Archive for January, 2008
More stats have come through showing use of the web from the iPhone. It looks pretty solid: Google traffic from US iPhones (2% of the market) is about level with traffic from Symbian operated phones (63% of the market). Even if you factor in that iPhone users might be particularly inclined to access the web or that iPhone is still a novelty there is, as John Naughton points out, a lesson here. In a different context Quentin Stafford-Fraser comments ‘pixels are like broadband. Once you have them you don’t want to give them up’. And what iPhone demonstrates is that when pixels are limited applications need substantial design effort, right from user interface through to underlying processing, if they are to produce a good user experience. Without that design effort we might accept fewer pixels in exchange for mobility, but we may also limit the tasks we do on the move, saving the more demanding ones for a large display, possibly more processing power, efficient input device and the environmental comfort that a desktop or laptop computer is likely to bring.
Is this just a fogey’s view of the world? I have seen teens make these ‘horses for courses’ choices too, with the significant dimension of cost also putting them off accessing the internet from their phones. Last week on Digital Youth Research’s blog danah told the story of a teenager buying a dress, and using a suite of digital tools to help her make the best purchase. While possibly at the more extreme end of consumer decision-making the story reflected a trend of digital trying-before-buying. And the teenager’s choice of tools all made sense: a digital camera to take pictures of herself in a range of potential dresses (probably better lens than her phone camera and more memory for multiple images, also saving her phone battery for text and talk); Facebook on her computer to circulate pictures (ease of selecting pictures to send on her computer, larger images for her friends to view, and way, way cheaper to exchange images and get feedback via Facebook than MMS) and, similarly, computer to research her decision and find the best possible price (‘free’, fast, usable interface and lots of visual bandwidth). Her choices were made effortlessly as part of the flow of using digital technologies. Why should she have compromised her project at critical points by sacrificing pixels, or processing power, or comfort (the current corollaries of ‘fixed’ computing)?
When iPhone was launched in the UK a journalist asked my opinion on whether mobile phones would now become an important medium for creating and sharing marketing presentations in business – to be fair, this angle probably wasn’t his choice. Yes, one can see contexts where mobile presentations could add to the mix of business communications but, also, no, a key role for marketing presentations is for shared exchanges between presenter and audience, ideally in the same place (video-conferencing sometimes bridges gaps, but isn’t most people’s first option). It’s hard to see how a presentation delivered to a mobile phone could have the same impact as a shared exchange (will I regret saying this?); it might support or augment a traditional communication, but wouldn’t seem to be the medium of choice.
The iPhone web data open up the horizons for mobile browsing. But let’s not extrapolate from this to ‘everything mobile’. We connect through physical as well as virtual space (and weren’t Nintendo clever to recognise this). The things we do have cognitive, emotional and social components that can’t all be supported by hand-held devices. A friend recently described his iPhone as ‘THE best device I’ve ever owned.’ I’ve no doubt about that. But just as digital communication has not yet made us paperless, so the larger scale and (relatively) fixed technologies have their role which will be augmented, rather than completely supplanted, by mobile connectivity.
January 17th, 2008
As everyone knows, Kenya has been in a state of unrest since the corrupt elections in December. Interestingly, a surge of homebrewed cyberactivism has emerged to aid in information flow and resource sharing (as well as political organizing). As an example, take a look at Afromusing’s Twitter stream which contains regular updates from Kenya.
Much of what is going on in Kenya centers around the mobile phone. In Kenya, the mobile is used for everything from communication to financial transactions. More and more of Kenyan society has relied on the phone as a critical part of everyday life. Unfortunately, this has all been disrupted since the election.
Kenyan phone users do not have monthly phone plans; they pay for prepaid credits (like most of the world). Prior to the election, getting credits was easy - they were available in kiosks, stores, bars, anywhere you could imagine. Yet, these venues all closed shop after the election because of the violence and looting. Credits have become a rare commodity and the price has skyrocketed. Credits have also turned into a currency and people are trading credits for food and medicine. Credits are worth more than the government’s currency. Because of difficulties in getting credits to citizens, a service called Pyramid of Peace has popped up to help people send credits to Kenyans.
Part of why people are so shocked about what is going on in Kenya right now is because Kenya was so stable. (I can’t help but wonder what would’ve happened if Gore supporters would’ve taken to the streets after my country’s corrupt election rather than be so complacent.) When people think about what is necessary when everything goes haywire, they normally talk about food, water, shelter, medicine. What does it mean that telephony has become a central player in people’s lives? What does it mean that access to communication technology is necessary for access to food, water, medicine?
Perhaps it would do all of us some good to consider what it would mean if mobile telephony suddenly became a rare commodity.
January 16th, 2008
I want to respond to danah’s post at some length, hence a separate posting. To understate the case, our relationship to advertising is a complex one. We can recoil when we read reports of advertisers’ manipulative practices, yet we can also enjoy advertising, and find it genuinely informative; while it’s often a delight to escape advertising in unspoilt landscapes, we have probably driven our branded car to get there, are sporting branded outdoor gear etc. etc. I suspect there are as many inconsistencies in our attitudes to new media advertising as to traditional media. So, for example, the same people who complain about pop ups and banner ads in web pages (and, yes, there is evidence that advertising on web sites disrupts processing of site content) may also be watching and sharing favourite ads on YouTube. We’re in it to the hilt.
So advertising is part of popular culture, much of which we may not particularly want to espouse, nor to see influence our children. There is conflicting data concerning children’s understanding of advertising, and its influence on their decision-making (always a good idea to look at who is publishing the data). Some suggest that children become sceptical about advertising pretty early on (we might question whether this a scepticism we want our children to develop; my understanding is that the French, who have light regulation on advertising to children, take the view that it’s part of growing up). Most European countries have some restrictions on TV advertising to children, with Sweden at the most stringent end of the scale and the UK among the more relaxed. And there may be downsides to these restrictions: the British advertisers’ association, the IPA, have claimed that in Greece, where there is a restriction on advertising toys during children’s TV, there has been a reduction in the quality of children’s programming, with cheap imports substituting for more expensive, locally-generated programmes (it’s their role to point to these kinds of consequences, of course). Recent UK restrictions on TV advertising of junk food to children have seen a migration of advertising to the net. I don’t think we yet know what influence it has there but it’s hardly likely that businesses would be investing in it if they didn’t think it would have some effect. Marketing takes the opportunities that are available and if we want the benefits advertising brings (e.g. sponsored events, broadcasting, on-line experiences, phone services etc.) we also have to be aware of its impact and vigilant for potential abuse.
And if the impact of advertising in our everyday lives is complex so, too, is our role in working for companies of all kinds that use advertising to promote their products or sponsor their activities. In the UK there was a ripple of press reports in 2003 when a collection of documents from advertising agencies working on campaigns for tobacco manufacturers revealed an agency’s derogatory classification of their market segments, including a description of some smokers (low income) as ‘slobs’. It’s not hard to see how these cynical attitudes can develop if, at best, a company’s only contact with its customers is to herd groups of them into a strange environment and observe them from behind a two-way mirror in the forced discussion of a focus group. Hardly a recipe for empathy. Short-hand labels for customer segments are efficient for internal communication, but they are only a key to the real people, with everyday lives, emotions, aspirations, behind the labels.
How can we mitigate the distanced cynicism that tempts companies into manipulative advertising practices or, for that matter, to ship untested goods, plan obsolescence into products, snare unwitting customers into providing personal data that can be traded, fail to deliver adequate customer support and so on? We have to recognise that business has its agenda and it’s not the same as its customers’, although some congruence is needed for a business to succeed. As researchers we have a role - albeit a relatively small one - in creating that congruence. The closer a business is to its customers, and the more it understands them, the more opportunities it has to choose not to be exploitative, to be humanely human-centred. The conventional research recipe of clusters of regional focus groups are not going to raise executives’ social consciousness. We have to push for imaginative approaches to doing and presenting research that keeps the internal team as close as possible to its external customers. That can mean working outside our own comfort zone sometimes, experimenting with new methods, learning new techniques. The subtleties of different research approaches may not be of interest to the people who use our research, but as researchers we’re guardians of the methods being used, and the conclusions that are drawn from them.
January 10th, 2008
A new report by the UK National Union of Teachers - Growing up in a material world - shows that contemporary marketing and commercialization practices have devastating consequences on youth:
Of increasing concern to teachers is the increasing commercialisation of childhood and the lifestyle pressures exerted on children by the advertising and marketing industries. Using ever more sophisticated methods, these industries encourage children to buy particular brands of clothing and food and conform to specific images. Parents, too, experience this, as children’s ‘pester-power’ is exploited by the advertising industry. Those on a low income can feel particularly affected.
The pressure to consume and conform can lead to excessive levels of materialism and competition among children leading to bullying. There are dangerous consequences for the physical and mental health of young people.
The rise in childhood obesity and illnesses such as the early onset of type 2 diabetes, for example, highlight the dangers of advertising unhealthy food to children.
The report continues on to discuss how commercialization leads to the “creation and reinforcement of a culture of ‘cool’” amongst youth. The most terrifying finding in their report has to do with the link between bullying and consumerism: “Over 55% of those responding had either been bullied or knew someone who had been bullied because they did not have the latest products.” To fit in, youth have to consume. Marketing creates this cycle and bullies do the dirty work of making sure everyone conforms or suffers the consequences.
Body image and sexuality are at the crux of this. Girls are sold the “right” body image through dolls and clothing and their sexuality is structured around sexually provocative clothes, makeup and other product. Fitting in requires being “sexy” even at a young age. Not surprisingly, sexism and gender stereotyping are reinforced (if not constructed) by marketers seeking to capitalize on vulnerabilities.
“Companies routinely hire child and consumer psychologists to conduct research to help them target children effectively. Children’s vulnerabilities are played on as advertisers sell images of perfection and increase the pressure to have the latest ‘in vogue’ fashion and gadgets.”
In my own fieldwork, I regularly witnessed the consequences of mass commercialism. Teens had to buy to fit in and if they couldn’t buy, they were pressured to steal. Identity is constructed and status is marked by consumption. The goal of so many teens when they grow up is to make money so that they can buy the right things.
It’s easy to demonize marketers - they make for good punching bags - but many of us live off of the cud of advertising and marketing. Most of the tech industry is indebted to advertising and much of what we use for “free” is because we are eyeballs that can be manipulated. The entire structure of contemporary capitalism rests on companies ability to compete for consumers and, when they’ve saturated the market, create reasons for consumers to keep coming back for more more more. Not surprisingly, one of the reasons that companies have tapped into children is because they are the only true “new” market. More problematically, healthy economies are based on growth and growth doesn’t happen when people just consume what they need. Manipulation is central to a healthy economy - you have to convince people that they want your product so that you can report good news to your stockholders.
This presents a huge moral dilemma:
- How can companies be both ethical and financially successful?
- What are the moral responsibilities of a company when it comes to children’s consumption?
These are hard questions, but questions that I think that we need to start asking ourselves if for no other reason than because “teachers and parents now look to the advertising and marketing industries to become more socially responsible over their targeting of children and young people and for the Government to step in should they not live up to their responsibilities.”
(Thanks to Anastasia. News coverage of this report can be found at The Telegraph.)
January 5th, 2008
