A couple weeks back this video dominated my newsfeed’s usual barrage of George Takei reshares. You’ve probably already seen it – a “freelance art director” yelling something at someone on his laptop. He then throws said laptop. Then he storms away. Fin.

Both audio and location were maddeningly opaque. Naturally, there was conjecture around the identity of the freelancer or the circumstances that lead to his mini blitzkrieg. I think I even saw a comment that ‘identified’ him.

It only took a day or so before the video receded back into the black maw of “yesterday’s news.” That is, until someone stepped up and took credit for it. Turns out the thing was a stunt spot for Asylum Artists – a teaser to a campaign that included a print, banner and email executions. According to Asylum Artists president Don Dixon, the spot was specifically intended to open agencies’ eyes to a brave new world of web content development.

If Facebook is any kind of judge, people were fooled. Hell, I was fooled. But does that make it an effective stunt?
Do you now see a clear association between a mystifying Art Director ragefest and the superior organizational skills of a motion/post-production facility?

Have at ‘er.

I’ve been around the interactive scene a long time. I’ve seen a lot of changes. Before my beard had grey in it, interactive was about creative, immersive experiences. It was about creating something hyper-imaginative and taking the consumer on a branded journey. There was no limit to what we could create (budget aside). As technology became more robust, so did our work. How deep could we go? Where could our imaginations lead consumers? Digital was a playground for creativity. With each execution, the industry carved out its own space. We defined it as we went along – free of constraints, guidelines, best practices. We were accountable. But not boxed in.

Now microsites are (mostly) a thing of the past. Mobile sites are more function than form. And social media is more about “connection” than creativity. Yes, there are a few shining examples of creative digital greatness. But look at the award shows. It’s mostly cookie cutter, user-generated dreck. In many ways I feel we’ve gone from sandbox to just plain old box.

Don’t get me wrong. I realize the industry has grown up. It had to. But in the process I feel we lost something. I guess I worry. I worry about the fate of digital creativity. I worry about the seeming regression. I worry about whether students and juniors are even interested in it. Notwithstanding the fact most creative are multidisciplinary, do they crave to be part of digital? Or is it just a big yawn? A box to be checked and nothing more?

Personally, I am hopeful. We have a ton of fabulous technology in our digital arsenal. Every day there is a new digital “something” waiting to be discovered and put to the test. My hope is that both creative and clients alike open the aperture beyond what you are doing right now. Rekindle your excitement and curiosity. Greatness will follow.

Jeffrey Koh is pursuing a PhD at the Mixed Reality Lab / Keio-NUS CUTE Center at the National University of Singapore and is a visiting research scholar at Keio University in Japan, where his research interests focus on various topics regarding interactivity and experiential design. His work can be found at http://www.fuckupayme.org and his recent talk at TEDxZurich can be found here.

________________________________________________

What do you love about interactive communication?

I think that most things we describe as “interactive communication” are actually more “reactive” then anything else. We tend to send a message using sound and vision, then wait for a response, after which we then respond in kind. True interactive communication is actually something very hard to replicate.

If we were to have this conversation face-to-face I think it would be far more interactive then me simply filling out a form of questions that were emailed me, or even having this conversation in real-time over something like video conferencing. In face-to-face communication we would be constantly processing so many un-articulated cues such as posture, hand movements and facial expressions. If we were excited about the subject matter our body temperature would increase and this would be communicated and processed by the other participant subconsciously. Pheromones would be flying between us; even the slightest electromagnetic fields as well as a change of gravity would occur if we were talking face-to-face in the physical presence of one another.

These phenomenon become a real challenge to replicate using current communication technologies. Much of the research conducted at my lab attempts to explore this though truthfully the research is still conducted at a fundamental level. In order to achieve a face-to-face type experience using digital technologies, we need to explore more than just hearing and seeing. We would need to engage all the senses over the network. This may never be fully achievable with digital technologies, but preliminary studies in modalities such as haptics (touch) show some promise, showing how being touched by someone – even mediated by a device – can have affect us as if we were touched in person. Still, we may need to explore biotechnologies as well.

It’s a promising picture for the future of interactivity, which is why I love the field of interactive communication so much.

Your education was in Fashion Photography, Semiotics and “Creative Practice for Narrative Environments.” How did they influence your projects?

I think doing a BFA allowed me to find my own process, and forced me to teach myself hard skills. My MA in CPNE helped me with my soft skills and research methodologies. I really learned to work in teams, for clients and for users.

All these experiences have become tools at my disposal for my PhD. At the PhD level, I have the opportunity to work on projects of a very fine-detailed nature. The combination of creative and analytical thinking as well as process-driven outcomes enable me to consider things beyond that of your average engineering researcher. My projects not only involve technical feasibility, optimization and robustness, but also consider user-centric factors such as aesthetics, ergonomics, usability, narrative and user experience.

You’ve recently spoken at TEDxZurich, introducing your experiments with liquid interfaces. Why is it necessary for new technologies to engage all of our senses, ideas and feelings?

Igniting an emotional response in people is simple. It is the curation of these emotional responses that is a challenge. When we are engaged with limited senses such as vision and hearing, our experience lacks the richness of engaging all our senses in conjunction with our intellect.

Sometimes this is appropriate; one would not want to necessarily smell an SMS from their gym mates. Still, if we are going to understand which modalities are appropriate for certain types of communications, then we need to at least attempt to research the others too. Research into synesthetic interfaces is one such research field.

Also, we are shifting away from a paradigm of sharing information into that of sharing experiences. This is a movement from the rational to the emotional. It is important that we maintain a balance of rational thinking and emotional experience; less we revert back to a population of moaning and meandering beasts. When I go clubbing I sometimes think this is already happening!

You have also been researching taste and smell communication. How will these technologies shape the way we communicate in the future?

Smell and taste is a research topic in my lab, and many of the students and researchers here explore various aspects of these very elusive senses. How smell and taste digitization and teleportation will manifest remains to be seen. When we invented the first car, it looked very much like a carriage without horses. It’s going to take a lot of time to fully realize the applications for such research.

Still, I can imagine its application in fields such as retail and tourism. Imagine tasting a vintage Pinot Noir from Tuscany from the comfort of your own home? Or being able to compare perfume bouquets online? I think this is just the tip of the iceberg and many, much more imaginative applications are waiting to be discovered.

During your time researching and conducting experiments with new technologies, what has been the most mind-blowing thing you have ever seen?

Good question. So much to choose from! Probably this.

After having lived in North America, Europe and Asia, have you noticed any differences or trends in people’s willingness and ability to adapt to new technologies?

I do see some informal trends. Geography plays a part in this, but I also think cultural environment and community contribute greatly.

While I was in the Netherlands studying Media Arts, I found that my fellow students were working with technology in such playful ways. There was no constraint in terms of technical feasibility. This was so refreshing. Imagine knowing how to use a camera inside out. If you believe you know every aspect of a thing, then you allow no room for experimentation and exploration. In some sense, all that people need to know is the record button. Once you know that, ones imagination could lead them to some very interesting and poetic outcomes.

How would you like to see marketing initiatives evolve and embrace new technologies?

I find that although there are many creative campaigns, the confines of a client’s vision is limited. This limits creativity in all marketing initiatives, as the money has to come from somewhere. The use of resources is conditional, so the willingness to “blue-sky” is limited. Realistically it is very hard for a business to conduct research and experimentation if it does not lead to profit.

It’s risky, but exploring the applications of cutting-edge technologies can lead to fruitful outcomes for companies. Sure, instant noodles are one of my main sources of dietary fiber. Still, I do enjoy a glass of champagne and a bit of surf-n-turf on occasion. All jokes aside, it is a tough suggestion to implement, which is why I left the creative industry to pursue research.

However, if your creative agency is interested in an experimental research and development wing, drop me a line.

What is the most impressive interactive campaign you have seen?

Call me jaded but I haven’t seen anything in the interactive campaign sector that has wowed me, at least as much as I have been wowed in the academic research field. This being said, the use of mobile technologies provides a bespoke experience for the audience of interactive campaigns. One particular thing I admire is the Lego’s agility in a digital age. Their augmented reality kiosks and Lego sets are pretty cool.

What is you favorite app right now?

I have two. My first favorite app at the moment is Pulse for the iPad which helps me consume content like a ravenous madman. Close second is Evernote, which I use on my work computer (Mac Mini), home computer (Macbook), iPad and Blackberry. When I have an idea and need to jot it down, Evernote is a peerless tool.

What kind of smart phone do you have?

I have a Palm Pre 2, an iPhone 3G and a Samsung Galaxy, which I use mostly for development. I use a Blackberry 9900 for my day-to-day life. I am Canadian and RIM is Canadian so I try to support our homegrown companies for the sake of the failing Canadian telecommunications industry. The demise of Nortel still makes me shed a tear.

What would your dream project be?

My dream project is directing a research lab in which imagination is the key motivation, and research hinges on creative, left-field technologies, applications and interaction experiences. I know this is unrealistic in this day and age. Still, I think that if we are going to evolve our culture and society, we need playgrounds for our imagination.

There seems to be an imaginary line between the place where creativity ends and production begins. It’s an understandable misconception in a world where some people are labeled “creative” and others, by virtue of lacking that label, are not.

I believe that this myth of the non-creative represents a missed opportunity.

Agencies go out of their way to recruit individuals not only of skill, but also of talent. Everyone from Accounts people to QA people have perspectives, experiences, and above all ideas that can be leveraged to create a superior product.

The unfortunate truth is that these ideas frequently go unheeded. Our processes are designed like a factory, with each piece proceeding from person to person, group to group, while missing out on some of the true collaboration that most people espouse as being the ideal.

I think the best example of this missed opportunity can often be spotted in the development community. In a creative-driven agency, developers become (to borrow an analogy from one of my esteemed colleagues) Christmas Elves. Letters are sent to Santa from creatives in the form of PSDs, and on delivery morning full-blown sites, apps, and Facebook pages are mysteriously waiting under the tree, as if delivered by a jolly old elf with a penchant for red clothing and cookies.

No one knows what interesting and absurd tricks technology can perform better than those who manipulate it for us. No one is better situated to discover new technology that we can take advantage of than the people who spend their days immersed in it.

The stumbling block in this instance seems to be a fear that technical considerations may bog down the creative process, and I have little doubt that this is sometimes true – but technology in itself can also be a creative driver.

Designers and copywriters are an irreplaceable asset and the importance of their contributions cannot be downplayed, but it’s important to remember that ideas can grow from unexpected places: information architects, developers, producers, QA analysts, you name it.

Many of these folks – these unsung creative people – have great ideas of how to apply their specialty in fun and novel ways. Try involving one in your creative process today – you have nothing to lose, and might just find the great insight that drives your next award-winning campaign.

As Grip’s resident mobile marketing expert a number of colleagues and clients have asked me on numerous occasions for my thoughts on Augmented Reality or “AR” as those in know call it. In particular, is it the right medium to use and if so, how?  My response is typically – perhaps infuriatingly – similar in every case: “it depends.”

Here’s why.

Augmented reality when used correctly can provide a truly immersive, fun and entertaining experience for the user. Whether looking at a virtual reality view of the world through your mobile device, engaging with a product in 3D via a in-store kiosk or interacting with cool and exciting characters through OOH advertising on the big screen, AR can provide a lot of value and buzz. Of course there is also a downside to utilizing AR. The cost of production can be high particularly when compared to the net value. An augmented reality experience via mobile device requires the creation and development of a mobile app at potentially great expense for each platform used (e.g. iPhone, Android, Blackberry). Similarly, a kiosk or OOH augmented reality display can also be expensive to design and develop for consumer view. After cost has been factored in, what about value? Does the augmented reality experience provide a one-time only novelty interaction for the consumer or does it provide greater long term utility and relevance? How do we measure ROI?

Regardless of the pros or cons of going with an AR experience, here are a few examples of AR that range from the good to the bad & ugly (literally):

Good = Stella Artois, Lego and National Geographic
The Stella Artois Le Bar Guide mobile app provides great utility for consumers and fans of Stella Artois who are looking for a bar or pub that stocks their favourite beverage. Simply launch the mobile app and scan your surrounding area to find the nearest pub and get directions to go there.

Lego has created a fun in-store kiosk experience that enables consumers to easily see what the Lego product will look like when fully built. Consumers just hold the box up to the kiosk camera and a virtual view of the product in animated 3D suddenly appears to entertain and dazzle the viewer.

National Geographic has created a simple method for larger groups of consumers to view an AR experience all at once and enjoy the magic of wild animals and pre historic creatures coming to life before their eyes.  Consumers who stood on a special spot on the floor would trigger the start of the AR experience on the big screen for all to see.

Bad = Mosquito

Swatting imaginary mosquito’s in your home through your mobile device is likely not the best use of an augmented reality experience designed to engage and entertain.  This execution lacks any of the game play or entertainment needed to captivate someone beyond a few seconds of interacting with it.

Ugly = Makeup Girl Utilizing an augmented reality kiosk for women to see what makeup products will look like on their face before actually buying them would appear to have strong merit.  However, this kiosk turns “ugly” in more ways then one when the end result makes the women look worse than they did before trying the product.

All this to say that there are a couple questions you should ask yourself before jumping into the AR bandwagon. The first being whether you have a legitimate utility or insight that you can uniquely tap into, and the second being whether your execution is up to snuff.
The thrill of augmented reality is the secondary dimension to reality that it offers. There’s an inherent magic to the technology that must be respected. If that magic is abused for the purposes of reactive marketing, well – things can get ugly.

Google visited Grip a couple weeks ago and left us with a lovely parting gift: the Google 2011 Creative Canvas. This book is full of the most memorable campaigns of 2011 – each of which used Google platforms as their canvas. We use their four categories as a helpful guide for our own ideation sessions:

• Tell Stories. Google’s examples from 2011 include variations of the surprise-and-delight site takeover like Peugeot’s Race Course or Heineken’s use of Facebook Connect to incorporate your friends’ faces into their party video
• Empower and Inform. Nike gives immersive Lacrosse info on the field in freeze-frame
• Invite Expression. Fast and Furious 5 used Google Maps to race through actual streets and let you design your own course on home roads
• Evoke Emotion. Tropicana used YouTube Annotations to promote their gazpacho soup

Google also included great little Google facts throughout the book, for example

• New vehicle buyers spend 19 hours shopping for a vehicle; 11 of those hours are online
• The White House uploads 17 videos/week to YouTube
• 7 years of new video are posted to YouTube each day

From maps to measurement tools, Google has provided an amazing suite of tools for creative use. Judging from their examples (and valuable statistical insights), the opportunities for creative, resonant work are endless. Anybody have other great creative YouTube, Google+ or Rich Media examples to share?

An illustration from graphic designer Eric Neale, outlining the “two types” of people in advertising.

Via: Eric Neal’s website

Since the dawn of time, artists, musicians, and designers have been known to steal borrow ideas from one another. Even Mr. Picasso said that “good artists copy but great artists steal.” Sure we all benefit from the output of those who have walked similar paths, but where is the line drawn?

H&M recently found out.

Recently the hot clothing retailer was busted on what appears to be blatant design theft. A couple weeks ago, artist Tori LaConsay was notified by her friends that H&M UK was selling a design that was eerily close to the painting she created for her hometown. Tori’s artwork and H&M’s line of similarly-printed housewares were a little too close for comfort, so she did what any annoyed artist would do; she contacted H&M to find some answers.

This was H&M’s response:

We employ an independent team of over 100 designers. We can assure you that this design has not been influenced by your work and that no copyright has been infringed.

This particular response didn’t satisfy Tori. So she didn’t stop there. Even her friends got involved. At one point, an email was sent to H&M’s customer complaint department requesting compensation for Tori’s design. Until such action is taken, Tori’s friend said, they would no longer shop at H&M.

H&M’s response: “We are sorry you will no longer be shopping with us.”

Any comment on the H&M facebook page was deleted and swept under the rug, but I think it’s fairly obvious what has taken place here. Luckily after much pressure from their fan group, H&M finally relented and posted this:

Note the number of “likes,” “comments” and “shares.” Transparency was something the fan group clearly appreciated.

Was it wrong for H&M to borrow a concept from a young artist? Well, per Mr. Picasso, that all depends on whether you think that the communication arts should – or can – always rely on entirely novel, unique concepts. Chances are, they don’t. Everything is borrowed. Everything is a permutation. In this case, the content was a direct lift. But interestingly enough, at no point did those defending the artists decry the use of the artwork in an H&M ad. They condemned the fact that H&M wasn’t transparent with their use – and therefore with their compensation. So the issue becomes one of attribution and collaboration.

Brands and community managers would do well to constantly recall that the Internet is all-seeing, all-knowing. Collaboration with young artists shouldn’t be considered a threat to brand voice or novelty, but rather an opportunity. In this case, H&M revealed the immense opportunity that brands have to elevate unknown, willing artists into the public eye. The big guys help the little guys. Collaboration creates something exciting and new. The audience appreciates the brand’s honesty, and the artist’s success story. Everyone wins.

From the moment it entered our homes, we have looked to television as a staple medium of news and entertainment. For advertisers it was a boon – the game-changing placement opportunity before the dawn of the web.

The two mediums have been circling each other for some time, and it appears that they have finally gotten married. Totally Amp’d, an app-based TV show, is excusing itself from the network model to pursue the mobile generation. Totally Amp’d is, in fact, a teen sitcom designed for exclusive streaming through smartphones and tablets. The show follows a group of five teens, as they dream their way into becoming the next big pop group. Alongside the story, their kid/tween-aged audience are offered a suite of immersive tools that allow them to enter the world and play at becoming a music producer, stylist or videographer.

Content distribution channels have extricated themselves from the network model for a while now. iTunes has been selling existing TV shows for years, news networks have been streaming their broadcasts, and Netflix has been offering syndicated content. Even web-based series have developed their own “networks” with Revision 3, Funnyordie.com and College Humor. But where does this leave advertisers? Totally Amp’d completely removes networks from the picture, and, being a paid app, it also pretty much eliminates dependence on advertising dollars. Instead of offering up spots, advertising has been forced to reconcile or reconsider its role. In some cases, product placements, sponsorship credits, or co-creation programs.

Is building a pay-walled garden troubling to the ad world? Only time will tell. But I believe much like everything else, the content will be king (as cliche as that sounds.) Innovative or not, if people don’t like the programming, they won’t watch it. So the question becomes how advertisers can capitalize on compelling programming. Should they focus on getting in the door by paying promising content producers for a cameo credit? Or is there greater opportunity in upping the ante on budgets, escaping the confines of :30 storytelling to embrace a brand-focused series of their own? If this new distribution channel changes the game, where is the greatest opportunity?