Archive for the ‘creativity’ Category

Learning from a HOPA

August 12th, 2010

You might have seen the latest hoax by TheChive that’s spreading over the Web. TechCrunch’s put up an interview with its creators. Most important quote: “We didn’t need mainstream media to make this happen. We just needed the people.” There you go.

(Sidebar: TheChive’s successfully pulled off two more hoaxes in the past that got picked up by the media, and after the second one journalists said “You’re not gonna fool us again.” They were wrong. Huffington Post, Leno, you name it. When you’re hot, you’re hot.)

Cover or Art

August 12th, 2010

This is the headline of a regional newspaper’s article today. Its diplomatic conclusion is that a cover band makes art in its own right by picking a song and making it theirs. And it might not surprise you that I don’t agree.

Here’s why: By design, a cover band exists to play songs that have been made and performed by others. It’s quite arguable if the songs themselves are to be considered art, but that’s a different (yet related) topic. The purpose of a cover band is to resemble the feeling of a song when they play it, only that it’s on stage and not at home, so you can have a good time with your friends. Musicians who play in cover bands do so because they love playing their instrument (sometimes to perfection), not because they feel the urge to create art. Because if they did, they’d spend their time creating and not mimicking.

That said, there is a huge difference between a Mariachi band covering Heavy Metal songs and a Rock/Pop ensemble (2 guitars, bass, drums, keys, brass trio, vocalists) covering songs arranged for this kind of ensemble. It’s remarkable versus predictable.

Funny enough, the article quoted the singer of the band that “it is one side of the coin to make it in today’s music market, but even harder to be accepted by endorsers and sponsors”. That’s quite obvious when you try to be everything to everyone. The marketer’s dilemma. And because there are marketers on the other side of the table too, it’s no safe bet for anyone. It makes sense for an instrument manufacturer to endorse an extreme performer because that gets them noticed, but maybe by fewer people. A middle of the road performer may find a larger audience, but they won’t give a lot about music gear. An artist doesn’t worry about this, because he has embraced that art does not depend on endorsements or sponsorships and she would never sacrifice this art for a little more comfort (only for a lot, that’s just how the lizard brain works).

A little aside: There’s an internet radio called NewcomerRadio, that says its mission is to promote newcomer bands to broadcast radio and other internet stream radio stations. Yet their stream sounds like any other radio station, because their rotation is the same. And so they pick their newcomers to fit into this rotation, and -presto!- nothing happens, because nothing stands out. Different artists that sound all the same. Wasted.

Doing the opposite would have a totally different effect. There’s thousands of bands out there, and I’d rather go to the edges instead of what used to be the centre. Brazilian Polka bands and Indian Viking Folk singers are just way cooler than yet another High School Punk band. It’s all there — if you dare. Yes, chances are you will lose your old listeners. The ones you will find instead will not only listen but also do the promotion themselves. Now that’d be helping your mission, wouldn’t it?

AEIOU

August 11th, 2010

Information itself is useless. What makes information valuable for you are the Vowel Steps:

  • Access (new) information regularly.
  • Evaluate its relevance.
  • Implement it to your routine.
  • Observe. Measure and compare.
  • Undo if it doesn’t work, learn from it and try something different.


Industry indeed

July 29th, 2010

A friend responded to my post yesterday that he couldn’t imagine a star being made without an industry. I agree. Today, they need each other more than ever.

In the pre-industrial age, fame used to be directly related to merit. Think Michelangelo. Sometimes fame would follow merit with years of delay. Think Mozart, Rembrandt, van Gogh, Robert Johnson. But some people actually used fame to promote. Benjamin Franklin, in his role as ambassador to France, and his fellow Founding Fathers believed that the fact of Franklin’s image appearing on fashion items, fans and perfume bottles would help to attract interest in and spread the ideas of the new born nation. The first man who combined people’s fame with industrial goods was Josiah Wedgwood, who came up with the idea of making collectible portrait medaillons of “Illustrious Moderns” like Voltaire and Rousseau. (Interesting read: Star Crazy, section 2)

What all the people have in common is that they were only known to a comparably small circle of people. Entertainment was only for those who could afford it.

Then came the invention of free time. This might sound a little crazy, but before the industrialization, there was no free time as such. And it made perfect sense, because people needed time to spend the money they earned in the factory. Which allowed more industries to spawn. And so forth.

Next step: cinema. And this changed everything. Within a few years, film producers figured that people were not only into films, but also into actors starring the movies. Hence a perfect cycle could be set up: People go to the movies, papers print news about the stars, people notice and tell their friends, more people go to the movies. Easy as pie. All you needed to do was printed your actor’s name on the poster promoting the next movie. And the second best thing was that everybody could afford it.

The best thing about all this was that it educated people into a reverse logic: Publicity equals merit. You don’t get in the paper for nothing, do you? And so whatever you wanted to promote, all you needed to do was to make it appear it on billboards, in newspapers and magazines, radio and finally TV. And entire industries could sell their products riding on the back of the celebrities.

Now, what happens if you want to sell more products? You need more stars. This is the race we’re still running today. There are ever more celebrities because there is ever more stuff to be sold, and the diversion of interests and markets produced space that needed to be filled with more faces to put ads next to.

What’s critical now is to estimate whether this will go on, because people are so much int the reactive mode of consuming that they won’t take the time to ask themselves what they care about, what matters to them, and start following their passion. I don’t believe that people are passionate about consuming. They just keep telling themselves they don’t know what to do other than that. What gives me hope that this can change is the fact that it took almost a century to educate people to behave that way, so obviously it’s not part of our nature. The cavemen didn’t have to keep up with the Joneses, neither did a pre-industrial person.

What I wanted to point out 2 days ago was that you don’t need an industry to make a living by making your art. If you want fame as in “as seen on TV”, you still need the industry, as of today. And you need to sacrifice your art, round off the edges in favour of being more average. Not totally average, but to a certain degree. The reason why Cannibal Corpse were not featured as being outrageous on German TV, but Berlin rapper Sido was, is simply because he’s more average in terms of language: my grandmother can understand his swearing, but not Chris Barnes’s or George Fisher’s. That’s media business. An industry indeed.

How to make a dent in the universe

July 23rd, 2010

If you belong to the people who believe that this is why we’re here (and I hope you do), you might have wondered how to accomplish this noble quest. And when you look at the man who coined this term, or rather his company, you might get the impression the way to make a dent is to pull together all you got for one do-or-die impact. It’s not. Chances are you’ll fail, miserably — because you don’t have the leverage.

Here’s an alternative: Make it little by little, piece by piece. The vast majority of successes happened that way, we only forget because it’s not such an impressive story to tell.

Solution vs. Engagement

July 21st, 2010

It’s funny that I’m now kind of hooked to this whole topic of engagement, and this might be just a temporal selective perception issue, but as long as it lasts, it seems sensible to make use of it to get a different perspective on our lives.

Today, a friend called out for help on formatting his Master Thesis, and I thought this would be an easy-to-fix issue, so I posted a link to a tutorial on the web. As it turns out, it didn’t fix his problem. So I asked him to send his document, and because it took a little longer, I tried to replicate the issue on my computer, and got back to him after 10 minutes with a solution which worked, and we were both happy. (His file came in 20 mins later. Praise email.)

The important point is, not only was he happy that his problem was solved, but also that someone had spend their time to make this happen. If he had searched a little more, I’m sure he’d have found a solution on the web himself, or he’d have gotten some more links from people who’d have cared a little. But in the end, the value is the personal interaction. We often tend to forget that solutions (as well as problems) don’t exist by themselves — they’re being created by real people. And the value lies in the creation process, not in its outcome.

That’s why a solution is never as valuable as the engagement that led to it.

The Hardest Part still remains

July 8th, 2010

A few days ago a somewhat heated debate went on at Motionworks. Well, it wasn’t as much of a discussion because in general the participants agreed on the topic. One thing that was still surprising was the lack of culture and, say, humilty and appreciation in the discussion itself. How hard can it be to write “Thank you”? But that’s not my point today.

What’s worth a closer look is the topic of the aforementioned issue, namely: “Does the increasing amount of online tutorials devalue the (established) artists?”

No. Thank you for reading.

Okay, let’s roll this out a bit. Yes, there are hundreds of tutorials online, even for free, only the number and variety of which could easily let one assume that you can learn how to be a Motion Graphics Designer in 2 months. And this assumption is of course ridiculous, because teaching some a technique doesn’t make them an artist. No one’s becoming the next van Gogh, Picasso or Warhol because you show them how to hold a brush.

One field where teaching people how to do stuff has actually boosted the business is cooking. Thanks to all the Nigellas and Jamies there are more people going more often to restaurants spending more money. That’s counterintuitive because we assume that if we tell people how to perform or improve daily actions, they do it all themselves. But what has happened is that people got more educated on the art of cooking and were willing to spend more money on good cuisine.

And there’s another ingredient that’s essential for creating: inspiration. Without the 1% of inspiration the 99% perspiration are not work, they’re labour. People don’t pay a lot for stuff that hasn’t got “it”. So why go there at all?

The hardest part, figuring what to put on the empty canvas, has not been changed. Knowledge of a series of techniques won’t let you do that. That’s just copying. Like assembling LEGOs, it’s fine and good to follow the instructions and build the spaceship, but it’s great when you mix the pieces of several boxes to model a submarine. But the real art is inventing LEGO. Something that enables people to craft with their creativity. Like the Web 2.0, in a certain way.

So the hardest part is still the same, and people who can solve it will still get paid well. It’s only that the perceived entrance barrier to this field has been lowered. But this doesn’t change the game. Not yet.

Differentiate

June 23rd, 2010

The other day I was visiting a couple of web sites of media production companies, and what you notice pretty soon is that they all look the same. Not literally of course, some designs are fancier than others, but the overall structure of the sites are very much the same. Which raises the question of why that is. And the answer is: That’s how it has to be. Not for me, but the one who had to decide how the page should be set up thought exactly this. And of course he got there by looking at the competition’s web page. And as always, the first one to achieve [whatever] sets the bar for the next in line. That’s how a common understanding or notion of anything is created: silent agreement and the fear of probably being ridiculed for standing out.

The obvious thing to do is to be completely different. People visiting your corporate web site do it for only one out of two reasons: they either want to buy or they want to be hired. They don’t really want to look at fancy photos of your staff. They don’t want to read pretentious online resumés. Both of these are exclusion criteria. It’s much easier to say “I don’t like how they look” or “they’re too old” or “they’re too young”. None of this information is intruiging in some way to make me buy your stuff. Neither is a job description for a creative professional that reads like a classified ad for a garbage picker’s job (but of course expecting the candidates to submit outstanding samples of work).

So what to do? It’s dead simple. Give your visitors a vivid experience. Have a video for customers and people looking for jobs. If you want to be on screen, be on screen! Talk to them. Say how happy you are that they’re here and give them the tour. Be real. Be tangible. Have one video for customers and one for job seekers. Both care about different aspects of your business and need different information. And for the job seekers, give them an actual task. Ad agencies have been doing this for long, almost every major agency has some sort of copy test available online that challenges applicants to come up with great ideas. Why not do this for designers or editors or even bakers as well? This helps you a lot more analyzing their future potential instead of their past. Maybe they just worked on silly projects that never challenged them to unfold their potential — do you want to do the same by turning them down up front? That’s what you do if you just read resumés.

So if you want to be as different as you claim in your copy, show it to everyone. Showing that you care is more than enough for starters.

Perceived Risk

May 25th, 2010

It’s quite strange how the perception of risk massively influences decisions, especially when from an objective viewpoint there is no real difference.

For instance, young people are recommended to go to a foreign country, travel and work and see what life is like elsewhere. The risk factors then are they might have issues with communicating, finding a job and places to stay. But somehow the parents and friends of these people are almost always dead certain they will do well. On the other hand, when the very same people back home think about quitting their job and starting their own gig or trusting the good gut feeling that everything will turn out fine, most of their close peers will try to persuade them not to, because the risk, they say, is to high. Don’t quit a job unless you’ve got a new one waiting for you, think about the bills to pay, yada yada. But of course, the risk is just the same, if not lower.

Why worry?
Having the choice between someone worrying now because you might fail or worrying yourself later on because you didn’t take the leap, the choice is simple…

Challenge

May 4th, 2010

When someone noticed you had a Mac computer…

… 15 years back, they knew you had to be graphics designer.

… 10 years back, they knew you were graphics designer or musician.

… 5 years back, they knew you were someone working in the media biz.

A device that replaced your business card. A caste mark.

Today, you’re someone who can afford the lifestyle. Apple has finally made the transition from a company making products for freaks to everybody’s lifestyle supplier. Time to cash in. That’s what you’re dreaming of when you go into business. Appealing to everybody without pleasing them.

The losers in this game are the freaks, of course, because they’ve lost one of their trademarks. Which is just one example. All over the place, what has worked previously is about to stop working tomorrow. Whatever special tools helped you define yourself in business or as a person will have become commodities or obsolete at all tomorrow.

The challenge for Apple is to remain special and not to become yet another provider of electronics accessories. The challenge for the freaks is to define themselves not by peripheral attributes but by what they do. It makes no more sense to rely on what you have. If you strip away all that stuff, what remains? This is what needs to be worked on.