Hearing is Believing

By I.J. Hudson

I started an exchange with a great young marketeer/social media guru that I’ve known for several years, Jeremy Epstein.  He’s the guy in front of NSM, Never Stop Marketing.  He’s one of the few people I follow every day, because he has interesting stuff to say and he says it very well.

I was critical of some of his videos.  Not because they lacked content, but because of the audio quality of that content.  I suggested his use of a flipcam was okay, but it would be oh-so-much-better if he captured quality audio from the people who were singing his praises.  After all, WOM (word of mouth) means words coming out of peoples’ mouths.  Shouldn’t the audio be as important as the video of their lips moving?  After all, you can understand audio all by itself; having video only involves lip reading, which is not a skill many people possess.

I approached the audio issue from the perspective of a grandfather who felt it was important to capture the words of the little ones as they progressed from total gibberish - to “yeah, that sounds like something” - to real words. 

I also addressed it from the perspective of a TV guy who used natural sound and peoples’ own words to tell stories.  Pictures were great, but natural sound was always the icing on the cake.  Sometimes the video of an event is so compelling, the sound is secondary.  But when the video is of people talking about you – the sound is primary.

Jeremy had legitimate concerns.  The flipcam is simple.  Just take it out and shoot.  It’s not intimidating, no waiting to mike someone up.  Plugging in audio stuff could be a turnoff.  Besides, there’s no input for an external mike.  I agreed that the audio quality is (gulp) “almost tolerable,” but suggested good audio would enhance the testimonials of important clients and be well worth the effort.

Jeremy’s quandry is being addressed slowly, not adequately, by the camcorder/flipcam industry.  You don’t have to accept lousy or even average audio – unless you want to.  A call to an A/V guy I trust pointed to up a growing aftermarket of external audio devices for camcorders, including the flipcam.  They’re mostly Bluetooth devices.  Some are more expensive than the flipcams.  At the moment, they appear to involve a small modular receiver that plugs into the base of the flipcam and a small lapel mike. 

IMHO, that’s a good start.  But why not have Bluetooth audio built-in to the flipcam or camcorder itself.  Then stick the lapel mike onto the subject and go.  Good audio; less intimidation.  We did it with laptops for wireless networking, why not with camcorders?

I don’t for a moment suggest this is a solution for professionals.  There’s always the high end for those folks.  But for basic video and audio – this is a problem waiting for a sensible solution.  Maybe it’s out there and I haven’t found it.  I do know that so-so audio can be a negative.  Why not choose a solution that makes you look good and the people who trust you sound good?  No brainer?

Wait!  There’s another argument against me.  Audio and video standards in the digital age have slipped a little.  Okay, a lot.  I get it that something that appears too professional loses some credibility.  You certainly don’t want someone accusing you of being too professional.  Real is super important.  However, I think what I’m proposing is a reasonable compromise.  Audiophiles won’t be bothering you for details about the equipment you’re using.  But the people you’re holding up as “happy clients” won’t think you’re making them sound bad either.  Everyone looks – and sounds good.

A Dry Sense of Loyalty

By I.J. Hudson

You could call it a “Love Story” of sorts.  These are my Kenmore twins – a washer/dryer combination we bought when we moved into the new house more than 20 years ago. 

Enough nostalgia.  In the more than 20 years of service, we had the band around the dryer drum replaced.  That’s it - no other service.  In the last six months, we noticed the dryer wasn't drying as quickly, and in the last few weeks, we started getting a “burny” smell from the washer. 

Probably the motor.

 

So we went shopping – online consumer reports to start.  But the page was really out of date, according to the brick and mortar store (Sears, because it had all the brands recommended) we visited.  “Oh, that one’s no longer available; that one has been discontinued.”

I pressed, “By you or by the manufacturer?”  The manufacturer, said the Sears salesperson.  Hmmm, could Consumerreports.org be behind the market?  It certainly seemed that way.  

And when we asked more questions, we found out that the number of manufacturers (like in many industries) had shrunk:  about the same number of brand names, but only a couple of companies actually make the washers and dryers. 

That’s part one of the story.  The other part is the difference 20 years of technology makes in washers and dryers.  It’s almost like the first time I bought a car with a remote.  What’s this???  After a while, you almost forget that the key will open the door if the battery dies in the remote.  Duh!  

The old washer and dryer had twisty knobs and mechanical settings.   The new ones’ - a cpu that automatically figures out the settings (we could make changes), requires less water, less detergent, less power and more money :}}    

Perhaps we should have upgraded a long time ago – but our guys were working just fine.  

If there are any lessons here, they may be that loyalty is to be rewarded, and long service praised.  I say thanks to the Kenmore of the 1980’s.  You served us well.  We’ll see about the longevity of the new stuff.

Digital Stimuli - Resist the Temptation

By I.J. Hudson

Bring on the torches and pitchforks!  I’m ready to lay it out and urge disagreement.

Several weeks ago, I contacted Frank Connolly, a longtime professor at American University and a gentleman with whom I had put together computer-related stories when computers were merely --- computers.  (If you think computers are still just computers, please stop reading this and switch to cable TV.)

Back in the late 80’s, viruses were contained to floppy disks, labs and the beginning of the “network of networks.”  Wow, have they changed and very quickly, the social networking sites have (IMHO) gathered the fish into the proverbial barrel.  That’s fodder for another post – coming shortly. 

While I asked Professor Connolly about the advancement in viruses, he raised a different issue that I think is worthy of our consideration:  “I believe that we humans need to go through a digital desensitization, wherein we learn to ignore digital stimuli,” said Connolly.   “Instead of being overwhelmed by communications similar to the infant overwhelmed by stimuli, we need to develop the ability to ignore much of the digital stimuli we are receiving - thus enabling us to be present to the world and life of the present.”

Let me translate for a moment.  Haven’t we all been at a social gathering where someone just-can’t leave-his-BlackBerry-alone?  Every time it vibrates, they must (apologies to Pavlov) check for emails/texts/tweets/FB status updates/Google alerts - I CAN’T miss anything from the outside - despite the fact that I am in human company that expects my attention and participation. 

Who are those other people (FB friends/Twitter Followers) that you really don’t know?  Can’t they wait until you’ve detached yourself from us human folks? Too many of us are walking around now wirelessly tethered to another world.

Frank goes on to describe a social occasion in his home.  “While three of us chatted and enjoyed each others' company, one guest spent most of his time sending and receiving messages -- for all intents and purposes he might just as well have not come. He came to our home intending to be involved and stimulated by our company and conversation, but the digital stimuli overwhelmed his ability to stay in the instant.” (emphasis mine)

Does that resonate with you? Have you had similar experiences?

Professor Connolly says we need to develop the ability to recognize important stimuli such that we are able to identify ones worthy of our attention and ones that can be ignored or deferred.

Perhaps technology is addressing the problem: the new Windows Cell Phones. In the commercial, people are oblivious to the world around them despite rather obvious stimuli nearby – ranging from people bumping into each other and tripping; a man seemingly unaware of a young woman in lingerie.  Another man drops his phone into a urinal (in use), and quickly retrieves it to presumably continue texting or tweeting.  Each scene ends with normal people remarking, (with incredulity, and some anger) “really??” 

Newer phones will allow us to set profiles that define how and when we want to be notified of different channels trying to reach us – other factors in the profile may include time of day and/or location.  Some of those profiles may be learned by the device as we use it; others may be preset by our employers.  We may even “buy” profiles that will make us more attentive to the tangible world and less responsive to a buzz or vibration.  

It might be easier in the long run simply to learn to ignore less important stimuli?  Connolly calls it “a necessary maturity that comes with the realization that a tweet or a buzz can be ignored just as we ignore our socks - unless they really hurt.”  That’s a reference that many of us have personally experienced.  You often don’t notice things until someone or something calls it to our attention.  The example Connolly uses is the doctor.  He/she says breathe normally.  I was!!! Until the doctor said, “breathe normally.”

There’s not much normal left.  

Wait a second, I think a “friend” just changed his status on Facebook and more email is coming in on my BlackBerry.

Naw – they can wait.

Mirror: Enemy of the Good

By I.J. Hudson:

I looked into the mirror and what I saw scared me to death – well, almost.

It was one of those Bed, Bath & Beyond moments.  My wife had talked me into picking up a few things at the store. While she’s piling up stuff in a cart, I’m distracted by one of those two-sided “make-up mirrors.”  On one side, the lighted, regular view, but flip it over, and -- ALL, and yes, I mean ALL of your imperfections are magnified.  Whoaa!!  Trust me, it’s not a pretty sight if you’re over eight.

That got me to thinking.  (I apologize in advance.)  If we look too closely at ourselves, at what we’re trying to do, if we go “too granular” on things, we may ascribe too much value to the small imperfections seen only on our close-up instead of the really good stuff we see in the normal view.

Everyone can find something wrong if they look under the magnifying glass.  If we look closely enough, we can always improve.  IMHO, looking at the “close-up” reveals faults that the rest of the world just isn’t going to see, and perfect anything is not an option for many of us - whether it’s our face, an idea, a business model or anything else.

The old quote is loosely, “don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.” 

The lesson:  move forward with the good stuff;  the perfect rarely comes.  

And, in my case, (looking into the magnification mirror) the perfect is about 100 light years around the corner.

Elements of a Great Presentation

By I.J. Hudson

Consider this a follow up to the “bad demonstration” posting a few days ago.

I saw a demonstration recently that justified all the hype about the newer phones that let your fingers do the selecting/shifting/expanding/moving/shrinking – whether it’s pictures or video.  In less than five minutes of pics/short videos we “met” a young member of our extended family.  The young tike lives in the UK, and until this demonstration we had heard about him and seen a few pictures – but really didn’t have a sense of who he was.  Now we do – thanks to the capabilities of the device, his dad’s familiarity with his new ‘Google phone’ and unbridled enthusiasm.

Let me be clear.  IMHO, successful presentations/demonstrations are a combination of three basic things.

     1. Quality of visuals

     2. How they’re presented – did things happen they way they should

     3. And mostly importantly, the way the person interacts with the audience – passion v. routine

I give a lot of weight to item number three because of an event about three years ago.  I sat next to the head of one of the tech councils in our area.  We always compared notes at these events and she showed me real wallet-sized pictures of her grandkids. She fanned out the pictures in her hand. Her pride came through loudly and clearly.  I was impressed.

They were great shots of her grandkids, and the overall personal “presentation” was awesome.  But if her presentation had it been coupled with the larger clearer photos/video displayed by an iPhone, Droid or other new touch-screen phone, it would have been even better.  (Maybe she’s using one today.) 

So, whether you’re showing off a grandkid, a newborn, or your company --- work on all three elements to make a truly effective presentation.  Have great pictures/videos to show your audience on the phone or iPad (or any of the other tablets coming out), know your device and practice, practice, practice.

Grandparents don’t need a lot of rehearsal to brag about their Grandkids, but you may need to brush up on what you’re going to say about your company and how you’re going to say it.  The pictures and video may say a lot, but your passion and how you move through the presentation have the potential to say a lot more ---- or a lot less.  Take nothing for granted. 

Tools don’t make a presentation – you do.

Crowd Estimates - Finally, Decent Science Defines, "How Many."

Crowd estimates are tricky and often politically sensitive.   

While the politics of numbers will continue, it looks like the accuracy of crowd estimates is improving – thanks to a local company. 

I remember flying in a helicopter above the Mall to cover the Million Man March in October of 1995.  The U.S Park Service estimated  400,000 people showed up,  and that set off a heated and very political debate.  A follow up estimate by another group was more than 800,000, but its margin of error was +/- 20%.  The Park Service stopped making public crowd estimates after that. 

I won't argue the value of crowd estimates, but I do want to shed some light on how a reasonably accurate “standard” for estimating crowds is emerging.  The recent Glenn Beck (“Restoring Honor”) and Jon Stewart’s (“Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear”) rallies received a lot of press.   

Stewart Rally - Courtesy Airphotoslive.com

Both promised big turnouts.  CBS wanted some numbers, good numbers, so it turned to a Virginia company,  airphotoslive.com, headed by Curt Westergard. 

CBS had a nice piece about crowd estimates on its website after the Stewart rally.  

I’ve known Curt for a couple of years and we talk about his work every few months.  He’s done a lot of work with aerostats – tethered balloons.  Everything from flying cameras to record what people can see from a 32^nd floor condo – before the building is even built, to flying a balloon at the altitude of a proposed cell tower so residents can see if they will be able to see the tower.  And now, crowd estimates at the National Mall.

Grid graphic - Courtesy Airphotoslive.com

Here’s my layman’s explanation of what goes into their crowd estimate. They define the mall as a long rectangular box (300 feet wide by 50,000 feet long), and divide it into grids.  They then use a combination of high definition cameras flown from an aerostat, a camera in the Washington Monument and, if the timing is good, a shot from a GeoEye satellite to determine the density of people in each grid. 

They also have to factor in angles because the shots are not from directly overhead. They plug the densities for different grids into a formula or two and come up with an estimate (+/- 10 percent).  They sometimes add “crowd-sourced” pictures to tweak the estimate.  Westergard often works with Professor Steve Doig of Arizona State University.  It isn’t rocket science, but it is science, and they’re setting standards on which to build future estimates.

The high-def cameras suspended from the tethered aerostat (balloon) are in an array similar to a shower head.  Three cameras toggle alternately left and right to sweep the crowd to produce a panoramic view equivalent to the work of nine stationary cameras.  The array captures images at a rate of 4-1/2 frames per second.  

Westergard has done something that may dash the hopes of future organizers promising a million people on the Mall.  Curt has “done the math” and suggests one million people will not fit on the Mall (as he defines it) – period. 

Airphotoslive.com graphic

At the left is Curt's graphic showing how the Mall would have to  
s-t-r-e-t-c-h into Virginia to accommodate one million people.   

Even allowing only 4 square feet for each person (that’s a spot only two feet by two feet), the Mall would have to stretch across the Potomac River into Rosslyn to make room for one million people.

Crowd estimates have been political tools for years:  the “anti” people had 300,000 people on the Mall; the “pro” mustered 400,000.  But these new estimates are much closer to reality in terms of real numbers.

They provide a look at how many showed up, but they don’t include those who couldn’t make it, but support the cause, and they do include those who just came down to the Mall to be part of a “happening,” and have no idea of what is really going on.

Thanks to people like Curt, we are finally getting credible, scientifically-based estimates on the size of Mall crowds - facts that may finally begin to limit the bickering about “how many.”  Measuring what the people in the crowds are thinking, why they’re really there, or why they aren’t there are different stories.  That’s for the politicians and media pundits to tell us.

Demos - Gadgets are Fine, Content is Better

There is nothing as great as a demonstration that goes well, and nothing as embarrassing as a demonstration that flops.  I’ll leave out names, but a couple of special “moments” pop up during my tenure as the “digital edge” guy on NBC4, Washington.  

One demo was of a digital picture frame.  It was actually kind of cool.  The frame had an IP address, meaning it could be updated remotely.  The head of the company said he could send a picture of his kid playing soccer to a digital picture frame at the grandparents in Korea.  Did he have a picture of his kid playing soccer, or a quickly updating frame?   No.  The demo was lame, and could have been great.

In the early days of cell phone wars, demos were all the rage.  We were way beyond the 3-watt analog bag phone days and were going digital.  It seems like a new model of phone was coming out every month.  Sprint and Verizon were very media savvy and were always pushing to do a demo of the latest phones and what they could do. (emphasis on could).

The problem for Sprint was that their “PCS” sites were smaller in radius than “cells,” so they needed more site to cover the same area.  The nearest Sprint site wasn’t all that close to my station – so demos had a tendency to run on the slow side - if at all.  They eventually were able to locate a site a bit closer.  

Longtime followers of wireless networks will remember that Verizon’s mantra early on was “it’s all about the network” and “can you hear me now?”  There is still some of that same flavor with the “map wars” between Verizon and AT&T that grace a lot of TV screens.  But the emphasis has shifted to “what can you do” and what cool phone can you use to do it, how many apps are out there – the speed of the network so that live video looks really good.  

Yes, coverage is still an issue, but I don’t think it’s #1.  And it used to be the wireless companies were the big dogs carefully selecting which phones and which applications would be allowed to run on their networks.  Wow, what a switch.   Now they get told by the bigger dogs - the entertainment companies that used to be computer companies. 

I remember a conversation with a Sprint media representative, who said 15 years ago that we would be looking at our mobile phones more than talking into them.  He was so right.  I think many people pull out their phone/Blackberry/iPhone to check email even when they know there's nothing new.  The seems many people only use their phones to make calls when they "drive." It’s what we do.

Sit down for a moment and watch people come and go.  Most of them are looking at their phones, checking email, updating Facebook, tweeting, checking in using Foursquare, or even watching a movie. It’s either an addiction or another ploy not to make eye contact with the people around them.  (Better to connect with people far away from them – and update their status for the benefit of their tribe, group or network).   

Say “hello” to someone on the street and they’ll recoil. Try to “friend” them on Facebook and they’ll accept.  Hmmmm.  

Back to the demos.  Had a PR guy say he had pictures/videos of his client on his iPad.  It’s great to sport an iPad – it’s a perfect platform to show prospective clients/buyers a picture or video to close the deal.  This guy had the iPad – cool – but couldn’t find the pictures.  While devices are cool, content is still king.  At least that’s my take.

Always check your demo to be sure the content is there and easily findable.