This weekend’s NFL draft brought a lot of couch sitting. Along with the couch sitting came a whole lot of web reading: Catching up with weeks of RSS feeds and articles I’d missed. Anyhow, since there are more links than you could possibly catch in the sidenotes, I figured I’d point out some of my favorites. (One quick thing: Montana people, I haven’t forgotten about posting all those links from my session, just didn’t have the right notebook at home this weekend. Look for it next week.)
- While in San Francisco I heard a great quote (attributed to Andy Warhol) that went something like “talking about music is like dancing about architecture.” Well, turns out there’s some controversy over who actually said it.
- Another San Francisco thing: Benjamin from the Barbarian Group suggested I check out the Milwaukee’s Best Beer Cannon, I suggest you do the same.
- I quite like Kottke’s list of ways in which working on kottke.org is like gardening.
- Kick Map is the New York City subway map redesign and re-imagined. 37signals explains why, although less accurate, it’s a whole lot more helpful.
- Nothing terribly insightful here, but there are some good numbers in this article about how a movie’s theatre success is not necessarily an indication of long term money.
- From PSFK: “ParkAtMyHouse is a new service that provides affordable and penalty-free parking around public venues by enabling property-owners to rent out their empty driveways, garages, car parks and other spare pieces of land to drivers needing somewhere to park.”
- The Trouble with Twitter: Annalee Newitz on the dangers of the continual speeding up of culture and communication.
- I really love this idea for the world’s slowest instant messenger (especially in response to the last link). People forget that as everything speeds up, purposefully slowing down says something profound.
- Karl Long on Nikon’s blog outreach program, which I originally heard about at his Adtech panel.
- Another link for Karl, this one to a great Ira Glass piece on storytelling.
Well, I think that’s it for now. Anyone else have any links they’d like to share? Now is your big chance.
April 30, 2007
Like everyone else in the world, I’ve been thinking a lot about Google over the last few years. Also like everyone, I’ve asked myself, “what the hell is their strategy?” While I don’t think I have the definitive answer, I have a few insights that are fairly obvious but interesting at the same time.
Organize the World’s Information
This is the mission that Google prints on everything they do. Most people get it when it comes to their search engine but don’t necessarily see how it extends to the other products like documents. My feeling is that Google is slowly taking over all your desktop documents (not necessarily applications).
Think about it this was: What data exists on someone’s local drive and not necessarily online? For most people it would probably be email followed by Word documents followed by excel spreadsheets. Other than PowerPoint can you think of another document lots of people create on a regular basis? Google’s goal with Gmail and Docs, then, is to pull those things off your local disk and onto the web. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if in the near future they made this process a whole lot easier with some kind of tool that will scan your machine and upload all of them Google servers.
Sweet Spot of the Purchase Process
Here again, we have a fairly obvious one. Part of the reason AdWords is a money-making monster is because you can catch someone in the sweet spot of the purchase process: Right before purchase. If you are in the market for a digital camera and type the model number into the search box you are a hot lead. Companies are willing to spend a lot of money for you to click over to their store. The question is where else can you find people at this point in the process?
Well, it just so happens 411 is pretty good for that. Think about it, when people call 411 for their local Domino’s they are at the same point in the purchase process. Just like AdWords, Google could sell that lead to Pizza Hut for a nice chunk of change. (Truth be told, much of this thinking came from an article whose link I can’t find.) For those that didn’t hear, Google just happened to have released a 411 service. Coincidence?
The question, then, is where else can you find these people? Stores are an obvious one, though I don’t know exactly how that would play out. Google kiosks helping customers get relevant information/do research right at the store? No that far-fetched I guess (though I don’t have slightest clue how big box retailers actually work). I’m sure there’s more, will just require some imagination.
Always On Campaigns
Google has proven they’re committed to shaking up the advertising world. They’ve rightly noted it’s inefficiency and have already caused quite a shakeup by popularizing PPC (pay-per-click). Now they want to convince the advertising world that the whole idea of campaigns is silly. After all, consumers don’t think about themselves as fitting into some marketers campaign period: They decide they want something and they buy it. Problem is, in the past there was no efficient way to run your campaigns year-round. Enter PPC (and soon price-per-action) and there’s no reason not to. As long as the system runs efficiently, and you’re only paying for leads, you can’t afford not to run your campaigns all the time.
Google hasn’t shown how this model extends into other media (especially those whose metrics are a whole lot less cut and dry), but with the amount of money at stake you can be damned sure they’re going to try and figure it out.
People Make Search Better
This is the last piece (or the first piece, I guess, since none of the four were in any particular order). The point here is that Google realizes that algorithmic search only extends so far. Human intelligence will be needed, especially as people react more to the cold, calculated nature of our ultra-efficient algorithm-driven universe.
Google has tried this on a couple of occasions, the most notable in my mind being the Google Image Labeler and My Maps.
Alright, I’m exhausted. Sorry the end of this faded out a bit.
April 27, 2007
On Friday/Saturday I got the chance to do something I hadn’t done in a while: Teach. Most of you don’t know, but I spent four years working as a marching band instructor. Every weekend I would teach a group of 60 how to make their way around a football field. It’s something I enjoyed immensely and learned a great deal from.
Fast forward to this weekend and thanks to Scott, Mike and all the other at University of Montana’s entertainment management program I found myself standing in front of a room of engaged and excited students discussing the intersection of media, marketing, culture and technology. I was joined by Mike McGinley and Wendy Davis, two of the sharpest people I’ve met on the subject. It was all quite amazing.
Just to give some context, as part of the program they bring out all sorts of professionals to talk about their area of concentration. The class is really quite amazing and unlike anything I experienced in college. Students are hand-picked and give up spring weekends to be part of the program. Obviously this raises the caliber of student, but I don’t think I was prepared for just how much. They were engaged, interested and insightful despite the incredible amoutn of time (Friday 5pm-8pm and Saturday 9am-5pm) and pontificating (mostly by me).
Anyway, on Friday night Mike and Wendy kicked off the festivities talking quite a bit about cocreation. Then on Saturday it was my turn.
Let me backtrack for a minute: Two weeks ago I got an email from Mike telling me Max had suggested he drop me a line. Mike asked me to come out to Montana and initially I declined because I didn’t feel like I had enough time to prepare for a 90 minute presentation. Luckily Mike convinced me that it was no sweat and I really just need to come out and be prepared to talk about the stuff I write about all the time on my blog.
I agreed.
Of course, however, going completely off the cuff wasn’t in the cards (I have a brand to maintain), so the first thing I decided to do was take a bunch of interesting entries and make a slide for each with relevant quotes. I then designed a little checklist that corresponded. The idea was that I would let the class decide what topics we’d cover. My little bit of originality came at the bottom of the sheet which was a tear off section asking for name, email, website and comments.
Again, though, I didn’t feel like this was enough so I added an intro to the presentation. First I said who I was and what I do and then I explained the way I approach thinking about this stuff (mostly ‘medium is the message’).
All in all it went fantastic. I ended up talking for a very long time with lots of interesting back-and-forth. The class asked some great questions and I got some incredibly flattering comments on my little sheets (inspiring came up a few times). Anyhow, it was just fantastic.
To the students that were there: Thank you. Thanks for having me in your class and sitting through all my pontificating. Thanks for listening and asking such great questions. It really made me feel good and I owe it all to you guys.
Oh, and in the next few days I will write an entry with all the links we discussed.
I’ve set up a separate page to download the presentation. I’m actually going to ask people to leave their email address (just because I’m curious who wants it). If this is a serious issue or you think it’s a dumb idea let me know by email or in the comments.
You can download the presentation at http://www.noahbrier.com/presentations/uofm. Hope you enjoy!
Update (4/23/07): If you tried to download the presentation and it didn’t work, try again. I think I fixed everything.
April 23, 2007
Okay, get ready for a foray into randomness. I’ve been busting my ass trying to get this presentation done along with about a million other things. Thinks it’s finally there (if anyone wants to see a copy and give feedback, drop a line . . . not quite sure I’m ready to distribute it widely yet). Anyhow, in lieu of a more coherent entry, here are lots of thinking points:
Well I think that’s it. Am off to Montana this Friday to Sunday, only to return and go to San Francisco next week (pending ticket purchase). Looks like it’ll be a slightly nuts seven days. If you’re in either Missoula or San Francisco (I somehow imagine I have a larger audience in the latter . . . though who am I to say), drop me a line and we’ll try and meet up.
April 18, 2007
Just wanted to catch everyone up real quick on things that have been keeping me busy. The purpose of this is (a) to justify why I haven’t been writing all that much and (b) I can’t think of a good second reason.
Naked stuff
Been working on two especially notable things (at least that I can talk about here). One is a construction (both physical and digital) that should be unveiled relatively soon and the other is a digital day. The latter happens to be today and I like to think I’ve put together a fairly killer lineup:
Google: Always On
Naked: Jargon Buster
360i: Search Trends
MTV: Social Media
Publishing 2.0: What is Content?
Thrillist: Building an Audience Without a Media Budget
Engadget: Blogs
Anyway, I’m pretty stoked and will be sure to let you know how it turns out.
Crossroads of Media and Technology
Next Friday I’m going out to University of Montana to talk about the crossroads of media and technology. This is all rather sudden and I’m trying to pull together some topic areas, which I’d greatly appreciate your help and thoughts.
Some other stuff I think I should touch on though haven’t figured out how it fits in: community, transparency, aggregation and attention. So, please, please, please, give me any feedback or thoughts you have. It would be incredibly helpful.
Link-a-licious
I’ve also been catching up on lots of reading. Some of the highlights:
likemind
Once again we’ve expanded, bringing the total up to 21. Some big cities added to the mix this round: New Orleans (hosted by michael and lauren), Portland (hosted by sage and [a different] lauren), Chicago (hosted by clay and mark) and Jesi, Italy (hosted by michele and lorenzo). Anyway, there will be a full likemind post coming soon, but next Friday, April 20th is the next round. Go check the site for all the info.
Wii!
Oh, and I got a Wii. Awesome, simply awesome.
April 12, 2007
I’m sure most everyone has heard the story of how Kathy Sierra had her life threatened. This was a nasty incident and everyone who’s outraged has a right to be. However, I’m not sure that code of conduct, as suggested by Tim O’Reilly, is the answer.
The piece of it that stuck out the most for me was number two, “We won’t say anything online that we wouldn’t say in person.” This seems like a very analog solution to a digital problem. Digital communication is different than the face-to-face variety. Part of what makes the internet wonderful is that you can say things you wouldn’t say in person. Just ask the millions of people who are able to get beyond their shyness with the help of the web. I in no way condone hate speech or anything that happened to Kathy, but I don’t think pretending the web has the same properties as the physical world is the answer.
The response many seem to have is that we should require more transparency of people. I don’t think this is the answer. As I wrote in response to a very interesting post by Mark Lewis:
Would demanding transparency ruin the system, though? I know for myself I trust those who chose to be transparent more than those who don’t. If it was required, that separation [between those who are transparent and those who aren't] would go away and I imagine many would find ways to game the system.
This is one of those questions for which an answer won’t soon come. Every time the KKK marches around people wonder why no one can make it stop. The problem is that it’s really hard to have it both ways. Ultimately digital laws and codes of conduct are unlikely to be the answer, just as there’s no good answer for what to do about the KKK or hecklers.
In the end I don’t have an answer. What I do know is that we need to accept that the medium carries with it a very different set of rules and protocols and try to build something from there. I am not a big fan of just shooting something down without trying to build on it, but at the moment my head’s a little too clogged to think this through all the way. Would love to hear your feedback.
Update (4/9/07): Jeff Jarvis says much of what I’m saying better than I said it.
April 9, 2007
Inspired by a BusinessWeek article I got this email from my friend Scott:
What, in your opinion, are the five biggest innovations of the past decade?
I started writing my own list, which included online bill paying, truly laptop computers, BlackBerry, Google search, iPod and open source.
Then I decided it would be great to open it up to everyone here as well. Really interested in hearing your responses (and I’m sure Scott is as well).
So, I ask again, “What, in your opinion, are the five biggest innovations of the past decade?”
April 5, 2007
I had a few other posts I wanted to write today (Why Thinking of Brands as People Might be the Best Way to Go and Why You Should Buy YourName.Com), but then I cam across to fabulous pieces of writing and my plans changed.
I’ve mentioned often on this site that I believe digital technology is fundamentally changing how our brains work and how we interact. On occasion I run into someone else who feels the same way and verbalizes it far more eloquently than I seem to be able to. That’s the case with Daniel Henninger’s “Packet Politics” article. In it he explains how the technology behind the web, specifically packet switching (which transfers data by breaking it up into little pieces and sending it in lots of different directions only to be brought back together at the end), may be shaping the current political situation. In his words:
Packet-switching is what allows us to flip effortlessly through torrents of data on Web screens, holding in mind a basic search goal. By now, this experience has forced more people than ever to think in terms of hierarchies–how to sort through lots of information and assign values, the way we quickly separate the flood of email into levels of importance. By now, we all have an Intel inside.
This may be why Mr. Giuliani is getting away with his social views in the GOP. We’ve become so adept at assigning value to good and bad information in searches that we can do it for a “flawed” candidate like Rudy Giuliani. Faced with an array of Rudy “packets”–the anti-terror reputation, three marriages, abortion and all the rest–GOP voters have already sorted the data, put anti-terror at the top of the hierarchy and are comfortable giving the social issues relatively lower values. Still relevant, but mid-range. This is how we do work now, every day. Why should it not affect politics?
The bottom line for me is whether we realize it or not, the deeper lessons the technology instills is staying with us. I’ll just return to what I said in Feburary in reference to the death of zero sum: “The internet and digital technology are driving a lot of these changes, but they are slowly seeping into the rest of culture. The web has redefined choice, offering us millions of results for each google search. The fascinating thing about those results, however, is that it’s often not the first that you find most useful. Rather, it’s some combination of many that gives you a final conclusion.”
And now onto article two, which just happens to have been written by the same person who inspired that death of zero sum article: Grant McCracken. This time Grant wrote about noticing, a topic I hold quite close to my heart. I don’t know that I have anything particularly insightful to add except to say I think Grant nailed it. I especially like this passage:
I was watching a very smart man acknowledge the limits of understanding. You could almost hear him thinking, “why can’t I think this?” This is the secret of noticing. Spotting things that defy expectation, things that don’t “compute.” The temptation for the rest of us is to “fake the results” and assimilate the anomalous to existing categories. Good noticers are fearless noticers.
It’s the things that make the least sense that are often the most interesting.
What are you waiting for? Go read both articles.
April 3, 2007
Time for another one of those conversations I’ve had about 50 times in the last few months but have yet to blog (at least as far as I can remember). If you’ve heard this spiel already, I apologize.
One of the problems with web sites in corporations is that they don’t play particularly well together. It’s hard to decide who owns what and as a result you often get sites that are all split up into pieces according to corporate structure rather than consumer understanding. In other words, just because sales and marketing are separate parts of the business with separate budgets doesn’t mean the information the two departments produce shouldn’t live together.
Blogs are another great example. Who owns them? Is it marketing? Corporate? Communication? By the time everyone gets done fighting over it the site’s been torn to shreds and there’s no point behind it anymore.
The way I’ve been thinking about the problem (and visualizing it in my head) is that most corporations grew up in an age of analog media (and those that didn’t have modeled themselves after the old guys). Analog media flows one way: Records only play on record players, television signals only play on televisions and paper is, well . . . paper. In those days it was far easier for companies to have silos because information couldn’t move through boundaries anyway.
All of a sudden digital media comes along and starts to screw things up. It doesn’t know boundaries. The figurative and literal walls between departments are of little use when it comes to digital technology (think about the effect of something like email on the way people communicate and share information).
When the web came along and every company decided it needed a website decisions had to be made about who was going to ‘own it.’ Problem was, as I mentioned earlier, it didn’t fit into the nice little boundaries that corporations were built around. If companies are traditionally structured vertically (silos) then the web is a horizontal medium, cutting across the business.
That’s a bit over-simplified (I think in reality it’s a medium that moves in every direction), but at least it gets started at why so many companies are having serious issues grappling with the digital age. Communications no longer belong to a specific channel or silo since nearly all become digitally encoded at some point in their life, allowing them to travel seamlessly around the corporation without worry for the havoc they’re wreaking.
I don’t know that I have the answer, but it seems more and more apparent to me that traditional structures are not the way forward (guess I have written about this in the past). In lieu of killing silos altogether, companies need to find ways to create horizontal units. The team who manages a website, for example, should work and have real say over any number of business decisions within the different silos the site touches. I’m sure there are major stumbling blocks to this kind of idea and I’d love to hear from folks who work in know large corporations well. I guess the bottom line for me is I don’t see any other option: It’s either change or get beaten by the little guys. (Which may or may not be a new idea in and of itself . . . )
April 2, 2007
Hi, I'm 
