Results tagged “ideas” from experiential thoughts
why is it that when out and wandering all sorts of ideas and concepts pop into ones head, but when tasked with a particular challenge the flow can seize up? it's a strange coincidence that can be generally broken by introducing multiple brains into a brainstorming mix, and accentuated when solo.
of course, one solution is to go out and wander... the internet, the office, the neighborhood, the world.
that often seems to work quite well.
of course, one solution is to go out and wander... the internet, the office, the neighborhood, the world.
that often seems to work quite well.
Thanks to Tim Brunelle, via Gavin Heaton, via Drew McLellan via Todd Andrik for digging up this Malcolm Gladwell talk from the 2004 TED conference. He's talking about Howard Moskowitz's learnings on consumer preferences.
The thing I really find interesting about all of this is the idea that segmenting potential consumers into multiple groups and working to please each group separately. When applied to experience design, product design, engagement planning, or design & strategy of just about any type, this thinking throws quite a twist into how planning currently proceeds within so much of the business. For example, when planning the IA for a corporate website we tend to strive towards a single sitemap, when we should probably be striving either towards 3 - 5 OR providing for dynamic self-segmentation. The problem with the standard solution set of "section 1 is for purchasing", "section two is for browsing" etc...is that purchasers and browsers exist within each segment and segments are likely to have different requirements for each task. Separating sections by product doesn't do much better, as flavors of products (even colors) are likely to have specific types of people that are most attracted to them.
The more I think about it, the more I think that distributed media is perhaps the real solution to the application of this thinking to the communications space. Just as it doesn't make sense to try and make one coffee for all consumers, it doesn't make sense to make one website or ad campaign or one "integrated" campaign for all consumers. You'll likely end up making people "60% happy".
Why not make many different pieces and aim at making people "78% happy"?
The thing I really find interesting about all of this is the idea that segmenting potential consumers into multiple groups and working to please each group separately. When applied to experience design, product design, engagement planning, or design & strategy of just about any type, this thinking throws quite a twist into how planning currently proceeds within so much of the business. For example, when planning the IA for a corporate website we tend to strive towards a single sitemap, when we should probably be striving either towards 3 - 5 OR providing for dynamic self-segmentation. The problem with the standard solution set of "section 1 is for purchasing", "section two is for browsing" etc...is that purchasers and browsers exist within each segment and segments are likely to have different requirements for each task. Separating sections by product doesn't do much better, as flavors of products (even colors) are likely to have specific types of people that are most attracted to them.
The more I think about it, the more I think that distributed media is perhaps the real solution to the application of this thinking to the communications space. Just as it doesn't make sense to try and make one coffee for all consumers, it doesn't make sense to make one website or ad campaign or one "integrated" campaign for all consumers. You'll likely end up making people "60% happy".
Why not make many different pieces and aim at making people "78% happy"?
This one's been languishing, so I'm just going to post it in phases.
I've had it with the obsession in the advertising and marketing world with the "Integrated Big Idea". This barely worked when all that agencies produced was TV and/or Radio and a bit of Print. It is completely irrelevant in the land of fragmented media, prosumers and multiplatform browsing. The idea that a single idea will work in all platforms for all consumers not only demeans the user/consumer's intelligence but assumes that the agency is capable of omniscience.
Any decent idea idea may be great for one platform. It may even be great for several -- an idea based around entertaining the potential consumer can work in TV, online, long form, etc... but it will likely require a diverse group of creative people for creation -- I've met very very very few writers that are good at multiple lengths of storytelling. Most of the ones out there are very busy.
Why does the industry insist on forcing ideas to cover multiple platforms? To paraphrase Benjamin Palmer's quote in an Adweek article "you have a different brand when talking to your grandma than when with your girlfriend, why shouldn't a company?" Different people consume different media and have different expectations from their consumption, so why do agencies insist on trying to come up with ideas that cover many types of media? Oh yeah, because we've made a big deal out of the idea of "Integrated".
Let's get over it. Integrated should be about opening lines of communication across all platforms, and being consistent with your offering in those platforms. I would expect a company to talk to me differently than they talk to a 15 year old or a 50 year old. BUT I would expect them to be true to the consistency of their offering and the discussion there of. Don't tell me one thing and someone else something contradictory, because we'll find out and likely both be pissed off. But if you produce a piece of entertainment that doesn't appeal to me, that doesn't mean it will necessarily turn me off, I'll just ignore it. So don't try and make the idea that works for the 15 year old work for me, invite more creatives and come up with something else. Then do them both.
I've had it with the obsession in the advertising and marketing world with the "Integrated Big Idea". This barely worked when all that agencies produced was TV and/or Radio and a bit of Print. It is completely irrelevant in the land of fragmented media, prosumers and multiplatform browsing. The idea that a single idea will work in all platforms for all consumers not only demeans the user/consumer's intelligence but assumes that the agency is capable of omniscience.
Any decent idea idea may be great for one platform. It may even be great for several -- an idea based around entertaining the potential consumer can work in TV, online, long form, etc... but it will likely require a diverse group of creative people for creation -- I've met very very very few writers that are good at multiple lengths of storytelling. Most of the ones out there are very busy.
Why does the industry insist on forcing ideas to cover multiple platforms? To paraphrase Benjamin Palmer's quote in an Adweek article "you have a different brand when talking to your grandma than when with your girlfriend, why shouldn't a company?" Different people consume different media and have different expectations from their consumption, so why do agencies insist on trying to come up with ideas that cover many types of media? Oh yeah, because we've made a big deal out of the idea of "Integrated".
Let's get over it. Integrated should be about opening lines of communication across all platforms, and being consistent with your offering in those platforms. I would expect a company to talk to me differently than they talk to a 15 year old or a 50 year old. BUT I would expect them to be true to the consistency of their offering and the discussion there of. Don't tell me one thing and someone else something contradictory, because we'll find out and likely both be pissed off. But if you produce a piece of entertainment that doesn't appeal to me, that doesn't mean it will necessarily turn me off, I'll just ignore it. So don't try and make the idea that works for the 15 year old work for me, invite more creatives and come up with something else. Then do them both.
