I don’t tread lightly on the subject of where I think interactive marketing is going tomorrow: (Social Gaming). It seems like the writing has been on the wall (for me at least), for some time now. Whether it’s an Xbox 360, Playstation 3, or Nintendo Wii, the convergence is going to happen. When it does happen, it will be very fast. I’m not talking about in-game advertising, but about a new breed of games in the “Social Gaming” genre. Don’t go to your local Best Buy to get one off the shelf, because they’re not here yet. I’m talking about the integration of social platforms into the gaming industry. We’ve seen sites like Xfire as a first step in bridging the gap of communication, but I’m talking about a seamless gaming / social experience that goes across platforms, and utilizes information culled from all your social networks. Elements from your real life (RL) will be utilized to create your in-game (IG) or virtual reality. If your agency does not have a gaming platform, ask your boss to expense out one, two, or all of them, load up on some games, and research the hell out of them before you get left in the dust. Social Gaming will be the next time sink, and for all your marketers, you better be ready.
Last night I had the fortunate opportunity to attend the local UPA MN lecture where Susan Dray and David Siegel talked about some of the myths of user research. Without getting into the details of the presentation, their main message was basically don’t always trust research outcomes, no matter how massive or sophisticated they appear.
We work hard to never stop questioning our approaches to defining customer or user experience problems, in addition to our methods in answering them. But as experience design strategists and designers in agency or consultancy settings like Bolin Digital, we often don’t have the luxury of large budgets to help us inform our design decisions for many projects.
In the methods of our work, we rely heavily upon activity-, user-, and system-centered approaches as models to guide us through the forest of decisions. We hope that one of them or a combination of them gets us to the answer quickly. Paul and I have also chatted about the common sense approach to design: should we sometimes rely on our own experience or instinct to guide decision making (also referred to as Dan Saffer’s “genius” centered design approach)? It seems like even this cost-efficient “gut” check, however, can get us into deep water.
As we continue to grow up in a world of increasingly sophisticated interactions and product experiences, it’s important to understand how we arrive at conclusions about which design paths to take.
All this recent thinking provoked me to ask these questions about design research methods and tools: Wwhat’s the best mix of data and methods? How much of it is driven by common sense? How do we know when we arrive at the best possible solution?
