Okay – it’s not often that I’ll promote something for another company – but this is honestly brilliant! Photo lenses for your iPhone! As a corporate storyteller, my iPhone is the best tool in my arsenal. Add cool gadgets like these and *pow* from best tool to my bestest – ever. Let me know if there are any other tools that you love!
This is a preview version of the Innovation Methods Mapping Book. Copyright OPEN Innovation Consortium & Humantific. This book will soon be published.
I have been a fan of triz for many years, so I’m excited to find an overview and analysis of multiple innovation techniques under a single umbrella. Definitely worth the time.
And – I gotta say – I LOVE the facility of this e-book. From a market-eer perspective, it has a coolness factor that is worthy of mention.
Hmmmmm – good content AND engaging delivery. Sounds like marketing nirvana to me.
See on issuu.com
Last week, I was sitting in my chair watching Season 1 of “The Killing” on my iPad.
My husband asked ”what ya doin’?” as he walked past me. When I responded “watching TV”, it dawned on me how ludicrous the response was – but how typical. Most people (myself included) when asked “what ya doin” respond with “going to a movie, watching TV, reading a book, surfing YouTube”. We use the technology or platform to describe the content we are consuming.
Similar to the days when we stopped calling automobiles “horse drawn carriages”, we are in the process of transcribing new ways of defining content without our historic, platform based context. Which leads to the question – how will we describe content consumption when screens are ubiquitous? Two ways I currently see this evolving are:
1) Branded content. Instead of naming the platform we name the content, as in “I’m watching The Killing” or “I’m reading The Help”
2) Re-purposing existing platform terms. I already see this on Amazon: new movies available for purchase or rent are called “movies”, while movies that have devolved into the “Prime” membership are called “videos”.
3) New terms. I know they are out there, but I haven’t seen them all: webisodes, v-blogs, web tv…
Personally – I hope we go to branded content, since this sparks lots of conversation and promotes the story, not the platform.
What do you think?
One of the core tenants of Transmedia Marketing is the development of a concept/story that is designed to be consumed across multiple media. What I’ve come to realize is that there still seems to be some confusion between “media” and “platforms”.
> Some of this confusion is a result of industry evolution: traditional media companies were often defined by the platform they used (newspapers delivered news via paper, television companies delivered entertainment via television, etc…) while newer media companies are an amalgamation of multiple platforms and/or media i.e., Google with YouTube
Here is my attempt to define the difference and why the difference matters.
1) “Media” refers to the consumer intent: watch a movie, read a story, play a game, share/contribute, learn the news, etc…
2) “Platform” refers to the manner in which the media is consumed: consumers can watch movies on their television, iphone or in a movie theater.
If we design a story for PLATFORMS, then we run the risk of creating a very mono-dimensional story, and getting lost in technical fads and operational processes.
> YES, telling a story in a movie theater requires very different specs and technical considerations than the same story told via hulu, but in both instances, the consumer intent is to watch a movie.
> YES, the interface on a news company’s web site should be different than the interface on a mobile site, but whether on web or mobile the consumer intent is still the same – learn the news.
If we design a story FIRST for different media THEN for different platforms we have the opportunity to create truly engaging, interactive and viral stories.
I love it when someone questions the quo!
See on www.anecdote.com.au
Cameron Yuill is the Founder and CEO of AdGent Digital.
Video advertising will double approximately every two years until all online ads will be video ads. That's right -- all online ads will be video.
I am calling this prediction "Cam's Law" (after moi) with due respect and deep regard to Intel Founder Gordon E. Moore, who in 1965 predicted that the number of transistors on integrated circuits would double every two years thereby exponentially increasing computing power.
For the last ten years I’ve been saying: everyone can critique, but few can create.
This was a useful mantra for helping my product development teams get through the mire and pain of “executive feedback” which usually includes tons of opinions but teaspoonfuls of useful input. Now I’m in a position of developing content vs products, but my mantra remained the same.
However, I recently realized that I was skipping a step: collaboration. I think my “skip” was actually a Freudian slip – I knew it existed, and I practiced it, but I sublimated this step into my sub-conscience because it is a grey area that exists between the seed of creation and the pruning of critique and because it is so difficult to define. Here are the stages of development that I am now using:
Creation is a singular activity. Collaboration is a small group activity. Critique is for the masses.
- When I say “creation is singular” I don’t mean only individuals can create (although there is a body of thought that supports this position), rather I mean “singular vision”. Creation is both fragile and dynamic. Singular vision during the creative stage allows the idea to coalesce, whereas too much friction can lead to an implosion. Creation occurs best alone or with like-minded people.
- Collaboration requires high levels of trust and selective diversity. Some of my best experiences with collaboration have occurred with people who came to a similar conclusion from a different angle. Our vision was the same, but HOW we reached it was very different, and it is in those differences that we found the opportunities for refinement. Too much diversity during the early stages is usually more dilutive vs additive (and yes, I made up the word dilutive, but I really like it – so it stays.)
- Critiquing is the pruning shear, large grit sandpaper, chisel and hammer. It shapes the idea into something more useful and fruitful than an idea left in the hothouse of like-mindedness, but if introduced too early in the process it can kill the idea.
My litmus test for “truth” is: does this principle apply to multiple areas? if so, then it is a principle vs a preference. Fortunately for me, I see the principles of creation, collaboration and critiquing in both nature (plant a seed – water and fertilize during development – prune when it hits a level of maturity) and family (2 people make the child, a family raises the child, the world shapes the child. Exposing a child too early to the public forum of criticism may not kill the child – but often times seriously messes them up.)
In transmedia marketing, a key step is the inclusion of your audience into the creative process. When should they be added? I think fans are added during collaboration, but the masses during critique. The challenge here is; where are your fans (e.g. like minded people) and what is an efficient method of collaborating? Things to be considered in a future post.
What do you think? Am I stretching a preference into a principle or is this really a good way to view the development process? Critiques are now welcome