Blank (Media) Slate

Perhaps it’s the way my brain is wired, but I can’t help but see synergies everywhere. In this case, it’s in some of the books I’ve been reading and how they include nuggets that seem to speak to other stuff I’m doing.

Take, for example, “Thuderstruck ” by Erik Larson. Part of the story is about Marconi and the development of a functional wireless communication system. While I have to admit I haven’t cross-checked the facts in the book, Larson lays out an interesting interplay between the “practical” and “theoretical” research into the technology.

The connection I see is in the playing out of a similar debate within the Data Portability camps. On the one hand there’s the theory of portability from the semantic web, linked data and identity groups. They are similar to Sir Oliver Lodge and his research into wireless from a physicist’s perspective. On the other hand are the members of the DataPortability Project who are working toward a practical solution using existing research. It’s by no means a perfect comparison, but interesting to read about history and consider how aspects of it could be applicable to understanding what’s happening today.

The other book, “Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom” by Cory Doctorow, talks about the action happening within the context of a future culture of adhocracies. The story is a hilarious discussion of how open, collaborative development can be taken to extremes (along with some amusing lines like “The first time I died, it was not long after my sixtieth birthday.”). While reading it I couldn’t help but imagine how the DataPortability Project would fare under this light.

BTW - It was while reading “Thunderstruck” that I was able to put the labels “practical” and “theoretical” physics in context as they were similarly applied to the term “magic” in “Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell“. Great use by Susanna Clarke of contemporary terms being applied to historical fantasy.

NOTE: Even though the links to “Down and Out” above are to Amazon.com (for you wanna’ buy it now junkies), you can also download free versions Doctorow’s site.

Other Books I Recommend:

I’ve always known that I live in a little bubble of people who think largely like I do. It seems perfectly natural to me that we hang out with people who share some sort of common interest. Even if the majority of your acquaintances are formed by proximity, there’s a high probability that everyone working together or otherwise living in the same neighborhood have some sort of connection.

What I bumped into during my recent holiday vacation, however, was an entirely different group of people than I usually encounter. While visiting my family in Colorado, I attended a few parties with folks I wouldn’t necessarily consider my posse. But when hanging out with the family, on their turf, you go with the flow.

Everyone’s always been interested in my work for the Patriots, and I’ve got a ton of amusing stories about the ten or so years I was working for them. Generally, there’s not a lot of explaining that has to take place prior to an anecdote; almost everyone knows what a football team is and what they do. This year, however, was very different.

When asked what I’m doing now, I would start with the standard matchmine elevator pitch. Over the past couple years that pitch has taken less and less further explanation. It’s hard to walk down the street in Boston today and not bump into a couple dozen companies grappling with the need to personalize their offering. Even outside involvement in the biz, most folks with whom I interact take the elevator pitch and easily start pushing their own question buttons.

Back home, however, I was surrounded by a shockingly large number of people who had only a vague notion of personalized media discovery. In fact, they assumed that the type of work we’re doing already exists under the covers of the sites they visit. Given my familial connections, there was a wide range of people spanning cowboys, doctors, judges, artists, and professional philanthropists. While not necessarily a mark of intelligence, the majority of them, while were working all over the map, had advanced degrees of one sort or another. Further, most of them talked easily about using email, the web, and tools like SMS, IM, and RSS feed readers in their daily lives (and not in a “gee whiz” sort of way, but as a matter-of-fact).

What I’m saying is that these are regular people who are relatively plugged in. While they’re not involved in building the online stuff, they’re actively using it. They’re moderately heavy computer users, tossing photos around with the likes of Flickr and regularly using iChat, etc., so I didn’t detect a learning curve required there. Further, everyone assumed that many sites performs some under-the-covers magic for their “You’re interest in this, so you might like that” features. It’s just that they didn’t realize these systems are all disconnected from each other.

Almost to a person, I finally got them on board when I said something to the effect that, “Using a MatchKey, you won’t have to do anything other than what you do now. Through our partners you’ll simply see an improvement in what they’re already offering you.” They were sold on the concept, then, when they got the fact that the MatchKey can be used as their proxy for their interests and tastes on various sites. It’s just that they don’t think about stuff like this much.

It was while ruminating on these discussions that I realized how important it is to remain focused on customer need as opposed to kewl tech. To that end, I have a renewed appreciation for the mantra of “don’t change the habits of the consumer, just improve their experience.” It’s easy to forget this reality when living in a bubble where everyone speaks the same lingo.

Up until recently, few people routinely recorded the TV programming they watched. Usually it was reserved for those occaisions when you needed to record shows while you were away. With the growing use of DVRs like TiVo, it’s becoming much more common for viewers to watch all their shows recorded (if only in pass-through mode).

With that as background, I’ve noticed a number of “TiVo Baiting” techniques being used to ensnare DVR users. OK, that’s a term that just popped into my head, but I think it’s relatively descriptive. What I mean by it is the intentional inclusion of single-frame imagery in TV programming. Watching at the normal 29.9 frames per second of standard video, the images flip too fast for the viewer to fully comprehend. Only when pausing playback, and slowly stepping frame-by-frame through the sequence does it become intelligible.

Take, for example, the rapid flicker of images embedded within a second-season episode of Lost in which the audience is shown glimpses of a character’s past within a mysterious cloud. The non-DVR user just sees an interesting flicker of images and take away the concept that something was shown to the character. With remote in hand, however, the DVR user can step through each frame to consider each image and it’s implication within the story line. There are a number of posts that hit the net immediately after the show with fans chatting up their meaning.

Recently (and the reason for this post), I’ve seen a couple more examples of this technique. One is in the GE commercials in which they use the final second of their ad time to display 24 still frames for something they call “GE One Second Theater“. In this particular case, the images are too fast for non-DVR users to have any idea what they are. Only by stepping through frame-by-frame does the micro story become clear. They’re actually pretty amusing; a few give back story to animated characters in the ad, while another is a retelling of a typical fairy tale through the eyes of a frog (which is only tangentially relevant to the ad itself).

Another example is in the show Heroes. They’ve used the technique twice (that I know of) in promotional teasers. Once when hyping the next show by rapidly showing images of the characters while the VO is something like, “One of these heroes will die. No one is safe.” Each image was a few frames, long enough for the non-DVR viewer to guess they were shots of the characters, but it required slower viewing to see who was on the “potential hit list”. Of course… if you’re hip to the scene of story arcs, it was pretty obvious who was on the chopping block.

The second time I noticed this technique was during the show dealing with the character who was killed. In this instance, it was less a matter of frame-by-frame viewing, but really only the ability to slow it down (ie. real-time viewers might’ve missed it). This time the technique was used to heighten tension by flashing a dozen or so frames of the dead character apparently “coming back to life” between the network’s own promotional commercials.

It’s really only now that this is a technique that can have wide-spread utility. Video tape (even the relatively higher-end 4-head versions), just didn’t have the fine-tune control of a DVR (or other nearly frame-accurate device like a DVD). A side benefit is the relatively random access control of a DVR in which viewers can quickly zip around the recorded show looking for stuff like this (rather than having to forward/reverse linearly through a tape).

What I personally like about the use of this technique I have seen is that they don’t require viewer participation. It’s easy enough to trundle along at 29.9fps and still have a good experience. For those interested in being more interactive with the programming, however, there’s an added layer of discovery to enhance the fun… which seems to be just the right level of activity added to a mostly passive experience.

I turned up an interesting video clip while researching the behavior of spiders the other day. I was pleasantly surprised by it, depsite the fact it wasn’t precisely the type of content I was hunting.

This got me thinking about pleasure and surprise. It seems that the two concepts are joined in that pleasure is often derived from surprise. Good jokes, for example, seem to be based on the fact that the punch line is unexpected. On the other end of pleasure, horror movies (primarily of the twitch-flick) also capitalize on pleasing the surprised audience. Then there’s the increased enjoyment of a book or movie about which you had no prior expectations (as opposed to one that’s hyped to the gills and fails to hit the mark… but you would have enjoyed had you found it yourself).

Many marketing campaigns also seem to use the surprise/pleasure combo to grab the interest of customers. A number of TV ads draw the viewer into a story, while the advertised product is only revealed at the end. This balance must be carefully managed, though, to hit the right mode without spoiling the feeling of it’s customers discovering the product themselves (feeling like they’re in on the joke). Since active discovery seems to run counter to genuine surprise, the marketer needs to carefully seed their message with all the pieces while encouraging the consumer to (easily) complete the puzzle. The trick is setting the expectations to preserve the pleasure of surprise, while not making it so difficult as to confuse the audience (like so many ads that leave the viewer wondering what product was on offer).

If this post was a fable, perhaps the moral would be: “Never underestimate the pleasure of surprise… but beware its cousin: confusion.” Then again, perhaps the surprise of this post is that it’s totally devoid of any deeper meaning beyond my random thoughts. Let the audience be the judge.

Over the past year I’ve been focused on designing a system for effectively identifying media content based on personal interests. Throughout multiple discussions over that time, I’ve often stressed the need to embrace (rather than eradicate) the value of serendipity in results. Two comments in the past week have really driven that point home and given this idea a voice I find useful.

The first comes from our executive leadership in recasting the system in terms of a “Discovery Platform.” While it might seem to be a minor semantic variance, the term “discovery” fits nicely within our context. We’ve taken great pains to distance ourselves from the traditional and, IMHO, limiting tradition of finding and delivering the “perfect result” within the specified candidate pool. Rather, I’ve generally used the term “serendipity” to evoke the experiential feeling we hope to provide. I still like the feel of the term, though it’s heavy connotation of “chance” puts it second to a more directed term like “discovery”, and it still embraces the concept of finding hitherto “unknown” matches for your interests.

The second comment came in meetings with a potential product developer who said, “Effective recommendations must be relevant, but not predictable.” It’s possible this is a well-trodden phrase, but it resonated with our solidifying vision around discovery. After all, it’s easy to recommend songs by the same artist you already like (or following other paths similarly codified), it takes something more to uncover less obvious connections to your interests. Further, it’s a lot more gratifying (like the punch line of a good joke) when you’re pleasantly surprised by the result.

As a side note, a common refrain around the office has been, “You don’t discover pocket lint.” I’m still not entirely sure I grok the true meaning from this, but it definitely pops an amusing image in your mind’s eye.