In my previous post on complexity, I outlined some of the perils that can result from increasingly complex software. For part deux, we’ll examine a solution to the complexity problem.
One fundamental aspect of software development must be remembered during any conversation regarding the problems of software complexity: good software arises out of a process of gradual refinement. This simple premise is often overlooked by the stakeholders involved in a project (including developers). However, a single word has arisen out of the programmers’ lexicon into the mainstream that tersely communicates the state of a project currently undergoing some form of refinement: Beta. Beta is a powerful word. Beta communicates to the end-user (and client) that the application they are currently using has not yet reached its full potential.
Beta means different things for different applications. For some, Beta means that the application either has functionality that may not work at all under certain conditions, or that obvious functional points are missing but will soon be in place. In other words, it’s a means of providing coverage when things go wrong or when things are obviously missing. For Google’s increasingly popular GMail, Beta means “100% of the functionality we have provided will work 98% of the time, but there are many wonderful things we have in store for you that we will present on our terms.” It is thanks to Google, I think, that “Beta” has become an almost everyday word.
It is also thanks to Google that the process of gradual refinement in software, a process programmers call Iterative Development, can be packaged as a more palatable concept for stakeholders who drive software production (e.g. our clients at Spunlogic). Any application that contains an easily-identifiable amount of complexity (in either concept or execution) must go through an interim Beta phase until the project’s goal or the client’s vision has been met. Of course for large and complex projects, vision may be clouded from the outset. This provides all the more reason to develop and launch the project in iterative steps, refining the application while at the same time refining project goals when necessary. As more pieces of the application are launched, stakeholders can protect themselves from the storm of complexity by keeping the application under the “Beta umbrella.”
I’d like to return to Google and one of their flagship products, Google Maps, as an example of iterative development done right. Google Maps currently provides the means to view satellite data of a region with a road-map overlay, view real-time traffic data in major metropolitan areas, view building elevation in these areas, re-route driving directions via drag-and-drop interaction, etc., etc., across multiple countries. However, when Google Maps first launched, it did two things: provided driving directions (and not always reliable ones) on a slick drag-able street map view of the United States. Here are some highlights in Google Maps’ iterative evolution from a product that delivered two main pieces of functionality for one part of the world to a product that can do dozens of different things while representing many places across the globe (with credit to Wikipedia):
February 8 2005: Google Maps first announced, providing street maps and driving directions covering much of the United States.
Mid July 2005: Google releases Google Maps for Japan.
January 2, 2006: Google Maps features road maps for the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, and certain cities in the Republic of Ireland.
On April 3, 2006: version 2 of the Maps API is released. Two months later, geocoding capabilities are added.
February 2007: buildings and subway stops are displayed in Google Maps “map view” for parts of New York City, Washington, D.C., London, San Francisco. MARTA stops have since been added.
February 28, 2007: Traffic information is officially launched to automatically include real-time traffic flow conditions for 30 major cities of the United States.
May 30, 2007: Street View is added, providing a ground-level 360 degree view of streets in some major cities in United States.
June 28, 2007: drag-able driving directions are introduced.
November 27, 2007: “Terrain” view showing basic topographic features are added.
Obviously, Google Maps has become an extraordinarily complex application, and not all applications must deliver this degree of complexity. Regardless, the Google Maps development life cycle is a case-study in how to mitigate complexity through iterative development.
Assume that some of the great functionality present in the current iteration of Google Maps was not foreseen at the outset of the project, but grew organically from within the development process. At the same time, there must have been some functionality on the drawing-board that never made it out of iterative development (and certain things that did make it out have since been iteratively eliminated, like the “Hybrid” view). All the while, Google Maps lived in a Beta state throughout much of its life (it is no longer Beta).
We must take this model and apply it to our own complex projects. A Beta site launch will portend a better product for all stakeholders and iterative development will help solidify the product and eliminate distractions to the project goal.
If you haven’t already heard, it was announced in the last week or so that HarperCollins & MySpace have partnered to create an online community for teens. The Computerworld article I read says: “The community will allow teens to create their own profiles, including photos. The teens can also post their own creative writing stories for review by other teens.”
Certainly there are already hundreds of online communities for teens already?? So, I did a quick Google on the obvious search term “teen community,” which provided dozens of pages of results, including Teenhut.com, Teen Second Life, GreenTeen.org, and many more. I even found an online magazine, Teenink.com, written entirely by teens. Heck, even MySpace and Facebook should count as a teen community (even though old people like me can get in).
Is HarperTeen really just another teen community?
It’s always been my belief - and certainly that of all people in the interactive marketing industry and beyond - that teens are the predictors of future behaviors, technology, and marketing. Unlike folks in my generation - who took a typewriting classes in high school and had a party line (not as fun as it sounds) on their home phone - this “next generation” is a population of people who have literally grown up with technology.
My 9 Year Old Son.
I have a 9-year old son; and while he might not be a teenager, he is an excellent example. Jeffrey has schoolmates who actually have cell phones (and nicer ones than mine at that). He has multiple gaming stations, hundreds of channels to surf on the satellite dish, an active email address, surfs the web in school, and is a member of the Webkinz online community.
Teen Influence.
Beyond the definite edge these teens will have as they wave into the business world, this group has powerful influence right now. In fact, a recent report by Pew Internet and the American Life Project, found that “content creation by teenagers continues to grow, with 64 percent of online teenagers ages 12 to 17 engaging in at least one type of content creation, up from 57 percent of online teens in 2004.”
And, as my Jeffrey example suggests, teenagers have a wide variety of communications options. Because these teens are tech-savvy, they lean heavily on communication methods like instant messaging and social networks. The report shows that “39 percent of online teens share their own artistic creations online such as artwork, photos stories or videos, and “26 percent of online teens remix content they find online into their own creations.”
Bottom line, teens aren’t just waiting around for their turn to influence the development of technology when they “grow up;” rather, technology is constantly being created for them.
HarperCollins & MySpace.
This partnership makes a lot of sense. HarperCollins is one of the world’s largest publishing companies; reaching out to teens now is a wise move. Giving users something unique, and freedom in their participation is what they will need to be successful.
I did dig around a little on the site, and I have to say that it is actually fairly nice - not something I would typically say about a MySpace page. Both the style and functionality are appealing. And, they have 19,212friends … not too bad.
HaperTeen is also holding a writing contest for MySpace members through January 7th, with a $5000 prize. Certainly HarperCollins has conducted many writing contests in more traditional models over the years. However, this contest does have a not-so-surprising spin, the final winner will be decided on by HaperTeen members. The good news is that people really do seem excited, with nearly every comment relating to the contest, and all of the user-created forums dedicated to it.
From my perspective, the biggest challenge for HarperTeen will be maintaining interest after the contest ends. So I’ll be keeping my eye on this, I’m curious to see how well they are able to foster community over time.
If you’re a sports or music enthusiast, you’ve no doubt done the “help 2” before: strolling outside an arena or stadium holding up a couple of fingers to attract scalpers – or secondary market entrepreneurs, onsite re-sellers, etc. - who may have the goods you need.
Inevitably, the tickets they’re offering will be above face value - partly a marginal surcharge to cover their legal risk, and partly because ticket prices are set artificially low. Now, prices are synthetically low for a few reasons – unknown demand, to keep the stadium packed for a better overall experience (and to massage the artist’s ego, sell more beer, et al.), and to ensure access for the regular guy, Joe Mullet Headed Face Painter.
Ironically, and against the recommendation of almost every economist alive, scalping is for the most part illegal or dis-encouraged.
But the web has changed all of that – secondary ticket markets are a fruitful utility linking seat to potential fanny and identifying what the market really can bare. In fact, the NFL is exploring a possible relationship with one of the more popular online ticket resale exchanges, and some conventional thinking is that this will completely democratize the ticket buying process, at once identifying a market’s strike price and eventually freezing out the most loyal but more shallow-pocketed Fan.
But, what if we had this type of market with commercial media – a real time auction linking marketer to consumer? Well, probably two things immediately: 1) costs would sky-rocket, and 2) then they would plummet. Probably overnight.
Initially, artificial demand would propel media buying concerns (who currently over estimate the demand anyway, thus the Upfront) to pay way too much for the premium – probably even remnant - inventory. “Disposable” content, like reality shows and sports – where you pretty much have to see them when they occur – will make the quickest gains, and the crappy shows we all complain about will get the scraps. The actual demand would quickly be exposed, and costs would sink.
But, what would it be exposing – a true market for eyeballs, or a true market for the pockets connected to those eyeballs? Or even better, a true market for the value of the engagement? Broadcast has had it both ways: selling both general volume and/or particular audience qualities simultaneously and often contradictorily (MTV has been positioning itself recently with an engagement play, to some chuckles, but trying none the less) .
Some major marketers for years have been asking for an open market to traditional ad space inventory, but no one can agree on the product value: the cost to create the content + “what”? Of course, “what”ever someone is willing to pay – but this only works if the market is relatively transparent (and another reason no one thinks the writer’s strike will end anytime soon).
Mostly through ad networks and search models (Google even played, without effect, with an open auction model for print space), web advertising is creeping into the democratization of other kinds of media, at least creating a model for how inventory can be arbitraged.
Just something to keep in mind: Small marketers (the Joe Mullet Headed Face Painters) may be left out in the cold, even with a clearer cost structure and lower entry point; content will generally improve at the high end, sink lower at the bottom end; more “disposable” content will flood the market (until the production companies realize how much they’re giving up in lost syndication cash) and a third market will - and has already started to - open up: even more valuable inventories created by individuals themselves and their self-managed content networks.
It’s been almost a month since Raghu Kakarala and I discussed widgets together at a Lunch seminar, and there’s been enough interesting news since then that it warranted an update on this topic. The take-away points were: widgets are here to stay (in other words: not a fad), they can be either extraordinarily interactive or simple (so build one if you haven’t yet). and widget distribution is key (because it will extend the footprint of your website’s reach).
Now that you’re all caught up, here’s your widget update for December:
Widget vs. Gadget Debate
We found it interesting that widgets go by various names. For instance, Yahoo and Apple use the term ‘widgets’ whereas Google’s iGoogle and Microsoft’s Live Spaces use the term ‘gadgets.’ According to Widgets Lab, the distinction between widgets and gadgets is that gadgets live in a specialized web environment (also referred to as an ecosystem). Unfortunately, Google has recently made their gadgets interchangeable between the web and the desktop sidebar so this naming convention will likely go by the way side.
Monetization of Widgets Debate
As widgets have become increasingly popular, technology pundits have challenged the widget community to show them that widgets have real monetary value. News broke last week that GoodWidgets, a widget company that offers a slideshow widget, is up for sale for $10k. While this is “small potatoes” in comparison to other widget makers like Slide (Slide is Pitching For A $200 Million Valuation. Or Not.), it demonstrates that widgets are evolving into a “product” that can be sold. This comes on the heels of news that Clearspring has rolled out an ad network for widgets which lets users monetize their widget traffic. So while we’ve still got a long way to go, there’s at least monetization momentum.
e-Commerce Widgets Become More Seamless
In our presentation, we talked about eBay’s listings widget that could feature items from eBay stores. The idea was that famous listings can garner more attention. In other words, now your blog post on the recent Britney Spears Birthday Bash could include the listing for the half-eaten chocolate cake from the party. Well, it seems that PayPal is taking that same concept a step further by offering a PayPal storefront widget with a shopping cart. So now blog owners can create a store, add merchandise that’s relevant to their posting, and post the store to their blog. The neat thing about this concept is that only the financial portion of the transaction has to be completed on the PayPal site.
Again, it is another step for widgets becoming more useful and a part of the mainstream web.
I came across a recent American Marketing Association consumer survey. In a press release issued in conjunction with the survey, AMA’s CMO, Nancy Costopulos, says “more Americans are taking their holiday shopping to social networks instead of the mall…”
Now, as marketers, we’re intimately aware of the impact social media has on consumer (and even business) behaviors. For instance, we already have an idea of how product ratings and reviews can influence online purchases.
This AMA survey sharpens the picture we had in our mind of how companies can leverage social media to inform consumer buying decisions - particularly during the holiday season. Check out this chart, which highlights Prospective Holiday Use of Social Networking Sites:
This chart shows us in black and white (and purple and red) that - if the service were available - almost half (47%) of all respondents said they would go to a social-networking site to download coupons or search for gift ideas. And nearly as many (45%) would use a social-networking site to find out about upcoming sales in stores or discounts on products.
This makes sense. But, why social networking sites and not just the company’s website or email newsletters, where sales and offers already exist?
I wrote a while back about Industry Specific Social Networks. Vertical social sites such as these are strong indicators of what this survey is referring to. People want to leverage their social networks - where people of like interests already congregate - to inform their buying decisions. Social influence and personal opinion is highly valuable.
For an example: On the advice of Shelfari, (who commented on my industry-specific blog post) I installed their facebook widget/application.
(A ’shelf’ in my Shelfari widget. Of COURSE there’s a children’s book.)
What makes this such a good example is not just that I have this shelf, or that people can see what I read; but that my ratings and reviews of them might influence others to purchase these books. For example, my co-worker Travis Bailey also has a ’shelf’ on facebook … and I do look at his book selections and reviews. (BTW - the application, which is very well designed - does allow you to link to Amazon.com to purchase the books you’re interested in.)
Pay attention during next year’s holiday season. I predict an increase in the amount of holiday purchases stemming from social websites.
Recently, I’ve seen a great deal of positive press about the virtual world Kaneva.
Second Life has been the big player in the space, stealing much of the spotlight from other worlds. But, as we’ve shared in previous blog posts, it’s certainly not the only virtual world out there. With millions and millions of people creating virtual lives, this space will only grow and reshape as the market defines itself.
Among the producers of virtual worlds Atlanta’s Kaneva may be on its way to becoming the most “disruptive,” according to Strategy & Innovation, a Cambridge, Mass. newsletter founded by Harvard Business School’s Clayton Christensen.
That’s quite a statement. But, why Kaneva? Certainly Second Life has the greater mind share. Well, the article goes on with a quote from founder Christopher Klaus:
“Second Life currently has huge mind share, but they are after a different market,” says Klaus. “We want people who have never played videogames before.”
This is significant. Kaneva, unlike Second Life (and other worlds), encourages users to replicate themselves in-world, as opposed to creating a fantasy version of themselves. Kaneva wants to be the MySpace or Facebook of virtual worlds - a place to openly share your life and your interests with your friends. In fact, Kaneva has often been compared to the social network MySpace, not a frequent comparison for Second Life.
In the end, I’m left thinking:Perhaps we need to do away with the comparisons. The audience for Second Life and Kaneva are clearly different. There’s no reason at this point to say that it’s one or the other…just as there’s not just one social network, rather many that bring together groups of people with varying interests.
My “home” inside Kaneva - a little sad right now, but give me time …
I think of Greenpeace as an inherently serious and dedicated group (whether you agree with their tactics or not). If I were Greenpeace, I would WANT to be taken seriously given the cause. SO, I was a bit surprised that they came up with a mascot for their ‘Save the Whales’ campaign that was a bit ‘cartoony’. To top it off they held a ‘Name the Whale’ contest that allowed people to suggest names for the whale and let the public vote on the winner. However, when someone suggested the name “Mr. Splashy Pants“, well, they weren’t too happy.
As a side note - just add ‘Mr.’ (or Mrs.) to the front of something and ‘pants’ to the end, and it’s funny… in a junior high sort of way. Just start calling me ‘Mrs. Bloggy pants’. See? Not, I suspect, what Greenpeace was after.
Of course, to add insult to injury, the name went viral. Votes for Mr. Splashy pants skyrocketed. Then a funny thing happened - Greenpeace started to embrace Mr. Splashy pants. Mr. Splashy pants merchandise cropped up everywhere and people love it! To Greenpeace’s credit, they’re riding the tide (pun intended). However, time will tell how effective this campaign is to their cause.
The moral here is:
If you’re going to run a contest, make sure you have some controls in place
If you want to be taken seriously, don’t have a cartoon as a mascot
Several airlines have announced that they will soon begin offering in-flight web access, according to the New York Times (and Adotas). JetBlue looks like they’ll start by offering email and instant messaging. More airlines will follow, including Virgin, American and Alaskan.
The fact that its taken this long for us to have internet access while flying is absurd, so I’m not exactly jumping for joy at this news. The airlines seem to be stuck about 10 - 15 years behind the rest of the world. We can put a man on the moon but I can’t listen to my iPod on take off. You’ve got to be kidding me with that. A few other things I’d like the airlines to work on while they try to give me email in-flight:
* How about letting me recline my chair to what almost would constitute as a normal posture while we take off and land? Instead I have to actually lean forward until we’re in the air. Makes sense.
* When I walk up and try to buy a ticket for a flight that leaves in 2 hours, do you really have to charge me 8 times the original price? Do people really pay that? Isn’t it better to fill the seat or are you hoping that 1 out of 7 people take that deal? (This has only happened to me at a time when they lost my original booking…customer service isn’t exactly a high priority at some of these airlines).
* How about having more than 12 pillows and blankets on board? Oh, and don’t give me those unsealed nasty blankets, that’s disgusting. Sealed only please.
* And everyone has made fun of the peanut bags but seriously, the last time I flew I counted eight and a half peanuts in the bag. At least the stewardess gave me two bags. 17 peanuts really hit the spot.
Ok, so I’ve been traveling a lot and just waiting for a reason to rail on the airlines. Luckily this amazing news about in-flight web access gave me the opening. I’ll enjoy that for the 18 minutes that they actually let me use my laptop in the air.
Look, I’m as big a fan of the head fake shimmy to scallywag, foot shuffle back to head fake shimmy as the next guy, and love ironic jewelry that says something even more ironically specific when the jewelry is eaten, but I will not be upgrading to Direct TV’s HD offering - thank you very much, Beyonce.
In one of the most preposterous TV commercials of all time (I originally thought it was a parody of some kind), our luminary is starring in a music video that is going swimmingly, just beautifully, until she’s reminded that she’s actually hawking Direct TV, and desperately needs to upgrade me to a $29.99 HD package. But she doesn’t stop the video part, just injects the commercial part, or is it the other way around. I’m so confused.
But, then the mouthful of her gold “upgrade” medallion cleared it all up for me. However, the thing is, I’d much rather have the “upgrade” necklace than the Direct TV upgrade. All I can find, though, is a necklace with Beyonce herself on it, not the actual “Upgrade” necklace that would match my “With a 2-yr service agreement” bracelet, and “After mail-in rebate” anklet.
All kidding aside, this piece of advertising, and the hideously frequent volume of its showing, is really why the average consumer gets turned off by our trade, and why smart strategy is increasingly moving toward actual and resonant consumer insights driving brand gains. What could possibly be the core insight here? That Beyonce is an expert on High Definition television? Or that she really believes that $29.99 is the optimum price point for 75 of the hottest HD channels…
No, what we have here is the classic “music to sell stuff to” theorem, wherein a marketing exec, typically on the client side (but not always), heard the song or saw Beyonce’s video, and said, “You know, it has the word ‘upgrade’ in it, and people know who Beyonce is, and we can cover the cost of her talent fee by simply cutting up the music video with some VO about the offer…, as long as we run 1,200 GRPs a week during the holidays, man this stuff is going to sell itself”.
So in honor of one of the most ungainly, clumsy and annoying commercials ever to air under the “music to sell stuff to” theory, what other gems have gone untapped? Please submit your idea for a song that ‘totally’ needs to be paired with a product; example:
Being old enough to remember when Apples (aka Macs) had a built in 9″ monochrome screen and were coined “Classics“, I have been lucky enough to be taught in both traditional methods and with the tools we use every day to create, communicate and reboot. Skip forward to 1994 and when Mindspring changed the landscape by offering great service with a slow, but reliable internet connection to my home and many offices in and around Atlanta. So what has happened in these 13 years since we would start the day by the lovely sound of the modem? We all know that a lot has happened and changed, but my question is less related to what has happened but to how it has affected our media and communication landscape.
Recently, I polled my students and recent graduates at The Creative Circus with some questions around “Traditional” and “Digital” advertising, design, media and strategy. Figuring that this generation of marketers, advertisers and designers will most likely experience an even greater shift in how we relate to media.
The Question:
How do you see “Traditional” advertising and media changing in the next 10 years?
Some of their Answers:
1.) “Consumers will have more control over the choice and content than they do now and brands that engage consumers as active participants will be successful.”
2.) “I don’t think there is ‘Traditional’ advertising anymore.”
3.) “More media channels, more ways to reach people, more interactive experiences and more brand interaction. Hopefully less User Generated crap.”
4.) “I don’t think anyone can answer that question. The only thing you need to be certain of is that your ideas communicate with an audience in an interesting way. Don’t let the media do the work.”
5.) “More out of home, experiential and true interaction between the audience and the advertising itself.”
6.) “Traditional will be a support role. It will only exist because it has always been there.”
7.) “I think it can go two ways… either it could go back to more traditional forms, as the interactive market becomes saturated, or it could go the other way where traditional becomes a program on the history channel.”
8.) “More interactive/online experience focused.”
9.) “A drastic overhaul of TV and more of a move towards viral.”
10.) “Media will become even more scattered.”
With these answers and our own insights, we all know “Digital” will become a driver within the next 10 years. The real question that excites me is what will “Digital” become.
At Spunlogic, we have a lot of great experience and unique ideas to share. From work with clients to new approaches and trends, in this award winning blog you'll find Spunlogic experts sharing their opinions and ideas on all aspects of interactive marketing.
