The Prototype Method

I'm starting a series about prototyping and the method I use to design prototypes.

This is the first entry, and it's about making static mockups.

Also, anyone who wants to join in the "#PROTOTYPED" Prototype Design Exercise? Check out the prototyped challenges here. 

I'll be taking ideas for 7 different apps that everyone participating will be mocking up through rapid prototyping, so comment on the post or message me if you have an idea.

I see this as a way for us to get a bunch of different mockups on our favorite app ideas from a bunch of different people, that way we can design them out later if we want to. Contribute that app idea you've been sitting on for years to see it come to life several times over. Anyone that wants to participate is invited.

Use the #prototyped hashtag if you post about the project to get the word out.

(Any work as part of the #PROTOTYPED will retain © to the person who submitted the idea.)

​

My Portfolio

Looking back at the body of work, I feel better about being a prototyper. 

Watch vs. iPod Nano

I was curious to see the dimensions of the iPod Nano in relationship to the Watch. So, I made a little comparison:

It's interesting to note how similar they are in form for being so different in function. It's fun to think that when the Nano became a popular enough "watch" for Apple to give it watchfaces, Apple was in all likelihood working on the Watch already. Based on how similar in size they are, maybe they started with the Nano form factor?

*Smart Things

Introduction

Here is a fun game: put the word smart in front of pretty much any object you use during the day, and you get an idea of the potential of smart things. You also understand the expectations problem such potential also implies: should everything become a smart device?

The Internet of Things. Smart Devices. Home Automation. Smart Things. Connected Devices. There seems to be an increasingly problematic and vast vernacular for the new product category which takes non-connected devices into a state of connectivity. (Indeed, the problematic naming conventions the industry has for this kind of product is discussed later). 

The category is young, vulnerable, and after some tribulation, becoming more and more viable. While the technology has some substantial obstacles ahead of it, the Internet of Things has a societal momentum that will reach a tipping point, at which time the proliferation of the technology will come to dominate both the consumer and business marketplace. Until such a tipping point, early adopters can use the Internet of Things to their strategic advantage.

This paper will cover the four different types of Smart Things, each reflecting a state of the technology and where the market for the products will fail and succeed. This includes past state, current state, alternate state, and future state.

The Smart follow the Smart into the pit.


Past State // The Connected Appliance

 The current state of smart things focuses on hero devices that seem to deliver the beginnings of a promise of a ‘smart home’ that  has been promised since the 1950’s. But it got there in a funny way, and that was through the smart phone. Most of the the successful ‘Smart-Home’ products in the era of the ‘Internet of Things’ were born out of a connection to the iPhone. If the problem was that the smart home of the home of the future was too infeasible to build, then the solution was to build out the smart home one piece at a time. A device that you have on your person at all times makes such a strategy very appealing to normal people. 

There was a secondary problem with smart home adoption, one of technophobia. People are intimidated by technology and when people thought of it in their homes, it made them  uncomfortable. Certainly, a new found love for that little piece of technology in your pocket helped alleviate this fear, but you’ll see the most successful products in this category adopt a product design that de-emphasizes the technology of a smart device in favor of a emphasis of blending into the home.

The first major test case for ‘Smart Things’ in your home was the Nest. A team of former Apple engineers and designers thought about the hurdle earning a spot in the home in a new and exciting way: they set out to transform all the boring boxes that populate the home and ask the user of their device to love their them. The Nest thermostat was certainly beloved for it’s ability to connect to the internet, set schedules for heating/cooling,  detect when you were home and away, and even save you money on your energy bill; but perhaps it’s biggest selling point was the way it looked on the wall. Nest was a runaway success. 

This opened up the possibilities of a market for devices that integrated into the home to automate daily tasks. Phillips released it’s line of smart lightbulbs, Hue, similarly designed for integration into your current home. After the success of the Hue, the company released a suite of lighting products that integrated into the Hue system. Soon, the Apple Store’s accessory section featured smart cooking thermometers, smart scales, smart cameras that detect motion, and smart wall plugs,etc. New companies like Dropcam formed, existing market leaders in appliances began  working on smart products, like Honeywell and Maytag, and current technology makers began work on products in the category, like Belkin. It seemed that the possibilities for the category where endless and optimism for the product category was unabashed. 

The term, ‘the Internet of Things’ became a buzzword. August Lock, a smart home deadbolt, went up for pre-oder. Nest followed up their thermostat with a smart fire detector. Refrigerator and washing machine manufacturers announced new connected products. But the market seemed to falter, Nest Protect was received with lukewarm reviews and had to eventually be recalled. August Lock is still yet to ship to it’s customers, and Mayatg and GE let many of their ambitious smart home products wither on the vine.

While the market for smart appliances stalled, systems for controlling current smart home setups seemed to thrive. IFTTT, an automation platform gained popularity in circles of nerds who hooked these devices up to existing services and platforms. Nest developed such a power efficient cloud based system of energy usage, the product has become popular for many businesses to use to cut energy costs.

The potential for the category still seemed clear, but the immediacy of the category seemed far less so. It was apparent that smart appliances would continue to play a role in the lives of consumers, and companies assumed the value in these products was in their appeal to the consumer looking to slowly build out their connected home. But a secondary audience had emerged, those interested in systems that could easily connect many small data points in service of the overall systems they existed in. For example, Nest gave the consumer a clear benefit of controlling the energy usage in their homes, but it also gained popularity from utility companies as a way to manage power and eliminate waste.

This is current state of smart appliances, as novel items that consumers adopt slowly over time. There are problems with this model. For instance, people who rent housing or have network bandwidth limitations. Most of these devices are also married to a smartphone, some of them only work exclusively with the device. There is also clearly a line that consumers draw between devices they deem worthy of internet abilities and those that are not. While the thermostat might be something people are willing to buy to automate their life, a toaster might not. 

Current State // End-Around to the Smart Home

Because the the smart home has begun to take form as a fragmented accumulation of devices designed from many different companies, there is a tremendous opportunity for a single player to build a framework within which these devices can communicate and standardize. Major technology companies like Google, Apple, and Samsung are not rushing to produce their own versions of these smart home products, but are vying as platform builders for existing devices. Apple seemed to have an advantage with it’s stores because of the popularity of the smart devices on their accessory walls.

In a escalation of the promise of a smart home, Google bought Nest, and subsequently Dropcam, perhaps the two most popular automation products offered in the Apple Store. Apple responded to the purchases with an announcement of Homekit, which allows the iPhone to set up a home automation system from desperate ‘smart’ products. (Not so coincidentally, Nest was not on the list of Homekit’s launch partners.)  So far, Google has left Nest to operate independently, and Apple has left the Nest products on their Apple Store shelves. Not to be outdone, Samsung purchased the company called ‘Smart Things’, which offers a complete home automation product line, but has also claimed that it would allow the company to operate independently. 

This ‘Smart Things’ stockpile strategy seems cold-war-esque, as none of the major players have begun development of their own product offerings, but see the area as a way to support the sale of their current products through platform lock-in. The thing to watch for in this space is when the platform makers decide that the market is mature enough to actually use these investments against each other, and ultimately, aid in the creation of their own first party versions of these product lines. For now though, Google seems content to let Apple sell their devices in-store and Apple seems content on not actually making it’s own smart home devices. (And as usual, Samsung’s moves in the space are not forward thinking as much as they are reactionary.) 

What does seem inevitable now, is that consumers expect these technology companies to have some sort of home automation solution, and this signals the viability of the smart home through connected devices market. The home will indeed get smarter and smarter through sure attrition of the current offerings. But this is damning praise for a market that might have promised more, and has become somewhat of a disappointment from what seemed endless possibilities. 

The ‘Internet of Things’ became a buzz word for a reason: it represented a whole new market for manufacturers to make products that consumers would want to buy. This buzz and excitement grew out of the technology and product sector, and service providers bought into the idea of the smart and connected home, To home security systems, the new market represented an existential threat. To ISP’s and Cellular providers, the market seemed a easy way to expand their portfolio of offerings. When the product side of the market seemed to saturate and industries moved on from the original ‘Internet of Things’ fad, the service providers doubled down on the idea. This seemed bizarre, as the market was trending away from the idea, but the service providers had a new product and the promise of higher margins, so they barreled ahead. 

Overnight, home security companies turned into home automation companies. AT&T began selling home automation as a feature of their cellular network. ISPs and cable providers began work on their own smart home systems, which they eventually began pushing in bundle packages. Capitalizing on the promise of the category was a callous way to improve margins and push product, but these companies had made up there minds. In the case of Vivint, a home security systems company, the entire company pivoted towards home automation. 

It’s yet to be seen how successful these programs have been with return on investment, I suspect the companies saw reasonable returns. But the category suffered as a result, with consumers suspecting the whole promise of the ‘Internet of Things’ to be merely a ploy to re-sale the services they already have. Technology companies should be concerned that the category has been hijacked by industries that would see little benefit from the category’s progression.

The general sense is that the smart home has seen it’s first golden age. What comes next is a dormant phase for new products in the smart home category, while platforms arise around the existing offerings. The rejection of service providers version of the smart home would be a matter of when, not if. Beyond the congregation of existing technology and repackaging in service bundles, we wait for the smart home renaissance.

It also turns out that the whole product category seems ill-served by the naming conventions of the technology. ‘Smart Things’ is a bad category description because it is now, not accidentally I’m sure, the brand name of a major player in the industry. The ‘Smart Home’ represents an era of the technology which over-promised and under-delivered on it’s hype. The ‘Internet of Things’ seems to become indistinguishable from corporate jargon. ‘Home Automation’ now stinks of a scam. If this area of technology becomes more prevalent in the future, it will be interesting to see how these all players involved decide to adjust the naming conventions. With the addition of wearables and beacons in the future vernacular of the category, it becomes difficult to accurately describe the field these products live in.

Alternate State // Smart Complexity

 A bifurcated offshoot of the idea of smart things has had unintended consequences and implications in other fields  beyond the consumer space and smart home of the future. One of the areas where connected devices has become prevalent is in the automation of vast industry systems such as public utilities, agricultural sprinklers, and energy consumption. Disruptive technologies have a funny way of finding their way back into the industries they disrupt, and the internet of things movement is no different.

The aforementioned trend of businesses or utility investing in the Nest thermostat has to do with the ability to not only control a switch, but also in monitoring its analytics in real time.  Utility companies spent years developing systems which would load bear usage, create complex maps or grids based on historical consumption data, and make models of how to adjust services during peak usage times. Suddenly, with Nest, utility companies had the ability to receive live feedback data from a vast amount of users. The nest leaf system can adjust energy consumption for tax breaks for individuals, and the effect of entire utility companies being able to adjust their consumption based on peak usage times, weather, and energy  costs is only compounded as adoption grows. Nest is allowing complex systems to essentially self correct in response to changes in a economies of scarify and cost, and is allowing companies who adopt the technology to functionally crowdsource system management.

There are familiar systems which could be further effected by the specific scaling effect. Consider, for instance, the way traffic lights function. They are usually centrally controlled and based on imperfect models of traffic and road congestion patterns. Smart technology could enable traffic systems to consider real time data and road conditions, and eliminate the need for centrality and eliminate complexity. Letting the objects govern themselves through sensory data is transformational, and the benefits of such systems are both appealing and cost-effective.

Adoption of such systems is the obstacle to the overall viability. Nest had a consumer adoption effort that helped the optics of it’s solution. The odds that the space can produce another immediately appealing device to consumer that can  also transform massive scale systems are low. An encouraging example are new smart sprinkler units that allow for reporting and usage based on weather, and are available for both consumer and commercial needs.

It should be the aim of these massive scale operators then, to find products which can scale through easy installation and simple use. Manufacturers of smart products need to anticipate this need and design products that fit into these systems. The more energy related the product can be, the more the interest of the consumer and the system manager can become, and the more likely that the resulting product can address the problem from both the consumer and commercial space.

Future State // Single Sensors, Stupid!

The future of the ‘Internet of Things’ looked bleak for a while. The maturation of the smart appliance market cooled the enthusiasm that was generated when the field was emerging. Eventually, the market saw the smart ovens, the drone delivery programs, the home automation as security system sales, as they were: technology for technology sake. One by one, each new area of the market for smart devices faltered. There was one category that only seemed to grow more and more popular as the category grew. The idea of the simple sensor represents the direction this category of products will adapt to in the coming years. 

The idea is that many of the dumb things around us can be made smart very easily. Once a device can communicate with the internet or with your smartphone through BTLE (Blue Tooth Low Energy), that device becomes more valuable to almost all of it’s potential users. 

Many device makers made the mistake of believing that because Nest asked it consumer to interact with a digital interface and Nest was successful, that they must also enable a user interface for the user of their smart product to interact with. This kind of thinking is what results    in a smart refrigerator which requires the user constant manipulation. This is a misunderstanding of what the user finds valuable in a smart thing. The Nest isn’t beloved because it has an interface to interact with (in fact, deep interaction with the screen can be somewhat of a chore.) The Nest is beloved because it enabled the user to control their physical surroundings in a better way than they could before. People can turn down the temperature remotely, and all other features the device offers are expansions on the idea that the Nest is aware of the situation it is being used in. Perhaps the most overlooked part of the Nest is it’s ability to sense motion. This simple sensor technology enables the device to adjust itself based on current conditions. People will tolerate more interaction with the device as long as the interaction is convenient. 

Since the market cannot expect a majority of consumers to adopt more and more smart things that require interaction, the opportunity in the field is to create devices which do not require interaction, but keep the ‘smart’ benefits of a connected device. Leaders in this field are not immediately obvious, but firms like IFTTT and Estimote may understand the possibilities of the single sensor product. “If this” is enabled by the single sensor device, like an iBeacon or Nearable, and the “then that” can be carried out by non-connected devices simply plugged into a Wi-Fi or BTLE enabled outlet, like an oven or a refrigerator. 

Marketing cannot underestimate the power of this kind of ‘dumb’ smart device. The advertising industry seems to have a crush on the idea of ‘just-in-time’ content delivery. The approach to using sensors to help determine advertising messages is powerful, but I can’t help but feel that advertisers misunderstand this power. With multiple sensors in people’s everyday lives, advertisers can make better and offer users easier ways to interact with their situation. It has already begun to shape how advertisers think of reaching consumers, but its implementation has been primitive and inelegant and will only get better over time.

Imagine that billboard advertisers began installing iBeacons in billboards. My iPhone can detect it’s in the car, and the iPhone begins looking for iBeacon signals from billboards you pass while driving. The iPhone sees that some of the companies advertising on billboards also have apps on your iPhone. The iPhone also knows that you listen to the ad-supported iTunes Radio on your phone. When you go back to listen to iTunes Radio, ads from the company’s billboard campaign are matched with the audio ads served to you in iTunes Radio. You have been given relevant information about a company you interact with already in a way you expect. That’s the future of advertising with ‘Always-On’ sensors, and it’s all enabled by a simple device that does one thing.

Many suspected Apple’s new smart watch to become the center of the ‘dumb’ smart device which simply allows for the wearer to enable other connected experiences around them. This does not seem to be the strategy of Apple’s wearable from Apple’s perspective, or if it is, Apple is not talking about it. Perhaps the phone can stay the center of the connected smart device experience, and perhaps the watch will enable new ways of interacting with smart devices. But notice that in either case, the ecosystem is simply looking for the user to posit themselves into s pace where other devices can understand their situation and adjust their surroundings accordingly. This is the future of the category, to allow the users mere presence to dictate action from the devices in the context of where the user is, what the user is doing, and what the user wants to accomplish.

 

Overcast Review

Overcast

Strategy 

Make a simple to use podcast catcher with complex technological sound engine as a differentiator.

Scope

By focusing on doing a couple of things well (smart-speed, list creation & ordering, social discovery), the app eschews a ‘do-it-all’ podcast client. Overcast even lists it primary competitors as alternatives for those who don’t think Overcast is right for them. The apps more impressive features are unlocked through an in-app purchase, but the free version will serve as a simple way to subscribe and order podcasts.

Structure

The app has three ‘modes’, the default podcast list, a playing now mode, and a section mode. Whenever the user selects a podcast, a now playing screen appears with custom playback controls. Whenever the user selects a different section of the app, the app extends to another screen. Both of these non-default modes have a back arrow at the top right corner to give the user an impression that the spacial ‘home’ of the app is the list of playlists and podcasts.

Skeleton

The app is set apart into 5 main sections. The primary and defaulted section displays playlists, follow by an ordered section of all the podcasts you’ve subscribed to. At the top of the screen, four icons serve as portals to other areas of the app. The first icon takes you to more information about Overcast and it’s settings. The second shows you a queue of your podcast downloads. The third allows you customize your playlists and their settings. The last section allows you to browse a catalog of podcasts recommend through curated lists and through your social networks recommendations. 

Surface 

Since the app is powered by a solid apical structure and has some well thought out benefits, Overcast shines with visual representations. For instance, if a podcast is playing, the user sees the EQ for that podcast if they are looking at their default list screen. Controls for playback are shown at the bottom of the screen in a mini player no matter where the user is in the app. Other details, like how much overall time the app has saved you with the Smartspeed or the links to other popular indie podcast apps, give the user the impression that this app respects their time and their intelligence. The last bit of surface flash the app really gives the user is the straightforward and colloquial tone of the copy in the app, which encourages a friendly interaction between the app and the user.

Overall

The User Experience in Overcast is excellent, but I suspect it’s because @marcoarment knew to start with a objective and scope that were achievable, and focusing the apps attention on critical areas, adding detail only as an appendage to the core when it would surpass and surprise the user’s expectations. The structure of the app can be confusing at times, but the spacial metaphor reassures this complexity to great effect. The lack of grandeur control in the app seems to be a feature not a bug, and while this may not be for everyone, the person who this app does appeal to will truly love it. The app also gets extra points for recommending competitors, and ironically this little detail has secured my loyalty to the app.

Episode 5: On Samsung

We talk about Samsung and it's messaging. 

Spolier, we aren't really fans.

 

Episode 5: On Samsung
Bemorte Productions

Ron Johnson Was Right

On Ron Johnson's, of Apple Store fame, failed rebrand of JC Penny:

“the move was “definitely ill-timed,” considering Johnson was cut loose after his bold new pricing strategies clearly failed, but before being able to bring his “shop-in-shop” strategy to fruition”

It’s a shame this didn’t work out. I think most of the re-brand put the cart before the horse.

People flock to the Apple Store because of the awesome stuff inside it, and they come back because of the incredible customer experience. Ron Johnson’s strategy only addressed the store, and ignored the product. In retrospect, maybe Johnson should have focused on product first. Create something that people want, then make the shopping experience top notch. 

Johnson overhauled the price, the store, and the way promotions worked. It turns out, he alienated most of the JC Penny customer base. If Johnson had been able to bring in a flock of new customers before or during this change, the rebrand might have been transformational. 

Don’t mistake the JC Penny failure as an indication of Ron Johnson’s ideas about brand and retail. The mini-shop idea would be a great model for another brave department store—albeit a more product oriented one—to use for innovative success. 

(Side-note: the presentation was a little sloppy and it focused much too heavily on the parallels between Apple and JC Penny, of which there are very few.)

✱Experience Design

There are many roles in advertising. Some of these roles are straightforward: a copywriter writes copy, an art director directs the art for ads, etc. Some titles are more abstracted from their work, even if their job is vital in the agency model. Advertising and technology are industries notorious for jargon, so when you combine the two you usually get something with the words Technologist, Information, User, and Interface. So when I try to explain what I’m studying at Brandcenter, a name for the field I'm studying in advertising can be tricky.

The first day at Brandcenter, a professor explained the field of ‘Experience Design’, by posing that people interact with brands through experience, and that if an experience is designed with an intent to effect a certain outcome, then it is by definition, by design. By this explanation alone I knew I was in the right place. I’m studying to be a User Experience Designer.

Progression of Brand Engagement through Technology

UX, UI, and Other Things That Start With U

I finished reading Jesse James Grant’s User Experience book this weekend. There are too many takeaways to write about, so I thought I’d try to summarize his model of thinking about the user experience. 

Grant presents a layered model of user experience. If you, like me, think that last sentence sounds like academic jargon and borders on esoteric, then I have some metaphors to explain the layered model that helped me. 

The first is the way our iPhones and iPads interface with their users. I think this shot from Apples iOS 7 Keynote demonstrated this idea of layering in the most easy to understand way:

A good digital analogy for contextual layers is Photoshop layers. For those who know how layers work in photoshop or Pages, this model works much the same. A good real world analogy is staging for a musical or play. The audience sees the whole stage as a single picture and experience, yet the actors, technicians, and directors producing the show have actually used many layers of set-dressing, costumes, and planning to achieve what the audience sees. 

The Layers of UX, understood.

So what are the layers of User Experience? Surface, Skeleton, Structure, Scope, and Strategy. These terms are specific and accurate, but they sound like business speak to me when read one after the other with no context. So, I reflected on what each process represented and came up with a name for each one myself. My titles are far less accurate but they represent the mental model of the process as I understand it.

The Layers

My Mental Model

The strategy phase is when you decide what objectives your product will eventually meet, these are REASONS you are doing making the experience in the first place. The book correctly points out that starting with 'surface' level stuff and then work back to the rationale will probably make your experience suck, because it doesn’t have a 'reasons' to exist.

The scope phase is when you decide how broadly you want to address your strategy. I call this the YES:NO RATIO, because when it’s important to know when you will say ‘yes, it’s for that’ or ‘no, it’s not really for that’ to your users. If you do this part right, you have a good idea of what your ideal experience will be, and perhaps more importantly, what it will not be. 

The structure phrase moves the process away from the philosophical and into the practical. I like to think of this step like unpacking into a new house, you have all your stuff with you, but you find yourself holding a piece of it and asking WHERE DOES THIS GO? This step moves the product out of the idealized space and begins to make it tangible to those producing it. 

The skeleton phase asks the produces to BUILD their product. Minimum Viable Product, the bare bones, a draft of the work. Move the product into the physical world completely. 

The surface phase focuses on the interface and represent the FIGHT FOR THE USER. It’s how people will see and come to view the product. This is the easiest layer to understand because it’s the layer people will see.

Let The Experience Speak For Itself

It’s important to note that most people think of User Experience as simply one layer. Someone who sees a picture that has been edited in Photoshop doesn’t necessarily know that the image was created using Photoshop, because they just see a single image. Notice that the users are not particularly worried about anything but for the surface level. People seeing a broadway musical don’t particularly care about the processes that developed the show as they do the show itself. The actors don’t start the show by explaining how much rehearsal time they had or how much the sets cost, they let the experience speak for itself.

One of the more brash lessons I’ve taken from my first weeks at Brandcenter is that, in the words of my professor, “Your motivations don’t matter. No one cares if you tried hard on something that sucks, they care if the thing they are looking at is good or not. You are not considered.” 

Thus, good user experience is always going to be contextual because it has to be good to the end-user. And now I find that I, like Tron before me, get to fight for the user. 

Nerd Achievement Unlocked!

Design Manifesto

Mission

Make experiences, messages, and impressions that create a win for all people involved.

Everything comes at a cost, and true Creatives should face the scarcity of time, resources, and people’s attention with a sense of purpose. If there is something worth doing, it would be valuable to the creator, the consumer, and the person picking up the bill. It’s not a zero sum game, everyone can win. Align your interests with those your work will touch.

Create things that have more positive aspects than negative ones.

There are surely compromises to be made in all Creative work, especially when the work is commissioned. A product that adds delight and productivity into the world is far superior to a product that simply make money, a great product figures out how to do both. Don’t try and change the world all at once, just strive to make people’s lives a little bit better.

Surprise those who expect something less, delight those who weren’t expecting much.

Consumer expectations permeate all markets and are often beyond anyone’s direct control. If you create something beyond what the consumer was expecting, you engender user delight. People love brands that surpass expectations, and they tend to reward such experiences with future loyalty.

Do work that you can be proud of.

Make the kinds of things you’ll be proud to tell people about at parties. In the long run, it’s rewarding, and it can be good motivation when you are in the throes of the work.

Balance business needs with cleverness, effectiveness with artistic value.

Big ideas usually solve a problem with an elegant solution. Taking pride in the elegance of the solution is as important as solving the problem. It’s a fine line of course, because a clever solution that doesn’t address the objectives of the problem is also pretty worthless.

Values to Promote

Sense of Curation. 

Give the user a sense that what they are consuming is the best of all possible choices and is worth their attention.

Authenticity. 

Communicate the relative importance of the product with design choices that are transparent and honest to the end-user. Earn the attention of the consumer by respecting them.

Starkness. 

Force those who see your work to consider it through stark use of imagery, color, and layout.

Premium Feel. 

Attend to the details of the smaller parts that make up the whole of the product, communicating quality to the user and giving weight to the importance of getting the details right.

Thoughtfulness. 

Impress the user with unexpected features that go beyond their reasonable expectations, resulting in surprise, delight, and satisfaction.

Simplicity.

Not be confused with plainness, a lack of complexity should be purposeful, a distillation of chaos achieved through uncompromising revision, and should result in valuation of the simplest form of an idea.

Modern Sensibility. 

Convey relevance through design choices that reflect the new, acknowledge shifts in fashion without becoming a slave to them, and signal progression to the user without a gimmick.

To What End

+ For a personal sense of achievement and professional fulfillment.

+ To fund the lives of me and my family.

+ To improve the lives of the people who see or interact with my work.

Footnote:

I have never really thought of myself as a "designer", so when I was asked to produce a design manifesto this week, I was worried about having enough to fill a single page. Upon further reflection however, I was surprised to find that I had some strongly held design beliefs. Many of these beliefs come from my obsession with Apple, some of them come from my time studying advertising. But I think most of my beliefs about design come from my time on the internet.

It's amazing to consider where your sensibilities come from, because it makes you reflect on values that define your tastes and presences, values that undoubtedly also define who you are as a person.

Even if you aren't a self-ascribed "Creative" I encourage you to reflect on your design preferences, because you end up learning a lot more about yourself than you might think.

(Re)Branded

A second attempt at a podcast about different approaches to, and interpretations of, advertising.

This week, the show covers the nature of advertising's relationship with the agency model, the ALS 'Ice-Bucket' challenge, and the nature of viral content. 

(Also, bigger phones.)

(Re) Branded

Not the Victim

John Dehlin is set to find out about his church disciple this week and he writes about victimization:

“Do I see myself as a victim? Not at all. I completely acknowledge the LDS Church’s right to decide who should and should not remain a member. If the church excommunicates me, I do not plan to fight that decision. My only concern is that by excommunicating people like me, the church will perhaps unintentionally: 1) send the message to progressive Mormons and doubters that they are also not wanted in the church, and 2) send the message that the church is weak/fearful, undermining its recent attempts (i.e., “I’m a Mormon” campaign) to show itself to be a modern and diverse church. I honestly believe that the church will damage itself if it begins to excommunicate people like myself and Kate Kelly. I also will be deeply sad on a personal level if I am excommunicated.”

Mormon Stories Podcast is a great show, but popular and loud supporters of Kate Kelly should probably expect the worst right now. I'm afraid the headline 'LDS Church Ex-Communicates Woman Critic, Gives Pass to Man Critic' is a worst case PR situation now that Kate Kelly's fate is set. I hope I'm wrong.

✱ 'Pure' Criticism.

Critiquing the Criticism

Defending the art of criticism is a perilous position in any situation. Defending criticism when it comes to Mormonism and negative associations about anti-Mormonism further cloud people’s judgment. But, in the wake of the LDS ex-communication controversy; defend it we must.

Criticism is an staple of American life. We pay people to critique our movies, our food, our video-games, our political systems, our apps, and even our everyday purchases. I’ve never been shy about my love affair with hyper-criticism. Everything should be analyzed, dissected, and re-built to be better than before. 

But criticism never happens in a vacuum. This is especially true when it’s coming from within an organization. People usually respond to criticism by becoming defensive, so when groups of like-minded people get criticism, the effect tends to be compounded. Organizations have to engrain their cultures with a healthy respect for internal criticism or they will reject any divergence from the party line.

I decided to write about critics in the LDS church because I believe it’s a representative example of a larger life truth: Critique can be invaluable to organizations that embrace it and it can be destructive to those that do not.

Mormon Context: A History. 

Accepting criticism is not something the LDS church has done particularly well, because criticism in the church is a paradox. The organization is engrained with a belief in on-going revelation and the acceptance of all truth, regardless of source. At the same time, it regularly asserts its authority and correlates its efforts fanatically. Aligning these two values concurrently has littered the the history of the church with tension and drama.

Consider this: Investigators of the church are often asked two questions when it comes to joining the church. “What it comes down to,” the missionaries will say, “is whether you think the Book of Mormon is the Word of God and was Joseph Smith a prophet?”

The implication of this challenge is that if the answer to both questions is yes, you should join the LDS church. This is an over-simplification. There are factions of the Latter-Day Saint movement that would argue that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that you should not join the LDS church. (In fact, Denver Snuffer has basically said as much.)

The early church faced loud and serious criticism that represented a existential threat to the future of the restored gospel. Brigham Young’s detractors weren’t kidding around. His reactions, while questionable, were in defense of a new religion that needed defending.

After polygamy ended, the church ex-communicated members who continued to practice it. To this day we are still struggling to communicate to the world the difference between us and those who have deviated from our core belief and practices.  But even before Brigham and polygamy, the church had a ‘who is really in charge here’ problem. The early church had to excommunicate *witnesses of the Book of Mormon* as open apostates and a member of the first presidency for recruiting members into their own factions of the church. 

Ex-communication was imprinted on the church in it’s infancy. Is it any wonder, then, that the modern church is quick to distance itself from those it believes are actively seeking to wrestle power away from the twelve? It certainly might help explain Waterman's and Snuffer’s fate. But what about Kate Kelly’s? 

Modern Mormon Moderation. 

You needn't look too far in the past to see modern examples of the ‘protect-the-brand’ mentality in the LDS church. The September Six, for example, shows the brutality the church’s system could impose on dissenters.

The church has been subtlety and carefully modernizing it’s image, apologizing for it’s policy mistakes, and even clarifying existing policies in the past year. In the Mormon Moment, you’d think church critics would ease off, but you’d be dead wrong. Church critics sense blood in the water.

The modern problem with ex-communication is that members get mixed messages about the line between acceptable behavior and those actions that can cause church discipline.

Consider the things published about Joseph Smith by Fawn Brodie as compared to the work of Richard Bushman. Their eventual place in Mormonism aside, their works are more close than most members would care to admit. The rules are different for different people, because context matters in the real world. The difference between an apostate and an LDS scholar, is one of approach. 

A Living Church, Indeed. 

It seems many of the church’s detractors want immediate recognition and approval of their criticism. But an organization’s consistency and vision matter— especially in the LDS church. If you reverse course in the midst of immediate controversy, you risk looking weak, lacking vision, and being void of conviction.

For a non-church example, look at Microsoft and its recent release it’s console, the Xbox One. The reversals of bold features that became controversial resulted in complete reversals. This made Microsoft look unsure of themselves and diluted the message for the Xbox One. If an organization must reverse prior action, it should be done on the terms of the organization, not on the terms of it’s detractors. The most obvious modern example in the church is the reaction to the policy on blacks and the priesthood.

Instead of reversing course when the issue became a hot topic, the brethren considered the issue for years, opting only to change the policy once they received revelation. Years of societal unrest and a church hardline on the policy convinced members and critics alike to believe the church’s position was entrenched. An apostle defended the policy in general conference. NAACP leaders even gave up formally meeting with the church. Then one day, boom, complete reversal. The church had changed for the better on it’s own terms. More importantly, it did so while it controlled the conversation.

You may see narrative building in the church as damning, but I think of it as a remarkable example of religion with an “open cannon and the capacity for change.”  

Stand A Little Taller, Geeze. 

So here is my take: the critics getting ex-communicated probably deserve their punishment on a technical level, but I don't love that I’m complicit in their punishment. It’s kind of like the death penalty or torturing terrorists. I might understand and resign myself to the reality of the punishment, but I’m unsure of it’s morality. Myopic members want the church to refute these critics' claims directly. I wish the church would completely ignore them. It’s beneath them to engage with bloggers. It lends credibility to people who don’t really deserve it.

I'm disappointed with the state of LDS criticism. Surely, there is a conversation to be had about women’s roles in the LDS church and culture. But with a title like ‘Ordain Women’ this movement is only hurting it’s cause. The church can’t turn a blind eye to open apostasy and mutiny.

That being said, the church doesn’t have to defend it’s existence anymore. The religion is the real deal and a handful of angry bloggers don’t pose a real threat to the the worldwide church. But I kind of suspect the church doesn’t know how else to react. I wish we would reserve ex-communication to those convicted of sex abuse or war crimes, and simply disfellowship those in open ‘intellectual apostasy’. (And even then, situations like the Nazi Germany ex-communication make me queasy. All the more reason to err on less extreme punishment.)

So yeah, the church probably needs to reconsider the way it treats those who have legitimate concerns and doubts. (And, word is that there is a massive internal push to do so.) 

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa is Me.

That being said, the progressive Mormon scene needs to take a long look in the mirror and decide what it wants to be when it grows up. I get the feeling these bloggers think of the organization of the church like they do government, and this controversy represents a clear violation of their free speech. This isn’t a democracy, it’s a church. There is no first amendment of Mormonism.

Either these bloggers are too arrogant to see that their actions will lead to ex-communication or they understand it perfectly and bet the church won’t call their bluff. In either case I’m disinterested in defending their membership. These bloggers need to appreciate the difference between negotiable policies and core doctrines. The church policy on caffeine evolves with societal pressure while doctrine of the priesthood seems less malleable. You have to know the scope of the change the are asking of the organization and it’s probability.

In the end, the whole issue seems to be a Rorschach Test for members. Either you see the church as in the wrong and the bloggers as heroes, or you see the church as immutable and the bloggers as heretics. The fact that I’ve not heard much of a measured reaction from the church’s defenders or it’s critics is perhaps the most disillusioning aspect of the entire issue.

I’ll just close with a quote of Anton Ego, the restaurant critic in Ratatouille:

“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the *new*.”

Here’s to hoping we learn something new. 

[Update: The church seemed to say all the right things here, but the Deseret News ran a story with Kate Kelly's letter in it. Can't say you won't discuss specifics and then let your own publication print all the details.]

[Update: Clay Christensen has a wonderful correction that reflects my take on this. 'When society is telling me something new, even when it has assembled powerful reasons and powerful people on its side, I do not ask society whether it is correct. I ask God.']

[Update: John Dehlin, of Mormon Stories podcast, was communicated. This is concerning, if simply for the fact that Dehlin was bridging the gap between doubters and hard-liners in the church. Again, notice how a church disciplinary counsel shows up on the wire from the church's own newsroom? What happened to not discussing specifics? Plus, when I hear "Disputed the nature of our Heavenly Father and the divinity Jesus Christ," I think first of Joseph Smith, not John Dehlin. What kind of precedent do you set by engaging the Mormon fringe if not legimaitimzing it? All that being said, look at Dehlin's site. The guy asks for donations on the homepage.  He says his plans are to study disorders for "religion-related anxiety (e.g. Scrupulosity)". Doesn't that strike anyone else as assumption looking for evidence? Not to mention, any research he does on it will have conformation bias written all over it. Freud would call this "projection",]

Branded, Episode 2

On Allstate
Bemorte Productions

Follow-Up:

This All-State Ad is my new favorite commercial. Not only is there a strong grand statement--truly a manifesto and All-State even calls it an anthem--but it directly relates to the brand story of insurance. And they didn’t even need Snoopy.

All-State:

The ‘Are you in good hands?’ slogan has an interesting history. The slogan is one of the most recognized slogans in America and the longest running paid campaign.

In response to the increasingly crazy ads from Geico, Allstate introduced a ‘presidential ad’ with a serious tone and a somber approach. Yet another example of the phenomenon of a company eventually taking IP intended to be serious that eventually turns into a punchline.

 

The Main Campaigns

Branded, Episode 1

On Facebook
Bmort Productions

Follow-Up

I found an example of what kind of ‘branding’ the podcast is all about, with Burberry. A brand that changes, even significantly, can also be authentic, but it has to be good at Storytelling.

The Disney's mis-steps in marketing the movie Frozen, and the wrong-headed argument about why misleading messaging was ok.

After talking about Frozen as a calculated move, let’s look at the Lego movie as the ultimate example of the win-win-win marketing solution. (Company wins more money, consumers win with more admiration of a loved product, and the brand is served at the high level.)

 

Facebook

Facebook’s first attempt at formal advertising is a bizarre and awkward brand manifesto.

Facebook first home’s ad was actually pretty funny in a quirky sort of way, and the entire campaign was a more approachable, if not somewhat flawed, attempt at brand advertising. 

But the new ‘grounded’ campaign is actually some of the more brilliant stuff I’ve seen from a technology company. It shows best use cases of the core product, a brand story, and ties the brand to the product. A+

Finally, the nerd credit for making an ad about community (facebook groups) is pretty impressive in the latest ads.

The backlash of Facebook buying Rift.

The backlash of Facebook buying WhatsApp.