I originally wrote this in 2014, but am re-upping it now because it’s truer than ever, and too many still aren’t getting in the game.
 
At a recent client meeting I did what I often do: use a relatively obscure term that requires a level of ‘get-it-ness’ that has yet to fully penetrate the popular consciousness. That term is ‘gamification.’
 
The easy definition? Take the techniques games use to delight their players, and apply them to non-game entities and actions.
 
Need an example? Try this:
 

• Use of color and design to elicit visual interest and tactile engagement? Check.
• Player-monitorable feedback indicating incremental success toward a singular goal? Check.
• Optimized for replicable pleasure response even after repeated play? Check.
Yup, it’s a game.

I’m talking about vacuuming for Hoover’s sake. Dyson took a mundane, even despised household chore and recreated it into a game called ‘holy moly, look at the crap I pulled out of my carpet—I wonder have many times I can fill the canister.’ To some (including me) it’s as addictive as Sid Meier’s Civilization. And that’s how my beloved wife gets me to vacuum. Not as often as she’d like, but still, she knows she can sic me on doing the Dyson and I’m good for a couple of hours (as long as my back-queue of Radiolab podcasts holds out).
 
Dyson gamified a chore. And became a billionaire in the process.
 
 

Gamification is nothing new.
Remember Tom Sawyer? A fence that needed whitewashing?
And how he got others to do if for him?
Call it Twainian gamification.

Said client (referred to above) took mild offense because he perceived ‘gamification’ to be a ‘too fey’ description for that which his very serious company was doing. I get that, but come on, if gamification can sell your service/product like Dyson sells vacuums, wouldn’t you just love that?
 
Is gamification serious?
 
Deloitte thinks so.
 
Call it ‘user interface simplification and addictive repeat engagement amplification’ if your MBA requires it. But really, it’s called ‘gamification.’

 
 
– D.P. Knudten
Chief Collaborator
COLLABORATOR creative
 

 
 
Like any experienced creative type, I’ve got an unwritten list of rules that I alternately cleave to or break on a daily basis. One that proves surprisingly resilient is “Always understand the context before wasting time on the concept.”
 
I was reminded of this maxim when I saw the maximum impact this creative concept had for the Swedish drug store chain Apotek Hjärtat back in 2014.
 

Apotek Hjärtat – Blowing in The Wind from Ourwork on Vimeo.

Still photo on poster comes to life as train enters station.
Result: Gorgeous hair—that requires gorgeous hair products from Apotek Hjärtat.

I bring it up, because that Swedish drug store brand did it again with another contextually relevant, creatively brilliant execution of concept in context.
 

Apotek Hjärtat – The Coughing Billboard from Ourwork on Vimeo.

Smoker walks by, poster coughs,
and the Apotek Hjärtat brand engages big time.

This is just so smart. The social media buzz about this work has been deafening, and what was certainly not a not-cheap project has returned on its investment in a big way and with legs for days (e.g., digital video clips for social channel sharing, PR hooks for great earned media uptake, mammoth street level discussion about a drug store for crying out loud!).
 
From my POV, the best part is that until the creatives who worked on these projects talk, there’s no real way to tell which came first, context or concept, because they are perfectly aligned.
 
Lack of such context / concept alignment is immediately obvious. So much so, it has spawned its own sub-genre of Internet fail. Just Google “ad fails” or some such variant and you’ll be treated to a parade of “what we’re they thinking” badness.
 
Like this:
 

Context fail: It’s a delivery van with an A state: door closed and a B state: door open. An understanding of “Context before concept” demands you design for both from the get go.
 
How about this one for Turkish Airlines:
 

 
But for me, here’s the real winner:

 
And it happened more than once.
 

 
This context / concept fail is so epic it’s launched a flotilla of Ad Fail conspiracy theories on Reddit. Did they not know this was going to happen? Could it maybe be on purpose?
 
Having worked on alcoholic beverage accounts in the past, I cannot believe this was an ambient advertising campaign that passed corporate legal vetting. So it remains a fail, UNLESS :
 

A. Mike’s Hard Lemonade was really out to market exclusively to vandals
B. Mike’s Hard Lemonade was determined to drive non-vandals away from the brand.
C. It was right before awards season, and some junior creatives were looking for a little book boosting.

 
None of those possibilities is a good one IMHO.
 
These bad examples above are no simple, garden variety ad failures showing typos, blatant grammar mistakes or unfortunate media placements. These exhibit context / concept malpractice of the highest (or lowest?) order. When done right (like the Apotek Hjärtat work) and context and concept are perfectly aligned, it’s impossible to tell which came first—and to me, that’s the hallmark of a truly great rule of thumb.
 
– D.P. Knudten
Chief Collaborator
COLLABORATOR creative
 
This post as appears in an edited form at InBusiness magazine online
 
 

I originally posted this in 2013, but given the amount of bad bro behavior going on, I think it’s worth an update and a repost. -dp

I ran into an HR situation today that was quickly resolved with three simple words:

1. Dude
2. Not
3. Cool

When used in combination, they form a phrase of surpassing power, an incantation capable of transmogrifying a raging jackass into a repentant basset hound.

“Dude, not cool” (DNC) is a defacto code that’s pretty much guyiversal. And it’s applicable everywhere and anywhere a male (of any age) has crossed over into Jerkistan.

Now it doesn’t work on every man or boy. There’s always a troll subset that delights in pushing buttons and making people uncomfortable, head-shakingly annoyed or downright angry. Such individuals are hopeless and can be simply described by an equally powerful term: D-Bag.

But DNC works wonderfully on those who really DON’T want to hurt feelings, and have no bad intentions but occasionally display a deficit of the appropriate sensibility for any given occasion (e.g, me.)

If it takes a village to raise a child,
it takes a neigh BRAH! hood to calibrate a man.

The guy who uses “it was acceptable then” phraseology that’s become unacceptable now; the dude who excessively ogles the server at dinner; the husband who jokingly belittles his wife in public: these are all recalibrate-able men. But the only ones who can truly make this adjustment happen are male peers using “Dude, not cool” or one of it’s many variants (e.g., “Don’t be a fill in the blank.”)

Boorish, obnoxious, and blatantly antisocial male behavior happens when respected peers say nothing. ‘Locker Room Talk’ only happens when others in the locker room tolerate it. And you don’t have to go all Puritan to make your point. All it takes is a simple “Dude, not cool.” and you’ve saved a decent guy from embarrassing himself, and given him valuable calibration on what’s acceptable—and what you won’t put up with.

Is there a female equivalent of this highly effective rejoinder? Yes. It’s not verbal, but doesn’t have to be (it’s that formidable.) It’s called “The Look,” a facial communication of visceral distaste that is the human equivalent of using a magnifying glass on ants.

But even these lasers of personality course correction never work on those who depend on “Wha’d I say?” to smooth over their purposeful missteps. That type of behavior requires an opposite-gender boycott—for life.

 
– D.P. Knudten
Chief Collaborator
COLLABORATOR creative