Matter/Anti-Matter

The $10 billion market for baby and young children’s furnishings (cribs, other case goods, layette, nursery decor, and the like) and accessories (car seats, strollers, baby monitors, diaper bags, etc.) is a lucrative market, and the baby stroller is one of its most competitive sectors. Hundreds of models vie for the attention of parents-to-be, and the level of detailed research, due diligence, and individual preferences may come close to the decision making process by an airline for the purchase of a Boeing 787. There are only few things – at least that’s what the industry makes you believe – that are as personal and intimately important to consumers as a baby stroller. The stroller embodies the commitment, care, and love that a couple chooses to devote to their newborn. It is the most visible representation of good parenthood. And in the US, the baby stroller market combines three quintessential American traits into a mind-boggling mix of over-commercialism: an abundance of choices, an obsession about mobility, driving, and vehicles, and a profoundly whacked out paranoia about deficient baby care. All that turns the stroller into a status symbol, especially after the chic Bugaboo arrived on the scene (thanks to Sex and the City) and became the must-have stroller for every DINK (double income-no kids), oops, with kids now – from Los Angeles to New York.

All the more rewarding then is to see a baby and kids super store that defies this irrational exuberance by taking it even a step further, turning a farce into a comedy. Lullaby Lane in San Bruno, CA is a paradise for stroller shoppers precisely because it doesn’t try to be one. It runs three stores and a warehouse in the suburban town south of San Francisco, and surprisingly, the town isn’t named after the brand yet - as perhaps one of the biggest non-big-box baby gear suppliers in the world. The town of San Bruno is adjacent to the San Francisco International Airport (the noise of planes taking off may disrupt your shopping experience at Lullaby Lane every other minute, but my wife used it as an extra lever to lure me into the shop – “if you get bored, you can watch planes.” I love watching planes almost as much as I hate shopping).

But bored I was not. Lullaby Lane is a one-of-a-kind store, independent, grassroots, not slick and shiny – but having been in business for 57 years and family-run, it is the anti-Babies R Us. Almost like a garage sale with sales reps that are a charming mix of car mechanic, Formula One engineer, and precocious kindergartener. Adhering to an old-fashioned model of super-personal customer service, they master folding and unfolding hundreds of different strollers, and go to great lengths to thoroughly analyze each and every feature of the many brands of strollers that they carry – including a live comparison of the performance of the inflatable wheels of the Bugaboo Frog versus the non-inflatable wheels of the Uppa Baby Vista (the Bugaboo is the clear winner). The best thing about Lullaby Lane, however, is its product reviews on YouTube, enhanced by a delightfully ill-placed soundtrack (AC/DC’s “Hell’s Bells”) and astonishing, unexpected outbreaks of stroller stunts. You have to see them yourself; here's one example:

The videos are smart. They’re rough, low-budget, authentic, fun, and laden with just enough irony so they don’t turn off hardcore parents-to-be but also cater to the more enlightened shoppers who (wrongly) think that they aren’t succumbing to the baby industrial complex. The videos feature men and are designed to appeal to men, highlighting the strollers’ features and the competitive nature of their performance. You feel like they’re selling you a sports car. Once you’re in the store, however, the sales reps pay closer attention to the mothers-to-be, knowing they will ultimately make the purchasing decision. Even though I was the one asking more questions, our sales rep would always face my wife when answering them. When we left the store, we had bought two strollers (I learned that you need one for home and a lighter one for travel), and we swore we’d come back. There’s always more you need for your baby. Yes, we care. And then we watched planes.

By the way, you may think the Lullaby Lane videos are edgy, but they pale in comparison to the guerrilla marketing campaign conducted by UNICEF in Finland. Wanting to raise awareness for children rights, the “Be a Mom for a Moment” campaign placed fake blue strollers with a crying baby audio track in crowded places in 14 cities. If people looked in the strollers, they would find a note with the message: “Thank you for caring, we hope there are more people like you. UNICEF – Be a mom for a moment.” Apparently, the media and public reaction was overwhelming, with coverage in all the major TV, radio and web news. The estimated media reach was more than 80% of Finnish population after two days.

Lullaby Lane and UNICEF’s campaign share a commitment to meaningful marketing. They successfully connect with their audiences by applying what I call the "five principles of meaningful marketing (pdf):” be social, be personal, be dramatic, be disruptive, and be responsible. Lullaby Lane embraces the idea of generosity (“give more than you take”) and originality (the videos) to create long-term customer loyalty, and UNICEF’s campaign was a perfectly choreographed moment of “disruptive realism.” Both create meaning – events and experiences that you can relate to other events and experiences and that are at the same time so scarce and unexpected that they’re worth sharing.

Happy Father's Day!

(photo credit: UNICEF)

I've been conference-hopping through Europe for the past two weeks. In Berlin, I discussed new "quality of life" concepts for Germany, and in Geneva I listened to speakers who held Utopian visions from an earlier era accountable for what could have been but wasn't. My own personal well-being was more mundane. I schlepped two big suitcases with me and saw the sun shine only twice. When you travel so much, you start to feel like Tyler Brule: quality of life is defined by the quality of the airports you pass through, the quality of the Wi-Fi connections, the quality of the hotel room showers, the quality of the food in the random restaurant next to your hotel, and the quality of the casual human interactions along the way. Really, it's that simple. Travel, as we know, makes the human all too human, bringing to the forefront the five basic human desires that David Rose described in his LIFT09 talk: the desire to know, the desire to protect, the desire to heal, the desire to communicate, and the desire to travel.

Indeed, life is basic when you travel, yet I am frustrated with my inability to process the complexity of everything I hear and see on the road. I know I should blog about all the panels I've attended but I can't even decipher my notes anymore because they're a week old and life has changed. "We must write the story before we forget," as CERN's James Gillies noted in his LIFT09 talk about the origins of the Internet. We live in the now and here, and there is no there there.

Mindful of this preamble, the LIFT09 conference, dedicated to discussing the social implications of technology, came with a special twist this year. Bypassing the here and now, it attempted to directly link yesterday and tomorrow: "Where did the future go?" was the big question during the two days in Geneva, and the program was carefully designed to draw lessons from "a history of the future" in order to develop more enlightened concepts for tomorrow. Re-booting the future, so to speak.

In keeping with the current grim economic mood, the conference bemoaned the shallow glory of sci-fi future visions that, to date, haven't lived up to their promise. What is worse though? Dystopian visions that have become real or utopian visions that haven't? For Patrick J. Gyger, a Swiss historian, curator, and writer, it is clearly the latter. He revisited former notions of the future and investigated what became of them: "What happened to the flying car?" Well, it actually made it to market, like many other product aspirations, yet without much fanfare. Or as Gyger dryly remarked: "The future is here and we're not impressed." Instead, a profound disillusionment with technology-driven visions of a better life has kicked in (space travel, end of poverty, the smart Internet, anyone?), and free-market capitalism has betrayed the idea of sustainable prosperity.

Nicolas Nova applied this retro-skeptical view to the world of business, walking the audience through "the recurring failure of holy grails." He presented a nonchalant history of product flops (from the picture phone to the smart fridge to location-based services), which were in his judgment all hampered by "over-optimism," "lack of knowledge," and "blind faith in the Zeitgeist." Yet I found his definition of product success flawed as it was obviously based on the principle of mass adoption – a questionable proposition in times of increasingly fragmented audiences and micro-markets. Which new product – besides maybe the iPod and the iPhone – has really gone mainstream in the past 10 years? Many of the products and technologies Nova stigmatized as "failures" have found their audience in some form and created significant value both for their inventors and consumers. Yet we simply fail to recognize their success since it occurs in market niches and communities.

Both Nova and Gyger heralded a more pragmatic model of future-oriented thinking. But I'm not sure if I share their skepticism toward grand visions. What if the future has arrived, however – to paraphrase William Gibson – it is so widely distributed (that is, buried in fragmented micro-markets) that we don't notice it?

In any case, for a no-show, the future was still suspiciously present at LIFT09. Matt Webb (co-author of "Mind Hacks") described "the pleasure of watching things unfold" and recommended a "narrative" process for invention and creation (of which his Olinda radio prototype is a brilliant example), highlighting in particular the role of writing in the context of design: "Design is a way of walking over the landscape of possible worlds."

Clive van Heerden, senior director of design-led innovation at Philips Design, showed some of Phillips' PROBES videos that explore 'emotional sensing' – from electronic tattoos to skin dresses to food creation.

Fabio Sergio, creative director at frog design's Milan studio, laid out the power of "design thinking for the future." He used the case study of Project Masiluleke (a large-scale initiative that leverages mobile technologies to combat HIV/AIDS in South Africa) to illustrate a model of design that "is not about creating compelling visions of perfect futures but rather shaping betas of presents of a future we want to live in." Quoting an Italian bus customer ("In the past you had to stamp the ticket. Now you simply have to caress the machine."), he spanned the arch from 'form follows function' to 'form follows emotion' to 'form follows meaning' (design that resonates with people's value systems). Empathy, technology as "material to sketch with," people-centered user experiences, and social impact – these are, according to Sergio, the characteristics of "meaningful design."

Empathy, in particular, is not only the foundation for meaningful social innovation projects (pro-bono or for-profit), it is also the very prerequisite for every act of human cooperation. Sympathy creates compassion, empathy breeds solidarity. However, solidarity does not always mean consensus, as UCLA's Ramesh Srinivasan pointed out. He suggested the indigenous use of digital objects and called for systems that "celebrate difference" instead of eradicating it. 

Finally, Bill Thompson's vision of the future was optimistically fatalistic or pessimistically upbeat, depending on your point of view. He rocked the house with a provocative obituary. "Privacy is dead," he argued passionately, "get over it!" Instead of complaining about this, Thompson pledged we should embrace the new freedom that comes with radical transparency. The abstract of his talk is so succinct that I simply want to repost it here verbatim:

"The enlightenment idea of privacy is breaking apart under the strain of new technologies, social tools and the emergence of the database state. We cannot hold back the tide, but we can use it as an opportunity to rethink what we understand by 'personality', how we engage and interact with others and where the boundaries can be put between the public and private. Those of us who are ahead of the curve when it comes to the adoption and use of technologies that undermine the old model of privacy have much to teach those who will come after us, and can offer advice and support to those who might be unhappy to have their movements, eating habits, friendships and patterns of media consumption made available to all. But every Twitterer, Tumblr, Dopplr or Brightkite user at Lift is sharing more data with more people than even the FBI under Hoover or the Stasi at the height of its powers could have dreamed of. And we do so willingly, hoping to benefit in unquantifiable ways from this unwarranted--in all senses--disclosure. I'll argue that we are in the vanguard of creating not just new forms of social organization but new ways of being human."

This new post-privacy era is not without risks: Thompson conceded that "some will suffer, some will even suffer imprisonment." But that wouldn't release us, the digital avant-garde, from our responsibilities. His mandate for the creative tech community assembled at LIFT09 was in fact a moral obligation: "You need to act as mentors for everyone living their life in the open."

I have, I do, I will.

On the occasion of Barack Obama’s nationwide TV prime time infomercials last night, Fast Company’s Ellen McGirt reviewed the campaign’s media strategy and in particular its innovative use of amateur (or “professional” amateur a.k.a. "promateur") video. While the Obama camp has heaped millions of dollars on traditional TV broadcasters, setting a new record for ad spending ($250 million), McGirt believes that the true winners in this campaign are amateurs and democracy

To get an insider’s perspective, McGirt interviewed Obama’s director of field video, Arun Chaudhary, at an event in July in New York. Some of the insights Arun shared were pretty amazing. You thought we’d live in an age of snack-size media? Think again!

One thing is clear: the Obama campaign - just awarded "marketer of the year" by AdAge -- has raised the bar for political communications and has created new ways of citizen engagement. During the last presidential election I was working towards a masters' degree in communications at the Annenberg School, and I remember that I wrote a lofty paper about “super-democracy,” in which I drafted a radically idealistic vision of a media-driven democracy in real-time. It’s amazing to see that four years later this has become a reality beyond my boldest imagination. Leveraging the power of new web technologies, the Obama campaign has transformed political media from something to watch to something to do.

This means of course that we citizens expect this form of participatory democracy, transparency, and authenticity to extend to the White House. Interactive visualizations of federal budgets and tax dollar spending, open platforms for public deliberation and collaborative decision-making, instant polling via mobile apps, RSS feeds with policy updates, and fireside video chats with the President are just some of the possible formats that come to mind for the New Governance Media Platform – McGirt is right: Obama and team are on the hook (if they win).

In a very special design mind event at NYU last week, we featured Arun Chaudhary, who is traveling with the Obama campaign as director of video field production. The conversation between him and Fast Company senior writer Ellen McGirt brought forth some surprising insights into the emergence of online video (and new media in general) as a crucial component of political campaigning.

Although Chaudhary is a NYU film school graduate, the venue didn't provide a home court advantage. The audience -- a cross-section of New York's media community -- was attentive but critical. As became clear in the ensuing Q&A session, the openness that has become such hallmark of the Obama campaign doesn't go far enough for some of the attendees. A representative from RemixAmerica.org -- a project that invites users to mash up the whole content library of America's history of politics (speeches, debates, campaign ads, etc.) -- argued that while masterfully utilizing the "engagement" potential of social media the campaign would ultimately fall short of walking the walk, shying away from including users in (co-)creating content and losing message control. In Obama's media universe, the "clickocracy" (The Washington Post) remains a meritocracy: Not "everybody is a media outlet" (Clay Shirky). But then again, why would the campaign open the flood gates for mash-ups when YouTube is already over-populated with them? Just search for Obama's recent Berlin speech and you'll see what I mean.

The fact that Chaudhary admitted that it's still a long way towards a campaign created "by the people for the people" ("we are just scratching the surface of this") supported the notion of openness more than revealing the lack thereof as a weakness (I wrote a while ago that one of the Obama brand's magic formulas is that it can turn weaknesses into strengths). Chaudhary was as genuine, smart, and eloquent as the candidate himself and not overly prepped with talking points for this speaking gig. The campaign didn't seem too concerned and controlling. If this implicit trust in their staff members as spokespeople was "by design," then Obama's spin doctors must really be exceptionally smart.

The other key takeaways of the evening were on demographics and viewing behavior. According to Chaudhary, the average viewer of videos on BarackObama.com and YouTube/BarackObama.com is 45-55 years old (not the pups you would expect in the heydays of the YouTube generation). Furthermore, and maybe even more surprising, those viewers prefer long-form content over the snippets everyone nowadays hails as the future of media. June Cohen, Executive Producer of TED.com, confirmed Chaudhary's stats by referring to her own TED Talks series -- a big online hit despite (or because of!) the typical running time of 20 min.

So, substance over style? Well, style matters, too. It is remarkable how Chaudhary's Obama videos are embracing a Jon Stewart-esque irony (as in "sovereign distance to subject"), using the instruments of satire and spoof (without ever drifting into caricature) to validate and enhance the intended message. Chaudhary not only deconstructs the opponent's videos (as he did with a fast response to Clinton's fear-mongering "3:00 AM" ad, starring the exact same girl that Clinton had used for her clip -- revealing her as an all-grown-up and fearless Obama supporter) but also his own. By doing so, he preempts any scrutiny of the medium's propagandistic intentions -- almost like clearing the air before you breathe.

This is a major difference to the use of online video in previous campaigns and only possible since video has become such a widely accepted part of mainstream media consumption. Precisely because everyone is now used to the authenticity of amateur videos on YouTube, and professional marketers have begun to mimic it for their own purposes, Chaudhary can make fun of it. Carefully curating Obama's not-so-funny jokes and stand-offish moments, Chaudhary's videos provide evidence that this candidate is real. The very questioning of authenticity verifies the authenticity. It's early nouvelle vague applied to new media: what you see is not what you get; it is already the reflection thereof. It's film-making that is fully aware of its persuasive power and thus carefully calibrates its messages.

It will be interesting to see whether Obama (and Chaudhary) can maintain this level of meta, irony, and self-deprecation if the candidate makes it into the White House. Campaigning by video is one thing, governing by video is another. When the campaign is over, Obama will have more than 700,000 friends on his Facebook page and still millions of eyeballs to his web sites. What will he do with them? Chaudhary hinted at the possibilities of "fireside video chats" and other public video forums. We shall see.

I will post a full-length video of the event later this week. In the meantime, enjoy some highlights:

...and some media and blog coverage:

Silicon Alley Insider: Obama's Video Guru Speaks: How We Owned the YouTube Primary, re-posted on The Huffington Post

TechPresident: Obama & Politics 2.0 Documenting History in Real Time

Mediabistro FishBowlNY: Live Twitter Stream from the design mind event

Disruptology: Everything You Know About Viral Video is Wrong

The Lessnau Lounge: Twitter Tweets about Obama as of July 16, 2008

Some random thoughts on design: Politics 2.0 and the Thirst for Content

In a recent blog post on the upcoming Fortune Tech summit, Fortune's senior editor David Kirckpatrick hinted at the possibility of having "a super-amazing special guest from outside the industry who we aren't yet able to announce. (Joining us at the original Brainstorms were Bill Clinton, Shimon Peres, Jordan's King Abdullah, and John McCain.) This visitor could make things really rock."

Hmm...who might that be? The magazine, in its current print issue, just examined both candidates' economic policies in a 1-to-1 comparison, and, in a not so subtle endorsement, chose to display Obama on the cover...

While we (frog design, my employer) won't be able to feature Obama himself, we will provide a look behind the scenes of his campaign. On July 16, at NYU, we'll host a very special Design Mind event with Arun Chaudhary, Obama's director of video field production.

EllenMcGirt from our co-host Fast Company, who wrote the magazine's April cover story on the "Brand Obama," is going to interview Arun -- about the impact of new media on this year's election, the new rules of political communication, and life on the campaign trail.

The National Journal writes that when Arun Chaudhary was a teenager, his father asked him why he didn't want to get into politics. "I can't, Dad," he recalled saying. "I have a funny name." Now Arun Chaudhary, the son of an immigrant Indian father and a Jewish mother, is as close to politics as one can be: He took leave from his day job -- professor at the NYU film school -- to become Barack Obama's videographer (or, so the official title, director of field production).

After 10 months on the campaign trail, Chaudhary has more than 850 videos posted (three of them below) on the BarackObama.com website and on YouTube. His short clips from Obama's town hall meetings, big rallies, and on-the-road moments draw an average of 10,000 viewers each, and they have become a main tenet of a campaign that has successfully translated the concept of web 2.0 (or however you want to call it), with its collaborative formats, micro-crowds, public deliberation, and social aggregation, into the realm of political communication.

A new type of political auteur in the age of YouTube, the 32-year old filmmaker has developed a unique style that is innovative, fresh, and -- like the candidate -- challenges convention. Obama's campaign is a networked, open-sourced, and interactive effort, as Henry Jenkins observed, and in this spirit of "from me to we," Chaudhary playfully (and with distinct irony) remixes elements of amateur-style video, traditional polit-documentary, CNN b-roll, slick TV commercial, cinematic production, and behind-the-scene outtakes into a vibrant, eclectic, and authentic voice of the campaign that is bigger than the sum of its parts. As the maker of moving pictures of a movement, he achieves what every great documentary filmmaker wants to achieve: To document and write history at the same time.

Arun Chaudhary will speak about his work for Obama and his experiences traveling with the campaign in a special edition of frog's Design Mind speaker series on July 16 in New York. The event will be videotaped, of course.

More details soon. Save the date!

Call it branded entertainment, advertising-as-content, or just brand-vertising: obviously inspired by TBS' veryfunnyads.com, which according to MediaPost claims more than 73 million views since launching last year, brands and advertisers are teaming up to push the envelope of online advertising even further. Recent example: Publicis Groupe, Droga5, and Digitas have joined forces to quietly launch what they had already announced in May this year--a site dubbed HoneyShed on which advertisers can air brand-specific programming. Clips can be shared by viewers via e-mail or embedded on blogs and other sites. HoneyShed also offers instant e-commerce: "I want it." The site is still in beta, and the demo spots currently on rotation--pretty goofy spoofs of infomercials--hint at what the agencies are hoping to establish here: a unique outlet for online brand-vertising that they can fully "own."

This is not the first attempt to challenge YouTube's gatekeeper position for viral video by establishing an alternative portal for sticky commercials closer to the original brand context. Microsoft and NBCU have launched Firebrand, an online and mobile platform to feature the "coolest" TV commercials. And NBCU's USA Network also plans to launch a site for new and classic TV spots next year. However, the branded portal spree may be a fad: Bud TV, Budweiser's proprietary user-generated entertainment channel, started off with high hopes that quickly diminished.

HoneyShed will face some daunting challenges, too. Having made it through the filter of the crowds, commercials with viral potential usually pop first on YouTube, and then float through the blogosphere. Only if HoneyShed manages to assert itself as a trusted destination for specialized branded entertainment, will it stand a chance to compete for a little piece of the large pie that the video portals own. To do so, it needs to build a critical mass of returning viewers. However, it is at least questionable--see Bud TV--whether there is more than just sporadic demand for brand-specific programming. I mean, one Sprite spot may be hilarious, but would you really want to have a regular feed of Sprite videos? For branded entertainment, you can reverse an old music biz proverb: it's the song and not the singer. Eyeballs are attracted by content, not brands. HoneyShed, therefore, must be either extremely good at curating content from myriad brands, or the brands themselves must be serious about becoming content companies.

The content shown on the site so far suggests the opposite. Sure, HoneyShed tries hard to tap into all the right trends: radical transparency (that is, blatant consumerism), social media features (social networking, embed/share capabilities), or conversational marketing (such as live chat facilities). But David Armano is right when he says that it still "feels like traditional advertising served up over the Internet."

If you want to talk about real innovation in online advertising, maybe life-casting is worth a look. Fast Company blogged about this awhile ago, and it's still a compelling idea: ads and product placements in live life-streams on networks like Justin.tv: "A Victoria's Secret shopping experience could be embedded onto the Web page where the video and chat are housed, with customers being enticed to click as each new outfit or item appears in the live video. The shopping experience would contain search functionality so that a customer could look up whichever item the current model is wearing and talking about."

For pessimists, this might mark the end of civilization (as we knew it), for web 2.0 acolytes it is an inevitable consequence of our new social media lifestyles: when social networking sites turn friends into business contacts and vice versa, when life-casts and mini-feeds exhibit each and every one of our acts and sentiments in real time, life itself might as well be utilized as the most powerful advertising format. To say that the boundaries between life and work, culture and commerce, private and public relations are becoming blurrier doesn't go far enough. They are not just becoming blurrier--these boundaries are in fact expanding as the new marketplaces for online interactions and transactions.