Wikipedia defines graffiti as “graphics applied without authorization to publicly viewable surfaces,” which clearly denotes its antiestablishment nature along with the sense of empowerment that it provides to the artists and even local community through the “without authorization” part, after all, who has authority over public view? The values of graffiti art can be defined in the context of a postmodern society that appreciates true originality and celebrates the transfer of the means of expression from the powerful few to the general public.
It is not surprising that, once these values have been ratified by the ubiquitous power of social media, modern graffiti becomes one of the most important symbols of the early stages of a process that, more than reclaiming public space, has been rebelling against the monologue of old-fashioned media.
The new status of graffiti won’t come without a price. As a new glamorous figure [think Che Guevara], with high profile artists, graffiti art is rapidly mutating into a nobrow signifier representing most of the values that it used to antagonize. Proof can be found in the complaints of locals that no longer can afford the rent in the London neighborhoods that showcase some of the best work from Banksy, as well as in commercial billboards featuring Neckface’s art courtesy of Vans.
This shouldn’t be taken as something necessarily good or bad, on the contrary, an objective [neutral, if possible] analysis of the new values of graffiti could contribute to advance the understanding of how society reshapes the meaning of the figures and art forms that attempt to shape society itself [if that makes any sense…].
Fast forward to February 2009 and you will experience an all-digital TV environment in the US after more than six decades of analogue broadcasting. When the analogue signal is finally turned off, TV will automatically become a “hot” medium. According to Marshall McLuhan, media can be structured in the “hot” and “cool” buckets depending on their ability to “involve” people. The involvement of people depends mainly on how the technology [not necessarily advanced or otherwise] that enables the medium displays or affect its content. Cinema will always be a hot medium because its technology [film] renders its content in high resolution, allowing for almost no involvement. Analogue TV, on the other hand, is a cool medium because the viewer has to constantly join the dots to digest the content, the low-res nature of TV demands constant closure and that, in McLuhan’s theory, accounts for a high level on involvement.
McLuhan’s Hot and Cool Interview [with Gerald Emanuel Stearn, available here], offers some interesting reflections on this matter in a context not so distant from today’s key issues. After a reflection on the effects [at home] of TV coverage of the Vietnam War, Stearn asks whether shutting down TV would actually end the war, to which McLuhan replies with a statement that deserves further discussion in the light of the upcoming digital TV revamp:
“Oh yes. But there is an alternative: Put hundreds of extra lines on the TV image, set up its visual intensity to a new hot level. This might serve to reverse the whole effect of TV. It might make the TV image photographic, slick, like movies: hot and detached.”
We could translate his point with the assumption that involvement, via a conscious or unconscious effort to [literally] complete the picture, alienates the audience via driving us inward into our own passive universe. This can be contrasted with the effect of hot media, which let us digest the full picture and be critical about it.
In the new era of digital and HDTV there is no need for additional lines, in fact, there are no lines at all, however, the effect [or at least the goal] is still photographic quality, the best resolution possible, a visual representation with an intensity that we haven’t experienced on TV. Whether or not this will have a tangible effect on the impact of the medium in society remains to be seen, almost no “respectable” intellectual believed McLuhan in his time and most people still remain skeptic today. In spite of this, in the past few years we have seen his thinking permeating and being validated by popular culture in unexpected ways, so it doesn’t sound too crazy to take a hard look at our future relationship with TV and its new hot identity.
If you haven’t followed the latest discussion about Second Life [SL] you can thank Henry Jenkins for his clear summary and remarkable contribution in his blog. Probably the most important trait of the conversation is that it took the debate about SL outside of SL and into the realm of virtual worlds or multiverses [term coined by Neal Stephenson]. What might be surprising is that in the discussions, the multiverse is isolated from its interactions with other media, and in the process the debate left out MTV’s Virtual Hills and Laguna Beach, which can offer some answers to the key questions asked during the conversation.
It is impossible to make any accurate predictions about the evolution of multiverses as isolated communication channels; however, it can be feasible to think of them as extensions and parts of more complex multimedia experiences like the one that MTV is developing. The size of the audience is completely irrelevant at this point and, as the focus of discussion, it pales in the light of all the cultural happenings that are emerging around these spaces.
Some brands like Cingular, Secret [P&G], and Pepsi already began experimenting in the Virtual Laguna Beach, which according to MTV already has an audience of 300,000 users. The experimentation that is happening throughout the few multiverses available can be interpreted as an inexpensive way of participating in the conversation with their users at the same time that it helps professionals in the whole spectrum of communications gather valuable [qualitative] learnings about people’s interaction with the virtual persona of [mostly] well-known brands.
It is very likely that no multiverse will ever get the amount of users that some of the pundits questioned in the discussion [again, for details go here], but if we think about it, that might be the equivalent of expecting that a single website would capitalize all the traffic on the internet cannibalizing all other players. After all, the internet is likely to remain the platform that will support most multiverses in the foreseeable future, and we could expect that more virtual worlds will join the landscape as tastes and mindsets will group and regroup users according to their interests. It is possible to consider a future in which thousands of multiverses coexist as support to real-world experiences that can vary from TV shows like the MTV example to an actual representation of the Real Estate market [imagine going shopping for your next condo in a 3D Century 21 multiverse].
Coming back to the present, it can be useful to take a look at the multiple uses of the virtual world by the people that actually live the experience. This is essential to evaluate [beyond the numbers] whether or not these spaces offer a truly engaging medium to its users. While it is true that some of it reflects the dark early beginnings of the web [tons of porn, gambling, etc], there are several users remixing the content, byproduct, and even the original purpose of the multiverse and bringing their own experiences into more “traditional” venues, here are a few examples:
Another interesting manifestation of community engagement can be found at the heart of the business community in SL through BMW’s Munich Express [Achim Muellers, Head of Brand Relations and Cooperation] conversation with a crew from Second Life Business Communicators Group. The conversation was rather deep and happened in-world on January, for a complete transcript visit the group’s site.
Author Walter Kirn shared his thoughts on ubiquitous advertising in a must-read piece published in yesterday’s New York Times magazine. His account articulates the result of a dangerous practice in the marketing and communications industry that has been lately labeled as 360o marketing, in which brands surround people with messages across a variety of media channels. The more the merrier.
The problem with this kind of marketing is that, as Kirn suggests, it reflects a myopic vision of communications in which all impressions are created equal. The truth might be closer to the opposite, in these days every brand message must consider its context, which by the way, is not exclusively defined by the medium as it probably was a couple of decades ago.
The UK-based Centre for Integrated Marketing used an enlightening phrase (in some paper that I don’t remember now) to summarize the issue: “Unwelcome means not working.” It doesn’t matter how clever the ad is, the message won’t be properly digested if the person at the other end feels invaded. The intended meaning will be lost and replaced by negative feelings in most cases. At the end all impressions are not equal, some are extremely positive and create long-lasting relationships, some might be neutral and go unnoticed, and some are just unwelcome and extract life out of your brand.
Here are some examples provided by Time Magazine’s 2006 Person of the year and Advertising Age’s 2006 Agency of the Year.
Officially launched last Friday, the new video blog venture by HBO and AOL, “This Just In” could be considered as yet another milestone in the evolution of the blog as a communications channel in its own right. The fact that blogs use the Internet and mainly computer screens to be consumed is circumstantial, at this point it is clear that the simple and unique structure of this relatively new medium is solidifying on its own and that we can expect it to break free from its technical constrains [the computer screen and even the Web] in the near future.
Blogs could then live in your mobile phone or PDA as a service from your carrier in a closed network, they could also be adopted in the wide array of Video on Demand [VOD] platforms that are rapidly evolving, or live as part of online gaming platforms such as Xbox Live. What is certain is that there is something at the intersection of its main characteristics [informal, to-the-point, multimedia, open for dialogue, among others] that makes this medium highly appealing to the modern producer and consumer of media.
This Just In seems to be one of the first in the corporate blogging scene that understands the mechanics of the medium and that could be poised for instant success. Its main ingredients include excellent content by HBO, aggregation from other video sites [i.e. You Tube], anti-interruption advertising policy, and the usual sharing and dialogue features available at any blog. One post last week received over 180 comments, which can already be considered as a good sign of participation, however, beyond being a potential success metric, the conversation that happened among all those “viewers” feels as real as any dialogue happening in a personal blog, an early indicator that the site is doing something right to engage people and stimulate participation, two essentials in contemporary communications.
For more details about this initiative, check out the Advertising Agearticle announcing its birth.
If Marshall McLuhan was right with his “the medium is the message” theory, then media should be always examined through the lens of semiotics. The science and art of communication, now more than ever, tries to conciliate several layers of meaning, which sometimes come together as a cohesive experience without loosing its discrete parts. The medium can contribute with meaning as much as the message itself, and in the age of media fragmentation, most pieces of communication involve voluntarily or involuntarily more than one channel, which means that the message can be either amplified or distorted depending on how well coordinated are all the parts involved.
“Media” and “Creative” as communication disciplines are merging into a hybrid that can’t differentiate the what from the how, and this is evident when considering recent work in the digital marketing arena crafted by fashion design brand Diesel, which just provided an excellent example that might help us get better at understanding the new dynamics of communication.
Regardless of whether or nor it was a good marketing program, the Heidies could be seen as an experiment which relied on almost every Web 2.0 vehicle on the catalogue, offering an interesting multi-media case study of modern communication. The program consisted on the hijacking of Diesel.com by a group of hipsters that pretended to also hold hostage one of their salesman together with the complete [new] underwear collection, here is their first message:
From the beginning it was apparent that the whole effort was yet another guerrilla initiative by a brand seeking to connect with a specific group of people, in other words that it was advertising. The tone of the communication made clear that they were letting consumers participate in the joke; this probably gave the program a more relaxed character as the intent was to have fun, to let people interact with advertising as opposed to be interrupted by it.
In the process of letting people in, the brand employed a number of media channels that not only disseminated the campaign with the speed of light but that carried their own messages that could ease the connection with a young, tech savvy, and highly connected crowd.
Most of the video content on the Heidies’ site was streamed from uploaded versions residing in You Tube; this was an interesting move [as opposed to create their own media player with pristine quality video] because it sent a message of approachability, opening various forums at the same time as people could comment on their site and on You Tube. It also provided the tools to any website in the world [i.e. blogs like this one] to spread the word through embedded video. It is worth to consider the implications on the message of streaming a You Tube video on their site, that is, a video with the You Tube logo on the lower right corner.
Needless to say, the site also featured a blog in which the hijackers webcasted live feeds from their base and posted random messages, received comments from fans and detractors, and replied to them. The blog, as a communications channel, follows a structure that also carries its own messages. It might be hard to pinpoint exactly what those messages are but it is easy to at least infer certain openness and even transparency when you are able to post comments at will regardless of whether they are positive, negative, insulting, or encouraging. Here is an example:
A very visual campaign for a very visual product: underwear. The site documented every step of the hijacking with plenty of still images, click on any of them and you will be directed to a Flickr page titled “Heidie1And2's photos,” where users can also leave comments and browse through all the images available on the official site and beyond. From the marketing point of view there is a clear benefit on this move: as in the You Tube case, every picture is properly tagged and can therefore be found by anyone searching on the site, which can then lead that individual to Diesel’s site.
Polls were also another resource used within the site to keep people engaged and participating, there are various new web2.0ish polling tools that allow anyone to embed a professionally-looking survey/results application, this can help any blogger [or any site for that matter] to create a sense of community even if a superficial one, in which people can validate their own opinions and get deeper into the story.
Since news these days constantly cross the line between seriousness and dead seriousness, why not adding this event to the Digg community. With one click any user could digg the story titled “Diesel.com has been hacked!” which generated 27 diggs and a few, mainly favorable comments. Lastly, the hijackers opened their own del.icio.us page in which they posted the links of anyone that referenced their site during the period of the campaign, so far 81 links are available, exposing media accounts from widely diverse sources.
Over 288 friends on their MySpace page might be one of the many indicators of their popularity [or lack of, depending on your benchmarks], it can also be considered as another version of the official site that lives beyond the campaign and that also gives the brand the credibility and platform to confabulate its next comeback together with the community that loved and/or hated them throughout the ad that lasted five days.
London is well known for its tradition as a breeding ground for marketing innovation (the Center for Integrated Marketing comes to mind), so it is not a surprise that the Tate Modern is offering us an interesting lesson through their new Tate Tracks.
As described in Tate Modern’s website, Tate Tracks is the result of an invitation to an eclectic group of musicians to walk around the gallery and “find a piece of art that inspires them to write a track.” Collaborators include The Chemical Brothers, Graham Coxon, and Klaxons among others. The tracks reside exclusively at the Tate Modern [next to the art that provided inspiration] during their first month of life, after that they are released to the world via the internet.
Without pretending to strip this initiative from its artistic value, we might want to look at it through the eyes of the marketer, in which case we will be able to see why this is such an important marketing piece as well.
Today’s marketing and communications industry is facing many issues mainly related to a simple fact: in a world without media options, ruthless irrelevant interruption could thrive; in the present multi-media society, every piece of communication must add some value in order to be considered. This is probably the most visible consequence of an applied attention economy.
Tate Tracks, as a communications program, is a clever initiative that accomplishes various objectives through one cohesive effort: It can potentially boost visits to the Tate Modern since it offers a fresh, new reason to experience art; it also becomes an excellent tool to drive traffic to their website after the one-month exclusivity of the track in the museum expires; and it gives people around the globe a reason to refer friends to the site or write about it, associating the Tate Modern with innovation in the cluttered world of modern art.
The most important characteristic of Tate Tracks, and probably one that is essential to the new school of 21st century marketing is that the program is real. The tracks are inspired by art, leading artists to create a piece that wouldn’t exist without the Tate Modern, and therefore adding significant value to anyone that appreciates the work of the artist, musician, or both.
According to the official press release, “The Tate Tracks initiative devised by Tate Modern, in partnership with advertising agency Fallon, will be supported by a range of promotional activity designed to reach fans of each act and each music genre. The project was developed to highlight the relationship between music and visual art and the role they play in stimulating and inspiring creativity.” We would certainly welcome an annual compilation, perhaps distributed via old-fashioned compact discs.
