Shann Biglione's blog

3D on mobile, it works, and better than on your TV!

Yesterday I had the chance to experience 3D without glasses on a Japanese mobile phone (I forgot the name of the handset already, sorry).

To say I'm 3D pessimistic is a euphemism. I don't agree this brings much to movies (or games), and most of the time I end up moaning about the decreased brightness and the annoying glasses. However, on a mobile device - and this will be very much the same on 3DS -, I was blown away by the ability to see 3D content without wearing anything.

Watching 3D with glasses is like seeing a magic trick knowing what the trick is. Your brain can't help remembering that the very reason you can see piranhas coming straight to your face is related to these glasses. Your first experience of 3D without glasses, however, brings you where we've always wanted to be: the ability for images to come to life like never before, almost as if they were meant to.

The promise of 3D is there. Seeing Tron in IMAX 3D was already an experience impressive enough to realize that there is something worthwhile pursuing with this technology, beyond just the commercial value of more expensive content. But with the ability to watch 3D without any glasses is clearly going to be a huge shift, one that will impact dramatically how we produce content.

As mobile devices are the first able to produce the 3D image without glasses (at least for the next 2 to 3 years) I wouldn't be surprised if we saw another huge increase in mobile content consumption over the next 5 years, since for the first time in history your experience may be better on a mobile platform than in your living room, and not just a dumbed down version.

The internet is a bit of a joke, really.

The internet is a bit of a funny joke, isn't it?

We love funny jokes: we crave them, they make us laugh (hopefully loud), we think how great a joke it'll be to tell our (other) friends next time, and we always forget them (at best, we remember them badly).

Someone will any way be better than you at telling it, and you may as well wait for the next jokes since the ones you know are not really funny anymore. Unless you're in the business of telling jokes, you quite frankly have no reason to remember them or who told them.

The internet is letting our brains surf on a similar lazy wave. There are millions of stuff to see, and you don't usually need to get back to them. There will be something else to replace what you've seen, or someone you know will at some point feed your appetite anyway. Besides, what you've seen is already an old story, the next one is surely more exciting anyway.

I have seen thousands of interesting initiatives, been inspired by many formidable ideas, read hundreds of genius people' thoughts online. I have felt passionate about some of the stuff they've done. And somehow, they're all wired somewhere in my brain (not everything is lost, thankfully). But how often do I actually think of checking on them when I get my daily fix of internet content? How many interesting sites did I see thinking "wow, awesome", and never really bothered going back to?

The dilemma for TV content was to be good enough for people to care to watch the next iteration. The dilemma of digital content is that we simply don't even remember the channel itself, and that the only way to get our attention is to be new enough to be worthwhile of our next span of brain time.

Ideas that win are not just ideas that spread. However hard to achieve it already is, it's just not enough anymore to grow a business or product. Winners are the ones that stick.

Stickiness was the icing on the marketing cake in the media landscape of the last 40 years. It was definitely much better, but you could live without it.

The ROI models of today are primarily based on spread metrics: maximise the number of individuals you get exposed to, and then hope it sticks. And for a while, it will be fine.

The ROI models of tomorrow will be primarily based on maximising the return of people already exposed, and then hope it spreads. 

Sounds like there will be more value in services than content, doesn't it?

Do as I say, not as I do...

We, agencies, often recommend our clients to look at this changing world with a new perspective. Business models are morphing, consumers are flipping, structures are obsoletes.

Great.

However, I'm starting to wonder when the agency world will look at itself and realise that we're a little too far from the mirror...

I'm not only talking about new forms of marketing - while an important epiphany, it's one that more and more are having (and seeing results for). I'm talking about the way we do business. The way we interact with our client, the way we run our staff, the way we charge for our services.

We work and recommend solutions for a risky environment, and yet, our approach to revenue is entirely focused on stability and fixed hourly rates. We aspire to creativity and dread meaningless measurements (not that all measurements are, but, especially in the digital world, creativity is often sacrificed in the name of the illusion of measurement, when we actually can't measure much of the relevant stuff really).

Safe products don't get talked about anymore, and cost a lot of money to succeed. Nowadays that is a problem. We advocate artistry, risk, and more and more are (rightfully) praising the trial and error approach.

The problem is simple: we are (at least most of us) based on the old model, the one that allowed us to swim in day rates "security" and one where the only measure to our value was our time.

When are we going to grab the mirror and realise how archaic our model is? How uninspiring, frustrating (for the client and the employees) and unfit for a world made of artistry and risks our approach to business is?

We see the stupidity in the music industry's fight to hold onto CD sales, but yet are doing the same with the way we sell our services. We're ready to see all of our clients' archaisms, but are still unable to realise that the rules of our business were also based on this so despised old model.

As long as the status quo works, we're happy. But recent business history has shown us that thriving businesses were the ones defying the status quo. There are going to be casualties when the wave hits us (and it will). We can't know for sure what the answer is, the same way we can't be sure what will solve all of our clients' problems in this new world.

But surely, we're smart enough and proud enough to do better than that?

Can businesses have an ethical line?

Ethics are very subjective. What may seem acceptable to me will probably shock someone else, and vice versa.

For a business, the easier step towards ethic responsibility is clearly to treat its employees well and equally, whilst respecting the environment. Yet, most companies don't do this first step, and that's one very good reason for me to be proud of mine (note: I don't own it).

However when you work in the service industry, there are obvious choices of clients that will, whether you want it or not, have an ethical meaning for people who work for you. Clients do fuck up, or do sometimes promote things that are ethically blurry.

Which agency would refuse Nestlé because of their actions in Indonesia? Who would turn down Total or Goldman Sachs? They're big money, and while they do some things wrong, they can't be blamed for all evil in the world. They're not selling drugs or weapons, are they?

It's easy to think that we should forgive our clients for what they do wrong. At the end of the day, who are we to preach? Anyone here who has never sinned... But the reality is that we all, at some point, feel very righteous in front or our TV, occasionally with a little tear down our eye. Then why stop at the working place? Are we ready to sell out our beliefs for a steady income?

It isn't necessarily wrong to work for a corporation that does bad things. At the end of the day, they can still improve, and pointing the finger isn't going to solve any problem. Besides, their wrong doings can sometimes be over evaluated by a group of extremists for whom nothing is good until it's perfect. However, it shouldn't stop us from thinking more about our involvement in the grand scheme of things. Especially when our job is to promote this company, and increase people's affinity for their brands.

Being marketers makes us, whether we want it or not, accomplices of who and what we promote, and history has shown us that it doesn't take much more than a willingly blind collaboration for a whole nation to fall into dark corners.

We recently had an issue with a product that was supposedly tested on animals, which obviously raised concerns (and defiance) amongst some of my colleagues (including myself). Others argued that saying this kind of things would open an ethical pandora's box (where do we stop? Are we right enough ourselves to show despise to people who work for this client? and what about the other clients, who are doing this and that wrong? Why don't we care about these ones?).

In the end, and not necessarily for this reason, we ended up not going for the project. I believe that, should the issue be real, it would have been the right thing to do.

Going for projects that defy our beliefs is, in my eyes, ethical prostitution. It means that while you have ideals, you're ready to put them aside for money. We're lucky enough to have many bad things hidden from us, we shouldn't behave like ostriches when we actually know that there is a problem. I'm sure I'd be totally depressed if I knew all about the clients I work for, and yes, it's always blurry to decide where to stop. Yes, there is something extremely self righteous in the decision to turn down a client for ethical reasons. But it doesn't mean you shouldn't have a line. Because not having a line is exactly how these things can and will still happen. 

Where's your line?

PS: Having just watched The Cove (brilliant, watch it if you haven't!), I just realised how much cruelty there is in keeping cetaceans in captivity. Ric O'Barry, the guy who created it all (Flipper, that's him), came to realise one day how cruel it was for these animals to be kept outside the ocean, and has since been fighting his whole life to try to undo what he had started (to some extent, his story deeply reminded me of Einstein and his fight against nuclear weapons).

No one likes to think of wild animals in cages, but most of us came to the conclusion one day or another that it wasn't that bad, some of them even needed it after all (ya' know, preservation and raising animals that couldn't survive in the wild, thins are not black and white and no solution is ideal bla bla bla).

Let's be realistic here. For a man, who knows dolphins probably better than anyone else on this planet, to fight against what he had created with so much passion and dedication, it takes some serious belief that it is just wrong beyond any personal judgement to keep a dolphin (or an orca) inside a water tank for tourists' enjoyment.

It is one thing to take care of these animals, it's another to make millions displaying them doing all sorts of tricks. And while I know that there are better places than others, the inconvenient truth is simple: it is a lie to say these parks have an educational value (Attenborough has one, not them), and at the end of the day, they promote and normalise the very act of using captive cetaceans for people's entertainment.

They may take the best care they can of their animals, and I'm sure people working there are genuinely nice people who have helped more of these animals than I (and you) ever will. But this is just not an environment for this kind of animals, period. And promoting it opens the gates to all sorts of businesses to thrive, including the kind that get their dolphins from places like Taiji in Japan. It is simply irresponsible.

You probably wonder how it's relevant to my post above... My colleagues won't.

Will the value of brand connections go down?

Brand connections were one of the most coveted achievements in marketing campaigns over the last year (along with deep brand engagement). But with all these new ways to connect with content and brands, brand connections are becoming such a standard commodity... Are we entering a new bubble cycle? Isn't the value of the connection already doomed?

I fear the connection overkill is in sight already...

Is Facebook redefining web 2.0?

In light of today's announcements making Facebook even more intertwined with our digital lives, and looking at the exponential growth of Facebook, I'm starting to wonder if they won't be giving web 2.0 a completely new meaning.

If things continue the way they are at the moment, Facebook will be as essential as the internet itself to (a lot of) people. If I can want to connect with my friends, things I like and brands I buy, all via Facebook, then clearly there is a point where they're not just an option, they are becoming indispensable.

More and more research seems to indicate that not being on Facebook can have an excluding effect on people who haven't signed up (especially amongst teens). Their expansion will not stop, they're close to tipping point everywhere, and bar a couple of resisting territories (the most important being China, but this is primarily due to censorship) it is only a matter of time for Facebook to be the most essential site in the world. And more importantly, they have achieved what other previous social networks have failed to do: to expand beyond their own site and become part of our overall online existence. Once established, this will be a very difficult position to defeat...

Once Facebook have become that central to everyone's online experience (and it has clearly started), they will be the most powerful company on Earth. Not only in terms of traffic, but more importantly because they will own our social and cultural DNA, the most valuable information anyone can ever own (and sell).

Today's announcements are smart. Some people may want more, but the reality is that they're getting one step closer to being the thing everyone dreamed about for years, our very own digital passport. In other words, THE standard.

This is not web 2.0 as an evolution, this is web number 2 as something so big it is as important as the internet itself, a defining strand that cannot be challenged by anyone anymore, including Apple, Google and Microsoft.

We thought Google would run the show in this new century... I think it's only a matter of time for Facebook to become the largest empire the world has ever seen.

The organization of creative failure

I firmly believe that one of the key things that will differentiate winners from losers in this changing digital business world will be creativity and the ability to take risks. Safety (eg profits) in businesses will come from the scalability of sticky ideas, not from unremarkable, familiar ideas that need media repeated ad nauseam to be remotely remembered. But that's already become a sort of truism, hasn't it?

The problem is that most companies (especially large ones) are just not set up to promote the necessary creativity, and their very hierarchy ends up being geared towards creative suppression and averageness. The problem is simple: there are as many views as there are stakeholders and employees, and while this wealth could be used to gather lots of ideas, it is usually focused on the very thing that kills creative and remarkable ideas: consensus. 

I can only think of two ways to generate *really* creative products and messages: dictatorship or total democracy. Everything in between will end up with endless meetings, debates and, in the long run, it pushes people to care more about what others think and opens the door to dirty internal politics.

Total democracy is based on an wider, objective consensus, where the decision to go for one or another idea is based on a "vote" where everyone's voice has the same value at the end of the creative/brainstorming process. The most popular idea wins. I think you'll agree that this is pretty rare... Important note: don't confuse this with consumer testing: that comes AFTER you've agreed on your ideas.

Dictatorship is based on one clear decision making structure, where the final decision is only made by one person, not a group of 30 different opinions. It is this person's role to feed from everyone's input, to promote creativity (it needs to be fed as many ideas as possible), but at the end of the day it's also his/her role to put a stick in a ground and decide "that's it", that's the vision we're going for and you better follow it. It's important, however, to ensure that the person making this kind of decisions isn't given to a Yes Man who's only objective in life is to make his boss happy. Note: I know I'm a little provocative with the term, obviously it's not about behaving like a dictator with colleagues. :-)

Yes dictatorship is scary (especially for the decision maker!), and some may fear that other "non decision makers" will feel put aside. But at the end of the day I think the opposite can happen, and it's the one that has the most creative potential, because most great ideas couldn't happen with consensus (do you think Picasso would have inspired the world if he tried to get consensus? Would Apple come up with the iPad if they tried to mitigate everyone's views?). When you work in a creative business, while of course you'd like your ideas to be always put forward, pleasure comes from the feeling you're REALLY working for a creative business. You don't have to come up with the iPad to feel like a valuable creative at Apple. You want to feel creatively challenged and inspired, and the biggest threat to that feeling is to have to work in a space where consensus drives decisions. 

The power of choice - cheap philosophy of the week

I'm a big believer in the chaos theory. The possibilities are infinite, and I'm convinced that even something as trivial as stepping 2 cm on the right could change your life through a series of events.

However sometimes, in your life, you face important choices, the kind that force you to make a decision without a chance to ever try the one you refused, and deep down you feel there is more to it than just two options. You end up stressed, and you'd rather be able to choose not to choose. The reason is quite simple: it's because you realize that whatever your choice, it will trigger a new series of events, and your whole life will be different. You're not anymore facing the low probability of changing your life by just stepping 2 cm away. You KNOW that you have two paths ahead of you, and that you're about to say no to one, forever.

There is no taking back. There is no extra ball. Just you and your newly "chosen" future.

Choice is a chance. Choice is not about regret. It is about trying to make the best possible with the informations you have, and if you come back to the original point (your choice changes your life), then there is no such thing as a bad choice. There is only your life, and it's up to you if you want to look on the bright side of it or not. And regretting this choice will be the first step towards the path of deception.

I just made an important choice this week, and I find myself very happy with it. Not only because I think I made the right one, but also because I know just I had this chance of chosing my life, and that whatever the overall outcome, I will find many reasons to be happy with it.

Next choice, please.

Edit (April 2010): I have now met the love of my life (whom I married last month), progressed in a career I love, and just about to go live one of my dreams in Los Angeles. None of that would have happened should I have made the "other" choice...

Thinking of holidays

Just uploaded few pics from previous trips on Flickr... And then I watch by my window... It's raining, and 9°c (it's fucking June now!!!) *sigh*..
.

Ahoy!!!

'Twas Pirates day on Friday!