Actually, I prefer Spiderman. Or Batman. Or Wolverine… superheroes who are humans with some special powers born from a tragic event. Not some alien who just happens to look like a human being. Mostly, though, it drove me NUTS that people (namely Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen) couldn’t tell that Clark Kent was Superman. Puh-lease! They look exactly the SAME - save the curly cue hair, the glasses and the ridiculous speedo-y outfit.

Clark Kent = Superman (CLEARLY)

I highly doubt that if I took off my glasses and donned some spandex that people wouldn’t recognize me. Granted, the actual comic book version adds a few muscles to Superman, but it’s still pretty obvious. So – annoyed by the sheer stupidity of the folks of Metropolis, I refused to partake.

Then I realized that I’m contradicting myself. I have long rallied against calling the same thing something different – it confuses people. Case in point: Holcomb Bridge Road and Route 140. This road is an exit on Georgia 400 north of Atlanta. I’m driving up to Roswell on GA 400 for the first time and I see a sign just past exit 5 that says ‘Holcomb Bridge Road Exit 7’. Perfect. I’m at exit 5, Holcomb Bridge is at exit 7 – do the math. I pass exit 6 and I know I’m on the right track. Then – a sign – “Route 140 East - Norcross Exit 7a : Route 140 West - Roswell Exit 7b”. WHAT? Where’s Holcomb Bridge Road? Where’s just plain Exit 7? I’m going to Roswell… do I take A or B!!?? Luckily, I had the forethought to actually look at a map before we left and I knew that my destination was east of 400. The point is, I didn’t know that Route 140 is also Holcomb Bridge. Same Road, different names. I didn’t know if I was in the right place.

Now, I could see how people miiiiight not pick up that Clark Kent and Superman were one in the same. If they’re called something different and dressed differently, it makes sense that people wouldn’t necessarily see the connection – especially in different contexts. I had some context for Holcomb Bridge Road… I had seen it on a map. I had seen the sign back at exit 5 telling me it was at exit 7. I had enough information to make the connection. But, for a few seconds I almost panicked and caused an accident because I couldn’t decide if that was the right exit. For Superman and Clark Kent the situation is a bit different.

If the average citizen sees Superman during a daring rescue, then sees Clark Kent a few days later in the supermarket, they may not make the connection at all. How many times have you seen a neighbor or coworker out somewhere that you never expected to see them? Did you recognize them right away? I exit 400 at Holcomb Bridge every day, and the sign –while it still bugs me to no end – doesn’t impede my ability to do so. Of course, I still can’t resolve how Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen can see Superman and Clark Kent all the time and not make the connection! Ok, I’m back to being annoyed at Superman. I’ll stick to Spidey. No way you can tell he’s Peter Parker. AND – he has better tights.

Peter Parker = Spiderman

The point is, when you name something on your site or on any signage (say in a building) the navigation or signage should match the destination. If you click on Shoes, the page shouldn’t say ‘Footware’ (you clicked ‘shoes’, the page should SAY ‘shoes’). People need context and a sense of ‘where they are’ and ‘who and what is around them’. They may take a chance and see if it’s the right choice, then they’ll know that what they clicked is the same and won’t need the connections anymore. On the other hand, they may just decide that what they’re looking for isn’t on your site and leave. Are you willing to take that chance?

I always love going to San Francisco and I always love getting back home to my family…its just that in between time of waiting at the airport for the red-eye flight and then actually taking the red-eye that is less than appealing.  So here I am 3 hours into my wait at the airport in San Fran with a few hours to go and I figured I’d shed a little light on some of the questions I got after my presentation on virtual worlds on Tuesday.

First, let me say I was shocked by the lack of knowledge about Second Life from the otherwise pretty savvy group of interactive people that were at this conference.  I found that almost none had tried the medium and very few had heard much about it.  That being said, here were a few of the questions (and my answers) from the group:

What is the cost of a project in Second Life?

You can make a pretty fair comparison between building an island in Second Life and creating a website, both in terms of cost and work required.  If you want a pretty standard island with few bells and whistles, that should be around the same cost as your standard brochure-ware website.

Are any of the virtual worlds converging with each other or with MMOG’s?

Not really.  However, I do expect that there will have to be some form of convergence between virtual worlds so that people are able to take their avatars (personas) with them from one world to the next.  People take a lot of pride in their virtual selves and expecting them to invest in multiple worlds will be a stretch.  Some Googlish company will come and put a few together and own the virtual space.

Should we expect to have 24/7 support and resources keeping our Second Life presence going?

Although you don’t need to have someone present at all times on your island, you should consider having someone there at peak times and certainly during any events.  One of the biggest problems that marketers make is creating a presence in Second Life and then stepping back and seeing what happens.  Build it and they will come might have been a good strategy for Kevin Costner, but it won’t work for you in Second Life.  Be ready to have some resources continue the experience.

What about Second Life’s inability to have more than 50 or so people in any given area (the servers can’t handle it currently)?

When asked this question I point out that Second Life is closer to real life than our typical web experience.  If I’m on Amazon.com and trying to buy a toaster, the fact that there are a thousand people shopping for that same toaster does not effect me at all.  However, if I’m in a Best Buy trying to buy a toaster and a thousand people are trying to buy it too, well that would just plain suck.  Second Life is about communicating with other people in a realistic environment (ok, as realistic as 3D can be).  If I’m in a room in Second Life and there are 500 people in that room, I couldn’t even have a conversation with someone because we’d all be on top of each other.  So my point is, even though Linden Lab is working on improving the situation, I actually think its a great constraint because if that “problem” gets fixed, we’ll have a completely different problem on our hands.

If you’ve got more questions, by all means let me know.

Staying Customer-Focused in Customer Support
In our ever-changing, high-tech marketplace, companies face more challenges than ever in communicating effectively to customers.  Many large companies are tasked with developing and managing communications that:

• Address the customer lifecycle, from winning new customers to providing customer support to deepening customer relationships.
• Encourage and support use of automation and self-service channels, such as the web and IVR, to save costs.
• Preserve consistent messaging across communication channels and yet are optimized for different channel formats.

In trying to accomplish this huge task, good old-fashioned communication can get lost.  That’s because most companies approach this task only from a technical or system perspective of content management, not communication.    Analysts at Forrester and KnowledgeStorm have noted the problem, saying companies need to focus on how content is used so that it’s effective, not just how to “manage and search” for content.  

However you describe it, the problem comes down to whether the content communicates.  This blog series will describe a few simple examples and some solutions.

Customer Support Example: Voicemail Instructions
Let’s say you’re a wireless customer and want to know how to change your personal greeting.  You tried on your own with no success, so you check your wireless service provider’s website hoping for some quick help. (If you can’t get help quickly, you’re going to call the company.) You get to a voicemail page under a section called “Support.” Unfortunately, most of the page defines voicemail (You already know what voicemail is, you’re trying to use it!) and explains its benefits (Again, you already know! You’d like instructions on how to use the benefits.).  Not the communication you need! Eventually, you find a link for voicemail instructions that opens this, only larger.

First, let’s give points for trying to make the instructions visual.  Unfortunately, you get a crick in your neck from turning your head to the left and trying to read the blue headers.  And as you try to follow the flow chart, the zig-zag lines combined with the scattered boxes give you a slight headache.Formatting aside, these instructions suffer two other communication problems: 

System Focus Instead of Customer Focus
These instructions are system-focused, not customer-focused, so they include the wrong information type.  These “instructions” are actually a diagram of the voicemail system structure.  This may work for the rare customer with some technical understanding of voicemail or IVR systems, but not most customers.  And if you find the personal greeting option in this diagram, then you have to trace your path back to the main menu to figure out which options you have to select and in what order.  A customer focus would lead you to include not structure but process, ideally concise step-by-step instructions written from the customer’s point of view and formatted so they’re easy to read.

Information Overload
The other communication problem is information overload—too much information is presented at once. You’re using these instructions just to find out how to change a personal greeting, not how to do everything in the voicemail system.  You have to sort through much irrelevant information to find the personal greeting option.  What would help?  Breaking the information down into small, manageable units.

At this point, dialing the phone seems much quicker than understanding these instructions.  So you call your wireless service provider for help, adding to their costs for maintaining call centers.  You tell your friends about your experience, damaging the provider’s reputation.  And all this could have been prevented with some good, old-fashioned communication.

As an account manager for Spunlogic’s initial foray into Second Life, I have had some interesting experiences – being chopped to pieces by a ninja (complete with blood gushing everywhere), shot by a watermelon gun (that rockets you into the air) and teleporting to places that I would never step foot in, in real life that is.

I’ve also been observant of how companies are bringing their brands to life in this new medium. From what I’ve seen, after the initial PR frenzy, too many islands and creative masterpieces are left to exist without continued support or attention. Does any of this sound familiar? Think internet in the early days, when companies were launching their websites but couldn’t get the return visits that make sites successful. Companies these days have, for the most part, figured out the key to getting people to come back to their website – fresh content, sales, blogs, and more.  Similarly, these are the thing that will keep Second Life residents coming back to your sim, but it needs to be put in the context of the environment, like holding continuous events (musical, educational, etc.). 

Marketers need to approach marketing to Second Life residents in the same way as they would approach any media plan. Throwing up billboards and renting kiosks are not going to cut it in the long term. Marketers need to think about their audiences’ behavior (or let Spunlogic help you), their likes and dislikes, imagine you were one of them and develop tactics to engage them. Provide a sandbox on your sim and challenge residents to build their own interpretation of what your brand means. Recognize winners and display the winning creative on your website.  It’s a similar tactic to Coca Cola’s ‘The Coke Side of Life’ campaign – users are engaged and you are building brand loyalty, something every marketer dreams of doing.

Remember, Second Life residents are there for the experience. They want to be able to do more than just listen to a concert – they want to interact with the performer and other attendees in ways that aren’t possible (or as easy) in real life. Provide them with an ongoing opportunity to interact with your brand, and they will return. The days of simply “build it and they will come” no longer exists; not for the web and definitely not for Second Life.  Otherwise, you might find yourself with a few well made objects and scripts but no one to look at them.

The past few months, both the trade pubs and blogerati have been ripe over the issue of free, or spec, creative during the agency review process. Agencies, and the AAAAs, are squawking about clients who ask for creative during the review, but don’t pay, or pay little, stipend. Well, I’ve been on both sides, and can tell you the chirping needs to end.

Over the past 10 months I’ve been an integral client side decision maker in two large, multi disciplined, consultant driven service pitches (and over a dozen more on both sides prior), and can say without blushing that what the agency may be giving up in creative or “idea-izational” services, they completely win back for not having to effectively practice what they preach and invest in their own brands.

The fact that many large scale pitches require consultants and a stage heavy orientation process - often involving speculative creative - is more than partly the fault of agencies themselves, large and small, doing such a poor job of, well, BRANDING and marketing their brand’s unique differentiators and “reasons to believe.” Marketers wouldn’t need spec heavy presentations if the agencies did a better job at what they will tell the client their brands will eventually need – brand-focused, media-agnostic, integrated interpretation and conversation with the potential consumer.

Question: of the top 10 global agencies, can you rattle off what their particular brand represents?  As a client, when was the last time a potential partner marketed to you as a potential consumer (prior to an RFP)? I think we here at Spun do a better job than most at pivoting our brand around our key offering: user experience and behavioral understanding. But we can also get better.

The common response is that the work an agency does for its clients speaks for its brand and product offering. My response to that argument: then show the failures as well as the successes, the coal with the diamonds, and try not to be so self consumed to assume that your clients themselves don’t power the best of your work (you’ll say this in public, but rarely in private).

Until agencies do a better job of building and positioning their brands, Spec creative is the cost and capital for not having a deep marketing department of your own. Your thoughts are welcome (but I’m not paying a dime).

Well it’s official. Two of my greatest loves (data visualization and real estate information) were married recently in this video. And what a beautiful couple they make – a powerful example of how even the most complex data sets can be communicated in a language that anyone can understand.

Speculativebubble, you fascinate me.

We at Spunlogic are deeply saddened by the events that unfolded at Virginia Tech on Monday. Now, days later, we have all had time to reflect on the events that shook our nation, and how new media has changed the landscape of tragedy.

Minutes after the mass murder, my coworkers and I were alerted to the breaking news. One coworker was sent an alert on his PDA, while it was sent to another coworker via RSS. I came across the story after opening a new browser to find the headline on my Yahoo! homepage. As each piece of information was released, we verbally shared the updates along with our distress. Despite the horrific details, we were comforted by the information – with each update, we were less in the dark.

Later in the day, Amy, a fellow Project Manager, received a call of relief from a friend in a student exchange program at Virginia Tech. He was going down his cell phone’s address book letting friends and family know he was not hurt. Amy was surprised to find out that her friend, Martin, had actually been outside the classroom building when the SWAT team arrived. Originally thinking he was witnessing some type of drill, Martin caught the following 15 minutes on film from an adjacent building. His call to Amy was short, but she soon got the full story when he wrote a blog post about his experience. Martin’s video and story would later become international news, even being broadcasted on CNN.

News spread quickly as a result of new and interactive media. Television networks and newspapers scurried to use search engine marketing to secure Google, Yahoo!, and MSN keywords related to the killings. Meanwhile, students and their loved ones traded phone calls, text messages, instant messages, emails, and social networking posts. An “I’m ok at VT” group was established on the social networking site Facebook to allow students to communicate their safety to friends. In turn, the site quickly became a bulletin board for students to find out the whereabouts of their friends. Social networking sites soon became the source for breaking, but unsubstantiated, stories, as well as a resource for reporters looking for details on the victims.

As in most cases, when things are done faster, they typically lose quality. As reported by InfoWorld, bloggers wrote of the presumed identity of the killer, linking to the Facebook profile of a Virginia Tech student who was pictured with an extensive gun collection. Many claimed the student even posted a blog implying he was the shooter. The rumors were, for the most part, silenced when the student made a post claiming he couldn’t be the shooter, as the real shooter committed suicide.  On Wednesday the world became intimately acquainted with the actual killer, Cho Seung-Hui, as NBC News aired video and pictures that Cho mailed to their studios.

Misinformation is not the only negative impact new media will play in this and future adversities. The amount of detailed information (and users’ exposure to it) may prove to be a dangerous byproduct of the times. On Wednesday’s edition of Anderson Cooper 360, Anderson interviewed former FBI profiler, Gregg McCrary, who warned of the potential for copy cats due to the extensive coverage of the tragedy.  McCrary explained that “[his] concern is by repeatedly playing these videos and showing these photos over and over again, we’re energizing some other killer out there, somebody who is on the edge, who is on the verge, and sees this as a way to go. Just as [the Virginia Tech killer] identified with the Columbine shooters, somebody’s going to identify with this guy. [McCrary believes] the responsible thing to do is to back off on showing these videos and these pictures. [The news] can certainly report the story and that needs to be done, but [McCrary believes] the danger here is that we’re energizing some other killer and that we may have some other events that follow in the wake of this.”

Our inquisitive and impatient nature has led to the success of social networking, instant messaging, and other Web 2.0 staples; but what are the costs? Will the camera phone recordings, streaming video diaries, victims’ blogs, etc. help the nation heal, fuel copycats, desensitize America’s youth, or all of the above? In the future, perhaps we will use interactive media, such as SMS, to alert those in danger faster.

For years, America has been at the mercy of media gatekeepers, newspaper editors and television producers, but in the user-generated world, it is our responsibility to self-edit. I am the first person to claim my right to any information available to me, but I also feel I am mature enough to make wise decisions about the content I consume. Nevertheless, in the world where anyone can become an internet celebrity, I can’t help but be concerned that the Virginia Tech killer has laid a path for others seeking his twisted yet endless fame. In the end, I do not bless nor condemn the role new media has played in this horrific event; I only question if the world can change as fast as new media.

I just attended CRMA’s first National Conference in Atlanta, GA and was honored and fortunate enough to be invited to talk on a panel called “Embracing Web 2.0 – The new way to interact with your Customers”. The panel was moderated by Paul Greenberg who was the day one keynote speaker and the author of “CRM at the Speed of Light”. I was joined on the panel with Brent Leary (CRM Essentials), Sherry Heyl (What A Concept!), and Terry Bruehl (Macquarium).

In preparing for the panel discussion I found myself torn between talking about Web 2.0/Enterprise 2.0 and what it means to CRM professionals in terms of technology, or relationship management tactics and the available methods of communicating and engaging with customers. As I looked over my notes it was obvious why CRM professionals should ALREADY have embraced Web 2.0 and I wondered if I’d provide information to the audience that they already knew. As with panel discussions, the title of the session may sway based on the questions and interests from the audience. Paul our moderator fielded some great questions and the panel responded with extremely valuable insight, however the discussion from the audience evolved into justification of using specific tools available in the Web 2.0 arena such as Blogs, RSS, del.icio.us, etc. I realized my earlier conflict in my preparation of technology vs. relationship tactics/strategy using Web 2.0 was abundantly the same conflict or confusion the audience had. I also realized that perhaps the terminology of Web 2.0 (blogs, RSS, Wiki, AJAX, etc.) is so fragmented in definition that a lot of the CRM professionals have already embraced/used some of Web 2.0 approaches both technically and strategically without even realizing it, and that the tools and terminology used is what they thought “embracing web 2.0” needs to be.

Web 2.0 in my humble opinion can be described very easily and does not have to involve any of the buzz words. Simply – Web 2.0 enables online users (regardless of environment or device) to communicate in two-way and even three-way conversations, discussions, opinions, reviews, etc. In other words a company or individual can communicate with other individuals/employees/customers/partners, etc., and in turn they can consume the information and even communicate back to the company or individual (two-way communications). But more importantly the whole group can communicate with each other providing a three-way conversation. That’s it, that’s all web 2.0 really is in its basic form or approach. So what’s the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0, again, simple! Web 1.0 allowed a one-way conversation. A company or individual pushed out content, users had to find the content to consume, but did not have an easy way to start a two-way or three-way conversation.

Two things have brought us into the Web 2.0 arena.
1. Technology – Advances in technology have provided us tools like blogs (WordPress), RSS readers/aggregators (News Gator or Netvibes), AJAX, Flex, etc. i.e. the technology has enabled the Web 2.0 approach, and more importantly it’s affordable for companies and individuals.

2. Adoption rate – Social networking/review sites like MySpace.com, Flickr, blogger.com, YouTube.com, epinions.com; these early adaptors of the approach and technology have enabled the online user base to accept and demand this approach.

So going back to the CRMA panel discussion – wouldn’t any effective Customer Relationship Management (CRM) strategy involve Web 2.0 principles as its fundamental approach? I couldn’t imagine a CRM strategy to only have a one-way conversation. In which case I go back to my earlier two statements –

1. Am I telling the audience something they have already embraced?

2. Is the audience already engaging in Web 2.0 without knowing it, but are caught-up in the terminology?

I’d love to hear your opinions, comments, thoughts regarding the two questions/statements above. So in the spirit of Web 2.0 let’s have a two-way and even three-way conversation!

I realize I explained Web 2.0 in very simplistic terms and haven’t really touched on the emerging evolution to Web 3.0 and the convergence of Service Oriented Architecture (SOA), however I feel we’ll miss the point of future evolutions if we don’t understand the basic approach we already live and breathe.

I also have to take my hat off to Art Hall and his team for putting on such a great conference.

Recently on our blog there have been a few posts about the idea of the home PC being replaced by the gaming console of choice (PS3, Xbox 360, or Wii). One that Ryan posted to kick it off and then I piggybacked on that to talk about MSN Messenger in the Xbox 360. The idea being that these consoles are already connecting to the Internet and are sweet machines (takes a lot of processing power, hard drive space and graphic capabilities to play the new suite of games that are out there now). Hook a wireless keyboard and mouse up to it and the sky is the limit - almost.

The only thing really holding this back in my opinion is the ability to perform the same functions you’d perform on your PC. Surfing the Internet is easy enough and its not too difficult to use one of the cross platform IM companies to chat with friends. But with most of us using Microsoft Outlook, Word and PowerPoint, you have to imagine that only the Xbox 360 would ever have those capabilities.

Ah, but I’ve been using Google Docs and Spreadsheets for a while and I have been pretty pleased with them. There aren’t many other people using these services so sharing files is difficult, but I imagine a service soon will be developed to convert a Mircosoft Word file into a Google Doc file (sounds like a great idea for a new company that Google will throw an obscene amount of money at to acquire - not that they’ve done that before recently this week). And Google already has a calendar program that is pretty decent.

And now Google is reportedly going to come up with their own version of PowerPoint. My first thought is, THANK YOU! How long has it been since PowerPoint has improved? Apple Keynote is so much better than Microsoft’s PowerPoint it’s like the difference between Don Imus and Howard Stern - no comparison. Watching someone give a presentation in Keynote is like watching the future for people stuck with PowerPoint. But other than the possibility of Google creating a new version of PowerPoint so I don’t have to buy a Mac, it also will start the process of minimizing the need of the home PC. If I can perform word processing functions, email and chat communication, surfing the Internet and creating presentations all in a browser setting, then there really isn’t much stopping me from using a much cheaper and better performing gaming console.

It’s also possible this is all just a ruse on my part to attempt to convince my wife that I need a PS3, but hey, you can’t fault a guy for trying.

In a recent trip to the Bay Area, I had the pleasure of visiting a friend, who happens to also be a game designer and technophile. At some point I tried to use his computer to check my email and found, to my surprise, the most bizarre-looking keyboard I had ever seen.

Not only were the letters all out of order, but the space button was the size of a normal shift button, and placed only on one side! Being somewhat curious, and more than somewhat addicted to email, I decided to give it shot. After a few painstaking misspelled sentences, I began to feel perturbed. I realized my frustration was tied to the fact that I know how to use a keyboard, but this keyboard was simply not doing its intended job.

Later in this same trip, I had the mixed-pleasure of driving a Toyota Prius. Without any guidance, I plopped into the driver’s seat with the key, only to find there was no ignition, simply a power button . To make things even more interesting, the gear shifter was actually electronic and pushing the lever up puts the car in reverse, while pushing it down puts it in drive. Though I was excited by the new technology, I never really became accustomed to driving this car, even after several outings.

Certain mental models - like typing and driving, are so ingrained into our psyche that they become second nature. Forcing users to break these habits can actual cause physical discomfort. When does the benefit of a new technology outweigh the cost of frustration to the user?

The answer lies in the user’s human condition. The ergonomic keyboard is actually a source of relief for carpal-tunnel sufferers. The Toyota Prius, with its 60 mpg potential, is a huge relief to drivers suffering from the high gas costs (currently $3.30 in California). New technologies which break such ingrained conventions as typing, driving, or even clicking are more likely to be adopted if they are not forced upon the user, but consciously chosen by the user. As interface designers, it’s easy to get excited by new technologies such as AJAX, but if we want users to adopt, we have to find a way to make users see the benefit. How can Ajax relieve user pain?