Identity Now Next: Marketing Branding Design Op/Ed

oldthink and new blog

2011-01-10T15:58:00.002-05:00

I haven't updated this in a while, and probably won't again.

Since the post "we cavemen are cyborgs", i've been channeling my thought around the idea of the cyborg as consumer.

With that in mind, i've been putting it out there in a new blog, selling to cyborgs. it boils down to this:
1. peoples' relationship/reliance/interaction with technology
2. how this relationship affects people's relationship/interaction with the world
2. how this relationship affects people's relationship/interaction with brands

We Cavemen Are Cyborgs

2010-03-08T13:08:00.005-05:00

I've never made a secret of my affinity for Google. Their products and platforms drive, house and link—in some way—the majority of things I do professionally and personally. So when they roll out a WAVE or a BUZZ, I want it to work and I want it to work for/with me.

But here's the thing: 100% the time, when a new technology gets introduced into your life, you have an idea what it will do and how you will use it. However, both how you use it and what you use it for can and will change from what your original vision was—if only because the introduction to and use of this new platform changes your needs and wants—as well as you.

Let me explain it this way: If the foreseen function/utility/effect of new object "A" on your life "Y" can be described as "X", then the actual utility/function/effect of Object A on Y will almost always necessarily be "ΔX". That's not because the foreseen effects were miscalculated or misread, but because the introduction of A to Y necessarily changes Y, thus creating different and unforeseen functions/utilities/effects (ΔX).

Think of all the people who bought cellphones back in the mid90s "only for use in an emergency". That was the foreseen utility of the object, but as the object was integrated into the life of the consumer, the consumer's life changed—thus changing the function/utility of the object. Rate plans evolved to meet this new demand, and eventually this altered what the consumer required from the object—thus spurring the evolution of the object to incorporate new utility—and so on and so on. What you have there is the evolution of a species (remember this point, because I'll come back to it, I promise).

The introduction of new technlogies and platforms into our daily lives changes us, changes how we interact with our world and thus changes our world and lives. This is no earth-shattering statement. It's basic. But as we keep going, the iterative process of introducing newer, different platforms into our lives creates exponential changes in how we relate to/depend on/live symbiotically with technology.

Side note: You need to remember that I am, admittedly, a mere dilettante in this arena, and there is some insanely awesome/next-level thinking going on in the field of cyborg anthropology. My favorite of the bunch by far comes from a woman named Amber Case. So to really get hip, check out her stuff and dig it.

So anyway, back to BUZZ. From the moment it went live (this happened in the middle of snowpocalypse, so I was working from home and so had a few extra hours that day to explore and play), BUZZ was far more intuitive than WAVE. It scored far higher marks for immediate usability and functionality—as well as ease of connection to others (part of which can be linked to the privacy challenges folks surfaced almost immediately and that Google remedied in quick order).

And whereas WAVE was rolled out with a kind of "behind-the-velvet-rope" invitation system, BUZZ just kind of showed up. People just started using it. It just kind of exploded from there. But the effects of these two introductions were vastly different. Some folks got scared off, others dove in. It created a bit of cacophony, sure, but that all settled down.

The main issues I heard surfaced by colleagues and comrades regarding WAVE was that they A) felt like they needed to watch another "how-to" video every time they signed in B) had trouble locating contacts C) used it in clunky, inefficient ways to collaborate when they already used platforms like wikis, basecamps and docs to collaborate effectively.

Now I'm not here to weigh the merits of WAVE vs. BUZZ. I personally think time will tell. Troy Harlan said this the first day or so BUZZ appeared, and I tend to agree with him: "I get the comparisons between Buzz & Friendfeed or Buzz & Facebook or Buzz & Twitter, but comparing Buzz to Wave? Nope, not yet."

Troy was right and what got me thinking was his "not yet. " So here's my point: WAVE is like an automobile plopped down in the middle of a caveman village. Most of us can't really use it because we can't understand it. Hell, we don't even have roads to drive it on. We don't understand leather, let alone a stitched interior. We just mastered fire, so an internal combustion engine is like an eclipse caused by some otherworldly sun god hiding behind the moon.

The car in question is in perfect running order, but it's beyond our needs, wants or even understanding (in most cases). Now, there are a bunch of people out there who use and thrive on WAVE, so obviously some of my peers are not cavemen...let's call them sophisticated lords and ladies of post-enlightenment Europe. Bottom line is, most of us out there are running around bashing rocks with sticks and calling it cutting edge technology. We can't understand this car.

But maybe we can understand the wheel of this car. And that would be a pretty awesome leap forward, wouldn't it? Maybe we can break a piece off the car and utilize that. Maybe the wheels from the car are just what we need right now.

I see BUZZ as the wheels of the car named WAVE. It's just one piece of the ultimate platform/product, simplified and broken off so we can understand it, see why we want it and use it to our best advantage. Once we cavemen use the wheels, maybe we'll break off another piece and another, eventually getting to the car in total. Maybe not. Maybe we'll focus on building smooth paths and roads for those wheels to run on. Maybe by the time we get to the car we'll be on to jet packs and dirigibles.

You can't really say for certainty because it's all part of the imagined effect of technology in foresight vs. the actual effect of technology in hindsight. And that's all part of the iterative technology introduction/utility process I mentioned above. The function/utility/effect of BUZZ on users will alter what they do, what they need and what they are looking for next. And that's progress, holmes.

Darwin's natural selection is at work every day in technology—the technology kingdom is made up of genus, species etc just like the animal kingdom. The strong species of technology survive while the weak die off.

And each species lives, thrives and evolves (or eventually becomes extinct) based on its ability to become engrained and a part of our lives—while continually upgrading/evolving so as not to be replaced. Trace the development, introduction and evolution of any personal technology in the modern era and you'll see these patterns. So as BUZZ evolves and is utilized—or as the Ipad gets launched—think of Darwin and survival of the fittest and see where things go.

Because here's the truth: we cavemen are cyborgs. Our symbiotic relationship with, reliance on and utilization of all the technology that gets us through our days has evolved to the point where the "new" changes us while we progress to invent whatever we need/want "next".

Applying post-institutional social models to the real world

2010-03-01T13:22:00.004-05:00

The Wired cover story from a couple issues ago grabbed my attention for a couple reasons. Reason One: it felt like a mainstream-futurist-friendly version of a recent cover story in Make Magazine. Reason Two: the following pull-quote seemed insanely dead-on and prescient:

"Here’s the history of two decades in one sentence: If the past 10 years have been about discovering post-institutional social models on the Web, then the next 10 years will be about applying them to the real world."

If you aren't hip to 3-D printers yet—like the one MakerBot industries sells for just $750—and how these things are changing everything as I type, I'm not going to bore you with an exegesis on it here. Instead, read the first 20 pages of Alex Bogusky's Baked In or just watch this video.

The ramifications of taking true prototyping (and production, in fact) into the private realm are so far-reaching and fun to imagine.

Entire business models of r+d, production, distribution and fulfillment—entrenched since the earliest days of the industrial revolution—are and will continue to be turned on their collective ears.

Product Of The Year 2009: NFL RED ZONE

2010-02-12T21:47:00.008-05:00

After much consideration, consternation—and delay—the NFL Red Zone gets my nod for 2009 product of the year. Yeah, I know it's February 2010, but I've been busy. Sue me.

While not a traditional product, NFL Red Zone delivered content to users/customers in a new and inspiring way, generating tremendous word-of-mouth buzz and viral conversion. All season long, wave after wave of friends and family members clued each other in to subscribe to the channel. It started small, growing as people got the message. By mid-season, it was a phenomenon. It'll get even bigger this fall. The most common statement overheard regarding NFL Red Zone? “It's changed how I watch football.”

Take a moment to mull that over. Considering the ratings and revenue juggernaut that IS the National Football League—taking into account its top-of-mind and genuine lovemark status in the brains, wallets and hearts of America—changing how we watch football is no small feat.

If you're not hip to NFL RED ZONE, here's what you need to know:

At 1pm EST on Sundays, it goes live and host Scott Hanson sits at the epicenter of action from all around the league until the final moments of the last regional game of the day (usually a little after 7pm EST).
Let me just say this: Scott Hanson is a great on-air sports commentator. He's the antithesis of the worst sports commentator on earth.
The NFL operates its broadcasts in an admirably effective fashion, with a few prime pieces of real estate reserved for national broadcasts during the regular season (the storied franchise of Monday Night Football, relative newcomer Sunday Football Night in America and some Thursday Night Football national broadcasts (available on local broadcasts and national cable on NFL Network).
Apart from these nationally broadcast games, NFL fans can watch whatever regional games Fox and CBS broadcast on Sundays.
I don't claim to understand how the regions are sliced and diced or how the decisions are made regarding out-of-market games' inclusion in regional broadcasts. But that's not important.
The important thing is that to watch all the regional games being played, your only recourse was (previously) to subscribe to the NFL Sunday Ticket via DIRECT TV.

Enough of a crop-dusting introduction to NFL broadcasting and RED ZONE for ya? Good. Let's move on.

NFL RED ZONE is usually packaged with a few other sports channels that may or may not be of interest to the subscriber (some soccer channels, a few different college channels and even a tennis channel, etc.). Cost is anywhere from 5 to 10 bucks a month.

There are no commercial interruptions once NFL RED ZONE goes live (as the capable and charismatic Hanson gleefully points out whenever he can). Instead, RED ZONE roams the spectrum of games, going to live action or offering up immediate highlights from around the league.

Here's the genius of the innovation: they're operating on the golf broadcast production paradigm, which is pretty much perfect. Check it:

There are over 30 some golfers on the course at any given moment.
Let's say 10 of them are in contention.
The camera and commentators in a golf broadcast glide effortlessly from player to player, bringing only the highlights, in a sense.
You never have to watch Phil Mickelson walk 300 yards to his ball from tee to fairway. You might see Phil conferring with his caddy or taking a practice swing. Maybe getting a ruling from an official.
For the most part, golf broadcasts keep it to swing, ball flight, result.

Frank Chirkinian was the genius behind the modern golf broadcast paradigm—and dozens of other broadcast innovations we take for granted. His platform is the one still incorporated today by anyone and everyone who broadcasts golf on TV.

While golf features less brute force and hitting (can't remember the last time Vijay Singh suffered a concussion–insert Tiger Woods infidelity joke here), there is probably as much if not more “action” purely defined in a round of golf as there is in an NFL game. Say Sergio shoots 62. That's 18 tee shots, probably 4 of them into a par 3, so they double as approach shots. There are at least 18 approach shots overall as well. There will be on average 20+ putts per round from a PGA player. Overall, he hits the ball 62-68 times—and probably 55-60 of them are ones of true import (not to say laying up on a par 5 isn't interesting, but you get the picture).

So let's say those 55 shots take an average of 10 seconds for actual set up, swing, flight and result (with Sergio, we won't allow for his waggle and re-gripping madness). Anyway, it ends up around 8-10 minutes of actual action per golfer, per round. Now consider football.

The Wall Street Journal talked about this. I won't rehash it any more than I have to. Let's say an average play takes around 8-10 seconds, just for the sake of argument. Probably a generous estimate, considering runs up the middle. Each team probably runs 30+ offensive plays per game, with another 5-8 special teams plays. Of those 68 plays, far fewer are of import or crucial to the outcome of the game, but lets say you watch them all, just for arguments' sake. 68 plays at 10 seconds per play (again, a generous estimate) puts the actual action of an NFL broadcast at just over 11 minutes.

So the amount of actual action is about the same in a round of golf broadcast as it is in an NFL game broadcast. Multiply that by 10-12 Sunday games in the case of the NFL (and by, say 36 golfers for the PGA). With the time between football plays vs. the time between golf shots, and the number of golfers on the course and football games being played, the action and flow of the two sports is remarkably similar.

The PGA perfected broadcasting golf decades ago. NFL RED ZONE is simply bringing that paradigm into another sport—they keep their camera focused on where the action is (close games, games with a lot scoring, highlights, etc.—one of their slogans is: "every touchdown from every game", after all). It's basically a carbon copy of your average golf broadcast (focus on contenders in the hunt, cut in to also-rans when they do something remarkable).

So by cutting in and out of games where the action is happening, NFL RED ZONE achieves a kind of fever pitch from about 1:01 PM until the regional games end. Every week. Without fail. If the Patriots are on the 15 yard line of the Jets, RED ZONE is there. If Miami is attempting a FG against the Texans, you see it. If two games have simultaneous action that is on par (say both are in the Red Zone or one of them is going for it on 4th and short), RED ZONE goes split screen, with Hanson voicing over the action. The net-net-net is this: wherever the action is, RED ZONE is—even if the best stuff going down happens to be between two crappy teams.

So RED ZONE effectively repurposed a platform perfected by another industry, with amazing results. The NFL is a juggernaut, and it would be easy for them to sit on their laurels and not innovate. But hell, they went with it and it works. Works great. I know it changed the way I watch football. That's why I'm bestowing product-of-the-year status on the damn thing.

And now the last question: MLB Network...are you listening? Repurpose this paradigm for your nightly following of major league action and you could hit the big bonanza cash prize double powerball jackpot. Because baseball is great, but it's suffered a few, ummm...challenges...lately, and most fans don't watch it on TV with any regularity until the playoffs. Why not do what RED ZONE did—and change how people watch baseball? Forget adding cameras and virtual strike zones or other stupid stunts. The NFL on TV wasn't broke, and RED ZONE made it better than ever. Imagine what that broadcast platform could do for baseball? It could be berry berry good to baseball.

AOL's new clothes

2009-11-23T09:35:00.004-05:00

Remember Compuserve? And Prodigy? Remember when Netscape's IPO blew the doors off the whole thing? Remember AOL?

Or how AOL made the Internet friendly and approachable to the masses who were barely comfortable with computers in the first place? Remember how it dominated the ISP market? Remember how you used to get 5 or 6 CDs a week from AOL? And how those CDs made great coasters? Remember the AOL tins that would show up in the mail? Remember how they just kind of stopped showing up?

Well, the next incarnation of former giant AOL is here, with a brand-spanking new logo. Days before being spun off from Time Warner (Dec. 9), there's a new identity for AOL and it's, well...ummmm...remarkable.

I'll let the pictures speak their thousands of words:

A few highlights of the criticism leveled on the new logo from a Fast Company article this morning on the subject:
"the logo will be plastered upon a number of elements ranging from a goldfish to what looks like clip art purchased from 1987."

"The name? It's now "Aol." (the period is theirs)."

"According to the press release on AOL's--ahem, I mean Aol.'s--site, it's a 'simple, confident logotype, revealed by ever-changing images.'"

"Besides, a lowercase "L" sure does look a heck of a lot like an uppercase "I." Just sayin'."

Reinventing/Relaunching a brand is always an adventure, whether it's a project borne of necessity, hubris, boredom or anything else.

And sure, it's easy to take potshots at something like this, so I'll refrain from finding everything that's wrong and simply say that it's an interesting approach, having the logo knocked out and "revealed by ever-changing images." I suppose they're getting at something about the fact that aol is kind of your window to all the wonders and magic and limitless boundaries of what can be done, found and experienced online.

Or maybe they're saying that AOL puts itself in between you and all those wonderful things, stamping itself on top of them so that you can't quite experience it all--only the portion that is visible and peeking out from behind AOL?

Whatever the case, I suppose it's nothing a massive media buy can't fix (please note the sarcasm intended).

Read the Fast Company Article.

Thoughts on Google Wave

2009-11-09T13:25:00.003-05:00

So when I got my invite for Google Wave, I couldn't register fast enough. Like a lot of people, I've been waiting for the developer's curtain to be pulled back and reveal a new era in remote collaborative communication.

Well, I have been to the Wave, and can now report back on what I've been seeing.

While the platform itself hasn't disappointed, the anticipation I had before getting on board has been replaced with anticipation of the day when it will be opened up to the thundering masses.

Google Wave seems a natural fit for copywriters, art directors, strategists, UX folks and designers: It empowers us to share and work together in an autonomous space with video, images, text and pretty much any kind of file you'd need to. In real time. And like I said, the functionality and tools of Wave have not disappointed. I just need to have more projects to work on with people that require this space to open up for us, because the people I work with are (for the most part) shouting distance from me right now.

Perhaps that will be the change Google Wave brings about in the end—an opening up of when and where collaboration can and does take place. Which would be pretty sweet. I've only investigated and worked with Wave on professional projects, so it will be interesting to see what kind of social spaces it opens up once it gets fully launched. In the meantime, I've started some simulated projects/Waves with a few people just to test the waters and isolate/recognize certain pitfalls, opportunities or detours it creates.

As we began dipping our toes in it, the whole entity felt like a glorified wiki or messageboard. But the momentum grew with each one we opened. And the potential is there for that day when we need to brainstorm or develop a project and we all find ourselves in different time zones. THAT'S when the Wave will really earn its wings.

All that said, here are a few things I've learned so far about working with/within Wave:

1. keep it focused: the more focused the wave/project you're on, the better the results. Not a huge revelation, but as badly as a "real-world" brainstorm or ideation can go off track when not properly focused, it's even worse when a virtual one goes off track.

2. keep it simple (at first): it's a new technology and a new space to work within, but don't get too fancy with what you bring to the wave. Get comfortable sharing and editing the materials in basic arenas you've already mastered before you launch an elaborate mission-critical project with a lot of moving parts on Wave. The more comfortable you and your team get with Wave and all the goodies it features, the more complex your collaborations can/will become.

3. keep it friendly: goes without saying that you should play nice in whatever sandbox you're playing in, but you'll find the occasions for snarky and/or biting commentary are multiple when working in a Wave, but best left unrealized. One thing that will surely result from Wave? An entirely new etiquette and set of ground rules for engagement.

4. keep it in the family: as some of my colleagues and I have been messing around with Wave, we've found that collaboration on a given Wave is only as strong as its weakest link. Some people find it more challenging than others to work within it, so as you're getting your feet wet, either keep your group members on a Wave only to people with a less-steep learning/comfort curve, or don't let yourself get frustrated by a more challenged person on the list.

5. keep pushing it: every time you initiate a new one, you'll find the collective mentality and ability within your team rises to a new level with Wave. And it should. As I've said, comfort is gained and new spaces can open up within a Wave--with greater potential each time. So don't get too comfortable and just stay in a zone that's "good enough". Keep pushing it or you and your team will almost certainly be leaving the potential of this tool/platform untapped.

Change of Address

2009-09-10T11:12:00.004-04:00

Think about it this way:

Evolving your brand, reigniting your brand, changing things up, freshening, whatever. It's a change of address. A change of theoretical address as opposed to a change of physical address.

I suppose the same could be said for an initial branding effort. That's like a brand moving from the dorms after graduation and into its first apartment or condo or whatever.

It's a new space. A new place to occupy, a new phase of your brand's identity.

It's the same family, different house, different floorplan, maybe different furniture. Perhaps more. Perhaps less. A new house doesn't necessarily mean a bigger one. It's a new vibe. A new route home from work or to the mall. A new way of being seen and how you see yourself. Maybe a bigger yard that requires getting help keeping the lawn, flowers, bushes and trees from overgrowing and looking like hell. Or a smaller one you can more easily tend yourself.

When you're moving yourself—or moving your brand—into these new digs, what do you pack and save? What do you throw away? What do you sell on ebay? What do you buy new? What do you put into storage in case you need to use it someday?

Do you send out the obligatory "we've moved!" postcard? Or announce your new address a different way? Should you throw a housewarming party? How do you introduce yourself to your new neighbors? Will you become friends with them? Or compete to see who can pull off the better holiday decorations?

Is this the home you want to live in for good? A starter? A fixer-upper? Will you want to upgrade/move on/retire to Florida in the next few years?

A change of address. A change of branding. Either way it's occupying a new scheme of identity.

Open Message To Crispin, Porter + Bogusky: Forget VW.

2009-08-18T11:14:00.005-04:00

So everybody is talking about Volkswagen saying Auf Wiedersehen to crispin, porter + bogusky.

Comments abound on the Twitter and at the Adage article, both pro-crispin and anti-crispin.

Good work is usually polarizing, fact of nature.

The real question I'm asking is this: What auto will CP+B land next?

They went from Mini to VW, and will surely replace VW with another auto account. A well-known planet, perhaps?

Penske acquired Saturn a couple months ago, and I think Saturn and CP+B could be pretty sweet.

The Saturn brand has some kick-ass heritage. Remember when people used to go to those Saturn Picnics? Weird to the uninitiated: what the hell was that stuff about? But it was real and it was different. Saturn did some aggro and visionary brand-building that was really ahead of its time for the time.

There's still equity in that brand. And with a new, visionary owner in Penske--as well as a funky market where competitors could be falling dead in the coming months and years--Saturn could see a real resurgence.

Especially if they partnered with CP+B. Let the interns in Boulder at an equitable brand that's been on hiatus/dormant for a few years and who knows what kind of wonderful things could happen?

In Google We Trust

2009-08-10T08:55:00.002-04:00

Been on vacation. No updates for a while. Wife and I traded the city for a week of concentration on the dogs, the beach and not much else.

And yet, there was always the laptop. The phone. The technology. The access.

It's not a groundbreaking thing, it's not really news to anyone. But the other day, when Twitter underwent the whole Denial of Service Attack, a ton of folks I know were bummed out. Even being denied access to that one service for a few hours pretty much ruined their days. Not judging, just noticing. I was more baffled than bummed. I like Twitter as a service and tool. But regardless, whether baffled, bummed or whatever, the dependency we have on things that exist in a purely virtual sense got me to thinking.

What if Google gave out?

I, like a lot of people, trust el G grande more than ever. And more all the time. I've utilized their apps to create a virtual epicenter for my life. From the docs I save, work and collaborate with others and my personal and professional identity and access to personal photos and videos and everything else. Hell, I even roll with a G1 instead of an iPhone. I can walk up to any connected PC or 3G-covered area and in seconds have everything one used to keep on their hard drive (and I suppose kept in their home or office before that).

My point is this: I trust Google not to fail. I depend on Google. Rely on it. I feel a little like Dr. Colossus when Chief Wiggums let him out of jail but warned him to stay away from Death Mountain: "But all my stuffs there!"

Google: All my stuffs there.

A theme that's presented itself to me in the last few months is the interdependent relationship we have with technology. There are folks out there doing some really interesting theoretical and applied thinking around it. Cyborg Anthropologists. Had the pleasure of sitting down with a smart cookie named Amber Case recently and had a great conversation about the evolution of technology and how woven into the fabric of our lives it has been, is and will be.

More to come on it soon. Interesting stuff that's really on the bleeding edge of the very concept and definition of "identity" right now (and next).

The SyFy debate rages

2009-07-21T10:24:00.006-04:00

I haven't digested this whole post praising the recent rebranding/relaunch of SyFy, but it doesn't really matter. I suppose the point is that I've heard more discussions about the network formerly known as Sci-Fi in the last few weeks than in the entirety of its existence.

Read the article in praise of SyFy

Time will tell, I suppose. But if one wanted to rebrand, oh, I don't know, Tropicana Orange Juice, Would they want to call it "Orynge Juice"?

Side note: I really liked the rebranding of Tropicana that got killed. I think it's lame that they reversed course, and I believe there was a lot of outdated, monolithic "old-think" being spewed by the folks who called the new look a bad move.

Ride the wild (google) wave

2009-07-21T10:14:00.003-04:00

Yep. The groundswell from a month or so ago when Google announced Wave is going to become a full blown tsunami by the time it's available this Fall. According to Tech Crunch, 6,000 developers are on it as of last week, and the big G is sending out another 20,000 invites within the next month. In September, 100,000 users will be invited to check out the action.

Read the full story at Tech Crunch

DIssolving When In Use: MUJI, brand and nothingness

2009-07-10T08:17:00.004-04:00

MUJI is a rad as hell branding case study. Dig? You ought to. Because the example MUJI sets can turn any strategic or brand planning session you attend on its ear, spin the room around and then open things up to an unbound horizon of possibilities.

MUJI is the post-generic brand that's evolved over the last 25+ years from the shelves of a Japanese big box discount store to the the MOMA design store. All without traditional branding schemes or platforms. All with a focus on providing what is "enough" rather than what is "best".

No logo. No tag. No waste. No brand. MUJI is a secret handshake. And beyond the worlds of brand, advertising and communications, it's just interesting as hell.

Function defines design--and becomes brand essence within the MUJI universe (MUJIverse?). And MUJI's emphasis on aligning materials, production, design and distribution allows MUJI products to be the sole representatives of the MUJI brand (with enviable success).

Dig? Dig.

So here's my exegesis on the anomaly that is MUJI (and what we as branding agents can take away from it).

Dissolving When In Use: MUJI, brand and nothingness

View more documents from Haydn Sweterlitsch.

Google drops bombs

2009-07-08T09:30:00.000-04:00

So the word is out today: Google Chrome OS by mid-2010.

As a (recently) converted + devoted ubuntu zealot, my immediate reaction wasn't about microsoft, but of the other Linux players out there.

Will Chrome OS nudge them out of existence? Surely not (obviously). But in the desktop world where microsoft is king and mac is still a brand of objection (a lot of objectors, yes, but no matter what the crispin porter + bogusky MS campaign may make you want to believe, numbers don't lie and mac is an outsider OS).

But Ubuntu has been making fantastic inroads with normal desktop users. Historically, Linux has always been this scary thing you needed to read thick books and string code to use. Ubuntu has kind of changed that. I love it. It's really changed my relationship with anything having to do with my laptop and netbook. I'm a fan of Google and everything--but I worry that a brand as consumer-trusted, friendly and, well, GIGANTIC as Google could end up suffocating the other Linux platforms.

Hope I'm wrong. I suppose the fact that it's open source guards against that. I mean, it's not like google will start charging licensing fees, right? right?

Anyway, enough from me. I'm smart enough to know I don't know enough about this whole thing yet to have a proper prognostication or opinion.

The debate is going on out there. ZDnet editor-in-chief Larry Dignan wrote a good piece on it.

Ken Carbone: imagining greater + seeing weaker

2009-07-07T09:43:00.000-04:00

Why turn this:

into this?

From the Fast Company Now Daily Newsletter, Ken Carbone taking the SciFi channel's new identity deep: "Why change the name at all, "sci fi" is already a clearly understood abbreviation for science fiction? Can't trademark it? Design a symbol and register that!"
Read Ken's Entire Post

From February 2009: The Death of Identity

2009-07-06T16:55:00.000-04:00

This white paper served as the introduction to interactionist branding. Taking the sociological theories of Herbert Blumer as a starting point for a more actionable system of brand development and management.
Download and Read: The Death of Identity