Two pages to check out (each link opens in a new window): here’s one, and here’s another.

Hope you enjoy.

I joined the “paywall” team in January, 2011, and was asked to create a number of designs that pushed the boundaries of what readers expected of the paper, while still somehow keeping existing conventions in mind. These are some of my designs for product landing pages, product overview grids, and banner ads.

In addition to working on these designs, I also built many of the final pages and assets that were used at launch. They’re still used today, modified again and again to reflect new offers, branding, prices and more.

Definition6/VeriFone Kiosk (click to activate; large file, may take a few moments to load)

Definition6 needed a way to introduce a new mobile payment system for their client, VeriFone. The introduction for the iPhone-based device was to take place at a trade show.

They built a large touch-screen monitor (1080 pixels wide x 1920 pixels high), and brought me in to build a “working” iPhone mockup that showed the device. I just had a few weeks, and no way to test on the final equipment.

I built the mockup in Flash and relied heavily on my experience to know what would work smoothly and would be a resource hog. I also tested as thoroughly as I could on low-end computers to replicate a “worst case scenario.”

The final file was uploaded to the device, and worked perfectly during the show. In between users, a “screen saver” launched showing a 360° rotation of the device.

In addition to the show, the interactive rotating part of the file was separated from the main file and used on the VeriFone website.

It’s crazy how a word can lose it’s meaning, like ‘interactive.’ It used to mean something that’s engaging and full of possibilities, but now it usually just means “it’s on a computer.”

This is especially true in advertising, where ‘Interactive Art Directors’ congratulate themselves on linear animations that are nothing more than silent TV commercials. Their flat banner ads play in 728×90, 160×600 and 300×250 configurations, usually to the aggravation of web site visitors. They offering nothing new, and if you missed the animation all you’re usually left with is an option to “click for details.”

Interactivity is not just about transferring information on an electronic device, it’s about creating an experience. It’s about giving you tools or capabilities to have (at least some) control, while allowing others to do something else and have a different experience. Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Word, and Blizzard Entertainment’s World of Warcraft are all interactive. Most banner ads and web sites, where all you can do is read, look, watch, and click, are not very interactive.

So I’m here to state: Clicking a link is not interactive.

There is real power in something that’s truly interactive. It draws people in, engages them, lets them make it their own (maybe just a bit). It’s why social media and blogs are so popular: It’s your chance to speak, share, react, create…interact.

For advertising this is especially powerful because instead of turning off possible customers with messages they can’t escape—such as before a movie or online video—you can connect a brand with a personal message, or even better, enlist a customer as an effective, unpaid member of your sales team.

Instead, the people who say they’re harnessing that power of interactivity are usually impotent charlatans who are taking advantage of others.

Although just because it’s interactive doesn’t mean it’s effective. I often see great, engaging sites or apps, but can’t remember the brand behind it because it doesn’t fit, it doesn’t tell their story. It’s like the interactive “Where’s the beef?”

The answer also doesn’t necessarily lie in excessive complexity. If a user needs to learn rules, load new plug-ins, sell their Mac and buy a PC running Windows 7, then it’s just not going to connect with your audience.

(Unless you use this to your advantage: Imagine a “Windows is better” campaign from Microsoft that ONLY worked on Macs running Safari…)

‘Interactive’ campaigns and projects need to think ‘fourth-dimensionally,’ where the imagination engines fire on all digital cylinders; dynamic, non-linear ideas float through the sky because they can’t be storyboarded; designers and developers bob their heads and wings in simultaneous-yet-different appreciation; and Luddite clients stay at home and scratch their heads because they don’t understand.

“That’s OK that you don’t get it; this isn’t meant for you. Remember, some folk thought we’d need wings if God meant for us to fly.”

My tray table is stowed away. My laptop and I are both fully charged.

Let’s click on some clouds.

The possibilities for such a feature are substantial:

• The simplest version would allow visitors to upload photos that would then act as backdrops to pre-built animations, perhaps with minor selectable options like color and crafting a specific message.
• A more intricate version would have separate components that the user could choose to express their holiday message, each one customizable, such ringing bells or flickering menorahs. In addition to uploading photos, there’d be an option to get a picture from the visitor’s computer’s camera.
• A third option would interact with a wish list, so the window would feature products the person wants for Christmas, complete with links for purchase. (Although this idea sounds like the most direct connection to its purpose, it’d have to be subtle, a ‘service’ rather than an advertisement).

The final product could be a still image, perhaps even print-quality; a video with an “upload to YouTube” function; or an interactive SWF.  Tools would also be available to post links to Twitter and Facebook, along with shareable “Try it yourself!” links.

MoveOn.org has been very successful with this kind of idea. By directly interfacing (with permission) with people’s Facebook accounts, MoveOn helps visitors create videos that are customized with their photos, names, hometown, etc.  Animoto is another site where users can upload a bunch of photos and generate a very slick video.

A more direct example is OfficeMax’s Elf Yourself campaign, where JibJab created an engaging, fun product that reached a wide range of people (I got links from people who I didn’t think knew how to use e-mail!). However, OfficeMax isn’t otherwise associated with elves in any way, and even if they tried, the connection between ‘elf’ and ‘office supplies’ is wafer thin.  I forget which office supply company launched this campaign, making it another “Where’s the Beef” promotion where the content overrides the message.

The ultimate beauty of this idea: Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s are already known for their store windows, so they’re the ONLY ones who can honestly capitalize on this. JCPenney or Sears can’t do this because no one thinks of them when they think of holiday windows.  This idea IS Bloomingdale’s or Macy’s, it’s just a matter of making it happen.

If I worked at either of these retailers, I’d make it happen.

The Holiday video below is a combination of a series of files created for the Visual Merchandising group at Macy’s to show some their plans for the upcoming holiday season.

The Glee and Material Girl videos show some of the best displays from Macy’s stores across the country, as well give a feel for the respective product launches. These videos are two of many created for the presentations, all of which use a combination of original material, and footage found online (copyright of respective owners).

The worst offenders IMHO are companies who stream their ads before you can watch what you want to watch. Hulu, blip.tv, the big networks, they all do this to some level. One one hand it’s brilliant: Companies get to show off their product to a “new” audience by showing a TV ad that’s already done and paid for. In exchange, websites get money to pay for hair restoration, fake tattoos, and other stuff websites spend money on.

However there are two major problems here:

ONE: Forcing an target audience to do something they don’t want to do is a turn-off.

TWO: It’s often done incorrectly, becoming an even bigger turn-off.

ONE

Advertising being forced on us is nothing new. One big difference online is that it’s easier to turn off or ignore. There have been many times when I was half interested in seeing a video, but when the pre-commercial starts to play I quit and look elsewhere to waste my time.

However, making people sit through an ad before they can do what they want, with no stop/pause/fast forward controls isn’t going to create a new customer. Instead it’s going to bore, or more likely, annoy. Instead of noting the product for a possible future purchase, it’ll be noted to ignore and avoid.

In fact, I really believe that TV ads online in any form, streaming or on a company’s website, is just for the company, 100% ego. Unless it’s an Old Spice ad or one of those cool ones from the super bowl, people don’t watch commercials willingly unless it’s one of theirs.

TWO

But let’s say you HAVE to create a streaming TV ad: Electrodes have been staples to your ear lobes and will deliver a billion volt zap unless you post that MOV or FLV to the streaming machine. If that’s the case, at least do it right!

On big-name sites I’ve had multiple instances of stuttering video: It plays for a second or two, then stops, then plays for another two seconds or so, then stops, with no way of skipping ahead or pausing to let the stream catch up. So now it’s SUPER annoying, impossible to follow, and that :30 becomes 2:00! How is THAT an effective ad?

What’s worse is that the content on the site most always plays fine, and there are plenty of controls if I want to pause it and go avoid buying that product I sort of saw being advertised.

My guess is that there are few reasons this may happen:

1. Clients says “Don’t compress my video! I want my cheese puffs to look as crisp and sharp as they do on my HD TV!” This client’s sales deserve to be submerged.
2. The developer doesn’t understand video compression, or doesn’t know how to programatically control efficient streaming and smooth playback, and his or her career deserves to be submerged. (Netflix can do it, why can’t the developer?)
3. The site doesn’t allow advertising content the same flexibility and control as they provide for their content, in which case they will probably be submerged in debt and maybe even legal fees once advertisers catch on.

I believe that TV ads should be online for anyone who wants to see them, but easily controlled, skipped or avoided by those who don’t. Or best solution, create TV spots SO COOL that people will seek them out. They’ll call your client and BEG for a DVD or a link, or maybe Apple will add that to the

So today’s lessons:

1) The internets is not a TV.
B) Just ‘cause you can do something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it….but if you HAVE TO do it at least do it well.