Images source: flickr

I finally got through Transformations, which has left me with lots of blogging ideas and a lens to look at world around me. The book is highly recommended, Grant McCracken is able to achieve the balance between theory and practice, pulling high and low brow examples of how we are a culture of transformation (in terms of, for example, social standing, identity, and gender roles.) Transformation is organized into four types, which are roughly chronological, traditional, status, modern, and postmodern. The last one describing how we are porous, where transformation flow in and out of ourselves. For this to occur, we have taken over the authorship over our identity, traditions, and rituals.

What comes after Postmodern transformations?

I think the next evolution we are currently witness to is the rise of Networked transformation. The Networked transformation takes the multitude of the Postmodern transformation and moves beyond it, using the speed and comprehensiveness of the internet.

Where as McCraken describes the Postmodern transformation self as porous, the Networked transformed self is fragmented and refracting, like shards of a broken mirror. The porous self denotes a soaking inward. In a networked society, culture is both pushed and pulled toward the individual, seemingly at the speed of the internet. The process is more catch and release. Actually, a more apt description is reflected and projected. The typical New Yorker who adopts the fashion trend of camouflage absorbs little, if any, of militaristic meaning of the object. Rather, it is reflecting outward an adherence to a clothing trend, influenced by designers and people on the street or in the media. Further, what is consumed and assumed and then used to formulate our multiple identities spin outward, via the network.

Roles, identifying to a discovered culture in consumed and projected back out, through ego-casting vehicles of Facebook and Twitter, as well as, more directed and one-to-one types of communication. Our digital selves are becoming our actual selves. The shift has real consequences as we become more digital, and people such as Nicholas Carr start questioning these changes. At some point, we will no longer we able to distinguish between our digital self and actual self. Cues or ideas of new identities will be taken from friends, or celebrities whom are treated and spoken about as if they are intimate friends, enabled in some way by the internet.

The web has removed (the confines of) place and distance from our lives. The speed of the network also has increased our ability to consume and assume new identities. The new limiting factor is not waiting for the next great thing or movement, but rather, it is our attention span and the human capacity to want that change. (What happens when the transformation is forced upon us, is another question.)

Authenticity, which McCracken points out was so crucial in the desire for upward social climbing in Modern transformation, has been left behind by many. Such authenticity can be learned and shared via the network, rendering the scarcity aspect of authenticity to be meaningless. The decoding which was once difficult to learn is now accessible through a simple internet search. The internet allows for the access to learn and enforce an authentic identity by anyone with an internet connection. Sites dissect and lay out the minutia of any topic. Movie sites, such as the pioneering Ain’t It Cool News site published industry news, rumors, and gossip that was once only privy to Hollywood insiders. It now, of course, has competition running in the hundreds if not thousands, depending upon how you count. Access to authentic insights allows for the virtual vicarious living. (Although, the network transformation does have a real effect, as seen by the movie fans shaping the re-shooting and release of the film Snakes On A Plane. The line between insider and outsider is blurring, and artifact of the networked transformation.)

However, for many people, the effort of using the network to achieve an authentic transformation is too much work, especially when the identity consumed/assumed is so disposable. Who has time to fact check these days? The Networked transformation allows two unknowns to manipulate New York socialite scene by running Socialite Rank, a status ranking blog. Now, identities can be created and accepted as credibile, only to cast off with the same whim as it was adorn, before any inaccuracy is discovered. Granted, Socialite Rank was a special case. For most, the assumption of identity because my friends are doing it and I want to keep up my social currency, is enough.

A lot of the tension in the world can be viewed and understand through McCracken’s ideas of transformation. These changes occur at difference rate across family, companies, and countries.  Change can be threatening, especially when those changes affect truths who hold to be fundamental to our construction of the way things work.

In a very nice comment, Frank mentions a link to weakening relationships from buzz marketing, and digs into deeper branding versus innovation, which is another important part of Lucas Conley’s argument in OBD, which I only briefly mentioned in my original post. Marketing has become more focused on brand positioning and re-packaging then developing new and useful changes to the products.

As Conley states, when entire product categories such as laundry detergent or paper towels have been improved to be effectively the same, long standing brands such as Tide and Bounty (which I have used for decades, mostly likely because they are the ones I grew up with) are left with marketing strategies to differential themselves. I will admit that some of the packaging strategies are useful improvements, and while I like the form factor of the glass ketchup bottle, Heinz squeezable plastic one does work better. However, for each of these useful cases, we have dozens of brand extensions. Conley cites the five (and counting) versions of the Swifter, as an example.

This feature creep, where new add-ons clutter shelfs with orange juice with calcium, Kleenex with aloe, and toothpaste with breathe strips. A second related effect is that customers get used to a product, only to find them discontinued with new product lines when they try to replace them. How many more blades that they fit on a razor? I wouldn’t mind if 5 or 6 or 7 are available, if they would still make the older models (with a mere 2 blades) that I liked and are increasingly harder to find.

All these marketing efforts come at the price of true innovation advances in the underlying technology of these products. However, innovation is of course, hard. It is not at all surprising that marketing is chosen over innovation. These kinds of changes are risky and costly, and more new products are failures than successes. For every iPod, there are zunes, Newtons, and new Cokes. These risks make companies more defensive and concerned about protecting market share. But why can’t a paper towel be a paper towel until sometime better comes along?

What are we, as consumers, to do? It’s hard when use your purchasing power when companies discontinue the

When Apple releases a new product, Apple fans exception industry shattering, paradigm shifting innovations on the scale of the iPod. The light-weight mini-laptop Air got some harsh reactions. But the funny thing is that people don’t remember that the iPod didn’t instantly create the American mp3 market or change the way we conceptual our entire music collection as mobile. Rather, it took time for people out exactly what the iPod was.

Similarly, while Apple is predicted to sell 10-13 millions iPhones this year, Nokia sold 115.2 million of the 294.3 million phones sold globally in the *first* quarter of 2008.

Image source: bn.com

I’ve recently finished, OBD Obessive Branding Disorder - The Business of Illusion and The Illusion of Business, by Lucas Conley, who write for Fast Company. I’m way behind on blogging, so I’ll keep the book review short, and will reference the book in some other posts that have been brewing in my brain.

Conley discusses branding and marketing along similar lines as Rob Walker’s Buying In. However, he takes a much more explicitly critical view of the current practices of today’s marketers, where as Walker writes from a more description perspective. One of Conley’s most interesting passages is on “buzz agents” that are paid to push products to friends and acquaintances. His concern is that when any stranger or worse any trusted friend or family is a potential marketer, the value of our entire social network are at risk. This risk is exacerbated by coupled with findings from the American Sociological Review from 2006 cited by Conley. The General Social Survey (GSS) which measure people feelings and social perceptions, found three times the number of people who stated that they didn’t have anyone to discuss important matters, than 20 years ago. The study also reported only half of the participants claimed to have two or fewer close friends and a quarter claiming having no confidants at all. Therefore, not only are we getting more isolated, the trust of the people we do interact with is decreasing as well.

Telecommunications encourages people to seek out relationships over space, and makes it easier to avoid those in their immediate surrounding. Further, as mobility increase and people move across states and countries to attend school or to find work, traditional face to face social networks are weakened. Just as Walker states that we use brands to create our own identities, Conley states that we form communities based on brands.

One side distraction of the books is its, at times, loose use of statistics to bolster arguments. In one early section, describing how US companies are replacing innovating with marketing. This is a troubling observation, reveals in the way company reshape, repackage, reposition, and retire their products rather actually innovate. Conley cites that the number of hours worked in the US is decreasing while they are increasing in the countries, many of which are in Asia. This idea would only be relevant if more hours worked translated to more innovation, which is may or may not be true. While I agree that sacrificing research and development for more marketing and brand positioning is bad for long term business practice, confusing links to data is distracting.

Overall, OBD is a good read. He notes the ironic end point, that anti-branding voices such as Ad Buster and Naomi Klein, author No Logo, are established brands themselves. I appreciate that Conley attempts to tackle the idea of how to rethinking the brand which surrounds us. Although he doesn’t provide an actual roadmap to encourage social and corportate change, which may not even exist.  If brand are inescapable, then what are people who agree with Conley to do?

Image source: murketing,eventbrite

I’m a little behind in the blogging, but I heard Rob Walker for a Q&A with Danielle Sacks from Fast Company, on his book on murketing called Buying In. The event was at the ADC and hosted by the fine folks at psfk. As a speaker, Walker is likable and tells a good story. The questions were designed to give a run down of a book, which was good because it seems like most of the audience hadn’t read it yet. However, there were some nice tidbits that where not in the book. I especially appreciated his condor in stating that coining and branding “murketing” had originated in semi-seriousness; however, the realities of being a writer, (even one who has a weekly column in the New York Times Magazine) means that he needs to be known for his ideas and words.

Money take-aways (which I will paraphrase) :

- Apple iPod users went for fringe pioneers to a tribe of fans. Do you know of any Zune fanatics? Please contact him if you do, because the Zune is basically the ultimate anti-iPod.

- Obama has “projectability,” not unlike Hello Kitty, which allows people to project their ideals and images upon him. Where as, Hilary Clinton was working with a predefined concept in people’s minds, which she had to pivot against.

- American Apparel dropped their sweatshop free branding in order to move from niche to mass. However, they didn’t drop their ethical labor ideals. To them, ethical business practice IS business practice.

- Marketing formulas don’t work because “most formulas ignore culture and culture changes.” What made one campaign or strategy work in a certain time and place may not translation to another implementation because “culture marches on.”

- And probably my favorite idea of the night: saying “I’m down with that,” and clicking a Save Darfur Facebook group isn’t activism.

Image source: jnd.org

A couple of weeks ago, I finally finished, “The Design of Future Things,” by Donald Norman. I loved his popular book, “The Design of Everyday Things.” Norman is clearly an important thinker in the subject of design and usability. He tackles the intelligent systems that are being designed for our homes, offices, cars and personal devices. Instead of writing a full blown book review, I want to highlight on idea raises towards the end of his latest book, which is the entitled “The Science of Design.”

In this section, he cites that design is an interdisciplinary field, which often combines, art, social science, engineering, and business. Of the fields which comprise design, each field falls within a spectrum of formal methods of evaluating design. Engineering has quite formal approaches, and aesthetics tends to resisting them. Norman calls for a “science of design” because he feels that more rigor is needed in the intelligent systems he describes the book. The argument is easy to accept after reading about the many failures in the initial attempts at intelligent systems, which he documents in the book.

Norma does not offer the specifics of what this methodology would look like. While there are benefits to a formal approach to evaluating design, I would argue that we need to proceed with extreme care in creating an approach. My fear is that the easy route will be taken, which would blindly try to build evaluation tools based on medical experimental methods, which is where “quantifying research” usually ends up. This would be clearly wrong. Understanding if a cancer drug treatment worked is much more straight forward than if and more importantly why a design worked. (I won’t go into the problems of medical experimental methods, of which there are many.) Tom Reeves from the University of Georgia has some interesting thinking in this area when looking at methods of evaluating interactive educational tools.

Obviously, someone could create an experimental measure if a person used, learned, and understood the design properly. However, a simplistic efficacy rate (99% of testers used the design “properly”) may miss the big picture of, for example, a disenfranchised population who are not being designed for, which raises questions about the ethical and political responsibility of the designer. (Products such electronic voting booths, public transport, and educational tools are examples which readily come to mind.) Further, the leaps in innovation often require a lag time for people to understand and integrate the new design features into their lives. The temptation to overuse design evaluation tools will be great for companies who risk millions of dollars to roll out products. If the evaluation tools are poorly implemented, innovation may decrease as companies and innovators choose safer designers over ground breaking products such as GUI desktops, because they don’t initially “test” well. In the end, Norman’s call for a science of design is an important one, and it ties into the ethics of design that I’ve been thinking about lately. So, I suspect that there will be more posts in the future on the subject.

Last Friday morning, I stopped by Likemind to see Piers, Noah and others, as well as to pick up an advanced copy of the book “Buying In” by Rob Walker. His publisher, Random House, offered Likemind attendees in North America free copies and kindly paid our coffee bill too. Walker is a journalist who covers marketing and consumerism for the New York Times. The book attempts to explain why we prefer certain brands, for seemingly irrational reasons. His theory is that we have a deep relationship and dialogue with the products we consume. More importantly, we use these products to create our own self-perceived identity and they give meaning back to us. Changes in marketing strategies have made the relationship even more complex, as the traditional modes of advertising such as mass television and print ads give way to the untraditional methods of “viral” or “guerrilla” marketing. The shift blurs the differentiation between marketers and consumers. Many of the cases he covers will be familiar– Pabst Blue Ribbon, Red Bull, Timberland, American Apparel, and of course Apple’s iPod– especially if you read Walker’s column “Consumed” in the New York Times Magazine.

The idea works like this: we buy into brands and their products mainly in order to a tell a story about ourselves to ourselves, not just to other people. Many successful brands are a blank slate, onto which people can project various stories. These multiple meanings allow certain brands to grow beyond their initial niche. Messages from marketers as well as peers shape our perception of what a brand means. Things get interesting when Walker explains how, although we believe that we can see through marketing and branding, exposure to external messages (that is, marketing) can affect not only our perception of quality but the *actual* quality of a product. He cites an extremely interesting study by Dan Ariely, Baba Shiv, and Ziv Carmon, which gave a group of students an energy drink, its true full price, and told them a scientific study showed that the drink helped mental performance. These students did better than students who were given only the test. Surprisingly, other students who given various combinations of getting the drink, being told it was cheaper (and therefore less valuable,) and that the drink “might” improve performance all did measurably *worse* than the control group.

The relationship between our identity and our brands become apparent when we look at two human drivers that Walker mentions, wanting to be an individual and wanting to belong to a community. The two seemingly opposing internal motivations work out in fascinating ways. We buy products that conform to what we perceive to be our individual taste. However, our unconscious minds process and react to much more than our conscious minds detects. My point is not to argue that we are victims of subliminal “buy popcorn” images in movies. Rather, people are complex beings, full of, emotions, gut instincts, competitiveness and irrational thoughts. If we were truly rational beings economists could more easily explain our behavior, and everybody would be saving more, eating healthy, and exercising a few times a week. Further, the “truth” that we bestow onto our brands is relative. The actual “truth” about the brand is secondary to our perceived brand identity. As Walker notes, anti-marketing hipsters can drink a “working class” beer like FBR, when in fact, it is increasingly drunk by hipsters and less by mid-Western working class beer drinkers.

Walker also describes how the lines between marketer and consumer are blurring, as I previously mentioned. As with most business books these days, he coins a new term for this observed phenomenon, in this case “murketing.” He goes on to describe how new marketing companies hire “agents” to push products onto friends, family, local store owners, and strangers. The key insight here, is that the agents often do this for free, because they like the feeling of empowerment from sharing their ahead of the curve knowledge about upcoming products to people. What is also interesting is that many of the agents aren’t the hipster influencers in the Lower East Side that Malcolm Gladwell describes in “The Tipping Point” or as Walker names as “Magic People.” Instead, they are regular people with regular jobs, living pretty much anywhere. This idea of weak links and how influence spread through them deserves a post of its own.

Often, people make the claim that people are in control over their decisions, and are further aided today by having overwhelming access to consumer product and service information. This is true, but the issue is more complicated than that. In the past, my general reaction was that this idea, while true, is only part of the equation. We need to insure that our society supports media literacy for people to have the tools to properly deconstruct all the marketing we increasingly exposed to seeing and hearing. Now, Walker’s research suggests that media literacy is not enough.

“Buying In” is mostly descriptive, rather than normative. Walker doesn’t go out and definitely argue that murketing is itself bad, and acknowledges that he too is influenced by these forces at play. He cites his personal questioning of his allegiance to Converse sneakers as an authentic anti-establishment choice after it was purchased by Nike. He does starts this exploration some of the ethics behind our brand-based identities in his coverage of Etsy and craft culture. The founder of Etsy, Robert Kalin, states that his mission is to create authentic “connections” with the things we own. I saw him speak at the recent PFSK conference and was interested to hear him talk about wanting to move towards away from big box shopping and towards a more authentic bazaar-like experience. Walker reports that Kalin has the goal of having his entire wardrobe be hand made products from his site. While this is a noble goal, it does not attempt to unbundle our identities from our brands, be it an artisan on Etsy or the Gap. I would have liked to see Walker take his ideas further in a more normative direction, and explore the possibilities of walking away from our brand attachments. What would happen if we unplugged from our brands? How would we and those around us react to separating ourselves from our possessions? Is that even possible? Even better, what stories would we construct about ourselves? Who would we be?