Inspired by No Mimes Media's amazing transmedia campaign for The Dark Knight...and the work of Simon Brookes at Portsmouth University on alternate reality games for education, I recently did a little micro-transmedia experiment of my own...
The whole idea of an immersive, crossmedia, semi-real experience as a way of engaging students with learning makes sense to me on so many levels. Engaging students with learning is something it can be pretty difficult to do when you're constrained by the environment in which you are scheduled to teach. For me, that's quite often a lecture theatre which places me centre stage and students seated in tiered rows; trapped for an hour with no means of escape (poor things). So, creating learning experiences that work in a lecture theatre and that are participative and interactive for a large group is something I spend quite a bit of time trying to achieve.
For me, transmedia has amazing potential as a 'teaching and learning strategy' (as the teacher educators would call it). The possibility of creating a narrative that students buy into and participate in in class, and that gets them thinking about topics, solving problems, trying out approaches and gaining experience is a win - win. In my experience, students learn best when they're absorbed in a task, and they love the sense of achievement they get from problem solving.
So, I set about doing a test of what I'm going to call a 'micro-transmedia' experience at a recent internal conference, with an audience of students, faculty and business people, just to give it a go really. What a brilliant experience it was. My story unfolded over the 20 minute session, and the whole room participated in one way or another in solving the problem. After all the preparation, it was like tapping the first piece in one of those amazing domino trails you used to see on Record Breakers (showing my age).
I used a combination of actors (recruited from my colleagues - with much arm twisting and promises of chocolate), found objects (including a borrowed iPad - which I was a little nervous about disappearing...), letters, tweets, YouTube videos and the web. Some of the material can be seen on Twitter here: www.twitter.com/app5isalive and here:
The scenario is designed to introduce a session on IP, and so the narrative was based on an IP theft. It worked really well, and I'm convinced that it will work even better in a 'students only' environment. However, I think these micro-versions need to be used sparingly in order to maintain interest, and indeed this game dramatised a situation for impact. I can see huge potential for longer versions, however, that are embedded in the curriculum and assessment where a more 'realistic' experience is created. The opportunity to provide students with practical experience while reducing risk to businesses, students and the institution is one of the key benefits I see in developing alternate reality environments. For me, this provides the best of both worlds - the real experience of a live project, along with the ability to try, fail, test, and experiment in a safe 'sandbox' environment that you get with traditional computer-based business simulations.
Today's students are engaged in activities that cross the boundaries between reality and fiction at all times: Reality TV, gaming, social media, fashion, music, sports, books, films, theatre; our lives are one big mash-up of constructed semi-realities and personal perceptions of what is real and what is true. This is how many of us live today, in a constant state of tension and negotiation of what is true for us, for others, and in the context of the messages we absorb from these media. It seems only right to engage with this in creating learning experiences that allow our students to try, to test, and to construct their own version of reality...
More about this later, but if there are any educators or marketers out there who want to find out what I did...and what I've got planned next, tweet me @lgsmu.
Saturday, 25 June 2011
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
A relationship with my supermarket? No thanks, I just want some milk.
Relationship marketing has reached something of a saturation point. Organisations large and small have bought into the idea that they need to develop and manage customer relationships - and CRM (along with a plethora of products and services to support it) has become an integral part of the marketing activities of many companies. I'd question, however, whether they are really building relationships? Or is this something of a misnomer...a convenient and cuddly word for the mass customisation of marketing communications?
As a consumer, I don't want a relationship with many of the organisations I buy from. I don't want to be part of their gang. I don't feel a personal affinity to their brand. I just need a product or service that works, that I can afford, and that's in the right place at the right time. I don't think I'm alone in this.
Don't get me wrong - there are brands and parts of organisations with whom I'm happy to engage on a personal level. My favourite supermarket cashier, who always has a smile and a quirky comment about my purchases; the owner of the garage I go to who never patronises me (despite the fact that I am clearly female); the people I exchange messages with on Twitter who work for organisations I buy from. These are human relationships, and they tend to be one-to-one. What CRM systems attempt to deliver is the one-to-one experience, but this is delivered through a many-to-many system, and however sophisticated that system is, it is still not as real.
So, does that mean Customer Relationship Management is not important? No - it just means the 'relationship' part is a bit mixed up. It's a bit of a bunny boiler of a name really...like the person who thinks they're in a relationship with you because you smiled at them once. What we need to accept about CRM is that it is not really about building a relationship with our customers, it's about improving our communications and learning more about our customers so we can keep improving everything we do.
Purveyors of CRM 'systems' want marketers to believe they can use them to build these close 'relationships' when in fact we'd all be better off calling a spade a spade and admitting that they simply enable us to personalise marketing messages, find out more about our customers and manage our communications better. This still has the same benefits, but I'd argue that a change in terminology is less likely to lead the marketer down a false trail in search of the holy grail of brand advocacy in the unlikeliest of places.
The fact is, customers aren't stupid. They know when they are being sent a mass email/sms/mailing. They don't think your large corporation has contacted them personally; they know that you've been filtering your database, and they're unlikely to be getting that warm friendly glow because you remembered their birthday. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing - it just means you need to get it right. You need to send your customers the information they want and need to make the decision to buy from you.
I receive about twenty emails a day from companies who want to sell me something. They are all generated by CRM systems. I open the ones with a subject line that interests me. I click through to the store when the email contains a product/story/offer that interests me. At no point do I think, ooh, I love this company. I think - that content looks useful, interesting, fun; I'll go there.
The take home message here is, use your CM system (I'm removing the 'R') to deliver great content, and your customers will buy, and continue to buy their products and services from you. As someone once said...content is king.
And no thank you, I still don't want a relationship with you Mr Tesco - I just want a pint of milk...
*Image www.thebestmoviereview.com under creative commons licence.
 |
| Katy Perry - Married to the Brand.* |
Don't get me wrong - there are brands and parts of organisations with whom I'm happy to engage on a personal level. My favourite supermarket cashier, who always has a smile and a quirky comment about my purchases; the owner of the garage I go to who never patronises me (despite the fact that I am clearly female); the people I exchange messages with on Twitter who work for organisations I buy from. These are human relationships, and they tend to be one-to-one. What CRM systems attempt to deliver is the one-to-one experience, but this is delivered through a many-to-many system, and however sophisticated that system is, it is still not as real.
So, does that mean Customer Relationship Management is not important? No - it just means the 'relationship' part is a bit mixed up. It's a bit of a bunny boiler of a name really...like the person who thinks they're in a relationship with you because you smiled at them once. What we need to accept about CRM is that it is not really about building a relationship with our customers, it's about improving our communications and learning more about our customers so we can keep improving everything we do.
Purveyors of CRM 'systems' want marketers to believe they can use them to build these close 'relationships' when in fact we'd all be better off calling a spade a spade and admitting that they simply enable us to personalise marketing messages, find out more about our customers and manage our communications better. This still has the same benefits, but I'd argue that a change in terminology is less likely to lead the marketer down a false trail in search of the holy grail of brand advocacy in the unlikeliest of places.
The fact is, customers aren't stupid. They know when they are being sent a mass email/sms/mailing. They don't think your large corporation has contacted them personally; they know that you've been filtering your database, and they're unlikely to be getting that warm friendly glow because you remembered their birthday. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing - it just means you need to get it right. You need to send your customers the information they want and need to make the decision to buy from you.
I receive about twenty emails a day from companies who want to sell me something. They are all generated by CRM systems. I open the ones with a subject line that interests me. I click through to the store when the email contains a product/story/offer that interests me. At no point do I think, ooh, I love this company. I think - that content looks useful, interesting, fun; I'll go there.
The take home message here is, use your CM system (I'm removing the 'R') to deliver great content, and your customers will buy, and continue to buy their products and services from you. As someone once said...content is king.
And no thank you, I still don't want a relationship with you Mr Tesco - I just want a pint of milk...
*Image www.thebestmoviereview.com under creative commons licence.
Saturday, 4 June 2011
Bailey Review: Some thoughts on our sexualised society
It was welcome news to me that the Bailey Review on the sexualisation of children is recommending tighter controls on products, services and promotions that present sexual images to children or encourage them to behave in a sexual way, but I'm not sure the measures will address the basic social problems that underlie this worrying trend.
The review proposes a 'code of conduct' for retailers, restrictions on ambient advertising (such as billboards and posters) containing sexual imagery near schools, further online restrictions, a web site where parents' concerns can be raised, and age restrictions on music videos. All these are sensible suggestions, but for me they are still too weak in some areas. At the crux of the issue, for me, is the overall increased sexualisation of our society, and the link this has to aspiration and celebrity.
Hugh Heffner is opening a new Playboy Club in Mayfair this evening, while selling clothing, pencil cases and duvet covers for children bearing the hallmark of his sex-made wealth. Clearly, the porn industry is booming, and celebrity culture embraces sexiness as a means of keeping the PR machine turning. Sex sells, as we all know; but selling sex as aspirational, as a route to success, is where I believe the real danger lies for today's children.
Clearly governments cannot afford to ignore the porn industry; it is powerful, successful, and contributes to the economy. However, porn's osmosis into mainstream culture, whilst generating further profits (and tax revenues of course), could bring with it some more alarming social consequences.
My concerns are probably too numerous for a blog post, but here are some of the key things that worry me most:
1. Sex as a route to success
Selling children's t--shirts with the slogan 'Future Footballer's Wife' disgusts me. Is this what we want young girls to aspire to? Today? Centuries of Cinderella and Jane Austen may have stacked up the stereotypes, but what parent would want this to be their child's career choice?
2. Unrealistic notions of physical perfection
The starved, siliconed, plasticated, botoxed, airbrushed, plucked, bronzed, and buffed bodies of the porn industry are constructs. They are not real bodies. Children, however, may not understand this. Presenting such images as perfection and something to aspire means that 99% of people may feel they cannot achieve the standards society sets for them. They have failed before they even get out of bed in the morning. What a shame.
3. Sexual expectations
The knock-on of presenting an image of perfection to aspire to is that expectations of sex and what to expect in a partner also become warped. Expecting your partner to look and behave like a porn star or pop star (the boundaries seem to have blurred...) is a worrying trend for me, as the likelihood of a failure to match up to the fantasies presented by the media is high. What impact will this have on relationships?
4. Finally, and most worrying...presenting an image of sexual availability
Children who are unwittingly dressing in a sexual way, by copying their heroines...Rhianna, Cheryl Cole, Britney Spears, may be unknowingly advertising sexual availability to those predators out there who will prey on them, and may also encourage their peers to make assumptions about their sexual maturity. A horrible thought.
Young pop stars have such a position of power, but they don't always have the maturity to understand the impact of their actions. Britney dressed as a schoolgirl singing a song that asked the listener to hit her was a huge success in commercial terms, but perhaps not so palatable to victims of sexual violence.
My view on the Rhianna video that caused such a stir? Just like Madonna, Britney, Christina Aguilera etc. before her, she is being manipulated by an industry and selling what is commercial/shocking. Should she have done it? No; particularly with her background and experiences. Should it have been banned? Well, I'm not a big fan of censorship, so for me the responsibility lies with the makers. In the context of who she is, what she does, and who the audience are, Rhianna's record company should never have made that video. Pop stars saying they enjoy being treated violently by sexual partners may sell records, but if it contributes to a generation growing up thinking that that is what everyone wants from a sexual relationship, our society will not be a pretty place in ten or twenty years time...
The bottom line? Porn has its place in our world, but for me that will never be on Saturday night entertainment shows, in derogatory music videos or in children's clothing ranges.
Call me a prude, I don't care.
The review proposes a 'code of conduct' for retailers, restrictions on ambient advertising (such as billboards and posters) containing sexual imagery near schools, further online restrictions, a web site where parents' concerns can be raised, and age restrictions on music videos. All these are sensible suggestions, but for me they are still too weak in some areas. At the crux of the issue, for me, is the overall increased sexualisation of our society, and the link this has to aspiration and celebrity.
Hugh Heffner is opening a new Playboy Club in Mayfair this evening, while selling clothing, pencil cases and duvet covers for children bearing the hallmark of his sex-made wealth. Clearly, the porn industry is booming, and celebrity culture embraces sexiness as a means of keeping the PR machine turning. Sex sells, as we all know; but selling sex as aspirational, as a route to success, is where I believe the real danger lies for today's children.
Clearly governments cannot afford to ignore the porn industry; it is powerful, successful, and contributes to the economy. However, porn's osmosis into mainstream culture, whilst generating further profits (and tax revenues of course), could bring with it some more alarming social consequences.
My concerns are probably too numerous for a blog post, but here are some of the key things that worry me most:
1. Sex as a route to success
Selling children's t--shirts with the slogan 'Future Footballer's Wife' disgusts me. Is this what we want young girls to aspire to? Today? Centuries of Cinderella and Jane Austen may have stacked up the stereotypes, but what parent would want this to be their child's career choice?
2. Unrealistic notions of physical perfection
The starved, siliconed, plasticated, botoxed, airbrushed, plucked, bronzed, and buffed bodies of the porn industry are constructs. They are not real bodies. Children, however, may not understand this. Presenting such images as perfection and something to aspire means that 99% of people may feel they cannot achieve the standards society sets for them. They have failed before they even get out of bed in the morning. What a shame.
3. Sexual expectations
The knock-on of presenting an image of perfection to aspire to is that expectations of sex and what to expect in a partner also become warped. Expecting your partner to look and behave like a porn star or pop star (the boundaries seem to have blurred...) is a worrying trend for me, as the likelihood of a failure to match up to the fantasies presented by the media is high. What impact will this have on relationships?
4. Finally, and most worrying...presenting an image of sexual availability
Children who are unwittingly dressing in a sexual way, by copying their heroines...Rhianna, Cheryl Cole, Britney Spears, may be unknowingly advertising sexual availability to those predators out there who will prey on them, and may also encourage their peers to make assumptions about their sexual maturity. A horrible thought.
Young pop stars have such a position of power, but they don't always have the maturity to understand the impact of their actions. Britney dressed as a schoolgirl singing a song that asked the listener to hit her was a huge success in commercial terms, but perhaps not so palatable to victims of sexual violence.
My view on the Rhianna video that caused such a stir? Just like Madonna, Britney, Christina Aguilera etc. before her, she is being manipulated by an industry and selling what is commercial/shocking. Should she have done it? No; particularly with her background and experiences. Should it have been banned? Well, I'm not a big fan of censorship, so for me the responsibility lies with the makers. In the context of who she is, what she does, and who the audience are, Rhianna's record company should never have made that video. Pop stars saying they enjoy being treated violently by sexual partners may sell records, but if it contributes to a generation growing up thinking that that is what everyone wants from a sexual relationship, our society will not be a pretty place in ten or twenty years time...
The bottom line? Porn has its place in our world, but for me that will never be on Saturday night entertainment shows, in derogatory music videos or in children's clothing ranges.
Call me a prude, I don't care.
Thursday, 2 June 2011
The Evil Office: Mission, Motivation and the Moral Imperative
Say it quickly and you might mix it up with something more presidential...but the evil office is something we've been pondering in our own little office on the fourth floor since last Friday.
Following a meandering discussion and brainstorm of the possible re-uses of spent Bic pens (placemats, insect hotels etc. - please add any further suggestions in the comments box below), Friday afternoon in the LG/SO office ended with a discussion on the nature of Evil (with a capital 'E'). This was prompted by some wild speculation on my behalf on the motives of people in the public eye for their actions and from the suggestion that adopting Google's famously simple (and possibly ironic, although that's another discussion) 'Don't be Evil' mission was something that I believe could have a profound effect on people.
Within a few minutes we had knocked up and hung our own 'Don't be Evil' poster on the office wall, with a view to running a pseudo experiment to gauge the reactions of those who encounter it in our office. The first person to walk into the office noticed it straight away and commented on it. I can confirm that they were in no way evil whilst in the office (so far so good).
Measuring evil is, however, quite a difficult thing to do. First you have to define it. This is not easy. What's morally wrong to me may seem perfectly acceptable behaviour to you (e.g. entering box junctions when your exit is not clear). Evil is subjective, but there are probably a few basic tenets on which we could agree: evil as malicious behaviour, with the intention of wrongdoing or harm. So, let's take that as our basic definition for now.
Measuring this is the next step - and seemingly even more difficult. We tried Googling it (!), and came up with several highly amusing 'How evil are you?' style quizzes, which seemed to involve lots of questions about saving cats from burning buildings and stealing from your grandmother. Clearly, these are not questions we can ask everyone who steps into the office, so we're going for a combination of more subjective techniques (personal views on the general evilness of behaviour in our office) and a 'saliency' measure (i.e. do people notice the poster? do they comment on it? or do they just glance at it shiftily while they speak...yes we've had that already).
Obviously this experiment will not stand up to academic scrutiny, but it's fun to see the reactions. One interesting aspect of the phrase 'Don't Be Evil' is the negative imperative it uses. My old boss used to tell a story about the power of negative language; I don't know if it's true or modern myth, but apparently just before Chris Waddle took his penalty at the 1990 World Cup, England manager Bobby Robson said to him 'don't miss!'. Waddle promptly sent the ball into row Z and England's world cup hopes were history. My ex-boss believed that negatives in language are sometimes filtered out by our brains, and that we hear, and do, the opposite when told not to do something. With this theory in mind, we would perhaps expect to see an increase in evil behaviour in our office, and the logical next step might be to suggest that Google's mission may actually be encouraging its employees to 'Be Evil'.
Ok, enough of the conspiracy theories - I'm not totally convinced by this argument, but I have an open mind and will keep you posted on the results of our little experiment (if I've not gone over to the dark side of course).
Oh, and Google - how about positively re-framing your mission statement?
Be good?
The next office experiment beckons...
Within a few minutes we had knocked up and hung our own 'Don't be Evil' poster on the office wall, with a view to running a pseudo experiment to gauge the reactions of those who encounter it in our office. The first person to walk into the office noticed it straight away and commented on it. I can confirm that they were in no way evil whilst in the office (so far so good).
Measuring evil is, however, quite a difficult thing to do. First you have to define it. This is not easy. What's morally wrong to me may seem perfectly acceptable behaviour to you (e.g. entering box junctions when your exit is not clear). Evil is subjective, but there are probably a few basic tenets on which we could agree: evil as malicious behaviour, with the intention of wrongdoing or harm. So, let's take that as our basic definition for now.
Measuring this is the next step - and seemingly even more difficult. We tried Googling it (!), and came up with several highly amusing 'How evil are you?' style quizzes, which seemed to involve lots of questions about saving cats from burning buildings and stealing from your grandmother. Clearly, these are not questions we can ask everyone who steps into the office, so we're going for a combination of more subjective techniques (personal views on the general evilness of behaviour in our office) and a 'saliency' measure (i.e. do people notice the poster? do they comment on it? or do they just glance at it shiftily while they speak...yes we've had that already).
Obviously this experiment will not stand up to academic scrutiny, but it's fun to see the reactions. One interesting aspect of the phrase 'Don't Be Evil' is the negative imperative it uses. My old boss used to tell a story about the power of negative language; I don't know if it's true or modern myth, but apparently just before Chris Waddle took his penalty at the 1990 World Cup, England manager Bobby Robson said to him 'don't miss!'. Waddle promptly sent the ball into row Z and England's world cup hopes were history. My ex-boss believed that negatives in language are sometimes filtered out by our brains, and that we hear, and do, the opposite when told not to do something. With this theory in mind, we would perhaps expect to see an increase in evil behaviour in our office, and the logical next step might be to suggest that Google's mission may actually be encouraging its employees to 'Be Evil'.
Ok, enough of the conspiracy theories - I'm not totally convinced by this argument, but I have an open mind and will keep you posted on the results of our little experiment (if I've not gone over to the dark side of course).
Oh, and Google - how about positively re-framing your mission statement?
Be good?
The next office experiment beckons...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)