I will not work in the advertising industry forever because the advertising industry is irreversibly contracting and will soon totally collapse. It is a common conception that social technology (and the free exchange of digital information) have “changed” advertising, presenting “new challenges” for marketers and the enormous [prestigious] agency world. This, I argue, is a vast mischaracterization. The advertising industry is not changing; the entire concept of interrupting consumer content consumption with a brand message, upon which the advertising industry has been built, is completely over. 

The concept of interruption was created in the media-channel era. A medium, like TV or Radio, has, by definition, a single point of access and a single method of consumption. (e.g., 88.6 FM is a medium. It’s access point is a radio receiver). Because of this, the order, rate and method of content delivery can be controlled and brand messages can be effectively interjected. This space for interruption is where the entire advertising industry was born and lives…for now.

Unfortunately, this is not how content consumption works anymore. In a sense, we are in a post-media society. Content is not delivered through channels with a single access point, it is accessed directly making it impossible to regulate. And yet, we hold on to the same antiquated concept of interruption. It is no coincidence and is extremely telling that advertisers call this new world “social media.” This phrase demonstrates the immense misunderstanding of the new content environment by anyone who uses it. 

Facebook and Twitter are not media channels and thus, cannot support the concept of interruption. Moreover, those media channels we do have left will soon be gone. As Wired mentioned two years ago, we now consume the majority of internet data outside of the World Wide Web (which could have conceivably been called a medium). And as Business Insider illustrates, offline media have either totally collapsed or are about to.  And this includes TV, which still comprises the lion’s share of ad spending. Cable cutting will continue to grow exponentially as alternate pay-for-content models continue to emerge. And none of these models will qualify as media.

We do not consume content through media anymore. And without media there is no interruption. Without interruption, there is no advertising.

Working for an advertising agency now is like working for a record company in 2001. We are due for a huge, painful and inevitable collapse. And here’s what it will look like on the other side:

Products and services will be differentiated by the quality of experience they provide. Thus R&D will replace corporate communications as the single greatest determinant of corporate success. Because of this, corporate communications will assume one of two new forms: 

The first is corporate communications as a part of the product experience. This includes refining user experience, creating product features, designing product interaction/interface and customer service. Creative minds will be very much a part of this process but they will be intrinsically linked to product management. This leaves little room for a third party agency of any serious capacity.

The second form is corporate communications as content creation. Content that has entertainment value independent of it’s brand will be extremely valuable for certain businesses. Red Bull is a prime example of this (http://redbullrecords.com/). Content creation also leaves room for creative minds, however, they will be totally indistinguishable from actual content creators (filmmakers, screenwriters, musicians, artists etc.) and nothing like the copywriters and designers around today. Thus, content creation companies will look nothing like advertising agencies and more like studios or production houses.

In short, social products/services with exceptional product experiences will rise to the top, and advertising will have no role to play in it. Agencies have begun to assume some of the above roles, not realizing that they will bring about their own demise. Because of this, it’s actually a really eye-opening time to be employed in the agency world. But this will not last. The moment these alternate content delivery models reach critical mass, the concept of interruption will be gone and the $.5 trillion media industry will totally collapse. Though it’s hard to say when exactly this will happen, ad spending data (and the previous link) suggest that growth has already stalled and we are at the top of the bubble right now.

© 2013 Tyler Gaul all rights reserved. 

Here’s the thing. Chuck Taylors of any color besides white are not cool. Okay?  And they never have been.  If you don’t have flat, narrow feet, you can go for the white low-tops worn as plimsolls. Otherwise, you WILL look like a beaver:

Okay?  And please stop having them as your groomsmen theme. Having matching mullets would accomplish the same thing by being equally as cute, funny and disgusting. And BTW, rockabilly is as cool as the flame decals that pervade it (i.e. not at all).

A joke makes a thing funny by illustrating the absurdity within it. Therefore, all funny jokes about, say, rape (like the ones for which Daniel Tosh is now being berated), are illustrating the absurdity of rape and are thus either opposing it or a topic surrounding it, or, at least not supporting it. Thus, the only thing to do in the case of the recent Tosh debacle, is to decide whether Tosh’s jokes are funny or not, which is almost never productive, particularly when an organization like Jezebel is predisposed to evaluating jokes on certain topics (like rape) differently than they would evaluate jokes in general.

No one can ever argue that Tosh’s jokes are not insensitive. They absolutely are. But “insensitive” in no way translates to “wrong.” There is nothing close to a moral imperative for one to “not be insensitive” - though, in a given setting, sensitivity certainly is nice (for instance, in another person’s home or hospital room). In the setting of the comedy show, however, like Tosh’s, where one is paying to see his particular  schtick, it was the outcrying audience girl who was being insensitive or, more accurately, rude. [Though, as an aside, his reply to this was in no way funny, smart or valuable.]

If this entire issue is about bringing about constructive, positive change for serious issues, instead of inhibiting their progress in society, I would argue that oversensitivity and the unilateral condemnation of jokes along a certain topic, are much worse than making the jokes themselves. Oversensitivity represents an inability to examine a topic in a plain, honest manner and thus an inability to create a constructive plan to move forward. 

So shut up, Jezebel and all you inane supporters of Political Correctness. Your smug sensitivity and subsequent denial offend me.

Recently, in a stunning demonstration of thriving, internet-fueled democracy, millions of internet users spoke(ish) out in strong opposition to the SOPA and PIPA legislation. Reasons stated for this opposition varied but were mostly centered around the restrictions to freedom of speech, the unbridled enforcement power given to an elite few and the cumulative interruption this would have on the basic function of internet as a whole. While I agree with these sentiments in a superficial/practical sense, I would argue that there is a more fundamental error at work here.

More fundamentally, these bills represent the reluctance among the commercial-political world to recognize that the current commercial model is broken and done. For better or worse, the system of tightly controlled propriety over one’s goods and services and their distribution channels is gone. Instead, a more Karma-like system has begun to emerge, where goods and services are offered up freely to the general commercial community and are returned in a loose, non-linear fashion in the form of — for lack of a better description — Internet Equity. As the Internet monetizes as a whole, the Internet Equity pays dividends to its proprietor. This exchange is amorphous and irregular but just as real, progressive and, in the end, Capitalistic. But because the exchange (not to mention the distribution) is not controlled and owned, profits will be disproportionate to those from the past model. 

The principle is this: When an institution is fixed (as in “fastened in a secure position”), is swells. When it is in flux, it stays small and lean. 

This is the future of our global digital economy (it is no accident that this phrase mirrors the established “Global Political Economy” — it is my belief, which I wish to express, that digital means will replace state politics as the main determinant of economic activity). One way of looking at it is that, within this new model, there be fewer billionaire industry moguls and more millionaire industry facilitators — fewer millionaire musicians and more

Read More

These two over-hyped concepts use a classic bait-and-switch to exploit the overly excitable community of “new media” groupies who currently saturate the social webosphere. “Augmented reality” is a video graphics effect that uses a visual recognition algorithm. “3D Printers” are manufacturing equipment that can build from digital modeling software. These two concepts have nothing to do with “Reality” nor “Printing” (respectively), but, by appropriating both of these words, add a thick layer of mystical magic to what are otherwise two easily understood, unprofound concepts.

In an era when everyone is their own social media marketing expert, the marketer becomes the marketed-to and shifty little gimmicks like these become the overnight currency of this self-contained, self-referential, Mashable micro-economy. Like any gimmicky fad, it is almost pointless to criticize these concepts because they are ephemeral and will kill themselves in due time. But it is at least worthwhile and interesting to note how simple marketing tricks are still very, very effective and the bulk of active, “empowered” consumers still totally undiscerning. 

UPDATE: As my friend Jonathan Rouse just pointed out, Tupac “Hologram” is another great example.

The most common criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement and, in some ways, a primary condition for its eventual demise, was the criticism that it could not, at any given moment, provide a clear, well-reasoned articulation of what precisely it proposed was out of order within the current socio-political system and how it was that the government should fix it. This criticism, took the form of countless headlines like “Can OWS Make Sense of Itself?” “OWS Critics Have Their Say” “Many Claim OWS Lacks Focus” and “OWS Struggles to Make Specific Demands.” This, I argue, is evasive and nonsensical:

Asking a mob for coherence is like asking an elephant to play violin: it is neither possible nor desirable and entirely misses the point. A mob, by it’s very nature and for the very purpose it serves, is a blunt object and, as such, is capable of forcing change in a way that academic discourse, legislation and democratic process cannot. But because the tool is blunt, so must be the force that moves it. A mob requires some sort of raison d’être, but this need be only as refined as the mob itself. For instance, felt states such as poverty, oppression, war or even dissatisfaction not only can but MUST be the only sufficient justification for a mob to assemble. In this way, the mob is both a valid and necessary democratic force, exactly as it is, in all of its emotional and inarticulate incoherence. 

Thus, those who oppose Occupy Wall Street on the grounds that it is being, in essence, a mob, which it is, are being suspiciously nitpicky if not vaguely vain (particularly, when these opponents are, as they commonly were, those who go to great efforts to look and act like “free-thinking” liberal intellectuals, VICE MAGAZINE…), since one must either object to the mob’s basic grievance (e.g. “unemployment”), which most did not, or to “mobs” in general, which is strange and distinctly undemocratic.  

Read More

… and how [for now] google+ is more of an advanced form of email than it is a new social network.

1) Switch from “push” to “post”

“Circles” seems at first to be a feature that organizes your friends into separate (and thus) high functioning social groups. However, communication (i.e. community) within these circles is actually only realized within “hangouts,” which, coincidentally, exists completely independent of whether you have circles set up.  Aside from hangouts your only method of communication is to choose an audience and share content. however, this content does not become a public forum like a “post” on facebook does, which brings us to point 2…

 2) Make circles consensual.  somehow.

As it stands, circles are not real, delineated groups.  They are, in fact, reductive syllogisms and, as such, set-logic nightmares (e.g. you’re my “LA friend” but I’m your “acquaintance” and we’re both talking to John who is my “family” and your “college friend,” while we’re both his blanket “friends”). Without circles being mutually agreed upon, they cannot be addressed directly. For instance, I cannot say “hello family” and have it make sense to both

Read More