Happy Action Theater (HAT) is my favorite kind of media: not quite classifiable. It utilizes Microsoft’s Kinect device, allowing users to interact with a variety of environments on screen. Destructoid describes:

Double Fine Happy Action Theater has more in common with an augmented-reality playground than what many of you would likely define as a strict “game.” It’s made up of 18 activities, which range from lava you can roll around in (YES!) to a Breakout-style level to a black-and-white scene that could be straight out of Godzilla.

HAT just lets you move around on screen and mess with things until you get bored, or decide to switch to a new activity. In a post-iPhone world where casual games revolve around points and achievements, can we accept a game with no clear goals nor reward system of any kind? A better question might be: can we afford not to?

As “gamification” becomes more widespread, game-makers and marketers are falling into the trap of points for points’ sake. Instead of adding points to a compelling game, games are made compelling by their point system, exploiting the human desire to be rewarded for correct behavior. This has always been true to some degree (Tetris and Pac-Man have points), but as developers compete for audience attention, rewards are replacing the fun factor that should be inherent in any game. Points are the nicotine of the masses.

It’s said that HAT is a game for children (one IGN writer used his children to voice his video review). But in the same sense, so are Pixar movies (and who doesn’t love those?). I’m 24. I’ve seen video footage, and I want to play. There’s an enormous amount to be said for a game that’s limited not by its list of obtainable goals, but by the collective imagination of the players (Minecraft is another testament to this).

There is a beautiful simplicity to HAT. Our daily lives are full of goals and ‘To Do’ lists – do we need them in our games? I’m not saying we should rid every app store of points, but it’s nice to know we can have fun without them.

2012 started off with a major change in social networks and digital culture. Since social networks became the “in” thing over the past few years, everyone has adopted their digital lives and started creating their own network. Look at the facts. Facebook has  800 million active users and 900 million pages that people can interact with. Then look at Twitter, there has been an average of 140 million tweets per day as of March, 2011. Even Google+ is in the running with 62 million users, adding about 625,000 new users each day. It is obvious that social networking is taking over the digital world but with statistics like these, who’s really the best?

Most digitally inclined people have at least one of these accounts, if not two or all, but there is always one that is favored. Since December, all three of these platforms have significantly changed. Personally, I find Facebook to be the best because it is all about me, and who doesn’t like the spotlight? Recently they launched their Timeline in which users can tell their live story through a stream of pictures and stories. Then there is the close runner up, Twitter. Twitter is now offering a “Connect” and “Discover” tab and its own specialized brand pages similar to Facebook. “Connect” allows you to reply and retweet and offers a cleaner way to embed content. “Discover” shows your interests and learns more about you by what you follow and your location. Something weird is happening, however. Google+ is starting to push its way to the front lines as proven on Mashable’s survey. 37.77% of people prefer Google+ while 26% prefer Facebook and Twitter at 18%. No, people, I am not making this up.

Google Plus is a more blog-like social platform that offers a new search experience where users can do a regular search and see what other users are saying about that particular topic.  It is also offering a new feature called Google Offers. The information mecca itself claims that “Google Offers is a new product to help potential customers and clientele find great deals in their area through a daily email”, similar to its competitor Groupon. So now, as if it were not enough, Google is a person’s email, source of information, and now a social network and a means to get coupons. This easy to understand site also has a one up on most social networks as it is one of the most well-known search engines; it’s known and trusted so why not create a Plus account?

Google has made itself a great name as a search engine; having a social network allows for it to conquer its competitors on a whole new level. After all, no one wants to be the social network that is left in the dark. Facebook and Twitter are fantastic, but when looking at a site that truly has it all, it is hard to go wrong.

“I’m sorry,” my roommate said to me. “Whenever you talk now, all I hear is Sh*t Girls Say.”

Touché.

The compelling thing about the Sh*t ___ Say meme is that it is not only entertaining but also a sociological study in American linguistics and modern-day mannerisms. Richard Dawkins in the 1970s defined the term “meme” as a cultural unit — be it a toy craze, pop song, fashion, learned skill, and more — which spreads from person to person within a culture. By shining a reflective lens on how societal subcultures speak, interact with one another, and go about their daily lives, Sh*t ___ Say is, quite frankly, a meme about memes.

And it displays a few interesting points about American culture today. The following is a (not at all exhaustive) list of some of the social implications drawn from the various videos out there of people saying sh*t:

Everybody Wants Their 5 Minutes of Fame, and Nobody is Special

The minute someone made Sh*t Girls Say, copy cats started cropping up. While imitation is the key to a meme’s virality, the creation of multiple videos for different subsections of society has interesting implications for how Americans identify themselves. For instance: along with videos for Girls and Guys, there are also videos for Black Girls, Black Guys, Asian Girls, Asian Guys, Spanish Girls, Mexican Girls, and Latina Girls. As for the social subset of Moms? There are videos for Jewish Moms, Black Moms, Caribbean Moms, Jamaican Moms, Single Moms, Suburban Moms, Asian Mothers, Sri Lankan Mothers, and Baby Mamas. You get the idea.

What this implies, though, is that the “generic” videos about Girls and Guys came to be understood to be about White Girls and White Guys, despite the common phrases said in them. It could be argued that this impression was given off because Juliette Lewis and Tori Lord are both White, but both actresses also wore dark-haired wigs and never directly referred to their ethnicity. Given the growth of America’s Hispanic and Asian populations, I would be curious if a meme like this would have the same implications in 2042, when it is projected that minorities will outnumber whites over all populations, both adult and children.

“Have you seen this Sh*t Black Girls Say? …Kinda racist.”

America has always been a melting pot, and this is highly reflected in the Sh*t ___ Say to ____ iteration that this meme took on. Sh*t White Girls Say to Black Girls, Sh*t Straight Guys Say to Gay Guys, and so forth offer an interesting twist on the social discussion by focusing on how different groups interact with one another. In today’s world of political correctness, this playing of groups off of one another has ruffled a few feathers by highlighting misconceptions and “commonly asked questions.” But are these videos racist/sexist/homophobic — as some YouTube viewers might insist?

These are heavy accusations to make — and for the most part, misguided insinuations. Simply pointing out differences (and commonalities) is not inherently racist/sexist/homophic, but establishing a hierarchy among groups is. To quote Chescaleigh, the vblogger and creator of Sh*t White Girls Say to Black Girls, during her interview on Anderson Cooper’s show: “I don’t think that talking about ignorance is racist. . . I’m not labeling anyone racist because that would infer that the statements we’re saying meant someone is better than another race, and that’s not what any of the statements are doing.” This is an important distinction to make.

AGC v. UGC

Memes in general are a testament to the beauty of User-Generated Content. Or so some people might think. But who is the “user”? It could be argued that most campaigns asking for “User” Generated Content are actually looking for “Artist” Generated Content. Sh*t ___ Say is a prime example of this.

Inherent in the theory of memetics is that the strongest will rise to the top. In this case, the most-viewed videos were all created by “artists,” rather than the “average user.” The Sh*t Girls Say episodes all starred Juliette Lewis, an actress. Similarly, Sh*t Black Girls Say, Sh*t White Girls Say to Black Girls, Sh*t Asian Girls Say, Sh*t Single Girls Say, Sh*t Spanish Girls Say, Sh*t Gay Guys Say, Sh*t Yogis Say, and Sh*t Nobody Says, which each have over a million (or in some cases several million) views, were all created by entertainers, comedians, and/or vbloggers with already established YouTube channels. The answer for why this occurs is simple: 1)  artists want views, and 2) they have better quality equipment, went through training/practice, and possess inherent talent.

People Love Crunchy Snacks

Whether it’s Cheetos, Pocky Sticks, popcorn, or carrot sticks, for some reason all Americans — regardless of race, gender, or sexuality — cannot stop eating crunchy snacks while saying and doing sh*t. It’s nice to know that despite our differences, all social subgroups crave a good crunch.

It may be a bit early, but I think I’ve figured out my New Year’s resolution for 2012: to have Google make a Google Doodle about me.

How does one go about achieving this? Well, I looked up Google Doodles on Wikipedia (and then some other sources) to try to discern a pattern in the past in order to create a fast-track for the future. I therefore present to you my 2-Step Guide To Getting Honored in a Google Doodle:

• Step 1: Suck up to Dennis Hwang. Back in 1998, co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin designed the first ever Google Doodle in honor of Burning Man as one big “BRB” message. But since Bastille Day in 2000, Mr. Hwang has been the chief doodler. The Stanford grad, whose actual title is webmaster, also now has a team of designers to help him. (Disclaimer: my research found that a panel of Googlers actually decides what will be Doodled. But I figure it’s always a good idea to get on the good side of someone who’s in charge of portraying you somewhere.)
• Step 2A: Be revolutionary, visionary, the change you wish to see in the world, and/or the impetus for a historical event or major Google announcement. Today’s Google Doodle celebrates Robert Noyce, while past Google Doodle honorees include Mahatma Gandhi, Rabindranath Tagore, Andy Warhol, Hans Christian Ørsted, Albert Einstein, and Béla Bartók, to name a few. Other Doodles include events like the Lego block’s 50th anniversary, Pac-Man’s 30th anniversary, the 2010 FIFA World Cup Final, Google’s own anniversary, and The Royal Wedding. (A full archive can be found: here.)
• Step 2B: Alert Google to your awesomeness. Requests for doodles are accepted at proposals@google.com for review. (But please don’t spam Google — you are above that. In fact, this step is mainly rhetorical, as Google should already know how awesome you are.)
• Bonus Step If You Are In Grades K-12 And Don’t Feel Like Doing Step 2: Win a Doodle4Google competition. The grand prize is getting a trip to the Googleplex and getting your Doodle up on the site for 24 hours.

So there you have it. Good luck.

150 Years of Atlantic Cod Stocks

This unfortunate incident has often been cited as a model example of the tragedy of the commons. First codified by a prominent ecologist in the sixties, the tragedy of the commons describes the dilemma that ensues when individuals use communal resources for personal means. In the example above, fishing was enormously profitable as individual businesses sold unprecedented quantities of cod. However, when every fishery adopted the same practice, the result was over-exploitation. Instead of sharing a mutual profit from fish farming, the cod population was depleted, diminishing everyone’s return. In this particular case, the resource became exhausted.

At the heart of this dilemma lies a very simple notion: sharing. The tragedy of the commons provides some insight into why we are generally inclined to share things. The theory of ‘inclusive fitness,’ suggests that altruism may benefit an individual more than selfishness (imagine two children breaking a toy as they fight over it). Perhaps this is why sharing is one of the first principles we teach our children.

Since the rise of social media in the past few years, our impulse to share has been eagerly exploited by marketers, and with good reason. More sharing means more impressions, which means good business. However, there is a fine line between engagement and noise. As an isolated tactic, outbound messaging helps spread awareness and keeps a brand top-of-mind. In the wider pool of outbound messages, it only creates clutter, diminishing the effectiveness of all consumer-facing communication. Sounds a lot like the tragedy of the commons.

Consumer attention is a finite resource, and individuals can only tolerate so many calls to action. Every day, we are inundated with requests to “share.” The label on your orange juice tells you to ‘Like’ the brand on Facebook. Halfway through a news article, you’re asked to post the link on Twitter. Ten minutes into an iPad game, you get a message: “Like this game? Share it on Facebook!”

Marketers have a tendency to treat social media as check box. Slapping a ‘Like’ and ‘Follow’ button on something does not make it social, and only diminishes the return on other social promotions. One of the oldest methods of digital sharing – copying and pasting a link into an email – is still the preferred method among consumers. In fact, links are copied and pasted ten times more often than any other form of sharing.

Social strategy needs to move beyond the status quo. Instead of going “social,” we should strive to be “prosocial.” Rather than selfishly pushing our own message, we should ask how our campaign can contribute to the social ecosystem and for the benefit of all. It’s a lofty goal, but as consumers become inundated with social calls to action, effective campaigns will depend on it. People are not cod, but the attention of consumers will always be a finite resource.

One of the contributing factors to over-exploitation (as we saw with the Northern Cod fishery) is uncertainty. No one really knew how much cod was out there, or how much fishing the population could sustain. As a result, the industry kept expanding to its heart’s content…until the whole ship sank. Social media is still a relatively new frontier, and marketers haven’t quite identified that tipping point. Based on my own experience, and conversations with peers, it seems consumer tolerance is already being stretched toward exhaustion. Will we sink, or swim?

[Image via CNN]

Life will imitate art imitating life tomorrow, when hundreds of Guy Fawkes-masked protesters in London plan to storm Parliament in the spirit of Guy Fawkes Day, thereby recreating one of the final scenes of V for Vendetta. While the eerie black-and-white mask was famously worn by V, it has also lately cropped up in Occupy protests around the world and has been worn repeatedly by Anonymous, the notorious, international hacker ring. Malcom, a 44-year-old member of Anonymous, describes the mask as becoming “an international symbol for rebellion and anonymity,” and members of both movements plan to don them tomorrow night to protest rising corporate greed and social inequality.

In a generation of YouTube stars, reality TV shows, and celebrity bloggers, anonymity’s value has come repeatedly under debate. The reasons for wanting to remain anonymous online are varied, but in the parallel universe of social media networks, transparency thrives. These sites inherently depend on individuals being as open as possible online.

But at what point should your Internet self risk Real Life consequences? At what point does your online persona overshadow your Real Life one?

“This is not a video game. It’s a dangerous operation that puts at risk the lives of you and your loved ones. Don’t identify yourself as a member of Anonymous. You should never do it, but even less right now,” proclaims a video said to be by Anonymous in regards to the group’s planned attack against Mexico’s most violent drug cartel, Zetas.

It is a valuable reminder of the real dangers people face for their online activities. Yet, the actions of both Occupy protesters and Anonymous hackers prove too that while anonymity remains a personal choice, it does not downplay the significance of steps taken — or an individual’s courage.

The 5th Ave Apple Store this afternoon.

“Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don’t settle.” - Steve Jobs, in his 2005 Stanford Commencement Address

This weekend I had a jarring and surreal experience. While perusing the racks at Club Monaco in Soho during the aftermath of Fashion’s Night Out, a familiar song came on the store’s speakers. I paused — it couldn’t be. They were playing Cut Copy?!

I felt violated. The PR side of me did the math: I’ve been to 4 Cut Copy shows within the last 3 years, and the audience that I’ve shared dancing space with at these concerts has been consistent — consistently not what I’d imagine the target customer for Club Monaco to be.

But perhaps I was misled. After all, who knew how far a band’s reach truly went across subcultures? That girl working the fitting room in a button down and riding boots could secretly love Big K.R.I.T. I personally know both bankers and teachers that donned body paint and glitter at Electric Zoo. And I can’t even keep track of the different types of people I’ve seen get down and belt along to Adele. Everybody loves Adele!

While social media continually asks us to define our interests, activities, and bios — to put ourselves into a character-limited, hyperlinked box — the Internet also allows for greater exploration into different (sub)cultures, which simultaneously cultivates and dilutes niches. Internet “darlings” like Vampire Weekend and the Cults experience fame early and quickly in their careers, while artistic “veterans,” such as Kanye West and Rihanna, have incorporated elements of other genres into their work.

The organic shift in audiences that results from this recently came under fire in this month’s issue of n+1, where Richard Beck criticizes the indie rock movement in his “review-slash-indictment” of Pitchfork. Beck writes:

In the last decade, however, indie rock has classed up, steadily abandoning these lower-class fans (along with the mid-sized cities they live in) for the young, college-educated white people who now populate America’s major cities and media centers. For these people, indie rock has offered a way to ignore the fact that part of what makes your dead-end internship or bartending job tolerable is the fact that you can leave and go to law school whenever you want.

In short, he asks the age-old question, “Has indie rock sold out?” To answer this requires defining what “genuine” music is.

To me, an artist’s “genuineness” is defined by the musician’s intent on creating a piece. If an artist’s primary intent is self-expression rather than money, it becomes irrelevant who picks up on and feels a connection to a song. The greatness of Pitchfork is that in the wealth of information online, a group of passionate writers weeded through the downloads and, in doing so, became tastemakers (albeit pretentious ones). Pitchfork reached an audience that certain genres did not at the time target themselves. Often fame and widespread adoption becomes confused with “selling out,” but instead, these bands should be given credit for bringing awareness of their genres to the masses, who may go on to delve deeper into the culture (or not). Rather than “abandoning” their roots, their ability to serve as gateway bands gives these artists a unique, valuable place in the music industry.

After all, every music snob can remember the first band or artist who essentially “introduced” him/her to Good Music. And every snob’s top picks ultimately face the same musical fate: the dubstep remix.

Building an online community of fans or followers is really gratifying. It’s hard work at first, figuring out how to communicate with your audience and developing a sense of shared values. Once you reach that tipping point, the work pays off in spades. There’s nothing quite like watching a Twitter feed cascade with tweets, or a lively conversation pop up on your Facebook Wall. But what if you could watch a digital community come to life in the real world? How cool would that be? Well, look no farther than L.A., to a video game-inspired wonderland called Call of Duty XP.

Activision, publisher of famed video game franchise Call of Duty, organized a gaming event of epic proportions called COD XP 2011. The main purpose of the event was to generate buzz around the release of their most ambitious title yet: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. Activision rented a huge warehouse that they decked out with hundreds of LCDs, projection screens and Xbox consoles. In addition to demoing the brand new title, attendees could play paintball in an arena modeled after the game, explore an armory complete with replica weaponry, and compete in a massive $400,000 grand prize tournament. In short, this event was no joke.

The community I mentioned isn’t the Call of Duty community. It’s the Mountain Dew gaming community. DEW has always been a favorite of gamers, so COD XP was the perfect time for the brand to announce their new Game Fuel flavors, which offer under-the-cap rewards to COD players. Our mission as Mtn Dew’s agency was to spread awareness about the “Double XP” promotion onsite at COD XP. Three of us from RFI holed up in the “DEW Bunker,” where we manned Twitter, Facebook and amplified event activity to fans and followers in absentia. We set up a dedicated handle (@dewxp), built a mobile app just for gamers, and even designed a limited edition Mtn Dew can to catch the attention of fans virtually and in person. As a result, we saw was the emergence of a living community with one foot in the digital space and one foot offline.

Consider @ApologizeLater, a DEW fan and seasoned Call of Duty player. While in the midst of a lengthy COD match, he tweeted:”@DewXP can you hook me up with a can? I’m handling the King of the Hill challenge. I need refreshed.” We responded in kind wishing him luck on his challenge, and promised him an ice cold drink when he finished. He found us soon after, introduced himself with a handshake, and we chatted about his performance over some DEW. He followed up on Twitter, broadcasting a “Thanks, DEW!” to over 800 followers.

I couldn’t help feel a real sense of community after the interchange, and now I’m asking myself — was that a digital experience, or a personal one? It was sort of a digital introduction with a personal followup. For me, situations like these (and there were many) really substantiate the effort we put into building online communities. It’s not just about collecting ‘Likes’ and blasting updates to thousands of followers. I’ve had plenty of genuine interactions as a community manager, but seeing the DEW community represented at COD XP really reinforced that payoff I mentioned earlier. Looking around the Bunker, one thought kept popping into my head: This is why we build.

It was also prompted by what too often seems like an industry over-fixation on the end-product work produced by creative agencies, and less on the culture and people who make it happen.

As an artifice around their work, agencies like to talk about their special “process” or “offering” or “thinking”. How it’s different than the competition and why their customized “approach” is the best for their clients. But anyone who has ever worked at an agency knows that at the heart of the business is not a process or a spin, but rather a core group of hopefully like-minded people, bound by common creative and business purpose. The process by which we agency people work has generally remained the same since the modern invention of the agency. These ‘means’ have in general produced good ‘ends’ over the years. For the most parts clients get what they expect, at least at the base level. The work continues to pour out of ad agencies, PR agencies, marketing agencies etc. All you need to do is walk down the street or surf the Internet to see it. At the top is the award winning, game changing work. The type of work that all agencies want to produce and that all clients want to have. But that work is the exception. Most of the other work blends together forming the everyday cacophony of messages that we are all becoming more and more adept at tuning out. So how does an agency push themselves to get better, to deliver the work at the top of the heap?

Schlepping all of RFI Studios employees and equipment onto a boat may seem at first like an endeavor not designed with the end work in mind. But on the path to developing the work at the top of the heap, we must abandon the old singular myth of “it’s about doing great work.” That’s like a top student saying the secret of their success is “about getting an ‘A’.” It’s not. For an academic or student, it’s about pairing their mind with intense research, study, thinking and exposition. It’s about pairing great minds with great processes. A great agency – big or small – must match their great minds with a great set of ways to work. And that’s what our Agency at Sea experiment set out to explore.

On Tuesday the 26th, the hard-core Brooklyn members of RFI boarded the New Golden Sunshine on Emmons Avenue in Sheepshead Bay at 9:00am. It took us approximately 45 minutes to reach the rest of RFI Studios, who were patiently waiting to be picked up at Pier 60 at Chelsea Piers. We brought aboard laptops, iPads, smart phones, WiFi hotspots, pads, pens, food, and quickly set up our shop on the lower deck.  The top deck would be reserved for mainly brainstorms and client meetings.

The June/August edition of HBR is dedicated to collaboration and has a great piece on using associative thinking to find novel ways to re-envision core business strategies. The exercise of envisioning RFI Studios as a floating agency was designed specifically to put us all in a unique (and very physical) collaboration space. An agency is a sociological petri dish – an amalgam of personalities and brains – configured (and re-configured) to produce successful work. This great work is the result of an agency who can produce the best ideas, who can master all needed relationships, and who can excel at efficient, profitable execution. The means and ends of an agency are inextricably linked, and that to push one, we must push the other. And if the work created by the people in an agency is deeply affected by how the people in an agency work together, if the means is as important as the ends, we must make our ends better by pushing the fundamental means of how we work. For RFI that meant doing something that felt truly disruptive about how we work every day.

The water is a great place to clear your mind. There are no marketing messages, no traffic, no wires, no noise other than the engine of the boat, the gulls and a distant ship’s horn. We charted our course with Captain Joe and after a quick toast to christen our journey headed out south down the Hudson towards New York Harbor. For those of us who hadn’t seen the Statue of Liberty up close it was an inspirational moment. We settled down after a bit with most of the staff working via hotspots on the bottom deck as the first of our meetings took place up top. We docked only for lunch and at the end of each day, just to resume at 9am the next day.

I wasn’t sure if the experiment would be positive, or quite frankly a disaster. Half of RFI was very gung-ho for the trip and the other half a bit more skeptical. What I discovered was slightly surprising. First off, everyone worked. After an initial social buzz they sat down in front of whatever they needed to work and attacked their projects and problems with a renewed sense of focus and collaboration. I will admit that these intense work periods were mirrored by intense social periods (we were on a boat in the summer after all and it was gorgeous outside), but there seemed to be a different kind of equilibrium reached than what we experienced in our normal, land-locked work day. The vast expanse of physical space around us had a proper influence on our problem solving and ideation process, as I hoped it would. It seemed to unlock a new kind of energy that we could collectively tap into. We left our two-days at sea with no fewer than a dozen strategic and creative ideas for current and potential clients, and by weeks end added two new Fortune 500 companies to our client roster.

In many ways the true measure of success cannot be measured now, but rather in the upcoming weeks and months. Will the experience bind us in our everyday agency life as it did when we were all on the boat? Will the morale and energy boost that fed our meetings and collaborations continue? Will our work get better and better? I certainly believe it will. But it might take a few more trips together out on the water.

So, why choose to go to sea? We go because in nature we see how the means and ends relate so inextricably. The literal ebb and flow of the thing. We go to feel how the elements change us, how literally being in the same boat with our colleagues bind us together, and to feel the endless potential of possibilities that lie ahead. I am looking forward to the next voyage.