can
be
hard.
Early
in
my
career
(just
a
few
years
ago,
I
am
not
that
old!)
I
called
the
top
vendor
and
tried
to
get
the
definition
of
Unique
Visitor.
What
I
saw
on
the
screen
was
Daily
Unique
Visitor.
I
wanted
to
know
if
it
was
the
same
as,
my
tool,
ClickTracks’s
definition
(which
was
count
of
distinct
persistent
cookie
ids
for
whatever
time
period
choosen).
The
VP’s
answer:
“What
do
you
want
to
measure?
We
can
do
it
for
you.”
Me:
“I
am
looking
at
Unique
Visitors
in
CT
for
this
month.
I
am
looking
at
Unique
Visitors
for
that
month
in
OmniCoreTrends,
I
see
a
number,
it
does
not
tie.”
VP:
“We
can
measure
Monthly
Unique
Visitors
for
you
and
add
it
to
your
account.”
Me:
“What
if
I
want
to
compare
Unique
Visitors
for
a
week?”
VP:
“We
can
add
Weekly
Unique
Visitors
to
your
account.”
Me:
(Getting
impressed
at
the
savviness
at
stone
walling)
“What
your
definition
of
66
Unique
Visitors?”
VP:
“What
is
it
that
you
need
to
measure?
We
can
add
it
to
you
account.”
You
have
to
give
her
/
him
this:
they
are
very
good
at
their
job.
But
as
a
user
my
experience
was
bad.
Even
if
a
metric
has
the
same
name
between
the
tools
check
with
the
vendor.
It
is
possible
you
are
comparing
apples
and
pineapples.
Torture
your
vendor.
[Bonus
Reading:
Web
Metrics
Demystified,
Web
Analytics
Standards:
26
New
Metrics
Definitions.]
#5.
Sessionization.
One
Tough
Nut.
You
can
think
of
this
as
a
unique
case
of
a
metric’s
definition
but
it
is
just
so
important
that
I
wanted
to
pull
it
out
separately.
“Sessions”
are
important
because
they
essentially
measure
the
metric
we
know
as
Visit
(or
Visitors).
But
taking
your
clicks
and
converting
that
into
a
session
on
the
website
can
be
very
different
with
each
vendor.
Some
vendors
will
time
out
session
after
29
minutes
of
inactivity.
Some
will
do
that
after
15
mins.
Which
means
right
there
you
could
be
looking
at
the
number
1
in
visits
or
the
number
2.
One
last
thing,
check
the
“max
session
timeout”
settings
between
the
tools.
Some
might
have
a
hard
limit
of
30
mins,
others
have
one
(in
using
a
top
paid
tool
I
found
Visits
that
lasted
1140
mins
or
2160
mins
–
visitors
went
to
the
site,
left
the
page
open,
came
back
to
work,
clicked
and
kept
browsing,
or
came
back
after
the
weekend).
Imagine
what
it
does
to
Average
Time
on
Site!
Probe
this
important
process
because
it
affects
the
most
foundational
of
all
metric
(Visits
or
Visitors
–
Yes
they
are
the
same
one,
aarrrrhh!).
[Bonus
Reading:
Convert
Data
Skeptics:
Document,
Educate
&
Pick
Your
Poison.]
#6.
URL
Parameter
Configuration.
The
Permanent
Tripwire.
Life
was
so
sweet
when
all
the
sites
were
static.
URL’s
were
simple:
http://www.bestbuy.com/video/hot_hot_hottie_hot.html
It
was
easy
for
any
web
analytics
tool
to
understand
visits
to
that
page
and
hence
count
page
views.
The
problem
is
that
the
web
became
dynamic
and
urls
for
web
pages
now
look
like
this:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=abcat0800000&type=category
(phone
category
page)
or
http://www.bestbuy.com/site//olspage.jsp?id=1205537515180&skuId=8793861&type=
product
(particular
phone
page)
67
or
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8793861&productCategoryId=abcat08
02001&type=product&tab=7&id=1205537515180#productdetail
(same
phone
page,
clicked
on
a
tab
on
that
page)
The
problem
is
that
while
web
analytics
tools
have
gotten
better
and
can
probably
understand
that
first
page
(phone
category
page),
it
is
not
quite
as
straight
forward
for
the
next
two.
They
contain
“tracking
parameters”
or
“system
parameters”
(crap
from
the
server)
or
other
junk.
Different
pieces
of
information,
some
worth
ignoring
and
others
you
ignore
at
your
own
peril.
Your
web
analytics
tool
has
a
hard
time
taking
all
these
pieces
and
painting
the
right
portrait
(or
count
the
page
views
correctly).
So
what
you
have
to
do
is
sit
down
with
your
beloved
IT
folks
and
first
you
spend
time
documenting
what
all
the
junk
in
the
url
is.
Things
like
skuId,
productCategoryId,
type,
tab,
ID.
Some
of
these
make
a
web
page
unique,
like
say
skuId,
productCategoryId
and
tab.
I.E.
their
presence
and
values
contained
mean
its
a
unique
page.
So
skuId=8793861
means
one
phone
and
skuId=8824739
is
another.
But
there
will
be
some
that
don’t
mean
anything.
For
example
it
does
not
matter
if
type=product
is
in
the
URL
or
not.
Here’s
your
To
Do:
Go
teach
your
web
analytics
tool
which
parameters
to
use
and
which
to
ignore.
And
here’s
how
that
part
looks
like
for
Google
Analytics…
If
you
don’t
do
this
then
each
tool
will
try
to
make
their
own
guesses.
Which
means
they’ll
do
it
imprecisely.
Which
means
they
won’t
tie.
Much
worse
they’ll
be
living
in
the
land
of
“truthiness”!
And
make
sure
you
do
the
same
configuration
in
both
the
tools!
That
will
get
you
going
in
terms
of
ensuring
that
the
all‐important
Page
Views
metric
will
be
correct
(or
at
least
less
inaccurate).
I
won’t
touch
on
it
here
but
if
you
are
using
Event
Logging
for
Web
2.0
/
rich
media
experiences
it
adds
more
pain.
Or
if
you
are
generating
fake
page
views
to
do
various
things
like
tracking
form
submissions
or
to
track
outbound
links
(boo
Google
Analytics!)
or
other
such
stuff
then
do
that
the
same
way
between
tools.
Just
be
aware
of
that.
By
doing
the
right
config
for
your
URL
parameters
in
your
web
analytics
tool
you
are
ensuring
accurate
count
of
your
page
views,
and
across
all
the
tools
you
are
comparing.
68
Well
worth
investing
some
effort
for
this
cause.
[Bonus
Reading:
Data
Mining
And
Predictive
Analytics
On
Web
Data
Works?
Nyet!]
#7.
Campaign
Parameter
Configuration.
The
Problem
of
the
Big.
Ok
maybe
all
of
us
run
campaigns.
But
the
“big”
do
this
a
lot
more.
If
you
run
lots
of
campaigns
(Email,
Affiliates,
Paid
Search,
Display,
Mobile,
etc)
then
it
is
very
important
that
you
tag
your
campaigns
correctly
and
then
go
configure
your
web
analytics
tools
correctly
to
ensure
your
campaigns
are
reported
correct,
your
referrers
are
reported
correctly,
your
revenue
and
conversions
are
attributed
correctly.
Here
is
a
simple
example.
If
you
search
for
Omniture
in
Yahoo:
You
end
up
here:
http://www.omniture.com/static/278?s_scid=680217600000000309&clicksource=stand
ard&OVRAW=omniture&OVKEY=omniture&OVMTC=standard&OVADID=4822371011&
OVKWID=130976483511
If
you
search
for
Omniture
on
Google,
you
end
up
here:
http://www.omniture.com/static/278?s_kwcid=omniture|2109240905&s_scid=omnitur
e|2109240905
You’ll
note
that
Omniture’s
done
a
great
job
of
tagging
their
campaigns.
Absolutely
lovely.
Now.
.
.
.
69
Let’s
say
Omniture
is
using
WebTrends
and
IndexTools
on
their
website
to
do
web
analytics.
Then
they
would
have
to
go
into
each
of
those
tools
and
“teach”
them
all
campaign
parameters
they
are
using,
the
hierarchies
and
what
not.
That
will
ensure
that
when
they
click
on
Paid
Search
tab
/
button
/
link
in
the
tool
that
these
campaigns
will
be
reported
correctly.
You’ll
have
to
repeat
this
for
your
affiliate
and
email
and
display
and
all
other
things
you
are
doing.
If
you
have
two
tools
you’ll
have
to
do
it
twice.
And
each
tool
might
not
accept
this
data
in
the
same
way.
For
WebTrends
you
might
have
to
place
it
in
the
URL
stem,
in
IndexTools
you
might
have
to
put
it
in
the
cookies,
in
Google
Analytics
it
might
have
to
be
a
customized
javascript.
Suffice
it
to
say
not
a
walk
in
the
park.
(Now
you’ll
understand
why
clean
campaign
tracking
is
the
hardest
thing
to
do,
see
link
immediately
below.)
[Bonus
Video:
Evolve
Intelligently:
Achieve
Web
Analytics
Nirvana,
Successfully.]
#8.
Data
Sampling.
The
Hidden
“Angel”
This
is
a
problem
(see
“angel”
:))
that
many
people
are
not
aware
of,
and
under
estimate
in
terms
of
its
impact.
But
I
want
to
emphasize
that
it
will,
usually,
only
impact
large
to
larger
companies.
There
will
be
more
about
sampling
at
the
link
at
the
end
of
this
section.
But
in
a
nutshell
there
are
two
kinds
of
sampling
in
web
analytics.
Data
Sampling
at
Source:
Web
Analytics
is
getting
to
be
very
expensive
if
you
are
a
site
of
a
decent
size.
If
you
are
decent
size
(or
plus
some)
then
a
typical
strategy
from
the
paid
web
analytics
vendor
is
not
to
collect
all
your
data
–
because
your
web
analytics
bill
is
based
on
page
views
you
send
over.
So
you
don’t
tag
all
your
pages
or
you
tag
all
your
pages
but
they
only
store
a
sample
of
data.
This
can
cause
a
data
reconciliation
issue.
Data
Sampling
at
“Run
Time”:
In
this
case
all
the
data
is
collected
(by
your
free
or
paid
tool)
but
when
you
run
your
reports
/
queries
it
will
be
sampled
to
make
it
run
fast.
Sometimes
you
have
the
control
over
the
sampling
(like
in
ClickTracks)
and
at
other
times
not
quite
(like
in
Omniture
Discover
or
WebTrends
Marketing
Lab
etc)
and
at
other
times
still
no
control
at
all
(like
in
Google
Analytics).
Sampling
at
“run
time”
is
always
better
because
you
have
all
the
data
(should
you
be
that
paranoid).
But
as
you
can
imagine
depending
on
the
tool
you
are
using
data
sampling
can
greatly
impact
the
Key
Performance
Indicators
you
are
using.
This
means
all
/
none
/
some
of
your
data
will
not
reconcile.
So
investigate
this,
most
vendors
are
not
as
transparent
about
this
as
they
should
be,
push
‘em.
70
[Bonus
Reading:
Web
Analytics
Data
Sampling
411.]
#9.
Order
of
the
Tags.
Love
it,
Hate
it,
Happens.
This,
being
the
last
one,
is
not
the
hugest
of
deals.
But
on
heavily
trafficked
websites,
or
ones
that
are
just
heavy
(can
sites
be
obese?),
this
can
also
affect
the
differences
in
the
data.
As
your
web
page
starts
to
load
the
tags
are
the
last
thing
to
load
(a
very
good
thing,
always
have
your
tags
just
above
the
[/body]
tags,
please).
If
you
have
more
than
one
tag
then
they
get
executed
in
the
order
they
are
implemented.
Sometimes
on
fat
pages
some
of
the
tags
might
just
not
get
executed.
It
happens
because
the
user
has
already
clicked.
It
happens
because
you
have
custom
hacked
the
bejesus
out
of
the
tag
and
it
is
now
a
obese
tag,
and
does
not
let
the
other,
Heidi
Klum
type
sexy
and
lean
tags
load
in
the
time
available.
If
you
want
that
last
amount
of
extra
checking,
switch
the
order
of
the
tags
and
see
if
it
helps.
It
might
help
explain
the
last
percent
of
difference
you
are
dying
to
get.
:)
More
from
Avinash:
In
case
you
are
in
the
process
of
considering
a
web
analytics
tool,
here
is
my,
truly
comprehensive
(more
than
you
ever
wanted
to
know)
guide
through
the
process:
How
to
Choose
a
Web
Analytics
Tool:
A
Radical
Alternative
Web
Analytics
Tools
Comparison:
A
Recommendation
Video:
Web
Analytics
Vendor
Tools
Comparison
(And
One
Challenge)
Find
Your
Web
Analytics
Soul
Mate
(How
To
Run
An
Effective
Tool
Pilot)
Web
Analytics
Tool
Selection:
10
Questions
to
ask
Vendors
Web
Analytics
Tool
Selection:
3
Questions
to
ask
Yourself
F. A great resource for all interactive media professionals is TechCrunch. Here’s a
submission by one of its reporters, Eric Schoenfeld…
Real‐time
search
is
HOT
June
28
2009
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/06/26/the‐real‐time‐search‐dilemma‐consciousness‐
versus‐memory/
One of the hottest areas of search right now is real-time search, which attempts to find
results based on what is happening right now. Twitter’s search engine fast becoming one
of the key ways to navigate the service and discover what people are thinking about any
subject at any given moment. Facebook is testing out ways to let you search your
personal stream. Google is waking up to the challenge as well (Larry Page is
particularly concerned with keeping up). Every week, it seems, a new startup launches
tackling real time search from a different angle. (Collecta, One Riot, Scoopler, Topsy,
Almost.at, Tweetmeme, CrowdEye, Omgili, to name a few). They are trying to apply
real time search to all the different streams of information flowing over the Internet right
71
now: Twitter, Facebook feeds, Digg submissions, blog comments, RSS feeds, Flickr
photos, YouTube uploads, shared links on bit.ly and elsewhere. The list keeps getting
longer every day. There is something about human nature that makes us want to prioritize
information by how recent it is, and that is the fundamental appeal of real-time search.
The difference between real time search and regular search didn’t really crystallize for
me until I had a conversation with Edo Segal... “Real time taps into consciousness,” says
Segal, “search taps into memory. That is why it so potent. You experience the world in
real time.”
How do you search consciousness? …The real-time search dilemma centers precisely
around how to rank results, and how to resolve the tension between recency and
relevancy. [Microblogs like Twitter are a] chronological stream of the most recent
Tweets containing a particular set of keywords… Yet not being able to filter that stream
generates too much noise. Other approaches attempt to add in other factors. OneRiot, for
instance, is developing PulseRank, which takes into account the freshness of the
information, the link authority of the Webpage where it is coming from, the authority of
the person who is sharing the link, and the velocity with which the information is being
passed around the Web. This seems like a reasonable approach, but it may not catch
something important as fast as simply watching the unadulterated stream.
When everyone is talking about Michael Jackson or Iran above and beyond the normal
level of chatter for those topics, that is when you want to know that you need to pay
attention. So maybe real time search is more like an alert system. Can you search
consciousness, or can you only watch it pass by?
G. Jerome Nadel’s online white paper on digital approaches…
Digital
User
Experience
Strategies:
A
Roadmap
for
the
Post‐Web
2.0
World
Jerome
Nadel,
chief
experience
officer
for
Human
Factors
International,
wrote
a
20‐
page
white
paper
titled
“Digital
User
Experience
Strategies:
A
Roadmap
for
the
Post‐
Web
2.0
World”
that
is
available
in
full
online
here:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/ppt‐download/uxswhitepaperfinal‐124284898878‐
phpapp02.pdf?Signature=Q2cnl0Q0U6FVzBvPpKFMVf6oPeQ%3D&Expires=1247347106
&AWSAccessKeyId=1Z5T9H8PQ39V6F79V8G2
Nadel
notes
we
have
to
consider
“the
fundamental
way
in
which
technology
has
changed
human
behavior.”
He
includes
illustrations
assembled
for
various
clients
that
show
the
ways
in
which
a
unified
vision
that
serves
all
stakeholders
can
be
accomplished.
This
chart
example
was
prepared
for
Fidelity
International’s
sales
and
marketing
operations
and
customer‐service:
72
He
notes
that
personas
are
generally
created
to
represent
the
various
people
the
client
organization
is
connecting
with.
Personas
are
used
to
identify
user
groups,
research
their
needs
and
motivations,
develop
concepts
for
connection
and
validate
designs.
In
this
way,
digital
user
experience
strategies
can
be
developed.
73
3.
Collecting
valuable
data
Web analytics (read the link for deeper, specific details) is the process of studying data
to understand the influence and potential impact of your communications. It is
accomplished through the use of software tools that help you collect and assess Internet
data. On-site analytics refers to assessment of visitors’ activities on your site, including,
for instance, assessing which landing page is most likely to drive a purchase or a response
you are seeking to inspire. Off-site analytics refers to measurement of a site’s potential
audience, share and buzz.
Many vendors today provide analytics software and services. The field is constantly
changing as the Internet and the World Wide Web evolve and as new opportunities for
analyzing data present themselves. If you are an interactive media professional whose job
includes building a community around your product, you must monitor changes in the
field of web analytics. A great way to do this, again, is to monitor the mindstreaming of
thought leaders in the field, including people like Tim O’Reilly and companies such as
Google and Facebook.
Google Analytics is a good place to begin your analytics education because it offers a
significant amount of free data. It includes advanced segmentation, custom reporting and
motion charts that can help you discover insights about the people you interact with in
your communications. Whether you hire another outside firm to do your web analytics or
not, the Google Analytics Blog is a good source to follow if you are an interactive media
professional. It offers a vast amount of background information on audience analysis,
including a section titled Beginner Topics. Even those with a math phobia will find that
today’s software solutions make it easy to track information about the use of the
interactive communications you post online.
Interactive media professionals who are leveraging the top online social applications such
as Facebook and Twitter will find a wealth of third-party developers who are offering
tools to accomplish specific types of audience analysis on these popular sites. It pays to
read the official and unofficial blogs for developers and marketers of Facebook and
Twitter. Through this you can learn about new tools to leverage, for instance, Facebook
“fan” pages allow builders to access data to a number of “page insights” including
geographic and demographic data on followers.
Commonly
used
language
in
web
analytics
includes
the
following
terms:
Hit
‐
A
request
for
a
file
from
the
web
server.
Available
only
in
log
analysis.
The
number
of
hits
received
by
a
website
is
frequently
cited
to
assert
its
popularity,
but
this
number
is
extremely
misleading
and
dramatically
over‐estimates
popularity.
A
single
web‐page
typically
consists
of
multiple
(often
dozens)
of
discrete
files,
each
of
which
is
counted
as
a
hit
as
the
page
is
downloaded,
so
the
number
of
hits
is
really
an
arbitrary
number
more
reflective
of
the
complexity
of
individual
pages
on
the
website
than
the
website's
actual
popularity.
The
total
number
of
visitors
or
page
views
provides
a
more
realistic
and
accurate
assessment
of
popularity.
Page
view
‐
A
request
for
a
file
whose
type
is
defined
as
a
page
in
log
analysis.
An
occurrence
of
the
script
being
run
in
page
tagging.
In
log
analysis,
a
single
page
view
may
generate
multiple
74
hits
as
all
the
resources
required
to
view
the
page
(images,
.js
and
.css
files)
are
also
requested
from
the
web
server.
Visit
/
Session
‐
A
series
of
requests
from
the
same
uniquely
identified
client
with
a
set
timeout,
often
30
minutes.
A
visit
contains
one
or
more
page
views.
First
Visit
/
First
Session
‐
A
visit
from
a
visitor
who
has
not
made
any
previous
visits.
Visitor
/
Unique
Visitor
/
Unique
User
‐
The
uniquely
identified
client
generating
requests
on
the
web
server
(log
analysis)
or
viewing
pages
(page
tagging)
within
a
defined
time
period
(i.e.
day,
week
or
month).
A
Unique
Visitor
counts
once
within
the
timescale.
A
visitor
can
make
multiple
visits.
Identification
is
made
to
the
visitor's
computer,
not
the
person,
usually
via
cookie
and/or
IP+User
Agent.
Thus
the
same
person
visiting
from
two
different
computers
will
count
as
two
Unique
Visitors.
Repeat
Visitor
‐
A
visitor
that
has
made
at
least
one
previous
visit.
The
period
between
the
last
and
current
visit
is
called
visitor
recency
and
is
measured
in
days.
New
Visitor
‐
A
visitor
that
has
not
made
any
previous
visits.
This
definition
creates
a
certain
amount
of
confusion
(see
common
confusions
below),
and
is
sometimes
substituted
with
analysis
of
first
visits.
Impression
‐
An
impression
is
each
time
an
advertisement
loads
on
a
user's
screen.
Anytime
you
see
a
banner,
that
is,
an
impression.
Singletons
‐
The
number
of
visits
where
only
a
single
page
is
viewed.
While
not
a
useful
metric
in
and
of
itself
the
number
of
singletons
is
indicative
of
various
forms
of
Click
fraud
as
well
as
being
used
to
calculate
bounce
rate
and
in
some
cases
to
identify
automatons
bots).
Bounce
Rate
‐
The
percentage
of
visits
where
the
visitor
enters
and
exits
at
the
same
page
without
visiting
any
other
pages
on
the
site
in
between.
%
Exit
‐
The
percentage
of
users
who
exit
from
a
page.
Visibility
time
‐
The
time
a
single
page
(or
a
blog,
Ad
Banner...)
is
viewed.
Session
Duration
‐
Average
amount
of
time
that
visitors
spend
on
the
site
each
time
they
visit.
This
metric
can
be
complicated
by
the
fact
that
analytics
programs
can
not
measure
the
length
of
the
final
page
view.
Page
View
Duration
/
Time
on
Page
‐
Average
amount
of
time
that
visitors
spend
on
each
page
of
the
site.
As
with
Session
Duration,
this
metric
is
complicated
by
the
fact
that
analytics
programs
can
not
measure
the
length
of
the
final
page
view.
Page
Depth
/
Page
Views
per
Session
‐
Page
Depth
is
the
average
number
of
page
views
a
visitor
consumes
before
ending
their
session.
It
is
calculated
by
dividing
total
number
of
page
views
by
total
number
of
sessions
and
is
also
called
Page
Views
per
Session
or
PV/Session.
Frequency
/
Session
per
Unique
‐
Frequency
measures
how
often
visitors
come
to
a
website.
It
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
total
number
of
sessions
(or
visits)
by
the
total
number
of
unique
visitors.
Sometimes
it
is
used
to
measure
the
loyalty
of
your
audience.
Click
path
‐
the
sequence
of
hyperlinks
one
or
more
website
visitors
follows
on
a
given
site.
The main industry bodies tied to web analytics include Jicwebs (Joint Industry
Committee for Web Standards, which offers a “jargon-buster” link you can check out),
75
ABCe (Auditing Bureau of Circulations electronic, UK and Europe), the WAA (Web
Analytics Association, US) and to a lesser extent the IAB (Interactive Advertising
Bureau). Following their reports and reading industry trade publications online keeps you
up to speed on current trends, introduces you to new data and helps you identify the
people and companies to watch and learn from.
For instance, these eMarketer pieces on video tactics…
From
http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1006848
Marketers Eye Online Video for 2009
JANUARY 9, 2009
Increasing
spending
to
reach
viewers
Marketers
in
the
US
will
take
a
closer
look
at
online
video
in
2009,
according
to
a
survey
conducted
in
December
2008
by
PermissionTV.
More
than
two‐thirds
of
respondents
said
they
would
focus
their
budgets
on
online
video
this
year.
More
than
one‐half
of
respondents
also
expected
to
be
implementing
or
extending
an
online
video
project
in
Q2
2009.
Less
than
one‐third
said
they
were
doing
so
currently.
Notably,
e‐mail
was
missing
from
the
ad
tactics
respondents
were
asked
about.
Matt
Kaplan,
vice
president
at
PermissionTV,
told
eMarketer
that
survey
participants
were
not
asked
specifically
about
their
e‐mail
budget
plans.
Although
the
tactic
is
a
staple
of
nearly
all
digital
marketing
campaigns,
spending
on
e‐mail
is
far
lower
than
for
many
other
formats.
eMarketer
estimates
that
spending
on
online
video
advertising
will
grow
76
to
$4.6
billion
in
2013,
representing
a
more
than
sevenfold
increase
from
the
$587
million
spent
on
the
format
in
2008.
More
than
four
out
of
five
Internet
users
will
watch
online
video
ads
in
2012,
eMarketer
projects,
up
from
the
two‐thirds
who
did
so
in
2008.
Online
video
ads
are
expected
to
change
the
nature
of
online
video
inventory
as
well.
As
ad‐supported
video
grows,
the
balance
of
the
inventory
will
tilt
toward
longer‐form
content,
according
to
a
Diffusion
Group
study.
This
supports
the
view
that
more
full‐length
TV
content
will
be
viewed
online
with
ad
support.
The
study
projected
that
in
2013,
long‐form
video
will
represent
69.4%
of
ad
revenues,
up
from
41.6%
in
2008.
In
the
same
timeframe,
the
share
of
short‐form
video
will
decline
to
28.7%
from
54.8%.
http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1007111
How People Share Online Video
MAY 28, 2009
Digital
WOM
[word
of
mouth]
In
a
world
of
continuous
technological
change,
the
concept
of
“new”
can
get
old.
Take
online
video,
for
example.
A
few
short
years
ago,
the
term
“online
video”
was
wishful
thinking.
Clips
could
only
be
slowly
downloaded.
They
had
to
be
viewed
in
tiny
windows
on
the
computer
screen.
Sound
and
graphics
were
primitive.
Video
was
hardly
a
killer
app.
But
then,
in
a
rush
came—sometime
between
2005
and
2006—video‐sharing
sites
that
all
had
three
basic
elements
in
common:
•
Flash
Player
technology
that
enabled
instant
viewing
in
the
browser,
without
77
•
•
downloading
Uploadability
that
made
file‐sharing
with
friends
(as
well
as
viewers
around
the
world)
quick
and
easy
Embedding
code
that
allowed
users
to
post
video
clips
on
Webpages
and
blogs
Suddenly
video
was
an
open,
consumer‐driven
platform,
with
virtually
no
cost
of
entry.
As
a
result,
online
video
moved
from
niche
to
mass
market,
and
in
the
process
became
one
of
the
fastest‐growing
media
platforms
in
history.
According
to
“The
Global
Web
Index,”
from
Trendstream,
with
research
conducted
by
Lightspeed
Research,
early
this
year
72%
of
US
Internet
users
watched
video
clips
monthly—making
video
bigger
than
blogging
or
social
networking.
According
to
the
survey,
62%
of
US
Internet
users
watched
at
least
one
clip
a
week,
a
figure
that
Lightspeed
analysts
translated
into
97
million
weekly
viewers.
By
contrast,
Nielsen
Online
pegged
the
number
of
US
online
video
viewers
in
April
at
nearly
117
million.
“Web
users
want
to
participate
at
every
stage,
including
the
creation
and
sharing
of
material,”
said
Tom
Smith
of
Trendstream.
The
age
of
online
video
viewers
trends
younger:
82%
of
teens
(16‐to‐17‐year‐olds)
and
young
adults
(18
to
24)
streamed
video,
compared
with
73%
of
Generation
X
(25
to
34)
and
65%
of
older
boomers
(55
to
64)
who
said
they
watched.
The
most
widely
used
platform
for
discovering
and
viewing
video
online
was
YouTube,
followed
by
e‐mail,
music
sites,
Yahoo!
and
news
sites.
Sharing
appears
to
happen
mainly
among
close
friends,
as
72%
of
video‐sharers
sent
to
just
one,
two
or
three
people.
GREAT
VIDEO
CASE
STUDIES:
The
Dark
Knight
Viral
“Why
So
Serious?”
campaign
won
the
Cannes
2009
Cyber
Grand
Prix
in
the
viral
category.
http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/the‐dark‐knight‐viral‐why‐so‐serious‐case‐study/.
It
was
a
huge
global
success,
with
more
than
10
million
unique
players
participating.
The
Cannes
2009
grand
prix‐winning
case
study
is
http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/best‐
job‐in‐the‐world‐case‐study/
from
Queensland's
"Best
Job
In
the
World"
campaign.
78
79
4.
Internet
user
numbers
and
site
stats
Get site stats from Alexa - http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ can compare #s also at Google
- http://www.google.com/trends?q=facebook%2C+myspace. In addition get data from
ComScore and Nielsen, or one of the old standbys for Internet user statistics, Internet
World Stats (http://www.internetworldstats.com). For visualizations of traffic, try
Akamai’s charts – http://www.akamai.com/html/technology/visualizing_akamai.html.
Crazy Egg is a good source: http://crazyegg.com/. Data and numbers also originate from
the Pew Internet & American Life Project – http://www.pewinternet.org
Nielsen Table 1: Top 10 Parent Companies/Div June 2009 (U.S., Home and Work)
Parent Unique Audience (000) Time Per Person (hh:mm:ss)
1. Google 155,606 2:31:08
2. Microsoft 139,099 2:12:20
3. Yahoo! 134,304 3:15:55
4. AOL LLC 92,705 2:43:10
5. News Corp. Online 90,308 1:54:59
6. Facebook 87,254 4:39:33
7. InterActiveCorp 67,283 0:20:05
8. eBay 67,208 1:17:59
9. Apple Computer 59,663 1:19:33
10. Amazon 59,552 0:25:41
Source: Nielsen NetView
Example: The data indicates that 59.6 million home and work Internet users visited at least one
of the Amazon-owned sites or launched an Amazon-owned application during the month, and
each person spent, on average, a total of 25 minutes and 41 seconds at one or more of their sites
or applications.The parent level is defined as a consolidation of multiple domains and URLs
owned by a single company or division. The brand level is defined as a consolidation of multiple
domains and URLs that has a consistent collection of branded content.
Table 2: Top 10 Web Brands for June 2009 (U.S., Home and Work)
Brand Unique Audience (000) Time Per Person (hh:mm:ss)
1. Google 147,778 1:48:58
2. Yahoo! 133,139 3:15:59
3. MSN/WindowsLive/Bing 111,352 2:02:11
4. Microsoft 96,071 0:49:50
5. AOL Media Network 92,705 2:43:10
6. YouTube 87,686 1:12:57
7. Facebook 87,254 4:39:33
8. Fox Interactive Media 72,724 2:14:21
9. Apple 59,663 1:19:33
10. Wikipedia 54,867 0:17:05
Source: Nielsen NetView
Table 3: Average U.S. Internet Usage, Combined Home & Work, Month of June 2009
Sessions/Visits per Person 51
Domains Visited per Person 88
Web Pages per Person 2,569
Duration of a Web Page Viewed 65:10:25
PC Time per Person 0:00:57
Active Digital Media Universe 195,974,309
Current Digital Media Universe Estimate 234,275,000
Source: Nielsen NetView
About Nielsen:
The Nielsen Company’s online and mobile solutions deliver comprehensive, independent
measurement and analysis of digital audiences. For more information, please visit
www.nielsen.com. Also, visit our blog at www.nielsen-online.com/blog.
80
5.
Conducting
usability
research
What makes interaction tools usable at the highest level of success?
A validation or verification test is usually conducted late in the development cycle to
measure the usability of a product against established parameters, to confirm that
problems that were identified earlier have been remedied and to ascertain whether new
problems have been introduced.
The
intent
is
to
establish
that
the
product
meets
expected
standards,
created
through
previous
usability
tests,
marketing
surveys,
interviews
with
users
and
brainstorming
by
the
development
team.
A matrix test design allows you to test a product across a range of roles according to
different classifiers or variables. For instance, various people have differing levels of
expertise in different categories.
The minimum number of people tested should be at least four or five people per type or
matrix cell – research indicates this is the minimum number to expose most usability
problems – you should reach for more, at least eight or more to be comfortable with
results.
To select participants in the usability test, assemble a screening questionnaire to present
over the phone, online or in person. This can be simple or detailed, depending on your
needs, but it should give you an understanding of the selected users backgrounds and
identify specific selection criteria (age range, sex, or any factors needed to do the
appropriate testing).
To establish a target for your selected user testing participants, you could fill out one or
more of these questionnaires yourself with the ideal responses and then shoot for finding
those people in your search for test participants. You need to characterize your users.
One way to identify a steady population of usability testers in your audience is to
establish a link on your site that allows users to opt in to participation – when a study
comes up you just go to that selection of people to find participants.
Many new online applications are tested this way when they are in the “beta” stage of
development, ready for a select group of users to explore experimentally and offer
feedback for improvement. Some online applications stay in the “beta” phase for months
and even years; one example is Google’s Gmail.
An example of guidelines for observing a usability test:
81
Prepare an orientation script that is read the same way to all participants in usability
testing. It should describe what will happen during the test session, setting the tone in the
minds of the participants and helping them understand their role.
•
Be sure to assure them that the product is being tested and they are not, so they
can relax into a normal state of response.
•
Read this just before beginning the testing activities.
•
Keep the tone of the script professional and friendly.
•
Keep it short.
•
Ask for honest feedback – pros and cons, not a severe critique but also not a
cream-puff assessment.
When you conduct a small-group usability test you should include a nondisclosure form,
a permission form for recording the usability test and – if this is a test for a public
institution or agency with an IRB – an informed consent form. Example of a
nondisclosure and recording consent form:
82
In the pre-test questions, ask for participant attitudes and first impressions about the
product:
•
•
•
Does it look easy to use?
Do you understand the terminology?
Is it similar or very different from other products or earlier releases of the same
product?
These initial impressions set the stage for the actual usage of the product, and it is
important to get the participant’s impressions before the usage occurs. You could also reask the same questions in a post-test after the user tries the product.
After testing you compile a report reflecting results. An example:
83
It is important to include people with disabilities or other underserved publics in your
usability testing.
Tips for working with older participants:
84
6.
About
audience,
participants,
creator‐consumers
Tips
excerpted
from
Frontend.com,
Dublin,
Ireland,
http://www.frontend.com/
The
Experience
is
Key
It is important to remember that the experience a person has using a product or service is
and the emotion he or she feels for it is every bit as important as that product or services’
usability.
85
Deep
Down
We
Are
All
Shallow
People
Given the choice between two otherwise equal options we will all choose the better
looking one. People enjoy aesthetically pleasing items – it is important to bear this fact in
mind. Just as we pay attention to the usability of a product we must also pay attention to
its aesthetics. If a product is aesthetically unappealing people will be less likely to use it,
no matter how user friendly it is.
The relationship between aesthetics and usability is complex. Research carried out by
Noam Tractinsky among others has shown the more aesthetically pleasing an item is the
more usable people will believe it to be. As such it is vital that in designing items we find
a balance between usability and aesthetics.
But apart from the aesthetics and usability there is another crucial element to design. The
emotional aspect.
Emotions
are
a
Response
to
the
User
Experience
When people bought music in the ’80s it was an event. You went to the record shop, you
flicked through the many racks of vinyl before selecting a record. Perhaps you were
waiting for a specific release in which case much time would be spent pestering the staff
as to when the record would be out. Then with the record (all 12 inches of it) tucked
under your arm, you made your way home on the bus admiring the cover artwork. The
whole experience was part of the attraction – it was a process. Then came CDs, and then
music downloads, and the experience is radically different. From a strictly functional and
usable point of view this new way is far better than physically buying some music, but...
This is one reason Apple iTunes will download the album art with any album you
purchase and even retrieve the art of any album you personally rip. Presenting genre
sections as well as new releases and recommended albums promotes browsing by the
user that’s similar to the traditional experience of purchasing music. Because of these
steps some of the visual and emotional aspects of buying or selecting music is restored to
the overall experience.
Good experiences sell. If using a product or service makes you feel good you are likely
to use it again.
Introduction
to
User‐Centered
Design
Process
User Centered Design (UCD) is an approach to design where the end user is placed at the
heart of the design and development process. Knowing who the users are, what they want
and if your system is fulfilling their needs is central to UCD. The key principal of UCD is
integrating users that represent the profiles of the target user group/s into the
development process. Typically, friends, family and (most definitely) colleagues are not
representative of the target user base! However, they’re nearly always free with advice.
But the validity of this advice is often questionable. In order to integrate unbiased user
feedback into the process the following are key steps in a UCD process:
Step
1:
Define
your
target
audience.
Many UCD professionals take general descriptions of a target user groups to create a set
86
of personas. Personas make it easier for design and development teams to understand
users needs by creating tangible descriptions of real people and looking at the system
from their perspective. Personas also make it easier to identify an appropriate panel of
end users from whom to gather feedback.
Step
2:
User
Task
Analysis.
Task Analysis is the identification and thorough understanding of end users' goals and
tasks. You must first establish tools they currently use, the mental model they adopt for
the tasks at hand, limitations and problems they encounter, what alternatives/substitutes
are available to them, changes and additions that will enhance their experience, etc. This
analysis can be conducted by making a number of assumptions (based on the definition of
your target audience) and ideally, by gathering feedback from real users and/or observing
them conducting key tasks.
Step
3:
Create
a
Prototype
Prototypes can vary from pieces of paper with the proposed designs sketched on them to
fully interactive systems that look like and seem to function exactly like the end product.
What is important is that designers have a thorough understanding of user requirements
and therefore must be an integral part of the team. Prototypes have two purposes. The
first is to define how the system will work from the user interface perspective; the second
is to test on real users. The advantage of using a low fidelity paper based prototype is that
it can be produced quickly and does not require much development effort. However,
users sometimes find it difficult to take that leap from the somewhat abstract to the real
thing. On the other hand, high fidelity prototypes are easy to comprehend by the end user
but may require a lot of costly development effort. The nature of the system being tested
will also influence the approach taken.
Step
4:
Test
prototypes
with
REAL
users.
Testing with real users is central to UCD. Testing is typically conducted on relatively
small groups of people, typically no more than five representatives of each target user
profile (however, this depends on the number of profiles and complexity of the system).
The reason for this is that you are looking to identify problems and create design
solutions as opposed to discovering how many people have the same problem. Five users
typically identify approximately 80% of all problems. Therefore it makes more sense to
test, analyze, redesign, test again, analyze, redesign, etc. Eventually fewer problems will
be encountered and the system is ready for release.
Although you will need to converse with test participants during the test, it is important
that you observe and listen as opposed to direct them. Observation and listening to their
comments allows you to identify what users do, where they have difficulties and why
they have problems. Testing is often recorded to avoid ‘false memory syndrome’ and to
substantiate findings to colleagues and management.
Step
5:
Beta
Release
In some cases a pre-release, or beta version of the system is released to a restricted
number of users for evaluation. Unlike the prototype this version incorporates all the
functionality that is available in the final system. Feedback can be gathered from users to
87
fine-tune the system further. Often beta versions incorporate software to track usage and
identify where and when problems occur.
Step
6:
Ongoing
Evaluation
Rarely is an application or website launched and never refined or expanded. A true UCD
process continues to evaluate the system after it is launched. Feedback can be used to
benchmark against user requirements and competitors products. Customer service can
also provide invaluable feedback as to how the system is performing in the real world.
What is important is that you gain insight in what needs to be improved in the next
iteration of the system from the users perspective.
You will learn a number of techniques in the strategies and production courses for
reaching your users, and you’ll learn about things like breadcrumbs.
The
Joys
of
Prototyping
By creating and testing interfaces in rough format, designers are able to feed through
improvements and feedback from users quickly and easily. This in turn helps to ensure a
final product that is an evolved solution.
At the heart of any good user-centered design process is the practice of prototyping. By
creating and testing interfaces in rough format, designers are able to feed through
improvements and feedback from users quickly and easily. This in turn helps to ensure a
final product that is an evolved solution, in the sense that it has been through a number of
iterations and emerged as fit for the job in question.
Obviously prototyping saves time and money. If designers insisted on testing each new
development on a fully-featured site only, iterative design would be a long and costly
process. Rough prototyping, with pen and paper, Visio, or any other method, is both
faster and more convenient. Changes can even be made while the user waits.
Convenience is a strong enough argument, but there is also convincing evidence that
rough prototyping is superior in terms of the final result for a number of reasons,
including:
•
•
•
Users are more forthright in criticizing unfinished interfaces. No matter how
much they may be encouraged to do so, some people are reluctant to find fault in
work that appears to be set in stone. They may feel that they will be regarded as
difficult for example. Although still present, this effect is noticeably reduced
when users are asked to comment on work that will clearly need further work.
Interaction designers are likely to be more creative in terms of problem solving if
changes can be made quickly and if necessary on the fly. Experimental
approaches can be tested quickly without extensive effort, meaning a greater
range of possible solutions will tend to be put before the user.
Prototyping enables the designer to concentrate on those areas of most importance
to the interaction process. For example, vertical prototyping will focus on deep
interaction, for example when the user moves through a number of screens in
order to complete a task. Horizontal prototyping, on the other hand, will examine
the user's experience of a single screen in order to assist in decision-making, for
88
example. In this way prototyping can effect rapid change while leaving other
things equal.
As the prototyping stage comes to a close, designs will begin to be firmed up. Ideas can
be more fully implemented and the fidelity of the proto type increased - on the
assumption that future changes will be less significant. In this way the prototyping
process can lead seamlessly into graphic design work to be undertaken on an interface.
Although prototyping is most frequently used in order to help with initial interaction
design, these methods can be used with great effect elsewhere in the user-centered design
process. For example, after user testing, prototyping may be used to work on fixes for any
problems that are identified with the finished product.
Focus
Groups
‐
Advantages
and
Limitations
Focus groups are a great way to collect information from several people very quickly and
cost effectively. They are mainly used to gauge people’s reactions and feelings to items,
however when used appropriately they can also be used as part of user requirements
gathering.
The
Advantages
of
Focus
Groups
Focus groups are often of use when deciding on the look and feel of a website or product.
They gather good data on emotive issues as people are quite willing to give their opinions
and impressions of items. They will allow you to develop an appropriate presentation
through pointing out what things work or don’t work for users. It can also be helpful to
show groups several different designs in order to facilitate conversation on what it is they
are looking for in a design.
Used early in the design process focus groups are also useful at gathering user
requirements. People can talk about their expectations for a website/product, such as what
functions they expect the website/product to have. They also discuss similar systems that
have worked for them in the past and those that have not, allowing you to see which
designs and functions are the most effective. This valuable information is then fed into
the design process to ensure the production of an end product that people will use.
The
Limitations
of
Focus
Groups
The main issue is that in focus groups you learn what people say they do or think, not
what they actually do or think. Focus groups will not show any usability problems that
exist on a site as the users will not be actually interacting or completing tasks on the
website/service.
A major issue with focus groups is that there is the possibility of “groupthink” i.e. people
expressing an opinion which is in line with the rest of the group even if that opinion is at
odds with their own personal one. Another possibility is that one or two individuals will
come to dominate the group, creating an inaccurate view of what users’ overall opinions
are. Because of these issues it is essential to have a skilled moderator carry out all focus
groups.
Running
a
Focus
Group
Ideally each focus group should contain between six and eight people, any more and you
89
will not get enough detailed information from each person. It is generally a good idea to
run at least two focus groups for each item. This is to protect against such issues as group
think, where the results from a group might not be fully accurate.
A skilled moderator is crucial. The moderator needs to make sure that the conversation in
a group is free flowing and has a natural tone while at the same time keeping the
discussion on track and on issue. The moderator must also prevent individuals from
dominating a group and ensure that all participants are involved and contribute equally.
When used appropriately focus groups are a valuable way of aiding the design process
and can be very cost effective compared to one-on-one interviews.
Other
testing
methods
–
eye
tracking
and
heat
maps
Usability firms (an example is User Centric) are paid to assess audience response. They
use methods such as site visits and interviews; one-on-one user interviews in research
facilities; contextual inquiry during user observations; affinity diagrams; card sorting; and
content inventory and they gather data and come up with results and deliver reports that
might include a detailed task analysis; use scenarios; taskflow diagrams; information
architecture maps; annotated wireframes; interaction maps; content matrices. Some
organizations use eye-tracking equipment and heat maps to follow users’ movements.
TechSmith's Morae was introduced in 2004. It features an on-screen activity recorder
that is capable of recording an entire session of a usability test. The session timeline can
be divided into numerous fragments (tasks and/or comments) simply by placing markers
on the timeline. Data such as time, mouse clicks, and total number of pages view can be
extracted from any fragment of the recording session. Also, numerous fragments from
different recording sessions can be easily combined into a highlight-video without the
knowledge of video editing. Morae is also picture-in-picture (PIP) capable, so the users'
expressions can be recorded simply and inexpensively with the use of a web camera.
Morae has three components to it: the recorder, remote viewer and manager. The recorder
runs on the computer where the usability test is being conducted. The location-free
remote viewer can connect to the recorder via the IP address of the computer where the
recorder is running, or by simply connecting to the recorder computer if they are both on
the same network. The manager is the post-experiment application that is used to
place/edit markers, extract data, and create highlight videos from the recorded sessions.
Morae's robust features ensures ease of use, data reliability, but above all, the onscreen
recorder and the PIP feature empowers the researcher to convey the results along with the
actual clip of the user's onscreen activity.
Beyond
Usability
Testing
For all its benefits, traditional testing does not necessarily give a complete picture of how
effective a site or application is. Testing techniques tend to use test scripts to model
certain common tasks and ask participants to carry out these tasks whilst an observer
notes any difficulties that are encountered. Obviously this method can identify a lot of
problems and provide invaluable feedback to development and design teams. But at the
90
same time, because the user is guided through the site it can be less effective at answering
other questions, such as:
•
•
•
What messages is the user picking up from the site?
Which areas of the site attract users who are acting of their own accord rather than
following instructions?
How long will a typical user remain at a site outside the context of a test
procedure?
Traditionally you might get some answers from accurate server logs, which record the
total number of visitors to various pages on the site. Depending on the product used to
interpret them, they can also provide an indication of common routes through the site and
time spent on each page.
However, although this sort of analysis can provide plenty of statistics and identify
trends, it cannot answer the most important questions: why users behave in the way they
do, and what impressions they pick up from the site during their visit.
This is where alternative user-testing techniques come in. By broadening the base of
inquiry and moving beyond the performance of pre-defined common tasks, tests can
deliver essential information on how users experience the site as a whole. This does not
replace traditional user testing - it should be seen as an additional technique that builds on
the results of standard user testing methods.
Some simple techniques can answer the questions mentioned above in a test procedure.
They include:
•
•
•
•
•
Allowing browsing to be as free as possible.
Asking test participants open-ended questions such as "what do you think this
company does?" and giving them time to find an answer. Questions like these are
an excellent way of gauging how effectively a company communicates online. In
some tests it may even be appropriate to simply ask users to browse the site in any
way they wish and then discuss the company afterwards. This can reveal which
areas of the site tend to attract casual browsers - and if they are regarded as the
'wrong' areas, something can be done about it.
Enabling users to leave if necessary.
If a certain task involves making a purchase, for example, enable users to use
alternative sites if they become frustrated. This models real-life experience more
closely and can help to predict whether a site will be competitive in the real
world. Of course it is also necessary to observe users through the purchasing
process in order to test usability, but this can be done during another part of the
test.
Encouraging feedback on attitudes and experiences. Don't just ask your users to
talk about usability issues, actively encourage them to express their feelings about
the content they encounter, and their impressions of the company or organization.
While testers must be careful not to read too much into subjective opinion (and
should increase the size of the sample group when using this method), it can
perform a similar function to the focus group without many of the disadvantages.
91
7.
Information
visualizations
The following pages contain a small assortment of recent visualizations that help explain
concepts tied to interactivity, theory, audience. Infovisualization is a booming medium.
This
Forrester
Research
uses
and
gratifications
chart
is
available
online
in
more
viewable
form
here:
http://images.businessweek.com/mz/
07/24/0724_6insiid_a.gif
The
Find
Your
Bliss
Venn
diagram
can
be
used
to
think
through
motivations.
The
Future
of
Media
graphic
was
assembled
by
the
Future
Exploration
Network.
Go
here
to
get
the
clickable
version
in
a
larger
size:
http://www.visual‐
literacy.org/periodic_table/periodic_table.html
92
93
A
marketing
piece
from
Elliance
that
explains
Web
2.0
solutions
to
connect
with
people.
94
Another
marketing
piece
from
Elliance
that
explains
Web
2.0
processes.
95
Another
Web
2.0
explanatory
graphic
was
assembled
by
the
Future
Exploration
Network.
This
is
a
small
segment
of
a
larger
map
of
Web
Trends
that
is
updated
annually
by
Information
Architects.
You
can
find
and
view
the
full
map
on
Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/
photos/formforce/3409
362834/sizes/o/
96
This
is
a
small
segment
of
a
map
made
up
of
clickable
Web
2.0
and
Internet
technology
logos.
You
can
find
the
clickable
version
at
http://www.appappeal.com__web‐2‐0‐application‐world‐mosaic.pdf
97
Following
in
four
drawings
is
a
visual
journalism
report
from
sketch
artist
Jonny
Goldstein,
who
live‐
blogged
from
the
“140
Characters”
2009
conference
(about
microblogging).
98
These
visual
notes
are
also
available
on
Flickr.
The
artist
wrote
about
it
here:
http://www.jonnygoldstein.com/2009/06/24/visual‐notes‐from‐the‐140‐characters‐conference‐
overwhelming‐response‐from‐big‐media‐blogs‐and‐social‐web/
99
8.
Application
usage
trends
–
report
as
of
May
2009
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/04/28/wakoopas‐first‐state‐of‐the‐apps‐shows‐what‐were‐
using‐when‐and‐how/
See
this
site
for
larger
view
of
the
graphics
with
interesting
details
First State Of The Apps Shows What We’re Using, When And How
by
MG
Siegler
of
TechCrunch
on
April
28,
2009
As
a
service
whose
sole
purpose
is
to
track
the
applications
that
people
actually
use
on
their
systems,
it
should
be
no
surprise
that
Wakoopahas
a
lot
of
interesting
usage
data.
On
a
day
to
day
level,
Wakoopa’s
data
is
good,
but
it’s
the
aggregate
data
over
long
periods
of
time
that
can
be
really
meaningful
to
show
how
we
are
using
our
computers.
Today,
Wakoopa
has
released
the
first
such
aggregate
data
with
its
inaugural
State
of
the
Apps
report.
The
report
shows
the
quarterly
data
for
desktop
software,
games
and
web
apps.
The
data
comes
from
the
over
75,000
Wakoopa
users
that
have
installed
the
desktop
tracking
software
to
enable
the
company
to
see
actual
usage.
These
users
have
logged
over
525
million
hours
of
app
usage,
across
over
200,000
apps.
Some
key
trends
that
Wakoopa
highlights
in
its
report
include:
100
Social
networking
usage
tends
to
peak
between
9
and
10
PM.
But
for
Facebook,
the
most
popular
social
network,
usage
is
pretty
constant
throughout
the
day.
Other
web
apps
tend
to
peak
at
between
4
and
5
PM.
As
you
may
expect,
Twitter
usage
is
rising
quickly
among
Wakoopa
users
as
well.
Nearly
a
quarter
of
them
now
use
the
service
—
and
most
of
them
do
so
through
Twitter
desktop
clients.
Google
Friend
Connect
and
the
online
video
site
Veoh
both
showed
large
declines
in
usage
in
the
first
quarter.
Interestingly,
and
perhaps
not
entirely
unrelated,
Veoh
just
went
through
layoffs
and
a
major
restructuring.
Google
Friend
Connect
meanwhile,
seems
to
lack
the
hype
and
adoption
of
Facebook’s
more
popular
Facebook
Connect.
Google
Chrome
is
growing
quickly,
and
is
now
past
15%
usage
across
all
Wakoopa
users.
But
some
of
Wakoopa’s
charts
in
the
report
contain
even
more
interesting
information.
For
example,
while
Chrome
has
an
impressive
showing
across
the
board,
Mozilla’s
Firefox
browser
is
even
more
impressive.
It
is
the
number
one
app
on
both
Windows
and
Mac
platforms.
And
in
every
continent
besides
Africa,
it’s
over
60%
usage
among
web
browsers
—
and
in
Africa
it’s
still
at
50%.
Meanwhile,
Africa
is
the
only
continent
where
Internet
Explorer
finishes
as
the
second
most‐used
browser.
On
every
other
continent,
IE
is
in
third
place
among
browsers
—
or
worse.
While
that
may
sounds
a
bit
ridiculous
given
that
IE
is
still
by
far
the
biggest
browser
worldwide
in
terms
of
market
share,
that
has
to
be
very
troubling
for
Microsoft
as
it’s
probably
safe
to
assume
that
a
lot
of
Wakoopa
users
are
early
adopters
of
technology
and
could
signal
a
trend
of
where
things
could
go
for
the
general
population
in
the
coming
years.
Also
not
a
good
sign
for
Microsoft:
The
older
you
are,
the
more
likely
you
are
to
use
IE.
In
the
youngest
age
group,
11
to
20
year
olds,
even
smaller
browsers
like
Opera
beat
it.
IE
has
been
losing
market
share
at
a
steady
pace
for
the
past
several
years.
Google
products
dominate
the
top‐used
web
apps.
Gmail
is
#2,
YouTube
is
#3,
Google
Search
is
#4
and
Google
Reader
is
#5.
It
seems
pretty
surprising
that
YouTube
and
Gmail
would
be
ahead
of
Google
Search,
but
perhaps
that’s
because
people
use
their
built‐in
search
toolbars
rather
than
Google.com
to
start
searches.
Also,
a
commenter
Kyle
notes
below,
Wakoopa
tracks
how
long
your
stay
on
a
site
as
well,
so
you’re
more
likely
to
stay
on
Gmail
and
YouTube
longer
than
Google
Search.
Regardless,
Facebook
trumps
them
all.
On
Windows
machines,
a
lot
of
Microsoft
products
appear
in
the
top
10,
which
on
Macs,
a
lot
of
Apple
products
do.
That
is
not
at
all
shocking.
101
FriendFeed
usage
is
more
than
halfway
to
Twitter
usage
—
though
it’s
not
clear
if
that’s
just
Twitter.com
or
if
that
includes
the
various
clients
as
well.
And
FriendFeed’s
usage
is
higher
among
Wakoopa
users
than
that
of
MySpace.
Again,
I’d
point
back
to
the
whole
early
adopter
thing.
DestroyTwitter
—
which
I
had
never
even
heard
of
until
tonight,
is
one
of
the
hottest
new
apps
on
both
the
Windows
and
Mac
platforms.
Apparently,
it’s
an
Adobe
AIR‐based
Twitter
client
that
constantly
updates,
yet
uses
less
memory
than
other
AIR‐based
Twitter
clients.
Email
peak
checking
time
for
the
weekday
is
during
the
morning,
around
11
AM,
but
on
the
weekend,
it’s
at
night
around
9
PM.
102
103
9.
Visual
Design
for
the
Modern
Web
by
Penny
McIntire,
2008
For
More,
See
Book
Resource
Site:
http://www.cs.niu.edu/~mcintire/webbook/
Notes
from
McIntire’s
book:
When
we
put
a
page
together
rapidly
using
a
development
environment
like
Dreamweaver
rather
than
designing
a
page
with
pencil
and
paper,
we
say
we’re
using
prototyping
or
RAD,
“rapid
application
development.”
“Branding”
is
the
overall
impression
made
by
a
product
or
an
entire
organization.
This
encompasses
the
look
of
logos,
packaging,
advertising,
presentation,
reputation
and
site
design.
An
effective
brand
has
an
individual
identity,
a
personality,
a
distinct
look
and
feel
that
separates
it
from
the
competition
and
is
easily
recognizable
by
the
audience.
It
is
memorable.
The
number‐one
factor
in
determining
the
credibility
of
a
user
experience
is
the
visual
design.
The
four
factors
that
promote
audience
engagement
(usability)
are:
•
•
•
•
Self‐evidence
–
must
be
easy
to
use
with
an
intuitive
interface
and
big
reward
for
minimal
investment,
must
be
consistent
and
predictable,
allowing
audience
efficiency
that
builds
user
presence
and
loyalty.
Speed
–
must
load
quickly
and
establish
clear,
concise
navigation.
Feedback
–
must
give
audience
responsive
operability
(sounds,
messages,
updates
to
help
them
interact
and
feel
rewards
and
understand
what’s
going
on
as
they
maneuver
and
interact).
Accuracy
–
No
errors
in
content
or
interactivity
Usability
factors
make
a
product
functional;
visual
design
makes
it
memorable.
Characteristics
of
a
first‐rate
interactive
product
•
•
•
Easy
to
maintain
(must
be
flexible
and
scalable,
so
ongoing
updates
can
be
made
throughout
its
life
with
a
minimum
of
time
and
effort).
Aesthetically
appealing
(must
be
attractive
and
engaging
sensory
experience
for
target
audience).
Easy
to
use
(must
be
user‐friendly,
effective,
and
quick‐loading;
audience
should
be
able
to
move
efficiently
to
get
what
they
want
without
wasting
time).
Technically
solid
(must
behave
predictably
with
no
errors
or
glitches).
•
An
interactive
experience
is
often
referred
to
as
a
“system.”
“Analysis”
includes
the
process
of
advance
planning
–
determining
what
is
needed
before
anything
is
built.
All
stakeholders
are
involved
in
the
process,
managers,
technical
people
and
potential
audience
members.
Analysis
also
takes
place
throughout
the
process
of
building,
step‐by‐step,
each
aspect
of
the
interactive
experience.
In
analysis,
consider
the
following:
clarify
goals;
identify
the
target
audience;
identify
goals
for
104
interactivity;
determine
constraints;
determine
content;
analyze
architecture.
Audience
Who
are
the
primary
users?
What
are
the
demographics
in
terms
of
age,
education,
family
status
and
other
aspects
of
audience
type?
What
appeals
to
them?
What
do
you
want
them
to
get
from
the
interactive
experience?
You
must
define
the
audience
in
order
to
reach
the
audience.
Characteristics
to
address:
Physical
demographics
(gender,
age
range,
health
status
[need
to
serve
disabled,
offer
slower
motion,
etc.?];
Cultural
demographics
(economic
status,
employment,
education
level,
social
group,
nationality,
language,
values);
Computer
experience
(knowledge
of
tech,
favorite
sites,
surfing
patterns
and
frequency,
usage
patterns);
Findability
(will
the
typical
audience
member
be
most
likely
to
find
your
site
from
a
search
engine,
TV
ad,
banner
ad,
link
on
another
site,
printed
ad,
friend’s
referral?);
Computer
equipment
profile
(operating
system,
system
speed
and
power,
connection
speed,);
Frequency
of
visits
(infrequent
visitors
need
a
different
approach
from
people
who
use
the
site
regularly);
Location
of
access
(home,
work,
public
access
location
–
especially
important
for
any
audio
elements);
Competing
sites
(what
other
sites
do
your
audience
members
use
and
how
and
why?);
Internal
or
external
audience
(a
company
intranet
or
public
Internet
–
ties
into
security
issues
among
other
things);
Design
expectations
(critical
to
visual
look
and
feel
of
the
site).
The
more
specific
and
vivid
you
can
be
about
users
the
better.
Some
interactive
design
usability
experts
invent
personae
–
fictional
but
realistic
characters
typical
of
the
audience
–
giving
them
names
and
biographical
backgrounds
and
studying
that
type
of
person’s
demographic
data
to
assemble
a
small
experimental
set
of
fictional
users.
Identifying
users’
goals
in
advance
is
vital
to
success.
Find
the
needs
and
then
find
the
best
and
most
friction‐free
ways
to
address
those
needs
in
the
way
your
audience
would
most
desire
it.
Find
ways
to
establish
a
long‐term
relationship
and
maintain
it.
Goals
might
include
socializing,
sharing,
researching
products
or
services,
purchasing
products
or
services,
obtaining
information
about
a
particular
person,
place
or
thing.
Planning
includes
the
development
of
a
“use
case,”
a
step‐by‐step
documentation
of
a
sequence
of
interactions
that
must
be
completed
for
a
user
to
complete
each
task,
presented
from
that
visitor’s
point
of
view
–
this
is
where
personas
are
vital.
Good
planning
also
includes
coverage
of
scenarios
in
which
things
go
wrong.
Normally
you
plan
for
users
to
follow
one
particular
path
to
getting
what
they
want;
you
also
must
plan
for
alternate
choices
and
for
errors
to
get
a
complete
use
case
assembled.
Useful
online
resources:
www.builder.com,
www.webmonkey.com,
and
www.alistapart.com.
All
carrying
a
wide
range
of
articles
on
web
development.
105
Interactive
Media
Analysis
Form
–
this
type
of
checklist
can
be
used
in
the
initial
planning
stages
of
site
building;
points
will
vary
depending
on
needs.
Site purpose and goals:
• Mandatory goals
- Goal 1
- Goal 2
• Secondary goals
- Goal 1
- Goal 2
Target audience:
• Primary audience
- Persona 1
- Persona 2
Constraints:
• Time frame
• Budget
• Resources
- Staff
- Equipment
- Software support
• Other
Site Architecture:
Tasks audience will perform:
• Categories (listed explicitly):
- Labels
- Preferred labels (listed explicitly)
- Secondary labels/aliases (listed explicitly)
- Associated terms (listed explicitly)
• Directory structure (show hierarchy)
• File naming conventions
• Primary/most frequent tasks
- Task 1 (in use case form)
- Task 2 (in use case form)
Content:
• Secondary audience
- Persona 1
- Persona 2
• Secondary/less frequent tasks
- Task 1 (in use case form)
- Task 2 (in use case form)
• Primary content
• Content to be archived
Once
segments
of
a
site
have
been
built
in
first‐draft
form
they
should
be
tested
extensively
with
real
users.
This
is
referred
to
as
usability
testing.
This
testing
should
be
incremental
–
start
as
soon
as
you
have
just
enough
so
testers
can
get
some
idea
of
the
expected
product.
Better
to
discover
what
to
change
early
on
in
the
process.
Test
early
and
test
often
throughout
the
construction
process
and
then
the
problems/surprises
at
the
final
unveiling
of
the
completed
work
will
be
few
to
none.
Research
has
shown
that
you
do
not
have
to
have
a
large
number
of
users
test
to
get
an
accurate
idea
of
the
best
way
to
proceed.
Informal
testing
of
small
groups,
sometimes
called
“discount
testing”
can
produce
good
results.
Site
with
a
comprehensive
explanation
of
Card
Sorting
in
user
design:
http://www.syntagm.co.uk/design/cardsorting.htm
Other
possible
quick
audience/user
research
methods
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The
bridge
method
Futures
workshops
Claims
analysis
Q‐sorting
Reality
mapping/CUTA/CARD
Predictive
task
analysis/supergoaling
Free
listing
Usability
expert
Jakob
Nielsen
offers
the
following
set
of
guidelines,
known
as…
10.
Nielsen’s
Usability
Heuristics
106
107
The following excerpt is copyright 2003 by Bruce Tognazzini. Permission to make copies for
personal use is granted without reservation, provided this copyright notice remains on the copy.
Educators and in-house corporate trainers may make sufficient copies for their own students.
Bruce
Tognazzini,
principal
with
the
Nielsen
Norman
Group,
formerly
lead
designer
at
WebMD
and
founder
of
the
Apple
Human
Interface
Group,
offers
…
11.
First
Principles
of
Interaction
Design
The following principles are fundamental to the design and implementation of effective
interfaces, whether for traditional graphical user interface environments or the web. Of
late, many web applications have reflected a lack of understanding of many of these
principles of interaction design, to their great detriment. Because an application or service
appears on the web, the principles do not change. If anything, applying these principles
become even more important.
Effective
interfaces
are
visually
apparent
and
forgiving,
instilling
in
their
users
a
sense
of
control.
Users
quickly
see
the
breadth
of
their
options,
grasp
how
to
achieve
their
goals,
and
do
their
work.
Effective interfaces do not concern the user with the inner workings of the system. Work
is carefully and continuously saved, with full option for the user to undo any activity at
any time.
Effective applications and services perform a maximum of work, while requiring a
minimum of information from users.
Anticipation
Applications should attempt to anticipate the user’s wants and needs. Do not expect users
to search for or gather information or evoke necessary tools. Bring to the user all the
information and tools needed for each step of the process.
Autonomy
The computer, the interface, and the task environment all "belong" to the user, but userautonomy doesn’t mean we abandon rules. Give users some breathing room. Users learn
quickly and gain a fast sense of mastery when they are placed "in charge." Paradoxically,
however, people do not feel free in the absence of all boundaries (Yallum, 1980). A little
child will cry equally when held too tight or left to wander in a large and empty
warehouse. Adults, too, feel most comfortable in an environment that is neither confining
nor infinite, an environment explorable, but not hazardous.
Use
status
mechanisms
to
keep
users
aware
and
informed
No autonomy can exist in the absence of control, and control cannot be exerted in the
absence of sufficient information. Status mechanisms are vital to supplying the
information necessary for workers to respond appropriately to changing conditions. As a
simple example, workers, failing status information, will tend to maintain heightened
pressure on themselves during slow periods, until the moment the work actually runs out.
108
This will stress and fatigue them unnecessarily, so that when the next rush occurs, they
may be lacking the physical and mental reserves to handle it.
Keep
status
information
up
to
date
and
within
easy
view
Users should not have to seek out status information. Rather, they should be able to
glance at their work environment and be able to gather at least a first approximation of
state and workload. Status information can be quite subtle: the inbox icon could be
switched to show an empty, somewhat full, or stuffed state. This, however, should not be
overdone. The Macintosh, for years, showed an icon of a trashcan of imminent danger of
explosion if a single document was placed therein. Users quickly formed the habit of
emptying the trashcan as soon as the first document hit. This not only turned a single-step
operation into a two-step operation (drag to the trash, then empty the trash), it negated the
entire power of the trashcan, namely, undo.
As another positive example, a search field icon can change color and appearance to
indicate that the search is in progress or has been completed with too many matches, too
few matches, or just enough. (Like any element of the interface, just color is not enough;
10% of males show some indication of color blindness. Even a higher percentage may
have temporary alterations in perception of blue under varying conditions.)
Consistency
The following principles, taken together, offer the interaction designer tremendous
latitude in the evolution of a product without seriously disrupting those areas of
consistency most important to the user.
Levels of consistency: The importance of maintaining strict consistency varies. The
following list is ordered from those interface elements demanding the most
faithful consistency effort to those demanding the least. Paradoxically, many
people assume that the order of items one through five should be exactly the
reverse, leading to applications that look alike, but act completely different in
unpredictable ways:
Interpretation of user behavior, e. g., shortcut keys maintain their meanings.
Invisible structures.
Small visible structures.
The overall "look" of a single application or service--splash screens, design
elements.
A suite of products.
In-house consistency.
Platform-consistency.
"Invisible structures" refers to such invisible objects as Microsoft Word's clever little
right border that has all kinds of magical properties, if you ever discover it is
there. It may or may not appear in your version of Word. And if it doesn't, you'll
never know for sure that it isn't really there, on account of it's invisible. Which is
exactly what is wrong with invisible objects and why consistency is so important.
Other objects are, strictly speaking, visible, but do not appear to be controls, so
users, left to their own devices, might never discover their manipulability. The
109
secret, if you absolutely insist on one, should be crisp and clean, for example,
"you can click and drag the edges of current Macintosh windows to size them,"
not, "You can click and drag various things sometimes, but not other things other
times.""Small visible structures" refers to icons, size boxes, scroll arrows, etc. The
appearance of such objects needs to be strictly controlled if people are not to
spend half their time trying to figure out how to scroll or how to print. Location is
only just slightly less important than appearance. Where it makes sense to
standardize location, do so.
Inconsistency: It is just important to be visually inconsistent when things must act
differently as it is to be visually consistent when things act the same.
Avoid uniformity. Make objects consistent with their behavior. Make objects that act
differently look different.
The most important consistency is consistency with user expectations.
The only way to ascertain user expectations is to do user testing. No amount of study and
debate will substitute.
Defaults
Defaults should be easy to "blow away:" Fields containing defaults should come up
selected, so users can replace the default contents with new material quickly and easily.
Defaults should be "intelligent" and responsive.
Do not use the word "default" in an application or service. Replace with "Standard,"
"Use Customary Settings," "Restore Initial Settings," or some other more specific
terms describing what will actually happen.
Efficiency
of
the
User
Look at the user's productivity. Time is money and more – stealing the user’s time will
make the user leave. For example, which of the following takes less time? Heating water
in a microwave for one minute and ten seconds or heating it for one minute and eleven
seconds? From the standpoint of the microwave, one minute and ten seconds is the
obviously correct answer.
From the standpoint of the user of the microwave, one minute and eleven seconds is
faster. Why? Because in the first case, the user must press the one key twice, then
visually locate the zero key, move the finger into place over it, and press it once. In the
second case, the user just presses the same key–the one key–three times. It typically takes
more than one second to acquire the zero key. Hence, the water is heated faster when it is
"cooked" longer.
Other factors beyond speed make the 111 solution more efficient. Seeking out a different
key not only takes time, it requires a fairly high level of cognitive processing. While the
processing is underway, the main task the user was involved with–cooking their meal–
must be set aside. The longer it is set aside, the longer it will take to reacquire it.
110
Additionally, users who adopt the expedient of using repeating digits for microwave
cooking faces fewer decisions. They soon abandon figuring out, for example, whether
bacon should be cooked for two minutes and ten seconds or two minutes and twentythree seconds. They do a fast estimate and, given the variability of water content and
bacon thickness, end up with as likely a successful result with a lot less dickering up
front, again increasing human efficiency.
Keep the user occupied.
Since, typically, the highest expense in a business is labor cost. Any time the user must
wait for the system to respond before he or she can proceed, money is being lost.
To maximize the efficiency of a business or other organization you must maximize
everyone’s efficiency, not just the efficiency of a single group.
The
great
efficiency
breakthroughs
are
to
be
found
in
the
fundamental
architecture.
This
simple
truth
is
why
it
is
so
important
for
everyone
involved
in
a
project
to
appreciate
the
importance
of
making
user
productivity
and
value
goal
one
and
to
understand
the
vital
difference
between
building
an
efficient
system
and
empowering
an
efficient
user.
This truth is also key to the need for close and constant cooperation, communication,
and conspiracy between communications team members if this goal is to be
achieved.
Write help messages tightly and make them responsive to the problem: good writing
pays off big in comprehension and efficiency.
Explorable
Interfaces
Give users well-marked roads and landmarks, then let them shift into four-wheel drive.
Mimic the safety, smoothness and consistency of the natural landscape. Don’t trap users
into a single path through a service, but do offer them a line of least resistance. This lets
the new user and the user who just wants to get the job done in the quickest way possible
and "no-brainer" way through, while still enabling those who want to explore and play
what-if a means to wander farther afield.
Sometimes, however, you have to provide deep ruts.
The closer you get to the naive end of the experience curve, the more you have to rein in
your users. A single-use application for accomplishing an unknown task requires a far
more directive interface than a habitual-use interface for experts.
Offer users stable perceptual cues for a sense of "home."
Stable visual elements not only enable people to navigate fast, they act as dependable
landmarks, giving people a sense of "home."
Make
Actions
reversible
People explore in ways beyond navigation. Sometimes they want to find out what would
happen if they carried out some potentially dangerous action. Sometimes they don’t want
111
to find out, but they do anyway by accident.
By making actions reversible, users can both explore and can "get sloppy" with their
work.
Always
allow
"Undo."
The unavoidable result of not supporting undo is that you must then support a bunch of
dialogs that say the equivalent of, "Are you really, really sure?" Needless to say, this
slows people down.
In the absence of such dialogs, people slow down even further. A study a few years back
showed that people in a hazardous environment make no more mistakes than people in a
supportive and more visually obvious environment, but they worked a lot slower and a lot
more carefully to avoid making errors.
Always
allow
a
way
out.
Users should never feel trapped. They should have a clear path out.
However,
make
it
easier
to
stay
in.
Early software tended to make it difficult to leave. With the advent of the web, we've
seen the advent of software that makes it difficult to stay. Web browsers still festoon their
windows with objects and options that have nothing to do with our applications and
services running within. Our task can become akin to designing a word process which,
oh, by the way, will be using Photoshop's menu bar. Having 49 options on the screen that
lead directly to destruction of the user's work, along with one or two that just might help
is not an explorable interface, it is the interface from hell. If you are working with
complex transactions using a standard web browser, turn off the menu bar and all of the
other irrelevant options, then supply our own landmarks and options…
Learnability
Ideally, products would have no learning curve: users would walk up to them for the very
first time and achieve instant mastery. In practice, all applications and services, no matter
how simple, will display a learning curve. Limit the Trade-Offs. Usability and
learnability are not mutually exclusive. First, decide which is the most important; then
attack both with vigor. Ease of learning automatically coming at the expense of ease of
use is a myth.
[End of Tognazzini piece]
A
gem
from
Don
Norman: People process input at three levels – The
visceral
level is
preconsciousness, prethought. It’s where appearance matters first and first impressions
are formed. The initial impact of a product, appearance, touch, feel. The
behavioral
level
is about use, experience with a product. It is about function, performance and usability.
The
reflective
level is the level at which the full impact of thought and emotions are
experienced. It is all about message, about culture and the meaning of the product and its
use.
112
12.
Tagging
by
Gene
Smith
Notes
based
on
the
book
“Tagging”
by
Gene
Smith
–
site
is
http://genesmith.ca
Most
of
Chapter
1
is
available
for
free
on
Google
Books.
New
but
vitally
important
to
the
way
humans
communicate
is
the
act
of
“tagging,”
which
is
people‐powered
metadata
that
helps
guide
us
as
we
seek,
use
and
share
information.
Web
designers,
developers,
information
architects,
user
experience
designers
and
product
and
project
managers
all
leverage
them
–
even
individual
bloggers
use
them.
Tags
are
what
the
site
Del.icio.us
–
the
first
social
bookmarking
service
–
is
all
about.
Library
Thing
–
a
site
on
which
hundreds
of
thousands
of
participants
from
all
over
the
globe
are
tagging
–
assigning
descriptive
keywords
to
their
book
lists.
They
have
assigned
20
million
tags
to
more
than
15
million
books.
http://www.librarything.com/
http://www.librarything.com/work/226288
When
you
design
a
site
or
lead
a
project
involving
interactivity
that
includes
computing,
programming
a
tagging
system
makes
it
more
searchable,
usable
and
interactive.
“Users”
or
“taggers”
are
the
people
who
employ
your
tagging
system.
“Resources”
are
the
items
that
users
tag
–
this
can
be
a
book,
a
location,
a
video
–
anything
that
can
be
uniquely
identified.
The
keywords
added
by
users
are
“tags.”
Tags
can
be
any
term
that
is
usefully
associated
with
the
resource.
A
tag
provides
metadata
about
the
resource.
Metadata,
according
to
the
National
Information
Standards
Organization
(NISO)
is
“structured
information
that
describes,
explains,
locates
or
otherwise
makes
it
easier
to
retrieve,
use
or
manage
an
information
resource.”
113
Some
tag
cloud
sites
to
try
include
the
following:
http://www.tagcloud‐
generator.com/;
http://www.tocloud.com/;
http://www.tag‐cloud.de/;
http://tagcrowd.com/;
http://www.artviper.net/texttagcloud/;
http://www.wordle.net.
Every generator has different parameters and output styles.
Each
tagging
system
design
has
its
own
definition
for
what
kind
of
tagging
can
be
used.
It
might
allow
users
to
tag
any
resource
or
limit
them
to
tagging
their
own
resources.
Facebook
allows
you
to
tag
your
photos
and
it
requires
that
others
ask
permission
to
tag
them
for
you.
Systems
can
block
objectionable
tags
such
as
expletives.
Smith
notes
that
tagging
falls
into
one
of
five
basic
categories:
Managing
personal
information.
Social
bookmarking
(del.icio.us,
Ma.gnolia,
etc.).
Collecting
and
sharing
digital
objects
(Flickr,
SlideShare).
Improving
the
e‐commerce
experience.
And
other
uses.
He
says
tagging
sits
at
the
intersection
of
three
established
fields:
114
The
Information
Architecture
Institute
defines
“information
architecture”
as
“the
structural
design
of
shared
information
environments”
and
the
“art
and
science
of
organizing
and
labeling
Web
sites,
intranets,
online
communities
and
software
to
promote
usability
and
findability.”
With
so
much
information
available
today,
it
is
important
to
find
as
many
ways
as
possible
to
organize
it
in
a
findable
searchable
scheme.
http://iainstitute.org
Social
software
allows
computer‐mediated
collaboration
and
sharing.
These
are
online
applications
people
use
to
share,
communicate
and
collaborate.
Tagging
in
this
realm
helps
facilitate
group
interaction.
Tagging
on
Facebook
drives
more
use
and
gives
users
more
chances
for
interactivity.
Christopher
Allen’s
“Tracing
the
Evolution
of
Social
Software”
is
an
excellent
history:
http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/10/tracing_the_evo.html
Personal
information
management
(PIM)
can
be
defined
as
the
actions
people
take
to
acquire,
organize,
maintain,
retrieve
and
use
information
items.
You
want
to
acquire,
file,
track
and
find
your
information
efficiently.
When
Del.iciou.us
innovated
the
first
popular
collaborative
tagging
organization
in
2003
it
revealed
some
tension
between
the
three
areas
outlined
above.
The
controlled
vocabularies,
called
“folksonomies,”
were
not
crafted
by
professionals,
they
were
serendipitous
spin‐offs
of
people
tagging
resources
for
their
personal
use.
Debates
popped
up
and
tension
points
between
disciplines
emerged.
Folksonomies
are
user‐generated
keywords.
They
may
sometimes
add
noise
to
the
signal.
However
Morville
and
Rosenfeld
published
a
study
in
2006
that
indicated
that
the
relevance
curve
increases
with
the
number
of
people
tagging
a
resource,
so
the
value
of
folksonomy
is
accepted.
In
the
2000’s,
personal
information
ecologies
of
individuals
have
begun
to
be
key
in
the
creation
of
the
global
library
of
references
online
and
knowledge
resources
are
being
made
more
findable
by
the
people
who
use
them.
There
are
varied
frames
of
reference
regarding
the
purpose,
value
and
economics
of
classification
systems
allowing
tagging
in
various
ways.
The
tension
points
–
where
two
aspects
of
tagging
are
pulling
or
competing
–
are
part
of
the
professional
conversation
about
tagging.
These
bring
some
design
tradeoffs.
A
tagging
scheme
that
works
in
one
application
may
not
work
as
well
in
another.
Sociality,
idiosyncracy,
control
and
expertise
are
common
points
of
argument
and
they
are
used
as
the
headings
by
Gene
Smith
in
the
following
chart
from
his
book,
“Tagging.”
115
Information
management
is
dependent
upon
the
classification
of
data
and
the
more
we
can
hone
this
process,
the
better.
Tagging
allows
users
to
describe
resources
in
their
own
way.
It
allows
a
rough
consensus
to
form,
allows
minority
viewpoints
to
emerge
and
everyone’s
perspective
can
be
counted.
The
information
environment
today
is
sometimes
called
“the
stream.”
It
consists
of
links
from
Del.icio.us,
photos
from
Flickr
and
Facebook,
tweets
on
Twitter,
RSS
feeds,
instant
messages
and
SMS
–
any
information
experience
you
have
flowing
through
your
day.
It
is
all
competing
for
your
attention
and
your
action.
When
you
think
about
your
audience
for
interactivity,
remember
all
of
the
competition
…
with
more
being
added
every
day.
Tagging
can
help
you
make
some
sense
of
your
stream,
allowing
organizational
power
with
minimal
cognitive
overload.
Value‐centered
design
balances
the
goals
of
the
people
who
create
an
interactive
experience
with
those
of
the
system’s
users.
Tagging
allows
users
to
get
a
better
116
“return
on
experience”
and
it
allows
system
builders
to
gain
more
“return
on
investment.”
Gene
Smith
notes:
Tags
are
simple.
Tags
are
flexible.
Tags
are
extensible
–
you
can
keep
adding
more.
Tags
can
be
aggregated.
This
is
why
tagging
works.
Folders
have
long
been
the
place
where
we
store
things,
both
physical
and
digital.
Rashmi
Sinha,
CEO
of
SlideShare,
says
there
are
three
reasons
tagging
can
be
a
better
categorization
method
than
folders.
You
don’t
need
to
consider
the
entire
categorization
scheme
–
you
just
add
tags
that
seem
appropriate;
you
can
add
any
tags
you
want
instead
of
having
to
find
the
one
best
category;
and
recategorization
is
easy.
Folder
structures
do
allow
efficiencies
for
individuals,
but
people
are
inconsistent
when
it
comes
to
using
folders
and
groups
in
resource
management.
Tagging
allows
more
search
flexibility.
They
are
more
fluid
for
keeping
up
with
the
daily
stream.
Rashmi
Sinha
says
the
attraction
in
social
tagging
systems
is
the
“social
hum,”
and
Gene
Smith
lists
the
following
as
reasons
people
like
to
tag:
Users
share
links
they
find
interesting;
they
explore
topics
by
utilizing
tags
added
by
others;
the
more
117
smart,
attuned
people
there
are
using
a
system
the
better
the
recommendations;
other
users
are
sometimes
experts,
allowing
you
to
gain
personally
through
copying
and
sharing
their
links
and
tags;
the
tags
can
be
used
to
connect
with
others
who
share
your
interests
–
tags
enable
communities
of
interest
to
spring
up
spontaneously.
For
example,
the
tag
nptech
(nonprofit
technology)
on
Del.icio.us
was
started
by
a
few
users
and
literally
started
a
new
cultural
grouping
of
people
with
an
interest
in
the
nonprofit
technology
sector.
This
happens
all
the
time
online
now.
When
a
tag
like
nptech
is
copied
and
redistributed
by
others
it
can
bring
about
“social
proof,”
a
term
coined
by
psychologist
Robert
Caildini
to
describe
how
people
follow
the
lead
of
others.
They
adopt
a
tag
started
by
early
users
and
possibly
growing
a
community
around
the
tag.
This
happens
all
the
time
on
Twitter,
where
users
apply
tags
by
placing
a
#
in
front
of
a
word
or
series
of
representative
letters.
Tags
can
be
serious
‐
#Mumbai
was
the
Twitter
tag
used
during
the
terror
acts
of
November
2008
–
and
tags
can
be
fun.
People
play
the
tagging
game
squaredcircle
on
Flickr,
sharing
photos
of
circular
items
or
images
that
are
tightly
cropped
in
a
square
shape.
Tags
can
tell
people
about
you
–
when
you
tag
something
as
“funny”
you
are
making
a
personal
statement
by
which
others
find
out
more
about
you.
You
can
also
make
a
political
statement
with
tags.
The
Free
Software
Foundation
encouraged
people
to
tag
products
on
Amazon.com
that
use
digital
rights
management
software
with
“defectivebydesign.”
The
ideal
tagging
system
motivates
social
engagement
and
also
serves
the
mission
of
the
communicator
implementing
it.
To
optimize
on
reading
an
audience
a
tagging
system
should
facilitate
collaboration;
increase
participation;
identify
patterns;
obtain
descriptive
metadata
(giving
you
keywords
at
low
cost
that
allow
you
to
improve
your
search
engine
rankings
and
site
navigation);
and
enhance
findability.
Flickr
co‐founder
Caterina
Fake
says,
“Tagging
really
revolutionized
the
way
the
application
behaved…you
cannot
only
see
the
things
you
have
tagged…but
you
can
also
see
what
everyone
else
in
the
system
has
tagged
themselves
in
the
public
stuff.”
Flickr
allows
users
to
add
tags
from
multiple
places
on
the
site
–
while
viewing
a
photo,
while
uploading
a
photo,
and
while
organizing
photos.
To
gain
user
collaboration
a
tagging
system
must:
be
easy
to
use
intuitively;
encourage
self‐expression,
sharing
and
play;
allow
people
to
manage
their
information
well;
encourage
people
to
be
original
and
blaze
new
trails.
A
great
amount
of
the
success
of
Facebook
can
be
traced
to
the
ways
in
which
it
encourages
people
to
share
by
tagging
and
linking.
Schachter’s
Del.icio.us
makes
tagging
chic
Joshua
Schachter,
a
programmer
living
in
New
York,
spent
the
late
1990s
managing
Memepool,
a
group
weblog
he
started
in
1998.
He
collected
interesting
118
links
from
readers,
keeping
them
in
a
text
file.
To
make
things
easier
to
find,
he
began
attaching
a
hash
mark
and
a
keyword
or
two
at
the
end
of
each
URL
‐
#history
or
#hotdogs.
He
decided
to
build
Muxway,
a
site
where
he
published
his
bookmarks
–
here
he
made
the
first‐ever
mention
of
“tags”
in
this
use.
In
late
2003
he
created
Del.icio.us
–
a
more
sophisticated
version
of
Muxway
that
aggregated
information
from
all
users
to
show
what
tags,
what
URLs,
were
popular.
Schachter
is
the
man
who
popularized
tagging.
Del.icio.us
was
better
than
its
original
idea.
More
than
a
way
to
share
URL
bookmarks.
Tags
help
you
discover
links
to
topics
you
want
to
pursue.
When
you
look
at
everyone’s
tags
for
a
particular
Web
page
you
can
get
a
collective
opinion
on
that
page.
And
nobody
has
to
place
the
page
in
a
separate
file
or
folder
or
identify
just
one
proper
category
for
it.
All
of
the
organizing
is
done
by
individual
users.
It
is
a
success
because
it
is
personal,
it
is
social
and
it
makes
people’s
lives
easier.
As
Gene
Smith
notes,
“Del.icio.us
still
defines
our
understanding
of
tagging
and
tagging
systems.”
Metadata,
meta
elements
and
changes
in
search
Metadata
is
data
about
data.
Wikipedia
(July
2009)
describes
metadata
as
documenting
“data
about
data
elements
or
attributes,
(name,
size,
data
type,
etc)
and
data
about
records
or
data
structures
(length,
fields,
columns,
etc)
and
data
about
data
(where
it
is
located,
how
it
is
associated,
ownership,
etc.).
Metadata
may
include
descriptive
information
about
the
context,
quality
and
condition,
or
characteristics
of
the
data.
Metadata
is
used
to
facilitate
the
understanding,
characteristics,
and
management
usage
of
data.
The
metadata
required
for
effective
data
management
varies
with
the
type
of
data
and
context
of
use.”
Some
critics
argue
that
metadata
is
too
expensive
to
collect
and
evaluate,
time‐consuming
and
subjective.
Cory
Doctorow
and
Clay
Shirky
are
among
the
critics.
“Metacrap”
is
a
term
sometimes
used
by
those
who
criticize
it,
and
they
are
sometimes
referred
to
as
“metahaters.”
Meta
elements
are
programming
instructions
used
to
embed
structured
information
in
a
digital
communication.
These
have
less
influence
on
online
search
results
than
they
did
in
the
1990s
because
search
has
become
more
sophisticated.
Search
tools
are
implementing
other
factors,
including
volume
of
incoming
links
from
related
websites,
quantity
and
quality
of
content,
technical
precision
of
source
code,
spelling,
functional
v.
broken
hyperlinks,
volume
and
consistency
of
searches
and/or
viewer
traffic,
time
within
website,
page
views,
revisits,
click‐throughs,
technical
user‐features,
uniqueness,
redundancy,
relevance,
advertising
revenue
yield,
freshness,
geography,
language
and
other
intrinsic
characteristics.
119
Gene
Smith
has
divided
tag
types
as
metadata
into
seven
categories:
Descriptive
–
Examples
of
“descriptive”
tags
include
css,
webdesign,
ajax,
Minnesota,
drama,
gardening,
zen,
microfinance,
music,
halo3,
networks,
sushi,
hibiscus
Resource
–
Examples
of
“resource”
tags
include
blog,
book,
video,
photo
Ownership/Source
–
Examples
in
this
category
include
nytimes,
genesmith
(author),
newriders
Opinion
–
Examples
include
cool,
funny,
lame,
beautiful,
crap,
defectivebydesign
Self­reference
–
Examples
include
mystuff,
mine,
me
Task
Organizing
–
Examples
include
toread,
todo,
work
Play
and
Performance
–
Examples
include
squaredcircle,
seenlive,
aka
vogon
poetry
Taxonomies
have
parent‐child
relationships
between
nodes
and
are
formalized
by
a
system
organizer.
Folksonomies
have
four
features:
all
tags
are
aggregated;
users
can
add
any
tags
they
select;
relationships
between
tags
are
inferred;
there
are
many
possible
methods
of
inference.
They
work
best,
Gene
Smith
says,
“when
language
is
uncertain
or
evolving,
when
the
resource
collection
is
changing
quickly
(think
Twitter),
when
semantic
relationships
are
not
critical
to
users,
when
multiple
points
of
view
are
desirable
and
when
you
have
an
active
base
of
contributors.
“Pace
layering”
–
a
theory
tied
to
the
idea
that
aspects
of
society
change
at
different
rates
–
is
a
concept
about
tagging
and
audience
that
was
first
promoted
by
Stewart
Brand.
He
noted
that
fast‐moving
layers
such
as
commerce
and
fashion
are
moving
at
a
different
rate
than
slower
layers
such
as
nature
and
culture.
Peter
Morville
applied
the
idea
of
pace
layering
to
metadata
in
his
book
“Ambient
Findability.”
He
said
metadata
structures
such
as
taxonomies
are
stable
and
long‐
lasting
while
tags
are
fast‐moving
and
volatile.
The
Semantic
Web
–
improvements
involving
ontologies
in
communication,
bringing
an
evolution
sometimes
referred
to
as
Web
3.0
–
are
creating
a
powerful
foundation.
Morville
says,
“Taxonomies
and
ontologies
provide
a
solid
semantic
network
that
connects
interface
to
infrastructure.
And
the
fast‐moving,
fashionable
folksonomies
sit
on
top:
flexible,
adaptable
and
responsive
to
user
feedback.”
Karl
Fast
and
Grant
Campbell,
information
scientists,
assessed
pace‐layering
theories
of
metadata
and
found
that
a
destabilizing
force
such
as
tagging
can
promote
the
long‐term
efficiency
of
an
ecosystem
and
help
it
survive
through
diversity.
The
people
who
create
taxonomies
and
controlled
vocabularies
can
be
guardians
of
a
system’s
“ecological
resilience,”
according
to
Fast
and
Campbell.
120
Tag
clouds,
geotagging
and
object‐centered
sociality
Information
architect
Joe
Lamantia
calls
tag
clouds
“the
camera
obscura
of
the
semantic
landscape.”
Each
tag,
resource
or
user
is
a
small
peek
into
the
entire
information
space.
In
tag
clouds,
the
size
of
the
tag
is
not
directly
proportional
to
the
popularity
of
the
tag.
If
they
were,
some
would
be
ridiculously
enormous
and
others
invisible.
Tag
frequencies
often
follow
a
power­law
distribution
–
a
few
are
used
with
great
frequency
while
most
are
used
infrequently.
When
you
consider,
there
are,
Gene
Smith
says,
four
popular
ways
to
look
at
what
is
popular
for
individuals
in
a
tagging
system:
You
–
understanding
your
own
popularity
trends
can
help
you
identify
interests
and
information‐seeking
patterns.
Friends
or
contacts
–
these
are
people
who
share
your
interests
and
knowing
what’s
popular
with
them
is
a
window
into
your
own
mind
–
Del.icio.us
is
an
example.
Team
or
workgroup
–
your
teammates
popular
tags
and
resources
can
help
you
stay
on
top
of
your
business
or
amateur
baseball
team
or
whatever.
Everyone
–
the
most
popular
items
overall
are
compelling
and
global
popularity
can
provide
a
good
reference
point
for
your
own
tastes
even
if
the
most
popular
items
don’t
appeal
to
you.
Geotagging
refers
to
adding
geographic
tags
that
locate
resources
in
a
particular
place.
Flickr,
Photosynth
and
many
other
online
systems
implement
geotagging.
A
geotag
generally
adds
three
special
tags
to
a
resource,
the
latitude,
longitude
and
a
marker
–
“geotagged”
–
that
identifies
it
as
a
location
tag.
GPS
included
in
mobile
phones
and
cameras
is
automatically
embedding
geographical
metadata
in
resources
they
produce.
An
API
(application
programming
interface)
is
a
tool
for
developers
to
access
the
data
and
services
on
a
computer.
Del.icio.us,
Google
Maps,
Flickr
and
many
other
Web
2.0
successes
offer
APIs
that
allow
an
integration
of
their
services
into
other
Web
and
desktop
programs.
Web
2.0
has
also
been
characterized
by
the
sharing
of
photos,
videos,
music
and
other
digital
resources
–
this
is
known
as
“media
sharing.”
It
has
been
enabled
in
the
2000s
by
proliferation
of
broadband,
amazing
advances
in
data
storage
at
low
cost,
advances
in
devices
such
as
digital
and
video
cameras
and
the
establishment
in
the
1990s
of
the
Web
and
online
communities
from
which
all
of
this
could
grow.
Media‐sharing
sites
have
been
booming
because
they
allow
what
is
referred
to
as
“object­centered
sociality.”
On
media‐sharing
sites,
social
action
is
centered
around
objects
such
as
photos,
videos,
slide
presentations
and
other
digital
media.
It
is
credited
with
the
success
of
systems
like
Facebook
and
YouTube.
“Deep
tagging”
occurs
when
tags
are
applied
to
parts
of
files.
Long
videos,
for
instance
might
offer
many
deep
tags
that
lead
to
various
segments.
Viddler
is
a
Web
organization
that
allows
deep
tagging
with
“timed
tags”
that
can
be
added
anywhere
on
a
video’s
timeline.
121
13.
Search
engine
optimization
(SEO)
Search engine optimization involves two basic challenges - attracting visitors and links
from other sites.
Unless your site provides high-quality, regularly updated content, visitors will not
return on a regular basis and are less likely to recommend the site to others.
Ultimately, long-term traffic levels will rely on providing content that your target
audience requires, presented in a usable format.
Sites that provide extensive resources are always more likely to attract more links from
elsewhere on the web. Although link-exchange programs can have some effect,
they rely on giving something away in return for a link to your site. Good content
generates links to your site because of its excellence.
Traditional techniques for search engine optimization still have a place in any sensible
interactive design. The innate quality of a site determines how high it can be positioned,
while the correct use of meta tags, titles and so on will ensure that it does fulfill some
potential.
Sites that focus on meeting user needs as effectively and efficiently as possible are likely
to begin to enjoy success in terms of search engine placement. In terms of link
generation, you must rely on the goodwill of those adding your links to their own sites.
Try searching using the sort of keywords that you would imagine your audience would
use, look at the top ten sites or resources, and try to make these sites aware of your
efforts. You will typically find that many of the most popular sites in any given area will
be portals - which are usually more than happy to add useful links for their readers.
Webpage
Layout:
Right
Hand
Side
Blindness
In several recent websites we have user tested, the site designers have placed important
task critical links and information on the right hand side of three-column page layouts.
The user testing was conclusive: users ignore any information presented on the right-hand
side. This is a similar effect to the well-documented banner blindness – people ignore
banners unless they are, for some reason, assessing ads on sites. It is essential to ensure
that important links and information are not positioned on the right as they will surely be
ignored. How did this happen?
Users have an expectation of the layout of webpages.
As design across the web becomes more homogenous users have built up models of how
they expect information to laid out on a page. These models are based on the experiences
they have had visiting many webpages. The organization’s logo is in the top left-hand
corner. Navigation is either on the left side or the top of the page. The content is in the
center of the page and advertisements are placed on the right-hand side or in the banner.
With a few notable exceptions, for example in search features and login/logout links, it is
essential that important information or task-critical links are not placed in either the
banner or on the right side of a webpage.
122
Guide to Search Engine Optimization
The process of search engine optimization (SEO) involves tweaking various aspects of
your website. It deals only with organic search results. It has nothing to do with paid
search, also known as inorganic search or PPC. The following are tactics to improve the
visibility of your website.
Page Title: The page title, also referred to as the “title tag,” should be unique for each
page of your website. The tag tells search engines and visitors what the particular page
is all about. The title tag of each page should contain the business/website name
followed with important information that relates to the page. Avoid the following:
Recording a title tag that is not relevant to the information present on the webpage.
Recording the same title tag across all the pages of the website.
Recording long title tags.
Meta Description: The Meta description tag gives both search engines and visitors
who perform a searches on the search engine an idea of what the web page is about.
It’s important to precisely summarize the content of your webpage. It’s always safe to
keep the meta description tag within 160 characters (including spaces), as the rest of it
gets truncated. Avoid the following:
Writing a meta description that is not relevant to the info presented on the webpage.
Recording the same meta description across all the web pages of the website.
Recording the meta description with only keywords.
URL Structure: It is important to create a URL structure that is friendly to search
engines. This will help in better indexing of your website. For this reason, it is essential
to create appropriate filenames and expressive categories on your site. This example is
unfriendly: http://www.seotrafficspider.com/seo_articles/15042009.html. Such a URL is
also confusing. Avoid the following:
Use
Use
Use
Use
of
of
of
of
long URLs
the same URL across all the web pages.
deep nested subdirectories
irrelevant directory names.
Website Navigation: A website that is easy to navigate can help visitors find the
information they are looking for. It also helps search engines index pages appropriately.
It is important to ensure that all the web pages of your website are interlinked properly
and also show the correct page when clicked on. The use of sitemaps both HTML and
XML help the spiders to crawl the website easily and also index it. Avoid the following:
Creating complex websites that are difficult to navigate.
Creating drop-down menus.
Developing a HTML sitemap in which the pages are not organized.
Indexing the 404 page in the search engine.
123
Unique Content: Content that is hosted on your webpage must be informative, such
that it can elicit action. Ensure that the content is not copied and is 100% your own
creativity. Keep the content focused around your primary keywords and ensure that the
keyword density is around 2.75% to 3.21%. It is also good to keep changing the
content on your website so visitors can see that the site is dynamic. Avoid the following:
Using images that serve as textual content.
Using long sentences.
Incorrect grammar and spelling mistakes.
Duplicate content on the web pages of your website.
Stuffing keywords unnecessarily.
Anchor Text: Anchor texts are links that direct visitors to the internal pages of the
website or to an external page/website. Anchor text helps the users to easily navigate
between pages and also helps the spiders to understand what the page is all about, that
it is linked to. Avoid the following:
Using general anchor texts.
Using anchor text that is not related to the content of the webpage or is off topic.
Using long sentences.
Creating unnecessary links.
Heading Tags: Heading tags are used to represent the heading of the content of the
webpage. Heading tags range in 6 sizes – h1, h2, h3, h4, h5 and h6. These tags should
only be used at the appropriate places. Avoid the following:
Using one heading tag for the entire content of the webpage.
Using too many heading tags throughout the content of the webpage.
Alt Tag Optimization: Images can’t be read by search spiders when they crawl on the
website, so it is vital to use alt tags for the images. Use the primary keyword as the alt
tag following the contents that describe the page. Avoid the following:
Using long filenames.
Stuffing excess keywords in the alt tags.
Robots.txt File: A robots.txt prohibits robots from crawling a particular page based on
the nature and content of information that is available. This file must be placed in the
root directory of your site and also be named as robots.txt. Avoid the following:
Search result pages to be crawled.
Browser developers often offer free tools for you to hone your work. For instance,
Google Webmaster Tools can help you solve many issues related to your site. You can
also monitor the performance of your website by using Google Analytics.
124
14.
Website
accessibility
is
a
requirement
National and global legislation to address the needs of people with challenges and some
high-profile legal cases are increasing the profile of website accessibility. It is easy to
design and build a site that is accessible in basic terms. Producing a truly usable site that
supports many different user groups in achieving common goals demands serious
consideration of user needs and requirements in the early stages of development. Always
develop elements with all users in mind.
In November 1999 the National Federation of the Blind lodged a landmark lawsuit
against AOL. The suit claimed AOL violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act
by failing to provide access for the disabled to its site.
In an out-of-court agreement, NFB agreed to hold the lawsuit for 12 months, by which
time AOL must:
•
•
•
Adopt a company-wide policy incorporating guidelines for making AOL sites
accessible to the blind and others with disabilities.
Make the next version of its software accessible to the blind. AOL 6.0 is
scheduled for release this autumn.
Ensure that other future AOL products are accessible to the blind.
Sydney 2000 Olympics organizers (SOCOG) were ordered to make changes to their
website http://www.olympics.com/eng/ after a complaint against the site by a blind user
was upheld by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. It
found that SOCOG had breached the Disability Discrimination Act and ordered it to use
ALT text on all images and image map links on its site. SOCOG claimed that it faced a
cost of more than $2 million and a timescale of 12 months to make these changes.
About 8 percent of the U.S. population has visual, learning, cognitive, auditory or
physical dexterity disabilities severe enough to affect their ability to access the Web.
These people use the web for the same reasons as everyone else – e-mail, news, sports
results, research, work. Interactive designers must be cognizant of the issues surrounding
accessibility.
Some
typical
causes
of
accessibility
issues
Examples of typical accessibility problems include:
•
•
•
•
Images missing ALT tags, which are an essential alternative for those using many
assistive technologies (see below for more on these accessibility aids).
Image maps, especially those demanding accurate mouse work which may be
difficult for users with mobility problems such as arthritis.
Poor link titles or descriptions of what's behind links, e.g. the use of "Click Here,"
which requires a visual context to be understandable.
Tabular presentation of information, such as using columns to present text in
newspaper-like layouts. These and other HTML 'workarounds' tend to focus on
the visual look on the screen rather than the logic of the code, with repercussions
for those using audio browsers.
125
How
do
'assistive
technologies'
work?
Screen readers are an example of an assistive technology - they allow blind users to
interact with a computer by providing audio feedback to commands entered through the
keyboard, or by voice recognition. Imagine trying to navigate a website entirely by phone
– you are on one end of the line, issuing instructions to a friend who is at the other end.
Your friend reads aloud the contents of their browser screen and you have to create a
mental model of the site's navigation system and interactivity, make decisions and tell
them what to do. As an added complication, imagine your friend is not familiar with
column layouts and insists on reading from left to right indiscriminately. This may give
you some idea of how screen reader users can have difficulties with many common web
design models.
Accessibility is a usability issue that is growing in profile. Increased awareness of the
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI guidelines, new legislation
(and probably more lawsuits) will increase the numbers of accessible websites and online
applications.
15.
John
Owen
on
Twitter:
“Trivial
and
indulgent
for
many;
vital
and
revolutionary
for
others.”
The
Rule
of
Effective
Reach:
Received
and
Perceived
Value
*
The
content,
*
the
audience
(you
have
to
have
an
audience,
and
the
more
“connected”
to
others
this
audience
is
the
better
for
you
and
your
message)
*
and
the
ability
to
get
the
message
to
the
audience
–
all
the
way
through
to
its
conscious
reception
of
it
–
126
value
of
any
communication.
dictates
the
In
the
attention
economy,
if
you
do
not
give
your
audience
RECEIVED
and
PERCEIVED
VALUE
you
will
not
succeed.
Your
audience
has
to
receive
the
message
–
it
has
to
be
exposed
to
it
and
RECOGNIZE
it.
Received
and
Perceived
Value
goes
beyond
what
was
once
considered
“good
enough”
or
even
“excellent”
in
communications.
In
today’s
market
you
can
consistently
deliver
value
and
not
have
it
noticed
or
appreciated.
To
achieve
Received
and
Perceived
Value
you
have
to
deliver
your
message
• WHERE
YOUR
AUDIENCE
WANTS
IT
• WHEN
YOUR
AUDIENCE
WANTS
IT
• IN
THE
FORM
YOUR
AUDIENCE
WANTS
IT
(this
involves
effective
delivery
in
multiple
formats
on
multiple
UI
platforms)
IN
A
WAY
THAT
ALLOWS
YOUR
AUDIENCE
TO
PARTICIPATE
or
RESPOND
127
16.
Excerpt
on
UX
from
Jesse
James
Garrett’s
talk
at
the
Information
Architecture
Summit
2009
There is no us and them. We are not information architects. We are not interaction
designers. We are user experience designers. This is the identity we must embrace. Any
other will only hold back the progress of the field by marginalizing an important
dimension of our work and misleading those outside our field about what is most
important and valuable about what we do. Because it's not information, and it's not
interaction.
We're in the experience business. User experience. We create things that people use.
To use something is to engage with it. And engagement is what it's all about.
Our work exists to be engaged with. In some sense, if no one engages with our work it
doesn't exist…
So if we're all user experience designers, and there are no more information architects,
but there is still such a thing as information architecture, what does it look like?
Well, let's take a closer look at engagement, and think about the ways we can engage
people. What are the varieties of human engagement?
We can engage people's senses. We can stimulate them through visuals, through sound,
through touch and smell and taste. This is the domain of the traditional creative arts:
painting, music, fashion, cooking.
We can engage their minds, get them thinking, reasoning, analyzing, synthesizing. This is
where fields like scholarship and rhetoric have something to teach us.
We can engage their hearts, provoke them in feelings of joy and sadness and wonder and
rage. (I've seen a lot of rage.) The folks who know about this stuff are the storytellers, the
filmmakers, and yes, even the marketers.
And we can engage their bodies. We can compel them to act. This is the closest to what
we've traditionally done studying and trying to influence human behavior.
And that's really about it. Or at least, that's all that I've been able to think of: Perception,
engaging the senses. Cognition, engaging the mind. Emotion, engaging the heart. And
action, engaging the body.
Mapping out the interrelationships between these turns out to be a surprisingly deep
problem. Every part influences every other part in unexpected ways. In particular,
thinking and feeling are so tangled up together that we practically need a new word for it:
128
"thinkfeel".
There are a few other factors, sort of orthogonal to these, that influence experience:
There are our capabilities: the properties of our bodies, the acuity of our senses, the
sharpness and flexibility of our minds, the size of our hearts. Our capabilities determine
what we can do.
Then there are our constraints, which define what we can't do. The limits on our abilities,
whether permanent -- someone who's having a hard time reading because they have
dyslexia -- or temporary -- someone who's having a hard time reading because they've
had five bourbons.
Finally, we have context. And I have to admit that I'm cheating a bit on this one because
I'm packing a lot of different factors up into this one category. There's the context of the
moment: babies crying, dogs barking, phones ringing. (Calgon, take me away!) Then
there's personal context: the history, associations, beliefs, personality traits of that
individual. And there's the broad context: social, cultural, economic, technological.
But these three - capabilities, constraints, and context - are really just cofactors, shaping
and influencing experience in those big four categories: perception, cognition, emotion,
and action. Our role, as user experience designers, is to synthesize and orchestrate
elements in all of these areas to create a holistic, cohesive, engaging experience. So how
do we create user experiences that engage across all of these areas? Where can we look to
for expertise? Where's the insight? Where are the areas for further inquiry? Perception is
already pretty well covered. We've got visual designers and, sometimes, animators. In
some cases we've got sound designers. We've got industrial designers, working on the
tactile aspects of the products we create.
Action, again, is pretty much what we were doing already. I defined action as
engagement of the body, which may sound strange to many of you when I say that we've
really been doing this all along. But if you think about our work, when we talk about
behavior, we are always talking about some physical manifestation of a user's intention -even when that manifestation is as small as a click. (And the interaction designers claim
to own behavior anyway so I say let them have it.)
Because the real action is in these last two areas, cognition and emotion. This, to my
mind, is the manifest destiny for information architecture. We may not have fully
recognized it before because the phrase "information architecture" puts the emphasis on
the wrong thing.
It's never been about information. It's always been about people: how they relate to that
information, how that information makes them think, how it makes them feel, and how
the structure of that information influences both things. This is huge, unexplored
territory. We must acknowledge that as user experience designers we have a broader
129
place in the world than simply delivering value to businesses. We must embrace our role
as a cultural force.
Here's Michael Wesch quoting Marshall McLuhan again: "We shape our tools, and then
our tools shape us." Think about that for a second. "We shape our tools, and then our
tools shape us." When McLuhan said "we," and when he said "us," he was talking about
the entire human race. But not everybody's a shaper, right? The shapers are the people in
this room, the people in this field. We shape those tools and then, the experiences that
those tools create shape humanity itself. Think about the responsibility that entails.
I believe that when we embrace that role as a cultural force, and we embrace that
responsibility, this work - user experience design - will take its place among the most
fundamental and important human crafts, alongside engineering and architecture and all
kinds of creative expression and creative problem solving disciplines.
17.
Excelling
as
an
interactive
professional
Interaction professionals say they seek out employees with strong technology and writing
skills, a positive personality and the ability to be creative and innovative. They add that
those candidates who delve into the following topics and cultivate an understanding of
them will stand out over other job applicants:
Interviewing
and
ethnography
Interviewing skills are fundamental to understanding users and stakeholders – you have
to be an anthropologist of sorts. Have a grasp of qualitative techniques that allow
thorough study of cultural groups.
Quantitative
wisdom
–
applying
numbers
Possession of an operational understanding of statistics and other quantitative techniques
and analysis will help you refine your approach to communications. Cognitive
biases
–
recognize
influence
on
user
interpretations
The research of Danny Kahneman and Amos Tversky, Robin Fox and others proves
that humans tend to categorize objects and that can constrain our perceptions. Understand
cognitive and affective processes and what drives people’s choices and their world view.
In addition, interactive professionals are expected to be participants in the media they
study and apply. You should scanning the horizon to identify what’s next and you should
be trying and evaluating new technologies as they emerge. Social technologies should be
a part of your life. You are a brand, yourself, and it is up to you to maintain your brand
value, putting your knowledge and creative talent on display. You don’t have to wait to
develop a professional reputation; if you have not started yet, start now.
130
Interactive media is a wide-open field that is constantly evolving. Careers are available
for project leaders, administrators, animators, 2D and 3D artists, audio/video engineers,
authoring specialists, designers, information architects, instructional designers, media
specialists, page developers, site developers, streaming media specialists, virtual reality
specialists, web producers and webmasters, to name just a few of the categories such jobs
are listed under. You can read about the typical roles you play in these jobs here:
http://www.skillset.org/interactive/careers/profiles/
The key to identifying if you are qualified to apply for a position is to check the
required technical and personal skills set out in the job listing. If you have at least 80
percent of the skills listed, the opportunity may be worth pursuing; most employers put
together a “wish list” of skills for ads they place, knowing that some qualified people
may be missing one or two of the tools. The same goes for “years of experience”;
employers almost always note that applicants should have “2 years” or “2 to 5 years” of
experience in a field but in reality they often interview and hire people with great
portfolios and great recommendations who do not have that amount of professional
background.
One way to find the best places to apply for work is to study what current professionals
are doing and where they are doing it. Can you find someone/someplace to aspire to? If
you go through this process you can help yourself refine your goal-seeking and shape
your master’s experience in the best way to make it fit your needs. This is a small
collection of information to get you started. Elon’s Career Services people can help with
many more details. Talk to Ross Wade [email protected].
Tip one: Look around to find the names of the top companies and top designers by
learning who you admire through study of some of the many links above in this
document and in your other texts for this course and also by searching for details at sites
like this one - http://www.topdesignfirms.com/
Tip two: Read job descriptions and find the careers that best describe what you want to
do with your interactive media training. There are many different jobs and job
descriptions in the field of interactive media. Searching major job boards such as Jobster
(http://www.jobster.com/find/US/jobs/in//for/interactive+media) and Monster
(http://jobsearch.monster.com/Search.aspx?brd=1&re=515&q=interactive%20media&cy
=us&lid=316&jto=1&re=14#brd=1&re=515&q=interactive%20media&cy=us&lid=316
&jto=1&re=14).
As a small example, following are some sample job descriptions in IxD and UX.
Job
description
for
User
Experience
Lead
User
Experience
Leads
are
responsible
for
defining
successful
high‐level
strategies,
as
well
as
tactical
solutions,
for
client
projects
including
multimedia,
print,
social
media
strategies,
web
sites,
web‐based
applications,
and
technology
solutions.
131
UX
Leads
gather,
define,
and
clarify
clients'
business
objectives,
brand,
and
audiences,
and
translate
this
understanding
into
documentation
that
defines
the
"big
idea"
and
guiding
creative
vision
that
will
shape
the
entire
project.
Because
our
process
at
Threespot
is
fundamentally
collaborative,
UX
Leads
must
be
able
to
work
independently
as
well
as
part
of
a
team.
On
a
single
project,
the
UX
Lead
will
work
closely
with
other
members
of
the
Interactive
Strategist
group,
Project
Managers,
Art
Directors,
and
Technical
Leads
in
creating
and
maintaining
the
project
vision;
and
works
with
the
Project
Managers
to
ensure
we
do
the
best
possible
work
while
remaining
within
budget
and
schedule.
UX
Leads
work
directly
for
the
Director
of
User
Experience,
with
ultimate
supervision
by
the
Director
of
Creative
Services.
Agency
experience
is
a
plus,
but
it's
not
necessary.
Primary
Responsibilities
*
Facilitate
discovery
meetings
(including
kickoff,
brand
discussions,
audience
discovery,
and
definition
of
business
and
project
objectives)
*
Conduct
stakeholder
interviews,
brainstorming
sessions,
and
features
and
functionality
workshops
*
Own
Threespot
strategy
deliverables,
including:
audience
personas,
creative
brief,
Interactive
Development
Strategy
(IDS),
competitive
and
landscape
analyses,
and
concept
documentation.
*
Conduct
competitive
analysis,
landscape
analysis,
and
primary
research
(user
surveys
and
focus
groups)
*
Develop
strategies
for
marketing,
communications,
and
outreach,
encompassing
search
engine
optimization,
email
marketing
strategy,
social
marketing
and
blog
outreach.
*
Inspire,
lead,
and
develop
trust,
both
internally
and
externally.
*
Develop
concept
documents
and
define
features
and
functionality
and
create
necessary
documentation.
*
Develop
the
following
deliverables:
information
architecture,
content
strategy,
wireframes.
*
Work
with
Threespot's
business
development
team
to
help
define
deliverables
and
project
scope
for
prospective
client
projects
*
Analyze
web
metrics
PLEASE
NOTE:
This
role
is
directly
instrumental
in
understanding
client
business
objectives,
target
audience
characteristics,
and
the
direct
development
of
creative
strategies/solutions
to
achieve
measurable
results.
This
is
a
solution‐oriented,
project
visionary
position.
While
project
management
skills
are
valuable,
this
is
not
a
project
or
product
management
position.
Job
description
for
Senior
Interaction
Designer
The
Senior
Interaction
Designer
is
responsible
for
developing
digital
user
centered
design
for
this
fast‐paced
independent
consumer
healthcare
agency.
In
addition
to
helping
to
integrate
the
digital
competency
into
the
agency's
core
service
model,
the
Senior
Interaction
Designer
serves
as
a
partner
for
the
Account
and
Creative
team,
assuming
responsibility
for
digital
solutions
for
integrated
client
programs.
132
Responsibilities
*Planning
and
facilitating
customer
insight
activities
to
understand
user
needs,
goals
and
tasks
*Developing
customer
profiles,
personas,
scenarios
and
use
causes
*Planning,
coordinating,
and
executing
formal
and
informal
usability
evaluations
*Establishing
business
requirements
and
design
priorities:
‐
Analyzing
existing
web
interfaces
for
usability
and
user
experience
issues
‐
Recommending
improvements
to
content,
features
and
functionality
*Developing
wireframes,
prototypes
and
writing
interface
design
specifications
*Providing
input
to
project
quotes
or
proposals
and
writing
interface
design
specifications
*Working
closely
with
creative
teams
to
ensure
that
the
interaction
design
is
seamlessly
brought
to
life
*Participating
in
business
development
activities
Requirements
*Experience
working
directly
with
clients
in
an
agency
or
consultative
setting
*Ability
to
analyze
client
challenges
and
develop
creative
solutions
*Detail
oriented
and
a
demonstrated
commitment
to
the
accuracy
and
completeness
of
information
with
ability
to
see
big
picture
*Experience
working
on
integrated
marketing
campaigns
*Strong
communication
skills,
both
orally
and
written
as
well
as
diagrammatic
forms
*Proven
interpersonal
skills,
client
relation
skills
and
ability
to
work
in
a
team
environment
*Expert
knowledge
in
programs
including,
but
not
limited
to,
MS
Office,
Visio,
and
Internet
browsers
Application
instructions
‐
Please
send
cover
letter,
resume,
and
salary
history
Description
for
a
NYC
Director
of
UX
Job
Overview
The
Director
of
User
Experience
is
responsible
for
the
oversight
of
user
experience
and
interaction
design,
from
usability
testing
to
assessments
to
information
architecture,
for
interactive
projects
such
as
websites,
online
advertising,
and
mobile
application
development.
The
Director
works
closely
with
clients
to
define
needs,
requirements
and
goals
for
success,
translating
these
into
excellent
user
experiences.
The
Director
is
also
an
advocate
for
a
user‐
centered
design
approach
that
may
be
unfamiliar
to
clients.
This
requires
a
sensitivity
to
the
long‐term
needs
of
users,
particularly
related
to
ongoing
management
of
conditions
and
an
understanding
of
the
ways
users
consume
information
through
digital
channels.
133
The
position
includes:
*
Provide
leadership
and
management
to
a
small
UX
team
that
includes
external,
off‐site
contract
resources
as
well
as
internal
employees
*
Ensure
that
the
UX
team
produces
consistent
deliverables
regardless
of
personnel
*
Identify
strengths
and
weaknesses
among
the
UX
team
members
and
provide
coaching
and
support
as
needed
*
Assign
tasks
to
team
members
commensurate
with
their
strengths
or
based
on
growth
plans
*
Collaborate
with
visual
designers
and
copywriters
to
ensure
UX
best
practices
are
implemented
correctly
*
Lead
efforts
to
define
business,
functional,
and
end‐user
UI
requirements
for
new
projects
*
Ensure
the
design
and
build
of
products
and
sites
is
of
the
highest
quality
and
supports
strategic
goals
*
Participate
in
client
meetings
and
conference
calls
as
necessary
and
be
able
to
effectively
present
UX
deliverables
and
respond
to
client
feedback
*
Work
with
other
agencies
(advertising,
PR,
media,
medical
education,
etc.)
that
may
be
assigned
by
our
clients
to
provide
assets
or
other
contributions
to
our
projects
*
Work
closely
with
the
President
to
support
new
business
development
*
Educate
clients
and
prospects
on
UX,
usability,
and
user‐centered
design
principles
*
Recommend
deliverables,
timelines,
and
resources
for
project
proposals
*
Stay
abreast
of
research,
technology,
and
advances
in
the
UX
field,
and
keep
the
team
and
clients
up
to
speed
*
Understand
the
legal
and
regulatory
constraints
of
clients,
how
those
constraints
relate
to
the
UX
field,
and
how
they
affect
our
business
in
particular
*
Lead
the
standardization
of
UX
deliverables
across
the
organization
Description
for
a
US
Government
Web
Developer
Major
Duties:
Assists
in
development
and
enhancement
of
the
consumer
education
section
of
ftc.gov
and
other
sites
managed
by
the
FTC.
Produces
attractive,
professional
and
effective
online,
educational
products
and
microsites
for
a
wide
range
of
consumer
and
business
education
topics.
The
person
in
this
job
works
with
DCBE
and
Bureau
staff
to
understand
goals
and
challenges
of
assigned
projects.
The
person
in
this
job
then
provides
creative,
conceptual
approaches
and
recommendations.
He
or
she
is
involved
in
all
phases
of
campaign
development
and
execution,
including
strategy,
design,
and
development.
He
or
she
uses
a
variety
of
software
programs
to
design
and
produce
multi‐media
outreach
pieces
(Adobe
Suite,
XHTML,
Javascript,
CSS).
He
or
she
often
works
under
tight
deadlines
and
manages
multiple
projects.
134
Advises
staff
on
web
standards,
based
on
a
healthy
understanding
and
genuine
interest
in
web
design
and
development
best
practices,
usability
and
accessibility.
Suggests
new
possibilities
and
web‐based
solutions
to
meet
consumer
education
goals.
PHP
knowledge
or
Flash
(with
Action
Script
knowledge
or
flash
video
experience)
a
plus.
While
the
person
in
this
job's
primary
area
of
expertise
will
be
web‐based
design,
he/she
also
will
work
with
fellow
designers
on
projects
that
will
extend
across
a
range
of
media
that
may
include
brochures,
reports,
bookmarks,
posters,
magnets,
postcards,
electronic
presentations,
cd's,
and
branding
materials
for
events.
To
assist
in
our
multi‐faceted
outreach
efforts,
a
basic
understanding
of
print
design
is
preferred.
For
forms,
general
information
or
to
obtain
a
copy
of
this
announcement,
telephone
202‐326‐3499.
Deaf
and
hard
of
hearing
applicants
may
call
TDD
(202)
326‐3422."
Source:
http://jobview.usajobs.gov/GetJob.aspx?JobID=81571543&q=web+accessibility&vw=b&re=4&F
edEmp=N&FedPub=Y&caller=default.aspx&pg=2&tm=30&sort=‐dtex&AVSDM=2009‐06‐
18+02%3a30%3a00&rc=3&TabNum=7
Description
for
visual
interactive
designer
We're
looking
for
a
Visual
Designer
with
1‐5
years
of
experience
and
a
portfolio
that
demonstrates
conceptual
thinking
and
the
ability
to
deliver
unique,
creative
solutions
for
complex,
interactive
experiences.
The
applicant
should
have
a
strong
understanding
of
the
user‐centered
design
process
and
be
equally
comfortable
working
independently
and
alongside
other
design
team
members
and
developers.
Requirements
of
Visual
Interactive
Designer:
*
Candidates
must
have
an
outstanding
online
portfolio.
*
Must
have
a
well‐maintained
sketchbook
for
in‐person
presentation.
*
Passion
for
design
and
the
evolution
of
the
interactive
user
experience.
*
Solid
understanding
of
design
principles
and
how
they
apply
to
the
interactive
space.
*
1‐5
years
of
business
experience
in
Interactive
and
AV
design
and
production.
Design
for
mobile
applications
is
a
plus.
*
Solid
typography,
iconography,
effective
storytelling
and
an
understanding
of
color
theory,
as
well
as
a
meticulous
attention
to
detail.
*
Excellent
knowledge
of
prevailing
interface
design
tools,
including
Photoshop,
InDesign,
Illustrator,
Flash
and
basic
knowledge
of
HTML/CSS.
*
Experience
in
creating
comprehensive
wireframes,
sketches,
UI
and
final
visual
design
for
rich
online
interaction.
*
Experience
with
industrial
design
is
a
plus.
*
Ability
to
produce
great
work
in
short
timeframes,
manage
time
efficiently
while
multi‐tasking
across
different
projects
and
clients.
*
Ability
to
communicate
conceptual
ideas
and
design
rationale
to
other
members
of
the
design,
development
and
client
teams.
*
Comfortable
taking
specific
direction
as
well
as
working
independently.
135
18.
And
finally,
3
optional
readings
you
might
enjoy…
http://www.conversationagent.com/2009/04/50‐content‐ideas‐the‐create‐buzz.html
By
Valeria
Maltoni
I've
been
reading
The
Anatomy
of
Buzz
Revisited
by
Emanuel
Rosen,
courtesy
of
Rosen
himself.
The
book
is
a
treasure
trove
of
ideas
and
case
studies
on
the
way
people
share
information
and
how
ideas
spread.
Rather
than
give
you
a
review
of
the
book,
which
you
can
find
on
Amazon,
I
thought
it
would
be
useful
to
share
some
ideas
and
take
aways
that
apply
to
content
creation
‐
the
new
business
of
marketing
and
communications.
1.
Simplify
someone's
life.
That's
the
appeal
of
Tim
Ferriss,
for
example.
2.
Evoke
strong
emotions
about
the
art
of
marketing.
Guy
Kawasaki
does
that
in
person
and
across
social
media.
3.
Be
visual.
That's
very
much
the
appeal
with
David
Armano's
work.
4.
Tell
a
story
in
a
way
that
is
concrete
and
personal.
An
example
of
that
is
my
tale
of
the
Broad
Street
Run.
5.
Share
good
ideas.
Gary
Vaynerchuk
hits
the
spot
on
that
one.
6.
Make
small
talk
in
micro‐interactions
gain
big
impact.
Chris
Brogan
didn't
get
61,000+
followers
on
Twitter
because
he
was
talking
to
himself.
7.
Create
a
new
list.
People
like
to
see
where
things
stack
against
each
other.
By
far,
the
most
popular
list
is
still
the
one
Todd
And
created
and
AdAge
took
over.
8.
Give
away
secrets
and
tips
to
help
others
become
more
effective.
Adam
Singer
is
very
generous
in
that
regard.
9.
Teach
something
new
or
from
a
new
perspective.
Kathy
Sierra
has
been
able
to
do
that
on
a
topic
that
for
many
was
considered
not
quite
appealing.
10.
Inspire
people
to
take
action
and
change
the
world.
Entrepreneur
Chris
Guilleabeau
is
a
good
example
of
that.
11.
Be
opinionated
about
future
trends.
That's
a
trait
that
is
best
exemplified
by
Robert
Scoble.
12.
Track
and
review
future
trends
from
behind
the
scenes.
A
good
guide
is
Louis
136
Gray.
13.
Create
a
conversation
around
a
social
object.
That's
what
Hugh
MacLeod
does.
14.
Become
the
expert
hub
on
a
subject
matter.
The
go
to
person
for
all
things
WordPress
is
Lorelle
van
Fossen.
15.
Write
something
that
is
unexpected
or
unusual,
yet
still
applies
to
your
business.
The
best
example
of
that
is
Harry
Joiner.
16.
Analyze
and
interpret
the
current
trends
in
your
field
or
industry.
A
good
example
is
Barry
Ritholtz.
17.
Start
a
new
series
that
is
unique
to
your
site.
Liz
Strauss
has
a
regular
appointment
with
her
readers
every
Tuesday
evening.
18.
Add
value
in
exchange
for
attention.
One
of
the
best
ways
to
add
value
to
others
is
by
being
generous
with
links
to
other
good
content.
That
has
been
my
direction
on
Twitter
lately.
19.
Take
a
strong
position
on
a
news
story.
Tom
Peters
is
known
for
commenting
on
current
events.
20.
Make
a
list
of
tips
for
your
customers
that
are
useful
and
easy
to
implement,
like
this
one.
21.
Answer
questions
from
customers
or
readers.
Better
yet,
if
the
questions
keep
coming
up
in
the
comments
to
previous
articles
or
writing.
Fred
Wilson
picks
up
on
that
well.
22.
Provide
practical,
actionable
tips
that
can
improve
lives.
Leo
Babauta
is
known
for
this
kind
of
content
creation.
23.
Take
customers
or
readers
on
a
day
in
the
life
of
your
product
or
service.
This
might
be
the
new
testimonial.
24.
Teach
people
how
to
do
something
that
will
make
them
look
good.
Tom
Kuhlman
is
a
master
in
all
things
eLearning.
25.
Host
guest
posts
from
up
and
coming
writers.
They
will
help
spread
the
word
in
new
networks.
26.
Provide
summaries
or
digests
of
complex
information.
In
this
time‐starved
world,
pre‐digested
material
is
a
welcome
respite.
27.
Write
a
style
guide
or
book
of
best
practices
for
your
industry
or
line
of
business.
28.
Add
video.
Dan
Pink,
a
really
good
writer,
shares
travel
tips
on
video.
137
29.
Start
a
meme.
They
are
really
popular
online,
and
they
tend
to
spread
very
fast.
30.
Share
lessons
learned
and
calls
to
action.
Brian
Clark
is
a
good
source
of
content
marketing
best
practices.
31.
Ask
really
good
questions.
This
one
is
more
effective
after
you've
created
a
bit
of
a
following
already.
32.
Allow
your
readers
to
participate
in
content
creation.
Crowd‐sourcing
or
collaboration
really
work.
33.
Start
or
talk
about
a
cause.
Rick
Becker
provides
good
examples.
34.
Provide
widgets
or
containers
for
other
people's
content.
35.
Become
a
content
aggregator.
36.
Provide
daily
tips.
Daily
Blog
Tips
is
such
a
hub.
37.
Write
in
depth,
thought‐provoking
content.
Sometimes
this
is
the
opposite
of
where
everyone
else
is
going.
For
that,
you
might
want
to
check
out
Kevin
Kelley.
38.
Keep
a
strong
stream
of
innovative
formats
coming.
39.
Build
interest
by
creating
scarcity.
Stephen
Denny
has
a
post
that
expands
on
this
point.
40.
Talk
up
an
outrageous
idea.
41.
Use
compelling
charts
and
graphics.
42.
Interpret
and
lead
the
news
in
your
field
or
industry.
For
new
ways
of
doing
PR,
for
example,
you
may
take
a
look
at
t
he
work
of
Brian
Solis.
43.
Package
your
most
compelling
content
so
that
it
becomes
portable
in
other
formats.
eBooks,
but
also
think
mobile.
44.
Cut
across
different
cultures.
Martina
Zavagno
does
just
that
at
Adverblog.
45.
Explain
the
factoids
behind
your
product
or
company
history.
46.
Give
people
a
tutorial
on
how
to
do
something
new.
Steve
Rubel
does
it
often.
47.
Address
the
concerns
of
your
community,
readership
or
customer
base
openly.
48.
Find
a
new
angle
to
a
story.
49.
Change
the
way
people
talk
about
an
industry
event.
50.
Think
and
thus
write
differently
about
your
own
content.
138
IGNORE EVERYBODY
By Hugh MacLeod (http://www.gapingvoid.com/)
So you want to be more creative, in art, in business, whatever.
Here are some tips that have worked for me over the years.
1. Ignore everybody.
2. The idea doesn't have to be big. It just has to be yours.
3. Put the hours in.
4. If your biz plan depends on you suddenly being "discovered"
by some big shot, your plan will probably fail.
5. YOU are responsible for your own experience.
6. Everyone is born creative; everyone is given a box of crayons
in kindergarten.
7. Keep your day job.
8. Companies that squelch creativity can no longer compete
with companies that champion creativity.
9. Everybody has their own private Mount Everest they were
put on this earth to climb.
10. The more talented somebody is, the less they need the
props.
11. Don't try to stand out from the crowd; avoid crowds
altogether.
12. If you accept the pain, it cannot hurt you.
13. Never compare your inside with somebody else's outside.
14. Dying young is overrated.
15. The most important thing a creative person can learn
139
professionally is where to draw the red line that separates
what you are willing to do, and what you are not.
16. The world is changing.
17. Merit can be bought. Passion can't.
18. Avoid the Watercooler Gang.
19. Sing in your own voice.
20. The choice of media is irrelevant.
21. Selling out is harder than it looks.
22. Nobody cares. Do it for yourself.
23. Worrying about "Commercial vs. Artistic" is a complete
waste of time.
24. Don’t worry about finding inspiration. It comes eventually.
25. You have to find your own schtick.
26. Write from the heart.
27. The best way to get approval is not to need it.
28. Power is never given. Power is taken.
29. Whatever choice you make, The Devil gets his due
eventually.
30. The hardest part of being creative is getting used to it.
31. Remain frugal.
32. Allow your work to age with you.
33. Being Poor Sucks.
34. Beware of turning hobbies into jobs.
35. Savor obscurity while it lasts.
140
36. Start blogging.
37. Meaning Scales, People Don't.
37. When your dreams become reality, they are no longer your
dreams.
1. Ignore everybody.
The more original your idea is, the less good advice other people will
be able to give you. When I first started with the cartoon-on-back-ofbizcard format, people thought I was nuts. Why wasn't I trying to do
something more easy for markets to digest i.e. cutey-pie greeting
cards or whatever?
You don't know if your idea is any good the moment it's created.
Neither does anyone else. The most you can hope for is a strong gut
feeling that it is. And trusting your feelings is not as easy as the
optimists say it is. There's a reason why feelings scare us.
And asking close friends never works quite as well as you hope, either.
It's not that they deliberately want to be unhelpful. It's just they don't
know your world one millionth as well as you know your world, no
matter how hard they try, no matter how hard you try to explain.
Plus a big idea will change you. Your friends may love you, but they
141
don't want you to change. If you change, then their dynamic with you
also changes. They like things the way they are, that's how they love
you- the way you are, not the way you may become.
Ergo, they have no incentive to see you change. And they will be
resistant to anything that catalyzes it. That's human nature. And you
would do the same, if the shoe was on the other foot.
With business colleagues it's even worse. They're used to dealing with
you in a certain way. They're used to having a certain level of control
over the relationship. And they want whatever makes them more
prosperous. Sure, they might prefer it if you prosper as well, but that's
not their top priority.
If your idea is so good that it changes your dynamic enough to where
you need them less, or God forbid, THE MARKET needs them less, then
they're going to resist your idea every chance they can.
Again, that's human nature.
GOOD IDEAS ALTER THE POWER BALANCE IN RELATIONSHIPS, THAT
IS WHY GOOD IDEAS ARE ALWAYS INITIALLY RESISTED.
Good ideas come with a heavy burden. Which is why so few people
have them. So few people can handle it.
2. The idea doesn't have to be big. It just has to be yours.
142
The sovereignty you have over your work will inspire far more people
than the actual content ever will.
We all spend a lot of time being impressed by folk we've never met.
Somebody featured in the media who's got a big company, a big
product, a big movie, a big bestseller. Whatever.
And we spend even more time trying unsuccessfully to keep up with
them. Trying to start up our own companies, our own products, our
own film projects, books and whatnot.
I'm as guilty as anyone. I tried lots of different things over the years,
trying desperately to pry my career out of the jaws of mediocrity.
Some to do with business, some to do with art etc.
One evening, after one false start too many, I just gave up. Sitting at
a bar, feeling a bit burned out by work and life in general, I just
started drawing on the back of business cards for no reason. I didn't
really need a reason. I just did it because it was there, because it
amused me in a kind of random, arbitrary way.
Of course it was stupid. Of course it was uncommercial. Of course it
wasn't going to go anywhere. Of course it was a complete and utter
waste of time. But in retrospect, it was this built-in futility that gave it
its edge. Because it was the exact opposite of all the "Big Plans" my
peers and I were used to making. It was so liberating not to have to
be thinking about all that, for a change.
It was so liberating to be doing something that didn't have to impress
anybody, for a change.
It was so liberating to be doing something that didn't have to have
some sort of commercial angle, for a change.
It was so liberating to have something that belonged just to me and
no one else, for a change.
It was so liberating to feel complete sovereignty, for a change. To feel
complete freedom, for a change.
143
And of course, it was then, and only then, that the outside world
started paying attention.
The sovereignty you have over your work will inspire far more people
than the actual content ever will. How your own sovereignty inspires
other people to find their own sovereignty, their own sense of freedom
and possibility, will give the work far more power than the work's
objective merits ever will.
Your idea doesn't have to be big. It just has to be yours alone. The
more the idea is yours alone, the more freedom you have to do
something really amazing.
The more amazing, the more people will click with your idea. The more
people click with your idea, the more this little thing of yours will
snowball into a big thing.
That's what doodling on business cards taught me.
3. Put the hours in.
Doing anything worthwhile takes forever. 90% of what separates
successful people and failed people is time, effort, and stamina.
I get asked a lot, "Your business card format is very simple. Aren't you
worried about somebody ripping it off?"
Standard Answer: Only if they can draw more of them than me, better
than me.
144
What gives the work its edge is the simple fact that I've spent years
drawing them. I've drawn thousands. Tens of thousands of man hours.
So if somebody wants to rip my idea off, go ahead. If somebody wants
to overtake me in the business card doodle wars, go ahead. You've got
many long years in front of you. And unlike me, you won't be doing it
for the joy of it. You'll be doing it for some self-loathing, ill-informed,
lame-ass mercenary reason. So the years will be even longer and far,
far more painful. Lucky you.
If somebody in your industry is more successful than you, it's probably
because he works harder at it than you do. Sure, maybe he's more
inherently talented, more adept at networking etc, but I don't consider
that an excuse. Over time, that advantage counts for less and less.
Which is why the world is full of highly talented, network-savvy, failed
mediocrities.
So yeah, success means you've got a long road ahead of you,
regardless. How do you best manage it?
Well, as I've written elsewhere, don't quit your day job. I didn't. I work
every day at the office, same as any other regular schmo. I have a
long commute on the train, ergo that's when I do most of my drawing.
When I was younger I drew mostly while sitting at a bar, but that got
old.
The point is; an hour or two on the train is very manageable for me.
The fact I have a job means I don't feel pressured to do something
market-friendly. Instead, I get to do whatever the hell I want. I get to
do it for my own satisfaction. And I think that makes the work more
powerful in the long run. It also makes it easier to carry on with it in a
calm fashion, day-in-day out, and not go crazy in insane creative
bursts brought on by money worries.
The day job, which I really like, gives me something productive and
interesting to do among fellow adults. It gets me out of the house in
the daytime. If I were a professional cartoonist I'd just be chained to a
drawing table at home all day, scribbling out a living in silence,
interrupted only by frequent trips to the coffee shop. No, thank you.
Simply put, my method allows me to pace myself over the long haul,
which is important.
145
Stamina is utterly important. And stamina is only possible if it's
managed well. People think all they need to do is endure one crazy,
intense, job-free creative burst and their dreams will come true. They
are wrong, they are stupidly wrong.
Being good at anything is like figure skating- the definition of being
good at it is being able to make it look easy. But it never is easy. Ever.
That's what the stupidly wrong people conveniently forget.
If I was just starting out writing, say, a novel or a screenplay, or
maybe starting up a new software company, I wouldn't try to quit my
job in order to make this big, dramatic heroic-quest thing about it.
I would do something far simpler: I would find that extra hour or two
in the day that belongs to nobody else but me, and I would make it
productive. Put the hours in, do it for long enough and magical, lifetransforming things happen eventually. Sure, that means less time
watching TV, internet surfing, going out or whatever.
But who cares?
4. If your biz plan depends on you suddenly being "discovered"
by some big shot, your plan will probably fail.
Nobody suddenly discovers anything. Things are made slowly and in
pain. I was offered a quite substantial publishing deal a year or two
146
ago. Turned it down. The company sent me a contract. I looked it
over. Hmmmm...
Called the company back. Asked for some clarifications on some points
in the contract. Never heard back from them. The deal died.
This was a very respected company. You may have even heard of it.
They just assumed I must be just like all the other people they
represent- hungry and desperate and willing to sign anything.
They wanted to own me, regardless of how good a job they did.
That's the thing about some big publishers. They want 110% from
you, but they don't offer to do likewise in return. To them, the artist is
just one more noodle in a big bowl of pasta.
Their business model is to basically throw the pasta against the wall,
and see which one sticks. The ones that fall to the floor are just
forgotten. Publishers are just middlemen. That's all. If artists could
remember that more often, they'd save themselves a lot of
aggravation.
5. You are responsible for your own experience.
Nobody can tell you if what you're doing is good, meaningful or
worthwhile. The more compelling the path, the more lonely it is.
Every creative person is looking for "The Big Idea". You know, the one
that is going to catapult them out from the murky depths of obscurity
and on to the highest planes of incandescent lucidity.
147
The one that's all love-at-first-sight with the Zeitgeist.
The one that's going to get them invited to all the right parties,
metaphorical or otherwise.
So naturally you ask yourself, if and when you finally come up with
The Big Idea, after years of toil, struggle and doubt, how do you know
whether or not it is "The One"?
Answer: You don't.
There's no glorious swelling of existential triumph. That's not what
happens. All you get is this rather kvetchy voice inside you that seems
to say, "This is totally stupid. This is utterly moronic. This is a
complete waste of time. I'm going to do it anyway." And you go do it
anyway.
Second-rate ideas like glorious swellings far more. Keeps them alive
longer.
6. Everyone is born creative; everyone is given a box of crayons
in kindergarten.
Then when you hit puberty they take the crayons away and replace
them with books on algebra etc. Being suddenly hit years later with
the creative bug is just a wee voice telling you, "I’d like my crayons
back, please."
148
So you've got the itch to do something. Write a screenplay, start a
painting, write a book, turn your recipe for fudge brownies into a
proper business, whatever. You don't know where the itch came from,
it's almost like it just arrived on your doorstep, uninvited. Until now
you were quite happy holding down a real job, being a regular
person...
Until now.
You don't know if you're any good or not, but you'd think you could be.
And the idea terrifies you. The problem is, even if you are good, you
know nothing about this kind of business. You don't know any
publishers or agents or all these fancy-schmancy kind of folk. You
have a friend who's got a cousin in California who's into this kind of
stuff, but you haven't talked to your friend for over two years...
Besides, if you write a book, what if you can't find a publisher? If you
write a screenplay, what if you can't find a producer? And what if the
producer turns out to be a crook? You've always worked hard your
whole life, you'll be damned if you'll put all that effort into something if
there ain't no pot of gold at the end of this dumb-ass rainbow...
Heh. That's not your wee voice asking for the crayons back. That's
your outer voice, your adult voice, your boring & tedious voice trying
to find a way to get the wee crayon voice to shut the hell up.
Your wee voice doesn't want you to sell something. Your wee voice
wants you to make something. There's a big difference. Your wee
voice doesn't give a damn about publishers or Hollywood producers.
Go ahead and make something. Make something really special. Make
something amazing that will really blow the mind of anybody who sees
it. If you try to make something just to fit your uninformed view of
some hypothetical market, you will fail. If you make something special
and powerful and honest and true, you will succeed.
The wee voice didn't show up because it decided you need more
money or you need to hang out with movie stars. Your wee voice came
back because your soul somehow depends on it. There's something
you haven't said, something you haven't done, some light that needs
to be switched on, and it needs to be taken care of. Now.
149
So you have to listen to the wee voice or it will die... taking a big
chunk of you along with it.
They're only crayons. You didn't fear them in kindergarten, why fear
them now?
7. Keep your day job.
I’m not just saying that for the usual reason i.e. because I think your
idea will fail. I’m saying it because to suddenly quit one’s job in a big
ol' creative drama-queen moment is always, always, always in direct
conflict with what I call "The Sex & Cash Theory".
THE SEX & CASH THEORY: "The creative person basically has two
kinds of jobs: One is the sexy, creative kind. Second is the kind that
pays the bills. Sometimes the task in hand covers both bases, but not
often. This tense duality will always play center stage. It will never be
transcended."
A good example is Phil, a NY photographer friend of mine. He does
really wild stuff for the indie magazines - it pays nothing, but it allows
him to build his portfolio. Then he'll go off and shoot some catalogues
for a while. Nothing too exciting, but it pays the bills.
Another example is somebody like Martin Amis. He writes "serious"
novels, but he has to supplement his income by writing the occasional
newspaper article for the London papers (novel royalties are bloody
150
pathetic- even bestsellers like Amis aren't immune).
Or geeks. You spend you weekdays writing code for a faceless
corporation ("Cash"), then you spend your evening and weekends
writing anarchic, weird computer games to amuse your techie friends
with (“Sex”).
It's balancing the need to make a good living while still maintaining
one's creative sovereignty. I'm thinking about the young writer who
has to wait tables to pay the bills, in spite of her writing appearing in
all the cool and hip magazines... who dreams of one day of not having
her life divided so harshly. Well, over time the 'harshly' bit might go
away, but not the 'divided'. "This tense duality will always play center
stage. It will never be transcended."
As soon as you accept this, I mean really accept this, for some reason
your career starts moving ahead faster. I don't know why this
happens. It's the people who refuse to cleave their lives this way- who
just want to start Day One by quitting their current crappy day job and
moving straight on over to best-selling author... Well, they never
make it.
8. Companies that squelch creativity can no longer compete
with companies that champion creativity.
Since the modern, scientifically-conceived corporation was invented in
the early half of the Twentieth Century, creativity has been sacrificed
in favor of forwarding the interests of the "Team Player". Fair enough.
151
There was more money in doing it that way; that's why they did it.
There's only one problem. Team Players are not very good at creating
value on their own. They are not autonomous; they need a team in
order to exist. So now corporations are awash with non-autonomous
thinkers. "I don't know. What do you think?" "I don't know. What do
you think?" "I don't know. What do you think?" "I don't know. What do
you think?” And so on.
Creating an economically viable entity where lack of original thought is
handsomely rewarded creates a rich, fertile environment for parasites
to breed. And that's exactly what's been happening. So now we have
millions upon millions of human tapeworms thriving in the Western
World, making love to their PowerPoint presentations, feasting on the
creativity of others. What happens to an ecology, when the parasite
level reaches critical mass? The ecology dies. If you're creative, if you
can think independently, if you can articulate passion, if you can
override the fear of being wrong, then your company needs you now
more than it ever did. And now your company can no longer afford to
pretend that isn't the case. So dust off your horn and start tooting it.
Exactly.
However if you're not particularly creative, then you're in real trouble.
And there's no buzzword or "new paradigm" that can help you. They
may not have mentioned this in business school, but... people like
watching dinosaurs die.
9. Everybody has their own private Mount Everest they were
152
put on this earth to climb.
You may never reach the summit; for that you will be forgiven. But if
you don't make at least one serious attempt to get above the snowline, years later you will find yourself lying on your deathbed, and all
you will feel is emptiness.
This metaphorical Mount Everest doesn't have to manifest itself as
"Art". For some people, yes, it might be a novel or a painting. But Art
is just one path up the mountain, one of many. With others the path
may be something more prosaic. Making a million dollars, raising a
family, owning the most Burger King franchises in the Tri-State area,
building some crazy oversized model airplane, the list has no end.
Whatever. Let's talk about you now. Your mountain. Your private
Mount Everest. Yes, that one. Exactly. Let's say you never climb it. Do
you have a problem with that? I think it's not OK for you never to try
to climb it. And I think you agree with me. Otherwise you wouldn't
have read this far. So it looks like you're going to have to climb the
frickin' mountain. Deal with it.
My advice? You don't need my advice. You really don't. The biggest
piece of advice I could give anyone would be this:
"Admit that your own private Mount Everest exists. That is half the
battle." Rock on.
10. The more talented somebody is, the less they need the
153
props.
Meeting a person who wrote a masterpiece on the back of a deli menu
would not surprise me. Meeting a person who wrote a masterpiece
with a silver Cartier fountain pen on an antique writing table in an airy
SoHo loft would SERIOUSLY surprise me. Abraham Lincoln wrote The
Gettysburg Address on a piece of ordinary stationery that he had
borrowed from the friend whose house he was staying at.
James Joyce wrote with a simple pencil and notebook. Somebody else
did the typing, but only much later.
Van Gogh rarely painted with more than six colors on his palette. I
draw on the back of wee biz cards. Whatever. There's no correlation
between creativity and equipment ownership. None. Zilch. Nada.
Actually, as the artist gets more into his thing, and as he gets more
successful, his number of tools tends to go down. He knows what
works for him. Expending mental energy on stuff wastes time. He's a
man on a mission. He's got a deadline. He's got some rich client
breathing down his neck. The last thing he wants is to spend 3 weeks
learning how to use a router drill if he doesn't need to.
A fancy tool just gives the second-rater one more pillar to hide behind.
Which is why there are so many second-rate art directors with stateof-the-art Macintosh computers.
Which is why there are so many hack writers with state-of-the-art
laptops.
Which is why there are so many crappy photographers with state-ofthe-art digital cameras.
Which is why there are so many unremarkable painters with expensive
studios in trendy neighborhoods.
Hiding behind pillars, all of them.
Pillars do not help; they hinder. The more mighty the pillar, the more
you end up relying on it psychologically, the more it gets in your way.
And this applies to business, as well.
Which is why there are so many failing businesses with fancy offices.
154
Which is why there's so many failing businessmen spending a fortune
on fancy suits and expensive yacht club memberships.
Again, hiding behind pillars.
Successful people, artists and non-artists alike, are very good at
spotting pillars. They're very good at doing without them. Even more
importantly, once they've spotted a pillar, they're very good at quickly
getting rid of it.
Good pillar management is one of the most valuable talents you can
have on the planet. If you have it, I envy you. If you don't, I pity you.
Sure, nobody's perfect. We all have our pillars. We seem to need
them. You are never going to live a pillar-free existence. Neither am I.
All we can do is keep asking the question, "Is this a pillar" about every
aspect of our business, our craft, our reason for being alive etc and go
from there. The more we ask, the better we get at spotting pillars, the
more quickly the pillars vanish.
Ask. Keep asking. And then ask again. Stop asking and you're dead.
11. Don't try to stand out from the crowd; avoid crowds
altogether.
Your plan for getting your work out there has to be as original as the
actual work, perhaps even more so. The work has to create a totally
new market. There's no point trying to do the same thing as 250,000
other young hopefuls, waiting for a miracle. All existing business
155
models are wrong. Find a new one.
I've seen it so many times. Call him Ted. A young kid in the big city,
just off the bus, wanting to be a famous something: artist, writer,
musician, film director, whatever. He's full of fire, full of passion, full of
ideas. And you meet Ted again five or ten years later, and he's still
tending bar at the same restaurant. He's not a kid anymore. But he's
still no closer to his dream.
His voice is still as defiant as ever, certainly, but there's an emptiness
to his words that wasn't there before.
Yeah, well, Ted probably chose a very well-trodden path. Write novel,
be discovered, publish bestseller, sell movie rights, retire rich in 5
years. Or whatever.
No worries that there's probably 3 million other
novelists/actors/musicians/painters etc with the same plan. But of
course, Ted's special. Of course his fortune will defy the odds
eventually. Of course. That's what he keeps telling you, as he refills
your glass.
Is your plan of a similar ilk? If it is, then I'd be concerned.
When I started the business card cartoons I was lucky; at the time I
had a pretty well-paid corporate job in New York that I liked. The idea
of quitting it in order to join the ranks of Bohemia didn't even occur to
me. What, leave Manhattan for Brooklyn? Ha. Not bloody likely. I was
just doing it to amuse myself in the evenings, to give me something to
do at the bar while I waited for my date to show up or whatever.
There was no commercial incentive or larger agenda governing my
actions. If I wanted to draw on the back of a business card instead of a
"proper" medium, I could. If I wanted to use a four-letter word, I
could. If I wanted to ditch the standard figurative format and draw
psychotic abstractions instead, I could. There was no flashy media or
publishing executive to keep happy. And even better, there was no
artist-lifestyle archetype to conform to.
It gave me a lot of freedom. That freedom paid off later.
156
Question how much freedom your path affords you. Be utterly ruthless
about it. It's your freedom that will get you to where you want to go.
Blind faith in an over-subscribed, vainglorious myth will only hinder
you.
Is your plan unique? Is there nobody else doing it? Then I'd be
excited. A little scared, maybe, but excited.
12. If you accept the pain, it cannot hurt you.
The pain of making the necessary sacrifices always hurts more than
you think it's going to. I know. It sucks. That being said, doing
something seriously creative is one of the most amazing experiences
one can have, in this or any other lifetime. If you can pull it off, it's
worth it. Even if you don't end up pulling it off, you'll learn many
incredible, magical, valuable things. It's NOT doing it when you know
you full well you HAD the opportunity- that hurts FAR more than any
failure.
Frankly, I think you're better off doing something on the assumption
that you will NOT be rewarded for it, that it will NOT receive the
recognition it deserves, that it will NOT be worth the time and effort
invested in it.
The obvious advantage to this angle is, of course, if anything good
157
comes of it, then it's an added bonus.
[To read the remainder of IGNORE EVERYBODY- 40
chapters in all - please go buy the book, Thanks!]
158
Zappos’
Values
Zappos
spends
more
time
focusing
on
its
culture
than
most
companies.
That
approach
isn't
for
everyone
but
then
again,
very
few
companies
are
like
the
customer
evangelist‐powered
Zappos,
which
does
over
$1
billion
annually
since
launching
in
1999.
Values
are
platitudes
unless
they're
backed
up
with
action.
Zappos'
values
are
worth
spreading.
(Links
go
to
an
explanation
of
each.)
•
Deliver
WOW
Through
Service
<http://about.zappos.com/our‐unique‐
culture/zappos‐core‐values/deliver‐wow‐through‐service>
•
Embrace
and
Drive
Change
<http://about.zappos.com/our‐unique‐
culture/zappos‐core‐values/embrace‐and‐drive‐change>
•
Create
Fun
and
A
Little
Weirdness
<http://about.zappos.com/our‐unique‐
culture/zappos‐core‐values/create‐fun‐and‐little‐weirdness>
•
Be
Adventurous,
Creative,
and
Open‐Minded
<http://about.zappos.com/our‐
unique‐culture/zappos‐core‐values/be‐adventurous‐creative‐and‐open‐minded>
•
Pursue
Growth
and
Learning
<http://about.zappos.com/our‐unique‐
culture/zappos‐core‐values/pursue‐growth‐and‐learning>
•
Build
Open
and
Honest
Relationships
With
Communication
<http://about.zappos.com/our‐unique‐culture/zappos‐core‐values/build‐open‐
and‐honest‐relationships‐communication>
•
Build
a
Positive
Team
and
Family
Spirit
<http://about.zappos.com/our‐unique‐
culture/zappos‐core‐values/build‐positive‐team‐and‐family‐spirit>
•
Do
More
With
Less
<http://about.zappos.com/our‐unique‐culture/zappos‐core‐
values/do‐more‐less>
•
Be
Passionate
and
Determined
<http://about.zappos.com/our‐unique‐
culture/zappos‐core‐values/be‐passionate‐and‐determined>
•
Be
Humble
<http://about.zappos.com/our‐unique‐culture/zappos‐core‐
values/be‐humble>