11th Screen

I heard Chris Borek from Target speak at the Digital Signage Expo earlier this year and walked away from it impressed with their approach to serving customers – “it’s about interacting with the customer on their (the customer’s) terms, on their schedule.  It’s not about being there all the time, it’s about being there when they need it.”  So, I was not surprised when, over the weekend, I saw this touchscreen in the middle of their electronics/gaming section.  Apparently, they’re planning a full chain roll-out with these babies.

Let’s put her to the test and see how she does.

Purpose – They are here to sell games.  They’re providing this solution to make it easier for you to a) search for the game you want b) search for the game you don’t know you want c) find the most convenient store for you to get it at and d) get the information in the form you want.  This experience delivers on all fronts.  If I were looking for a game, I would go straight to this touchscreen vs. a store employee, but that’s just me.  If I was intimidated by this touchscreen and wanted the comfort of a store employee, that employee could walk me straight to this and step through the experience with me (hopefully, that’s what they’re trained to do.)  In that regard, it even levels the playing field for all of those employees – now they don’t need to know about every game in the store.  The technology serves that purpose and allows the employee to focus on the customer.

Drama – As you can see, this touchscreen was built into the display unit and it all looks very nice.  You can tell they spent a lot of time thinking this through and designing the entire unit, not just the touchscreen.  I don’t know how they could have done a better job with placement, although it would have been much more noticeable if it were right on the main aisle.  (As it is, it’s hidden behind the display unit on the main aisle.)  Once I noticed it, the subtle animation and large text with prominent call-to-action made me want to interact with it and set my expectations on exactly what I needed to do.  In my opinion, they made a good decision with the vertical monitor – it creates more of a dramatic impact than the same size horizontal monitor and for this type of information, I think it makes for a better use of space.

Usability – The interface was set up very much like a web interface.  In some respects, it mirrors Target’s online experience, certainly the way in which the content was bucketed.  I didn’t have a problem finding the information I wanted.  In some cases, there were multiple ways to get to the same content, which I think is good.  And regardless of where I was in the experience, I could always “Go Back” Home and “Notify an Employee.”  It’s great (and smart) to have those anchors.  I think it makes the user feel comfortable that they can always get the information that they ultimately want, even if it isn’t through this touchscreen experience.

Interactivity – This experience was touch-based with email & mobile integration.

The screen was responsive to touch and aside from the internet connection (which I suspect is needed to utilize their web content management system), I thought the experience itself was fluid and smooth.  The email & text component was simple and provided only the information I needed in either of those channels.

Information – All games, all systems, all accessories, all the time.  The content here is hooked into Target’s chain-wide inventory, so if the store that you’re in doesn’t have what you’re looking for, you can locate it at the stores closest to you.  In addition to the product information, they worked in a social component via user reviews.  That said, I couldn’t find any user reviews in the games that I searched (which I think can be easily remedied with some seeded content), but it might have just been by chance that those specific games didn’t have reviews.  This application didn’t seem to have any un-needed information and it didn’t seem to lack any either.  Everything in here seemed purposeful.

Personalization – There wasn’t much personalization in this experience, but there was more than in the touchscreens that I’ve previously featured.  The email and mobile component was a nice, personal touch and a step in the right direction to make the experience personal.  I think they have the opportunity to build user’s profiles, recommend content based on previous purchases, incorporate a loyalty-type program – all might not be appropriate for the everyday consumer, but would certainly help Target compete with stores like GameStop with the hardcore gamers.

All in all, this was a very good, efficient application.  One of the best I’ve seen, and certainly the best touchscreen that I’ve featured here.  Why other game stores and movie stores (like Blockbuster) and music stores don’t do this more, I just don’t understand, especially if they’ve already got a good system online.  I think anyone who’s considering building/updating a retail-based interactive application should go to their nearest Target and play around with this for a little while – you’ll learn alot.

I’m a sucker for cheap clothes, especially for the kids!  So it was that my wife and I found ourselves in Old Navy, first to do a quick walk through but inevitably got sucked in for about an hour worth of shopping.  (I didn’t find anything for me, but we found great deals for everyone else in the family.)  As we were looking through the kids section, I stumbled (literally) upon this interactive floor projection.

This is the first time I’ve reviewed a gesture-only-based experience, so let’s see how she does.

Purpose – From what I saw, the main purpose of this experience was to keep kids occupied.  I’ve seen these “in a box solutions” (I think this one is from our friends at GestureTek) before and I think they’re a good idea, but they sure are small (not the box, the interactive “play” area.)  While I was in the store, I did see a few kids playing with it, but not for very long.  Maybe this is a function of content, maybe a function of placement (I’ll get to both later).  I do feel like Old Navy can do more with this, even in terms of advertising, even though the majority of eyeballs seeing it are going to be young kids.  They can certainly draw attention to the cool, new clothes that they’re trying to sell.  The system is set up to be highly interactive, so this sort of content can be worked right into the existing game’s architecture, or even new games.  Instead of kicking around some soccer balls, kick around some polos and cargos.  Or better yet, set up a memory-type game with all of the inventory, and if the kid wins, they win some sort of discount.  Make it flashy and a bit obnoxious so they’ll tell their parents and get them involved.  There’s just got to be more to it than keeping the kids occupied.

Drama – This thing was tucked away under a table in the back of the store.  Granted, the kid’s section was in the back of the store, but I’m not kidding when I say I stumbled upon it.  I don’t know if I would have ever seen it if I wasn’t looking for special sizes behind all of the display clothes that they put in the front of each of the shelves.  These little boxes are a bit awkward, so I understand the need to hide it, but I don’t think placement behind a table does it the type of justice it needs (or maybe it does for this purpose?).  At least put it where the adults can plainly see it so they can push their kids in that direction, just to keep them occupied!

Usability – These floor-based, gesture experiences are hard in this category, even if the experience is simple.  Could I use this?  Yes.  Did I get lost in the experience?  No.  I wish I would have known how long the experience loop was, but I don’t know that it would have kept me there longer.  It didn’t hamper the experience.  The interesting thing about an experience like this – one with no real purpose – the inability to properly use it doesn’t have a huge impact.

Interactivity – You can see by the video, the ball didn’t really do what I wanted it to do.  Maybe I want exact and kids could care less.  It was responsive, just not precise.  Now, when there was no game-play-like interaction (ie – the Old Navy logo), the system reacted just fine.  It produced the ripples that are so fun to produce and I was satisfied.

Information – I just think Old navy could do so much more with this if they wanted to.  It almost seemed like they got everything out of the box, took the most popular games, plugged their logo in, and haven’t paid attention to it since.  I could be way off base, but nothing about the experience seemed purposeful.  They could easily incorporate any of their sales/promotion items, have a little fun with it, get the adults involved to by incorporating some sort of discount or prize.  My thought is that if you’re going to do something like this, use it to benefit your end goal.  There are ways they could use this to drive sales for sure.

Personalization – None.  It would be really cool if this system could hook into the POS system somehow and take information given by the user on the floor to at least synch up with the associates behind the counter.  That’s more of a crazy idea, but integrating with mobile is less crazy and something that makes a lot of sense.  If older kids could text something in to be projected and ultimately “played” with or were able to control elements of games with their mobile phone and their feet – that would be cool.

I was happy to see one of these in an environment where it was actually being used.  I think the “gesture-based-projection/interaction-in-a-box is a fantastic idea, but clearly something that needs to be thought through to have a great impact.

As always, let me know your thoughts on this and anything else.  I’d love to hear from you.

I didn’t run into the Happiness Machine, but I ran into the next best thing – Coke’s interactive (via touch screen) vending machine.  A true 11th Screen kiosk.  Say what you will about Coke as a product – as a brand, I think they are doing many things right.  They do a good job across platforms, they’re really good at social, and as most recently evidenced by their Happiness Machine, they’re pushing IOOH, and innovation.  I saw this 3-sided kiosk in a mall – 2 of the sides consisted of branding (from other advertisers) and then, this side, was one big interactive display.

I think this scorecard review is going to be pretty straight-forward.

Purpose – The purpose here is clear – sell drinks.  I don’t know why more and more products like these don’t do what Coke has done here.  You’re going to have vending machines.  People already buy from them.  Why not maximize that effort by creating something that can immerse consumers deeper into the brand and can support other advertisements?  (I assume cost is one of the biggest barriers.)  With this framework, Coke can advertise their own products, other advertiser’s products, or even the mall.

Drama – You can see for yourself – you can’t miss this thing.  I think the one thing working against it, just as any installation like this, is the fact that digital (non-interactive) posters are commonplace throughout malls today.  Someone could see this and just expect for it not to be interactive.  I think they’ve done a good job here of utilizing the space – the primary real estate for the products and the secondary real estate for ads.  Something moves on the screen at all times, so it stands a real good chance of stopping people.

Usability – There were two things I could do besides purchasing.  1) Select one of the drinks and 2) scroll through them.  The experience wasn’t deep at all.  Simple.  But just right.  My mom could operate this without any trouble.

Interactivity – This was a single-touch touch screen and not much different than a “normal” vending machine.  The screen was responsive to touch (even though it might not look like it at the beginning of the video – I sometimes have a hard time operating the camera and touching at the same time) and I thought it was executed very well.  I like how they also included a mobile component for one of their products (Sprite) whereby the user could text in a short code, made aware by this screen, to receive updates and rewards.  Although this particular component doesn’t connect offline with online, they’re smart to include it if they have it, particularly in a dynamic experience like this.

Information – High quality video, animation, stills.  They told the Coke (and products) stories with the ads, not the interactive component.  Every piece of content in here is highly produced which is necessary when displayed on something this big.  I thought they did a good job of incorporating the right content, not only type of content, but length of content.  And they ran all of the ads on a loop.  This was all very purposeful and run by someone who knew the space and what they were doing.

Personalization – No real personalization beyond my single-touch, single-user experience.  The mobile component brought a level of personalization in the fact that it extends the experience onto a consumer’s mobile phone, which is very personal.  As far as the actual kiosk goes, though, there was really no need for my experience to be personalized.  (Now, in the future, when this experience is smart enough to know that I like Coke and not Diet Coke, not only can it serve me the right ads, but it can also present me with the right options instead of everything in the lineup.  Then, it’d be personalized.)

All in all, I was really happy to see this.  Hopefully cost won’t be as big of a barrier in the future as it might be now and we’ll see these more and more.  It sure does make a lot of sense.

Have any of you seen any of these?  Not only for Coke but other brands?  Probably the most notable is Best Buy’s interactive vending machines, but this is the first I’ve seen of a drink maker.  If so, shoot them my way.  I’d love to learn about them.

I’m getting at this a bit late, especially in Internet time, but I came across an article recapping an Innovation conference (called “Creativity and Technology“) from a couple weeks ago. As the name suggests, this is a conference that combines creative thinking with emerging technology (brought to us by Ad Age). It is very much for an agency audience, featuring some of the biggest names in the agency world. These guys are on the front lines of pushing the boundaries, enough so that they are creating new boundaries themselves.

This particular article was a recap on the topic of “Breaking Down Barriers Between Fields,” and I found even the brief recap fascinating.  I love hearing different perspectives from (smart) people.  The reporter broke it down with 5 takeaways that I’ll mirror here and give my own thoughts, as these are things I think about every day, for good or bad.

1. Don’t separate “Interactive” – This is not an easy thing to do, particularly as agencies try to expand their competencies and do more and more.  I like what Ivan Askwith, director of strategy, at Big Spaceship said here – “Our focus should not be on emerging tech, but emerging cultural practices.”  From an agency perspective, it’s not about what new technologies look like and how we can use them.  It’s about how we integrate the right talent in the right way into the organization so we can tell the story across the right platform (or “screen” in my world, “field” in this article).  The possibilities of the type of work agencies and brands can produce shouldn’t drive the ship.  The possibilities of people, fueled by the right environment, given the right tools, should always drive the work.  These are aspects that result in a particular culture.  Again, not easy to do, but the agencies who abide by this and learn how to do it first and practice it will be one step ahead.  This is the look – a mandatory – for the “new” agency.

2. Consider platform storytelling – This is the one that I wish I had more information on.  What was reported here and the actual “takeaway” topic don’t quite match up to me.  The quote here, from Patrick Gardner, CEO of Perfect Fools – “Create frameworks so people can create their own stories and pipe that back to the brand.”  True, but to me, this is only part of the story of “storytelling.”  #1 brands have to understand that their “story” is no longer only narrated by them (to Mr. Gardner’s point).  But #2, their story is no longer narrated for a particular medium (I call them “screens,” these guys call them “platforms.”)  We operate in a world that is connected and almost platform agnostic.  From an agency and brand’s perspective, understanding how the story continues across “platforms” is the first step in a new way of communicating.  Executing that story in the right way, given many authors and many platforms, is the golden ticket.  No one wants to leave part of the story on the table.

3. Partner with tech companies, not just media companies – as technology advances, so do the skills required.  We sell our thinking, but we don’t want anyone else to execute it, so we must be executioners, too.  A “new” agency has the capabilities, either in-house, in-network, or through strategic partnerships to do it all, even technical execution.

4. Game mechanics is the new marketing – My takeaway quote here is from Kevin Slavin, co-founder of social TV platform Starling and entertainment marketing firm Area/Code – “Game mechanics motivate consumer behavior.”  I see the point here, and it’s interesting, and I do believe that that there is truth to this, but only for a small cross-section of consumers.  Gaming is a hot trend right now – FourSquare and MyTown and even Kinect – but I think, today, this is more aspirational.  Gaming, especially advances like the aforementioned, doesn’t pass my mom test and while she is increasingly falling out of “target markets,” I still think it’s an aspect to think about – interacting in different ways.  I like interacting with brands, even incorporating a different type of interaction through my every day life through gaming, but I don’t believe everyone’s there yet.

5. It’s hard to laugh alone – I think the point here is that human instinct is to be connected to others.  Technology, particularly social technology like Facebook and Twitter, enables us to connect in ways like never before.  True.

This is one of the conferences I identified at the beginning of the year to go to and, of course, due to other commitments, missed it.  There should be another one coming up in November, this time in London that I’ll pencil in as soon as the dates are announced.  Anyone out there attend this past one in New York?  Or either of the previous two?  If so, I’d love to hear some of your takeaways.

Thanks, everyone, for reading!

How far away do you really think we are from mass adoption of interacting with the physical spaces around us?

Can this be the year of mobile and “interactive out-of-home?”

Has technology made “medium” really irrelevant?

My answers:  Closer than we actually think.  Yes and quite possibly (who would have thought?).  Technology has shifted each medium’s relevancy from consumption to experience, thus shifting the necessity of each.

For anyone who does not know what “out-of-home” (OOH), “digital out-of-home” (DOOH), or my own “interactive out-of-home” (IOOH) is, or does not believe its place or efficacy in today’s media environment, I believe you will learn very quickly otherwise.

I’m struck by examples of new technology that I have seen in a short 12 months, each adding another element of seamless human-to-computer interaction, directly affecting our experiences in the spaces around us:

Layar – through the use of your mobile phone, you can simply hold it up in any environment and instantly see, through this “augmented” reality, people around you, what they’re saying, what they’ve said, where they want to go, where you should go, etc…The open space around you instantly becomes interactable.

Audio Graffitti – here, you can walk up to any surface, speak or make a noise, and “tag” it for others to hear/experience from that point forward.  The surfaces around you instantly become audible.

Project Natal/Kinect – this gesture-based controlling system brought to us by Microsoft/Xbox was formally announced last night at the E3 conference (although the technology has been open to developers for at least a year.)  This is a game changer (pardon the pun, it’s just the right thing to say) – it allows users to control their experience in games without pressing a button of any sort.  Nothing.  All actions are controlled by the user’s gestures.  The displays around you instantly become responsive.

This Kinect news is really groundbreaking in my opinion.  Now, this technology is available for gamers, just a fraction of the general population, but in a year from now, how much bigger does that fraction get?  Who else is this kind of technology available for on a mass scale?

Technology is no longer the barrier.  Yes, it’s going to continue to get better and take different shapes, but as evidenced by the three examples above, it’s at the point where we no longer need to touch anything to interact with the spaces around us.  Just take a minute to think about that.

The other common thread among these three – they are all inherently social.

I’ve said before that “DOOH” as a medium is talked about wrong (“digital” just means display and without interaction, it is dull, tired, and un-sustainable) and I’m afraid that it is already becoming extinct, before it even gains traction.  We are rapidly moving beyond one-way, static displays, digital or not.

Take a look at the spaces around you when you’re on your way to work, or at the grocery store, or at the park.  Think you can interact with them?  If not, think again.

I had Daddy’s Day Out this weekend, so the kids and I journeyed to Lowe’s to check out some tile for a back-portch-tiling-project.  I think that home improvement stores like this are ripe with interactive out-of-home opportunities, with all the DIY’ers and supplies and possibilities…there are only so many employees walking around who have expertise in your desired improvement area.  Here, technology could help bridge the gap and influence buying decisions in a sound, effective way.  I’ve played around with the “pick-your-paint” program on the computer in the paint section, but I haven’t seen anything else on the interactive front.  Until now.  Enter Whirlpool’s washer/dryer attempt at interactivity via this touchscreen (Yes, that is one of my sons saying “dad” over and over again – disregard that.):

So, let’s put it up against the scorecard and see how she does.

Purpose – as with any of these installations in retail environments, the purpose is to sell products and a clear way to sell products is to highlight all of the its benefits.  This particular touchscreen solution highlights clear benefits of the washer and dryer and ended up driving me deeper into the brand.  But quite honestly, I left more confused than educated.  It looked cool, but it really didn’t give me the information I wanted.  I believe products like washers and dryers need comparisons (against like products) to really make the most informed buying decision.  Without the help of a sales associate, I have no idea how this product rates against the others.  I only know that this is the best product on the floor, which I assumed of course, given that it was the only one that got special space-age, touchscreen love.

Drama – if I weren’t looking for it, I would have easily missed it.  And by “it,” I mean anything that looks touchable and interactable via touchscreen, because, well, that’s what I do.  If I were to watch 5 random people stop by this washer/dryer, I guarantee at least half would not know they could interact with the screen.  This small, little screen that hung over the washer/dryer.  Physical placement on the floor didn’t help matters either, because two washer/dryers over, there was a non-interactive, digital screen touting how great that one was.  I assumed since I couldn’t touch the other one that I couldn’t touch this one, but low and behold, I was wrong.  After realizing that this one was interactive, I thought the use of video avatars and the spacey animations were catchy, although I can’t find whether or not they’re on brand.  I have a feeling they were just catchy elements that they used to theme the experience.  For me, it seemed out of left field and after interacting with it, I found those elements distracting.

Usability – maybe it was my kids distracting me, but I had no idea where to begin and where to end in this experience.  While the content seemed to be bucketed in a logical manner, the content itself seemed very nebulous.  Once I got into one of the buckets of information, I didn’t know how much I could experience.  When I felt like each piece of content was “finished,” it wasn’t, and when when I wanted it to be finished, it kept going.  The spacey animations worked into the actual functionality of the experience, too, and it just made it more difficult to me than I felt like it needed to be.  I walked away from the experience thinking that they did this just to be cool.  And while I appreciate that, I don’t know how useful it really is to the intended audience.

Interactivity – everything was based on touch in this experience.  The screen itself was fairly responsive, but I think the content in the application slowed everything down, including responsiveness.  The content was probably a processor suck with rich graphics, video, and spacey animations.  As you can see in the demo, I pressed a couple of times without any immediate response.  I also didn’t know what all was “hot” (pressable) and not.

Information – the struggle with any “advertisement” in this open day and age is how in-your-face it is.  Brands are being recognized more and more by providing utility to consumers.  How useful is the information brought to me by brand X?  Does it make my life easier?  Is it helping me out?  Questions like this are dictating purchasing decisions.  Brands are getting credit without stuffing advertisements down your face.  Here, as a consumer, I recognized what Whirlpool is trying to do.  They’re trying to influence my purchasing decision.  But instead of telling me how great this product is, I want to know how it compares to similar products.  A comparison tool would be useful to me.  It would help my decision-making.  I appreciated “consumer reviews” in this experience, but I can’t tell whether they come from real people or from actors.  The production of the piece makes it seem like actors, which in turn, takes credibility away from what they’re saying.  If it were up to me, I would have gone a much simpler route (still maintaining quality production value) with real people and real problems and real comparisons.  I think that in-store experiences like this are going to hinge on reviews, thus making the experience inherently social, so brands will have to know what consumers are saying about them before-hand, good or bad.  This would just help frame how to present the content.  If Whirlpool thinks these are the best products ever and their audiences either disagree or don’t know about them, then those two insights should drive the content in the experience (and they might have – in fairness, I don’t know what drove their decisions to make any part of this experience.)  I checked out their Facebook page and they’re engaging with their fans on a customer-service basis only.  Sentiment seems to be mixed among the fraction of the community of 2,000+ who engages with them.  If I’m sitting in the room with the CMO, I’m telling him to get his social in order before embarking on an interactive out-of-home experience.  At least, set a strategy for social so you know how it plays into the entire brand experience, this included.

Personalization – this is a single-touch, single-user experience so there is a sense of personalization that comes along with this type of experience.  Beyond that, the experience had no other level of personalization.  This is a great opportunity for the brand to offer up some sort of discount to the user who interacts, either from the touchscreen itself or to the user’s mobile phone.  If, after seeing the information here, I wanted to buy one of these products, I should have a little incentive.  My personal golden ticket.

I’ve taken the grades out of this scorecard.  I just don’t think I have enough information to make responsible judgements.  That said, I wished for more in this experience.  I would not have made a decision to buy this product based on this experience, and if you go back to the original purpose that I believe drove this solution, it failed.  I’d love to see metrics on this and if it really impacted the bottom line.

I can’t say enough about creating toward objectives.  If the objective is to create awareness, go ahead, get crazy, you can do wild things if you want.  If the objective is to convert shoppers into buyers, laser-focus in on the best way to do that in today’s ecosystem-driven world.

I’m sad to say that I missed InfoComm 2010 in Vegas this past week.  Things back at the ranch are just crazy busy and I couldn’t break away, even for a couple of days.  I’ve been observing the action through my Twitter feed and while I missed seeing my buddies, I don’t think I missed much in terms of complete, industry-wide “mixing.”  Like the Digital Signage Expo and Kioskcom (now Customer Engagement Technology World), these shows are void of brands, marketers, and media-buyers.  They are filled with hardware and software makers that show the latest, greatest in technology, but these shows do not attract people from the other side of the equation.

So, here we go, any one of those show organizers who are listening:

Do something to recruit members of agencies (advertising, communications, media) and get them involved.  Create panels centered around less talking and more doing.  Create working sessions where challenges are given, require the entire “team” to put together and solution, and let’s watch them make it throughout the conference.  Bring together all at once the strategists that sell the idea, creatives that create the content, software makers that enable it all to work and hardware makers that show the thing.  And I’m not talking about static, push-messaging digital signage.  Show interactivity.  Utilize the agencies to bring consumer brands if you can’t get them there on your own.  Hold roundtables with these people.  Don’t forget about social or mobile integration, both of which are really nonexistent, unless you’ve got LocaModa or Aerva there.

These shows need to be moved from being “technology” shows to being emerging-solutions (not emerging-technology) shows if we really want to expand the audience.  Otherwise, I can watch all of them from the periphery, via my Twitter feed.

Life is becoming more and more interactive right in front of our eyes.  Today’s installment brought to you through mobile interactivity.  One of the most popular forms of mobile interaction, centered around our lives and connections, is geo-location based services like Gowalla and Foursquare.

I personally play both of them, and I emphasize “play.”  Not only do they provide another source of social connection, but they enable a game-like experience in my life.  (I’ve also helped implement one of the first B2C experiences in Gowalla, a trend with both of them that is now picking up more steam.)

New to the game, both literally and figuratively, is Stickybits.

Stickybits is fascinating.  The technology is centered around bar codes – these “stickybits” – to which people can attach photos, videos, and/or written word.  In essence, they enable any real-world object to easily be made into social objects, ones that can be shared, passed around, commented on, connected through – anything, really, that you can imagine sharing with someone, just through a simple barcode.  (You can either buy barcodes from Stickybits or you can use existing barcodes and download the Stickybits app, which is only available on iPhone and Android right now.)

As an example, think of a birthday card (which has a barcode).  Instead of signing a long, drawn-out message on this birthday card, I can record a special video message and attach it to the card.  Then, I can pass it around to others in the office for them to attach their special message to it.  Then, when the recipient receives the card, they can scan the barcode and experience everyone’s messages.  Cool, eh?

Think now, of applying/using user reviews.  If I want to see what others have said about a new pair of tennis shoes before I buy them, I can scan the barcode and see a list of user reviews, provided someone has started the “string.”  If not, I can create the review myself and attach it to the code for others to see who come after me.

There are cool things that you can do as the initiator of this string – you’re basically the moderator of all content posted thereafter.  Anyone who contributes to the string can receive automatic updates and become even more involved in the (virtual) conversation.

From a brand’s perspective, this should be really exciting.  Any packaged good that they produce has a barcode.  They can easily attach a brand message or a special call-to-action or exclusive content for all who come into contact with that product to experience.  You want to attach a special message from a thought-leader, or an executive at the company?  No problem.  You want users to vote on a particular flavor of soda (Mountain Dew)?  No problem.  You want Tom Hanks to deliver a Forrest Gump-like anecdote on that box of chocolates?  No problem.

I talk often about the power of merging the offline with the online.  It’s really what the 11th Screen is all about.  This technology not only enables that real-time merging, but it provides connection, interactivity, and a little fun.

Yesterday on the last possible out, a perfect game was taken away from the Detroit Tigers’ Armando Gallaraga.  The ump, who before last night was considered by players as one of the best in the game, has come under intense scrutiny, as should be expected.  Throwing perfect games is such a rare feat to happen in baseball, and for another one not to be realized because of a clear (thanks to slow-motion TV) mistake is a travesty.  History did not happen last night because of a blown call.

The ump’s name is Jim Joyce and to his credit, he came out immediately after the game and owned the mistake.  He blew it.  He recognized the enormity of the moment, probably the biggest in his career and Gallaraga’s career, and he just blew the call.  He apologized and feels sick inside, but what else can he say?

He’s getting back to work today, in front of the Detroit fans again, despite everything that has transpired in the last 24 hours.  It would have been easy for him to disappear for a few days/weeks, let the brunt of it blow over, and resurface again anywhere outside of Detroit.  But, he’s plugging along.

Here’s my parallel – as our performance goes, we all have bad moments.  Sometimes, we even have bad days.  I often feel like, as a leader of whoosits and whatsits, I’m required to perform and be “good” all the time.  I expect that out of myself in everything I do.  In fact, I expect to be great more often than not, but the simple reality is that I’m going to have bad moments and bad days and it’s just the way it is.  And that’s OK.

I spoke about Hemingway’s “A Moveable Feast” yesterday and wanted to include one of my favorite excerpts.  It didn’t quite go with that post, but it seems appropriate for this one.  Here, he’s talking about his process in working through writer’s block:

“…sometimes when I was starting a new story and I could not get it going, I would sit in front of the fire and squeeze the peel of the little oranges into the edge of the flame and watch the sputter of blue that they made.  I would stand and look our over the roofs of Paris and think, “Do not worry.  You have always written before and you will write now.  All you have to do is write one true sentence.  Write the truest sentence that you know.”  So finally I would write one true sentence, and then go on from there…”

We’re human.  We have bad days.  Do not worry.  You have done what you do before and you will do what you do now.  Keep plugging along.  And know that whatever you’re doing, as long as it is true, all will be good.

Yesterday, I found myself in one of the many philosophical conversations I’ve had with my colleague, Herb Sawyer (smart, insightful dude) and we were talking about books.  Specifically, he was saying how “A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future” was one of the books that had a profound impact on him and his career.  It’s the type of book that when you read it, it’s like a match that sparks something – an interest, a thought, a belief – that was previously unlit.  And once it’s lit, it turns into a bonfire.  It changes you, your thinking, and your perspective unlike any other book (or story) that you’ve read.  It is inspiring.

I’m not that big on business books.  Non-fiction, in general, doesn’t do that much for me.  (That said, I have read some good ones – “Mavericks at Work”, “Miracle on the Hudson”, “Outliers”, and the aforementioned “A Whole New Mind”, to name a few.)

My inspiration lies in fiction.  I love fiction.  If I could do anything, without financial worry, I would write fiction all day, every day.  I didn’t grow up wanting to write fiction.  I don’t even remember enjoying writing as a kid other than perfecting penmanship (who else got graded on that on your report cards?)  It wasn’t until college, when I started writing plays and screenplays that I fell in love with creating through writing.  Then, I read a book that changed the way I look at writing and how I aspire to create.  It lit that flame for me that turned into a bonfire.

There hasn’t been a more powerful book, source of creative inspiration, transformative spark to me than “A Moveable Feast” by Earnest Hemingway.  When I read it, it was clear to me that I could and should write forever.  I was moved in a profound way, one that reaffirmed a deeper sense of purpose, one that told me as long as I keep doing this, all will be good.

Now, I enjoy books.  I enjoy reading.  You may feel otherwise.  Regardless of the medium, I think it’s important to have one (or a few) of those anchors of inspiration in your career, something that has a profound and lasting impact.  At some point, be it hours, days, weeks, or god-forbid, years, we get to a point to where what we’re doing feels like a job.  This particular spark keeps me going in those moments and re-invigorates me to the point of being truly purposeful.  What’s your spark?  Write it down, remember it, share it with others, and when in doubt, no matter how often, refer back to it.  Be one with your inner bonfire.