In just under nine minutes, Brandon Schauer and Josh Levine do an awesome job of simplifying and conveying the essence of brand and experience in a way that a diverse audience would understand. I just love this video. It expresses so many of my thoughts and beliefs regarding brand experience design. This is not a video just for the marketing department, C-suite, or UX folks. This is something that everyone needs to watch, know, understand, and apply. I only hope that the work I do in the future helps to achieve this for the organizations I work with. I originally saw this in the fall of 2009 and came across the link on one of my previous comments. I loved it so much I had to give it its own post. Hope it inspires you as much as it does me.

The quote above is from a blog post on the Kristian Andersen + Associates website. I started to post a reply and it got rather long to be just a "comment". Before you read the rest of my post, you might want to go read what Janneane has to say.

I really liked her band analogy. Loudness is clearly not the only solution. As I was reading her blog post, I had to smile because it brought back many memories from work I have done as an audio engineer - a.k.a., the sound guy. The reason I bring this up is because I think there is another element of the analogy that relates directly to the role of the designer.

In my experience, most bands and music groups don't place much value on the role of the person sitting at the sound board. Most of the time, they are just the dude back there who moves buttons and knobs so the band members don't have to keep walking back and forth. Unfortunately, that perception is often completely justified.

This tends to lead to the "more me" syndrome. You know, the lead vocalist saying they can't hear themselves so they want "more me" in the monitor. This usually sets off a vicious cycle as each band member is trying to hear themselves in the monitor mix, resulting in an even louder mix. Of course, a louder monitor mix messes up the house mix so then you have to turn up the house. And if the house levels are getting louder that even compounds the problem. And so it goes.

My guess is that if you talked to those really "great" bands Janneane was referring to you would find a really great sound person as well. Further, the band's perception of them would probably be different thatn the stereotype. Great musicians know that the audio engineer can make or break them. They appreciate real talent and the respect is mutual. Great audio engineers (can we call them "designers" ;-) take an active role in the delivery of the product. They interact with the band members. They go up on stage and listen to the monitor mix so they know what it sound like up there rather than relying in some headphones that are conveniently located back at the sound board. They watch the musicians for tell-tale signs like a head tilt or cupping their hand over their ear and respond appropriately. They take an active role in creating the monitor mix rather than just sit in the back taking instructions.

Whenever I run the audio mix, I always start with the monitor mix. I know that if the musicians are not getting what they need to do their jobs, I am not going to get what I need. Once I achieve that, it makes my job much easier for the rest of the night. And by the way, a "live" mix is not one of those set it and forget Ronco products. Janneane pointed that out in her post. The objectives of the audio engineer and the musicians may be distinct but they are also mutually compatible.

I tell this story to emphasis the importance of understanding what makes a great designer. If a designer is just perceived as the person who is hired to "make it loud" then that is a relationship destined to be empty, hollow, disappointing and probably short-lived. If they are willing to speak out and use their talents and abilities, trusting on their instinct and gut feelings, and really focusing on helping their clients accomplish their objectives then they will earn the respect of their clients, peers and, perhaps most importantly, they will respect themselves.

In her blog post, Janneane said "Designers know that you can’t make EVERYTHING bold or PoP! because you lose all sense of hierarchy and emphasis." Unfortunately, not ALL designers know this and that is what leads to many of the problems. This is what creates the stereotypes that we have to work so hard to overcome, not unlike the same issues I faced when mixing sound.

I am grateful for Janneane's blog post, Kristian Andersen + Associates and many other firms like theirs that are getting this message out. I am excited for what I see going on in the design industry these days. It is due in large part to the work that these great folks are doing. Design is not just about making everything loud. It is a craft that has great value when applied properly. I always felt that if I was doing a good job mixing sound, the audience would never even think about me. Conversely, if the audience IS thinking about me, it is probably because I just did something stupid or am doing a very poor job. I think that design is a lot like that.

I hope that this blog post is worthy of receiving your attention. Take care.

The Social Media and Online PR Report, published by Econsultancy in association with bigmouthmedia, has revealed that most companies are planning to invest more in social media next year but are struggling to find the time and resources to manage their activity. The report is based on a survey of over 1,100 companies and agencies, and is the most comprehensive study of its kind around how companies are using online PR and social media for marketing and customer service.

I just read this press release and couldn't help but be moved to post a quick comment. The part that caught my attention is the last part of the last sentence - "how companies are using online PR and social media for marketing and customer service." It's the "social media" part that gets me.

Let's phrase that statement a little differently - "How companies are using cars/cell phones/AA batteries/chairs/desks for marketing and customer service."

Wouldn't you think an organization was rather silly if they limited the use of one of these other resources solely for the purpose of marketing or customer service? Unfortunately, that is what most organizations are trying to do with social media. That is why I say it is still so misunderstood.

Social media is a tool or resource that can be used almost universally within an organization, just like a desk or a chair or a AA battery. Granted, social media is a very useful tool in the marketing and customer service departments. But, it is not limited to use in those areas.

If organizational leaders can start seeing social media through this lens, then they would realize that it is virtually impossible to quantify "what they're getting in return for their investment", which a topic that seems to be getting a lot of attention. Do you know of any organizations that try to measure the ROI on the AA batteries they use? What is the ROI of a brand for an organization?

Social media is a tool or resource that can be utilized almost universally within an organization. I hope this little rant helps to make it a little more understood for what it really is rather than what it is imagined to be. If it does, then others can start appropriating it more effectively and have realistic expectations of what it can do for them.