Acknowledging the Gaps in How We Use Time in The Planning Process
Musicians are trained to consider the use of time in creating work. Many in the video production/ art field as well, but for many of us we have been trained to think transactionally for six sigma results and maximum efficiency.
A financial planner recently asked me to think in decades instead of years.
It really made me stop and think about how I look at time in terms of my work. I find that we are asked to think “fast” and “slow” at times depending on the campaign or project. Most of us will gladly embrace years of historical data to come up with valid insights. However, the trend we are often seeing is about “real time marketing” and daily feedback loops. In PR we talk about “extending the news cycle” to compensate for people’s ( or institutions ) short attention spans. Changing time or the perception of time can create some amazing emotional experiences for a user or consumer or planner.
My thought to end on for the night is…
Think big and small at the same time. Think in weeks, and quarters. Hourly, and daily. But try and think in both states.
Having a plan means you can always change it, but being able to set your milestones and think bigger about the entire project may yield new innovative ideas. It may need real time support or help along the way ( guest blogs, media training interviews, pitching, omni channel outreach ), but the milestones will be in place.
There will always be enough moments to cherish the real time and the journey, but we need to think bigger, and time is a great place to start in thinking big. hashtag 4 dimensional thought.
If time is our biggest asset, why do we rarely use it.
ps. Aside : http://www.10000yearclock.net/learnmore.html
What does it mean that major albums are co launched by a mobile company for an artist? Jay Z teased the release of his Magna Carta album today signifying a milestone in artist marketing. The video above showcases tracks, producers, and story, but its presented by Samsung Galaxy. More and more we are seeing corporate endorsements of the changemakers and creatives of our times, and I personally am intrigued on how this awareness and shift in paid media dollars will effect content creation. What does it mean when a new album from the heart is cosponsored by a secondary brand ? This is commonplace in sports, and social entrepreneurship, but music has usually only maintained this relationship after the fact. Ex. Tailor Swift and Pepsi. However, to co associate your personal brand with a tech brand seems like a new frontier in a pre launch environment. Do you think any other artists will follow this trend? Or for a brand like Samsung, maybe this is the best time in the “hype cycle” to endorse a product / person to get the maximum brand transference to impact their bottom line. What do you think?
ps. The other interesting note is that he teased the announcement using imagery via social media. More and more, Artists and personal programming channels are being used to interact with fans wtih RTM ( real time marketing ) rather then relying on older PR channels and wire services.
Many reality TV shows utilize people’s “social capital” ( shares, likes, tweets ) to raise its own level of influence and boast higher levels of engagement and earned media levels. However “the voice” has take this to a new level. If you have wanted to vote on these shows in the past you could pay for a text (sms) if you were on a specific carrier, or sometimes vote through on online portal. However, this year ( Maybe last year) they added a new element where part of the voting is dependent on how many people download (pay for ) the contestants songs on itunes. Now this changes the cost per vote from a few cents, to dollars. This is several orders to magnitudes greater, and is a really smart profitable decision. And I am not sure how I feel about it.
One one side I feel that they are double dipping on getting paid. Once with traditional ad based models on tv, and a second time with itunes. However, I actually wonder if this creates a more authentic version of how these shows should work. I like that the artists probably get a small cut per each song sole. And I also like that the people voting in this sense, are more likely endorsing their song versus someone they think is cute or a good showman – 90 more cents is a larger barrier to entry compared to a nickel.
There is one thing I still dont understand. I wish the voice was a bit more like the Jersey Shore. In the sense that everyone wins. This is still reality TV. However, with new publishing models around, there is NO reason except for entertainment value that there should be a winner. I feel like at the end of the show, everyone should publish an album. Obviously those who were on the show longer have a higher chance of getting more screen time and thus free advertising – but this show still runs on a hunger games type of model. There does not have to be only one winner. As far as I see it, they all have incredible talent, and I hope they all go one to use this show as a springboard. The models they have introduced to TV really blur the lines between what is owned media, how does real time marketing change programming, and how do influencers ( hosts / cohosts ) act as curators of the crowd, and ultimately . . . who can win ?