Your Grandma Knows the Future

I have a simple theory on how to forecast the future and it involves your grandma.

Supposedly we’ve stopped understanding how to forecast the future. Supposedly YouTube has provided too much humor from past missteps of future-casting for anyone to step up and try to create their personal vision of the future. In the meantime it’s clear that certain influencers of media are following a few, selected writers from our past. Whether you’re Philip K Dick or HP Lovecraft, you’ve got enough supposed street cred in Hollywood that you’re work deserves a movie about the untold future of humankind.

But why? Partly because of things like Minority Report where interactive screens that require you where a special glove are now past technology and the personalized advertising is so mainstream we haven’t even noticed it.

It was once said by Arthur C Clark however that there is no point in predicting the future because people make two choices, first they play it safe and talk in terms to near to current life to make a difference. The other option is they go so far out there that no one believes them and thinks they’re crazy (like Philip and HP). The problem that he saw was that the second people stood a better chance of being right but little chance of being rewarded for it (again Philip=S.O.L.).

But I have a simple theory on how to forecast the future.

Think about the stereotype of older people. They look at computers and are baffled by them. Their sense of overwhelming is palpable and watching them finger punch the keyboard with their index fingers is mind numbing. At the same time they hear on Fox News about all the “crazy” stuff that young people are doing online and it drives them nuts. Here’s your hint right there. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, once upon a time grandma was young and attractive and did crazy stuff. Once upon a time she was out partying it up at a “hop” or riding around in a car with no seat belt (cause there weren’t any) and her grandma hated that shit.

So … here’s 5 things for 50 years from now that I know will be true cause it would piss me off:

Everyone’s going to have implants and be connected to the internet all the time. Why? Cause when you’re old you won’t be able to use it cause your brain is slow and you’ll be pissed about that.

No one will drive a car. Why? Kinda obvious, you’re not an adult unless you can drive (excluding NY of course where adulthood is bestowed upon you magically.)

Movies won’t exist anymore. At least not how you remember it. You’ll be upset because no one goes to sit in a dark room with strangers anymore. Your grandkids will be upset because you keep bringing it up at holiday dinners (which do still exist). Movies will have become thrill rides by this point and “Movie Theaters” will be a new version of an amusement park but R-rated. Again, you’re pissed about this.

Fast food will be cool. Yep, that’s right Mr. and Mrs. Vegan. Your kids, kids will like McDonalds because it’s convenient and they can connect with it online. Except that McDonalds will have transformed themselves into an eco-friendly company around 2030 in response to that bill on greenhouse gas emissions you got all your friends to vote for. (don’t worry I voted for it too and I’m also pissed about the fast food trend. We’re sitting in our retirement pods being pissed about it together via group video chat.) 

Video chat never takes off. No, Harrison Ford, you don’t get to booty-call  Rachel from the video pay phone pretending like you really wanted to catch that Replicant. People send data to each other. You really want to know what that means? It’s where information is simply an amalgam of visual items with data attached to it like an animated gif of a plate of food being eaten frame by frame that your grandkid knows means “meet me at McDonalds at 4pm for some pseudo-carbon positive fries). I know this one is true cause it sounds freaking stoopid to me. Like really really dumb.

Oh, and here’s an extra. The English language doesn’t die. People all over the world love it. It’s retro. Except their only reference has been videos of loud American girls who talk like everything is a question because they’re trying to downplay their intelligence. Again. this would piss me off to no end if my personal care bot’s AI talked to me like this.

Now just go make some of this stuff happen and you’ll be like so rich.(?)

The Pitfalls of Gamification

I’m worried about gamification. I’m worried that it’s going to be the next fall guy (or girl) in the marketing space as people begin to decide that “no one wants badges”.

Granted, the truth is that, yeah, no one wants badges. But that’s because it’s not the badge they want but the recognition of achievement, either from a game or from their friends. Since none of the badge-based games do that particularly well, then people don’t want badges, branded or otherwise.

So what’s the deal? Gaming touches on a set of core human functionality. A good game presents itself as an achievable challenge. Something that you can do, that’s outside of your day to day life, that provides instant feedback to your actions and a place for you to try something out over and over again. Physiologically good games create dopamine bursts in the brain that look a lot like what happens when we take drugs. So while it might sound gross, there’s many companies that see this as a fantastic opportunity to connect people with their brand.

Heather Chaplin, in an article she wrote for Slate on March 29th, takes the perspective that gaming should not become  a means for companies to engage people, especially employees. She sees the dangers of gamification as a means of paying lower wages while increasing performance for employees while, at the same time, convincing consumers to give information or perform tasks for free.

She’s got a point. But maybe that point will become antiquated over time. Look at Khan Academy’s new Practice section of their website which turns learning into a game with points and ranking. If you’re a student growing up within this system of encouragement, would be you offended if your employer or an advertiser created a brand-centric game? Probably not. Maybe you’re not as compulsive as I am, but I spent about 2.5 hrs playing at addition, subtraction, multiplication and division because the site made it fun to try it out (when was the last time you did long division without a calculator… and… yeah I’m that big of a nerd.)

Facebook doesn’t get to rule the world

Facebook is seemingly headed towards total Internet dominance. Recently, Facebook has even benefitted from the recent disasters in Japan. The dominant social network in Japan, Mixi, has lost market share as users looking for broader, more international, information on the earthquake and nuclear emergency reach out to the 600M people on Facebook. In Brasil, the intractable Orkut is also losing audience to Facebook as Facebook’s style of gaming, sharing links and collecting friends become default online activities.

Yet I believe no one platform can ever win 100% of the market, there will always be a market for new digital products. I believe this for three reasons and I post them here for your opinion.

One:

The market is expanding beyond the ability of one platform to create unity because a uniform market would be forced to contend with distinct cultural factors. While Facebook might be a platform it has struggled to gain share in Japan because the audience generally prefers the privacy controls and advanced mobile apps offered by Mixi.

Two:

As a product launches new features that product is actually becoming more specific and thereby more branded. A product platform with few features has little need for specific branding but new features must be added to address audience requests. The openness of the platform begins to be replaced by a point of view. This point of view is defined by the audience and through the product meaning that the audience brands the application through defining its core functionality. By the act of gaining definition, its audience begins to understand it better and thereby compare and contrast it with existing, or potential, products. This also means that future audience should begin to demand their own platforms through which to define themselves.

Three:

It is a cultural requirement, at least in the US, that we have something to rebel against in some way. Our culture defines itself as much by what we choose as by what we don’t choose. This generates a demand for options which, in turn, creates new products.

These three factors make sense to me. But, I don’t see it happening. I see more and more people using Facebook than have ever used any platform before it. (I define “platform” as an application that can be used by its users for their own expression. In comparison, Google is a service.) It’s the AOL of the 21st century but whose business isn’t based on connectivity but social dynamics.

In order for Facebook to lose market share to a new competitor it would require a shift in how we socialize. This shift would have to be anachronistic to Facebook’s core functionality. So while I believe that 100% dominance isn’t reasonable, I lack the insights to tell you how Facebook might fail to get damn close. (keeping mind that 100% dominance is roughly 2B people.)

What does the future of technology look like?

The clear trend seems to be leading us towards greater, more personal, connection with ever more advanced and “intelligent” technologies. Examples being the transition from landline phone to smart phones. From the boardgames to the MMORPGs. But it’s also exemplified in the transition from library and postal service to Wikipedia and instant messaging. Technology is imbuing itself in a daily presence that we, as its consumers and creators, feel ever increasing demand to participate with it.

Some times I wish there was a reset. A sudden and complete reset of technology, taking it backwards into a time where we don’t need to be as connected. Like the apocalyptic future-scape films of the 80s and 90s. But the truth of the matter is, technology doesn’t go backwards. Sure there have been events in the distant past when it receded from broad use, like after the fall of Rome, but technology never completely disappeared. So what does our future look like?

I don’t know about you but I find myself in front of a screen more and more. I find myself interacting with a computer for most of my day now. But part of my increasing use of the computer coincides with it improving the quality of the experience. More and more I’m getting the information that I wanted in a format that works best with being a human. It makes me wonder if our future doesn’t turn out to be one of Skynet overlords or a Matrix or any of the other technophobic futures we’ve consumed with popcorn. I wonder if our technological future isn’t one of a far more beneficial nature. 

The last search you made in Google gave Google as much knowledge as you received from the search results. Your iPhone has begun understanding certain spellings and words that are specific to you. Not to mention that our social networks are now providing us with recommendations of friends and connections. There’s something interesting in this. Essentially we should just admit, collectively, that computers are better than us at something very specific. They’re better at collecting and sorting through large amounts of complicated data. Traditionally this is what we’re good at but we also know that this isn’t everything there is about being human. Among other things, our brains are really good at filtering information in order to make clear decisions. We’ve evolved to be very good at self-designed information filtration.  This leads to a joint effort. A symbiotic relationship. It leads to computers learning how to collect and sift and make logical recommendations. It means that humans get better and faster at our filtration system for decision making.

In this future, we begin to admit that we like our technology. We begin to understand that it has made us faster and smarter and removed the demand on our brains to do things the average brain isn’t so good at (storing and sorting raw facts). Around the same time we come to this realization, the computers that got us there will be understanding that they need us in order to get better at what they do (gathering, storing and sorting data). Maybe they will have the ability to act like us, be our friends, request information autonomously or even participate in our world but computers will, most likely develop into machines that strive for improvement and greater input. For this they will need us just as we’ll need them.

I wholly admit that this sounds utopian. I’m not saying it’s the future I wholly believe in. But I am saying that it’s a more plausible future than the one where technology acts upon our worst qualities and destroys or enslaves us. I’d rather have a computer that sees its role as a facilitator, storer, sorter and even creator of the information in my life, freeing me to experience, guide and participate in the world.

Since we can’t go backward let’s begin imagining what a good version of our future is and, whatever it is, start making it happen.

Share Your Metrics

You’re a new startup. You’ve told your VC guys that your app has been downloaded 5M times. You’ve told them that you’re the fastest growing website in history. But you’re not sharing who’s on your site or what they’re doing at any given time.

Why can’t metrics be shared publicly? Now imagine you are a committed user of an application and you’ve just discovered that few people were actually, actively using it, what would you do? Probably you’ve had this sense for a while. You’ve been posting links, locations and videos for weeks now and it just feels like broadcasting; no one is replying. Maybe it’s one app in a sea of similar applications and while your friends are busy using a competitive app you’re loving the one you’re on. Yet, sadly, this app is dying the slow death. Out of the gate it launched to big fan fare and tons of buzz. It easily solved a need that you had and you become committed because of it.

At what point should you know that it’s failing? In most real-world cases, it’s the day a beleaguered founder posts on his blog that the party is over. Maybe, like with Delicious, you’re lucky and months before the collapse you’re told that the meteor is coming. Now you’ve got just enough time to pack up and jump. But in both of these cases, these are out-of-the-blue moments. But in my opinion, in our world, there’s no excuse for this. We can’t preach being user-centric but not provide the tools to help our users truly participate. I think the information can help and sustain growth. I’d be interested in being able to see how my activity on a site relates directly changes the metrics. I’d like to be able to promote or help or participate in a new startup through an understanding that things are either great or dropping rapidly. I’d like to have the option of jumping on the wagon and collaborative cheering new users into a site.

As a startup, should be afraid of sharing your metrics? What do you actually lose by sharing? Isn’t the basic business model of your startup about sharing? But my real question is, do you think that loyalty can be driven by transparency? To this, I believe the answer is yes and I’d love to hear other thoughts, counter or otherwise.

Another quick thought … There’s some big implications here. A great app with dropping stats and tons of VC funding is going to have a hard time being unloaded but isn’t the real value of those companies to be the mistakes that we all learn from?

(btw, the image above is a screenshot of Google Analytics for this site as of 3/23/11. I was shocked to see the boost in traffic. Thanks!)

A Step Towards Gesture Interface

When Microsoft Kinect launched it was accompanied by a blast of developers attempting to hack the system and use the Kinect for everything from 3D cameras to a consistent force for computer vision. There’s a bunch of these hacks available and the developers working on them are making apps that let you control digital monsters, make a movie in 3D and, my favorite, control your Mac.

http://www.kinect-hacks.com/kinect-guides/2011/03/12/guide-installing-kinect-jesture-mac-os-x

Why is this my favorite? Because, with all the concerns people have about how we interact with our computer lives, sitting in front of a screen, typing, all day controlling your computer with your hands seems like the perfect first step in helping us do work the way we’re meant to. I imagine a world where we interact with our technology through a combination of touch and gesture. In this future, we don’t have people complaining of repetitive stresses like carpal tunnel, we have people up and moving around to use their devices.

I’ve recently been reading several studies on the need to move in order to increase memory and cognitive skills. Basically, our brains work best when we can touch and move something directly. Currently our computer interfaces are about indirect interaction. Move the mouse and we must translate this motion into a change on the screen. Integrating gesture interfaces into our technology is a good first step towards bridging this internal translation of space. This trend feels like an inevitability to me both because the demand from all users exists but also because we’re beginning to view our physical world as a place full of data that we can interact with.

I’m going to go and try this hack. Maybe you should too (if you’ve got photos of it, even beter, I’d love to check it out.)

Life of a startup at SXSW

At SXSW this year, I had the unique opportunity to understand “brand” from the perspective of a startup. I spent much of SXSW with two unique startups, Giftopera.com and Voyurl.com. Both of these are distinct products with quite different founders. Giftopera was founded by a developer I’ve known for years named Vineet Choudhary and his business partner Simon Tiemtore. It’s a group gifting application that, once built, will allow people to pool their money to buy a gift for a friend. Voyurl is founded by Adam Liebsohn who has seemingly scraped every dollar he has into the creation of Voyurl while maintaining a full-time job at an award-winning ad agency. Voyurl allows users to elect to be tracked as they move around the Internet with the trade off that they can then see their own stats and compare them with their friends’. The idea is to even the playing field against Google, Facebook and others who are tracking our online activity with every click.  

Vineet, Simon and I rented a house from HomeAway for the week of SXSWi. They have been working on GiftOpera for a couple months now but the product isn’t online yet. Vineet, the quietly-social father of two, is able to build much of the framework for the product on his own, but has chosen to bring in some outside resources from India and Sweden to work on the development and design of the app. Simon, a magnanimous finance guy originally from Burkina Faso, heads the business thinking and sales side of the company. Over the course of 6 days, I watched them give out over 500 business cards, with Simon chatting up everyone he met while casually explaining the product to a captive sidewalk audience. Their goal for SXSW was simply to raise awareness about their infant brand and sign up users for a future launch. Both of them worked hard exploring and learning everything from the SXSW panels to talking with venture capital managers to make sure they were at enough events to make their presence known. This meant building brand awareness through fairly traditional means; shaking hands, passing cards and sitting with influential decision makers. Their brand is about bringing groups together who want to achieve a common goal, it is as personal a brand as the relationships they are looking to build.  

On the contrary, Adam texted to tell me he’d be coming down the day before SXSW. Adam’s Voyurl.com application has been in private beta for over a month and has built up a solid following that’s garnered him several high-profile interviews with publications like the New York Times. (Private beta is where friends and friends of friends are invited to test the product while the dev team releases new updates. For the user it usually involves a lot of patience balanced with the trade off that they were “first”). At the conference, I first ran into him outside the convention center with his messenger bag pulled around over his military jacket. He was handing out printed tags and preparing to give out a couple thousand stickers in a traditional, but effective, guerilla marketing tactic. Like Vineet and Simon, Adam’s goal was also to raise awareness, but he had to go about this in a different way.  His stickers, with the tagline “prove you weren’t looking at porn” found their way into nearly every available space at SXSW. His brand isn’t about shaking hands and handing out business cards, it’s about building buzz. It’s the kind of non-traditional product that wants to be promoted as something secret so new users want to have an invite.  

These two startups say a lot to me about where the Internet has led us as branding professionals. We can’t assume all websites are the same. We can’t decide that just because someone talks “tech” that they fit into a single category. We can’t assume that simply because startups aren’t treating “brand” with marketing directors and brand managers that they don’t have just as much of a need for it. Brand in the startup space begins with the founders’ vision and then grows and defines the experience of using the product. The logo is both placeholder and promise that must encapsulate both experience and future growth. Voyurl and GiftOpera are different in their brand because the people behind them are different. Yet as each company evolves, their challenges will center around the traditional pressure points of any company; how to create growth and how to ensure the company doesn’t lose what made them succeed in the first place.  

Our challenge, as brand leaders, is to understand this offer and redefine how we help these future companies achieve the growth they aspire to.

(this post is pulled from my posting on Wolff Olins blog from 3/23/11)