Reaching Back to the Past in a Time of Flux

Storytelling has very much been on our minds. In a recent talk to some students at SF State University we'd proposed it is the essence of account planning. Of course, its roots are altogether more human, for storytelling is a crucial cultural mechanism, vibrantly alive today in the digital age of Facebook updates and tweets, of Flickr and blogs.

This latest social media initiative by Virgin on Facebook strikes an appropriate chord with the times, not just because of its invitation to be part of a global village (Marshal McLuhan anyone?) but through its promotion of Elders.














Elders are a timely idea for two reasons:

First, it affirms the idea that there is value to the opinions of generations that precede us. The elderly have become significantly marginalized in US society, not so much due to intent but nonetheless through a shift over time. Retirement communities have removed them from the mainstream and deny us an opportunity to learn from the richness of their experience.

The second reason we think the idea of Elders is timely is because the term harkens back to an earlier time of storytelling, in which their knowledge was shared at the gathering around a communal fire. For sure, it was a time when life expectancy was half what it is today! But like the campfire itself, there is a simplicity, an enduring warmth about the intimacy of physical (rather than distributed) connectedness.

We believe this yearning is in direct response to what confronts so many people today: the contradictions and ambiguity, the uncertainty of extremes, the fragmentation and convergence and of the deeply unsettling flux, one in which the old rules have already given way and nothing has yet has emerged to replace them. We'd say that yearning for 'old ways' for a former time is not isolated. Like the emergence of artisanal character in the world of consumer goods in recent years, it is a response to it. A way of coping with it. Until sureness should return underfoot, there shall be more of it to come.

Crowdsourcing Caveats: NASA Learns The Hard Way

Colbert's chutzpah created colossal cosmonaut calamity.


















In the spirit of modern brand engagement, NASA decided to invite people to vote for the name of a new room in its space station. Crowdsourcing is in vogue because soliciting participation encourages involvement and belonging (hence enhanced attachment). It's also part of a wider democratization, a trend fueled by the internet and social media in which people participate in brands rather than them being formally planned and imposed by anointed architects.

It comes with risks however, as NASA discovered. Its failure to stipulate that choices were only among those listed gave Colbert the latitude to encourage his devoted followers to write-in HIS name, which thousands duly did.

In an additional failure to understand the cultural climate in which it exists, NASA has announced that it reserves the right not to adopt the winning name and select an alternative. Asking people for their opinion and then not listening to it is a sure-fire way to evoke a backlash. Better not to be involved than actively ignored. One hopes that NASA will come to their senses and that next time it will frame participation in a way that avoids unanticipated - and in this instance unwelcome - contributions.

Parody display: ostentation is in the rip

Parody display is an odd phenomenon. At its heart lies an expensive imitation of less fortunate living.

As a fashion statement, torn jeans are one example of a parody expression which first emerged in the 1990's. Celebrities like Lindsay Lohan and other pop culture influencers of the mass market adopt them precisely because they are in contradiction with their own wealth and success.
























It costs more to buy these jeans torn than un-ripped (much to the consternation of parents everywhere placating their children's demands for the latest 'in' thing). It is an indulgence of the affluent.
























The idea that something worn - damaged even - is worth more than something new is itself not new.

In Elizabethan England, patina - the worn marks that accumulate on a prized object - had status conferring significance. In becoming minutely dented, chipped, oxidized and worn from use over time, the physical property of patina took on a symbolic property: the accumulation of physical flaws suggested the object had been in the owner's possession for some time, implying longevity to the wealth being displayed and that the family was no newcomer to its present social standing. (McCracken 1990)


We encountered a new medium for parody display recently:


















Why not furniture? Duct-tape is a universal measure to fix and patch up almost anything that's ripped, torn or broken. Leveraging this association as a purposeful design element in furniture is classic parody display. No one would so willing put it on display unless it carried different expressive value.

Science that could be mistaken for an Onion headline

Looks like the folks at Live Science beat the Onion to it.








Well known for faux headlines that state the obvious, the way Live Science's summarize the findings from a recent study comes very close:

Emotional wiring Different in Women and Men.

We at OFD agree that there is something of the absurdly obvious to this statement. Well, when science can't tell us what we know already, at least it can tell us why. Clusters of neurons processing experiences hook up to contrasting brain functions in men and women.

With men the cluster "talks with" brain regions that help them respond to sensors for what's going on outside the body, such as the visual cortex and an area that coordinates motor actions. This skill comes in handy, especially in many of today's dense urban settlements, where parking in a tight spot can be a challenge.

With women the cluster communicates with brain regions that help them respond to sensors inside the body, such as the insular cortex and hypothalamus. These areas tune in to and regulate women's hormones, heart rate, blood pressure, digestion and respiration. Their connection to these vital bodily functions over the course of a lifetime might have a hand in why they live longer than men.

"Throughout evolution, women have had to deal with a number of internal stressors, such as childbirth, that men haven't had to experience," said study co-author Larry Cahill of the University of California Irvine. "What is fascinating about this is the brain seems to have evolved to be in tune with those different stressors."

Next time we're inclined to be frustrated by an emotional display of a spouse, partner of friend, it would be good to consider that perhaps it really might be something out of their control, shaped not only by biology but millennia of evolutionary adaptation and interaction with our environment, more cultural and social than perhaps physical in this instance.

Transcending even the need for a logo

When a brand can dispense with its tradename and can be unmistakably recognized with its brand mark -logo - alone, it's made it into popular culture.
Nike's swoosh, Target's bullseye. Apple's, well apple.

But on Lexington avenue this week on two sides of a phone booth were promotions for a popular film that carried absolutely no brand name, or brand marks or even a message other than the characters from the film. The point: if you know, you're supposed to; if not you're not.

This Harry Potter is truly a cultural phenom.

Dependency amidst estrangement is the trap

It was time for an influx of inspiration, so a troupe of OFDers went to down the road to the Golden Gate Theater last week for a healthy dose of culture. Nothing like theater to stir the soul, drawing as the best of it does on timeless myths and stories of humanity to give us bearings in modern times. It's no wonder that the impact lasts several days after the performance ends, as if needing time to work through the sub-conscious to be fully absorbed. In today's on-demand oriented society, it is a refreshing departure to so much entertainment and so many experiences whose influence lasts no longer than the moment they are being consumed.

The performance of Who's Afraid of Virginia Wood was generally excellent. It's a play that is as demanding as it is economical: it features only four characters who depict the entire story in a single setting: the living room of the house belonging to Martha - daughter of a College President - and George.

While there is a darkness to the play, this rendition was notably lighter than the film version (with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton) for all but the final act. Some lines were given comedic delivery and timing, and elicited their intended effect. It's a testament to the scale of the work that it has the breadth to accommodate such variations. While the overall darker and more brooding film verssion was preferred by this OFDer, it's unclear which approach is closer to Edward Albee's original intent.

The damning commentary of the play has to be how hopeless this estranged couple remain, locked in battle over differences and grudges that can never be forgotten nor forgiven yet lacking the courage to disrupt the vicious cycle or the strength to face their own vulnerabilities and flaws to make any progress on the road to self improvement. It is a wise cautionary tale for these times: sometimes the worse thing to do is to do nothing to change the circumstances: that the comfort of the familiar is a deadening, life diminishing road to perpetual unhappiness.

A triumph in depicting the darker side of relationship culture, a stiff drink is recommended after the show accompanied by a toast to relief - that one's own life is so unlike the tragedy of this play.

Being comfortable with the uncomfortable

Many people experience discomfort when they encounter something that challenges an existing held belief or understanding about their world. It is often not something people are conscious of, and while the reaction may occur in the form of a feeling, most often it does not: it is merely an immediate visceral rejection to the stimulus which emerges as a sense that it is simply wrong.

Comfort represents a condition or state in which a belief has solidified and become firmly entrenched. The stimulus is challenging precisely because it threatens this established order, it is literally stirring up that which has settled in the mind.

We are not talking about stimuli that are blatantly offensive, such an an image of one person violently kicking another; discomfort and rejection at a subconscious level can be precipitated by something relatively innocuous.

A case in point: OFD was invited to talk with some folks in the advertising industry recently about the luxury car brand they were representing. The task at hand was to understand how to sell more of these expensive vehicles in what is a heavily contested market. OFD raised the need to understand the intersection of the core idea of luxury with current cultural trends. The former is what people have a fundamental relationship with, but due to the modulating, moderating effect of the latter, it needs to be re-contextualized to attain contemporary relevance.

In this regard the group was asked to consider how the quality of power could be play out in the current luxury climate. There was immediate resistance. The associations which they had with this term - dominance, an aggressive attitude or display, abuse - were firmly entrenched and got in the way of openly engaging with the idea. There was much discussion, but the echoes of the deeply held beliefs about power kept coming out. The idea that the character of power could be different, something intimate, privately experienced and enjoyed rather than being aggressively and publicly displayed created real discomfort, real friction.

As a society we have stopped appreciating the value in feeling uncomfortable and forgotten how to be comfortable with being uncomfortable. These are unpredictable and uncertain times, which only heightens people's tendencies to want to cling to the familiar. This is above and beyond the cultural forces that work beneath the surface of our daily consciousness which push us towards inertia and stability rather than flux and change.

In the pursuit of progress, the idea itself is not enough. The context in which the idea is exposed, the 'mental environment' in which people encounter it has a critical impact on the ability to fully understand the idea itself as well as the ability to fully engage with it.

A force that divides and unites

ipod, the internet, blackberries. Technology is often maligned for its capacity to isolate because it separates people to retreat into their own world. This is surely only a generational perspective. Anyone younger than a Boomer who grew up from an early age with computers certainly won't feel this way. Xers and younger have a different relationship with technology and reality. They use technology as a tool in which they remain the master not the slave.

Case in point. Second Life. Here's an except of an interview with CEO of Linden Labs - the company behind Second Life, by David Pogue, from his recent article A Experiment in Virtual Living:


DP: "Is there any worry about the whole isolation thing? First iPod earbuds, and now people substituting virtual interactions for real ones?"

PR: "Well I'll tell ya, the history of technology has, in the past 50 years, been to increasingly isolate us. We've gone from watching movies in a movie theater, to watching them as a family at home, to watching them alone on our iPod.

But actually I think there's a next wave of technology, of which Second Life is certainly a great example, where we are bringing people back together again into the same place to have these experiences.

The thing about Second Life that is so fascinating and different is not just that it's 3-D. There are always people to share that experience with, or to ask for help. Or to laugh at something with. And that experience is an innately human one that technology has deprived us of. I think many people use Second Life to have more friends, and more human contact, than they do in the real world"

It is fascinating to hear that people who are regular Second Lifers spend 4 hours a day in this virtual world. Sounds like an excellent time for a social experiment: how about a longitudinal study in which groups of Second Lifers are tracked and segmented across how much time they spend in the real vs. virtual world. A wonderful opportunity to understand how on-line time affects off-line behavior and the inter-play between the two.

This is an exciting age, one that's fluid, evolving into ever-changing possibilities and will be marked as a time by its character of seemingly contradictory opposites, such as fragmentation and convergence.

Coming soon to a living room near you

The latest illustration of how digital media is changing the face of the entertainment industry


On-line Yesterday, On Cable Today (New York Times 3/25/07) chronicles just how quickly people created content is going from obscurity to the mainstream. As the article's title intones, Human Giant made the leap in very rapid fashion indeed, a time span unthinkable 5 or 10 years ago. Skit-orienting programming also seems to naturally lend itself to shorter, looser and more varied material from comedy and improv troupes that are an emerging breed of talent in the new entertainment economy.

What’s not surprising is how quickly and well entertainment companies – like Fuse, MTV and NBC – are evolving to chaperone this talent. They realize that content is king: whoever has that funniest, or at least most compelling whatever the genre – wins. They clearly see the choice in front of them and they aren’t about to take the road to extinction. The challenge is in spotting the next great blockbuster from the also ran. In the movie industry (and the music industry come to think of it) it’s often been the independents that have had more success in spotting and nurturing low budget big ideas than the Hollywood machine.

Beyond content alone there are exciting milestones ahead in entertainment culture too. I can see a day in the not too distance future in which some kind of new hit series, a participation-based format perhaps, takes place ENTIRELY on PDAs/cell phones and not on TV. (Perhaps one in which the general public provide input not to vote on elimination of characters but on outcomes for a scenario and the most popular suggestion is used to adapt the course of action the cast/participants must take in real time) Would it not be a defining moment in the evolution of mass entertainment to have a population transfixed not through a shared screen – as when people huddled around televisions in shop windows to witness the first steps of man walking on the moon – but instead connected through the intimate medium of their own, personal PDA or cell phone screen? One which allows each mobile viewer the opportunity to cast a vote and shape the outcome? Given the heightened anticipation of its $500 iPhone, it’s just the kind of ‘first’ that Apple could pull off.

Darwinism 2.0

To introduce an improvement to an original idea the software industry started the practice of using versions differentiated with numbers, as in Lotus 4.0 or Apple OS 9.0. In the organic way language evolves with culture to assume new meaning (as with the term "ground zero" which connotes the return to new starting point) this numerical version convention has been more widely adopted, such as signifying the new internet era in which we now live, web 2.0.

OFD is proud to launch Darwinism 2.0, a new expanded understanding of the seminal thinking the scientifically established that the authentic explanation for man's development is evolution.
Darwinism 2.0 recognizes that evolution - the act of interacting with the environment to become better adapted - must be extended beyond the physical realm to incorporate cognitive and psychological activity.


While physical evolution takes place over many thousands of years, the pace and scope of technological and cultural change means that for people to remain in harmony with their environment and maintain a good fit, a more rapid evolution in the psychology of the species - the way of thinking - is needed.


Widespread evidence suggests this is not happening. The number of non-genetic based disorders that are emerging and the scale in which they exist are clear indications that homo sapiens sapiens is not adapting to the new world mankind has fashioned:

*Hyper-activity and attention disorders among children from a over-stimulated technology fueled media culture

*Sleep disorders from high stress work/life culture

*Depression linked to levels of stress, due to the role of technology in intensifying the pace and complexity of work, life and social demands


In today's culture of prescribed and self medication, it is no surprise that the consequences of the profound lack of adaptation to the new techno/socio/familial environment is a reliance on pharmacology. People are encouraged to accept that this is a viable remedy when all it does it treat the symptoms rather than the underlying cause: homo sapiens sapiens' limits in speed of cognititive and psychological evolution to an environment he has created for himself. A deep irony indeed.


This creates an interesting possibility for a mechanism for evolution that lies outside the scope of Darwin's original field. While evolution of a physical nature cannot be directed (it is the result of shifts that happen over a long period of time) it is fundamentally different paradigm for mental evolution. There is much progress to be made in actively equipping people with the tools to direct their mental evolution: in the form of coping strategies as well as educational psychology to expose formative minds to influences that will prepare them not just to adapt but thrive in today's world.


In the meantime, Darwinism 2.0 represents a milestone in the use of cognitive sciences and psychology to assist in evolutionary adaptation of thinking to the emerging technologically oriented society.

When is a lie not a lie?

We are living in a time when the line between right and wrong has not only been blurred it is being entirely redrawn. No one has actively advocated that lying is right but as importantly no one is forcefully condemning this behavior as wrong. It has created a culture of permissiveness in which, alarmingly, lying is becoming acceptable.

This is a tendency that is bi-partisan and cuts across the public and private sector. The Clintons were reported in the New York Times last week, to lie not just regularly but with such nonchalance as to be deeply troubling.

Equally disturbing is the news that despite the conviction of Scooter Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice, supporters are already speaking of securing a Presidential pardon from Bush the Younger. There is no shame in lying as a wrong-doing. Being pardoned is deemed sufficient to absolve a moral transgression.

In an earlier age, a basic moral code was a respected independent (non-religious) authority and was non negotiable. It today’s more relaxed, fluid age absolutes have given way to relativity in assessment and the moral character and fiber of this country is weaker for it.

Remember Oliver North lying under oath about his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal? Bush the Elder pardoned his lying along with five others in 1992. Remarkably, a three page justification was issued in support. Lying it seems, it permissible in the following situations:

*When the act is a motivated by a desire to be patriotic
*When there was no intent to seek profit either personally or professionally
*When an individual has an otherwise long and distinguished history in serving the country
*When the individual has already paid a price: in depleted savings, professional reputation or anguish caused to the family.

Beware: the sins of the father become those of the son. The times being what they are it wouldn’t be surprising if this President sends the same egregious signal to the youth of today. Lying is OK, it’s getting caught that’s wrong.

How much does an apology cost?

Companies could do well to employ a simple, well executed tactic when an adverse customer experience risks turning a valuable relationship sour. Say you're sorry. It may be small but this vastly over-looked gesture has the potential to help retain many customers that otherwise abandon a brand after a distasteful event.

Not all acts of apology are created equal, and the potency of a particular form lies which its significance in human relationships. Saying "I'm sorry" suggests the company understands the signficance of the error, respects that it has taken away from the life of the person and expresses regret. In short, it says a company cares.

Of course, the value of the apology lies in its perceived sincerity, both in tone and spontaneity This is not the province of a carelessly implmented corporate mandate to 'apologize by the playbook'.

It remains such a simple gesture of humility, acknowledgement and compassion that it is surprising how infrequently companies - through their employee frontline - do it.
Today's USA TODAY article highlights the appalling conditions air travelers faced recently in a recent storm-related delays when many were forced to wait up to eight hours on tarmacs within sight of the gate. Jet blue was particularly aggregious in this episode. Yet the CEO did not say he was sorry once (it's hard to imagine why the reported would have omitted it). Using language like "unacceptable" is fighting corporate speak and that's precisely the problem. Adopting a more human character would serve companies bettter.

This writer believes there are cultural factors in play that prevents company's front line representative from engaging in this simple, very human act. Beyond the obvious legal one - the fear that saying sorry admits guilt and culpabilty and therefore financial responsibility - people have been conditioned not to say sorry because it means they are wrong. Being wrong makes people feel bad, very bad indeed. This is a winning culture, a culture in which success and its trapppings are prized, in which being right is good and being wrong is bad. The motive to avoid what hurts us is classic avoidance behavior.

As a repair tool to mend damaged relationships, a heart-felt apology can be easily delivered in a way that avoids the personal cost to an employee in facing an angry individual or group: say "We're sorry". It gives the employee a way to avoid feeling 'wrong' but it is undeniably less personal, which is why care must be taken in the delivery.

Companies would do well to educate and coach customer-facing employees - including the CEO - in the simple practice of apologizing well. The benefits of doing so - retaining the lifetime value of the customer - vastly outweight the cost.

Tattoo Etiquette

Almost seems like an oxymoron.
Tattoo conjures up something counter culture, grunge, possibly subversive while etiquette conotes its spectrum opposite: refined, elitist, priviledged. But there is such a thing as good form even when engaging in conversation about indelible body marking.
How many times have you over-heard this exchange:

"You have a tattoo?"
"Yeah"
"Yeah? Where?"

The fact that a tattoo is not visible should tell the inquirer that there is good reason this is so. It's much like an expensive boutique that does not display prices, in which any question about the cost of any item is quite simply out of place (a rule of etiquette). And so it is with tattoos. Why it is that the curiousity minded questioner must fill the dead air following confirmation of its existence and ask about specific location is merely evidence that a basic rule of etiquette is not being observed. But then the tattos artifact is one with a host of prejeudice and judgment attached to it, so this perhaps is less than surprising.
Why not allow the owner a modicum of respect, and allow her or him to volunteer this information instead? Perhaps somethings are left better to the imagination anyhow.