Archive for the ‘advertising’ Category

The two kinds of Web video

Tuesday, December 1st, 2009

I believe that there are two kinds of Web videos – those that exist as self-contained narratives, and those that serve a functional external purpose.

Self-contained narratives are iterations of a larger type, what we have classically referred to as “movies” or “films”.  Movies can be anything from that 15 second clip of a dog on a skateboard to a two-hour long Netflix stream of Spider-Man 3.  To a degree such videos can serve a functional external purpose – for example, the skateboard video could be co-opted by a skateboarding website to help generate pageviews, and we certainly understand a large Hollywood movie like Spider-Man 3 is going to have all kinds of licensed merchandise tie-ins – but invariably, “movies” are, in the old media sense, individual SKUs meant to be consumed on a per-performance basis.  By individual SKU, I mean that we think of these movies as products, something we would have traditionally exhibited on the aforementioned per-performance basis; we’d sell tickets or rent the DVD or otherwise distribute, or commoditize, these self-contained narratives for no other reason than to create a viewing experience, or an individual performance of a narrative which, hopefully, would be paid for individually.  Moreover, the experience can end when the curtains close and the lights come up.

Now, the fortunate thing about the Web is that anyone, anywhere, even collaboratively over great distances, can produce movies, the 15-second or 2-hour variety, completely unrestricted, and post them almost anywhere on-line.  From there, movies can take on new life in the social media space, too, in that they can spread an idea, help build a filmmaker’s portfolio and reputation, foster a meme, and perhaps lead to further work for the filmmakers.  Also, movies can become an active part of participatory culture.

The unfortunate thing is that, as digital commodities with a reproduction price of zero, movies on-line are painfully difficult to sell as self-contained narratives.  Almost all must (or inevitably will via infringement) be shared for free.

Which brings me to our second variety of Web video, material that serves a functional external purpose… (more…)

Post-class Reflection: Economics 101, courtesy of Monday Night Football, Chris Anderson, and Mickey Mouse

Friday, October 30th, 2009

Epic MickeyI’ll explain what this image is about momentarily, but first, let me begin with a prologue.  Tuesday night in my Net Economics course at the UW MCDM a lively debate, to say the least, was had over Chris Anderson’s new book “Free”; whether free as a concept was good or bad.  I took the free side, but it made me feel a little lonely.  I almost felt like I was the only student in the room who believed that it’s a good thing that we’re moving towards a digital economy based on giving bits away, harnessing business models that find alternative sources of revenue.  For instance, a fellow student mentioned that Microsoft has a 90% market share of netbook operating systems, a testament to the strength of their software, no doubt.  However, I posited that if MSFT went the Anderson route and gave their OS away for free they could have a 100% market share.  I’m not going to say what the reaction to that was, but considering our proximity to Redmond and the makeup of the class, which includes Microsoft employees, you can take a wild guess…

Anderson’s “Free” starts out by giving us a quick economics briefing, using that as backdrop to defend the notion of ‘free’.  He explains that, for instance, traditional, or old media has used a third-party advertising model to earn revenue while still providing a “free” product.  I may not pay for 30 Rock, but when I buy products advertised during commercial breaks on TV or in interstitials on Hulu, I am still giving my money to NBC.  It’s pretty basic and has worked for Google, a benevolent empire that has largely amassed their wealth through selling advertising and diversifying revenue streams.  Of course, the model isn’t absolutely identical – the web magnifies things by presenting opportunities to apply wisdom gleaned from specific metrics and target users with relevant advertising, as well as ways of satisfying niches with long tail services – but the principle is the same: subsidize one product (free content) with money made from another (paid ad space).  Multiply and diversify.

With the notion of one product funding the other in mind, I further illustrate the point by explaining how I helped inadvertently save ABC, Monday Night Football, and the Disney company in 2004.  Maybe.  Or not.  But keep reading!  I think you’ll enjoy the reasoning anyways!

(more…)

About Chris Anderson’s “Free”, Malcolm Gladwell’s review, and why I think Mark Cuban is mostly right

Wednesday, July 8th, 2009

Chris Anderson, editor of Wired and author of The Long Tail, has recently released a free book, suitably entitled FreeDrew Keller, our “Web Strategies for Storytelling” instructor this summer in the MCDM, pointed us students to several responses to the release, including those by Malcolm Gladwell of The New Yorker, marketing guru Seth Godin (in response to Gladwell’s generally dismissive review), and Dallas Mavericks owner/attention whore Mark Cuban.  Forgive me for sounding overly casual or trite in my response to the discussion, but I think at this point a dead horse is being beat to an outright pulp.  The overwhelming message of the digital age is that free is what the people want, free is what the people are finding ways to get, and new business models are in high demand to figure out how to cash in on free (as impossible as it sounds).  Of course, everyone is trying to figure out what those models are. (…and we of the MCDM know the answers always begin with the word ‘social’…)

(more…)

Hanson Hosein and Independent America – Rising From Ruins: The Social Media Strategy

Thursday, June 4th, 2009

Client: Hanson Hosein and Independent America – Rising From Ruins

The following post contains the final social media strategy to promote the recently released independent feature film, Rising From Ruins, part of the Independent America documentary series produced by HRHMedia.

ia_header_2photomerge

(more…)

Responding to Heidi Sinclair on Media and Brand Supremacy

Wednesday, May 13th, 2009

http://heidisinclair.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/brand-supremacy-and-media-the-new-brand-in-media-could-be-nike/

Heidi Sinclair argues that big brand names like Nike or Home Depot could be in an excellent position to enter the media business as content generators.  Nike could be the next ESPN, Home Depot could tackle the home improvement news realm, etc.  This is in keeping with Paul Gillin’s contention that a company like Staples could be a content source for information and resources related to small business, and so forth.

I completely, respectfully disagree with both Gillin and Sinclair.

(more…)

How to promote the upcoming GPS Mazes exhibit at the Pacific Science Center

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

The following has been prepared as an exercise for my Digital Storytelling class at the UW MCDM. It is in no way, shape, or form officially endorsed by Stan Orchard, The Pacific Science Center, or GPS Adventures.

PROPOSAL | Using Social Media with Traditional Advertising: A way to bring technologically unsavvy families to the upcoming GPS Mazes exhibit at the Pacific Science Center

LOGLINE | A series of 5-6 thirty second traditionally crafted commercials promoting the upcoming geocaching exhibit at the Pacific Science Center. Each ad is hosted at Myspace Video and posted to the center’s Myspace profile. Each video depicts a different well-known local Seattle personality being asked to explain what geocaching is to a kid interviewer. Each personality fails to explain it, in a comical manner. Local kids facepalm. A narrator then declares: “Kids, adults don’t know anything about geocaching. Bring your parents to the GPS Mazes exhibit at the Pacific Science Center. We’ll help you teach them a thing or two.” (web ad video series, color, 2009)

(more…)

The Xbox 360 and Playstation 3: How design makes them successful (or not) as brands

Thursday, October 23rd, 2008

Shelley Armstrong, Interaction Design Manager at the Microsoft Design Center, spoke to my fellow students and I last week in our interaction design class.  She talked about the process of designing the look, the packaging and the “overall cohesive aesthetic” of the Xbox 360 (see Microsoft design center – our people for more).  She detailed the process of defining your problem (such as, make everything relative to Xbox’s design completely cohesive) and then the cyclical process of designing, prototyping, and evaluating a product until you can finalize it.  It was interesting to hear her story of taking on huge tasks from humble beginnings, where she began designing the dash for Xbox by herself to eventually growing and leading a major team through two console launches.

Armstrong worked on guiding the Xbox brand’s design through the entire production process to maintain uniformity.  Some of the insights that were shared by Armstrong with the class about her approach to even the most finite details of the Xbox packaging, even, are applicable to John Maeda’s ten laws of simplicity.  (If you’re not familiar with Maeda’s work out of MIT, please visit the Laws of Simplicity website.)  Armstrong, for example, spoke about dealing with the preponderance of warning text that would be found on plastic wrapping inside packaging, which results from having to duplicate choke hazard messages in multiple languages.  This was the initial result of choosing a certain type of font, in fact, which actually increased the amount of material that would have to be printed.  Here, in her attempt to follow law 2, or organize (in this case, keeping everything together with a common typography), she learned from law 9 it seems, failure – some things can never be made simple (or, to stretch, let’s say simpler here, in that it would be simpler to keep everything uniform to one type of font, in an ideal world).

Armstrong also spoke about how designing for one space is not the same as designing for another.  Here I will talk about how the brand design presents itself in two areas to illustrate this point.  Although both the Xbox website, available in web browsers of course, and the Xbox Live experience only available on the Xbox console are both navigable, thus lending themselves to what I thought would be similar designs, it turns out that the needs and uses of both spaces were different, and the design is not that similar.  Web users are looking for certain information, whereas the console has a contained environment that allows the user a different navigation experience to access the content they are looking for.  Nonetheless, the design aesthetic remains constant.  The brand is king as will be shown below.

For further illustration, just compare the Xbox Live website to the Xbox Live console experience:

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live … hit that link for the first look, then take a look at this screenshot of the console:

While both look very different, both have a uniform aesthetic in colors, typography, and iconography.  They exhibit a cohesive look in keeping with the Xbox brand.

Enter Playstation 3.  The PS3 is another robust brand that offers a console network experience and a web presence basically the same way Xbox does.  However, PS3 isn’t maintaining its aesthetic between their web presence and what is known as the Playstation Network on their console (specifically some of its components, not all, so in this case, the Playstation Store is referred to, comparable to Xbox Live’s Marketplace in many ways).  This represents a significant divergence from Xbox’s brand model which remains cohesive from screen to screen.  See below:

http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3 …for the web presence, which is very black in tone, and the…

… Playstation Store, which diverges from the color schematic.

I think what has made both the Xbox and the Playstation 3 successful in terms of branding in each camp, at least in general (according to my personal observations) in their television and other marketing, both brands, is that they both keep the brands’ colors and other aesthetic elements generally uniform between different spaces in which the brands each separatly exist.  However, one can see that there is apparently more of a need on Sony’s part to keep the Playstation web presence separate in look and feel from the console-based Playstation Network, which takes a stylistic turn when you get to the store, for instance.  This would lead one to lean in favor of the Xbox 360 as a more successfully designed brand than the Playstation 3 moniker.

References:

Microsoft design center – our people. Retrieved 10/23/2008, 2008, from http://www.microsoft.com/design/People/Detail.aspx?key=shelley


Bad Behavior has blocked 697 access attempts in the last 7 days.