It’s been a few months since Apple launched the Mac App Store as a central repository for applications on OSX. I’ve been playing with it a bit, trying to figure out just why we needed an App Store on the Mac when installing software is so easy (99% of the time you just drag it to your applications folder).

First things first, let’s be clear; The REAL motivation here is Apple wants a cut of the profits. If a developer creates an app and sells it on their website, they get 100% of the profit. If they sell it in the App Store, Apple gets a nice cut, and the developer only gets a portion. Apple is clearly positioning themselves as a distributer of applications, and trying to make a healthy profit from it.

But aside from that, one very important thing stood out to me as more apps populated the store: Games are prominently featured. For years, Apple has tried to woo game developers to the Apple platform. Having a lot of games on the Mac would make the Mac more mainstream, and silence the “I need a PC for games” crowd. By creating the app store for the iPhone and iPad, they have lured many game developers to the platform, and they are trying to do it again with the Mac app store. It’s all about the “image” and perception of the platform. I think as the games start pouring in, we will start seeing more advertising from Apple touting the gaming features of the Mac.

Now that the motives are put to rest, what does the Mac App Store mean for consumers? Is this a clever way of reducing piracy? Perhaps, but consider this: The average person downloads pirated software because they claim it’s too expensive. Developers claim they charge so much because they need to make up for piracy. It’s a vicious circle; A catch 22. But now Apple has come along with clear guidelines for apps, baseline pricing that works for consumers, and a fairly robust anti-piracy solution. Now, in order to compete, apps need to be priced fairly, and in return they are promoted for free by Apple. In the end, the consumer wins.

The only flaw with the current app store implementation is that there are no “trial” apps. If there was a way to install a trial version of all the apps that run fully featured for 30 days, Apple would have a true winner. People would have a chance to try and become dependant on apps, then be prompted to purchase after 30 days, and it would all be a seamless experience.

As it stands now, I’ve installed exactly one app from the App Store, Twitter, and I really don’t have a use for the App Store. Once more quality content is added and the experience is refined, I might change my mind. But Apple better do it quick… if there are too many people like me who try it and abandon it, it will never take off. And if that happens, developers won’t want to get their apps listed. We’ll ba back to our catch 22.

The next couple of years will be interesting, and we could see a huge shift in computing. We are at the cusp of a revolutionary new computing model. I’m curious to see how this will play out over time.

Choosing the right CMS is always a gamble; I either run the risk of choosing a big all-in-one CMS that confuses my clients, or I choose a smaller, newer CMS and discover its flaws on a live site. It’s a bit like the Mac guy vs PC guy ads… A big CMS like Drupal is PC; It has so many features that it just confuses users, but it’s great at getting mundane work done. The smaller CMS like Firerift is Mac; Easy to use, fresh, and cutting edge, but maybe a little wild at times.

Making the decision to go with “the little guy” is not a position I like to put myself in, but sometimes it’s a necessary risk.

Working with Hotcakes New Media, I’m always looking for new ways to push boundaries with content management systems, but also help my clients too. The simple fact is the “big players” in CMS software, such as Drupal and Joomla, are far too confusing for my average client. They just need a simple way to log in, change the wording of a page, post an important notice, and maybe update an image. They don’t need to have a thousand back-end options. They don’t want to learn the difference between “pages” and “stories”, or have a week long course on how to update their site. And I don’t want them to have all those obscure sections in which they can easily destroy their site with a few clicks.

Newer Web 2.0 CMS solutions are finally starting to emerge, but because they are still so new, they cause two major issues for creative companies:

1. The learning curve. There is a considerable amount of time that needs to be spent learning how to install and optimize the CMS.Then there is even more time spent learning how to create exciting and visually stunning designs with their template systems
2. Learning the flaws. Every CMS has flaws; Some can potentially have security holes, some may have bug, some may not be optimized for speed. The only way to find these flaws is to use the system in a production environment.

Case in point: I recently installed a Firerift website for a client. I proposed the CMS after looking at the feature set and testing the admin area. On paper it was perfect: It used simple CSS tags to pull in the dynamic content right into my own HTML, so I had full control over the design. The backend was stunning; Very well laid out, easy to use, and behaved like a desktop application. My clients would easily be able to edit the content on the site without much training at all. I built the site, and implemented Firerift in just a few hours on my test server, and it was ready to go! Fantastic! I copied all the code onto their Netfirms web server and deployed the site. Suddenly, the website was taking 20-40 seconds to load. Anything over 10 seconds is bad, but 40 seconds?! Something had to be done. You see, the issue is that Netfirms has extremely slow connections for each data request. Because of the way Firerift works, namely loading all the html content then going back using Javascript to get each dynamic element one at a time, the site choked. The way I had designed it, there were 3 dynamic “page snips” on the page, plus each of the image banners (5 in total) were in separate dynamic content boxes as well (so my client could easily update the banners themselves). And because the javascript wasn’t optimized to load asynchronously, each item had to be fully loaded before loading the next one. The result was a page that would load with a bunch of empty boxes, then the text and images would slowly pop-up one at a time over a 30 second period. In order to fix the problem, I had to fully optimize the site and remove some features. All the banners were made static so they could load with the HTML layer. All the CSS and JS was minified. All the cool alpha transparent images had to be hacked and converted to highly compressed JPG images. In the end, with all the changes the site now loads in under 5 seconds, but we had to make compromises in design and editing abilities.

For smaller sites with less content, I would still potentially recommend Firerift. Its benefits in ease of use and design can sometimes outweigh its flaws if managed right. But for bigger sites or clients that need more control, I will have to look elsewhere for now.

That brings me to Concrete5. The newer Concrete5 CMS has been making a lot of waves in the CMS community. It is open-source, free to use, and has a good amount of features and support. It is one of the few CMSs to provide in-context editing (in other words, you can change anything on your site while you are still looking at the actual site). Furthermore, it has great community support for plug-ins; That’s a good thing, and a bad thing. Obviously, it is great that you can find a variety of plug-ins to help you build your CMS, but the vast majority of them are paid plug-ins. That’s how the developers make money: They give you the app for free and charge for the plug-ins. I’m not opposed to that concept, but when they charge for a blog plug-in (a pretty standard feature for most CMSs) I have to wonder if they are nickel-and-dimeing me.

Regardless, Concrete5 does seems like a great solution for my next client, so we will have to see how it goes. But first, I have to learn how to make a template (again).

One of the issues I deal with on a daily basis these days is having to defend myself as a creative company. When I set out to create Hotcakes New Media, I made a conscious choice not to label myself as a marketing firm, or an ad agency. I don’t operate a production house, a design studio, or a web firm. I am a creative company, and I am quite clear in the services I provide. Yet somehow, I find myself unable to use “creative” as a label for my business, and I am constantly pigeon-holed into a different category. That makes advertising my services next to impossible.

For example, I’ve been attempting to add Hotcakes New Media to some link directories, to help spread the word about our website. I fill in the URL, and a little bio about what we do, and then I am presented with a drop-down menu to categorize my “type” of business; Marketing? SEO? Design? Video? Which category do I choose? Each of those choices brings with it a certain set of expectations, which could potentially not be met if one was expecting something we are not. The value my company brings is in the creative blend of all these services. Although we do design, we are more than a design company, because we offer creative services that extend beyond just design. Same goes for video. And SEO. And any other pre-defined category I might be forced to label myself with.

Just a few days ago, after providing a quote to a potential client about some creative website improvements I was recommending, the client sent me a predefined “list” of SEO tactics and services SEO companies provide, asking me if my quote included all those services. I had to remind the client that we are a creative company, and although we do take care of 90% of what was on that list, our value was in providing that along with the proposed design services; Our work is about the creative blend of these two elements. It’s all fine and dandy to “follow all the rules” and write perfectly semantic html markup, but if the site looks horrendous in the process, you aren’t retaining the people who visit the site. Likewise, if your site looks fantastic, but has no SEO elements, no one will ever see it. The creative part is finding the right balance between the two.

So I sit here, wondering if there’s a place for creative companies in the current marketplace, and wondering why there are no categories that accurately describe what we do. Surely there must be other creative companies out there. Do other companies face the same problems?

Are you faced with the same problem? Let us know in the comments or on twitter @hotcakesottawa .

Andy Morris – Creative Director
Hotcakes New Media

There’s a whole flurry of tweets and articles popping up today about Esquire Magazine’s Augmented Reality issue. For background reference, in case you haven’t heard, Esquire has released a print magazine that features visual barcode blocks that can be held in front of webcams. The user runs an application on their computer, and holds up the magazine to view special video-based content. View the details here: http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/esquires-augmented-reality-issue-hits-newstands/

But that doesn’t make it Augmented Reality (AR). That’s just media tagging. I’m sure there’s some other buzzword out there for this type of interaction, but AR is not it.

This is where all the dismissive article writers are falling short; They are assuming, incorrectly, that AR is about taking something from the real world (the magazine) and extending it into the virtual world (web). See http://www.hanskmeyer.com/archives/86 and http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/opeds/oped_esquires_augmented_reality_misses_the_point_141838.asp for examples of articles that “miss the point”.

AR is about interacting with the virtual world; It’s about making the real world part of the virtual world. Granted, Esquire’s attempt at Augmented Reality is a weak one, as it doesn’t truly involve the person (you interact with the magazine instead), but it is interactive. You can control the video in real-time with your actions. The video is in 3D, and you can tilt and pan across it by moving the magazine in the direction you want the video to move. You can move it in a particular way to activate different sections of the video. That’s the AR part.

And that’s what marks this as a bit of a milestone event: It’s one of the first times an AR interaction has been marketed in a major way, with the intent of generating profit.

I can’t completely fault the article writers though; Esquire is at fault for posting the video.

David Granger is not really demonstrating the real functionality. He just waves the magazine in front of the screen, and when he tries to tilt the magazine, it’s even out of range of the webcam. The video should have clearly demonstrated that the magazine is an extension of the real life reflected video, and that it is a real-time overlay on top of the magazine as you hold it.

I do find it amusing, however, that many articles are saying Esquire should have allowed people to virtually try on articles of clothing in the fashion section. Here is an example of some experimental Augmented Reality art I created in 2007 for Scotiabank’s Nuit Blanche art exhibit in Toronto.

Where do you see Augmented Reality going in the next few years? Is there a market for AR, or is it just a fad? Chime in by posting a comment! And please feel free to share or tweet this article so we can see what others think.

Andy Morris
Hotcakes New Media

Social media or social networking, as a defined marketing term, has only come to prominence in the past year or so. But social media has been around for years, long before the internet was even around. Today I’m going to explain the evolution of social media, and why social media isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

The BBS

If you’re under 25 years old, you might not have heard of the BBS (Bulletin Board System). I had the distinct pleasure of using BBSs back in the day, with my acoustic coupler 300baud modem. For those who don’t know what that is, it’s a box with two suction cups to wedge a telephone handset into and dial out to other modems. Yes, it was as horrible as it sounds. If you cough, you get disconnected. If you sneeze, you get disconnected. If you breathe too loud, you get disconnected.

Enough nostalgia.

A BBS was, in a crude way, much like a forum or blog is today. Someone would set up their computer to be a BBS with a particular theme, and the number would be published (in local computer magazines, word of mouth, etc). People with a particular interest would dial out to the BBS and could read posts, make comments, contact other users, upload and download files, and more. It was a way of sharing information in a centralized way on a topic of interest to others in the group, much the same way social media works now. The only difference is that computers were not nearly as common as they are today, not nearly as easy to setup, and not nearly as user friendly. The BBS was mostly used by a few elite tech savvy people, and thus the interest groups were generally computer related. Or very nerdy. Either way, it wasn’t very marketable, so it was never picked up as a mainstream advertising platform.

The World Wide Web

Once the ISP scene took over the BBS scene, web pages worked in the same way. Early on in the Internet days, the web was a very different place, full of colourful text and blinking words gone wild. At the time, almost every ISP offered a few MBs of web space, usually accessed as www.yourisp.com/~yourusername . Since everyone had access to the space, anyone technically inclined enough could set up their own webpage. The problem was it was too difficult for most people, and once the web started taking shape with images and interactivity, websites lay stagnant as people were just too lazy to update.

Newsgroups

Because building webpages was too complicated for most, newsgroups were popular early on in the Internet age. Anyone could sign in to any news group and post or read news items, make comments, and share information. It was an evolution of the BBS, and it was arguably used more than building websites because it was easy to use and offered a two way communication. Some companies picked up on this and created newsgroups specifically for information sharing with clients and to offer help or advice. In essence, this was the very beginning of social media as we know it today. It was, however, limited to text only, and as the internet became more graphical, newsgroups fell out of grace.

Forums

The next incarnation of social media was the graphical version of the newsgroup. Forums acted in much the same way as newsgroups did, allowing users to post articles and make comments, but did so with style and flair. Again, companies took notice and began offering support and user forums for their users. More popular forums were advertising hotspots as companies could easily target thousands of users with a specific interest. However, the forum was still fairly anonymous. Sure, you could post an article on a forum, but it was mixed in with hundreds of other posts, and didn’t offer a big enough soapbox for some.

Blogs

The blog was the next evolutionary step in social media, and is really just one step removed from the beast we have today. Blogs offered two things that made it instantly popular across all markets:

1- It allowed for the easy creation of fresh content (that search engines love) and

2- It pandered to people’s ego, allowing anyone and everyone to have a voice.

Let’s face it. Social media wouldn’t be where it is today if it weren’t for people’s egos. That’s really what drives social media; People like to show off, and want to be propped up.

However, the key difference, and the noteworthy identifier that transformed what we have from just the internet into “social media” is the comment. The two-way communication allowed everyone to have a voice. The bloggers have their voice, but the public can chime in too, and vice versa. That’s ultimately what led to the social media we have today. Even Facebook started out as a “look how awesome I am” platform, but quickly realized that two way communication was the next logical step.

Social Media

Social media today is really nothing more than a marketing term to describe the current state of the internet. It is the instant sharing, consumption, and regurgitation of tiny fractions of information. More importantly, it is marketable, and as consumers move away from the one way communication of a webpage, it is the most relevant way for companies to reach a large audience. It is on the cusp of being completely corrupted by unscrupulous marketing vultures who just haven’t found a way to buy their way in… yet.

I can’t say for sure what social media will evolve into, but based on the evolution we have seen so far, I do have several ideas. But I think I’ll save that for another post.

Andy Morris
Hotcakes New Media

If you need help with your brand, Hotcakes New Media can help. Visit our webpage and contact us to find out how we can make you look better.

I’ve recently been contacted about a large contract I am pursuing for Hotcakes New Media. The contract is fairly extensive, and requires branding, video, photography, graphic design, print, web, programming, and custom Artez design for a large non-profit organization. Because of the size of this contract, and the money involved, I’ve been tasked with writing a full proposal to send to the client. Since all other Hotcakes New Media contracts have been under $5000, I hadn’t written any such proposals yet. As I found out, the most difficult part of writing the proposal was deciding how to approach it.

The reason for this is simple: We are not a marketing firm. We are not an ad agency. We are a creative company.

This may seem insignificant to most people, but it has a huge impact on how we conduct our business, and what people should expect from engaging our services. There are a number generic templates ad agencies and marketing firms use to build marketing proposals. They all include the “science” of marketing: SWOT analysis, target audience, focus markets. While we do take all those things into consideration when coming up with creative campaigns, they are not the core focus of our strategy. Our philosophy is simple: We make cool things people want to be a part of. When you follow that approach, you don’t have to worry about other factors. There’s no age limit on liking cool things. And no amount of science will magically get people to be engaged by your campaign.

For our creative proposals, the focus had to move away from the science and focus on the art. We are, after all, artists first and foremost. Our proposal had to reflect that fact, yet show prospective clients that we have the skills to get the job done. The format I created for teh proposal is as follows:

Background
This section describes where the client is currently, where they want to be, and what they are looking for us to do.

Scope
This is the longest part of the proposal. It covers in detail what we intend to do to get the client where they want to be. It does not pitch a specific concept or idea. That comes later in the process. Instead, it details our recommendations on how to approach various aspects of the project. For example, it might talk about how we recommend a website based on WordPress to allow two-way conversations with the public, and why we thing that is relevant for this particular project. Or it might explain the type of video we are proposing, and how we recommend distributing it. For larger projects, there may be several sub-sections for each specific task we will be recommending.

Schedule
As you can imagine, this is simply our recommended production schedule. If no specific dates have been confirmed with the client, this can be detailed as “week 1 to week 4″ or “day 22 to day 64″. It should encompass every sub-section from the scope, but not be too detailed as to not have the freedom to shuffle things around based on the final creative spec.

Team
This section is not always present in other types of proposals, but is important in the creative proposal. It contains vital information about who will be working on the project, with short bios, and tasks assigned. This helps the client understand where the expertise is coming from, and helps provide insight into our creative backgrounds.

Budget
This section is a fairly straight forward budget proposal. Because the final creative spec has not been set at this point, this is more of a budgetary overview so the client knows where we are focusing our production efforts. That way, the client has the option to say “spend less on the video and put the money into improving the website”. The budget also details what each section includes, for example, the web design section might say “includes all graphic design, setup and installation of required web applications, all html and css, SEO and speed optimizations”. This is vague enough to allow for the funds to be allocated as needed within each section, but provides a detailed enough quote so the client is aware of all the costs. It should also include a contingency of approximately 10% of the budget.

Supporting Information
The supporting information includes links to articles we may have referenced, examples of similar campaigns we are drawing inspiration from, and a portfolio of works to reinforce our ability to successfully complete the project.

As you can see, there are no charts, no intense analysis, and no marketing speak. We make it clear we are not providing a marketing campaign. The client is free to consult with a marketing firm for additional help if they so desire, but the emphasis of our proposal identifies that the proposed campaign should be honest and accessible to everyone.

As of this writing, the creative proposal has been sent to the client, and is awaiting feedback.

Andy Morris
Creative Mastermind – Hotcakes New Media