Three dimensions of NEW digital: Dynamics, Context, Ubiquitous

Digital is changing, and becoming more than just another channel. I think the landscape is transforming into three dimensions we need to think and care about in order to bring us forward.

Two blogposts by The Kaiser and Seb, a Trendbriefing and shared insights from Eddie of Naked Norway has helped me articulate this into a more manageable form

This is from a comment I made on The Kaisers’ post Ceci n’est pas un pipe. (which I have no idea what means?)

I think this [digital] is two-fold

the following :empirically without the support of rigorous clinical trial buy viagra online.


First off, like Rob is commenting, creating something digital is about appreciating the dynamics of the solution, not just the mechanics:

From a previous post on my blog referencing Robin Hunickes’ talk on Lift:
“…where the topic is games and the mechanics of games. Every game can be put into a formula M+D=A. (Mechanics+Dynamics=Aesthetics). Where the solutions itself presents the mechanics, but the participation and interactions from and between participants create the dynamics
. It the sum of these two parts that create the aesthetics or the essence of a game, and the reason it becomes a success or not
. The same can be said for marketing activities.”

The second thing is appreciating that digital is just a part of a larger context
. And this is where I think your “weave”-definition puts it up a notch.

Nobody uses or participates in your idea just to participate, but they do it as a part of a larger activity.

For example, nobody uses the Domino Pizza Application just to push around buttons and go through menus’. They do it because they have a craving for pizza. The application begins their pizza eating experience and start filling their mouths with water and anticipation.

This is all well and good, but I think the real difference with digital comes when adding a third dimension:

What happens with digital now, is that it no longer fits into a silo, like the other channels
. It has become more than an “arena” (an arena plays to the comment by lauren where “channels” are a pipeline you poor something through, whereas the “arena” is where participation and interaction challenges, enriches and redistributes the ideas).

With “more”, I mean that digital is becoming ubiquitous, and will start filling the whole communications universe with content, arenas and online-offline-context (larger scale weaving).

The latest Trendwatching brief , “Off=On”, gives some nice examples already.

As e few examples we are going to see everything from content on/in digital apps in clothes, a physical environment becoming as interactive as the digital, and a multitude of different channels and applications being weaved with digital (The Esquire digital print ad is a first flirtatious example of that).

Written by:


  1. September 14

    […] my last post I wrote about the three dimensions of New Digital. One of the them is […]

  2. September 15

    ceci n’est pas une pipe means that really means something.
    very interesting article.

  3. Cory Hendrickson
    September 16

    Good post. You clearly define size or reach as one of the major variables to the NEW digital. Not sure that I fully agree with the other. Context is good but hard to wrap hands around. I tend to think of this new digital in two realms – reach and intent. Not all efforts should be ubiquitous. These may fall into macro and micro hemispheres. Think news – not everyone wants world news, some just want regional. These regional sites should talk first to the locals and not worry about the rest. What makes them unique and meaningful online is not their global reach but their local POV on what may be global.

    Second is the intent. This is a little trickier, but there seems to be a need for both cognitive and affective drivers in digital. Sometimes the best approach is to do and other times the best approach is to see. When crossed, these two realms of the new digital form quadrants that explain many of the current efforts underway.

  4. admin
    September 16

    @The Kaiser and Brieuc, thanks for the translation and link :o)

    @Cory: I do agree with context, and I was trying to relate it to The Kaisers initial post, referencing it as “weaving”.

    The definition I normally use is taken from Robert Hoekman:

    “The application itself is not a goal at all – it’s an obstacle between the user and their goal”.

    My translation:
    We have to find the motivations that lie behind the larger situation/context/ritual in order to be inspired and identify/articulate the proper activity/solution/product/idea. :o)

    I also agree on ubiquity, the ideas have to be scalable to fit the purpose. Not everything is ubiquitous but we operate within that possibility.

    And emotional/affective… But I think we need more stories and affection in digital, there is to much rational text-based information out there today – this is not how people seamlessly consume information or more importantly: Connect to brands.

    Thanks again for contributing :o)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *