hentry

Conspiracy for Good is a new augmented reality, transmedia, ARG from Tim Krings, the creator of Heroes.

According to Conspiracy for Good’s Facebook page it’s stated aim is:

The Conspiracy For Good is a community that strives to inspire people to come together in common causes, through a shared narrative. The end game is to change the world for the better.This community is built to be filled by your ideas and actions.

There’s a live event this Saturday in London. Conspiracy for Good is sponsored by Nokia and there are related games and apps available from the OVI store. It’s an ambitious project, and what impact it has remains to be seen. Do these causes share a narrative? Is transmedia narrative the best way to engage young people with causes? I guess we’ll know more in a few weeks, in the meantime, it’s an interesting project which I reckon merits some attention.

farisquote1

When Faris Yakob tweeted this at the beginning of the World Cup final, he articulated something I’d dimly realised a couple of weeks earlier, i.e. for significant portions of the time I was more interested in what was being said on Twitter about the World Cup than what was happening on TV (not what was being said on TV, that’s a given, but the actual action). Even in pubs watching it with groups of friends, I’d have one eye on my phone to see what Twitter made of any particular incident.

Of course the biggest sin in strategy/planning is to take your own behaviour as a starting point for any insight. All planners are sinners of course, and while Faris’s observation was a personal one, is there any evidence that this is a view shared by the wider public? Well, it would seem that there is. A recently commissioned study from the Yahoo and Nielsen has found that 75% of American Internet users surf the Internet while they’re watching TV. That’s up 20% from a year ago. More importantly, the same report found that 54% of the multitaskers are “primarily focused” on the Internet rather than TV. So far so good, in a two screen scenario people are more interested in the Internet than the telly. However, the report does conclude that a lot of what people are looking at on the net has nothing to do with what they are ‘watching’ on TV. So perhaps, unlike Faris or I, they’re not that interested in the back channel. And I don’t dispute that this is true in aggregate, however, I’d like to bet that there is a much closer correlation between TV and Internet during big media events, e.g. big sports games, American Idol finals, etc. And of course the Internet is not the only, or probably main backchannel. SMS and chat were, and probably still are, the main backchannels, however, while both have group functionality, unlike Twitter, neither is a particularly efficient broadcast tool. None really admits interesting perspectives from outwith ones immediate social circle. I’m aware that Twitter is still a minority platform, however, Facebook isn’t, and there’s lots of evidence that people are turning to that in a similar way to Twitter.

None of this is anything like conclusive evidence that the ‘general population’ is more interested in the backchannel than the channel itself. However, it does ask a series of interesting questions about the social mediation of events. As I’ve written about before, television is a social medium.

Broadly speaking, I guess it’s possible to view this behaviour in a couple of different ways. Cultural pessimists would, I guess, point to the fragmentation of attention. Cultural optimists might praise the reintroduction of a social aspects to the consumption of media.

Personally speaking, I’m an optimist, I think the social aspects of the backchannel definitely outweigh any of the percieved negatives (I’d definitely rather spend a couple of hours messing around on Twitter instead of having to watch that Spain v Portugal match - that’s a couple of hours of my life that I’m never getting back).

However, it’s perhaps not the cultural but the commercial implications that are most interesting about this research It has some fairly profound implications for those buying TV ads. After all, it looks like half of your reported viewers aren’t even paying attention, and it’s probably worse than that, because they’re almost certainly paying less attention when the ads are on.

Anyway, there’s lots more questions in there, so I leave you with the question I asked Faris around the time Marc van Bommel was kicking his first Spaniard up in the air. johnquote

Google TV launches at the end of this summer. Hardware partners include Intel, Sony and Logitech. There’s an Android SDK coming soon, which will allow for full control of the TV from your phone.
Apple TV has been around in one form or another for a few years now, however, it remains, relatively speaking something of the backwater for Apple, however, recent reports suggest that this is about to change:

Steve Jobs’ “hobby” — the Apple TV — is slated for a radical revamp, an extreme price slice, and a future in the cloud, according to “a source very close to Apple.”

Engadget reports that the next version of the Apple TV will run iPhone OS 4.0, have only enough on-board RAM to function as a conduit to the cloud, and will cost a mere ninety-nine bucks. Today’s Apple TV runs a cool $229.

It looks like TV is another area that Google and Apple are going head-to-head. However, while Google’s business model is pretty clear - I think it might have something to do with advertising - Apple’s is a little less so, as the Register points out:

The Reg admits to a bit of puzzlement over the purported $99 price point. As Apple execs have admitted, as currently configured the iTunes Store is essentially a break-even business that’s designed to lure customers into buying Apple hardware and developers into building apps that also sell hardware.

But at $99 a pop, Cupertino won’t make beaucoup bucks from Apple TV hardware.

Perhaps the move is strategic for Apple, after all they are now one of the biggest players in the content market and it makes great sense for them to make a bigger play for the fast emerging web enabled TV market. And true convergence is upon us - that is to say we will all soon expect Internet, TV and mobile functionality from all our ’screens’, be they traditional TVs or mobile handsets. We will also expect our content to be viewable on all these screens for the minimum of fuss (syncing, etc). In other words, we want an end-to-end product that allows us to watch half a film at home on TV, then leave for work and watch the remainder on our mobile without having to do any more than press a single button. The company that cracks this kind of seamless integration will have a serious advantage, and at the moment my money would be on that company being Apple; in iTunes they have an established albeit aging platform (it seriously needs an overhaul) which a huge pre-existing customer base. Apple’s also proved itself adept at looking at products holistically in the past.

However, it may not be as simple as that, Google’s platforms are ‘open’, it works with multiple hardware partners and allows end users much greater freedom to control the content they view. Android has recently been outselling the iPhone in the US, and though the new iPhone will probably reverse that trend for a little while, by the time the next iPhone appears in a couple of years of time, it will have lost significant market and mind share to a range of technically superior Android phones from a range of manufacturers.

And there are other new entrants to this market - the BBC trust just approved the VOD JV Canvas, and in the US Walmart intends to enter the market having recently bought Vudu.

And of course both Apple, Google and all of these new entrants may well end up as bit part players in this game, as incumbent cable and satellite operators gradually extend their capabilities and retain their customer base.

Either way, however, I do think that the ability to offer seamless content integration across devices will be key. And here, as I said, I think Apple has a clear lead.

The Future of Digital

Skive’s Tom Ollerton on the Future of Digital. For the TLDR crowd here’s the summary.

1. Utility is key - it’s easier to be repeatedly useful than repeatedly funny;

2. Social media is about much more than Facebook and Twitter;

3. Innovation isn’t just about new technology; and

4. It’s all about stories

I agree with most of this. Indeed, I’ve blogged about several of Tom’s examples in the past.

Morgan Stanley chief analyst Mary Meeker is one the industry’s most respected commentators. I’ve posted some of her analyses here before, in part because they help contextualise current events in broader trends, and they’re relatively free from the hype and spin that can dog a lot of industry comment. Her most recent presentation focuses on mobile and mobile advertising. Key points are that in the next year smart-phones will, for the first time, outsell desktop and laptops combined - heralding the beginning of the age of mobile computing. This opens the door for mobile content, services and advertising, sectors which all offer great opportunity. This is is all happening much quicker than the desktop boom did - increased competition and innovation are pushing markets further and faster than would have seemed possible five years ago. MIDS, and the Internet of Things also push demand.

As always there’s lots of quant to back up her assertions.

There’s an interesting article in Wired about geolocation. As you probably know geolocation is an idea that’s burnt through a fair pile of VC cash in the last decade or so, and there are those who still think that ‘telling everyone where you are’ is something that will never become a mainstream activity.

However, recently it seems that Foursquare and to a lesser extent Gowalla have changed sentiment about geolocation. Introducing a competitive element to the service seems to have moved the discussion away from privacy issues, to the more positive applications of geolocation.

Having said that, Foursquare and Gowalla are definitely in the early adopter stage, and while their sudden growth in popularity is probably in part a function of the fact that the social media community needs something new to talk about now that Twitter’s a bit ‘old hat’, it does seem that geolocation applications are coming of age.

Personally speaking, I’m still not convinced by either Foursquare or Gowalla as they currently stand - and I know that these services are still in the experimental stage, as Justin Hall rightly points out in the Wired article, however, I don’t really know what the badges are for, I certainly don’t want to bore people with constant messages about where I am, and I don’t currently see a lot of social activity on these services - they don’t seem to encourage conversations in the same way as Twitter or Facebook do.

However, despite not being entirely sold on the mechanics of either of the two most popular geolocation applications, I am convinced that geolocation is going to move into the mainstream in the next couple of years, mainly because location-based gaming and applications have such a long and venerable history.

Here are a few examples.

In his book, The Bright Young People DJ Taylor recounts how the 1920s social scene coalesced around series of increasingly elaborate ’scavenger parties’ set across London. These started as something to amuse a group of mainly young society women who had nothing to do, Lady Eleanor Smith, cousins Elizabeth and Loelia Ponsonby and sisters Zita and Baby Jungman. The games started as simple paper trails laid across London’s transport network, growing in complexity as a social scene developed around, culminating in a series of elaborate events for which Lord Beaverbrook printed a special edition of the Evening Standard. Taylor credits these scavenger hunts as being the catalyst which brought together the disparate groups the went on to make up the Bright Young People.

brightyoungpeople

And treasure hunts haven’t just been the pastime of small social elites, The London Treasure Hunt Riots recount the story of Thomas Wright, a barrister living in Westbourne Terrace who returned home from chambers one evening to find a large mob digging up his front garden. When he tried to stop them, they attacked him. It transpired that:

Wright’s attackers were looking for one of 177 prize medallions which a Sunday newspaper called the Weekly Dispatch had planted around the UK. The paper used its first issue of the New Year to announce it had concealed a fortune in treasure medallions, the most valuable of which were worth £50 apiece. Each issue would carry a series of clues pointing to the prizes’ locations. That meant, of course, that anyone hoping to find one of the medallions had to buy a copy of the Dispatch first – and perhaps its special supplements too.

Soon the Weekly dispatch treasure hunt was causing mayhem across the country.

Wherever the Dispatch’s promotion touched down, hysterical treasure hunters began tearing up the public highways with knives, shovels, sticks and any other implement that came to hand. If they took it into their head to dig up a private garden or vandalise the local park, they went right ahead and did so. Anyone who protested was bullied into submission, just as Wright had been. The promotion was less than three weeks old, and already causing chaos.

More recently Kit Williams’ Masquerade caused a similar sensation, selling millions of copies and generating huge amounts of the publicity as the public tried to solve the puzzles in Williams’ book and track down the location of the Golden Hare he had buried.
masquerade

And Foursquare has made some moves in this direction, working recently with Marc Jacobs to offer prizes for bloggers who checked into certain locations. Having said that, I think that relying on users to check in to places for small, uncertain or untargeted rewards isn’t a very strong model. (I’m not sure that the mainstream will spend a huge amount of time checking into places, unless there is a very direct, well-known and tangible gain. As with most things tech God, or indeed the devil, will be in the detail.)

And the applications of geolocation don’t stop at public treasure hunts and location-based marketing, there are other long-term applications. When I was young I was, for some time, mildly obsessed with the I-Spy books, a series which rewarded the reader points for spotting various sights, e.g. the I-Spy History book rewarded the reader points for spotting a Norman Church or standing stones. Sometimes this was frustrating, coming from the north of Scotland it was hard to find thatched lychgates or Saxon ship burials, however, there were a wide range of books on Cars and Birds and the like, and while there was no social element, or independent means of verification the series did extremely well for some time, and indeed the I-Spy Wikipedia page suggests they have recently been republished by Michelin Books.

I-spy books

To my mind it doesn’t take much imagination to see how you could apply the I-Spy model to a platform like Foursquare. Make the competition social with national leader boards. Perhaps combine it with Google Goggles for verification purposes. Think of the competition that would develop around the Trainspotter app, or the National Trust one, or the Hillwalking one.

These are just a few examples of how and why geolocation might move to the mainstream. Timing is everything in tech, and it seems to me that geolocation is coming of age, and if Gowalla and Foursquare focus their efforts on added-value partnerships to make more interesting applications whilst stabilising and expanding their APIs to allow third parties to do so, then they have the potential to become immensely powerful platforms which will make geolocation a mass market application.

The resurgence of 8-bit art and chip tunes. Lots of interesting discussion about nostalgia, the lure of simplicity and the way emulators and modern screens have distorted our perception of the pixel - the fundamental building block of digital imagery.

No, I’m not being sarcastic, this is actually a pretty big deal, or at least the first step down a road towards something that is actually a pretty big deal, because if you’ve used one of the myriad social media sentiment trackers that have suddenly sprung up in the last year or so you’ll know how patchy they are. Particularly as sarcasm, irony, LOLS and other types of non direct speech are pretty much the default mode for a lot of Internet dialogue.

Researchers at Hebrew University have developed a machine algorithm that can recognise sarcasm in online postings. The algorithm was tested against 66,000 reviews for books and other products listed on Amazon, where it apparently achieved 77% precision in identifying sarcastic comments.

You can read the full paper on sarcasm here. However, if you just want to know more about sarcasm, irony and the like, then read DJ Enright’s brilliant essay on the subject - The Alluring Problem.

Adobe’s Kevin Lynch talks about HTML5 and Steve Jobs’ recent pronouncements on Flash, which Jobs argues doesn’t play nice with the iPhone, iPad, etc.

Now, believe me when I say that I’m no lover of Flash, indeed I actively dislike it in many ways, but like extremist parties in a democracy I support its right to exist. And in truth, if used well, in the right context, etc, etc, Flash can be pretty cool. But that’s not the point, the point is that if, as Apple argues, Flash on mobile platforms sucks then developers and users should be given the right to reject it, without Apple banning its use.

But of course Steve Jobs is being disingenous in his attacks on Flash. Apple is anti-Flash because it wants to protect revenue from the app store and promote Objective C as a language. It doesn’t want a bunch of free Flash games killing the golden goose.

I understand that Apple is looking to maximise revenues and defend its competitive advantage, but it should at least be honest about its motives. OK, maybe it’s asking a bit much for honesty in the Valley, however, it should at least be open about its motives, after all Apple was one of the first companies to embrace computing as a open platform, c.f. the Woz and the Homebrew Computing Club and the proprietary approach doesn’t sit well with this legacy. Particularly, when you add in the way the approval process works.

Of course, I understand that Apple wins by delivering a brilliant user experience, something it achieves by retaining control. And of course a lot of this is tied up with bigger issues, namely the end of the homecomputing era and the arrival of the wireless era. However, I don’t think that Apple can win the mobile platform game in the long run anyway, as it won’t license the platform. So while they have a hardware marketshare lead in some markets, this year has and will see most of the competition catch up and in may cases surpass their hardware offering. In addition, I reckon platform inertia is less significant than some industry types might think - most iPhone apps are relatively ephemeral things.

So for my money, by acting the way it is, Apple is trading brand reputation for short-term revenue in the app store. Not in my opinion the best deal.

This story from the Economist quotes a recent quantitative study into TV viewing habits which suggests that despite the rise of PVRs and online, on-demand video most people seem to want to watch TV at the time at which it is broadcast.

It seems that people still really want TV to be a shared cultural experience, despite the fact that they love their PVRs and iPlayer, etc. In other words: television is a social medium. In fact, one of the odder things about this study is that most people greatly overstate the amount of timeshifted content they watch compared to the ‘live’ broadcast material.

What’s going on here? Well it won’t come as much of a surprise to planner types that people aren’t doing what they say they are, however, it would seem that what’s happening is that people place a great value on the ability to choose, even though they infrequently exercise that choice. A similar phenomenon applies to commenting on Internet sites - people value the opportunity to comment and contribute despite the fact that few exercise it.

However, while television is a social medium, television audiences are informally and poorly networked.

I think this suggests that there’s a great opportunity being missed by shows like X Factor, etc, which should really be capitalising on the opportunities the Internet and social media offer to connect audiences during and after the live event. Turning TV into a truly social medium.