Jon Radoff’s Entrepreneur 2.0 Blog

Last week, I kicked off an experiment in collaborative blogging.   I used the microblogging environment of Twitter to generate conversations in an effort to mine the collective intelligence of lots of experts—and then synthesize and permanize the information in the more traditional format of a Wordpress blog entry.

Since my blog is about the business of social media and videogames, I asked the following questions:

• What can Website designers learn from games?
• What can games learn from website designers?

I received tons of input from game designers, user experience designers, social media experts as well as other people who are interested in both.  What struck me is the consistent themes that surfaced regardless of whether the person answering was looking at it from the “games learning from the web” or the “web learning from games” standpoints.  Here are some of the key themes that I detected:

Simplicity

Leave the slick animations at home and focus on simplicity instead—that was a major theme that web designers suggested that game designers learn from.

@EvilStickMan “Pretty graphics do not trump playability/usability”
@Dits “pointless minigames and button presses are not welcome in todays websites or games”
@doogiemac “Players don’t want to endure your “slick” animations when navigating menus, etc. They just want to perform the task ASAP.”
@eriksr “I suppose its to never forget about the user experience while you’re making all the pretty animations and colors. Fun/ease is king”
@UltraNurd “Use readable fonts :oP.”
@slandry1234 “introduction of “fun” most UX people stop at usable and never make it fun. Enjoyable interfaces are more apt to be learned”

It’s the Interface, Stupid

User interfaces are central to both games and websites, and designing-in your usability is going to be central to success.

@dominichamon “Interface, interface, interface. Game designers should start to think of the interface first and not leave it to the last minute.”
@skio I’d say building simple, refined user interfaces–but there are good and bad UI examples in both the web and game worlds.
@GKokoris “Usability trumps all. Artful content is lovely, but should never be used at the expense of a clear, unambiguous interface.”
@UltraNurd “This is more general HCI, but avoid interface innovation. Users expect widgets to work certain ways. FPS HUDs are a good standard.”
@thevioletdivide “Game -> Web: People like surprises, but everything they expect to be able to use should be easily located and usable. “

Progressive Disclosure

The conundrum in both games and complex websites is that you often have a need to let the user engage in complex functions—but you can’t start with complexity.  Good games introduce new forms of interaction and engagement as you play them; good websites need to do the same.

@slandry1234: “The interface should unfold in complexity as the user learns the app. Don’t overwhelm from the start.”
@evansims: “design for people, not your ego.” – which I take to mean that you’re not designing for yourself.  Complex interfaces are understandable to you because you made them—but they probably don’t work in practice.

One area I’m going to highlight is @kentquirk’s suggestion that I look into Csíkszentmihályi’s research on Flow, because I discovered a bunch of interesting research by using that as a starting point.  I think it applies to a ton of things—game design, user experience, and plenty of other areas.   Chen’s research on Flow in Games is a good primer for game designers, but I think user experience designers would also enjoy reading it.

Giving a Sense of Reward

A way to make websites more fun is to include elements that are fun.  Game designers are great at including “compulsion loops” that make you want to keep engaging with the game; it’s about balancing the effort required to engage with a game with a sense of pay-off.  Websites can do this by including things that reward members by recognizing them, implementing leaderboards and point systems, or by giving instantly rewarding experiences.  Conversely, bad games are usually the ones that fail to give you a sense of accomplishment at an appropriate pace during gameplay.

@brullig “How to make a simple concept, or one traditionally considered “boring”, fun and interesting in order to draw users in“

This is a fascinating area that I believe will be an area of research for years to come.  Eric Bethke did a great presentation at the Game Developers Conference earlier this year on the subject of applying MMORPG-type goal structure into the design of Websites (best takeaway: don’t design user interfaces—design goal interfaces).  And the folks at Shufflebrain put together a presentation last year that describes how to apply game mechanics to software design, specifically looking at the underlying game mechanics of MySpace.  More recently, Mashable compared the personality types of social media junkies and MMORPG players.

Games need Better Community

@Keadin “Utilizing community, The cloud.”

This is an area that’s close to my heart.  I think the great games have built-in viral mechanics—just like the best websites.  I wrote about this for Gamasutra last year in my article, Five Prescriptions for Viral Games.  Overall, I think game companies can save an awful lot of marketing dollars if they design games to take advantage of viral effects from day one.

Conclusion

Games and social media have more in common than you might have thought.  If you’re in one field–it’s a good idea to study the other.

This is a conversation that isn’t over yet!  I’m sure lots of people have thoughts on the subject.  Please add your feedback here, or join the conversation with me over on Twitter.

Share this post

A group of people huddle around burning logs, sparks from the fire wheeling upwards into the night towards stars yet unnamed; an orange glow paints the speaker’s face as he whispers of the massive, woolly behemoths he saw lumbering across the frost-covered plains. The beasts were large and dangerous, but the hunger of the people is great. They need food—they need to hunt these creatures—but first they need to be inspired. If they are not inspired, the people will starve.

That leader had to sell the idea to his people. He needed to convince them that the reward was worth the risk, and  fill their minds with what the future could hold. He needed a story.

Biologically, there’s little difference between us and our Paleolithic ancestors.  What can today’s business leader learn from that primordial chieftain?

Our brains are great at a lot of things—recognizing patterns, working with symbols, reasoning and remembering.  But those are things that most animals can do in varying degrees.  As far as we know, humans have a unique ability for stories.  Stories organize our memories, enable us to relate to people, to understand complex concepts.  They’re a unique survival tool for showing us rather than telling us how the world works.

In John Medina’s new book Brain Rules, he discusses how the brain needs to have its attention grabbed at least once every ten minutes to prevent getting bored.  He specifically recommends telling a story to regain attention.  He also discusses how the brain loves patterns.

Isn’t a story one of the basic patterns that our brains love?

You could reduce the structure of almost any story to:

1)    Someone is presented with a challenge – Act I
2)    They make decisions about how to confront the challenge – Act II
3)    They are changed as a result of their decisions – Act III

I think that people in business—myself included—have a lot to learn about the power of stories.   They have the ability to explain the world as we’d like it to be.  In business, that might be a product that could change the world.  But to recruit the people and capital you’ll need, it takes a story that will make it meaningful to others.

After an incredible marathon, my previous company (Eprise) went public and was later acquired by a much larger company.  After this experience I got to try many things: travel the world, helped teach a course on computational genomics, and tried my hand at writing science-fiction literature.

My experience with writing was my most life-changing and most humbling experience.  I had thought that anyone with a good vocabulary and a good imagination and enough time on their hands could write stories.  As it turns out, it’s really hard, and I’ve gained a much deeper appreciation of the people who craft fiction.  My career as a science-fiction writer is clearly going to take a lot longer than I expected, and for now I’m back to chasing my first passion: entrepreneurship.  However, I learned a lot, and the more I came to understand the more I realized how much of it applies to business.  Here is a small subset of the things I’ve learned about crafting stories:

• Start with a powerful hook
• Show don’t tell
• Use compelling, active language
• Make use of interesting characters
• Have a fascinating world that people crave to explore
• Stories are about drama, not exposition

In every sentence, every paragraph, every page—you’re fighting for attention.  The reader can put you down at any moment.

Re-read my list.  Let’s see how you might craft the story of any business:

• Your hook is what’s “remarkable” about a product—the attention grabber, the thing that’s easy to explain in a single sentence.  If someone forgets everything else, they’ll remember this.
• Nobody wants to read a diatribe about your product.  They want to see it, touch it, taste it.  Let someone experience your product, or at least show them what it does.  Stories are about drama, not exposition.  Apply the same thinking to your products and make them come alive.
• Use compelling, active language – this is the same, right?
• Products are boring but people are interesting.  Your “characters” are your customers.  They have their own hopes, dreams and desires.  Show how your product makes their lives better.
• The world of your product is the market – the whole ecosystem of companies, brands, partners and competitors that occupy the market landscape.  People are interested in experiences—they’re compelled to explore fascinating worlds.    There’s always something about your market that could populate an interesting world.  Maybe it’s the history and nostalgia of it;  maybe it’s the science;  maybe it’s the trendiness.

CEOs are expected to do a lot of things.  We’re expected to know how to raise capital, recruit the best talent, understand markets and technologies, decipher legal and accounting systems.  As companies grow and we recruit domain specialists, many of these things get delegated to experts—but the one thing you can never delegate is vision.  But a great vision needs to do more than dance inside our heads; we need to get better at storytelling to make them inspire the people around us.  There’s a lot we can learn from the world of fiction, story-craft, improvisation and games about how to make our businesses more compelling and understandable.

Add one more job to the role of CEO: Chief Storytelling Officer… And as leaders, we not only need to learn to be great storytellers—we need to help other people express themselves through stories as well.

If you enjoyed this article, I’d love to hear feedback from you on other tips for using stories in business—or join the conversation with me on Twitter.

Share this post

Trying out a cool new feature on GamerDNA:

GamerDNA is creating an API for getting at real-time updates for your characters and gameplay information in the games you play.  The above signature is really just a sample application of what’s to come–we’re interesting in opening up the information so that anyone with a cool idea can work with in-game data in neat ways.

If you want to create your own, then click over to the Warhammer Signature Generator.

Share this post

What people believe they get out of conversations in various social media venues says a lot about the memetics of a website’s population, as well as how the user experience has shaped the course of discussion.Twitter is primarily a communication platform, so conversation is the natural purpose of the site.  However, about a year ago LinkedIn added the “LinkedIn Answers” system, which is a conversation mechanism built around the business networking of the site.

I was interested in comparing how people make use of both LinkedIn and Twitter for the purpose of conversations, and asked people on both sites how they compared the two.

People on LinkedIn generally felt the following:

• That LinkedIn is less dependent on your followers
• Many people who responded had tried Twitter, but were not actively using it
• That Twitter can generate much faster responses to questions
• That Twitter’s 140-character limit can generate more to-the-point responses, but that LinkedIn allows for much greater depth of response
• Twitter users are perceived as more tech-savvy and “current” than LinkedIn users

From the Twitter perspective, people felt this way:

• People think it’s easier to find/save Q&A on LinkedIn.  (I wonder if they know about Summize, AKA http://search.twitter.com ?)  In any case–free business idea:  create a Q&A “map” that integrates with Twitter.
• That they check Twitter more frequently, and only go to LinkedIn for maintaining the e-rolodex.
• That LinkedIn’s interface is stifling
• That LinkedIn doesn’t require as many connections as Twitter to be useful

My own conclusion, based on all the feedback, is that tools for organizing knowledge based on Twitter conversations is still a wide-open field.  Maybe someone will build this.  My other conclusion, and one I hope to apply as we build out GamerDNA–is to unite the ideas of simplicity (Twitter) with great tools that enable exploration (LinkedIn’s strength).

For those interested in seeing the original discussions on both Twitter and LinkedIn, you can view them here:

• Discussion on Twitter
• Discussion on LinkedIn

Share this post

I’m making some changes to the theme on the blog.  If things look a bit messed up in the meantime, sorry.  Things should be back to normal relatively soon.

Share this post

The above chart will be a rude awakening for anyone who thought that the United States was the leader–or even one of the leaders–when it comes to high-speed broadband Internet.  To others of us, it won’t be a surprise.  Let me share with you my own story of trying to acquire broadband in one of the most technologically advanced areas of the United States: Cambridge, Massachusetts.  Along the way, you’ll learn about the dire state of affairs in the US cable industry, spawned by an unwillingness to make long-term investments–and how social media can sometimes bring attention to the warts on a large company that fundamentally doesn’t value communication.

Background

A few weeks back at a local Boston Tweetup, someone told me that someone at Comcast was blazing a new path through social media, raising the level of transparency and customer service at the stumbling, dissatisfaction-oriented behemoth.

This interested me because a couple months before, my company (GamerDNA) had a terrible experience with Comcast–a maze of people who didn’t seem to know each other, an ordering process that seemed more in-line with getting a telephone in the 1950’s, and a large number of people who didn’t seem to care.  You see, all we were interested in doing was getting a Comcast Cable Internet connection for our company, a high-tech dot-com in the heart of Central Square.  If you walk one way down our street, you run into Harvard Yard; if you walk the other way, you run into MIT.  Surrounding us are other high-tech companies like Harmonix… and in our own building, there’s also a business intelligence software company and a videogame controller company.

This isn’t exactly 1998 anymore, nor are we stuck in a rural hinterland.  We’re smack in the center of two of the world’s great universities, on a main street, with laboratories and high-tech startups surrounding us–many of which have Comcast cable.  One block over, one of our employees has Comcast in his apartment.  As a matter of historical information, the Internet was *invented* by BBN, right here in Cambridge, MA.

We initially failed to get Comcast to even return our calls regarding broadband installation at our building, and I’d given up two months earlier.  When I heard that Comcast was monitoring Twitter, I posted “Comcast sucks” and, sure enough, I was contacted by Comcast within an hour.  Initially I was encouraged.  I assumed that prior issues were just a sympton of a poor installation contractor, and that it would be easy to get Comcast to install broadband in the heart of Cambridge.

Failing to make Broadband Investments

Turns out it isn’t.  In the process of dealing with Comcast, I’ve learned:

• A lot of things about the sad state of US telecommunications infrastructure
• Some lessons about what social media will and will not fix

First, let me state that I think Frank Eliason (who goes by “comcastcares” on Twitter) is an amazing individual.  I’d like to salute him for his attempts to get Comcast brought into the world of 2008.  This isn’t a critique of what he’s accomplished, and I’m sure that there are ample cases where he’s helped out Comcast customers.

Look at the chart that I began this article with.  The United States is trailing almost every industrialized nation with respect to broadband Internet speed.  This is a horrible condition for the country that brought the Internet to the world.

Comcast isn’t helping things.  I’d be amongst the first person to argue that it’s up to each business to decide what’s worth their time–if they don’t want to spend the money, then so be it.  It’s a free country, and a free market.  Fair enough… So I’ll put it in terms that every red-blooded capitalist in America should be able to understand: shareholders should be alarmed by the fact that Comcast isn’t willing to make long-term investments like running high-speed lines into multi-tenant commercial buildings located on a main street in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  How will they be competitive long-term?

Maybe it is this very competitiveness that’s the problem.  Verizon makes DSL available (a lower speed, but marginally acceptable alternative).  At home, I have Verizon FIOS, which is blazingly fast–but unfortunately, the speed of FIOS rollout in most communities has been slow.  However, I’m confident that FIOS (or a similar high-speed competitor) will eventually make it to Cambridge.  Maybe a savvy shareholder of Comcast will pressure them to step-up-to-the-plate and make their service available before this happens.  Or maybe another company entirely step in where the incumbents are failing.

High-speed Internet is important.  It’s vital for the United States economy, for the providing a distribution channel for new media and businesses, and for education.

Lessons for Social Media Evangelists

Earlier, I mentioned that this was also a lesson in what social media can and can’t do.  Social media–be it Twitter, Facebook–or, I daresay, GamerDNA–will provide wonderful transparency and connect your business with real people in a way that nothing else can.  But that same transparency will simply expose the ugliness within your organizations.  I spent a few weeks chasing and responding to emails, only to find that:

• Social media can’t end a corporate culture that’s accustomed to passing-the-buck to faceless departments and individuals who can’t be contacted, won’t communicate, and won’t provide conclusive decisions.  Giving your company a heart will need to start from the people in the trenches.
• Social media at a large company doesn’t seem to have any impact on the people who are really concerned about long-term shareholder value: the CEO, the Board of Directors, and the like…unless they are going to get involved themselves.  Otherwise, it’s just another function buried in a customer service organization.  Smart companies are going to start using social media to detect trends and make significant investments.

Sorry, Frank.  I really do think you care.  But Comcast doesn’t.  And perhaps Comcast’s shareholders don’t care either.

I hope this experience will act as a wake-up for any company that’s thinking that social media is simply the latest marketing-consultanty, paradigm-shifting, “out-of-the-box” solution-oriented total-quality-improvement bandaid for their companies.  Social media is here to stay; it was enabled by the Internet, but as a cultural phenomena it’s going to be bigger than the Internet itself.  The wake-up is simple: social media can be a blazing beacon of trust, but if the rest of your company still doesn’t care, that beacon will also burn.

Share this post

Trying out a new service (new to yours truly, at least) called BlogCatalog.

September 14 Follow-up: I can’t recommend this service at this time. They are too-focused on aggregating your blog posts and applying SEO for their own benefit: generating blog extractions and then generating internal links for all of your posts within their own domain.

If it changes, this could be a nice service.

Share this post

Last night I gave a talk at the local meeting of the IGDA — the Boston Post Mortem.  About 150 people showed up for beer, food and a discussion around the videogame trends we’ve observed over at GamerDNA.

For those who missed it, I’m giving a shorter version of the talk at Ignite Boston on Thursday evening, September 11.  Due to time constraints, that will only be a five minute summary of our findings, and some of the data will be removed (and if you are showing up here after having heard me speak at Ignite Boston–I’m only going to put the one version of the presentation up.  This will give you a little more data than I was was able to talk about during the time available).

If you are interested in some of the analysis done to develop some of these trends, check out GamerDNA’s articles on Market Trends in Gaming.

Share this post

I will be speaking at the Boston Post Mortem (the meeting of the Boston chapter of the IGDA) on Wednesday 10th. GamerDNA will also be sponsoring the event with food and drinks. Join me at the Skellig in Waltham (240 Moody St, Waltham, MA) starting at 7PM.  There will about an hour of drinking and networking, followed by my talk at 8PM.

I’ll be talking about market trends in video games that we’ve been able to observe through the lens of GamerDNA.  Examples from the discussion will include:

• Rock Band versus Guitar Hero 3 — which is being played more, and why?
• Braid vs. other XBLA titles — real evidence of the word-of-mouth long-tail at work
• What happens to former World of Warcraft players when they try other MMORPGs? (Hint: it’s not what you expect)

You can also visit the official Boston Post Mortem website for the September 2008 meeting.

Share this post

PAX attendance was estimated at over 50,000 people this year, and one of the consistent comments I heard from people during the show is that PAX has filled the void left by E3’s ongoing implosion. However, even if PAX continues to grow and attracts even more people—and the constant one-upping of trade show booths that comes with it—I still think it will be a more honest, more authentic convention. The genes that spawned PAX are filled with an enthusiasm for the experience of playing games.

One of the things that I overheard other attendees commenting on was the return of booth babes in the convention (E3 had been discouraging them, and eliminated them recently). For those that aren’t familiar with the practice, these are attractive women (typically from modeling agencies) hired to wear scantily clad costumes and attract you over to their booths, where you’ll be quickly turned-over to a generally less-attractive but better informed staffer.

A premise of booth babes is the most attendees are young males who will be easily lured by a pretty female face. There’s no denying that there are a ton of young men at PAX, but it also had more women than I’d ever seen in a gaming-related convention before. If the crowd continues to diversify, will the practice of booth babes also wane?

One of the telling signs is who didn’t have booth babes. I didn’t see any at Blizzard, Microsoft, Wizards of the Coast, Harmonix and most others. In fact, booth babes were an infrequent exception rather than the rule—and those that did make use of them appeared to be lesser-known brands, smaller companies and companies that might be struggling.

I’m a hot-blooded male who likes attractive women. I just wish they’d be capable of playing or talking about the games they’re representing. I’m not critiquing the practice—this is a blog about entrepreneurship in games and social media, so my purpose here is to dissect old practices and see what works for business. My take: it won’t go away as a practice, but despite PAX’s liberal acceptance of them, they’ve already run their course. If they can’t play the games they’re showing, then what are they there for?  I’d like to bring more women into gaming, and see women playing and enjoying games at the booths like anyone else.

In closing, I’ll give you a snapshot of what I’d like to see more of.  She was more of a costumed character than a classic booth babe.  Dressed as Judy Nails from Guitar Hero, she could play Guitar Hero World Tour on expert. I’m hoping to see more like her in the future.

Share this post