« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
If the last graph was the ecosystem map of media, then this is definitely the food web. It's interesting to note the relationships between the producers and the distributors and how the distinction is becoming less obvious.
_
* Happy Halloween!
I'm finding more intersections every day! Emergent Aesthetics + operat!ve disaster response. This one rocks my socks...
"Agent-based conception of disaster events: modelling human actors as rule-driven, simultaneous interactions within networks, as both affecting environments and expressing rules differently as environments change."Emergence Notes (via Easily Distracted)
UPDATE 1 (10-30-05)
OK, so we can use emergence to emulate known, studied phenomenon like a tree or swarm behavior in bees. And we can also use the algorithms devised from these emulations to build unknown things, like the most effective NASA radio transmitter for a satellite based on a tree algorithm or a FedEx package managing system based on an ant algorithm. These things have been done, and they are unbelievably awesome.
But, what would happen if we were to use emergence to emulate and create known and unknown conceptual phenomenon - i.e. emotions, ideas, experiences, cultures, etc?
Would we develop algorithms for emotion - a rule-based articulation of love, hate, or indifference? Perhaps we could create new experiences that we could have never conceived, but are still able to understand because they evolved from other ideas and experiences. Emergent Aesthetics gives us this framework of creation and understanding - in Brand Experience terms, it's a Turing machine.
_
* more updates to come...I'm working my way to the middle of the intersection
Grant McCracken proving that the best parts of conferences are not the actual workshops and events, but the coffee hours in between and the cocktails afterward...
"Marketing instruments and vehicles must grow more interesting and sophisticated. Pirates, jolly green giants, dough boys, these are no longer enough. What we want now are more fully realized creatures that invite the consumer to enter into acts of co-creation and self completion.The funny thing is that if we do our jobs, the creature leaves the brand and enters the culture. Now marketers are like any other culture creators, except that, unlike the creators of the Simpsons, say, they seize the marketing opportunity at the beginning instead of the end of the creature's life cycle."
Of course, there's more!
Click for PDF
I made this in an attempt to gain understanding on the changing media-scape that envelops our daily lives. I'm not sure exactly if I've accomplished something, but it sure looks pretty...
This graph is not based on any statistical data, but on personal experience, perception, and extrapolation. I've been reading a lot lately about how brand experience is of utmost importance, so doesn't that mean my extrapolations are just as valid as stats? In this world, perception is truly reality.
This is about layers and intersections. The circles represent the amount (or perceived amount!) of media in a particular category, and the intersections show the effects of different aspects of media on each other and the general public. Something new, that many marketers and business owners have not seen before, is the burgeoning area of participatory media. Many will dismiss this area as a fad, or as irrelevant. Others will hail it as a major paradigm shift, but then turn around and attempt to treat it as an area to capitalize and exploit. Yes, this area is important, it is easily the most important development in recent media history, but for a very simple reason:
Consumers want a conversation.
I believe this is because of two things - technology and globalization. The technology is available so that people can have media wherever and whenever they want; they can also create media whenever and wherever they want. This aspect is easy to explain and understand - give a curious monkey a tool and see what happens. The second aspect of globalization is a bit denser, and involves explaining thousands of years of trade and economy. So I'll sum up: you can get the same cup of Starbucks coffee in Phoenix, AZ as you can in Dubai, United Arab Emirates and still get overcharged but buy it anyway. So, in this situation, where is the consumer, besides fulfilling a wallet to cashier function? (Hint the answer starts with a "no" and ends with a "where") This situation is not beneficial to either parties, the corporation and the consumer, because they are locked into extremely limited roles that can't adapt well, and are usually degenerative. This is why globalization hasn't completely happened yet.
Globalization, in a perfect scenario, will actually promote local cultures and benefit the world economy (see "global village"). However, this will not happen unless the consumer is included as a vital participant, rather than a separate entity from the corporation. So what does this all have to do with conversation?
The traditional model of advertising and branding can be seen as a one-way conversation, if that. A more apt metaphor would be a shouting match between companies all trying to catch someone's attention. This is because consumers did not have a platform to actively engage a company (aka. push-back). Now that technology has provided multiple platforms (all the ones that companies use) on a global scale, we are starting to move into the age of conversation. This means that it will be easier of companies and consumers to adapt, change, and specialize their relations, which in turn creates more win-win outcomes. So why is a designer taking about economies of global scale?
Branding is essentially the relationship between the consumer and the company, and it is this relationship that will lead to beneficial globalization. Branding is the conversation. It tell the consumer what your company is about and whether you're going to shout or listen.
_
* note: this was all done really quickly to get the idea out of my head, so it may resemble bullet points rather than a finely crafted rhetorical chef d'oeuvre. I will expand on these ideas in further posts. Thanks for your understanding.
There's More!
That certainly seems to be the case, if you are going by what marketing/branding blogs have to say...
From the MIT Laboratory for Branding Cultures:
How the Open Source Revolution Impacts Your Brands (October 11, 2005)
From Brand Noise:
Does the Ad Biz Need to Think More Like the the Movie Biz? (October 16, 2005)
The Contribution Economy (July 29, 2005)
Managing Brands in Global Markets: One Size Doesn't Fit All (May 20, 2005)
Garfield Peers into Ad Industry's Chaotic Future (April 13, 2005)
From John Hagel:
Restoring the Power of Brands (July 16, 2005)
From AdMap & Scenario DNA:
"Who Owns the Brand?" by Tim Stock & Marie Lena Tupot (July 16, 2005)
From the Museum of Media History:
An interesting take on newsmedia in 2014
From Grant McCracken:
Brands as shadows (November 18, 2004)
_
* side note - convergent thoughts
From Emergence Marketing:
Emergence Marketing - why the name? (March 31, 2005) An interesting intersection... insert my own research here (emergent aesthetics + open source branding = new paradigm?)
Recently, I've been reading a lot more about how marketing and branding are starting to change, and it all seems to coincide with an essay I wrote almost a year ago, so I thought I would post it again and start gathering other examples and writings on what I feel to be a major change in the world of branding.
Open Source Branding and the Reputation Economy
by Glen Carlson (written 11.21.04)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The shift in power from retailer/manufacturer to consumer is starting to happen. More importantly, consumers are beginning to recognize their power. Much of this recognition stems from open sources—the web, publications, social networks & communities—free markets to critique the “free market.”
Companies are starting to feel the effect of this phenomenon, especially in their bottom line. When two or more products are comparable in quality, branding and/or seductiveness that make the customer buy the product, and allow the producer to charge more, right?
That’s the way it used to be—a sharp logo, or a slick ad campaign used to relate directly to profits. This is why branding became a holy grail of sorts for companies. However, with this transition in business/consumer patterns must come a transition in branding.
The branding techniques employed in most cases involve setting a standard for a company’s visual presence—logo, business card, stationery, typeface, etc. This has some inherent problems:
1. If these elements are not visible, they are worthless
Deployment of branding is essential, but how branding is deployed is infinitely more important. Timing, location, material, interactivity—all of these site-specific elements determine the context of what is branded. If you have the most aesthetically pleasing logo in the world, if it is associated in a negative context, people will form a lasting negative opinion it. For example, Jack in the Box is still recovering from the association with a negative opinion. It took about 10 years, a ferocious new ad campaign, and a total restructuring of the way the company does business for them to even survive.
2. It does not allow for rapid change or adaptation
Branding and re-branding initiatives take a long time. Many times the visual standards for every single part of the company have to be scrutinized and either developed or redeveloped. Then there is bureaucracy: Board of Directors, CEO, CFO, CIO, Vice-Presidents, Managers, etc. In many cases all of these people must be satisfied with the branding initiative for it to proceed. Then, when something goes awry in the company’s branding, as it always will, the entire branding process must begin again.
3. It leads to aesthetic elitism
The idea of ownership in branding naturally creates havoc because branding involves emotions and abstract concepts. Does Coca-Cola own the concepts of joy and refreshment? Does McDonald’s own the emotion of happiness? I’d venture to say they think they do. The artistic/creative process is also an intrinsic part of branding, much like music and fine art. And like music and fine art, this leads to similarity and borrowing/inspiration/homage/sampling. Thus, companies end up suing themselves for copyright and trademark infringements. The end result of companies strictly controlling their branding is that the consumer gets left out, and the gap between company and consumer widens.
How can branding transition?
The concept of Open Source Branding hinges on three main ideas:
1. Adaptability and Modularity
2. Customization
3. Reputation
Consumers ultimately want control of brands, and with the shift in business power from manufacturer/retailer to the consumer, this can be successfully demanded. The more of its brand a company gives to the consumer, the more interest there is in the brand—provided the brand has a good reputation in relation to the consumer; a company can give its brand away completely—it won’t matter if no one wants the brand. Thus, we can see that reputation plays an important role in branding, and is a better term for branding in general. In the Open Source model, branding is the aesthetic and physical interaction between company and consumer, while reputation is the consumer’s opinion of this interaction and the company in general.
How does a company give away its brand? One way, which companies are already figuring out, is to offer products that are completely customizable. Two products that iminteractivetely come to mind are Apple’s iPOD, and Toyota’s Scion line of cars. The Scion website even declares right on the front page, “We relinquish all power to you.” These products have single-handedly created their own industries of accessories, which Toyota was smart enough to pre-empt. More importantly, these products have done wonders for their respective companies in terms of reputation. Why?
Both these products were actively branded up to a point; then the branding process was handed over to the consumer to complete in any way he or she deemed. When you see a person with an iPOD, odds are that it is completely covered in articles of personalization—outwardly you are viewing a mostly non-Apple product, but you see that it’s an iPOD. The concept of customization is more powerful that how the product is customized. Thus, Scion and the iPOD, will always be associated in a positive context, even if .the individual customization itself is negative.
Another way to give consumers control of a brand is to give a product away wholesale, with the intent that it will be modified and adapted. This is readily visible in the technology industry. Linux has done a wonderful job in this regard. Whole countries have adopted Linux as their technology of choice—it is adaptable, it is customizable, and it enhances the company’s reputation. Linux has made such an impact that Sun will be releasing the Solaris OS as an open source.
The challenge of Open Source Branding comes in maintaining a modular, adaptable aesthetic without it leading to aesthetic elitism. Something will have to be developed, like the Creative Commons copyright that will allow a range of protections and freedoms for branding elements—perhaps a Creative Commons Trademark? This way, aesthetic elements become usable, modular tools to inform the consumer and modify reputation, rather than restricted marks that can only be used in constrained ways by certain people.
What does the Reputation Economy have to do with Open Source Branding?
Reputation is becoming more important that Branding, and one could make the argument that it always has been—what is important is that now the difference between the two is apparent and making a difference in the business world (read Wally Olins’ On Brand for more on this and reputation management). The power shift from manufacturer/retailer to consumer is taking place as I write; what happens when consumers fully realize their power? Where will we go from here?
One very conceivable route is the emergence of the Reputation Economy. This is not a concept developed by myself, but I believe it is a very real possibility, especially in conjunction with Open Source Branding. Open Source Branding can lead to a Reputation Economy because it resonates with consumers making decisions based on a company’s reputation. When consumers realize their full power, companies with nice looks will not have the advantage they used to; it will be multiple levels of reputation—renown, service, ethics, etc.—that make the difference to the customer. Open Source Branding takes this into account, and actively influences the reputation status of a company in relation to the consumer.
In the Reputation Economy, consumer groups and social networks that assign reputation points, or “whuffie” as Cory Doctorow proposed in his novel, Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, will monitor companies much like a seller’s rating on eBay. For example, Company A has a +83 rating in renown, a -5 rating in service, and a +30 rating in ethics out of a ±100 scale, while Company B has a +22 rating in renown, +50 in service, and -46 in ethics. The customer then makes a choice based on individual opinion of what is important to him or her. Open Source Branding gives companies an adaptable way to represent themselves in the Reputation Economy.
Little ironies: The smiles that are not sought, but stumbled upon
Self-promotion ... or self-deprecation?
I'm about to lose it...my workplace has been turned into a dentists waiting room.
On the playlist (there's about 5 songs that keep repeating OVER and OVER)
- My Endless Love
- I Just Called to Say I Love You
- I've Had the Time of My Life
- Unchained Melody (Lonely rivers flow to the sea, to the sea...)
- The song from Titanic
Those probably aren't the actual names of the songs, but you know what I mean. I'm going out to lunch....far away, and for a good full hour.
In a few hours I'm meeting with a lawyer to go over their research into the patentability of Emergent Aesthetics. I'm really wrestling with the decision to pursue a patent - there are extreme pros and cons, and nothing is concrete. I'll hear what the lawer has to say, mix it with my own ideas, and go from there...