Posts Tagged ‘sxsw’

  • iPhone Abroad: Usability Nightmare

    Last month almost the entire company decamped to Austin for the South by Southwest (SXSW) interactive festival. My experience with my iPhone there was frustrating, to say the least.

    My carrier, O2, prices a 3G data connection when abroad so rapaciously (at £6 per megabyte), that there’s no realistic option of having a network connection when abroad, unless you can find a functioning wifi network. Open wifi networks appear to more common in Austin than they are in London, especially in hip cafés and bars (not that I ever visit such places in London), but at times when you are genuinely out and about, you’re stuck with no data at all, and the iPhone in effect becomes an iPod Touch.

    To be fair to O2, something that does not come naturally to someone who’s been consistently underwhelmed by them for years such as myself, they do send you a text message as soon as you emerge from your airplane mode, warning you about what a rip off their data roaming charges are. At those rates I’d have more respect for them if they walked up to me with their finger making a pretend gun in their coat pocket and asking for my dinner money.

    Read full post

  • Designing for Collaboration: Reward and Reputation Systems

    One of my favourite talks at SXSW was by Andy Baio from Kickstarter, called Gaming the Crowd. Andy spoke about designing for increased participation through reputation systems. In fact, he killed the wonderful myth I had that leaderboards rock. Apparently they don’t, because if you’re not in the top 10, you’re disincentivised to participate.

    Leaderboards aren’t always fun

    There was a phase when I played Crazy Taxi (now called Crazy Cabbie) on Facebook and the mere sight of that leaderboard would make me grit my teeth and want to somehow beat whichever friend of mine was on top (I have since stopped playing it, having taken voluntary retirement from the game because I saw I was becoming obsessed, which is another thing Andy spoke about). The benefit there was that there were two kinds of leaderboards for that game – one that was relevant to you because it included your friends who were playing the game, and the other a global one which was really not much use because a) you didn’t know the people who had the high scores there and b) usually their scores were way higher than your top friends’ scores, so much so that there was no way you’d be able to get that far – so you didn’t bother. Or, in other words, it was disincentivising me, except I didn’t realise it at the time. In general, in MMOs, it is in the interest of the game to ensure people don’t burn out, according to Andy, and leaderboards often result in that, as they did with me.

    farmvilleFarmville, now the largest MMO in the world with 82 million players, taps some key behavioural psychology traits to keep players addicted to it. One, reciprocity. If you do something for someone, they are motivated to do something for you. Two, loss aversion. When you own something, even if it is virtually, some bit of you wants to see it prosper. Three, set collection. Many of us must have experienced this as children: collecting and bartering cards to complete a set, like Pokemon cards, or dipping deep into the recesses of my memory, WWF card sets (yeah, thanks to my cousins, I actually participated in trading pictures of wrestlers at one point!).

    Knowing when to step back

    Sometimes the whole competition system gets out of hand. Andy mentioned the example of a lady who plays Xbox 360 who buys and plays games she doesn’t even like, just to beat people at them. Andy himself was part of a similar situation on Foursquare where a friend and he were locked in a competition with a third unknown person over the Mayorship of a cafe. They started resorting to checking in in the bathroom to get to the top, which really is a bit insane, as he acknowledged! (Overall though, he did say Foursquare had got the reward mechanism sorted out quite well).

    Right and wrong reward systems

    A key issue while designing games is to figure out how to make people happy. Games that use feelings of guilt to reinforce behaviour are wrong, and Andy gave a good example of a site that is really ‘evil’, as he calls them: Swoopo.

    swoopo

    Swoopo is an auction site where every bid raises the price of an item by 12 cents, but also increases the time the auction will be open for by upto 20 seconds. So once you spend, say, $20, you’ll feel compelled to go on bidding to win the item because you will believe that it is right within your reach – and for every bid, the site makes money. They even have something called the ‘Bid Butler’ which places bids on your behalf! According to Andy, a site like Swoopo takes advantage of the inherent irrationality in human beings – of the gaps in the way we think.

    Making fun part of everything you do

    Someone in the audience asked a very interesting question after the talk: how can we make work more fun using reputation systems? Andy’s response was that anything that you measure – or teach – can be made into a game. Even something like editing a Word document. Imagine if you got points for every error you found in a Word document – wouldn’t that make you want to pay even more attention to what you were doing, rather than seeing it as a chore?

    My favourite use of reputation systems and leaderboards in a work environment by far is the one that Panic Inc in Portland, OR have to display the status of their projects in-house. I so wish we had one as awesome as that here at Made by Many. Take a look:

    panic status board

    One of the most valuable takeaways for me was this simple lesson, though:

    Design your project in order to foster collaboration.

    That should be the guiding principle. Think about how you can bring people together, and how you can do it in a fun way that makes them want to come back to your site/game.

    Kickstarter is in itself a great example of that. It is one of our favourite sites here at Made by Many. Lovely, clean design, bold text, a clear indication of what is going on within different projects, and a motivation to go back and see how a project is faring if you’ve invested in it.

    kickstarter

  • Visual note-taking is the new religion

    Forget Scientology, Kabbalah or The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the growing Movement of Visual Notetakers is where it’s at.

    Original visual note-taking from Sunni Brown

    One of my big hopes pre-SXSW was that I’d learn some cool stuff, particularly about how to present thoughts and ideas visually. A good few of The Many are skilled draughtsmen who easily loop and whirl their way into the thoughts that spring up during brainstorms, workshops and meetings. I’m not one of them. My notes are always predictably outed as bullet-pointed lines; I’m a word person.

    Read full post

  • We might be living in the wrong experiment

    One of the many very enjoyable and inspiring talks I attended at SXSWi was on Design Fiction.

    Here’s how it was billed.

    Design fiction is an approach to design that speculates about new ideas through prototyping and storytelling. The goal is to move away from the routine of lifeless scenarios-based thinking. We will share design fiction projects and discuss related techniques for design thinking, communication and exploration of near future concepts.

    Read full post

  • A Few Quick Questions: Pete Cashmore at SXSW 2010

    Right before South By, we sent a few SXSW-related questions over to Pete Cashmore of Mashable for him to answer. Mashable is one of the sites people both from within and outside the social media industry regularly refer to and read. In the 5 years since Pete founded Mashable in 2005, it has grown to gather a readership of 10 million unique users every month. Here’s what Pete thought of (and was up to) at South By this year:

    —-

    1. Has Mashable been at SXSW every year since 2005? How have you seen it evolve?

    My first SXSW was in 2008.  Since then the Interactive part has grown dramatically — that’s a great sign for the industry, but it also means it’s a challenge to meet all the interesting people!  Interactive also includes a more diverse range of people now, including those who got into social media by way of traditional media, marketing or advertising.  That’s great for Mashable, since that’s the audience we write for.

    2. What is the one panel/session you definitely do not want to miss this year, and why?

    I organized interviews and meetings throughout, so I unfortunately didn’t have masses of time for panels.  However, I did participate in a panel on crowdsourcing called Crowd Control.  We spoke about how media companies can add crowdsourced content in a way that adds value, and posed the question: “is crowdsourcing a fad, or will it change media forever?”.  The audience voted overwhelmingly for the latter.

    3. We’re sure you attend plenty of conferences and tech events every year. What makes SXSW special to the Mashable family?

    SXSWi is the one place where everyone in tech comes together — people from all over the US, Europe, and even Australia and New Zealand make the trip.  That makes it a melting pot from which the future of the web emerges.

    4. Name one thing you’re sure will happen at Mashable’s MashBash this year :)

    A geek dance-off in the early hours of the morning (and it did!).

    —-

    Thanks for taking the time to answer these, Pete! Hopefully we’ll see you next year.

  • It’s a wrap. SXSW over… ’til next year.

    I wrote a week or so ago about what I wanted to get from South by South West.

    Now it’s all over, the hangover has faded but the jetlag is lingering longer than would be ideal, there are a few observations from my first sxsw that I would like to share.

    The standout moment for me was Clay Shirky’s talk “Monkeys with Internet Access: Sharing, Human Nature, and Digital Data.” He captivated the audience for an hour, weaving together seemingly unrelated topics and themes (underwear, weather balloons, spherical trigonometry, Napster and the printing press, amongst others). He created a beautifully articulate argument for how abundance breaks more things than scarcity and raised the question around how much value we can get out of civic sharing.

    He even managed to answer some terminally dull, laborious questions with wit and create an interesting point where there was, seemingly, nothing to say. Clever.

    As I tweeted at the time, the best presenters are great story tellers. Clay Shirky is an awesome story teller. He also wore a three wolf moon t-shirt for extra awesomesauce™.

    I was probably not the only person to leave that auditorium wanting to be a better public speaker.

    I think one of the reasons his talk went down so well was that he went very deep into the subject. I found some of the panels merely skimmed the surface and left many people wanting more – which they often found by leaving the session. Either the participants judged their audience wrong or were, dare I say it, guilty of inadequate preparation.

    As someone said on Twitter – it’s all a bit Russian roulette with the sessions. Apparently, it always has been.

    You’d expect Keynotes to be the pinnacle of the conference though. The interview of Evan Williams, founder of Twitter, was one that fell way short of the mark. It was a weak interview that led to a queue to leave the enormous room. The back channel was alive with protestations at the dullness of it all. Here’s a compilation of just some of our chat.

    Poor old Eliot Van Buskirk who had to follow up with an interview of Daniel Ek, CEO and co-founder of Spotify, 24 hours later was visibly nervous as he took to the stage; conscious of an audience that wasn’t afraid of giving its tweets some teeth. But he made a much better fist of the interview than Umair Haque did of his session with Williams. His questions were more pointy and we actually gleaned some information from the interview. Like, for example, Spotify having 320,000 paying subscribers, 100 million playlists – 30% of which being complete albums – laying waste to the myth that the album as a format and concept is dead.

    Those panels that did dive deep were a pleasure to listen to, even if at times it was an individual holding the whole thing together. Johnny Lee of Microsoft – Applied Sciences talked, like Shirky, eloquently and concisely when discussing ‘new interaction paradigms’ (first prize for buzzword bingo). His piece was littered with a number of nuggets of detail and insights – fired off too quickly to get down. Will be hunting down the session video when it is available later in the year.

    As a side point. How come I’ve heard a number of tremendously switched-on people from Microsoft talking about their work with some awesome advances in computing technology? What’s the barrier between the output of these visionaries and the marketplace? I think that company needs a few more people like Johnny Lee and Blaise Aguera y Arcas and less Balmers.

    It’s also worth mentioning Ze Frank’s session. Never mind him working in a parallel universe, I think it’s probably more tangential. He talked about some of the things he’s done over the years exploring human emotions. I took a lot more away from this session than James. Yes, what he does is disposable and often whimsical. But some of it, I feel, provides a real insight into human emotions and he has a great knack of turning a sterile digital space into something quite emotionally charged. His thought patterns, work rate and variety are startling. He makes me want to do more.

    But, as Tim says, SXSW is as much about the people you meet. The parties were excellent, the conversation inspiring, Twitter avatars we brought to life and to be frank I can’t f***ing wait ’til 2011.

  • The gang’s back on home turf

    One cowboy hat, four flights, six blog posts, dozens of sessions, hundreds of tweets and waaay too many tequila shots later, Made by Many is home from Austin and over the jet lag (well, some of us are doing better on that one than others).

    There are a few blog posts in the pipeline about the various things we saw/heard/did at SXSW and the Deep Thoughts touched off thusly. But before we get all serious, here’s something a little more playful — an insight into the Made by Many culture, if you will.

    Before we went to Texas we discussed the importance of having a gang sign to demonstrate a) belongingness to MxM and b) just how dangerously cool we really are. Below, Simon demonstrates the clever Made by Many (hands make Ms, then cross your wrists for the X) gang sign:

    mxm simon

    Ideally, the sign is executed with a lunge — that sort of ups the awesomeness ante.

    So there we were drinking beer, playing table tennis and flashing the M-x-M + lunge, when lo, we discovered that we actually aren’t the only ones with a gang sign! What are the odds?!

    Here, Mike Arauz of Undercurrent lines up amongst the many to demonstrate the scarily cool UC sign:

    mxm and uw gang signs

    The thing about gang signs is that once one agency has one, everybody wants one. Ben Malbon of BBHLabs was exceedingly envious of ours, so much so that, in a rather generous display of creative openness, we  made a special B-B-H for him (the Labs thing was just too much hassle):

    BBH gang sign

    Big thanks to Ben Malbon for the photos. Peace out, bro.

    **UPDATE**

    Those crazy kids at GSD&M Idea City in Austin have sent in their own snap to be added to the collection. Here they are, looking dangerous:

    IC_photo

  • Lazy panels and lazy tweeting

    Lazy panels and lazy tweeting
    I’ve just come out of the SXSW Evan Williams keynote. Although there was the odd glimpse of wisdom (and a vaguely interesting announcement about the @anywhere service) I didn’t manage to get to the end of the session. I held out for as long as I could, but I soon joined the flood of people leaving the room.
    @conradlisco sums it up better than I can:
    <tweet>
    The same happened yesterday afternoon. Jon Gruber and Jim Coudal were running a session called ‘Online advertising: the race to the bottom.’ Cool title and a great opportunity to discuss the future of advertising and how we can sell different approaches to display advertising to our clients.
    Unfortunately this isn’t what we heard. Instead we got a rather too cosy fireside chat:
    <tweet>
    Here are two people on stage completely fluffing a panel. An audience that started off as being completely engaged slowly losing interest in the topic and (unfortunately) respect for the people on stage.
    Faux conversations
    The two people having a staged conversation seems to have been very popular this year at SXSW. Well, amongst the panellists at least. To me it comes across as an incredibly lazy way of presenting a session.
    Instead of a carefully disciplined and structured presentation that has a point and a message, the audience are treated to banter and discussion. Often the key themes and over riding message is lost in soporific chat. The advantage seems to be all with the panel – no time consuming keynote slides to prepare, no time spent agonising over which points you want to make or the structure of your presentation. The panellists can just wing it as they go along and see what happens. Usually to the detriment and disappointment to the audience.
    This is a format that *could* be made to work. Imagine if we were to add a dissenting view to the panel. Rather than two friends who are exactly on the same page (desperately feeding each other lines) how about two people from different sides of the argument? In the online advertising panel for example, someone from a big display house ad versus the creator of a small independent ad network. Someone who believes in slapping as may ad formats on a page versus someone who thinks that publishers should put value on their content and limit ad inventory?
    Disagreement, discussion, argument, dissent. Surely more can be learnt (and communicated) through debate than a mere chat?
    Follow that damn #hashtag
    Could Gruber and Coudal have changed the direction of their panel as it happened? Whilst the set up of the panel meant there wasn’t the scope for dissent, could they have least recognised that the audience was getting frustrated?
    Of course an astute presenter has a feel for the mood of the room through all those micro body ticks the audience are sending out – sighs and crossing and re-crossing legs. At an extreme level of course this manifests as people walking out of the room…
    There’s a gapingly obvious way of measuring the audience opinion. I’ve shown a couple of tweets on this page showing the reaction to a panel in real time. Why can’t the panel follow the panel’s hashtag and change the trajectory of the talk as it goes?
    The amount of times that I’ve sat in a session recently and thought the panel are in a different head space from the audience – unfortunately in some cases it’s as if the panellist has their head in a bin, ignoring everything that’s happening around them.
    Why not use Twitter to not only gather questions from the audience but also to gauge the mood and react accordingly? If two people are on stage it doesn’t take long for one of them to scan a twitter stream and act quickly.
    Please, just ask the question
    Panels end with a question and answer session. Actually they end with a ‘personal bio, company spiel, long winded project introduction, question’ and answer session.
    Whilst members of the audience introducing themselves to the floor can provide valuable context to a question, sometimes it comes across as self aggrandisement.  We’re interested in what you have to ask, but at the end of the day, we’re more interested in what the panel has to say…

    I’ve just come out of the SXSW Evan Williams keynote. Although there was the odd glimpse of wisdom (and a vaguely interesting announcement about the @anywhere service) I didn’t manage to get to the end of the session. I held out for as long as I could, but I soon joined the flood of people leaving the room.

    @conradlisco sums it up better than I can:

    Picture 4

    The same happened yesterday afternoon. Jon Gruber and Jim Coudal were running a session called ‘Online advertising: the race to the bottom.’ Cool title and a great opportunity to discuss the future of advertising and how we can sell different approaches to display advertising to our clients.

    Unfortunately this isn’t what we heard. Instead we got a rather too cosy fireside chat:

    Picture 5

    Here are two people on stage completely fluffing a panel. An audience that started off as being completely engaged slowly losing interest in the topic and (unfortunately) respect for the people on stage.

    Faux conversations

    The two people having a staged conversation seems to have been very popular this year at SXSW. Well, amongst the panellists at least. To me it comes across as an incredibly lazy way of presenting a session.

    Instead of a carefully disciplined and structured presentation that has a point and a message, the audience are treated to banter and discussion. Often the key themes and over riding message is lost in soporific chat. The advantage seems to be all with the panel – no time consuming keynote slides to prepare, no time spent agonising over which points you want to make or the structure of your presentation. The panellists can just wing it as they go along and see what happens. Usually to the detriment and disappointment to the audience.

    This is a format that *could* be made to work. Imagine if we were to add a dissenting view to the panel. Rather than two friends who are exactly on the same page (desperately feeding each other lines) how about two people from different sides of the argument? In the online advertising panel for example, someone from a big display ad house versus the creator of a small independent ad network? Someone who believes in slapping as may ad formats on a page versus someone who thinks that publishers should put value on their content and limit ad inventory?

    Disagreement, discussion, argument, dissent. Surely more can be learnt (and communicated) through debate than a mere chat?

    Follow that damn #hashtag

    Could Gruber and Coudal have changed the direction of their panel as it happened? Whilst the set up of the panel meant there wasn’t the scope for dissent, could they have least recognised that the audience was getting frustrated?

    Of course an astute presenter has a feel for the mood of the room through the micro body ticks the audience are sending out – sighs and crossing and re-crossing legs. At an extreme level of course this manifests as people walking out of the room…

    I’ve shown a couple of tweets on this page showing the reaction to a panel in real time. Why can’t the panel follow the panel’s hashtag and change the trajectory of the talk as it goes?

    The amount of times that I’ve sat in a session recently and thought the panel are in a different head space from the audience – unfortunately in some cases it’s as if the panellist has their head in a bin, ignoring everything that’s happening around them.

    Why not use Twitter to not only gather questions from the audience but also to gauge the mood and react accordingly? If two people are on stage it doesn’t take long for one of them to scan a twitter stream and act quickly.

    Please, just ask the question

    Panels end with a question and answer session. Actually they end with a ‘personal bio, company spiel, long winded project introduction, question’ and answer session.

    Picture 9

    Whilst members of the audience introducing themselves to the floor can provide valuable context to a question, sometimes it comes across as self aggrandisement. We *are* interested in what you have to ask, but at the end of the day, we’re more interested in what the panel has to say…

    What are your thoughts of how panels should be run? More debate? Less questions? I’d be interested to know what you think.

  • 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

  • Battle for Your TV: The Big TV Smackdown at SXSW

    I made bad choices for the first two time-slots at SXSW, so I had high hopes for the third, PayTV vs Internet – The Battle For Your TV, featuring Mark Cuban of HDNet and Avner Rosen of Boxee.

    It was good to see a debate between two people who genuinely disagree by 180º on how the future of TV will pan out, even if some of the argument was basically dick-swinging.

    Cuban believes that the future of TV is basically the same as the present: subscription services over cable or satellite, with a light dash of so-called ‘Interactive TV’. Rosen believes, as I do, that the future of TV is on the web. To be clear: everyone sane accepts that we will continue to have a dedicated large screen in our houses on which we watch video. I just don’t believe that broadcast TV has a future that looks anything like the present, if it has one at all.

    Read full post

Our latest tweets

Categories

Archives

Find us on the web