digital tools, social media, technology

Software engineers call it “user experience”, the phrase that describes the way human beings interact with computers. Unfortunately this “user experience” is often not the most “human” of experiences, as it seems designed more for engineers than regular people.

Now the iPad comes along and human beings are learning something new about how we can experience a computer screen.  And maybe it is something quite old as well.

Recently I had lunch with a friend of mine who developed several applications for the iPad before its launch. When she started work on these applications she went through a month long period where she was working around the clock on this new device with no time for anything else.

Once she was finished she was happy to have some down time so she could read a book on her favorite device, the Kindle.  Much to her surprise, she found herself getting angry that she had to press buttons to interact with the screen—when all she wanted was a screen that would respond to her touch.

Last week I was in a store owned by a large consumer electronics manufacturer, (not Apple).  On display they have a frame for showing digital photographs, a beautiful device that can sit on your shelf at home.  One of the store associates told me that they have had to replace the screen twice in the past month.  Why?

Because people keep touching the screen, waiting for it to respond, but alas, it is not a touch screen device, so it does not do anything.  They poke it so hard and so relentlessly the glass screen finally cracks.

And then there is Babe Ruth and Michelangelo who had no computer screens to touch but understood something very fundamental about human communication.

In the fifth inning of Game 3 of the 1932 World Series, Babe Ruth was at bat and pointed to center field.  On the next pitch he hit a home run.  He could have yelled to the crowd, “I am going to hit a home run”. But all he had to do was point and the crowd knew what he meant. The gesture carried all the meaning he intended.

John Paul Stevens, our soon to be retired Supreme Court Justice, saw it with his own eyes as a 12 year old attending the game with his father.  He understood what Babe Ruth “said” with his hand.

Between 1508 and 1512 Michelangelo painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, at the commission of Pope Julius ll.  Nine scenes from the Book of Genesis are depicted on the ceiling, the best known of them, The Creation of Adam.  This central panel shows God reaching out with his index finger to give life to Adam, who reaches up his index finger to God.

Millions of tourists go through the Sistine Chapel each year and see what Michelangelo created.  On the one hand, they see the most godlike gesture depicted and simultaneously on the other, the most human gesture as well.

In all these disparate examples; the anger with buttons, the broken screen, the gesture to center field, the touching of God and man, we see a reference—indeed a pointing to something buried in our evolutionary past.

Before spoken language, before written language, before art, before technology, our evolutionary ancestors pointed to create and exchange meaning–to communicate with each other.   That evolutionary past is still embedded deep within the structure of our brains.

This ability to create meaning with our hands through the simple act of pointing is a central part of what makes us human.  With that gesture we join the physical part of ourselves with the mental part of ourselves.

Apple has properly recognized that these two different “selves” are in fact made for each other and indeed, really not separate at all.

By doing so, they have created a “user experience” that is actually “human”.

This is the central reason why people respond so enthusiastically to the iPad.

The Apple engineers have taken the most sophisticated technology humans currently create and married it to the most primitive part of our nature.

Or put it another way.

Apple simply figured out what Babe Ruth and Michelangelo knew all along.

consumer electronics, digital tools, experiences, innovation, internet, technology, user experience

Much of the most important innovation on the web today occurs within what some call the Golden Triangle.

The three sides of this triangle are social, mobile and real time.  Though the poster children for this triangle are Facebook, the iPhone and Twitter, this innovation extends far beyond these three companies.

This triangle creates a major shift in peoples’ experience of the Internet.

Now many people are;

1.  Always connected to the Internet,

2.  Constantly connected to their social graph and,

3.  Perpetually acting as a bridge between the virtual and physical world.

People have the Internet in their hands as they move about the real world and they are breaking down the old distinction between our “virtual” and “physical” worlds.

This process will accelerate as more people buy smart phones, which they are doing at a rapid pace.

So why should filmmakers care?

Filmmakers, distributors and theater owners want to bring people into theaters to see their films.  The golden triangle continuously spins off new tools that enable them to do so at a low cost.

So here are a three suggestions;

1.  Encourage people to bring their cell phones to the theater. (And use them there!),

2. Improve wireless access within the theater. (So these phones are easier to use!) and

3. Before and after each screening use the theater screen to enable people to communicate with other people in the theater and their friends outside the theater. (About films in general or the film they are about to see or have just seen.)

In other words, use these digital tools to enhance the social aspect of the film going experience.

That’s right, create a better social experience–a key reason most people go to see films in a theater in the first place.

digital tools, filmmakers, independent film, innovation, internet, Mobile, smart phones, social media

Isn’t it curious in this age where more moving images get created and distributed digitally that there is this group of people who still call themselves “filmmakers”?  It seems a term that is so archaic, so analogue, so yesterday’s news. But is it any of these?

I think filmmakers look for three opportunities that truly define them as filmmakers.

They are:

1.  The ability to tell a visual story from beginning to end, without any interruption, as a complete, continuous experience.  This is what separates them from people who create stories for TV as most TV series are produced with commercial interruptions or different viewings (episodes) in mind.

2.  The chance to have an audience gather in a theater and watch this visual story together, as a shared experience in time and space.  In the course of a film’s distribution it may be seen in a lot of different settings, public or private, but the filmmaker is making the film with this key audience in mind.  This is the primary target of all his/her imaginings.

3.  The opportunity to see his/her film with an audience.  Filmmakers want to physically experience the film with an audience. The filmmaker wants to see if they laugh or cry when he/she intended, if the audience got the point–to see if their film really succeeded at reaching another human being.  As every filmmaker knows who has done this–a genuinely scary moment.

So each of these opportunities really goes to the heart of what is most essential about calling yourself a filmmaker.

Think of them as a set of principles about the relationship between the creator of a film and the audience for which it is intended.

And here is what is most surprising as we move from the analogue past to the digital future.

These opportunities are not disappearing into the analogue past.

In fact, they are just beginning to open up.

consumers, digital tools, experiences, filmmakers, internet, media

When a filmmaker creates a movie, she brings many tools to unlock her artistic passion, which she attempts to capture on the screen.  These tools; the screenplay, the actors, the physical setting and the cinematography all combine to bring into existence a new emotional experience that is shared with an audience.

Today, as a result of rapid digital innovation, a filmmaker has the opportunity to use another set of tools to unlock and organize the passion of her audience. When deployed successfully they give an audience a chance to share a passion with each other and connect with the creator of the movie.  Through their use the filmmaker expands her audience in every venue her film plays.  These digital tools are broadly available across many online social networks and they are free.

Are filmmakers and distributors truly taking advantage of these tools?  Let’s look at the recent release of BRIGHT STAR as an example.

BRIGHT STAR is an exquisitely realized movie in every way, from its acting, its directing, its screenplay, to its cinematography.  It was a pleasure to watch with an audience.  Jane Campion made great use of the tools she was given.

What about online?

BRIGHT STAR’s web site looks well designed, plays music that sets the proper mood and provides links to basic information about the movie.   It all looks great. Unfortunately the site just sits there, like a dressed up newspaper or magazine ad.  This is how the web was used five, even ten years ago.

At the bottom of the page there are links to MySpace, Facebook and Twitter.  Aren’t they the web of today?  Look at these links closely.  The MySpace fan page has 21 friends, the Facebook page has 1,409 fans and the Twitter account has 261 followers.   These are all small numbers, even Facebook’s.  These social networks are vastly underutilized.

BRIGHT STAR put up its website and began posting to these platforms on August 13, roughly thirty days before the initial theatrical release of the film.

This was their first mistake.  You can’t engage with an audience online and get their attention within social networks on such short notice.

Since the launch online they have posted 7 times on Facebook and have created 59 Tweets on Twitter.

This is a very small number for two months of activity.On Twitter, BRIGHT STAR is called @keatstweets, on Facebook, BRIGHT STAR.  The tweets never appear on Facebook, nor do the Facebook posts appear on Twitter. In addition, none of the tweets contain a URL that directs anyone to more information about the movie, where it is playing, who is in it, who directed it, or more importantly what other people feel about it.

The mistakes include; starting late, creating only a small number of posts, naming the BRIGHT STAR effort different things on different platforms, failing to link the platforms being used and not understanding the specific value each platform has to offer.  In sum, not a great use of the tools.

More importantly, there is one fundamental mistake that undercuts all of BRIGHT STAR’s digital efforts.

The distributor is not selling the right brand to organize and deliver the audience they seek.  The brand that needs to be “sold” here is not BRIGHT STAR.  It is JANE CAMPION.  Why?  Audiences want to experience BRIGHT STAR but they want to connect with JANE CAMPION.  In the social web that makes all the difference.

What do I think should be done to gather an audience online and deliver paying customers to movie theaters?

Here are a few ideas.  They would apply to any independent filmmaker or distributor, so Jane Campion is really a stand in for every filmmaker.

FIRST– Jane Campion should have a blog that is called Jane Campion.  On it she should post anything that gives everyone a sense of her artistic vision, such as links to her movies, links to interviews she has posted on YouTube, comments about her favorite films, influences, etc.  She should have a fan page on Facebook and a Twitter account, (also under Jane Campion) so that whenever she blogs it appears on those platforms as well.

SECOND–When she starts making a film– no later than the first day of preproduction–she should post to her blog and tweet regularly about the production.  This allows the audience to share in her experience as the film evolves.  She should continue this through the completion of the film all the way up to and during the release of the movie in every market in which it appears.

THIRD–When the film is initially released she should attend as many regular theatrical shows of the film as she can and meet with her fans one on one when they exit.  She should tweet her location before she arrives to let people know she is coming and what she is hearing from fans.  She should have someone with her use a smartphone to record, publish and tag these conversations for all to see—all flowing back to her blog, to Facebook, and Twitter.   She should encourage all her fans to create and share from their phones as well.

All of these ideas use digital tools that exist today and are free.  They unlock the passion that resides in the audience, their desire to connect and share.  They generate a very large multiplying effect.  (In the old days, this was called word of mouth.)

Now, ask yourself the following.  If Jane Campion had the same number of followers on Twitter that Zoe Keating has (1,131,033, @zoecello), and she used the three ideas above, do you think BRIGHT STAR’s box office gross would be higher than it is today?

And what about BRIGHT STAR’s Academy Award campaign?  Would it be more successful?

(Note:  This was originally published in October 2009, just following the release of BRIGHT STAR.  The mistakes made with this film are being made by others and the recommendations still apply.)

Bright Star, digital tools, independent film, internet, Jane Campion, social media