Posts Tagged ‘Players’

Are You a Narratologist or a Platformist?

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

Untitled-1

Narratologists, as the name implies, obsess over narrative.  What makes a good story (and a story good)?  What are the emotional stakes?  What’s the relationship between characters?  Between text and subtext?  Who are the players?  What roles to they play, and do these roles reveal or conceal their true natures?  What motivates them?  What needs to they seek to fulfill?   How does narrative create dialogue between players and audience?  These are the questions keeping Narratologists awake at night, and earning their keep during the day.

Platformists obsess over apps. How solid is an app?  How does it scale?  What language is it written in (and how many does it speak)?  Who uses it and why?  What is the feature set?  What is the ROI?   What is the social component?  How compatible is it?   What’s the relationship between reliability and flexibility?  What differentiates it from its competitors?  If you can answer these questions for more than five apps, you’ve got a lot of Platformist in you.

AppsShot1Narratologists and Platformists can collaborate with one another, but one cannot be both.  Not at the same time anyway.  We all have to choose.  To help with your decision-making, here are a few things to consider:

Narratives are designed to make sense of the world by distilling information into meaning.  Most platforms are, by contrast, designed to distribute information. ”Information,” Viola Spolin once said, “is a poor form of communication.” Choose.

Narrative is inherently more unique, and therefore scarcer and ultimately more valuable than any platform.  As information gets commoditized across platforms–33.5 billion tweets about brands in 2009 (Forrester),  120 million videos hosted on YouTube with an average of 200,000 more added every day (Yahoo Answers), and 400+ million profiles on Facebook (Business Week)–using narrative as a way of organizing and extracting meaning from information grows more relevant all the time.  Would you rather wrestle with one meaningful narrative, or 33.5 billion mostly meaningless tweets?   Call it while it’s in the air.

Narratologists deal in the relationships between people. Narrative wants to be human.  Wants to engage. Wants to move its audience. Yes, it can be messy and unpredictable, but that’s life.

Platforms, on the other hand, deal in the relationships between people and technology.  Platforming may be more predictable, but it’s antiseptic.  It wants to be germ-free. That’s not life. ‘Sterile’ is most likely not an association you want for your brand.

Maybe what matters most is that narratives are a lot more fun for participants.  They generate energy and emotion, manifest purpose, offer possibilities.  They elevate their audience from the drone of daily life. 

Platforms, from the days of Gutenberg’s first printing press, have always been and will always be a pain in the ass. They spawn frustration and induce headeaches.  We find ourselves chained to them.  It’s the nature of the beast. 

Would you rather entertain the possibility of having fun, or guarantee yourself a certain amount of frustration?   Are you a ‘glass-is-half-full-drink-up’ kind of person, or a ‘this-glass-will-automatically-notify-me-via-SMS-when-its-fill-factor-is-above-50%’ kind of person?  You can only drink from one glass at a time.

Narratives define what platforms cannot.  Narratives last longer than platforms.  Mean more. Engage more deeply. Evolve more quickly.  Earn more money in the long haul.

Choose.

The Productive Game

Tuesday, March 31st, 2009

EH1

What began two years ago as a ’stunt’ in Sydney, Australia, where the local World Wildlife Fund members rallied citizens, politicians, businesses and civic organizations to get lights turned off in Sydney Harbor for an hour, an event they called ‘Earth Hour‘, this year on March 28 grew into a worldwide event with over 1,800 cites around the world and an estimated one billion people participating. (more…)

Yes is Not Enough

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

MarriageProposal1The most basic concept in all of improvisation is ‘Yes and’. If we are in a scene together and you make a statement, it is my obligation as an improviser to ‘yes-and’ your statement. By ‘yes-anding’ you, I not only agree to your reality, I add to it with perspective of my own. In this way, we can ‘triangulate’ on the problem to be solved, and also bring dimension, and new levels of collaboration to the scene.

The words ‘yes’ and ‘and’ do not have to be spoken literally, of course. It is the spirit of the phrase that matters. A common improv exericise invokes this spirit by having players begin every exchange of dialogue with those two powerful words, spoken literally.

If we are in a scene together and are ‘yes-anding’ one another, by the third line of the scene, it will not be about your reality, or my reality, it will be about our reality. Now we have the ability to work together toward an objective. It is the ‘and’ that makes all the difference. Anyone can say ‘yes’. It might get me a reputation as a being a positive person around the office, but it will not necessarily make me a productive player. (more…)

Trust the Game Before You Trust the Player

Monday, December 29th, 2008

Madoff1Skillful players can play many roles. This is usually a good thing. It lets one relate to one’s audience and fellow players in ways that result in communication, learning and transformation–the triple-score for brands operating in the Networked World.

When a monster like Bernie Madoff gets away with such a long-running scam as the $50 billion-plus Ponzi Scheme he got busted for last month, it’s because he has been able to use his improvisational talent to obfuscate instead of communicate and indoctrinate instead of educate. Ultimately, he transforms wealth into information (i.e. news) instead of the other way around.

Madoff played all his ‘public facing’ roles — Philanthropist, Country Clubber, Yachtsman, Fisherman, Palm Beacher, Hamptonian, Bon Vivant, Patriarch, Temple Elder, Wall Street Guru–so well that it never occurred to his victims he could be fronting a crooked game, or that he had the role of Con Artist in his repertoire. Reportedly his office was adorned with a collection of bulls, the symbol of prosperity and growth on Wall Street. He cloaked himself in the wardrobes and placed himself on stages that were trusted, and so the people who got swindled made assumptions about the integrity of the game he was playing. They trusted good old Uncle Bernie without really knowing anything about what he was doing with their money. Today those victims are saying the same thing about Madoff that they say after seeing Sean Penn play Harvey Milk: “I totally believed him!” Of course you did! That’s what he was counting on!

It’s interesting that those who sniffed out and avoided the Madoff scam did so not by basing their judgment on the integrity of his character–skilled players perform every character with 100% integrity–but on the integrity of the game he was playing.

James Hedges, founder of JLH Securities, says he refused to invest billions with Madoff back in 1997 when during a two hour meeting “We could barely get past page one (of a 40-page due diligence questionnaire) with Madoff before alarm bells were going off. On the strategy itself, when I asked him to explain his investing strategy, it didn’t line up.”

In a recent piece for Portfolio.com, journalist Erin Arvedlund describes how she suspected in an article she wrote for Barrons back in 2001 that something was not kosher in Madoff’s story: “I went with the facts: Nobody, but nobody, on Wall Street traded options the way Madoff did and made the money that he made. Years later, a hedge fund manager whom I had known since the late 1990s said simply: ‘Nobody traded options that successfully. That should have been a big red flag.’”

The lessons of the Madoff Scandal are crystal clear:

Honest players play honest games.

It is easier to spot a crooked game than a crooked player.

Trust the game before you trust the player.