In the mobile world Appiness is a term used both by Apple and app-producers. The term has had a great ring to it in 2010. But everybody knows that in order for mobile to move on; from being a novelty to finding a seat in every organizations marketing communications and business strategy, something will have to happen. But what?
I was lucky enough to be interviewed byTiziano Luccarelli and The iMagazine on my thoughts on diverse subjects. I thought I’d share the highlights from some of this interview here.
The solution is simple, the Internet used to be about communicating information. Marketing was the distribution of content. But now, with mobile spearheading the initiative. The services revolution is coming. Companies are seeing that including a services package around the product far outweighs the benefits and incentives for brand loyalty compared to the traditional banner advertisement or brochures / direct mail.
… Where I would argue Appiness is all about the novelty and “the million downloads”, the services revolution will be about integrating your mobile services into your customer relationship. Measuring downloads as a success metrics will be a thing of the past, one would rather measure the percentage of total customers taking advantage of the program. And the services won’t be games or freebies. It will be perfectly integrated smartness into the context that you are already in, extending the value already offered by your product.
We tend to forget that technology in itself is unusable, it is only when it is shaped into things people want that it has an effect on people and business.
“Technology creates needs, not the other way around” – Donald Norman
The role of the designer in this is to turn technology into something people can use, something that awakens people’s interest, motivates them to learn, creates a passion and eventually ends up changing their habits.
If you look around you, most or all of the things you own or use every day is designed technology. Shaped into products that didn’t exist two, ten or a hundred years ago – stuff you can’t live without today.
The mobile future is not about the global success stories from the Cokes, Nikes and Apples of the world. The mobile future is about the every day SMALL things that make what WE do, simpler, smaller or smarter. Which means what businesses do in order to create new customers, build stronger brands or even explore and develop new business models.
The mobile future is simply about two things: Capitalizing on relationships and redefining business.
So when you think of mobile, it is most likely not a solution to a need that is already voiced, it is not a smaller version of something you are already selling. Mobile is you offering your customers something completely new.
Mobile is at the forefront of rethinking communication. But in order to understand its potential we need to look beyond the SMS’s, the appvertising and the text voting. We need to stop thinking of mobile as a technology and a tool, and look at it through the eyes of people and their behavioral abilities; because its people, not features, that should drive innovation in communication.
About a year ago, after publishing the presentation Mobile abilities map on slideshare, Blink Magazine commissioned me to write it into an article. The magazine has finally been published and I thought I’d share a short summary here, and a link to the magazine with the full article, which is available for free download.
1. Everyday Life
We need to understand the following: Even if people are technologically available, it doesn’t mean they are behaviorally available. And as marketing moves from the battle of stories (in media) to everyday life, it changes from thinking about shortsighted attention strategies to long-term relationship strategies.
2. Design
Behavioral Psychologist Donald Norman has been quoted saying:
“Each time a new technology comes along, new designers make the same horrible mistakes as their predecessors. Technologists are not noted for learning the errors of the past. They look forward, not behind, so they repeat the same problems over and over again.”
3. Gaming
There are clear guidelines and suggestions to what creates a livable, breathable community. And it has little to do with the gathering of content and more to do with the lubrication of the exchange of ideas through mechanics and dynamics.
4. Eco-System
Mobile is a trigger, a lead generator, a remote, a sensor and a recording device, using its capacity to be everywhere at any time. Creating relevance for the brand and value for the participant.
5. Collaborative / social
An interesting thing in regards to the telephone is how quickly we forgot it was a collaborative device as soon as we put computers into them. It’s as if the computer makes our imagination turn antisocial.
6. Context
Context is about understanding the situation where the product is relevant, and designing services that create additional value inside this situation. The goal is to create a more unique brand experience, rendering the product invaluable.
7. Objects
What we need to understand is that mobile strategy is not about being accessible through and application on the phone, its increasingly about helping people connect to stuff in the real world.
8. Value Chain
A purchase is the result of a chain of events happening in mostly random order from the customer’s first gathers interest in an object and to it switches hands. Digital has a clear role in this process but often fails to prove its direct effect on sales due to black holes; non-digital, non-recordable steps in the purchase process.
9. Chess
Our eagerness to measure direct sales has lead us into a haze, where the simplicity of measuring our ability to transport people around the web has come in the way of seeing these connected platforms real potential – establishing lasting relationships with participants through fresh content, conversations, ideas and limitless value.
10. Remote Control
The chip implant in the back of our neck, or inside the retina, might be some decades away, but mobile is already offering a lot of the functionality presented in sci-fi movies as a remote control to communicate and respond to future connected environments.
11. Spimes
A spime is an abbreviation of the combination of space and time, referencing an object that combines temporal awareness with geographic location.
Spimes are only hampered at the moment by our inability to imagine its greatness. Lets look beyond coupons and augmented reality layered maps, and integrate SPIME functionality into our services and eco-system.
12. Sense/record
The beauty of digital is its ability to record anything – as it is happening. The mobile becomes a huge sensing device.
This carries with it two great opportunities, the first one is as a measuring device, giving us access to knowledge we have never had previously, the other is in regards to the richness of data we can acquire when technology obtains it without demanding any conscious participation on our behalf.
In an interesting panel at the Webdagene conference last week, one of the panelists, Erik Hafner Rønjum, wanted a discussion in regards to what “mobile” was.
Holding up his iPhone, iPad and laptop, saying that he used them all on the go, and as their size and portability really didn’t make that much of a difference – could some, or all of them be categorized as mobile?
As far as I gathered the panel did not answer this question, but I find it valid as it implies that our vernacular is already outdated. And, that we, in order to understand the implications and effect of technology on our everyday life, need to keep updating our language.
We still use terms suggesting that technology is something disconnected from our habits, something we use, as opposed to being integrated within our behavior and interconnected with our identities. As Kevin Kelly suggest in regards to the alphabet:
“If we think about the dependency we have on this other technology, called the alphabet, and writing, we are totally dependent, it’s transformed culture. We cannot imagine ourselves without the alphabet and writing. And so in the same way we are going to imagine ourselves without this other machine being there.” – Kevin Kelly
What is mobile?
It’s not about the platform or technology its about the context. And when we differentiate by context, mobile as a concept, and a device, fragments into a range of scenarios: from interacting with the barcodes in a shop, to checking the bus schedule on your way to the station, playing games hours on end or spending 10 minutes reading through an article on Instapaper.
Initially mobile was about immediacy, vs. the PC which was about everything else. Then we added laptops, notebooks, handhelds, tablets and iPads to the equation. As every piece of personal computational hardware has gone portable the stereotypical use situations differentiating devices have been washed out.
There are at least two possible answers to the question:
1. The first one is that ‘mobile’ as a term still applies. Something that is important because it allows people outside our vernacular to actually join in and understand the discussion.
Mobile would then be connected to its use. Simplifying it we could suggest that mobile is anything not needing people to sit and/or support the device on their lap. Or to put it in other words – mobile is “on the go”.
The interesting question that arises from this is then that the smart phone is a mobile when used on the bus, but stationary when used on the couch at home? This introduces the second answer – there is no mobile.
2. Mobile as a term no longer exists. Because there is no dividing line between which devices are used where and for what, it’s all blurred. When designing for different platforms, what we need to think about is the need for stuff like: screen real estate, time, focus, enjoyment, tasks, information, type of human interaction, immediacy, role, tactile etc.
We need to define the activity based on its preferences, not the connected ability of the device we are putting it on – because everything is connected and portable.
If mobile as a term is getting difficult to understand now, its not getting better. The term will likely, as we approach the reality described by Kevin Kelly, become meaningless – everything will be “mobile”.
Which raises the question: is there any point to the discussion of what mobile is, as it already has lost its ability to specify any useful ability of an object or application?
I’ve at the end here added the mobile abilities map presentation introducing some ideas to what mobile / the mobile mindset should be focused towards.
Digital is expanding yet again, from the first editorial version, to a second social version and now the third installment; integration.
Some arguments:
1. Integration is not merely about offering services where people are, it’s about implementing connected technology within our everyday objects, or designing new objects based on the new opportunities and additional meaning introduced by technology.
Which gives that this could introduce a completely new generation of needs and behaviors: In the words of Donald Norman;
“Need is created by technology, not the other way around.” Link.
2. With integration we are not only moving from destination sites to aggregate sites, from horizontals to verticals. We are moving from screens to objects, from input devices to sensors and from keyboarded instruments to everyday life.
Jesko Stoetzer’s RFID Sleeve prototype for the Betacup project is a good example. Showing how digital technology, using no screens, no keyboards, just an electronic augmentation and a redesign of an existing object, the cup sleeve. Can improve the coffee experience for enthusiasts, create new business opportunities and increase product sustainability.
“The use of Internet on PC’s will decrease from 95% today to only 50% the next five years.” – pdf
But Microsoft was only talking about our connected lives moving from PC’s to mobile, gaming platforms or “connected TV-boxes”. They where not looking into the emerging opportunities from smart objects, SPIMEs or coffee sleeves.
The Europe Logs on report were looking at machines. But the days when only machines were connected to the Internet is already in the past.
Devices are machines where the structure of the object itself affords no utility, but there is a screen and a circuit board in there offering us a range of opportunities. And object is different, it already has an immediate utility, but technology ads a new layer of meaning.
“Devices fool us because they look like objects and do all this stuff, and we are kind of hypnotized by their ability to do all this stuff. Where as when you see an ornament in the shop you know exactly what it is and what it is for. And you don’t except more of it. I think some of the delights that some of these can contain is when it looks like a simple object but contains meaning that you weren’t excepting.” – Russel Davies.
4. Machines are hubs. Take the mobile phone as an example; it should be (and hopefully will be) connecting people to their objects, not filled with an application for each one (object).
Appvertising and applications belong to machines, and are just scratching the surface of connected technology, it is by and far only the answer to the following question: “What do people want access to all the time?”
Integration as a term is not about access, it’s about turning everyday objects into identities, which enables them to organize, create structure and through feedback add a new layer to spaces in our everyday life.
Bill Moggridge mentions in his book Designing Interactions, that there are not only three (spatial) dimensions to an interface, but also a fourth one; time. We are now building a fifth dimension; the digital identity of the physical object.
“This cat is completely unaware of the most important thing about this particular stuffed animal. Which is that it has a whole other life online. This is a Webkinz stuffed animal. And this cat has no idea. It thinks it’s actually engaging with the thing, and in fact it has a whole parallell life thats going on, that this cat can’t touch. And I want to make it clear, that this is where we are heading, towards a world in which entities have this physical presence as well as this digital presence.”
Conclusion:
The important shift with integration is not that we put technology into things (devices), but that everyday objects with an existing physicality and purpose, get a new dimension and additional meaning: A digital identity.
With these identities comes data, responsiveness, organization and connection.
The next generation is all about connecting our stuff, offering new layers of meaning to our objects, our situations and the world at large.
Digital’s introduction to retail, be it a slow one, will accelerate as the understanding of the width of web and mobile broadens from being all about destinations, to integration into every aspect of business:
I’ve included the part of the script describing the three areas of retail I’ve concentrated on; product, in-store and business opportunities:
Product opportunities The product is not just a “brand” living on a shelf or being consumed by a member of the public. It is a character, which within the framework of a strong identity changes its characteristics to fit different roles through the stages of its own lifecycle; from the initial idea, the spark, to its realization (design), its distribution, shelf life, shared product experience and recycling (sustainability). Digital amplifies the characteristics, and helps the identity adapt at each stage.
In-store opportunities
The retail outlet is the most important arena for public choice. It is intense in its range of decisions, and numbing in its range of (similar) products. Inside this arena there are limited opportunities within frameworks. Frameworks put in place by the non-digital, non-organic world of cardboard and floor space. Digital transcends the limitations of the shop infrastructure, serving communication through personal devices controlled by a digital brain in “the cloud”.
In the advertising mindset the retail communication belongs to the “call-to-action” category. But this limits itself both in its expense on resources (financial and labor), scarcity of real estate and limited time span. In the design mindset the goal is rather strength through identity, creating a long lasting top-of-mind preference through establishing an interesting story, sharing values, creating memberships and avoiding the retail rock concerts of advertising.
Business opportunities
There are new business opportunities to be explored and discovered through the extension of digital and organic platforms. From engaging the crowds to taking the store to the world – not limiting access to it by physical destination. In categories where products follow patterns and become remarkably similar, it is digital and organic platforms that not only invite customers to explore and discover new, unique experiences. But also develop more layered identities, establishing thicker product relationships, and unwrap new business opportunities.
—
A special thanks to PSFK which as with a stroke of coincidence launched their brilliant PSFK Future of Retail Report just last week, adding a whole section to my presentation – I’ve been extensively referencing the source.
A presentation on the future opportunities in media, turning threats into insights into opportunities.
The presentation future media – no more middle men, is an accumulation of a range of relevant thoughts from this blog, put into system.
It’s built as a master slide set (to pick and sort from), but I tried to ad some structure to it by identifying six major “forces” affecting media, and then a short final chapter summarizing a suggested future mindset.
I’ve also chosen to ad a lot of the explanatory text – not just the headlines – into the slides this time, hopefully this will create more context for the people reading the thing online.
Adding digital components to increase the engagement in and value created from a TV event, means thinking outside the obvious Facebook chat integration, the PC, online, and even the TV event itself.
Multitasking is the wrong word here, as the brain can’t possibly do two things at the same time. The correct description would be “switching focus”. As stated by the America Scientist: “psychologists know that multitasking involves switching rapidly between tasks rather than actually performing multiple tasks simultaneously.” JWT has decided to dub the trend Distraction as Entertainment. (But I am having a hard time finding any good articles on their definition.)
From the report:
“…almost half of kids (47 percent) report texting someone ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ about what they are watching on TV—an activity that was almost unheard of five years ago.”
The device people were using together with TV is their mobile phone, up to half the kids are using it to keep in touch with friends and exchange ideas in this context.
This is interesting, with almost one in two kids talking with their friends about what they are watching on TV, and using the telephone – not a desktop/PC based social networking application – inspires to think about two things:
1. The Laptop + TV living room idea is great, but the potential in Mobile+TV might be even bigger. To be frank, the popular TV-event + Facebook chat integration really isn’t that impressive, and seems more like a “lack of imagination band-aid”.
2. Sending SMS is just a choice in regards to the goal of their communication – it’s simple, cheap or free and communicates short exchanges beautifully. Which means that we should be able to introduce new concepts based on a solid understanding of the context itself, low technological barriers and great rewards.
In my personal experience with games, it’s not the national or big games that create the best engagement; it’s the local ones. And not “local” in the geographical sense, but in a social sense, were one engages an existing group of friends. This is not because friends play more with friends online in comparison to with strangers, but because it enables the real-life dimension. Where the game does not exist exclusively online, but creates a form of social worth (a value defined by Jenkins) that ignites exchanges when the group meets socially in real-life. It becomes a valuable currency even when the game is not played. Something to talk about and share, at school, work or other gatherings outside the computer.
Using the game, not to play it online, but in order to share an experience that brings value both to their digital and real worlds (even though it’s the same place), it is the strongest enabler.
As JWT rounds of their blog post:
“Content creators can turn this trend to their advantage by layering a multitude of media into entertainment, producing an immersive experience designed for simultaneous consumption and engagement.”
And I would ad, that it’s when media, and especially TV, not only plays on what’s happening and created inside media, but also plays on the activities, dimensions and social groups that exists outside media – and with additional ideas and activities outside simultaneous – it becomes really powerful.
To sum it up; its when the layering (as JWT defines it) not only includes media but also includes a real world component, includes the idea of the engagement branching of and existing outside the TV time slot, and adding a local, social dimension, things become interesting. And even though the PC/Laptop is a brilliant tool, the mobile phone might be a better instrument in this context.
Three projects, that all bring different but interesting aspects into this line of thinking; Parking Wars, MTV Backchannel and Fantasy premiere League. (unfortunatley I can’t find any examples with mobile)
And of course, this does not only apply to TV events, but all events. As events are like products; an invitation to become a part of something valuable…
After publishing the slideshow Seven actionable marketing trends about a month ago, I asked if there was an interest in an expanded version of the slideshow. Elaborating on each trend and including some references and quotes from the insights behind them.
Unfortunately it has taken me some time to put this together, and I do apologize for the delay. But now the deck has been published via slideshare.net.
I would like to state that the goal of the document is not to work as a coherent presentation, but rather using the slideshare format to comprise and present a collection of valuable ideas that I felt was/is relevant in regards to each trend.
I hope you find the presentation useful, and that there are stuff/slides in there that proves to be inspirational.
As always, if there are any questions or comments, please contact me and I will do my best to reply.
How come design for technology is so inherently anti-human that we had to invent a whole new industry around it just to band aid the wounds created by having the wrong focus in the first place?
Behavioral Psychologist Donald Norman has been quoted saying:
“Each time a new technology comes along, new designers make the same horrible mistakes as their predecessors. Technologists are not noted for learning the errors of the past. They look forward, not behind, so they repeat the same problems over and over again.”
When it comes to design for interactive platforms it seems that the knowledge from existing design practices have been overlooked in favor of designing interfaces more eager to ease the technological development budget, rather than accommodate the human mind.
The problem with this is that it prohibits technology of immersing invisibly into peoples lives, because the technology itself becomes far to visible. We need to understand that it is behavior that initiates innovation, not technology. It wasn’t speed that made broadband the game changer, it was how it removed technology (the dial-up and cost model) from the process of going and being online.
This first film is by Berg and Mag+, its a case study presenting some insights into and visualization of e-Magazines. It presents the kind of thinking needed in order to bring technology into peoples lives
It seems we are at the end of a period where interactive design was mere decoration. Where algorithmic logic and robotic rationality shaped the reasoning behind the interfaces trying to engage people in services, content and marketing.
Design is for humans not robots. And humans should force technology to adapt and evolve, not the other way around.
Both videos where found at the brilliant blog Mobile User Interfaces by TAT, which together with BERG provides a lot of brilliant insights and inspiration into the future of design on interactive platforms.
