If the last graph was the ecosystem map of media, then this is definitely the food web. It’s interesting to note the relationships between the producers and the distributors and how the distinction is becoming less obvious.
_
* Happy Halloween!
Archive for October, 2005
Exposure: Media Food Web
Published October 31st, 2005 in Communication, Branding and Ambiguity. 0 CommentsI’m finding more every day! This one rocks my socks…
“Agent-based conception of disaster events: modelling human actors as rule-driven, simultaneous interactions within networks, as both affecting environments and expressing rules differently as environments change.”
Emergence Notes (via Easily Distracted)
OK, so we can use emergence to emulate known, studied phenomenon like a tree or swarm behavior in bees. And we can also use the algorithms devised from these emulations to build unknown things, like the most effective NASA radio transmitter for a satellite based on a tree algorithm or a FedEx package managing system based on an ant algorithm. These things have been done, and they are unbelievably awesome.
But, what would happen if we were to use emergence to emulate and create known and unknown conceptual phenomenon - i.e. emotions, ideas, experiences, cultures, etc?
Would we develop algorithms for emotion - a rule-based articulation of love, hate, or indifference? Perhaps we could create new experiences that we could have never conceived, but are still able to understand because they evolved from other ideas and experiences. Emergent Aesthetics gives us this framework of creation and understanding. Imagine, a Turing machine for Brand Experience.
Open Source Branding: Another Example
Published October 29th, 2005 in Communication and Branding. 0 CommentsGrant McCracken proving that the best parts of conferences are not the actual workshops and events, but the coffee hours in between and the cocktails afterward…
“Marketing instruments and vehicles must grow more interesting and sophisticated. Pirates, jolly green giants, dough boys, these are no longer enough. What we want now are more fully realized creatures that invite the consumer to enter into acts of co-creation and self completion.
The funny thing is that if we do our jobs, the creature leaves the brand and enters the culture. Now marketers are like any other culture creators, except that, unlike the creators of the Simpsons, say, they seize the marketing opportunity at the beginning instead of the end of the creature’s life cycle.”
Story time 14: Sophie, marketing goddess (via Grant McCracken)
Exposure: Media Intersections
Published October 24th, 2005 in Communication, Branding and Ambiguity. 0 Comments
I made this in an attempt to gain understanding on the changing media-scape that envelops our daily lives. I’m not sure exactly if I’ve accomplished something, but it sure looks pretty…
Continue reading ‘Exposure: Media Intersections’
Is it time for Open Source Branding?
Published October 17th, 2005 in Communication, Branding and Ambiguity. 0 CommentsThat certainly seems to be the case, if you are going by what marketing/branding blogs have to say…
From the MIT Laboratory for Branding Cultures:
How the Open Source Revolution Impacts Your Brands (October 11, 2005)
From Brand Noise:
Does the Ad Biz Need to Think More Like the the Movie Biz? (October 16, 2005)
The Contribution Economy (July 29, 2005)
Managing Brands in Global Markets: One Size Doesn’t Fit All (May 20, 2005)
Garfield Peers into Ad Industry’s Chaotic Future (April 13, 2005)
From John Hagel:
Restoring the Power of Brands (July 16, 2005)
From AdMap & Scenario DNA:
“Who Owns the Brand?” by Tim Stock & Marie Lena Tupot (July 16, 2005)
From the Museum of Media History:
An interesting take on newsmedia in 2014
From Grant McCracken:
Brands as shadows (November 18, 2004)
_
* side note - convergent thoughts
From Emergence Marketing:
Emergence Marketing - why the name? (March 31, 2005) An interesting intersection… insert my own research here (emergent aesthetics + open source branding = new paradigm?)
Open Source Branding
Published October 17th, 2005 in Communication, Branding and Ambiguity. 0 CommentsRecently, I’ve been reading a lot more about how marketing and branding are starting to change, and it all seems to coincide with an essay I wrote almost a year ago, so I thought I would post it again and start gathering other examples and writings on what I feel to be a major change in the world of branding.
Open Source Branding and the Reputation Economy
by Glen Carlson (written 11.21.04)
——————————————————————————–
The shift in power from retailer/manufacturer to consumer is starting to happen. More importantly, consumers are beginning to recognize their power. Much of this recognition stems from open sources—the web, publications, social networks & communities—free markets to critique the “free market.”
Companies are starting to feel the effect of this phenomenon, especially in their bottom line. When two or more products are comparable in quality, branding and/or seductiveness that make the customer buy the product, and allow the producer to charge more, right?
That’s the way it used to be—a sharp logo, or a slick ad campaign used to relate directly to profits. This is why branding became a holy grail of sorts for companies. However, with this transition in business/consumer patterns must come a transition in branding.
The branding techniques employed in most cases involve setting a standard for a company’s visual presence—logo, business card, stationery, typeface, etc. This has some inherent problems:
1. If these elements are not visible, they are worthless
Deployment of branding is essential, but how branding is deployed is infinitely more important. Timing, location, material, interactivity—all of these site-specific elements determine the context of what is branded. If you have the most aesthetically pleasing logo in the world, if it is associated in a negative context, people will form a lasting negative opinion it. For example, Jack in the Box is still recovering from the association with a negative opinion. It took about 10 years, a ferocious new ad campaign, and a total restructuring of the way the company does business for them to even survive.
2. It does not allow for rapid change or adaptation
Branding and re-branding initiatives take a long time. Many times the visual standards for every single part of the company have to be scrutinized and either developed or redeveloped. Then there is bureaucracy: Board of Directors, CEO, CFO, CIO, Vice-Presidents, Managers, etc. In many cases all of these people must be satisfied with the branding initiative for it to proceed. Then, when something goes awry in the company’s branding, as it always will, the entire branding process must begin again.
3. It leads to aesthetic elitism
The idea of ownership in branding naturally creates havoc because branding involves emotions and abstract concepts. Does Coca-Cola own the concepts of joy and refreshment? Does McDonald’s own the emotion of happiness? I’d venture to say they think they do. The artistic/creative process is also an intrinsic part of branding, much like music and fine art. And like music and fine art, this leads to similarity and borrowing/inspiration/homage/sampling. Thus, companies end up suing themselves for copyright and trademark infringements. The end result of companies strictly controlling their branding is that the consumer gets left out, and the gap between company and consumer widens.
Continue reading ‘Open Source Branding’
In a few hours I’m meeting with a lawyer to go over their research into the patent-ability of Emergent Aesthetics. I’m really wrestling with the decision to pursue a patent - there are extreme pros and cons, and nothing is concrete. I’ll hear what the lawyer has to say, mix it with my own ideas, and go from there…
Recent Comments