“Adults — digital natives or not — can’t imagine what a childhood mediated by mobile, social technology that didn’t exist 10 years ago is actually like.” – Senior editor The Atlantic magazine

I admit.

Technology has created a significant new challenge to parenting. I struggle to think of anything since the printing press that would affect parenting as much as technology <smartphones, cell phones, i-pads, etc.> is doing.

Television was different (it’s not portable).

Cars was different (cannot drive until 16).

Anyway.

3^rd grade children are, on average, eight years old.

20% of 3^rd grade boys and 18% of 3^rd grade girls already have a cell phone <2011 Massachusetts study of elementary, middle, and high school students>.

By the time children reach 5^th grade, 39% of the kids have cell phones.

More than 83% of the students have a cellular device by middle school.

I have mixed feelings.

And frankly its not because of kids having access to this technology at too young an age … its more because of the quote I began with … we <older folk> cannot imagine a childhood mediated by technology.

And because we cannot imagine it … we have a propensity to limit it.

We all focus on ‘my kid is attached to their cell phone’ or ‘all they do is text’ or <fill in the blank>.

Is that wrong?

Geez. Parts of it doesn’t sound wrong and yet parts of it does sound wrong … because they are already living in a world I struggle to even imagine.

And <to increase the challenge> I cannot even come close to imagining what their adult world will look like.

Part of me thinks it is silly to restrict their usage of something that is already integral to today’s world.

Another part of me understands that we adults <including teachers and the overall education system> are not set up to manage their usage (unless we use guidelines from our own youth … which seems unbelievably silly).

Regardless.

I have another post where I will note the increasing % of children below the age of 5 using computers <there are even kindergartens that have this now> to learn.

I have had multiple debates with other TED participants with regard to the ultimate effect on cognitive learning <I am on technology’s side and I am in a minority>.

It is a whole new world.

And while we older folk may try and keep up with the technology we run the risk of not keeping up with our children’s’ world.

No. I don’t have an answer.

Yes. I do believe we adults need to come up with an entirely new set of ‘rules’ that will make us feel incredibly uncomfortable in dealing with our children.

Here is what I do know.

It will not be long before that 83% having cellular devices will be at the 3^rd grade level.

It will not be long before over 80% of ALL children (any age … including less than 5) will have access to the internet.

We either need to accept it and do something to take advantage of it or we run the risk of creating the largest generational gap <and ensuing friction> since maybe age of the printing press.

Oh.

One day after I published the first version of this post I received the new Economist and had to add the following letter to the editor to my post:

SIR – Your special report <the third industrial revolution> is a warning bell for America’s outdated education system. Digital technology surrounds every facet of our lives. But when children walk into school they are usually told to give up the tools that power this new digital revolution and travel back in time to the days of Henry Ford’s factories. Indeed, classrooms in 2012 would seem normal to students in 1912: a teacher at the front, a board behind her to write on, two dozen children lined in rows who come and go as the proverbial steam whistle lets them know their shift is over.

We left that world a long time ago, and the customised and innovative tools of digital learning are long overdue in our education system. The disruptive nature of the digital revolution may bring more prosperity than either of its predecessors, but if the West cannot change its 19th-century model of education we will cede this wealth to others.

ADAM PESHEK

American Legislative Exchange Council

Washington, DC

True, so true. We need to leave a world behind and need to make the changes that will make us feel uncomfortable … but needed.

augmented reality

May 14th, 2012

Augmented reality is … well … a reality.

Augmented Reality: engineers are pulling graphics out of your television screen or computer display and integrating them into real-world environments. This new technology, called augmented reality, blurs the line between what’s real and what’s computer-generated by enhancing what we see, hear, feel and smell.

On the spectrum between virtual reality, which creates immersive, computer-generated environments, and the real world, augmented reality is closer to the real world. Augmented reality adds graphics, sounds, haptic feedback and smell to the natural world as it exists.

Ok.

And I will be the first to admit, as a quasi-marketing person, marketing is already making a hash of it <abusing it, misusing it, etc. it>.

Regardless. I see lots of possibilities with augmented reality mostly in that it provides an opportunity to add dimension to whatever story someone is telling.

The story could be a children’s story.

It could be a ‘product’ story. It could be a presentation story. It can enhance ANY story.

With that in mind the following link takes you to an incredibly appropriate use of augmented reality to enhance a story. Please don’t be fooled that it is so good just because it has to do with magic … the idea can add magic to any presentation and/or story.

Imagine any presenter, doesn’t have to be a CEO, presenting with this type of presentation.

Imagine a marketing message being given this way.

Imagine a class being taught this way.

Here you go (this is awesome):

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/marco_tempest_a_magical_tale_with_augmented_reality.html

Hope you enjoyed.

And hope you recognize that augmented reality technology is here … now.

The Requisite Super Bowl Ad Review

February 9th, 2010

I believe it is a requirement of every marketing/advertising blog to write something about the Super Bowl ads, usually first thing on Monday morning, following the big game. Well, as Bruce told you yesterday, he was hanging out with his mom and didn’t watch the game, so I figured I should ensure he keeps his “Marketing/Advertising Blogger” street cred by supplying my own quick take on the best spot of Super Bowl XLIV.

My vote for best ad: Google “Parisian Love :60”

Like every year, there were plenty of ads that made me laugh(Betty White and Abe Vigoda playing football!), plenty that left me scratching my head(the ‘86 Bears doing a remake of the Super Bowl Shuffle), and plenty that were just plain bad(everything ever done by Go Daddy…regardless of how hot Danica Partick is). The Google ad was the only one that, after watching it, I said “wow, that was a great friggin ad.” So many other spots were so focused on entertaining the audience or becoming the “watercooler conversation” the next day, that I hardly remember what it was they were supposed to be selling. I know Doritios and Bud Light ran a ton of spots, and to me they were interchangeable; lots of frat boy humor and not a lot of substance.

If it doesn’t sell, it isn’t creative.

-David Ogilvy

I think there are three things that make Google’s ad great: simplicity, focus on product benefit, and effective use of emotion. It’s just the Google homepage(the definition of simplicity, by the way), and a demonstration of some of the many ways that its search capabilities can be used to make life easier/better. No one is getting kicked in the groin, there are no talking babies, and Danica Patrick is no where to be found. Now, if all the ad did was show someone making a bunch of searches on Google, this would have been a supremely boring spot, but the use of the music and the clever theme to the searches (going to Paris, falling in love, starting a family) gives it the emotional boost that makes it resonate with the viewer.

You can say the right thing about a product and nobody will listen. You’ve got to say it in such a way that people will feel it in their gut.

-Bill Bernbach

I really don’t remember any other ads that were as successful in doing that. So that’s my favorite spot from Super Bowl XLIV(I just love using Roman numerals), what did you think of that spot? What was your favorite ad? Any votes for the worst ad of the night?

Death of Paper Part 3: E-Books vs. Paper Books

February 8th, 2010

Click here to read Death of Paper Part 1 and Part 2

Paper versus “E” (or virtual reading).

So. This discussion is all about Generations.

Huh?

Think of it this way. We are currently in a transitional generation.

Going back to the number of years I stated in part 2 (the 35 to 50 thing). It’s a generational thing. GenXers are book buyers. Millenials are book readers and at the forefront of internet readership <and E-readers>. GenYers are shifting the balance toward “e” reading. It will be what I call the Global Generation that I believe will drive the e industry and flip the entire printed literature world on its head. And heads up Kindle people cause cellular is rockin’ around the corner. (what that means is while I believe Kindle, etc. are user options, I believe the cellular industry team will get their act together and become ‘the’ access point)

“Paper to digital”

Paper disintegrates and books crumble. Within the next decade Google alone will have digitized over 15,000,000 works of literature. France has already started moving forward on digitizing their Nationale Biblioteque.

Conservatively it has been suggested at least 95% of serious scholarly inquiries begin on Google.

But. Think of “the source.” It is going to be generations before the origin of literature will be on digital. The origin remains in printed material (at least for the foreseeable future).
Now, global knowledge is mostly captured in the unrestricted and unregulated world of cyberspace. Anyone with access to a computer (or, increasingly, other devices) can tap in. This world comprises digital forms of all types of content — web sites, papers, articles, audio files, video files — all in formats that are easier to search and access than books.
Eventually the content odd man out is books. By and large the content in books remains trapped in books with little access in cyberspace (although that is being solved). Beyond Google, Yahoo and MSN have signed onto a competing open source venture. Because of technical and legal obstacles, both ventures are at least a decade away from offering comprehensive results.
Digitizing books is gonna happen. Doesn’t mean books will go away though. My last thought?

I don’t care.

Make it all available. Digital, paper, papyrus, stone tablets. I don’t care.

“What we want is to see the child in pursuit of knowledge, and not knowledge in pursuit of the child.”
George Bernard Shaw

The argument, or concerns, shouldn’t be paper versus ‘e’, it should be how we can make the words of truth, knowledge, available so we can fulfill children in pursuit of knowledge.

“In the best interest of the child”

In the next several sections of my ‘prognostication’ there will be some references to types of countries and the delivery system. Everything I am writing has one central thought “in the best interest of the child.” Sure. I know that isn’t realistic (because the bookselling business is a huge industry and cares about how to sell “stuff” but this is my post and I am setting the rules. And, frankly, if we don’t use this thought as the foundation for innovation and “where we go” in futurizing books and libraries and such we would be kind of silly. Classic literature (or let’s call it classic content and ideas) will never get old. Best sellers will always be best sellers. And knowledge will always be knowledge. All content is relevant. And all content should be available for future generations (Oh. That’s right. That’s kind of why we set up a library system in the first place. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.)

“The empires of the future are the empires of the mind.”

Sir Winston Churchill

Developing countries versus developed countries

Ok. You may be surprised I am bringing this up here. But. We need to get out of our little American mindsets and think globally. Because in the near future there are gonna be a whole bunch ‘o people hungry for knowledge. The Development Gateway’s Special Report on the Information Society states that soon, there will be more internet users in the developing world than the developed.

In 2005, the number of Internet users in developing countries crossed the 500 million mark, surpassing developed nations for the first time. By some estimates, more than 75 percent of the world’s population now lives within range of a mobile network. The Economist in the report on the expansion of cell phone technology in developing countries expresses confidence cell phones will become the easy access computer technology available everywhere. Get ready book world, your world is going to be exploding in the near future.

The 10 inch screen versus the one inch screen

The word reader took on new meaning in devices such as the iPhone, Sony E-Reader, Kindle and Nook, not to be confused with the Vook, a one-screen blend of book and video. So. I use 10 inch loosely to make a point. Computer screen to E-reader screen to cell phone screen. That is the relationship.

As to my point earlier, cell phones will become easy access points to the internet. Libraries and “knowledge owners” have to stop and think about this. Having a Kindle is pretty sweet but having a cell phone is almost a mandatory to life these days – everywhere. One inch books. Oh my. Get ready. It’s here.

Context versus capturing a moment.

The weakness of computers and the one inch screen is the difficulty in gaining context at a glance. But I believe the power of the one inch screen is its ability to capture, isolate and highlight the literature “power of the moment”. That is what literature is all about. Ebb and flow, peaks and valleys. Shakespeare isn’t Shakespeare until you grab that moment where he captures the essence of the thought in a paragraph, a stanza or even just a line. Heck. Even James Patterson or a Tom Clancy does it (not calling them Shakespearean but making a point).

But. Here’s the deal. While I question how children can gain context off a screen, I need to get over that pretty quickly (as I did some research for this I read some fabulously written, deep heartfelt documents on the relationship between a reader and a book … I threw them all away). I love books. I love the smell and the feel and the way I can imagine things. Well. So what?

Today’s generation responds to multi-dimensional, spatial decision-making better than I (or my generation) could ever do at our age. I cannot envision what the next generation will have the capacity to do. The one inch screen will be no problem for them. The problem lies in the small mindedness of people like me who loves books and what we know. Toss it out the window. These kids will grasp context better than we can ever imagine. We should stop worrying and just do.

Summary

On a computer, any article longer than maybe 3000 words, I genuinely find hard to read and prefer to print. If I do have to read it onscreen, I will invariably halt at some point and surf somewhere else, and then return to it. That is the way I engage
with content on a computer.

BUT. I am not the Global Generation (or a GenYer). And that is my point.

For some people, books hold personal histories and the bookshelves are the record of our lives. And that will remain the same. It may be instead of bookshelves it may be a bookshelf. And kids will still cherish books. It just may be a book on their shelf and not ‘books.’

The physical act of opening a pristine novel is a sensory and uniquely human experience. We carry books to show who we are. And those things won’t change. It just may not be a printed book but rather “my bookmark list” on my cell phone that my girlfriend scans while I am jet packing to the restroom at the virtual coffeehouse.

A last thought.

“I cannot live without books.” – Thomas Jefferson.

If he were alive today I believe he would simply say “I cannot live without knowledge.”

Death of Paper Part 2: The Future for Libraries

February 4th, 2010

Artistic Rendering of "The Great Library of Alexandria." by O. Von Corven

Click here to read The Death of Paper Part 1: Newspapers

So. Let me say I suck at predictions. The good news (for me I guess) is most “trend prognosticators” do also. There are typically too many variables (the largest being you are basing your prediction with what exists and you are only guessing on what may exist later – see Jetsons as prime example). Anyway. Here goes.

So. Do I believe libraries (or repositories for books) will cease to exist in 10 years? Nope.

30 to 50 years? Yup.

Well. Let me qualify that. Certainly they won’t exist the way they exist now.

If I could guess (assuming we stayed on the same technology innovation path and we still have electricity – because lack of electricity could put a dent in the internet age), one or two (several more in larger population areas) libraries will exist as hub access points for printed literature. Public libraries will be busier than ever. People will come in to use the computers, read newspapers, take out CDs and DVDs, and yes, books, as well as whatever technological gizmos and stuff that will distribute/share literature.

Oh. If I were libraries I would be going into the selling business too. They may as well become “the” source of printed literature (buying, renting or borrowing) cause I think Barnes & Noble and Borders are gonna be in a world of hurt very very soon (before libraries run into trouble because they serve different functions in the “needs” world). But, hey, that’s just my opinion.

Oh. I also believe the corner bookstore may actually thrive again in a world where printed literature is no longer a mass produced, schlock commodity and becomes a more rarified special purchase.

In years past, global knowledge was captured in books. People with access to a library could tap that knowledge. The New York Public Library system (which I believe was the first but I am sure a number of cities line up to take credit for it) was founded in 1895 with the mission of “making the accumulated knowledge of the world freely accessible to all, without distinction as to income, religion, nationality or other human condition.” (and, oh by the way, if I were consulting with the National Library Association – I made that up, don’t have a clue if there is one – I would be putting that statement up in big oversized letters reminding them of this vision)

Paul Leclerc, President of the New York Public Library has called libraries “the memory of humankind, irreplaceable repositories of documents of human thought and action.” (Once again … big oversized letters up on a board)

That won’t change. In fact, later on I will make a suggestion on how library systems can take advantage of their credibility place in the world.

Libraries are the owners of “truth” in knowledge (and they should embrace that responsibility). Places like Wikipedia are flippant with facts and often skewed on what is true versus not.

Create Libraripedia.

The world is begging for a repository of knowledge that they can trust to be “true and factual.” Why the library system? Printed literature will always remain because it is the “source” for digital information. We have only to look at the Bible to see how information can be quickly bastardized in its iterations. But the original Hebrew Old Testament will always be “the source.”

Someone needs to “own” the source and share trusted information. Who is more credible and knowledgeable then librarians and libraries?

And the library system will thrive (and it should). We will need more librarians to help students navigate the e-galaxy and tell “what is valuable information or reliable from what is junk.” As my sister (an Information Librarian Executive type) says “Librarians help you find data from reliable sources. The least expensive may not be the best resource.”

She also stated this thought much much better than I ever could…“I live on the web. I use it daily. But, if doing research, I spend time finding out where the data came from. Why? Just because it is on the web doesn’t make it right. The key is where are you getting your information from? It is a website that you know nothing about?”

There you go. Libraripedia. Much better idea than the Vego-matic.

A thought on the death of Paper Part 1: Newspapers

February 2nd, 2010

Are newspapers dying? Despite all the bad press, no. (I will explain later)

Could they restructure to become more viable long term and increase profits? Yes.

How?

1. Restructure printing production schedules and issue newspapers for three days a week (let’s say Wednesday-Friday-Sunday).

2. Charge to access content online.

Yup. That simple. (and I will get back to those two)

Newspapers just aren’t as bad off as people want to make them out to be.

First. Most papers are pretty healthy. The problem is they are owned by corporations demanding 30% profit margins. If they don’t, it is often more profitable to divest what is typically some valuable real estate and shut paper down. Smaller papers with ownership content with comfortable but not exorbitant profits are doing just fine. Maybe newspapers need to reevaluate profit goals.

Second. The source of revenue. I believe it was just last year NY Times circulation revenue topped advertising revenue for the first time in a very very long time. Once again. That is ok. Just a different revenue model. It’s been done once before (like when newspapers first came into existence and the first 100+ years of their existence).

Third. High ad revenue is a relatively recent phenomenon. For rounding sake let’s say for the first 125 years or so circulation revenue drove the newspaper industry (don’t worry. I am not gonna get stuck on printed paper. Just going through successful models that would apply to digital news also. Uh. Paid circulation). There is no reason why today’s newspapers cannot go back to the original “circulation revenue” model and live with less ad revenue.

Fourth. Government support. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…what do I mean by that? Tax breaks on production expenses and a favorable mail rate. Both those things lower expenses pretty significantly and then the news reporting infrastructure can go back to focusing on generating responsible news.

Ok. Here we go. So why I believe it’s easy. Because newspapers actually control professional news output. Simplistically they own the network of news gathering and fact finding and responsible reporting.

Unfortunately the simple solution (those two little things I listed upfront) carries with it a lot of complex maneuvering and actions.

The first is simply a choice they need to do or don’t do. But it would be silly to not do it. They would minimize print production expenses, maximize circulation days, probably be flat with existing ad revenues (when it is all said and done) and maintain readership.

The second simple thing to do is a little trickier.

Enlightened Conflict

Tag Archives: Google

The Requisite Super Bowl Ad Review

Enlightened Conflict