Eric Schmidt is a douche. For years, we (the people who use and design technology) have laughed at Microsoft’s attempts to peddle their devices and ecosystem by “predicting the future 5 years from now”. Weirdly, their future has always been today’s technology, implemented wholesale across even the smallest and most insignificant parts of our lives.

See for yourself:

Microsoft’s “future”, circa 2011

Microsoft’s “future”, circa 2013

Now, Mr Schmidt has set Google on the same path by pretending to know the future. You can’t deny that the company has a fantastic handle on the present (based on the enormous amount of current and past Internet and mobile usage data the company is amassing), and on the past. Naturally they’re having a huge impression on shaping the future (with the Glass project and Android platform), but can anyone know the future too? Really..?

Schmidt’s future is ridiculous, because it so closely resembles the future that people have predicted for us since the 1950s. Of course it’s utopic, but it’s also uninspiring. Human action has been reduced to a roman emperor’s gesture: a thumbs up for death, a thumbs down for life. We are positioned as the fat, lazy ruler in an empire of technology. I don’t believe I for a second.

Firstly because of the level of new discovery. Once again it’s taking existing technology and spreading it like polyfiller, wherever there’s a potential crack or blemish in our existence that needs smoothing. Secondly because it’s so hideously seamless. When has technology ever been so perfect, so flawless? In the early days we struggled with dial-up internet, where the most interesting and interactive pages took a minute or more to load. Now, even with beautiful broadband, we can’t stream movies and television as fast as we want to consume it. Our demand for speed and ubiquity will always outstrip what is currently available.

But finally, it’s because we don’t buy technology where the impact isn’t immediate or substantial. It will be a long time before we buy computer optimised mattresses, rather than relying on Jawbone’s UP or a sleep app(link) to help us. We wouldn’t waste our time buying haptic shoes to remind us when we’re late; we’ve barely got used to the digital pedometer.

Looking at how tech has emerged over the past 30 years, it’s rarely embedded and usually an afterthought. Some cars have GPS, but most people still buy sat navs that they stick on to the dashboard. They’ve even started replacing these with their own phones. The same’s true of stereo’s: most people use an iPhone, inelegantly plugged in to some form of speaker. For those who care, there will always be specialised technology; for most people, we make do and mend.

It’ll be a long time before we replace our wooden tables, with touch screen surfaces. We don’t integrate technology, we throw it in and work around it. It’s disappointing that the CEO of Google, one of the most successful technology companies of our era, can’t see any differently.

Welcome to West Kensington, where I worked for the past few years. There’s nothing glamorous about this neighbourhood, but it’s also not a bad place to put an ad agency. Located at the London end of the M4, it’s one of London’s prime outdoor advertising venues.

I thought I’d throw this one online because I liked the way these two adverts contrast each other. On the right, in white we have Stella Artois with their “A Cut Above” campaign. Golden visuals, elegant layout, and something of the 1990s Boddingtons ads about it. It’s a new twist on a consistent idea: that Stella is a quality, even premium French product.

On the left in grey-green is Heineken, with the message “Rush hour” (the rush of the beer or something to rush home for?). Even after I’d managed to decipher this I was still confused – I’ve never associated Heineken with a “rush”. I’m not even sure what I associate them with: their identity is as watery as their beer.

Side by side it’s seems pretty clear which brand has a personality, and which doesn’t. The question is, does it matter? In terms of taste, there’s not much in it: mainstream lagers don’t vary wildly in terms of flavour. But when it comes to character, I’ve got some affection for Stella. They continue to run entertaining adverts on TV, styled on the Novelle Vague movement and their latest Quest campaign. I just like their style.

So as a non-lager drinker, I’m definitely more inclined towards a pint of Stella vs a one of Heineken. Let’s just hope it’s the same for the larger crowd.

As you can tell, I don’t get paid to write this. I’d either make no money or quickly get myself fired through lack of serious proof-reading. However, like most amateur bloggers I’ve wondered what it would be like (to be paid; not to be fired).

Like football fans who fantasize about becoming superstar strikers, or movie extras wishing they were film-stars: amateurs the world over dream of going pro. It’s even stronger with blogging, because it’s perceived as being easy.

It’s one of several social media myths, which we’re slowly starting to challenge. We’ve finally got used to these networks and now that the dust has settled it’s time to look at what we’re doing more critically. It’s time to tackle these myths.

Blogging myth no. 1:

Blogging takes very little effort

It’s free to do, takes minutes to set up so all that’s left is to jot down thoughts in binary form.

Closer to reality:
I’m not even going to start on computer literacy rates worldwide or the availability of Internet access. Just be aware: it’s not the same for everyone. The fact you’re even reading this you’re in the top 80% of households with Internet access in the UK^[ONS]. That’s 11.2 million households without Internet acc

That aside, the first two parts of the myth are absolutely true (it’s free and it’s easy to start), but writing something interesting definitely isn’t painless. I spend at least 6 hours each week drafting, rewriting and formatting until I’ve got a story I think is worthwhile. All that for just one article.

Assuming you do have computer skills, Internet access and the inclination to share your thoughts with the world, blogging is relatively easy to do. Doing it well is what’s hard.

Blogging myth no. 2

Creating a following is easy: everyone can reach thousands or even millions through social networks

With over 7,017 million Internet users, all your blog needs is a niche and before long you’ll have hundreds of followers the world over. You might even become an Internet celebrity in your own right, like Tavi Gevison (The Style Rookie blog) or Mario Lavandeira (Perez Hilton), who both started as amateur bloggers.

Closer to reality

If I didn’t enjoy writing I wouldn’t continue based on visitor numbers alone. I can see a few other reasons why I might not get the deluge of visitors the myth promises: writing about niche interests (advertising & how the Internet changes our behaviour), irregular updates, the sheer number of other people blogging and, primarily, my relatively modest of my promotion of TheAntiSofa blog (but I’ll get to that later).

However, I don’t think it’s down to crap content. I work hard to give blog posts bit of character and keep them visually interesting.I’ve also had a few random successes: my most viewed and commented post of all time happens to be one of the strangest: Whatever happened to the filofax? It got picked up by an online filofax community and they loved to disagree with me on whether the smartphone had eclipsed the filofax. For some reason, these one-off interest specific topics like The Simpsons or Sweden end up doing better than the other articles I write. You can’t predict what will work and what won’t.

Overall, my visits and follower numbers have got better over time but when your least favourite posts get the most attention, you have to be doing it for more than just the kudos. I keep going because I like writing. I love drafting articles and although I loath the editing, the satisfaction I get when I hit the “publish” button makes it worthwhile.

Blogging myth no. 3

You can shameless self-promote and still keep your authenticity intact.

Closer to reality

This myth’s a bit more complicated than the others because it’s made up of several other myths. A “mega-myth” if you will, made up of the following:

1. Blogs are more authentic than other media
2. It takes no effort to grow your audience
3. You can self-promote without harming your identity

Myth A) Blogs are more authentic than other media

Social networks are always contrasted with traditional media, even though they work in exactly the same way. These user-generated sites might have started outside the established media ecosystem, but by now they’ve been fully absorbed. Just because a blog is individually owned and managed, doesn’t mean it’s more truthful or any higher quality. If anything blog writers are more likely to skew reality to reflect positively on themselves. Not all bloggers think like this, but don’t assume they’re all more honest.

If you need convincing further, I’d recommend this Culture Digitally interview with Alice Marwick and Brooke Duffy. Fashion bloggers, like others, have an aura of perceived authenticity, which is not always deserved.

Myth B) It takes no effort to grow your audience

Blogging doesn’t automatically draw a huge audience. This has been my experience, and I’ve also heard the same from friends and colleagues. It is still possible to draw thousands, but when it does happen it’s through the network effect (online word of mouth).

There are two ways to do this: organically or artificially. If you first create brilliant content, second make sure people can find it through search engines and make sure publish frequently, then you’ll organically develop a following. It might take months or years, but slowly word will get around that your crop rotation blog is what all agronomists should be reading. The difficultly is, these all have to be done in unison and they also take time to work. Success through this method is well deserved, but doesn’t come quickly.

The alternative is to jump-start the network effect through self-publicity. As Alice Marwick puts it:

“Successful blogging has a very explicit self-promotional aspect.”

Tell everyone what you write, each time you do it and do this across every relevant network. This reaches as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. Even this technique takes a lot of effort, but it’s quicker. And more artificial because it has more to do with your self-promotion skills than what you write.

Myth C) You can heavily self-promote and still remain “authentic”

Self-promotion is the norm when it comes to blogger practices. It’s easier quicker and probably more effective than the organic approach. But it does lead to one problem: you’re can no longer claim to be honest, to be you.

Even as part-time writers, we’re aware of how valuable an online identity and following can be. It’s not just from a desire to be sent freebies or get on the guest list for trendy events; a successful blog can do a whole host of other things. It can boost career prospects, but also make money by itself through advertising, affiliate marketing and multiple other ways. We’re so conscious of this that we work hard to make sure our online reputation is maintained and flourishes. As a result we self-censor, polish truths and portray only the positive in ourselves. The more we self-promote, the less we’re actually showing our true personality.

Callie Schweitzer writing at Medium talked about how artificial our social media identities have become. If it’s hard enough admitting to our friends that we’re Twihards, suffer from depression or were bullied in high school, then jump-starting an online following and being honest/authentic is even less likely.

Three myths evaporated?

Maintaining a decent long-form blog takes a lot of time. It’s also unlikely to become a stellar success, unless you’re able to get talked about, usually by talking about yourself. For me, over-active promotion of your online presence destroys your credibility, but without it you’ve not much chance of success. You can be a purist, and pursue your blogging activities in silence. Or you can mumble a few tweets about what you’ve been writing and hope someone notices. It depends how important being “authentic” is to you.

Then again, why not fully embrace the self-promotional nature of blogging? If you want some sort of recompense for your hours spent slaving away at the keyboard, then why not plug yourself. Given the passion and the hours that go into blog posts, I think we’ve earned the right to aspire to something higher. It just depends on how you want to get there.

Whether you’re an artist, marketer, musician or scientist, if you want to raise your profile you can do it by sharing online. This happens in one of three ways: you share it yourself, you pay someone to do it, or people willingly do this for you.

The third option is by far the most sought-after and, unsurprisingly, the most difficult. What you want them to share is probably not what most people want to send to their friends (“drink Coca Cola” being a pretty obvious example). Somehow, you have to create something they’ll enjoy & derive enough benefit from to pass on.

Which is why I’ve put together ideas on how to approach sociable content.

Why not viral?

This is not about virals. Well, sort of: they’re the same thing but I prefer to use the term “sociable content”. Something which spreads its way through a population simply on its own awesomeness. To me “viral” is a description and not a thing. Until you’ve hit 1 million or more views in a week, you can really call your work viral. It’s like an honorary title: something that’s earned and not automatic.

Viral is also unfair on the people who give it that status (the “sharers”). It assumes that, like a virus, the people transferring it are mere vessels, manipulated by the virus to duplicate and spread its viral goodness. Far from it – viewers and spreaders are far more involved in the spreading process, shaping, contextualizing and even reproducing the content in their own way (see the three Harlem Shake Videos below. Would this have been anywhere near as popular if people hadn’t remixed it)?

Washing Machine Shake

St Catz College Oxford

Norwegian Army Harlem Shake

When people can put their stamp on something, whether through a snarky comment, a mashup or a full on remake then it’s something people can own a part of. With viruses, the host cell merely passes the viral information on. With sociable content, people shape the progression and transmission of the content.

I digress with good reason: there’s more to sociable content than a catchy song/ stunning video. So onto the useful stuff:

How can we make content more sociable?

There really is no silver bullet (sigh), but these three approaches can help. By looking at what makes information sociable, by understanding what people do with it and by understanding what driver people to share, you’ll get better at coming up with sociable ideas. And the more ideas you try, the more you learn and (yep) the more you’ll succeed.

1. Social Mania card game (by Erin Malone & Christian Crumlish)
2. Comments Blitz Challenge (my own)
3. Sociable checklist (“curated” from multiple sources)

Suggestion 1: the Social Mania card game

A great way to practice making social ideas.

The Social Mania card game encourages players to toy with the elements of a great social idea and discover what make something entertaining, and not just a gimmick. For the full rules, take a look at the Designing Social Interfaces website, but here’s the gist.

It works a bit like Rummy, the card game. In teams of 3-5, the aim is to swap cards with other players until you have a winning social product (aka a complete set of cards). The aim is build as many high scoring social products as possible. You do this by matching a “family” of features, with the right audience, channel and initiative (the creators call these the demographic, delivery and object, but they’re essentially the same things).

Over a few rounds you’ll get a feel for the different elements and what goes well together. The aim is to build the best social product you can with the cards available so you’ll soon work out when you’ve overloaded an idea with features, and the right “object” for a chosen audience.

Suggestion 2: the Comment Blitz Challenge

A way to check you’re actually starting and extending conversations.

What can I say, add or change about this sociable idea?

Plastic ideas work best. The reason mashups, parodies and memes are so popular is they can be endlessly tweaked and added to, extending their life well beyond their first appearance. If the idea’s particularly malleable, it will allow people to express themselves (e.g. London lies for tourists, or the unintentional #safetyadviceforgirls). But if there’s nothing interesting to say or add, your idea will be stuck like an awkward party guest, only able to talk about themselves. If you can’t follow the conversation, you won’t be a part of the conversation.

The next time someone chips in with “let’s just add a share button”, force them to prove the sociability of the idea first, by playing the Comment Blitz Challenge:

Rules

• one shared computer/ screen
• each person takes a turn on the computer
• you have 15 seconds to type a) who you’d share it with b) where/ how (which network) c) what you would write in your post, status update or tweet

The game lasts for three minutes by which point you should have at least 12 diverse, possibly funny, comments and shares.

Now review the comments. You’re looking for as many branches/angles that can be talked about (not just “hey, look, this is cool”). If the comments all look the same, the idea’s not good enough in the first place.

Finally, have a vote amongst the team. Do most people still feel the content is worth sharing? If it is, go for it. If not, stop bothering – good idea aren’t static, and if it can spark off multiple conversations now, it never will.

Suggestion 3: the social checklist

You don’t want to spend ages making something that nobody will use.

Faced with a creating a social product that people will enjoy, here are the 5 steps I run through to make sure I’ve considered every angle:

1. What’s good about it?
2. Why would anyone share this?
3. Is it part of something bigger?
4. If I share this how will it make me look?

1) What’s good about it?
(Largely inspired by chats with Rubber Republic and their TubeRank site)
Like advertising, any sociable idea has a USP. “Quite humorous” is not going to cut it- it has to be “extremely…”:

• funny
• cute
• impressive
• shocking
• culturally referenced

You’ll instinctively know if it’s one of these. If it is, you know you’re onto a good idea. If not, don’t give up hope yet- you’ll just have to tick all the rest of the boxes.

2) Why would anyone share this?

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who will watch/read/interact with this. Now be honest: can you actually find an emotional argument for why you’d go to the effort of sharing this?

“I’m obsessed with cats so I will share this cat video with all my friends” is plausible, but doesn’t really suggest that anyone beyond cat obsessives will pay attention.

Do you really want to such limited “sociability”? If you’re after truly sociable content, you’ll need more of an emotional spark. Aim for a deeper response, not something mindlessly affiliated.

3) Is this part of a bigger picture?
We might all be under the pretence that we’re individuals, but deep down we’re herd animals. We seek social opportunities and we strive to be part of a larger group/friendship circle.

If your idea is inherently sociable, it will have a group element to it. Even better, it will become a badge of identity to it- something people can use to express themselves but also show that they belong to a larger group.

I’m talking in vague terms here, so here are a few example to show what I mean:

• Customising your Facebook and Twitter profile photos to support a cause
• Bra colour status updates for breast cancer awareness
• Joining a larger conversation (e.g. Channel 4′s #mic hashtag)

Being a part of a bigger idea is a powerful social motivator. Don’t leave it out of yours.

4) If I share this, how will it make me look?
As I mentioned in my last post, people are aware that sharing is a way of curating their online identity (in the same way people buy certain clothes to look a certain way). Will they look good? Or funny? Or smart? As Callie Schweitzer puts it:

” Sharing used to be an exchange; now it’s a declaration”

Of course, what you’re sharing needs to add something to the wider conversation, but it should be one you want to be associated with. You might love Twilight, but if admitting this jars with your metalhead identity then you’re not going to share it. Who’d want to be associated with a mediocre joke or out-of-date news? This is always my last consideration before sharing anything: will my friends be interested in it? If not, it’d just make me look stupid. No one wants to look stupid by accident.

Last lines

There you have it. None of these approaches are scientific, but I see that as a good thing. Communication is half art and half science, but when it comes to “sociable”content, it’s the art that really counts. Anything else to add? Drop a note below.

You never really stop learning, and that’s why it’s good to stay in touch with your University or College. Last week I was sent another alumni update email from UCL and ended up learning about teenage identity in the 21st Century.

The “mirror stage” that he talks about is something I remember from third year film classes (fascinating, but deeply confusing). Unsurprisingly, I’d not spotted any connection between psychoanalytical theory and how we see ourselves online, but Lionel Bailly seems to have found such a link. Twenty-first century teens are the first age group to develop their identity alongside technology. Before the web, there was no hiding your appearance or character: you had to negotiate the reality of you with how you wanted to appear. That might still be true in person, but the Internet and social media now enables teens to control how they appear in the digital space.

Anyone who has a social media account or contributes online is in the process of building a digital identity. It’s hard not to: each comment and “like” adds data to your profile, and what you say as well as visually how you portray yourself slowly forms your digital identity.

At first this information might seem trivial, but it has longer term importance, such as suggesting your more ingrained political and philosophical attitudes. Researchers at Cambridge have been able to accurately predict people’s attitudes to subjects like gay marriage and political affiliations, simply based on your location and what food you like (see the  myPersonality research project). A small action online can be hugely revealing, even something as simple as sharing.

On or offline, sharing is a simple but fundamental social action. We can share pretty much anything and, unless we’re guilty of over-sharing, it’s a positive thing. It’s also vital to building an online identity – share something interesting, funny, outrageous and like-minded people will tune in to you. Given the ever expanding universe of information online, being able to share the best bits with other people is a valued skill.

I think we often overlook why people share. We do so out of goodwill, a connection or a sense of duty. But online, we’re also involved in the process of identity building. We share because we want it to create a good impression of ourselves. Passing on funny videos makes us feel more comic, emailing amazing websites shows how web savvy we are and tweeting thoughtful articles makes us feel smarter. As Sarah Rabia, Lead Digital Strategist at Mother puts it:

“70% of postings on social media fall into the category of people demonstrating something about themselves or creating an identity.”

(Figaro Digital issue 9)

When we share online, we’re all projecting an image of ourselves that they want other people to see and respond to. Research by MTV into gen-y (that’s 18-30 year-olds) supports this. People surveyed from this age group admit to actively curating the information they share and show about themselves online. We’ve never been so conscious of how other people see us.

If people are consciously creating an identity online, limit what they share to the things that will reflect positively on them, then that has to be central to any social (or “sociable”) idea. Whether it’s part of a marketing campaign, an online community or a political message, if you’re asking people to share an idea, it needs to reflect well on them. Ultimately, we’re all curators; all we want is to look good so people to like us.

I recently came across the concept of self-destructing content proposed by Aaron Steven Miller on Medium (a lovely site if you’ve got a few minutes).

His idea was this: struggling writers who finally get published on an established website or magazine are often forced to delete earlier drafts of the work to give that publisher exclusive rights over the content. So why not create self-destructing content format to stop copyright issues save both parties aggravation?

My first reaction? Utterly ridiculous. Why would someone want to erase something they’ve worked so hard at? I’d always assumed the “mission impossible” approach to information management (“this tape will self destruct in 5 seconds…”) was confined to clichéd spy films.

If it seems ridiculous, that’s partly because it’s so difficult. The Internet has forever blurred the line between usage and copyright infringement, because it’s so difficult to retain control of information once it’s reproduced on someone else’s screen. There’s all manner of video processing tools, content scrapers, screenshot plugins and crawlers that are geared towards downloading and capturing online information in one format or another (there’s even the Internet History Engine that downloads and saves old iterations of websites for posterity). You might delete a web page or post, but hundreds of people might already have made a replica.

And so came the idea of self-destructive content.

The publishing perspective

Returning control of digital assets to the distributor is a curious idea. Publishers (as in Aaron’s story) still see Digital Rights Management in analogue terms. Such a view was far easier in an age where physical items were sold, taking a black and white view to an area that is incredibly grey. What they fail to realise is that once content is viewed online (even more so than with the Mission Impossible tape) it has been copied: copied into the user’s memory, however fallible; copied across multiple servers; copied into the machine, software/ app that it’s viewed in.

Maybe this makes auto-descructive content a half-way good idea then?  At least  until you consider what readers and end users want.

What the customer wants

Aside from a minority who expect everything for free, most people realise that entertainment (film, music, writing) takes time and costs money. If we can get it for free we will, but otherwise we’re willing to pay for the things we value. Essentially, this is not a discussion about digital rights management (for that kinda thing, try elsewhere).

Instead, it’s about what we expect when we access content across various devices, at different times. Above all, we desire consistency. We assume (because of magazines, books, even places) that when we find something in one location, it inherently exists there and always will. In the same way, when we find a website  or video on one URL, we expect it to stay there.

Inconsistency of experience is one of the major downfalls of hardware and software. It’s what drives someone to take a hammer to their smartphone/ laptop. For an end user, self-destructive content damages our experience and disorientates us.

What does the Internet want?

It’s one thing considering the supplier and the recipient’s needs, but where does the medium stand in all this? What does the technology lend itself towards and where should we take it?

The Web is good at many things, but it excels at duplication, connection and fluidity. Duplication because digital information can be replicated almost instantaneously. This is totally at odds with self-destructive content, and probably explains why it’s such a holy grain for content owners (desirable and yet elusive).

The  connection bit is clear: linking, searching and recommending are all things the Internet’s good at. It funnels, redirects and scatters us over millions of pages. However, all these signposts can lead us to dead ends, thanks to the fluid nature of the web.

Top-level domains (TLDs) are our places. Websites are the activities we find there. Posts, comments and uploads are the activity equipment. 80% of the time we can rely on them staying consistent, as we remembered them. That’s only because the owners choose to; in reality they can change everything from the equipment (a post/ article) through to the venue (the TLD). The infrastructure of the web allows us to be remarkably flexible, and to update/ remove as we see fit.

Is a solution possible?

Surely we’re ignoring the inherent make-up of the web? To expect the Internet to remain consistent and unchanging forgets that it’s a constantly evolving medium. It’s dynamic, fragmented and global. As the struggle behind the Wikileaks website showed, it can exist anywhere.

Equally the web was made for propagating information and creating networks from it. Deleting content on command does two things:

1. it destroys these networks, which is unhelpful, and
2. can’t eradicate every copy of an article or video.

If content self destructs unexpectedly it will only harm people’s trust in the Internet and any value they find in this content. But it’s also possible that users and consumers of content, want it to self-destruct…

Snapchat and Wackr messaging apps are both base their USPs on the ability to delete your own content after 1 view or a few days. There’s something novel about this but it’s also the ultimate form of encryption (as per Mission Impossible).

So what would lead you to use Snapchat instead of another messaging service like Whatsapp or BBM? I think it’s the fact that any message or photo is temporary. The service is has two things: people can share more personal (private, intimate, embarrassing) info but it’s also got the allure of Chatroulette because you’re never sure what you’ll receive. It’s too soon to say whether they have a long term future or not, but it’s clear that some people want self-destructing content.

The struggle for the Internet

What do we want the web to look like? Should users or content owners decide the direction? Or do we simply let code happen? Thoughts and suggestions below: