Strategy Buying into plotlines

Product placement is so ubiquitous that it hardly needs an [...]

read
Design Your brand is your user experience

There’s a lot to be said for the growing field [...]

read
Digital Merry Amex-mas (Augmented Fun From Down Un)

Here’s a nice little present from American Express in Australia. [...]

read
Culture Where do you stand on SOPA and PIPA? read

Big Orange Slide

Sunday, February 5th, 2012

Vinyl comes full circle

January 28, 2010 by David Faris

Illustration by David Faris

An unexpected resurgence has taken place in the music marketplace: vinyl is back. In a media landscape that’s moving overwhelmingly in an digital direction, the strong comeback of a seemingly outdated analog format is nothing less than paradigm-challenging. What’s behind the trend, and are there implications for other media? Let’s take a step back.

The traditional evolution of media has always been linear. It is driven forward by technological advance at an ever-accelerating pace.

Over the past 30 years, recorded music has been marketed in a variety of different formats: First, the analog media of vinyl and audio tape, then digital formats (CD, MiniDisc, etc.), and finally audio files (MP3).

A similar progression has taken place in home video, moving from VHS to DVD to downloadable media, while consumer recording and camera technology followed suit. And when competing formats arrive on the marketplace at the same time, it’s survival of the fittest, or perhaps “survival of the best marketed,” as the VHS vs. Betamax or DCC vs. MiniDisc wars confirmed.

Vinyl_quote1

As demand for physical copies of albums and films has diminished with the predominance of home computers and digital media players, it seems incredible that an antiquated medium such as the vinyl record would return to retail shelves. But stranger things have happened. It would be unthinkable, for instance, for Super 8 home movie cameras to suddenly reappear on the market, or for VHS to have a second life. But in an industry that’s seen a steady decline in sales for more than a decade, vinyl was one of the big success stories of 2009.

Rolling Stone magazine recently reported that vinyl sales jumped 37% in 2009, “an unexpected bright spot in the slumping retail music market . . . a record in the CD era” (Issue #1093, Dec. 10, 2009). Similarly, Toronto’s weekly, NOW ran a sidebar to its Jan. 14, 2010 cover story, asking the question “Is vinyl the new black?” The piece quoted an unprecedented 37% rise in vinyl sales in Canada in 2009, as well as noting that a new vinyl-pressing plant, RIP-V, had opened in Quebec – a clear indication that a significant demand for the medium exists and is expected to continue.

What is it about this medium that gives it such staying power? In truth, vinyl records never really disappeared completely, but the format did make a decisive exit from the mainstream. Audiophiles, record collectors, and music fanatics have always gravitated to the format, and it’s been kept alive in various music communities, such as dance, hip hop, punk, and jazz. The nostalgia factor certainly comes into play, as the vinyl record is a direct link to music of decades gone by. The tangible, tactile experience of listening to music on a turntable has not been carried into the iPod generation, and perhaps the proliferation of cheap USB turntables has inadvertently sparked some new interest in vinyl records.

Corus Entertainment tapped into this nostalgic link in late 2009, when it rebranded its Hamilton country station to a new “classic hits” format, naming it Vinyl 95.3 FM, with the tagline “Tune into your memories.”

And it keeps going: Vinyl racks have returned not only to your local High Fidelity-style indie music retailer, but to large chains such as HMV and Sunrise Records. Even big-box giant Best Buy is selling records – confirmation that the demand is being taken seriously on a mainstream level.

So while larger music retailers have had to diversify to hawking DVDs, video games, books, and digital music players and accessories to stay alive, it’s strange to see old fashioned albums back on display. It’s not like vinyl’s going to recapture the market in a big way . . . still its presence has been duly noted and embraced.

Besides stalwart labels such as Sundazed and Rhino Records reissuing classic albums on high-quality 180-gram wax, it has become almost compulsory for any notable new release to be pressed on vinyl. And saavy music labels have made it a win/win prospect to purchase the vinyl edition, by including a free download code so that consumers can receive a digital copy of the release to add to their MP3 player.

You can’t listen to your hot new vinyl purchase on the streetcar on your way to work, after all.

Vinyl_quote2

The return of the vinyl record album is also good news for the design world. Packaging has always been an important component of music releases, helping define the identity of an album and the brand identity of the band. But in the MP3 era, record covers have been reduced to thumbnail jpegs, a fact bemoaned by designers and music enthusiasts alike. Designers will no doubt savour the opportunity to work large again, and embrace a format that has in the past allowed for much innovation in type design, photography, and packaging.

Whether the dramatic upswing in vinyl sales is merely a temporary, nostalgia-driven trend, or a more long-term phenomena, it remains a landmark turn of events in the evolution of media.

Perhaps vinyl records simply offer something that can’t be duplicated in the digital domain. There is a place for them in the marketplace despite the overwhelming dominance of MP3 players. As Apple has proven over the years, it isn’t necessary to be the biggest player in the market to be a strong presence and a survivor.

So it seems there is indeed a place in the market for both apples and oranges. Make that apples and round black discs.

Web X.X

November 12, 2009 by Jacoub Bondre

Image by Brian Ross

Or, how the Web was won – and branded.
The other day someone asked me if I thought we had made it to Web 3.0 yet. Good question, but I’m not sure I agree with the terms of the discussion.

Let me explain:

Web “version” is a misnomer.
Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, once described the term “Web 2.0” as a “piece of jargon”:

“Nobody really knows what it means . . . If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people-to-people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.”
– “Web 2.0” on Wikipedia.

In other words, the web is a continuum. Much like time, space and the universe. It is constantly changing and evolving. New technologies emerge and disappear regularly, and there is no defined timeframe for these occurrences.

Proponents of web versioning explain that Web 2.0 represents a new usage of the web that facilitates interactive information sharing, interoperability, user-centred design and collaboration on the World Wide Web. This sentiment has been repeated time and again. I’m not so sure.

Social networking isn’t new . . .
Remember BBSes? Those modem-to-modem Bulletin Board Systems that were popular long before the web was? As the web progressed, BBSes turned into user and news groups, then into forums and blogs, and finally to their current iteration of micro-blogs (Twitter, Facebook).

. . . neither is the technology.
Some argue that the second version of the web is defined by its technologies. Ajax is the primary example. But what is Ajax? (Other than an acronymn for “Asynchronous JavaScript + XML”?) It is a technique in which you use JavaScript and XMLHttpRequest to update data on a page without a page refresh. The technologies used to achieve this have been around long before Web 2.0. Just ask Sun Microsystems. They introduced Java Applets way back in 1995.

The reality is the web is not a piece of software that can be defined by development cycles, but a medium. And as will all media, they change and they mature. This change is gradual and constant, much like the growth and development of a human being.

So if the web’s not new, why are people versioning it?

We wanted to be digital pioneers – again.
There are two reasons the web has been versioned. The first involves ownership.

When the web was first gaining popularity, it was a brave new world. Being a web designer or a developer was exciting and respected. The people involved in the early stages of the web were breaking new ground on a medium that would change society on a global scale. They were pioneers.

As things evolved, the mystique, and adventure began to wane. The divide between the good, and not so good web professionals grew. The digital revolution had similar effects on many related professions. Suddenly being a web designer or graphic designer could mean anything from creating a pamphlet and site for a local church, to working on rock posters, to creating compelling interactive pieces for major brands. The playing field got muddy and mixed up. And so, in the early to mid-2000s you had an industry of web professionals looking to re-capture their glory days.

And we needed something new to sell.
And that brings us to the primary reason the web was versioned. In the early 2000s the dot-com bubble burst. Faith in the miracles of Silicon Valley was at an all-time low, and the economy of start-ups and investments had dried up. Investor confidence was shaken to its foundations. People stopped buying.

Web professionals, and technology evangelists (yes that’s a real job title) could not sell the web. The web was unstable, a poor investment, or at least it was in the eyes of those who held the purse strings. Even if there was a company, service, or product that had legitimate value it was very difficult to get the money necessary to develop it.

One of the victims of the bubble burst were publisher of technology training books. Many of us can remember going into a Walmart, Zellers, or Chapters during this time and seeing bins full of discount computer training books. One of the more prominent companies had an idea. Enter Tim O’Reilly of O’Reilly Media.

In 2004 O’Reilly Media held the “Web 2.0” conference. In one swift, simple, industry-relevant turn of a phrase, O’Reilly filled the needs of both new web professionals looking for meaning in their carries, and gave the venture capitalists in Silicon Valley something new to sell.

Introducing the all-new, completely redesigned Internet!
Web 2.0 was new, yet familiar. Business people were already confortable the idea of software versions, and had seen how new versions of software often improved on the former. Software was a technology and so was the internet. The jump in logic was easy for those with little knowledge of the industry. Combine this new term with the success of newly labeled technologies such as Google Maps, and Youtube, and investors opened their pocket books again.

Along with this new buzz word came new demand. Web professionals with 2.0 skills were in demand again. Professionals with the skill level to leverage these existing technologies in new ways could finally separate themselves from the masses. A second Renaissance, and a new bubble, was created.

Just like the first dot-com bubble, there were legitimate businesses and technologies, and not-so-legitimate ones. For every Facebook there are dozen of also-rans that get money from investors but failed to connect. The difference now is that investors are more cautious, and the failure of one start-up does not generate enough fear and panic to take down all of them.

Was the versioning of the web a bad thing? Likely no. It helped restore a struggling industry and helped all of us in the world of interactive move forward in our careers. It also helped, and will continue to help, break down communication barriers globally. But I’d argue that those benefits are just a by-product of versioning the web. The real intention was to make money, and it worked.

As for Web 3.0 . . .
Are we there yet? No, and we will likely not be until the industry as a whole needs us to be. Many people have tried to use Web 3.0 as a tool to sell new technologies and ideas, but we need to reach industrial consensus before we’ll be ready to move forward with that label. And until there is an event, whether crisis or celebration, that will galvanize the industry again, Web 2.0 will likely stand.

Social alienation

September 23, 2009 by Jon Finkelstein

alienNation_facebook

Let me start by saying I love technology and advertising. I consider myself to be part of the Technoratti – an early adopter of all things digital. I cannot go a day without my computer, my iPhone, or internet. But as I hovered to work in my hybrid-powered techno-bubble, Tweeting to anyone who may care to follow, something clicked. Not my iPhone; my mind. It occurred to me why social media is such an important cultural phenomenon: it’s the direct result of social and technological alienation and our deep feelings of selflessness.

Don’t think so? Then ask yourself this: Has there ever been a time in history where individual humans have been more isolated, more lacking in self-esteem, so unhappy? I don’t think so.

Now, I am not trying to get all Marxist on you. But it seems to me that digital communication is filling a void in our lives created by our lack of real, physical human interaction and our deepening isolation from one another. Sure we ichat, MSN, email, and SMS. But the more we do, the greater the emotional deficit.

Enter Facebook and Twitter. Finally digital platforms to make it all better. A social networking tool to connect old friends, make new acquaintances, and enrich our daily lives. We can all get real time updates on the minutia of one another, which makes us feel close.

I learn new things too. Friends post interesting links, review products, and even unwittingly suggest future holiday locations for my family as I browse their pictures and videos.

Update: Marcia just played the Mafia Wars Lottery!

I revel in it all. I do, really. I love self-important Tweets, too. But don’t we beat our chests virtually, all in the name of overcompensation? I believe we do it to reaffirm our very existence. And this, I believe, is a direct result of diminishing self-worth.

alienNation_twitter

Doubt it? Take a look at TweetingTooHard.com. Why else would someone post “I’ve probably received fellatio in a stretch limo more times than you’ve ever ridden in a limo. Actually, there’s no probably about it.” Whether it’s serious or ironic, it exists nevertheless.

But here’s another update for you. The more I Tweet and the more I Facebook, the more isolated I actually feel. The more friends and followers I have, the less fulfilled I become. Here’s why. The number of followers and friends is more than cultural currency. It is actually a measure of popularity which is inextricably linked to self-worth. Why, otherwise, would both Facebook and Twitter so clearly list our statistics? The person with 500 friends is clearly superior to the guy with a mere 50. He is either a loser or a late-adopting philistine – both equal on the social stigma ladder.

So I collect friends. I Tweet hoping someone is listening. But rather than augment my feelings of self-worth, it has the opposite effect. Seems like it all magnifies and quantifies my own insignificance. I am ashamed to admit it, but I am saddened when – despite efforts to be pithy, interesting or topical – I don’t always get comments, likes, retweets or @ mentions.

The inverse is true. I am elated when someone takes the two seconds to click “like” on my posts or go the extra mile to comment. Like an addictive substance, I crave more and more. But with each successive personal encounter, I get less and less from it.

This brings me to the crux of it all; Why social media campaigns, when done right, are so successful right now. Seems to me that engaging consumers in this way hits the part in their brain that longs for recognition at precisely the time they need it most. In other words, when brands ask consumers to vote on new packaging, name a new flavour, create a commercial or even decide the fate of their long-time TV spokesman (like Grip did with the Kokanee Ranger), we feel at LAST that we matter. We can influence. We can be heard. We’re not alone. We matter to someone, even if that someone is a brand not a person!

But how long will this euphoria last? How long before we become immune to the thrill? Not long, I wager. Because we are all so savvy, so demanding, so quick to bore.

That’s why I think we will we see a renaissance of live events (spectacles even) where contact is king. We’re already seeing other human forms coming full circle.pullQuote_black

Take retail shopping. It went from neighbourhoods where we walked, talked, and touched to gargantuan downtown “power centres”. We moved on to isolated suburban strip malls and finally to impersonal yet convenient ecommerce where we need not, touch, smell or talk to anyone. Now there is a resurgence of downtown neighbourhood shopping. The revitalization of John Street – the street, not the agency.

Even supermalls like Don Mills Centre are mirroring old world models. It’s being touted as Ontario’s “first Urban Village” that includes a central square, water feature and clock tower. I think they’re on to something.

In our human quest to connect more meaningfully, will social media and digital really be the great facilitator? I think so. Flash mobs are becoming mainstream. Go to flashmob.com. Google T-Mobile. The day after MJ passed, I got a Facebook invite to attend a flashmob in his honour. I love it when social media bridges the gap between digital and physical, like JustBought.it. This site incorporates Twitter and maps to pinpoint where people are buying cool stuff. There’s a marketing op in there, I bet.

Social media is here to stay. And I certainly don’t doubt it’s power, reach or influence. But I think to be most effective as a marketing tool it needs to bring us out into the physical world where we can talk, touch, and smell. In return, I believe we will all begin to rediscover ourselves and we will be happier, more fulfilled and less needy. And if brands can be the ones responsible for such meaningful interactions, they will be rewarded with consumer loyalty and our deepest gratitude.

Follow me: @jonnogtv. Please?