Thursday, November 30, 2006

This and that

A couple interesting bits of news on Media Post today. Target is launching an absolutely enormous outdoor ad system in Herald Square, NYC. Transit commuters will find themselves walking by large ads projected on the walls of passages and corridors. As they walk by, or touch the projections, their motion will alter the ad. For example, Target logos falling like snowflakes will burst into larger snowflakes when touched. The goal here is to keep users interacting with (engaging with?) the ad in a whole new way. It's a new take on some of the innovative advertising that Times Square has seen in the last few months (i.e., allowing users to use their cell phones to design Nike shoes in real time on large screens).

Look for more companies figuring out how to use technology to directly interact with the consumer in a way that's fun, entertaining, engaging -- and just incidentally boosts brand recognition!

On a somewhat related note, did you know that more than half of adult internet users create their own video? Of course, I'm certain that some of that is, well, shall we say for private consumption. Nevertheless, it points to a continuing expanding market for personalized online video. Currently, the editing process is seen as too cumbersome or "techie" for the casual user. New software that makes editing easier will likely lead to increased uploading of home made videos. Watch out YouTube!

Finally, I want to make note of Cory Treddiletti's really amusing take on "Giving Digital Thanks This Season" Personally, I'm thankful for my iPod, which allows me to walk or drive to work without having to ever talk to or really look at another human being.

Stephanie

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Participatory Culture and Engagism

I read with great interest Henry Jenkins' recent report for the MacArthur Foundation titled "Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century." I also had the opportunity to chat with him recently about how the ideas in the this report and, of course, his book "Convergence Culture," relate to engagism. I urge you to review the report and read the book! You'll be glad you did.

By way of background, Jenkins is the Director of the Comparative Media Studies Program at MIT. In our talk, Jenkins made an interesting distinction between what he terms "participatory culture" (i.e., a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one's creations and some type of informal mentorship) and the concept of engagism. He noted that he considers "engagement" to be more individually focused -- individuals engage emotionally or psychologically in a particular issue or concept -- whereas participatory culture is more about the social and cultural process that occurs when an individual is engaged. Put simply, when people are engaged, then they participate. He suggested while we've always had some level of a participatory culture, it's more ubiquitous and visible now due to the Internet.

To me, this distinction connects well with the idea that there are different levels of engagement. In other words, engagement exists along a spectrum of somewhat passive (i.e., I choose to watch a DVD at the gym to escape the tedium of exercise) to very active (i.e., I choose to sign up for a fan site and write a song about the television show Lost). At the higher levels of engagement comes active creation / participation where people seek entry into the "participatory culture."

The shift toward a participatory culture is so prevelant that even traditional media technologies, like the television, recognize the need to allow for audience engagement. We see this in terms of audience voting on shows like American Idol as well as the fostering of "fandom" that occurs on shows like Lost. In fact, I would argue, every successful gadget out there, whether old media or new, intuitively recognizes the need to adapt in order to respond to people's desire to engage. Otherwise, it will no longer be successful.

Another interesting point came out in our discussion about how people become engaged or why they might choose to be engaged in one thing over another. Frankly, we both agreed that one of the key components is, well, fun. Most people don't want to be deadly serious all the time. For example, the decrease in playfulness and the carnival-like atmosphere that once permeated American politics might help explain why people are apathetic (more on that topic on my Advocacy Tipsheet). Thank goodness for the Daily Show and the Colbert Report...

This led us to a discussion about the characteristics of an engagist culture (or an individual "engagist"). Jenkins outlined a number of useful points, suggesting that the "engagist" would exhibit intellectual curiousity, emotional investment, social connection, personal empowerment and a creative / imaginative streak.

We also talked about both what critics have to say about the direction of popular culture as well as what might be considered the "dark side" of engagism. On that point, we agreed that there continues to be a negative perception about the "tools" of engagism and participation (video games, iPods, computers, the Internet, etc.), although that is shifting. Nevertheless, society's perception of the value of video games (for example) versus what are deemed more acceptable pursuits (after school sports for example) continues to run far behind reality. Many people still reflexively bemoan the fact that when they walk into a coffee shop, no one is talking to each other -- they're all on their laptops or wired into their iPods. Their first impression is that everyone is isolated, without even understanding or considering the fact that the people on their laptops or iPods may be tuned in to people and ideas from around the world.

This led us to a discussion of the idea that there does seem to be a bias in our society toward social as opposed to individual pursuits (with a few exceptions, such as reading -- although even then people feel more virtuous when they join a book club). I take issue with that bias on two points. First, and most basically, sometimes it simply is better to spend time alone playing a video game than playing outside with your friends. For example, what if your friends are drug addicts? Or just not that scintillating? What if they want you to do stupid and dangerous things? Why assume that the interaction with others is always the best choice? Second, and perhaps more important, most people still fundamentally misunderstand the "participatory" (in Jenkins' terms) nature of many video games and similar "engagist" tools. When we enter into a world online, whether it's a video game, a social networking site or even iTunes, we aren't really by ourselves -- we are connected to and interacting with people around the globe. And that hardly sounds isolating.

Nevertheless, Jenkins did point out that the real "dark side" to engagism (or participatory culture) is the fact that not everyone can participate equally. A true and profound gap exists -- call it this generation's version of the digital divide. People participating on social networking sites and the like tend to be of a certain ilk -- and it's not a very diverse crowd. In addition, for those that are participating, there's the question of economic explotation. Jenkins raised the point that Lonelygirl15 hasn't necessarily gotten a "fair share" of the YouTube bonanza (although I would argue that her new-found fame -- including a recent cover on Wired -- might be compensation enough).

All in all, a fascinating conversation. To read more of Professor Jenkins' perspectives (far more erudite than my own musings), check out his blog at http://www.henryjenkins.org/.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Spore Is Coming

The November 6th edition of the New Yorker has a fascinating story about Will Wright and the development of his new game, Spore. The article, "Game Master", offers a compelling (and a little scary) portrait of the man behind the best-selling game of all time, "Sim City" and a master mind at Electronic Arts video games. He is known as the god of God games and his upcoming masterpiece is going to be a doozy.

As the article points out "Wright and his backer Electronic Arts are betting that players want to create the environments and stories themselves -- that what players really like about games is exploring what Wright calls "possibility space." Spore, the game game that is evolving out of this philosophy, takes the player from a single celled organism to intergalactic god -- but only if you make clever choices. Your survivial, and the survival of the species you develop depends entirely on the choices you make.

Perhaps most interesting, you can play Spore in a single player vacuum OR you can enable an Internet feature that will pollinate your game with content created by other players. In other words, the Spore servers will analyze how you play the game and pull content from other game players that will offer challenges for your approach. As the article suggests "while you are playing the game, the game is playing you."

Perhaps more than just describing the new game, the real "meat" of the article is in the dicussion of the evolution of video games and particularly our understanding of them. Unfortunately, as games have moved from simple distractions (Pong, for example) to sophisticated simulations to truly creative environments, many critics have failed to adjust their views of the role games can play in educating youth and preparing them for the workforce. Some argue that games have served only to limit players' imagination and creativity because the game provides so much of the context.

It's hard to make that argument with a game like Sim City or Spore, or even, to some degree, "Grand Theft Auto," where the decisions made by the player alter the environment and the outcome of the game. In fact, it clearly takes a great deal of creativity and imagination to figure out how to build a city or a species -- or even an illegal empire -- especially when the rules are not laid out at the outset and the road to the top is unclear.

As Wright notes, the value of most modern video games is that they reward failure -- and, of course, the subsequent learning associated with failure. In the video game environment one can fail (either through the death of an avatar or some other "set back") and keep trying different solutions to learn from that failure. Eventually one solves the problem and moves one. This skill is essential to learning and real world success.

How does this relate to engagism? Well, I believe that the success of games like Sim City, the Sims and Spore can be tied, in part, to a recognition of people's growing desire to actively engage. In allowing players to make choices about how they focus their time and attention -- and demonstrating concrete payoffs from those choices -- these games reflect this fundamental societal shift. Perhaps most important, the young people that grew up on these types of engagist video games are coming into the workforce with a vastly different understanding of how to be effective. They will seek situations where they can probe for solutions, multi-task and creating their own environment -- how many workplaces offer those opportunities? How many are prepared to do so?

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Internet Addiction?

An article in today's Washington Post (Caught in the Web) outlines in some detail the current "hue and cry" over the idea of Internet addiction. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association is considering listing "Internet Addiction" as a actual condition -- something anyone could be diagnosed with.

Give me a break. While I completely agree that some people use the Internet inappropriately, this is like saying that anything we spend too much time doing can be a "disease." How about a "hanging out at Starbucks" addiction? Or maybe a "reading too many books" addiction?

The key problem here is that some people use the Internet excessively at the cost of other things. As Maressa Hecht Orzack at Harvard puts it, excessive Internet use should be considered in the context of losses. In other words, are important things suffering (like your relationship with your spouse, you ability to pay your bills, or even your personal hygiene) because you spend so much time in chat rooms, playing video games or surfing? The article quotes a "sufferer" as saying "I am self-employed and need the Internet for my work, but am failing to accomplish my work, to take care of my home, to give attention to my children..." Her reason was that she spent too much time surfing, shopping and updating her profile on online dating sites.

But what that really sounds like is just regular, plain old poor time management. Sometimes people become so obsessed with the things they choose to engage in that they forget the necessities. To me this is less about the tool that they use to engage (the Internet, books or hanging out at Starbucks) and more about why they can't break away from it to focus on critical aspects of their lives.

The important thing to bear in mind is that using the Internet a great deal is not INHERENTLY bad. Many critics would argue that spending time with a computer as opposed to people is always the wrong choice. In fact, spending time with people through the computer can often be a positive choice, as is using the computer to focus your attention on other things you care about, like interesting content or entertaining games. It's when you make bad choices about what should happen at a given time (i.e., you choose to spend time playing World of Warcraft instead of finishing a paper) that the real problems begin. And believe me, those kinds of bad choices have been made since the beginning of time.

Monday, November 13, 2006

New Amazon Business Model Base don Engagism

I read with interest the recent article about the Web 2.0 Summit last week that mentioned Amazon.com's decision to sell online storage and computing power. According to the Washington Post, "Bezos detailed a corporate strategy that seeks to transform [Amazon] into a provider of Web-based storage, computing power and other logistical services for business." Just hree months ago, Amazon released a Web service dubbed "Elastic Compute Cloud," which puts the company's servers at the disposal of businesses looking for additional computing power.

How is this related to engagism? Well, the needs of engagist social networking sites like YouTube for storage and computing capacity often fluctuate. Some days, there might be a surge (a particularly popular video, for example), while other days there might be less of a need. Rather than being forced to purchase enought capacity to meet the high demand days (and leaving all that capacity unused on low demand days), businesses can turn to services like Amazon and others to purchase additional capacity. An "on-demand" strategy like this allows engagist sites to get up and running without having to purchase more capacity then they might be able to use early on.

This is just one burgeoning business model that engagism is leading us toward. Figuring out the others is a critical challenge for companies that want to be successful in an engagist culture.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Insights into Trends

The Online Spin Blog at Mediapost.com had an interesting analysis yesterday from Cory Treffiletti outlining a few key trends he sees for 2007. They were

1) solving the copyright problems surrounding user-generated content (particularly user-generated content on sites like YouTube where creative types "snag" pieces of someone else's stuff for their own purposes). He suggests that a compensation model of some sort will be developed and that Google is going to figure it out.

2) burn to order business models for television -- rather than Tivo'ing "Nick at Night" reruns of Gilligans Island, networks will put their archives online, allowing fans to burn their own DVDs -- for a fee, of course.

3) the long tail and social networks -- rather than broad and generic networks like Myspace and Facebook, he predicts will see more segmented sites focused on specific audiences. Rather than being everything to everyone, sites will cater to people who feel passionately about a particular topic or aspect of their lives. Dogspace anyone?

4) the Internet will become increasingly personalized with more personalized start pages -- he points to the digital dashboard concepts being developed by Google, Yahoo and others. These are gaining more popularity, particulary with a segment of the population that wants what they want when they want it.

The key to all the trends, in my mind, is that they are driven by the increasingly engagist culture. As I've said ad nauseum, people expect to engage and use technology to focus their time and attention on the things that matter most to them. In the context of these trends:

Copyright restrictions aren't going to stop them from creating their own content;

The "clunkiness" of the television isn't going to stop them from watching their favorite shows;

They seek opportunities to connect with the people and issues that matter most to them, and more segmented social networks will be the key;

They want a dashboard that allows them to quickly and easy direct their attention to what THEY CHOOSE to pay attention to.

Here's my own predicition -- 2007 will be the year of the engagist. If yo udon't know what that means, you might be left behind.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

What does your iPod say about you?

Wow -- has it really been that long since I posted a blog entry? Yes, I guess it has. Here's the thing. I've been on the road AND I've been under the weather, a lethal combination. I'm feeling better now, but still can't really hear out of my left ear (a lingering effect of my cold). My husband says that it's really caused by over iPoding.

Anyway, the most terrible thing happened to me on a recent trip. I left my iPod on the airplane. Yep, that's what I did. And believe me, tracking down a brand new 30 gigabyte video iPod after it's gone missing for more than 30 minutes is a lot more difficult than it sounds. I hope whoever has it enjoys it.

At any rate, I've come to believe that when you lose your iPod you actually lose a little part of your soul. OK, maybe a bit over dramatic, but I'm not the only one who feels that way. Numerous iPod lovers have commented that they would "die" if they lost their iPod.

Why is that? I tend to think it's because we invest so much of our own personality into the device. The music, books and videos I've put on my iPod say volumes about who I am, and I'm not sure how I feel about a total stranger having access to my deepest, darkest secrets. How will people judge me based on the fact that I have "self-help" books on my iPod? What about the whole second season of Battlestar Galactica buried somewhere on its hard drive? Or all the mystery novels? And don't get me started on the musical selections -- my husband borrowed it and ripped some of his rather obscure brazillian music onto it. That will get some heads scratching. Fortunately, I had recently downloaded a series of lectures on quantum physics, so whoever has it must think I'm at least somewhat smart (or maybe I'm not because I don't already know about quantum physics).

It's hard to sleep at night knowing that my purloined iPod is out there portraying an incomplete and chaotic picture of me to the outside world. I wish I could have cleaned it up a little before it disappeared. You know, added in some more thoughtful content and removed some of the guilty pleasures. If I had known it would be my ambassador I would have treated it more kindly.

Never mind. My friends bought me a new one for my birthday. And believe me, I'm going to be sure that baby doesn't leave my sight. Just in case, though, I'm going to make sure it represents the Stephanie Vance I want everyone else to see. Hmmm, and maybe by listening to all those edifying books, music and lectures, I'll become the Stephanie Vance I want to become.