research
at workes
BRAND2 180111

Author Archive

Blog

Facebook Twitter

The Rise of the Meme

  • Date July 05 2011
  • Posted by Marion
  • Tagged with
0

Même is a French word meaning “same”. In the digital space, a meme is when a piece of content is picked up by the social crowd and becomes reused in different contexts (or with other memes) to add a layer of meaning to the context or the meme itself and becomes a joke with your network. For an in depth look at the mechanisms of the meme, check out this Jam blog post.

The amazing thing about meme is that some people make money out of them – see the Jennifer Aniston video meme – another example nicked from Jam.

Or again Chris Poole and the 4Chan team launching Canv.as, a website dedicated to the mass production of meme-banters… probably not lucrative yet, however quite certainly powerful.

Why are memes so popular?

The meme, as a group phenomenon, create both links between members of the community (whether it’s as small as the hackers of Lulzsec or 4Chan or growing like the whole Twitterati) and instantly build an instant and disposable but effective culture of the group.

For the meme effect to happen, users must recognize the pattern (and the implicit message or joke), without an explicit explanation or caption! For instance, individuals must have a past experience of the meme, or a share a culture with a sub-group.

Basically, a meme instantly creates a past with its memories, inside joke and nostalgia. Instantly, we tap into people emotions… and this is effortless and unco-ordinated.

What can we learn from the rise of the meme?

The major lesson is that rather than reinventing the wheel, the trick may well be to reuse the wheel that works perfectly else where.

For instance, we know that human like mental models, that’s a fact.

In the past couple of days, so many people have been commenting that Google is taking an “Apple look” with their new interfaces, and moreover that Google+ is a copy of Facebook.

But if you think about it a bit more than 5 minutes:

1) Google+ is NOT Facebook (otherwise it would be called.. err… Facebook!?)

2) Users would be definitively confused and put off by a completely disruptive behaviour for a feature as basic as “bookmarking content”. Another example is the UI fail of the video game Fable III as very well explained in this post for UX Booth.

Centralised applications such as iTunes (or most of the Apple products) or Facebook are setting standards (that’s the serious bits) and meme (for the light hearted bits – think the Facebook Like)

A Bit of Theory

As explained by the Berlin School, namely Gelstat Pyschology, and in a simplified way:

Human beings have mental models that they conscientiously – or unconscientiously – follow. For instance we mentally reorganize content in a way we can process more easily.

An easy example is the way we remember a phone number: because our brain can only process between 5 and 9 pieces of information together, we tend to “chunk” content into smaller groups. For instance, it’s much easier to recite your phone number in groups of digits.

Our brain is pretty much like a computer processing the information by finding a logical pattern – see Kolmogorov theories for more details.

Moreover, Nassim Nicholas Taleb explains in his bestseller The Black Swan (that I’m currently devouring and highly recommend) that we can’t help processing information in a narrative way.

Basically, once we’ve collected information, our brain has to put it in a narrative context to regurgitate it in a coherent way.

In conclusion

When it comes to community design, or designing social software, memes show us four things:

1) The designer should take some time to study the interaction patterns around the topic or dynamic they’re working on, in order to understand the current shape.

For example – When Poole’s team released a new version of the famous geek forum 4chan, including a mandatory capcha to prevent spam, the first reaction from the users was very negative.

However, Poole explains how he noticed that gradually the capcha got accepted and actually integrated in the 4chan culture.

2) Help your community to create boundaries and models that will help them create a sense of gathering.

For example Google, after the fail of Google Wave (elitist collaborative platform) and Google Buzz (generalist but leaking add-on) is launching Google+ , using a common pattern for people to interact: +1 is a common geek/internet comment to express one’s approval. However Google uses the word of “recommendation” in their presentation of the service, as this would make more sense to the less savvy user (namely, my mum).

3) Embed the patterns in the design of the platform: design your community environment as a set of tools to leverage those patterns and make them emerge and blossom.

Again – Canv.as is based on this very principle. Another example is Nyan cat where you can access the original gif, video and song should you want to do your own nyan cat meme.

4) Don’t over complicate your interface – make it digestible for a human brain. Moreover, give space for your users to write their own story.

This is the story of twitter, where users took over the app to make it their own space, using hashtags and “traditions” such as follow fridays and RTs (and all the newest ones such as Thursday Confessions, Music Monday, MT for Modified Tweet etc… ) Another example is how the French twitterati has started creating some sort of “written meme” with the use of #coucou (#heya) or #bisou (#kiss) which refer to a viral video and add a layer of irony to their tweet. Complicated or obscure hashtags have no chance to be picked up by the crowd – everything needs to be simple enough to appeal to the human desire for mental models.

Following on Face presentation at the last Hub Event, check out Francesco‘s presentation on Influence in the Age of Social Brands:


The Royal Society of Arts was a grand venue for what felt like an eye-opening Co-creation Hub event on something that, really, we all should know. In fact, throughout the talk, I began to feel slightly unnerved by the accuracy of a theory that I’d known so well through growing up – although back then it had no fancy name. I wanted Adidas popper trousers and Kickers shoes because they were what the cool kids wore. They would make me popular.

As Mark Earls, co-author of forthcoming book “I’ll have what she is having“, broke the news that our decisions aren’t based on what we, ourselves, believe in or agree with, but by that of influencers – like our friends or other respected sources – it got me thinking about some decisions I’ve made recently and how they may have been based on my social circle. Did I break up with my boyfriend because my friends were all becoming single? Did I move to a rough area because my friends were nearby? Am I thinking about my next holiday destination based on the stories I’ve been told? Probably, yes. Definitely, I’m sure Mark would say.

And it doesn’t stop there. The story of Colin was a clear example of how we are influenced by the people around us, not the other way around. Let me set the scene. You’re at a festival. There’s music. There’s sunshine. Everyone’s relaxing on the grass, apart from one crazy guy dancing on his own. This guy is Colin. At first, you look at Colin and think he’s a bit mental, but he’s relentless and carries on despite the whispers. Soon, another nutter joins him and the onlookers whisper a bit more. When the third dancer joins the spontaneous rave, a seed of doubt starts to grow. Maybe they’re not mental and they’re just having fun? It is at exactly this moment that a small group of revellers more than double the party and your doubt is confirmed. Before you have time to put on your flip-flops, twenty more people have arrived and you’ve become outnumbered. It’s time to join in. Now who’s the crazy one?

In practice, Face’s Director of Research, Francesco D’Orazio explained perfectly how brands should harness this information and use it to engage with customers through social media. His main argument was that people really don’t care about the brands themselves, they care about their personal relationships. So if a brand can communicate in the space between people, it will be much more successful than if it speaks to individuals directly.

O2 have taken this on board and created the RTO2, which, as Jake Steadman, their Brand and Social Media Insights Manager explained, crawls the web to pick up every conversation about the brand. It is fundamental for a number of reasons, from defining their lead influencers to reacting to customers in real time. Ultimately, it gives them access to the whole truth by tapping into a space where people are comfortable and open to opinions on a wider level. After all, getting a positive reputation in that space is arguably the most important of all. Brands become cool through word of mouth and when people don’t think they’re being advertised to, they’ll become much more susceptible.

Upon leaving the seminar, I became increasingly aware of this theory of influence as I unwittingly decided to take the tube from Charing Cross rather than the quicker, more direct route from Holborn. That could have been because it was cold and the walking distance was shorter but I’ve never been one to trade time for comfort. On reflection, I’m pretty sure the decision wasn’t wholly mine. I blindly followed my friends, who in hindsight probably would have followed me, had there been more people travelling in my direction.

In the second of our SXSW Interactive blogs, Face digital project manager Marion Renoux digests her first day of conferences. She dragged herself away from the eat-as-much-as-you-like breakfast buffet for “How not to design like a developer” with Chrissie Brodigan @ Mozilla & “The New Frontiers of Social Gaming” with Brian Reynolds, chief game designer @ Zynga. First up, “how not to design like a developer” and, after the stars, “the new frontiers”.

In “How Not to Design Like a Developer”, Chrissie was discussing the challenges of open source projects and how to facilitate a better collaboration between developers and designers, especially crucial in the context of open source projects.

Although the Face digital team is not working on an open source model, Chrissie made a pertinent point about the best practice to follow in order to reconciliate feature development and user experience:

1. Be careful with workaround: developers think about workarounds as a way to speed up the project completion, but it’s completely wrong from a UX point of view.

2. Even if you give the best layered Photoshop file, without proper documentation and walk through there’s a high chance the design will be misinterpreted in development.

3. Designers are guilty of being trendy, while developers build for the future: better find a good compromise between both directions.

4. Designers must practice a team friendly version control – like developers do with version control and code review – because, for example, you may want to rollback to an earlier version of the design, or get new designers to pick up design and make it better

***

Brian Reynolds was happy to surrender secret of a successful social game – for instance the worldwide known Farmville.

To be honest, I’ve always abhorred this game and all the stupid updates I would get in my Facebook feed. Between you and me, I’ve quite frankly considered defriending people playing too much of a farmer for my taste…

However, this presentation made me reconsider my opinion on the game. After some polite rambling on how Facebook changed the face of the digital world (I don’t know why every talk has a part dedicated to how The World has been revolutionised by The Social Network) Reynolds presented Social Gaming with another angle: basically it’s not the gaming aspect but the socialising aspect that matters.

So here are the secrets he revealed for a good social game:

1. Give the game away for free. The idea is that because the social game is based on people interactions, you must not restrict its access and everybody should be able to participate/socialise/engage with no monetary barriers. However, upgrades are paid: give away the blades, sell the razors (a bit dark but quite an efficient metaphor)

2. Let people express themselves and don’t block their creativity. Even better, give them the tools to create.

3. Obviously always let the players share and socialise because what they really want to do on Facebook is to learn about their friends and secretly shout “Remember me! Start a conversation, I’m lonely!”

4. Learn from your users. They may interpret and appropriate themselves with your game in a different way to that you’ve initial envisioned and designed it for. By observing their online behaviour you can improve the game, taking it in the right direction for the pleasure of your audience

A few years ago, I used to do a bit of comedy: I remember we put on a couple of classic French plays based on comedia del arte and one year we even created and presented a whole show based on improvisation (I swear it worked and was a great success!)

The rules of improv and comedia are similar: participants have a frame or a canvas and a few elements, but the canvas is blank and participants have to write the story.

This technique is now largely used in participative design to get the most out of the participants’ creativity.

Now I’m wondering how we can get to the next level of user empowerment.

For instance, could users or participants be involved in an interactive storyline, either in the way a social website is built or maybe, in a more specific context, in the way a research community project is held?

Why do it?

When I was at uni, we had this class called “Complexity”. Apart from lots of boring hours of lectures, we had a very practical exercise in which we analysed a complex situation and interviewed its participants. Within my group, we chose to check out the complex world of playing chess. There are methods and techniques but also a whole bunch of parameters that cannot be foreseen or analysed and mathematically resolved: for example the kind of psychological tricks you find in both chess and poker.

The world is complex: you do not know the answer to the problems we are facing. A bunch of really cool people, the self-proclaimed Bucket Brigade, give a great explanation of this fact and suggest a casual loop model to tackle the complex issues.

As you can see this method involves variables (could be our participants, their background, the stimulus, and the context e.g online community) and cause-consequences (between all the variables mentioned).

Adding a bit of complexity to the story

Back in the 80s and 90s, geeky kids were already enjoying the earliest examples of interactive storytelling with the glorious “Choose Your Own Adventure” series of books.

To cut a long story short, you start reading the book like any other but at the end of each chapter or sequence of the story, you, the reader, are asked to choose between a couple of actions. You are then redirected to the page or chapter that will tell the consequences of your decisions. In these books the reader is the hero and you may die (or lose) before completing the book. This sounds quite a lot like a paper-based video game, doesn’t it?

Everybody’s buzzing about it and game mechanics can encourage participation so I wonder whether we could do the same with online communities.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly news

The bad news is that unless you’ve got a fair amount of disposable cash, it’s going to be hard to build a platform that has as much flexibility in the flow of interfaces and actions as in real life.

Therefore, at Face, we decided to give as much flexibility to the tools participants are using on our online communities as possible, and increase the fluidity of the task flow in order to give them a greater choice. And the good news is that, I believe these things have added a certain degree of complexity to our platforms.

However, to me, the ugly news comes from The Last Psychiatrist (don’t get me wrong, I love this blog!). In this article the author tells the story of a guy who was out with his girlfriend and got beaten up by a 17 year old.

One of the comments reads:

My purpose in using these scenarios is to lead you to realize that “what would you do if…?” is an impossible question because a situation doesn’t happen to you, you are the situation.

Basically if You meets Future You, then either you are (both) locked in the psychiatric ward or you’ve created a space-time warp and the world is going to implode soon (or has imploded already)

In other words, It’s quite impossible to build a Choose Your Own Life in an online community.

So what’s the point?

I think the point in adding complexity to our online communities and the way we design online tasks is to empower users. They already know what they like and what they want and who they are, our goal is to make sure they can fully express it, not necessarily by creating something new but by simply allowing them to be themselves.

Another great bonus is that giving them maximum flexibility in the storyline they want to follow should give a great leverage to their engagement. As Peter Bergman explains in his blog post, the highest motivation comes only at the right time:

“What’s important is that your moment of choice is when you are in the right state of mind — when you need the least willpower — to make the best decision.”