Author Archive

  • The Kingdom of Awesome

    We were milling about at @LenKendall’s @the3six5 meetup at The Ginger Man here at SXSW last night when Greg Christman, aka @reelspit, came over to say hello. Greg had recently taken part in a creative workshop we held at BBH NY to generate ideas and test thinking for the next phase of Metrotwin, a site we created and run for British Airways. What a dude.

    The place was packed with South By’s itinerant freak scene of start-up makers, innovators, journos, digital and new model advertising folk. I was hanging out with Utku from Mint Digital and, in jest, we discussed how awesome it would be if this group could be a country or city-state. This prompted Greg to whoop loudly that we should call it the Kingdom of Awesome and design our own awesomeness flag, and run the whole place using Foursquare. As an aside, I’ve heard a few people recently suggest that the word “awesome” is over. My friends, you misunderstand the meaning of awesome if that’s what you think – but that’s another blog post.

    The idea of a Kingdom, Republic or Nation of Awesomeness – depending on your political persuasion – is funny (especially after quantities of booze on a warm evening), but it reminded me of a tweet I’d seen earlier in the day from Jeff Jarvis:

    I don’t want to get carried with all this but I think The Kingdom of Awesome is real – real in an allegorical, Utopia sense: a metaphorical ‘State’ of hive-mind.

    Read full post

  • Paxo on Chatroulette

    Thank Jehovah that the Web is still capable of generating the kind of super-retarded moral panic and outrage that characterised Newsnight’s piece on Chatroulette last night.

    It was brilliant to be reminded of how subversive and mad the Web is. In our increasingly settled, sanitised and locked down Web era Chatroulette is a timely warning to us all that we must hold on to the crazy stuff, because what it really represents is the Internet’s culture of freedom and culture of innovation.

    With the exception of Danah Boyd, the so-called ‘experts’ they brought onto Newsnight last night, and the report itself, were shockingly ill-informed and reminiscent of Chris Morris’ 2001 Brass Eye Special ‘Paedogeddon’. It was like a parody.

    Culture correspondent Stephen Smith was sent off to a casino in Knightsbridge to play some roulette to the strains of Frank Sinatra singing “Luck Be A Lady Tonight…“. The show’s producers must have thought this was very clever. But it wasn’t. Stephen linked from the casino to the piece itself, with the question on absolutely nobody’s lips:

    “Are we to imagine that the etiquette of the green baize will transfer to the webcam and the new craze ‘Chat Roulette’?”

    Uh-oh.

    “I span the wheel on Chat Roulette”

    Read full post

  • A call to arms. Make way for ‘the builders’.

    Rishad Tobaccowala’s blog post at Reinventing, and his speech at the American Association of Ad Agencies Transformation conference, are both incredibly exciting.

    With both, he calls for renewal and appeals to the ad industry to save itself by hiring in top tier talent to build a new world, specifically:

    This is the time to build. The talent we most need are builders, sculptors, painters. Folks who create and not just manage.”

    And what should we be building?

    Read full post

  • Trying to describe what we do. It’s complicated.

    We’ve found it really challenging to boil down what we do into one of those little paragraphs much beloved of professional services companies – the so-called ‘elevator pitch’ that neatly encapsulates the so-called ‘offering’.

    It’s been driving me nuts.

    Since we started in September 2007, we’ve made several attempts. We launched with this at the top of the page:

    …And this on the sidebar:

    Were a new type of digital consulting company. We make things. We work in an innovative and visual way. We go deeper into our clients business to make big changes. We create rich, social media services for the next generation Web.

    Our Twitter feed says:

    Very Social Digital Stuff.

    My Twitter describes Made by Many as:

    A platform-building mutant network design company.

    And in our creds we initially summarised it as:

    We help brands and publishers create, manage and monetise community and Rich Internet Applications

    Which has recently been changed to:

    We help Media Owners, Brands, Start-ups and Organisations to create & manage owned & earned media platforms

    And even more recently on our website, and on a bit of a late-night impulse (fueled in part by the frustration of not having nailed it, in part by some over-excited thoughts about the changing meaning of the words “awesome”, “awesomeist”, “awesomeness”, and partly by alcohol) we changed it to:

    Made by Many creates very social digital stuff. We are an awesomeness agency. We design and make new services and utilities for communities and we work in an integrated and Agile way.

    We know none of these is quite right, and that some are quite wrong.

    But as we try once again to create a canonical definition, I wonder if we’re barking up the wrong tree.

    Why limit ourselves to one little line?

    Why try and cram everything we do into a single paragraph?

    We have feet in many camps: we make stuff, we consult. That’s the way we roll.

    We’re a design shop and a software developer, but we’re not a production house. What we do is both complex and evolving quicker than words can keep up with. For example, it’s become more difficult every week since we started to draw the line between what used to be called ‘marketing‘ and what used to be called ‘product and service design‘. Everything is converging.

    I wonder if what we are might not really have emerged yet. I don’t even want to be an agency any more – I think network is more accurate.

    There isn’t a right or wrong answer to any of this (that’s part of the problem), but I wanted to share our dilemma. I imagine it’s a problem a lot of other people have too and we’d be interested in how you’ve solved it (if it can be – or should be – solved, that is). And let us know what you think we should do.

    One thing we’re toying with at the moment is having lots of lines. Maybe the elevator pitch belongs to the world of scarcity, and we’re about the long tail of meaning – an abundance of lines, each unpacking a different facet – potentially for a different audience. Sara and I are working on a long list, and thinking about how we might use all of them. We aim to share the whole process, at the risk of being quite boring.

  • The Web is a Truth Machine

    I can’t remember where I read this, or who wrote it, but I am being stalked by this phrase:

    “The Web amplifies the truth about a brand”

    For brands, and marketers, this is a great thing if the brand is true. It’s brilliant. But if you’re lying it’s getting trickier. The truth will out.

    And this truth machine doesn’t just work on brands. The music industry, movie studios, print and TV companies all know, the awful truth about digital is that it strangles all the cosy inefficiencies out of your business – you know, the ones where your margins used to be – and it’s not easy (and may be impossible) to make up the lost revenue simply by optimising what you used to do for digital platforms. I take no joy in saying that, I’m just saying it’s happening. The Web is a deflationary, flattening monster that’s gonna stamp all over you. The truth will out.

    Of course, as anyone who’s been watching the BBC’s Virtual Revolution series will now know, the Web was invented by that guy from the Grateful Dead to share cute images of cats and stuff and accelerate the frictionless distribution of truth. Who can blame brands, advertisers and media owners for wanting a piece of that shit? And so they pile in wanting to be like LOLcats. But the truth machine will ultimately show the bad un’s up like luminous bacteria glowing with disclosing fluid. The unavoidable and unsavoury truth laid bare in an ultraviolet glare that cannot be avoided. It doesn’t matter what anyone of us do. The truth will out.

    And with people, I’ve been enjoying the call to action issued by Hugh MacLeod, aka Gaping Void, with his “Remember Who You Are” manifesto. It’s a wake up call. We should all remember who we are. The truth will out.

  • New Year resolutions? How are they going?

    It used to be fags and booze that people gave up as a New Year resolution. 2010 was the first year I heard lots of people claiming they wanted to give up social networking. Fragile idiots.

    Between Christmas and New Year I saw quite a few tweets from people quietly waving goodbye for a while (the correct social media terminology here is a “Twitter hiatus“).

    Stephen Fry announced he was having a rest – in order to get some real work done. And then there was the Web 2.0 suicide machine. Oh – and a rash of articles and blog posts about social media being various shades of addictive, boring and deadly (some of which we’ve talked about here). At times it looked like the long-awaited backlash might finally break… the dwindling skeptical rump of luddites *soooo* want this to happenbut it hasn’t. A similar thing happened last year, and probably the year before that.

    On the other hand – I noticed that lots of other people resolved to look after their blog, or tweet, more/better rather than less in 2010.

    I guess you know something has really arrived when people start giving it up because they’re enjoying it too much.

    I also predict that they’ll be back – just like the smokers and boozers – with their tails between their legs. Losers.

  • Excellent, a real-life Skinner Box

    Instead of rodents, they’re using journalists – and instead of a Skinner Box they’ll be locked inside a French farmhouse in Perigord for five days and only allowed to access Twitter and Facebook.

    The experiment – run by RFP the French-language public broadcasters association – will discover how warped our perception of the world could become if we rely solely on Twitter and Facebook.

    Like anyone would do that!

    The journalists will continue to report the news as they see it – coming solely through tweets, hashtags, status updates, messages and – gulp – contextual advertising.

    What a great experiment, but five days is clearly nowhere near long enough. A year would be more like it. And the floor should be electrified, with mild shocks being dispensed for inaccurate reporting, and fags and booze dispensed to the journo-rodents for getting it right. A house of correction. Could this be the model for a distributed social media version of Big Brother where contestants are placed under house-arrest and allowed only to connect with other contestants – and Big Brother – via Twitter and Facebook?

    It kind of reminds me of the Biosphere 2 experiment, photos of which were posted on Boing Boing earlier this month. I’ve always thought the Biosphere story would make a great horror film, or musical comedy, or both. Imagine if a mystery virus wipes most of the Earth’s population out while they’re in there… and they have to listen to the whole world dying on Facebook and Twitter… and then use these services to coordinate the rebuilding of the human race.

    Tres awesome. Starts February 1.

  • Is the Social Web a loony magnet?

    The BBC’s Digital Revolution blog has been telling the story of the making of the new BBC2 series (which may be called The Virtual Revolution(?)) that starts next Friday.

    This comment below is one of many user contributions to an energetic discussion posted at the programme’s blog about the issues tackled in Programme 4: The Web and Us. Namely, the way The Web is changing our brains, behaviour and relationships, and whether it’s possible to be addicted – and what the hey-ho that might even mean.

    Addiction: Like I said, I’m not sure that addiction is the right term. But here’s a thought… if most of the content on the web is created by a small minority that produces massively more than the average user, then surely they must be the ones who are addicted?

    In that case, is it true that most of the content on the web is created by people with some behavioural problem? So…. most ‘normal’ people must be spending most of their time online consuming content created by loonies.

    Posted by TaiwanChallenges 09 September 2009

    Tiny numbers of narcissistic weirdos and show-offs creating most of the content for everyone else? Wow – that sounds just like mainstream media. Who’da thunk it?

    Read full post

  • Penelope Umbrico rocks

    I read about Penelope Umbrico’s awesome project “Suns from the Internet” at the weekend – because it’s on at the Natman Room, BAM Peter Jay Sharp Buildinguntil March 14th.

    It’s so cool, like a lot of her work. I’m thinking of doing something similar – an homage – for the wall of our office.

    This is a project I started when I found 541,795 pictures of sunsets searching the word “sunset” on the image hosting website, Flickr. I cropped just the suns from these pictures and uploaded them to Kodak, making 4″ x 6″ machine prints from them.

    For each installation, the title reflects the number of hits I got searching “sunset” on Flickr on the day I made/print the piece – for example, the title of the piece for the Gallery of Modern Art, Australia, was “2,303,057 Suns From Flickr (Partial) 9/25/07” and for the New York Photo Festival it was “3,221,717 Suns From Flickr (Partial) 3/31/08″ – the title itself becoming a comment on the ever increasing use of web-based photo communities, and a reflection of the ubiquity of pre-scripted collective content there.

    The same project also contains a piece called 15 Copyrighted Suns From the Internet. Compare and contrast:


  • Are we just mice trapped in a digital ‘Skinner Box’?

    Yay… many thanks to Ben for mailing this awesome blog post from the O’Reilly Radar blog, by Jim Stodghill. Today is supposed to be the most depressing day of the year, so it’s time I finally tried to finish.

    For nigh on two weeks now Jim’s post has freaked me out. I have wondered if I am a bit like this mouse. I certainly recognised some of my own obsessive digital behaviour in his  brilliantly written and moving account of life as a “digital stimulusaholic”. He describes being engulfed in a deep personal crisis, an addiction within which he feels utterly trapped. He talks of a cognitive biological barrier to our information processing powers. And the paradox of being infinitely distracted by infinite information. It’s pretty disturbing.

    It’s even more worrying that this isn’t your average ’social-networking-and-Twitter-is-bad-for-you” rubbish. You can toss that sort of thing aside in a moment – but Jim is one of us. He a geek. He loves Twitter… a lot (actually that’s a big part of his problem). No, this is someone who’s done his time in the twenches. He’s a super-user, or more accurately a super-abuser. And yet it’s also massively entertaining – a bit like Trainspotting.

    But hold on, what the heck is a Skinner Box?

    Read full post

Our latest tweets

Categories

Archives

Find us on the web