Among the various of sites, consultants, and publications that address new media from a marketing perspective, IPG’s Emerging Media Lab’s “show and tell” approach stood out to me as as an effective and results-driven balance between breadth and depth of information. As Josh Lovinson addresses in a recent Future of Media blog post, “emerging media” is a troublesome term whose definition is largely in the eye of the beholder. The prominence of dualities like new/old, mainstream/niche, and technology/behavior further muddy the water, and the interdisciplinary nature of the field make forming an objective definition a goose chase. Luckily, I don’t think a concrete definition is what marketers want or need: a subjective yet sound distillation of pertinent information is much more valuable. Though I was initially uncertain of the filters that IPG uses in this distillation process, the tour, review of their publications, and a discussion of their philosophy has convinced me that IPG’s “brick and mortar” and online content effectively serve marketers with a streamlined summary of what’s happening, what’s possible, and best practices in regard to emerging media.

I was particularly intrigued by the lab’s usage of immersion as an educational tool. Given “what I want where I want it” media consumption trends, tethering specific technologies or media to physical spaces seemed counterintuitive. However, by addressing this issue early on and explaining that some features are meant to show things that won’t catch on (eg. digital refrigerator) or aren’t mainstream yet (eg. location-based mobile video streaming), the floor plan  instead serves as an important reminder to consider the way behavior, technologies, and surroundings interact and impact our media usage patterns. Immersion, then, is not about being in a dorm room or kitchen, but about understanding the lifestyles of its inhabitants and how that relates to their media, and therefor marketing, consumption.

The Social Media portion of IPG’s presentation was an interesting and crucial complement to the hands-on lab experience. I want to thank Raquel for taking the time and energy to speak with us: the task of addressing such a vast topic without knowledge of our backgrounds or goals is doubtlessly daunting. Different industries, clients, and individual project managers should approach the social media space differently, making a general overview all the more challenging. Facilitating immersion in an online environment is also a very different proposition than doing so in a dorm room or kitchen, but if we consider it using my definition of immersion as an understanding of a lifestyle, social media immersion is simply an extension of the empowerment that “what I want where I want it” consumers are experiencing. Our discussion of prosumers is at the core of this additional user empowerment that stems from the ability to produce and distribute content, but it seemed slightly isolated. Of course, as a social media student and geek, I am partial, but I thought that this segment could be strengthened by demonstrations at other stations. Showing how a user can create and publish content using the surrounding technologies takes the audience through the evolution of marketing practices we’re seeing today: advertisers used to “push”  content on people, now people choose to “pull” desired content in, and when it comes to the pushers and pullers we just jumbled everything all up.

Google’s Michael Legget released a Gmail panic button that allows you “undo” an email  within 5 seconds of pressing send yesterday, a function that ” turns a bug into a feature” as this TechCrunch Article points out.   Mail Goggles, a feature that tests your sobriety with a series of simple arithmetic and uses that information to change your settings in order to prevent you from sending regrettable emails, is another product that people can use to restrict themselves. Bonus features that  restrict our usage of certain tools indicate  that these communication  technologies have gotten to a point where progress isn’t limited to “increased capabilities.”  We actually have an overabundance of communications capabilities, and who needs that after a few martinis? Point it, maybe adding  features that are actually subtractive is some sort of milestone (not to say that email didn’t have these before or anything…this is in general) of acceptance or integration into our daily lives.  Frontier technologies seem to shoot forward a lot- now you can do this new thing, check out this new tool, now you can do this- and that’s really exciting but usually hard to keep up with as a consumer.  Functionality that expands outwards, or even backwards in a way, perhaps lacks some of the appeal but makes up for it with usefulness and  capitalizes on our  existing comfort with the  medium/product by catering to people who get drunk and email.  Also by being called “Google Goggles.”

I seem to be hearing a lot about the convergence of different disciplines: SEO is digital marketing is PR is web best practice.  At the same time that all these fields appear to be melding, they’re also expanding, requiring implementors and planners to have a lot of specialized knowledge in order to continue to be effective.  Gregory Markel’s delightful presentation during yesterday’s class addressed the issue of blending disciplines directly, and his demonstration of an extensive knowledge and experience base, boasting breadth and depth far beyond my expectation, clearly illustrates my second observation.  How is a marketplace or an individual, particularly a young or inexperienced person, supposed to deal with these demands?  To compound things, the rate of change is rapid and accelerating, so as far as I can see, we’re supposed to know more about more, fast.  eek?

Lately I’ve been increasingly frustrated with my organizational tools, and of course, instead  of attacking my hefty to-do list, I added to it under the guise of increasing efficiency on all of the other items. Last weekend I was pretty sure I’d isolated the problem: 15 projects and 1 desktop = a fatty mess.  For my computer, there’s Leopard’s “spaces:” check that off the list.

For my physical desktop, there’s Home Depot. For the last 2 weekends I’ve been in the driveway playing with power tools and trying to build the ultimate desk: we’re talking movable surfaces, rotating toolboxes, multiple displays…well, we were talking about those things.  At this point, the only sturdy, useable structure I have can’t even really be called a desk.  It’s a GD table, and it took me forever. I kept trying out new joints and tools and connectors and then would realize there’s a better way so I’d take that apart and try the new thing and blahblahblah now it’s Monday again.  Now, prepare yourself for a mighty segway:

I think the issues that I came across building my killer “desk” are actually applicable to online development.  I had a main objective, but didn’t take the time to solidify my plans or research construction and decided I’d let my available materials “inform my design.”  I got so caught up in finding new uses for items and tools, incorporating a huge list of unprioritized features, and just getting my hands dirty that the only functional final product is basically some pieces of wood holding up a big flat piece of wood (with lots of holes in it, now).   I ended up scrapping the extras for now because I just needed to finish SOMETHING that I could work at, but the alternative, taking the time to actually make all of my ideas, probably wouldn’t have been much better because the thing would be ridiculously accessorized to the point of confusion.

I’m redesigning my company’s website right now, and as depressing as the desk fiasco has been, I actually thought about it during a planning meeting this morning and suggested that we a) build a simple, functional webpage b) launch and make sure everything’s going well and THEN c) begin adding extra features, landing pages, navigational options, etc. We’ve talked a lot about different development strategies and procedures, and as an over-thinker with a short attention span, I recognize and understand perspectives that emphasize the importance of DOING, of getting started.  Now I understand the perils of taking the “don’t think, do” strategy too far:  1 focused project = do.  25 scattered ideas all at once = doodoo. (Still doesn’t change the fact I own a power saw, though.  Nothing can touch that.)

Of course there’s an interesting flip side:

“A couple of weeks ago, my partner and I met with a potential client, the newly-hired Vice President of Marketing at a technology startup…I asked about her immediate plans. She replied, “I’m going to start by putting some policies and procedures in place–we could really use more structure.”

This sounds great, right?  policies?  procedures?  Could’ve solved a lot for me.  Well, Darren Barefoot goes on to tells us why the best and the brightest aren’t always the best and the brightest investments.  His post’s title, “Startup Marketing Isn’t Rocket Science, so Don’t Hire the Ph.D Too Soon,” sums things up pretty well.  Basically, you should tailor the amount/quality of strategic thinking and planning to the project, and sometimes that means that less-experienced people may actually be more qualified than lifers who have a wealth of knowledge and experience but may have let their “doing” skills rust while developing their thinking and planning skills.  Just thought it was a nice counter to my little carpentry adventure…

“People who are members of online social networks are not so much ‘networking’ as they are ‘broadcasting their lives to an outer tier of acquaintances who aren’t necessarily inside the Dunbar circle,’” Lee Rainie, the director of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, says.

-Facebook’s ‘In-House Sociologist’ Shares Stats on Users’ Social Behavior

This caught my attention after last week’s video assignment.  The post has a few sample stats, but the basic idea is that people only actually interact with 5-10% of their Facebook friends (wall-commenting, messaging, or chatting).  I really would’ve liked to have seen some stats on how many of their friends they’re monitoring on a regular basis- I feel like it’d be way higher and that this element is one of the most interesting social phenomena  evident SNS’.  I wonder how people see the 90%-95% of their non-interactive friends’ updates on three scales: utility, entertainment, neediness

Video response to “22 Minutes – Facebook.”

So interestingly enough I was hand-slapped for shmopyright violation on my video about digital copies…thought about leaving the audio disabled  for effect but let’s be honest, I fear the man.

Anyways, I made this on my digital camera and then borrowed some clips from the internet using some screen capture software and put it all together in iMovie.  Ba-boom!

Thinking–>reading about target audiences…

There is a tendency to think of audiences as masses, but a Williams (1998) observed, there are no such things as “the masses”, only ways of imagining people as masses. Audiences are “unstructured groups…with…no social organisation…merely an aggregate of demographic characteristics.” (Rokeach & Cantor: 1986)

-The Advantages and Limitations of a Focus on Audience in Media Studies

While I can anticipate a central audience for this blog, namely the professors and students that are obligated to read these words I type, the accessibility of this medium prohibits me from accurately describing a potential wider audience using standard demographic identifiers like age, nationality, or gender. However, the non-human audiences that web-based texts reach help to fill in audience-identifiers neglected by routine user statistics.

Search engine crawlers are a key “audience segment” that web publishers must consider. The first step is to decide whether I want to optimize my site for any particular keywords or phrases. If the answer is yes, the next step is to identify those words/phrases. The third, and most complicated, is implementation: because I am a human and do not automatically write in an “optimized manner,”(though we might in an ideal world) I must negotiate between what I want to communicate to humans and what I want to communicate to the ‘robots’ (thereby facilitating my communication with humans, I suppose). Is some sort of integrity lost here? Or is optimization part of a new form of writing? Does on-site SEO characterize quality web writing, or undermine it?

Though writing for ‘robots’ complicates the initial act, it can simplify later efforts by helping to define my secondary human audience. A group defined by behavior, eg. people who googled “keyword x,” becomes the likely audience for my work; that data is more personally useful than standard demographic information in terms of crafting content that will be useful to said audience.

Because much of my online content is traceable to my identity via email address and content, there is another secondary search audience I have to consider- people who locate my content by searching for me. This audience is particularly problematic because I cannot anticipate the purpose of their searches; I don’t know the future but I do know my online records will probably be there. Then. Whatever. Anyways, while I’m fairly familiar with the charge of creating content that is either engaging(hopefully), or at the minimum, appropriate for the aforementioned audiences, this third audience truly doesn’t exist until they are viewing my work, and who knows when/why that will be. I can’t know, then, whether my work is appropriate for them until it’s too late, so to speak.

Ok I wrote this post and then proofed it and realized I just left reality after this point and found some media studies excuse to tie my own behavior back to, but it’s bs (not the theories themselves, but that my thought->behavior process is that complicated). I think it’s just a gut feeling thing for me. It’s just weird to think about total strangers in the future reading my blog for some crazy, malevolent purpose I never could’ve anticipated. It’s like when I was little, and in Catholic school, and used to sing really earnestly (read: loudly) in church because I reasoned that maybe all those hours spent sitting and standing and, most importantly, singing, would pay off when that hypothetical talent scout in the next row would hear, and recruit, my glorious voice: Pooooosible, but barely, and rather misguidedly egotistical. Anyways, I’m leaving the media studies bit. For you. Even if you’re a talent agent from the future. Especially then.

Since I can’t tailor to them or speak with them beforehand, my published work is necessarily available, context-free, to an unknown number of searchers or stumblers, and therefore far more at risk for misinterpretation. I suppose that the danger of misinterpretation exists in any medium, but I think it’s exponentially increased by web publishing. The issue is addressed in audience-based theories of media studies:

Umberto Eco uses the term ‘aberrant decoding’ to refer to a text which has been decoded by means of a different code from that used to encode it (Eco 1965). Eco describes as ‘closed’ those texts which show a strong tendency to encourage a particular interpretation – in contrast to more ‘open’ texts (Eco 1981). He argues that mass media texts tend to be ‘closed texts’, and because they are broadcast to heterogeneous audiences diverse decodings of such texts are unavoidable.”

-Semiotics for Beginners

Kyra and Marjori’s counter  to the common request for quantifiable bottom-line results of social media, redefining ROI as “return on ignoring,” struck a cord with me as a cautious web publisher. The comparison of web presence to other points of customer contact like the telephone is one I’ve encountered in articles and blog posts addressing the imperative for businesses to embrace online technologies. I am feeling the parallel pressure to create and maintain an online presence as an individual, both socially and professionally, as my reluctance to fill out profiles and upload content raises questions among my peer group and, potentially, employers or business contacts. I find myself asking what my online timidity is costing me: will I lose that job opportunity because my LinkedIn profile is outdated? Will I stay at home watching the Dog Whisperer on a Friday night because I didn’t get the right Facebook invitation?

Is that ok?

Because I really like the Dog Whisperer.

I hate when people say  “excuses, excuses” like they’re inherently worthless.  I’m pretty sure an excuse is just an explanation that makes you look less bad- doesn’t mean it’s not legit!   Pretty sure if Robin Hood explained why he was stealing from the rich nobody would tsk tsk him- it’s still an excuse though.  Anyways on a totally different and separte note, I’m off for the weekend BUT I swear, now that I’m not sicksicksick OR internetless, I’ll blog more.

And now it’s on  the internet, so it must be true.

First of all, I’m ridiculously into TED talks right now.  Amazing.  My recent fave is Johnny’s Lee’s talk on Wii hacks.  He uses the infrared capabilities of the controllers to make an interactive whiteboard and 3D experience.  Excellent.  Of course, when I searched for related items, I kissed a couple of hours goodbye seeing as the web is delightfully sprinkled with hacks, hacks, hacks. So rewarding.

Besides the pleasure of mischief, I’m thinking that playing around with a bunch of little hacks will serve as an education to the associated technologies.  On a larger level, thinking about what something is good for, not what it was created for, is important and sometimes difficult to do when the product I’m working with is beyond my technological understanding.  Next project: use a pre-paid phone as a GPS tracker for my friend’s suspicious boyfriend…