The evolution of Foursquare reminds me a lot of the evolution of Twitter, but slower. When Twitter first came out, a handful of people I knew were trying it, and I tried it, too. Immediately, there was no great payoff. I knew there was some buzz around it, but just figuring out what it did was initially a little confusing. Even once I had the hang of it, I only half paid attention to it as there was not a critical mass of people or organizations on it yet. But I kept on it, and I had a fairly strong sense that something would happen, that it would evolve. And then it did.

The big moment when Twitter became relevant to me was when they added the search feature. It was that moment when Twitter moved from potential to reality. In one swoop that feature changed Twitter from silo’d streams of conversation into one, global, searchable, real-time conversation.

I remember very specifically playing with it for hours to see what I could do. I researched what people were saying about brands I was working with, and I even monitored what people were saying about TV shows I was watching, in real-time.

This is the moment that I’m waiting for with Foursquare, and I’m certain it will come.

I understand that I am not the audience for the product Foursquare is today. The novelty of earning a badge wore off a long time ago, and I’m not going to see that my friends are at a bar near me (I don’t go out – I’m old, lame).

What I know is coming is the day when I check into a place and I am not only rewarded with something tangible, but my physical world becomes tailored to me simply because I chose to check in. The possibilities there are endless, and I can’t wait for them to become more real. And I love Foursquare because they were the first to see this, and the first to begin the journey of making it real.

The digital space has always been defined by curiosity, and finding connections that don’t currently exist. Twitter and Foursquare are two of the best examples of people who were intrigued by a possibility, and ventured to make it into a reality.

Perhaps one of the reasons I’m so interested in Foursquare is because it has yet to turn that corner, and I’m not sure what the other side looks like. But the other side is so big and full of possibilities that I can’t wait to get my first peek.

Innovation is a word we hear a lot these days. A word we all hear too much and most often undeserved in its use. When you hear the word Innovation, there are some usual suspects that come to mind – iPhone, iPad, Facebook, Twitter, FourSquare, even the Internet itself. But I’ll bet there’s one innovation that you use everyday that you never think twice about – the PDF.

I was recently working in an office where the culture was really old school. Every document that was made, every version that was revised, was printed for review. I was astounded by the sheer volume of paper that was being printed, just to be thrown away. It was so tremendously wasteful that for the first time in a long time I had to stop and consider how much office environments have changed, and the things that made the change possible.

While I certainly can’t speak for how most office environments work, I can speak to what I’m used to. Throughout my career, I have been in increasingly paperless environments where documents are emailed, posted online for review and shown on projectors or screens for group reviews. It was something that evolved over time, something I never took notice until I was in an office environment where time had apparently stood still.

As I thought about the things that I was used to doing in a more paperless office, it made me think about the PDF and how much it has changed the way I work, and I would wager the way a lot of people work…and live.

What you see is what you get

As a designer, one of the biggest problems I used to face was presenting documents. There was no way to send a Quark file to a client to review, or an Illustrator file, or Photoshop file. Things had to be printed and mounted, resulting in a huge waste of materials, time and energy.

The fact that now I can literally just save any file that I am working on in an instant, from any program, that will look exactly how I intend it to look, had become lost on me. I can’t seem to recall the first time I did it, but I can barely remember life before it. This evolution is so fundamental and significant that in and of itself it makes the PDF a hero. But wait, there’s more…

Remember all those instruction manuals?

When you used to buy a computer, or software, and the volume of instruction manuals that came with it? I used to have shelves of these books that were out of date within months (or even weeks) of receiving them.

Now when you buy nearly any piece of hardware, electronics or software, the manual is provided online. If you lose it, just download another one. It will always be the latest version.

Now this is really just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the volume of documents, brochures, instructions, forms and more that we now routinely use PDFs for. Just think how many times a day you use a PDF – A health insurance form, an application, work documents, news articles, marketing brochures, etc. – and you’ll start to appreciate your friend the PDF.

A better brochure

Beyond just making these documents electronic, the PDF is also incredibly interactive and collaborative. Advanced PDFs can be as interactive as web sites with links, rollovers and embedded media. PDFs also contain the ability for commenting and markup that is incredibly sophisticated.

It’s good and good for you

If I were a more diligent man I would find some statistics or do some research to demonstrate the impact of the PDF of the environment. But I’m not. Luckily, I think a little common sense can illustrate what I’m trying to say.

So as my mind was considering how much paper is saved by the PDF, I also started to consider the other implications. If we’re printing less brochures, forms and documents, that means we’re using less electricity, less harmful inks and chemicals in industrial presses and even in office printers. While my mind can envision how this exponentially adds up, I would love to know any kind of statistics on the real impact to the environment. So, if you’re reading this and you’re a smarty, send along some facts.

Where’s the love?

The PDF is a workhorse of innovation, so why is it something that seems to be so taken for granted? I feel like the more I think about it the more I could write about great things it does and ways it has created fundamental shifts in the way we work and live.

Is it not shiny like an iPhone? It doesn’t have cute animal illustrations like Twitter? Maybe because it just always seems to work and be there when we need it?

You may be thinking, “but the internet is also what makes most of this possible too”. And yes, you are right. But I think the internet certainly gets the praise it deserves. But someone has to love the PDF.

Whatever the reason, I’m clearly guilty of ignoring it too. It was only when I was in an environment where we weren’t using it did I miss it and gain a real appreciation for it. So this article is both my atonement and shout out to the PDF. Let’s give it some of the recognition it deserves, the PDF is a BFD.

First, and most obvious, it’s just a huge lie. It’s classic old-school spin that contains the arrogance that like sheep we will all believe whatever pretty package is sold to us. This we see everyday and it somewhat rolled off my shoulders.

Second, and more importantly, it bothered me that this is being called a “re-brand”. Now this part annoys me because it validates the idea that branding is simply making up a story and imposing it on something regardless of the truth. The idea that I work in an industry where truth and ethics are relative (or irrelevant) and that the idea we want the customer to believe is the only thing that matters.

My instincts tell me that this won’t stand. This shouldn’t stand. This can’t stand. In this new world of transparency, immediacy, information and consumer empowerment this message will not survive. The facts will emerge, the people will make their voices heard and the campaign will fall flat. The world has changed, the worm has turned, power to the people, you can’t pull the wool over our eyes - right?

 I quickly came to the realization that this may be a watershed moment that demonstrates that the new world order exists or it doesn’t. After all, if an industry makes such a claim as the corn syrup manufacturers are making, and it works, then I think we can all guess what other companies will feel empowered to do.

What is at stake is the fundamental concept that the information age has changed anything. In just one day I saw all the requisite ire and indignation in the social stratosphere – Facebook, Twitter, blogs, comments, etc. But what I started to wonder is whether the social world just becoming noise or is it a true voice that has an impact?

Will the outrage matter? It had better.

UPDATE:
Well, the demise of the new Gap logo may have put this entire issue to rest? Amen.

Close up view.

I just read this morning on AdWeek a story of the success of Starbuck's VIA.

This is a complete fabrication. I have been waiting for Starbacks to make this claim ever since VIA came out.

For months after VIA's arrival, Starbucks would use a practice where they would give you your coffee for free if you also bought a "discounted" VIA package. In essence giving you the VIA for free while you still paid the same amount for your coffee (or possibly less, I can't remember). However, you were technically purchasing VIA at a discounted rate (the price of your coffee) and getting the drink you ordered for free, registering sales for VIA.

Over a few months, Im sure i registered close to 20 "sales" of VIA without ever ordering it.

Im all for giving free samples and getting new product out there, but for Starbucks to claim that this give-away is a sale is beyond misleading, it's a lie.

Someone (hint, hint, AdWeek) needs to perform some slight diligence on this claim and it will quickly unravel.

As I followed the WWDC keynote on Monday, I was thrilled as always to see the new features Apple is unleashing. But there was one thing I was waiting for. One thing I needed to hear that never came. The one problem the iPhone in any version has yet to solve – AT&T.

I am beginning to view Apple’s stance on AT&T the way the country is viewing Obama’s stance on BP - indifferent. I need Apple to get mad. I need them to acknowledge my pain. I need them to admit they have the power to fix this and I need it fixed now.

I am, and always have been, a huge Apple loyalist. I am a huge fan of the iPhone. It is a device that I not only want but I need, practically and emotionally. I love me my iPhone! But I am to the point where AT&T’s service is so bad that I am forced to consider another phone, and I really don’t want to. The plain fact is that as earth shattering as the device is, with AT&T as the carrier it barely functions as a phone. I am literally to the point where I am considering an iPhone for internet and a separate device that will actually be my phone. Or god forbid, a non-iPhone phone.

So I’m speaking directly to Apple now….

Baby, we got a good thing going. We’ve stuck by one another and you’ve made me a very happy man. But we’re reaching a point in our relationship where I’m starting to look elsewhere. With AT&T in the picture, we’re just not communicating. They’re getting in the way of a good thing. When you first romanced me with the iPod, you knew I needed some music to get in the mood, so you got those record company fellas in line and made it happen. Then you took me to see some movies and now we just stay home and watch TV. But now I’m just in the mood to talk and I feel like you’re not listening, like you can’t hear me.

If you read that sentence, you noticed several potential points with which you might take issue. First, you could say that “UX” is not the proper term for the discipline. It is “Interaction Design” or “UE” or some other title or acronym. You could also say, “Excuse me, but UX is design. You’re an ass for not being able to make the distinction.” The difficulty in constructing this opening sentence illustrates the essence of the problem that I am discussing here.

In order to explain, I need to give a little history. Also, it needs to be noted here that I am not talking about the technology aspect of design here in case you are wondering about the utter lack mention of developers or technologists.

In the beginning, Designers reigned supreme

It was not so long ago that roles like “Information architect”, “User experience”, and “Interaction design” didn’t exist. Or if they did, they weren’t in the web design business. In the mid-90’s designers did everything. I remember a time before wireframes even existed. To be fair, web sites weren’t nearly as complex as they are today, but there also weren’t any existing guidelines or conventions. Every week brought a new site to the web that brought something new to the table - some things good, some things not so good. I remember when tables first came around, then frames, then Shockwave, and the web as we know it began to take shape. For better or for worse, the people figuring it out were designers.

It wasn’t too long when the web advanced to the point where sites became very complex, and real business had to be integrated into what was going on. Things like strategy entered the picture. Real processes came into being and things like wireframes came into existence.

At this time, designers thought quite a lot of themselves. We had figured out the web all by ourselves, we clearly knew better than any of our clients how the Internet worked, and we needed a lot of people to do the tedious work we could not be bothered with. We had big “creative” problems to solve. (if you can’t tell, the air quotes are for extra sarcasm).

Enter the Information Architect

When sites became complex, so did the process and deliverables. It became very standard practice to use wireframes before design began. But god forbid a designer should create them. Someone else needed to do such unglamorous work - enter the Information Architect.

There evolved a feeling among designers that they would begin work when they had the proper information. This included a brief, a strategy deck, sitemap and wireframes. Obviously over time the deliverables were even more diverse and in-depth, but this was somewhat the first round of items that designers demanded in order to start being creative. If a strategy deck wasn’t to our liking, we sent it back. If we didn’t like the wireframes, we ignored them. After all, we were “creatives”.

There became a point in all this where a combination of arrogance and often laziness forced Information Architects to start making critical decisions, and dealing with some of the most important issues that a project would face. This is when the discipline began to evolve. The deliverables were more complex, incredibly thought out, and ultimately resolved to the point where the design team could pretty it up and take all the credit.

This is pretty much where things start going all haywire.

Re-branding the Information Architect

At some point in the evolution of Information Architecture, the most important and critical decisions started being made in the wireframes. Designers had opted out of the IA process and instead wanted to be handed a set of ‘finished’ wireframes. From the design view, wireframes were just boxes with the content that needed to be designed. But what they became were all the upfront design thinking and research without aesthetics.

Information Architects were quickly becoming both the more passionate, innovative and critical part of the design process. As the discipline evolved, new titles emerged that reflected a new level of recognition for the craft: Interaction Design, User Experience, etc.

An “IA” deliverable started out as – here’s all the information, now you can solve the problem. A “UX” deliverable was becoming – here’s the answer, now make it look pretty.

The core issue

While this overall evolution is occurring at different places and in different forms in every agency type and company culture, it is a huge dysfunction that exists in the industry. The strangest part of it seems to be that it is rarely acknowledged or discussed.

Both disciplines combined do the essential work to create great design, the problem is that for the most part both work without a true understanding or appreciation for what the other does. The secondary issue is the underlying tension in the ambiguity of their relationship. When you get right down to it, both groups feel they are the ones doing what is important. While that is a fairly natural feeling, the vague nature of where one begins and the other ends creates an underlying animosity. You need only sit in one ‘debate’ where there is a disagreement between disciplines to see what a structural divide exists. I think one of the most obvious clues to the ambiguity is the discrepancy in understanding in whether the new discipline is User Experience, Interaction Design, Information Architecture, etc. There are so many names and acronyms (UE, UX, ID, IxD, UI, IA, etc.), it illustrates the lack of clarity and understanding of exactly what the discipline is.

If you understand what the “UX” discipline aspires to be, it prompts the question – why do you need a designer for anything else than to make the result pretty?

Alternatively, if you understand what a designer has always been, it prompts the question – if a designer is doing their job, why do you need UX?

The answer has been that the specialization of tasks has provided for a more streamlined and efficient production model. This divide facilitates a production model where specialists make the part and then pass it along. This model helps environments produce things faster, but not better.

Sleeping with the frenemy

There are several ways that the camps live together, and it tends to depend on the nature and culture of the environment that determines both their success and harmony:

One camp rules the roost – Regardless of the ‘collaborative’ rhetoric, most larger entities are driven by one discipline or the other. When asked, of course, these firms are a ‘collaborative environment that vigorously debate issues and that the best ideas emerge as a result’. This is a very common description, yet somewhat of an industry yeti. They are rumored to exist, but I have been hard pressed to find them. When pushed, at the end of the day, one discipline tends to own the final decision. Large entities need structure, process and definition and this issue continues to defy that with the exception of a completely ‘silo’ approach, which inflames rather than reconciles the issue.

Polite consensus – The more awful version of the above scenario is that teams can practice collaboration in a more civil manner and when disagreements occur there is civil debate and a polite compromise is made. No one’s feelings are hurt, but in turn there is often a distinct watering down of quality.

Non-polite disagreement – The most awful scenario where there is no structure, no respect, and no trust, turning debates into shouting matches driven by ego where the loudest voice (or the one willing to shout the longest) wins.

Chemistry – This is the most rare and successful instance, but one that certainly exists. In order for people of differing views and skills to work together and mutually search for the best answer, there needs to be a trust and respect that cannot be structured in a process or org chart. This relationship happens in smaller environments or instances where people just happen to work well together. What must be absent is the presence of ego and a sense of territorialism.

Reconciling the divide

The first step in bringing harmony between these two disciplines is to acknowledge that there is a fundamental flaw that currently exists.

What I would ultimately like to see is all of the distinction between UX and Design erased by simply acknowledging that they are different tasks and not different people. Meaning, just because there are two different steps, who said there needs to be two different people? Why do they have to have separate names that create the very divide and tension that needs to disappear?

Both disciplines need to have a little more honesty in acknowledging what they don’t know and what they’re not doing.  

The way I see it, the UX discipline is the more innovative discipline, and the designers are basically resigning themselves to being decorators. To retain both disciplines, neither has the true understanding to lead the process. In broad terms, UX has the knowledge to start a project while designers have the knowledge to finish it. To me, this doesn’t work.

If you are part of conceiving and visualizing a solution, you are a designer. Drawing distinctions like “UX” designer, “Visual” designer etc., creates silos allowing people to stay ignorant of critical understanding that they need to possess in order to create truly great and innovative work. A designer needs to go back to being someone who approaches a problem from start to finish, not just a part.

To illustrate my point, if you were tasked to design a book but you required that a black and white version of the book be given to you dictating its size, how the text was divided, where the imagery went etc., then you didn’t design the book. You decorated it. Similarly, the individual that created the black and white version of the book also did not design the book. They organized it. To any classically trained designer, this would be a laughable premise. The role of a designer is to approach the problem in its entirety. While this hypothetical book ultimately had a ‘design’, there was not an entire design solution. Fundamentally, this is a critical problem that places the success of the outcome on the sheer luck that these separate pieces that are created not only work when placed together, but some type of vision and innovation happens in the process.

While the metaphor of a book to a web site is far from a one to one comparison, the core idea - that a designer needs to approach problems in their entirety - is still valid. 

Ultimately, if a UX designer is going to propose a visual solution (wireframe), they need to learn the entire vocabulary that defines a visual solution – color, grids, composition, imagery, typography, etc. Not to mention the core communication principles such as branding and positioning. To propose a visual solution with no grasp of these, and other design concepts, is somewhat pointless. The result will be flawed by definition.

Additionally, if a “designer” is going to step up and act more like a designer (and not a decorator), they need to get back into the nitty-gritty of the core problem – understanding the user habits, understanding the competitive space, doing research, and even making wireframes. If you are a trained designer, then you were taught all these things as a matter of design problem solving. It’s time you get back to doing that.

In other words, both need to learn what the other knows and become complete designers again.

Moving forward or backward?

A designer, in its purest form, is someone who is trained to solve a problem in its entirety. A designer’s education is always rooted in understanding a problem from its core, understanding all factors that influence the problem and ultimately shape the solution.

At the end of the day, design that is completed by individuals in task-based silos lacks both a comprehensive approach and overarching vision. All the talk of ‘collaboration’ is just a great sounding band-aid that spins a flaw into a benefit and avoid facing or resolving the core issue.

The industry, as well of all of us who live within this realm of it, all face a choice of whether we will continue to expand this divide or reconcile it. Are we creating designers who turn part of their brain off because it is someone else’s job?

At the moment, there are shining examples of individuals that bridge this gap, but they are the exception, not the rule. I would like to see a new breed of designer who can approach a solution in its entirety become the rule, not the exception.  



While this distillation might seem over simplified, in my experience it has served as the most effective guide to both frame and solve a problem. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

To illustrate my point, I will offer a few examples.

Successful delivery of brand promise:

Apple - Think Different.
In the late 90’s, Apple faced a lot of problems. The machines were still costly, the OS was staggeringly out of date, and they were knee deep in the “clone” debacle. I owned an agency at the time and the only reason we stayed on Mac instead of PC was that we were a design firm, The things we needed most (Adobe software and typefaces) were all better on a Mac.  At that time, I wanted to switch to PC, but couldn’t. But it was only a matter of time.

Re-enter Steve Jobs and a stunning new brand promise – Think Different. People were still on the fence, but that was enough to keep the faith. But Apple still had to deliver.

Not long after that came OS X, iMacs and Apple was re-born.  The machines were innovative, the designs were beautiful, and Apple was again the brand we fell in love with.  Since then, Apple has continued to deliver on that promise at almost every step of the way.

Pepsi - Refresh Everything.
When Pepsi recently re-branded, they got off to a fairly rocky start. Not only was the logo re-design questionable, but the initial campaign stunningly missed its own point.

The new brand promise – Refresh Everything – was everywhere you turned. It was a bold call to action that offered absolutely no action. In this age of engaging consumers to build a brand, it was an overwhelmingly one-way line of message delivery. If you went online, you could only view pictures and videos, but not participate. It was one of the largest missed opportunities I had ever seen. It was obviously leveraging the Obama election, and there was a rabid country of people who wanted to take action, and here was Pepsi with a huge call to action and no way to actually do anything.

But then Pepsi got its act together and introduced the Pepsi Refresh project. Not only is it exactly what the brand promise initially offered, but its rollout was based on bypassing a large super bowl message in lieu of an online initiative. It was groundbreaking as well as effective. They offered a way for any person to make a change.

Now, some examples of not-so-effective Brand Delivery.

AT&T - Rethink Possible.
Recently, AT&T has been in a huge uproar over Verizon’s claims of network superiority.  AT&T has responded with a new campaign of their own, as well as a huge new Brand Promise – Rethink Possible.

The problem here is fairly clear. Anyone who has AT&T service knows that it is terrible. Instead of fixing their problem, they have created all this noise to “Rethink Possible” as a distraction.

To deliver it’s promise, AT&T needs to stop talking and start acting. A first step would be a mea culpa to its customers for its service, in order to restore trust. The next step would be to improve the service. It’s that simple.

Instead, I walk around throughout the day with my phone dropping calls and losing signals while seeing huge ads reminding me to “Rethink Possible”.  Not only does this not help the situation, it hurts. It reminds me of the old saying, “don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”.

Microsoft - ?
Microsoft has always has a bit of a brand problem, a lot of which has to do with the size of their business.  It’s very hard to say Microsoft and refer to one thing. They have Windows, Office, Zune, SharePoint, IE and many, many others. Their core problem is that as a consumer, no one really knows what they stand for.

The majority of Microsoft’s perception these days is based on the Mac vs. PC argument. Most people’s experience with Microsoft is with the Windows, Office and IE products. In these areas, people’s general perceptions are that Microsoft is not innovating and they don’t care about their users. This feeling is created by troubled products and virtually no customer support.

Apple has amplified the feeling with its “I’m a Mac” campaign, not only creating a specific image for Microsoft but also rallying their existing customers.

In response, Microsoft is very clearly ratcheting up their Brand Promise, with a somewhat schizophrenic message. First they ran the Mojave campaign to show that the product itself was fine, people’s bias was the problem. Then they ran the fairly ho-hum Bill Gates / Jerry Seinfeld ads which showed they were really trying to just gloss over the issue at hand with shtick.  There was some effort to define the platform as “without walls”, but that disappeared quickly. Then was the price angle, which gained some momentum in the recession. And finally, we now have the “I’m a PC” campaign that demonstrates that Microsoft really listens to its customers.

At the end of the day, what will change Microsoft’s perception is the reality of its product. They recently introduced the Windows Phone, which looks incredibly promising. They also have the potential of the Surface platform, but have yet to gain any real-world traction with it.

So the verdict is still somewhat out on Microsoft. They appear to have the will to improve, the determining factors will be whether they both have the vision and ability to realize a vision into tangible products.

So what does this all have to do with digital?

In the simplest terms, digital agencies are in a constant process of helping companies either communicate brand promise, or deliver it.  Prior to digital, agencies were only in the business of brand promise, with slight exception. But now that brands live and die in the digital realm, a brand’s delivery is becoming far more critical than its promise.

What I mean by that is that digital has become a brand equalizer. Brand’s can no longer dominate a conversation with empty promises. Consumers have the power to not only instantly decipher the truth of a Brand’s message, but the means to vocally expose falsehoods and shortcomings. Conversely, customers also have the ability to shape brand’s offerings and extol the virtues of their favorites.

Digital has also opened the doors for firms who were once only in a position to help craft communications (branding, advertising, PR, etc.) to be able to delve deeper into a company’s business and deliver their promise. Agencies are now (or should be) in the business of conducting transactions, sales, customer support, etc.

So if you’re in the world of building digital experiences, and you aren’t aware of a client’s fundamental promise to their customer and whether you are delivering it, how can you build something successful for them? If you’re working solely from the perspective of solving a business problem, how can you gauge the effectiveness of your solution?

For modern brands (and agencies), digital has become the great ‘moment of truth’ in a customer’s relationship with a brand. It is often the critical moment when a brand’s offering either works or doesn’t. It is also the channel where a customer’s voice is heard, and businesses can learn.

A customer/user will see the matter this simply, they have an understanding of what a company or product is offering and believe it based on whether it delivers. As creators of digital experiences, we need to not get lost in the minutia of research and analysis and lose sight of the larger, more fundamental premise between every brand and customer – keeping its promise.