Matter/Anti-Matter

(Credit: Palm)

Underwhelming--that's the word that comes to mind when I look at the new Palm Treo Pro.

Yes, nicer looking for sure, with a strong influence from the lower-cost Centro model (and looking rather like the upcoming BlackBerry Bold). It also has 3G and Wi-Fi, which is great, the newest version of Windows Mobile, and GPS, though these can also be found on existing competitors. So it's got a decent package of features, but what's so compelling about it that isn't offered elsewhere?

In this day and age, offering a screen that takes up less than 50 percent of the device, especially with as big borders around it as the Pro has, just doesn't cut it. I'm not suggesting touchscreen only here, as I definitely prefer typing on a physical keyboard to tapping on a virtual one, but really, even a business-oriented device like this one is going to be used to show off photos, look at Web pages, etc., which all benefit from a large screen. The 320x320 screen has been the Palm standard for years now. Heck, even the Palm Tungsten T3 I had four years ago had a 50 percent bigger screen, albeit without a physical keyboard. The Pro's screen already looks small, and will look even more diminutive over its product lifecycle given how slowly Palm brings out new models.

Size-wise the Pro is almost identical to a BlackBerry, though longer. It's fatter than the iPhone. So there's no real advantage in pocketability or bragging rights there.

The talk time and battery life are good, but the 2-megapixel camera is ho-hum.

In this video Palm talks about how the Windows interface is great because it mimics what people are used to on their desktops. Ironically, as Rob Haitani, the software architect for Palm back in the day, used to say: the whole philosophy of the original Palm OS was that you should not try to mimic a big-screen mouse/screen environment, because it was not optimized for small-screen direct touch interactions. Transferring desktop interaction patterns onto a handheld was just not efficient, and that's why the early versions of Windows Mobile were slow to use. Now that it has adopted the Windows platform exclusively, Palm has to sing the opposite song.

Palm got a lot right in its earliest models, but it has struggled to stay innovative and focused in the last few years.

In the video, Palm also talks about how it wanted to take care of all the little details. It looks like the company has done that. But by focusing on the small things Palm's come up with a device that treads water in the market. There are no big things that really push the boat out further compared with other smartphones. There are no marquee features that really stand out in an increasingly large and diverse crowd. With the current state of the smartphone market, that's just not good enough to move the needle on Palm's dwindling market share and attract new customers to the Palm brand.

(Credit: Durbin Media)

Brand designers, on the other hand, are on the surge, especially in the digital space. Their task is not to manage a brand but to creatively co-shape its appearance on the Web, such that it becomes a viral conversation. Increasingly, brands are built (and destroyed) on blogs and Web sites, so that there is a strong need for experts who understand brand in the context of online interaction paradigms. Digital branding experts know that nowadays brand architecture is largely congruent with the information architecture on the corporate Web site--and brand identity is made of the content that is disseminated to online audiences through search results, online ads, blogs, campaigns, and micro-sites. At last, brand designers dispel separations that have been artificial anyway, establishing a brand-new equation: brand experience is user experience is user interface design. Digital branding is branding. And your Web strategy is your brand strategy and vice versa.

Traditional interactive agencies see this as an opportunity and have started adding brand design to their services portfolio. One notable example is New York-based agency R/GA, which recently launched its new Brand Design practice, led by Marc Shillum, who previously worked at TBWA, London, Wieden + Kennedy and BBH, along with a post at Netherlands-based design firm Studio Dumbar. In an interview with Creativity, Shillum asks for a more holistic view on branding: "Hopefully, what we're going to bring (at Brand Design) is a seamless experience. There are lots of digital companies that do 'customer-up' communication and a lot of branding agencies that do 'brand-down' communication, which results in a 400-page book sitting on somebody's desk that you've got to follow. What we're trying to do now is form an idea and an expression of an idea in one place."

Brand, user experience design, product design, marketing communications, PR, online advertising, etc.--what we're seeing is an increased convergence of all these creative disciplines. It is not a matter of strategic choice, more a necessity: The truth is that today's consumers demand that all these disciplines converge. As their experience of a brand spans different platforms, media, and technologies, ranging from the TV ad, blog review, the retail purchase, the out-of-the-box experience, to online customer support, the creative disciplines must, too. A seamless, convergent consumer experience requires seamless creative convergence--which means that there is not much tolerance anymore for agency-to-agency hand-offs in between. Branding is a "city that never sleeps." Creative firms that embrace this new brand continuum will win.

So says Robin Good in his provocative post on the Brand Ambassador, in which he touts highly credible and authoritative bloggers as the advertising channel of the future.

Good envisions "bottom-up advertising with publishers selecting the favorite brands they would want to endorse." And further: "In reality bloggers or other similar online authority figures could publicly pre-elect companies and brands that they would want to be Brand Ambassadors for. They could do this directly on their sites and/or via their representative advertising agencies. This advertising model would provide companies embracing it with a communication vehicle with much higher impact and effectiveness that anything they have done so far via traditional advertising."

But how would bloggers be able to maintain their authority (which is, of course, based on trust) if they're paid to endorse a brand (even if they truly believed in it)?

Good has an answer to that, too:

"Yes, you say, but you are going to be influenced by those who pay you. Yes, I answer. But so do you with the people that spend big money on your site with traditional advertising. And if that is not so, how in any case can people tell? How can they find out whether the new review, article or link you did was a consequence of a return favor you are doing to an advertising agency or to a past direct advertiser who would want to come back? Unless you have some very strict, and public disclosure policy about this info, it is going only through your actions over time that people will be able to tell whether you have your own integrity or whether you are simply a marketing puppet at the service of whoever pays you more."

So, in the end, Good's model would make things more transparent and actually increase the level of trust between bloggers and their audience. And that again would raise the value for the advertiser.

(Credit: iPlot)

Last week in Hamburg, Germany, I had the pleasure of lunching with a SPIEGEL editor in the iconic news magazine's iconic canteen, or "Spiegelkantine," as the Germans call it. The extravagance of the interior design (created by Danish designer Verner Panton, who worked with Arne Jacobson, in the 70s) -- a lavish, ultra-red cave with highly disruptive stalactites hanging from the ceiling -- is reminiscent of "Clockwork Orange" and so ostentatiously out of line with the earnest, purist, social democratic SPIEGEL culture that it appears to be almost deliberately cynical -- and that again is very SPIEGEL.

The daily lunch parade in the "Kantine" is one big catwalk for all SPIEGEL staff and their guests. It seems to obey secret laws (for example, don't stand too close to the kitchen door or you will be yelled at by waitresses who happen to be scarier than Lufthansa flight attendants). There is of course also a secret eating order, and violating it can have grave consequences -- the place breeds gossip. It is the stage for the cruelest and most narcissistic (thank you, John Edwards, for bringing this word back to the American mainstream vocabulary) cabal. Just recently, the editorial team ousted its long time and very successful editor-in-chief, Stefan Aust. And it probably began with a conspiracy in the canteen.

The "Spiegelkantine" is a time-stands-still venue that catapults you back into the heyday of investigative journalism. Like the design of its canteen, the SPIEGEL today is a strange mix of nostalgia and progressivism. Although its best days may have passed, you can never write it off: Just lately the magazine left its mark again on the stage of world politics when it ran the much-quoted interview with Iraq president Nouri al-Maliki, in which he backed Barack Obama's Iraq proposal.

Like all great institutions, the SPIEGEL has a difficult personality. It does not necessarily believe in the good in man and yet counters that with truth-seeking fervor. It is up to date on topics but outdated in style. It is ueber-critical and thorough, and at the same time thoroughly negative and pessimistic -- maybe because it usually knows more facts than anybody else.

(Credit: Aquarium Guys)

"We're doing all the things we tell our clients not to do," admits a strategy director at a renowned design and innovation firm, "it is ironic." He's not alone with his assessment. Other employees of creative firms (let's just use this label as a catch-all for all design, innovation, marketing, brand, and advertising firms) secretly confess that while they go out preaching to their clients about the importance of open innovation, brand consistency, or a distinct, provocative marketing messages, it is the very absence of all of which that often severely hampers their own organizations.

All too often, creative firms struggle with applying their proven principles, methodologies, and tools at home. While they strive to inject "out-of-the-box" thinking into their clients' organizations, they choose to stay within their own box, which is often in a poor condition. While they teach clients ways to foster a high-commitment, high-performance culture, they fail to create it for their own teams. While they promote flat hierarchies to spur innovation, risk-taking, and creativity, they often have bloated structures themselves that resemble the org chart of the Roman Empire. While they evangelize original and irreverent thinking, their own marketing campaigns are safe, mediocre, boring, and devoid of any potentially polarizing, sticky ideas. While they propagate the value of an engaging, user-friendly experience across all brand touch points, the interactions with their own brand are often stale and impersonal.

Of all firms, creative firms should get it right -- but they often don't. Why is that?

First of all, creative firms tend to suffer from a Not-Invented-Here syndrome. Instead of welcoming outside innovation, they succumb to the same short-sighted inward fixation that handicaps many of their clients -- relying on internal, often billable resources that are strapped for time and laden with political baggage and thus often fail to generate truly fresh ideas. Groupthink and other well-researched social dynamics prohibit true, disruptive change. Decisions are made by committees, and the result is, in many cases, the lowest common denominator. Everyone's satisfied -- but no one is really happy, let alone excited.

Another frequent phenomenon is the creative paralysis that begets the creative firm not in spite but because of its amassed creative powers. One key leader empowered to make decisions is of the essence in such environments, and the lack thereof stifles commitment. When there are too many cooks in the kitchen, too many strong creative opinions, too much foil and mutual out-smarting, competitiveness does not fuel, but rather stalls progress. Projects derail, and egos are inconsolably hurt along the way.

The third problem is the time horizon. Many creative firms' perspective is rather short-term as they are strongly exposed to the volatility of the economy and focus on new and opportunistic business rather than long-term strategic planning. The need to meet the numbers and maximize the utilization of resources all the way down to the bottom line doesn't leave much room for brand-building, a critical examination of one's own market positioning, or an overhaul of the marketing platform.

Fourth, marketers who are tasked with marketing a creative firm are under constant scrutiny for a possible lack of proper credentials. Creative teams are often skeptical about the efforts of an "outsider" who has not lived through the inner-workings and experienced the pain of working for demanding clients. Their motto seems to be: "We could do it better if only we could (but we lack the time)." Of course, the billable, creative types will never be pleased, no matter what. If the corporate marketer delivers below-par work, they will tear it apart. If s/he excels, they will feel threatened.

Creative firms can be narcissistic, navel-gazing, and soul-searching monsters, carried away with their own grandeur and prowess (or the assumption thereof) and in stubborn defiance of what their audiences have to say. And often, some nebulous self-cult makes them openly refuse being marketed at all ("The first rule of the Fight Club: You don't talk about the Fight Club.").

Marketing a creative firm is a tough job. You gotta be creative.

Here are three principles that I try to apply in my job:

1. Whenever you can, simplify. Because that's your job and the one turf where no one else can (and wants to) compete with you! Translate the complexity of your business into digestible chunks for your audience. Earn a reputation as "simplifier" and you will earn respect.

2. Stay out of the arena. Leave the intellectual strong-arming to the creative stars. Don't try to out-smart, out-wit, or out-innovate them. Drop your ego at the door.

3. Play with your own toys, find your own buddies, and build something that you and your team can truly own.

(to be continued)

(Credit: Blippr)

Definitely Techcrunch material: Can there be a trendier start-up than a site called Blippr that provides "micro-product reviews"?

With its 160-character length limit, the site replicates microblogging sites, and there are good reasons to assume that this format translates well to product reviews, as David Binkowski writes.

(Credit: Ardani.com)

I saw the Royal Ballet of Flanders perform William Forsythe's "Impressing the Czar" last week at the Rose Theatre in New York. It was a mesmerizing experience: a demonstration of the possibilities of the human body and its bold orchestration as part of a stampeding, Dionysian collective.

As I followed the breathtaking, ultra-structuralist choreography, especially the acclaimed "In the Middle, Somewhat Elevated" part, I couldn't help but draw parallels to other high-performing teams: Why, I wondered, can't businesses (and governments, for that matter) accomplish the same level of perfection? What is it they lack compared to world-class ballet ensembles (and world-class orchestras)? Why are business organizations so often so dysfunctional? Why do the regimen and the elevated standards of consistent, superior performance that apply to ballet and orchestra not seem to translate to the world of business?

Sure, one difference is that art-performing ensembles execute creativity, whereas business teams need to be creative before and when they execute. Innovation is a key ingredient of their successful performance. But still, the operational rigor and prowess that has long been a calling card of companies like GE -- has that become a nostalgic idea in the work-life balanced world of millennials? Do commitment and attention to detail still matter? Is perfection a desirable goal at all in the accelerated economy of permanent beta?

Without wanting to romanticize, there is something romantic about the stories of Tiger Woods practicing his swings for hours every day in front of a mirror, violinists playing the same note over and over again until they reach perfection, and ballerinas sacrificing their bodies for someone else's imagination.

Today's young professionals seem skeptical about this kind of work ethic: For them, good is good enough. They are committing themselves to doing good and living well rather than living up to a vague concept of excellence. Most of them are not interested in sacrifice and excess and would rather save themselves. But for what?

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

"Old habits die hard. While consumers are out there spending countless hours on social networks, file sharing applications, chat, community sites, buying stuff, selling stuff and using multiple devices, some of us tradigital old fogies are still reaching for our beloved toolbox of the past in the hopes of getting their attention. While online user behavior tells us that people respond well to simplicity, we labor to create complexity in the form of experimental navigation and sites that take forever to load. When YouTube arrived on the scene, we responded by putting our TV spots on them or -- better yet -- creating spots that looked like they were made by amateurs. Little did we know that the real action happens in the comments. Have we thought about talking back to people or are we really just interested in telling our stories?"

Read the full article

I like her line on mainstream media vs. blogs: "Mainstream media have an attention deficit disorder, blogs have an obsessive compulsive disorder."