ChaosScenario

The Value of Meaning

You can get a brand new baseball, good for throwing, catching, and hitting, officially endorsed by Major League Baseball, on Amazon.

As of this moment, they sell for $17.75

Babe Ruth hit the first ever home run in an All-Star game. We still know where that ball is. Due to its age, it's probably less suitable for throwing, catching, and hitting, and Major League Baseball would never use it again in a game.

According the Forbes Magazine, this ball is worth $805,000.

Through a physical inspection, the new ball is far superior to the older ball. Yet the older ball is worth more because it has meaning to the people who care about baseball's history.

It is more than information; it is both a story unto itself and a small part of the story of one of the games greatest legends. 

Meaning is not limited to collectibles. Marketing is replete with examples, but so are user interfaces. In both cases, failing to make meaning with intent can result in a failure for the project. In the first case, you're ignored, which is bad enough considering the costs of some of these efforts. In the second, you can be ignored ... OR you can annoy your target audience by failing to give a clear path that leads to the completion of the user's intent. 

Likewise, brands have value commensurate with the meaning people give it. The channels you use to connect with your audiences can be stories to themselves as well as be part of the overall story of the brand.

Whatever limitations keep you from doing what you really want to do, never take the responsibility lightly. - Cam Beck

For further reading on this topic, check out Making Meaning and Personality Not Included.

Googlevision: Coming to a Best Buy Near You

A "who's who" partnership of innovation, Google, Sony and Intel is launching a new television platform that promises to change the way we watch TV by allowing people to access the rich utility of the Internet through their television screens.

"Google was able to conduct a series of Internet searches in a drop-down box that appears at the top of television programs. The search results pointed to Internet videos and other content related to the television program on the screen."

"A telecast of a sporting event can be shrunk into a small "picture-in-picture" box so a viewer can look at statistics or other material about the game on TV."

"Viewers can also make search requests by speaking into a remote that runs on Google's Android operating system."

"Google CEO Eric Schmidt described the potential of the Internet TVs as mind-boggling, although he acknowledged it might be difficult for some consumers to grasp at first. That's one reason he said Google decided to team up with Best Buy, which offers a "geek squad" to deal with complex technology."

It reminded me of an article I wrote back in 2007, "How to Save TV":

"This isn't a competition between TV and the Internet. The Internet is richer because of TV, and it's becoming increasingly clear that programs are richer because of the utility of the Internet. That interdependence needs to be embraced -- even harvested."

"As such, the way to save television is to discard the interruption advertising model on which is based -- that is, to make it more like what is good about the Internet. Rich interactive programs (Choose Your Own Adventure, anyone?), on-demand content that remains free and non-intrusive, and effective, accountable advertising."

"The Internet, simply, needs more bandwidth to support better quality content, higher adoption rates, and better usability. I know Cuban doesn't think much of this can be done, but I'm staking my future on the idea that it can."

"What will we call this integrated system? It's hard to predict. I suppose it depends on the primary path the innovation takes -- whether we're getting the combination of TV and Internet through AppleTV 10.0 or if we're getting it through Comcast Cable. If it's the former, perhaps our children will be asking if we can watch the Internet tonight. If it's the latter, maybe they'll ask if they can play on the TV."

First of all, you're welcome, Google. Your bill is in the mail.

Second, I have to raise an objection to this gross simplification used by the AP in their article:

"Google wants to turn televisions into giant monitors for Web surfing so it can make more money selling ads."

I'm not a fan in all the ways they want to do it, but Google wants to change the world. Selling ads is simply how they are able to fund new adventures, but it's also how they provide these paradigm changes for free.

The utilities they've developed in their relatively short life as a company have already changed the way we communicate, the way we travel, the way we do research, the way we invest, the way we advertise and the way we build websites,

Not everything they've developed is exclusively (or even remotely) their idea, but any way you look at it, they've fostered widespread adoption of many of their useful technologies because they've developed a sustainable business model that allows them to offer it at no cost to the user.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting Google, Schmidt, or any other Google employee doesn't care about the money. As Ronald Reagan said, it can't buy happiness, but it certainly can buy a better class of memories.

But money is a means as well as an end. Google could have been anything. They chose the type of business they would be, the applications they would develop and the work they would do.

I'm sure the money is nice. But you cannot sell a product like they're proposing to sell unless it has value to the buyer commensurate with the amount they will pay for it. If Google started out with the question, "How do I sell more advertising," they would have folded long ago. - Cam Beck

Age of Conversation 3: By the Numbers

Buy it on Amazon

171 writers

15 countries

2 editors

202 pages

10 sections

$25,000 raised for charity (Books one and two).

Our illustrious and (apparently) indefatigable editors, Drew and Gavin, gave this version of the book structure and a directive: Make this something business people can use. There are enough self-proclaimed "social media experts" out there, and it's easy to be duped. How do you apply yourself in this age of constant communication? What is most important to know?

Once again, I tip my hat to Drew, Gavin, and the other 168 authors who made this possible. I was and continue to be honored to be a part of it.

In spite of having 171 writers, the essays are well constructed and easy to digest independently, and they work well together as a whole. Each one is 400 words or less (and I understand Drew and Gav were very strict about that point). Good for a snack, a light lunch or a meal.

Official press release  |  Buy Age of Conversation 3

- Cam Beck

Facebook rule #1: Don't be an idiot

On Friday, I wrote about how the expectation of certain kinds of anonymity is a myth in an Always On post-Facebook world. The New York Times reported Saturday that the younger generation is learning to keep the seedier side of their lives offline. But this, too, is a myth.

Even if you manage to keep yourself from joining social networks or correctly manage all of your privacy settings against continuously changing policies (which is doubtful), it's becoming increasingly difficult to keep your friends from posting comments and pictures of you on their accounts.

You can request that they take pictures down or try to surround yourself only with people who you trust to mind your personal brand to your standards, but unless you decide to be a hermit, this is becoming difficult, too -- especially for the younger generations.

What is true for corporate brands is true for individuals: If you don't want people to find out you've been doing something stupid, don't do stupid things.

Truthfully, no one will ever live up to that standard. We all do stupid things. Everyone.

But if you're in the business of building brands (and all of us are, whether we know it or not -- we represent our own brand, our family's brand, our employer or company's brand, our church or religious affiliation brand, our political or philosophical brand, etc.), how people perceive you and the entities you represent is predicated on your entire body of work - not the occasional act of stupidity.

True, this may be tainted when we do the inevitable stupid thing, but that's just something we're going to have to learn to live with.

Don't worry about the long-term. Just focus on today. To prevent yourself from doing something stupid, decide to live as if your life had a noble purpose today.

And let tomorrow worry about itself. - Cam Beck

Facebook, privacy, and the return of social norms

In the early days of the World Wide Web, people cherished their anonymity. Thanks to ubiquitous social applications like Facebook and the ability to access much of it through the ubiquitous search engine, Google, much of that anonymity is going away. A lot of politicians and "privacy advocates" are raising a stink. But is the loss of anonymity necessarily a bad thing?

I jumped on the Internet bandwagon pretty early, when I got my dad's permission to use his AOL account in 1994. I would go into their chat rooms a few times per week, and I don't remember ever meeting the same group of people twice. This was a place for me, a naturally (and sometimes painfully) shy person, to meet new people without the risk of feeling bad that I'd be outed if I said something stupid -- which, hey -- let's face it... is still pretty often. My anonymity afforded greater risk-taking.

At first, the conversations were as esoteric as they were innocuous, but later, as I started to form some firm convictions and developed an ability to articulate them, I noticed that many people saw their anonymity as a license to shrill when they held a contrary view.

The dark side of anonymity

When people cannot identify someone, they're less likely to conform to social norms that exist outside of that anonymity bubble. When people can identify someone, they are accountable for their words and actions, so they're more likely to conform to social norms of probity and decorum.

All your data are belong to us

Fast-forward to a today's Facebook era, and the anonymity has somewhat evaporated. Employers will typically find whatever they can on you -- outside of your history of work -- that they can find, freely available on the Web.

Not only is Facebook indexed, but so are Twitter and other social networking tools. And unless you have a name like "George Washington" or you set out in the beginning to take steps to conceal your identity (a tangled web, indeed), chances are slim that you will be able to effectively do so.

Anonymity, in short, is a myth in today's environment. But the myth persists, because people want it to be true. There is power in anonymity, such as the power to ignore social norms.

Now Congress is threatening to get involved in the Facebook privacy dispute. They are concerned that marketers might be able to use personal information about you to deliver more relevant ads.

Why is delivering relevant ads even objectionable?

Are our representatives afraid that you and I will buy something we actually want or need? Hogwash! When we buy what we need, it improves company revenue, which leads to higher employment, which helps incumbents get re-elected.

A happy and satisfied electorate is always less likely to rock the political boat.

(In fact, the only way to ensure people don't get rid of incumbents when they are unhappy is to ensure people don't blame them for their unhappiness, but that's a topic for another day).

What they really fear is what others will find out about them that they don't want them to know. If anonymity gives us the courage to act like the Great and Powerful Oz, Facebook is Toto pulling back the curtain and revealing us for who we really are. 

On one hand, we lost the security we thought we had to speak our minds however we wanted. If we represent a company (and if you own or work for any company, you do, whether you like it or not), this anonymity protected our livelihoods while we ignored the social norms we reserved for work.

Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and every other social media tool out there are still utilities of choice. If we do not want to participate, we are not forced to. As long as they are transparent about what they collect and how they use it, and their experience is still acceptable to you in spite of the presence of advertising, they ought not be punished for running their business in a way that seems to them proper for generating revenue and jobs.

If we don't like it, we are not forced to participate. - Cam Beck

Securing Your data: an important postscript

Facebook's recent embarrassing security SNAFU demonstrates that the bigger threat of gathering this information is the threat of that information being made public, not that "fat-cat corporatists" (a frequent term used to fan the flames of class warfare) might use it to better serve the end user and make a bigger profit. This speaks to the need for companies to secure that information and to be held accountable for not securing it.

This allows the market to take care of the problem without passing new laws to restrict their ability to collect it -- and miss entirely the benefits allowing it would bring.

To wit: because there would be a high price to pay for both securing and not securing certain types of data, companies will be reluctant to collect it. There is an inherent risk involved with collecting it to counterbalance the potential (lucrative) reward for collecting and using it properly.

Say what you want about people who steal electronic information -- they are not stupid. The reason they haven't used their formidable energies to steal your information or mine is that it is not worth their while to do so. But when you add our names to a hundred million other names, locations, likes, dislikes, etc., and it has immediately become a more attractive target.

Even the so-called honest hacker might be tempted if the right opportunity and right circumstances coincided.

Wanted Immediately: Experience Planner or Information Architect

Click Here is seeking a talented, well-rounded information architect or experience planner to join our team. Candidates should be adept at interpreting and honing user and business requirements, understanding diverse audience motivations and translating them into compelling user experiences through logical navigation and classification schemes including site taxonomy, page schematics and interactive prototypes.

Requirements

• 2-4 years of dedicated experience in information architecture
• Experience conducting usability testing and interviews
• Experience collaborating and building consensus with other information architects, brand managers, project managers, art directors, programmers and clients
• Attention to detail
• Excellent writing and presentation skills
• Ability to work independently, prioritize and solve problems proactively
• Experience with developing information architecture solutions in Visio, Axure, Xmind or similar programs

Additional Preferred Skills

• Experience conducting various usability testing and interview methods

 Job Description Details

• Design the information architecture for client projects
• Conduct user research efforts, including interviews, card-sorting exercises and usability testing
• Assist in business intelligence research by performing detailed competitive landscape analyses
• Create documentation for internal and external presentation, including personas, use cases and scenarios, conceptual diagrams, site maps, interaction flows, storyboards, wire frames, content audits and detailed functional specifications
• Perform expert heuristic evaluations of existing sites and creative work in progress
• Communicate documentation, research and interaction design best practices to visual designers, technical developers, project managers and clients

Employment Inquiries

Qualified applicants should submit résumé and portfolio of detailed site maps, wire frames and/or interactive prototypes, interaction flows, navigation systems, usability test plans and reports, competitive analyses and/or writing samples.

Send me an email if you're interested.

Why this iPad Won't Kill the Kindle Platform (and how it could)

Many have already voiced glowing praise or strong disapproval of Apple's recently announced iPad.  Some proponents, such as Leo Laporte, call it a "Kindle Killer." Skeptics and haters call it "The next Apple Cube."

These judgments are premature, however. Whatever "magic" Apple has in store for the future, there's nothing in the first generation iPad that changes the market dynamics so completely that it will disrupt Amazon's economics with the Kindle solely as an eReader.

People who buy eReaders are typically going to take reading seriously. The advantages that they bring are best realized by certain types of people:

• Heavy readers who want to enjoy the improved economics that eBooks bring
• Heavy readers who want to conserve physical space
• Anyone who travels frequently and likes to read on trips

With these audiences, the iPad falls short for a number of reasons:

1. Nearly twice the cost of entry
The starting price for the iPad is $499. For the Kindle, it's $259. By way of example, assume the average eBook price is $10, with its hard-copy counterparts costing twice that. A Kindle owner must purchase 26 books before breaking even. An iPad owner would need to purchase 50. 

So for the heavy reader, the economics are hard to justify. For the casual or occasional reader, they are nearly impossible -- if they're going to use the iPad over the Kindle simply as an eReader.

2. Back-lit display
The e-Ink technology that drives most eReaders today has some limitations, but it minimizes eye strain compared to back-lit displays, such as what the iPad has. For heavy readers, this is a significant drawback. It means they can't read as much without their eyes getting tired. It may still be viable for those who are not heavy readers, but in that case, the economics make even less sense solely as an eReader, and except by virtue of wide market distribution, Apple's bookstore cannot promise much revenue to publishers, making the marketplace less attractive (especially as a closed system, as it likely will be).

At least the format is open-source anyway, so they don't have to reformat their books specifically for the iPad.

3. Shorter battery Life
10 hours is a lot of time to be reading. And the standby time the iPad promises is remarkable, but a back-lit display capable of showing full-color images, videos and applications comes at a price. With wireless off, the Kindle can go at least two weeks without a charge, so there's no reason to be tethered to a power source for travelers.

Marketing Differences

Because the iPad does a lot of things, it's hard to describe it using terms that are clear and understandable by a lot of people. The tagline for the iPad is "A magical and revolutionary product at an unbelievable price."

What's the frame of reference? It's a "product?" So is a refrigerator. And oatmeal. And manure. 

It's almost as if Apple believes an entire category can be created by adding abstract and glowing adjectives.

Plus, because the iPad does a lot of things, making promises about how many books it holds would undermine its uses as something other than just an eReader. And it is much more than just an eReader. It's a "product" that CAN be used as an eReader. Among other things.

The Kindle, by contrast, says it's a "reading device" and promises simply that it will hold 1,500 books. In other words, more than you'll read over the next five years.

That's much more concrete than "16GB," which is how much storage the entry-level iPad promises.

So, as an eReader, Amazon's Kindle enjoys the advantage of being able to be explicitly sold as an eReader.

Apple Raises the Bar for User Experience

Apple has done some things well. Even as an eReader iPad works in some important respects. The prevailing question is whether it works sufficiently for the consumer at their prices.

1. Intimacy
Though not flawless, the experience of reading a book on the iPad looks to be more intimate than with the Kindle. The page-turning metaphor is direct and closely resembles the experience of actually turning a page of a book. Along with the ability to deliver deeper content through color and multimedia (which is impossible with either the Kindle or a physical book), motivated publishers have the capability to engage consumers like never before possible.

2. Usability
The touch-screen interface allows Apple to dispense with the metaphors that drag down the Kindle. That makes interactions more direct and gives publishers and app developers more flexibility on how they choose to deliver their content. As such, students can hope that Apple's platform makes it easier to consume nonlinear books than the Kindle does. And since anyone with an iPod or iPhone is already familiar with the iTunes interface, assuming the experience of purchasing a book rises at least to that level of usability, there's very little reason to believe the experience would be any more difficult on the iPad than the Kindle.

3. Flexibility
The iPad does a lot of little things well, and it looks like it can be used to specialize or converge however its owner intends. It can be a personal assistant. It can be a gaming device. It can be used to stream music or movies (with the right app and know-how) from a media server. It can be used as a netbook computer (especially with the optional keyboard). It can be used as a home automation control pad. Or it can be used as all of these things.

The beauty and the curse is that the consumer controls what it will be used for.

The problem is that convincing the masses that something that CAN be used in such ways SHOULD be used in such ways relies on heavy, repetitive marketing, positive word-of-mouth, or consumers themselves having the imagination for its divergent possible uses. Oh, plus they must be willing to risk at least $500 on the prospects -- with no guarantee of success.

Here's where it gets exciting

I don't know how the mass marketplace will respond, or how much Apple is willing to reduce its margin to gain a wide penetration for the iPad if at first it does not take off.

But even if it doesn't, if Amazon is smart, they won't take this lying down. Nor will Sony or any other manufacturers of either popular eReaders or tablets. If it's successful, the iPad may either drive down the costs of pure eReaders and/or inspire the development of better interactions.

If that happens, people will be more willing to adopt the platform, the cost of reading will decrease, and publishers will be forced to participate in this space and -- hopefully -- embrace the efficiencies it represents for their entire industry.

Whether the iPad brings Apple financial success or not, Amazon will need to improve its interface (which is already very good for linear reading) and technology. The iPad (and -- perhaps more importantly -- the responses it will engender from rival tablet makers) will likely change users' expectation about how they should interact with books.

Even if Apple doesn't sell as many as they hope, I would still count the iPad a success if it resulted in widespread adoption and use of electronic readers in general. - Cam Beck

What You Don't Know Can Kill You

On a recent project, I was reminded of "The Curse of Knowledge," the arch-villain of Chip and Dan Heath's Made to Stick. According to this concept, the more we know about something, the harder it is for us to remember not knowing it.

There's a corollary curse that goes with that:

The more we know about something, the more tempting it is to assume we know more than we do.

You might be surprised to learn how much medical doctors and/or other incredibly bright and useful people know about web architecture and design.

Aircraft engineers are pretty bright people. Lives depend on their competence. They have to know how objects will react to minor tweaks to the thrust, weight, drag, lift, etc, so that when they design an aircraft, none of the millions of things that could go wrong do go wrong, and if something were to go wrong, the plane can still safely land.

They know more about airplanes and flight than pilots.

But would you want an aircraft engineer to land a plane you're in?

If you said, "Only if he also has a pilot's license and is rated for the aircraft he's flying," go to the head of the class.

Likewise, because you know that your customers are 18-34 upper-middle class suburbanites doesn't mean you have even an adequate understanding of how they think or how they behave. Even if you're in the target audience.

In fact, if you are in the target audience you should be especially diligent about testing your assumptions. The Curse of Knowledge does not discriminate because you went to Stanford or MIT.

To borrow the structure of a well-known phrase in the advertising profession, it's safe to say we know only half as much as we think we do. Problem is we don't know which half. - Cam Beck

10 Advanced Features I Want from Apple Tablet

To hear some commentators tell it, Steve Jobs is going to single-handedly save the newspaper industry with Apple's new tablet, which is rumored to be announced next week (Read Newsweek's Article: Five Ways Apple's Tablet May Change the World).

 I wish him, the newspaper industry, and the world the best of luck.

But while we're pontificating about what the Tablet might do, here's hoping its rumored crowdsourcing need aggregation and fulfillment app (codename: iGenie) will pull in my wish list and make it a reality.

Besides the basics -- Music, Internet, eReader, etc., here are some things I'd like to see in the new Tablet. In the interest of time, I'll stick to the higher points.

1. A magic pixie dust dispenser (Credit Joe "YOU LIE" Wilson)
2. Unlimited battery life
3. If not indestructible (wouldn't be "green"), it would be at least highly durable.
4. A 20 Megapixel camera with 1600x optical zoom, nightvision, flash, and macro and panoramic views.
5. Free 4G connection running on a viable unloaded network.
6. Video conferencing that makes it look like you're looking at the person and not the camera.
7. Autotuning.
8. Wireless Enhanced Neurological Projection (I made that term up. Think of Neo's ability to learn Kung Fu in "The Matrix," but without the holes in our heads).
9. A Step-by-Step Guide to Kung Fu eBook (See previous wish).
10. Can be used as a flotation device and re-breather in the event of a water landing.

There's much more, but you get the point. What are some of the features you want to see? - Cam Beck

When can a comma cost you $2 million?

Little details matter. Ask Rogers Communications, Inc.

In 2006, this Canadian company witnessed firsthand how a single comma in a contract could cost them over $2 million.

What they thought they signed:
The agreement “shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five year terms unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.”

What they actually signed
The agreement “shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.”

The second comma changed the meaning completely. Whereas Rogers Communications thought only the subsequent extensions could be terminated on one year's notice, the clause created by the comma meant that the initial 5-year agreement could be canceled by either party. Consequently, the rates they were obligated to pay shot up immensely within the 5 year period they thought they'd have the prices locked in. (Read the story)

Details can make or break your website
Hopefully you have good lawyers who will, among other things, indemnify you in case someone maliciously uses your software or website to build weapons of mass destruction. Like Apple's lawyers did with iTunes. (Read iWMD: Why No One Reads License Agreements)

But even with that important detail taken care of, the little details matter in user interfaces, as well. And failing to pay attention to them can be the difference between success or failure.

• Should that call-to-action be a button or a link?
• Should those calls-to-action be together or separate?
• Should the calls-to-action be of equal weight, or should one be given greater priority?

How you answer those questions depend on what it is you're trying to accomplish and what people are expecting to find. But on a high-volume or high-stakes site, if minding the details can improve your conversion metrics by just 5-10%, it could be the difference between profitability and a money-leaking ego booster.

The Web is your petri dish
If at all possible, don't rely on experts to tell you that something has to be one way or the other. Test early and often. Don't be afraid to try new things.

Work diligently on the details. In bits.

• Is the headline effective?
• Is the language on the button inviting?
• Does the button look imminently clickable?

Let the data speak for themselves. You may want experts to design the page and the test, but you don't need an expert to know that a 15% conversion rate is better than a 10% conversion rate.

There are plenty of cost-effective experiments you can run to help you get the most bang for your buck, including A/B split testing and informal low-cost usability tests.

However, the characteristic you must first have is a willingness to fail. Because only through failure can you foster a willingness to search for the problem and design experiments to help you improve. - Cam Beck