1. "In general, this research has interesting implications for the charity sector - it suggests that in this case at least, a promotion-focused regulatory fit encourages greater interaction. Further research might focus on three areas. First, whether this applies generally in the environmental sector (as Todermann’s research implied). Second, as Facebook naturally has a promotional frame, whether this applies beyond that immediate context. And third, whether this promotion focus has an effect on donations, as well as interaction, which was outside the scope of our study but seems a promising hypothesis."
    — 

    Will Headley, Tom Ewing, Alain Samson on Greenpeace. Brainjuicer. “Polar opposites: Using prevention and promotion focus to optimise communications" warc (sub req’d)

    Oh, this is up? Cool! This was for a conference paper (for a conference which then wasn’t doing papers so I feared it would end up in limbo) so I get to talk all fancy like about “the scope of our study”.

    Will and Alain did the heavy practical and theoretical lifting here, yours truly just hammered away at the keys until a paper came out. But it’s quite an interesting study about regulatory fit and charity work.

    (Source: peterspear)

     
  2. giancarlovolpe:

    A little behind the scenes look of the early stages of Green Lantern the Animated Series.

    My eternal gratitude to everyone who helped prove the doubters wrong.

    (via aintgotnoladytronblues)

     

  3. "

    Look at T4 [on Channel 4] – it went away, now there is very little youth programming going on. BBC3 was something that … of course there was the odd questionable title, as there is with any channel, but it was really specifically targeted at making documentaries for young people.

    It was educating them, nurturing them, saying you are important, we are gifting you with knowledge that will arm you in later life. We are not doing that, we are expecting them to find it for themselves and everything is online now. Everyone is becoming very separated in the next generation, chatting on Facebook and Twitter. They are becoming isolated.

    "
    — 

    That’s Jameela Jamil, talking about the closing of BBC3 in the UK. I’ve no real experience of the channel, and so no real opinion about whether or not it’s a loss, but the idea of a generation being “abandoned” to the Internet is something that sticks in my head — I’m not sure whether or not I agree with the premise, or even if the idea that the Internet is less suited to educate people on life than television, but it sticks inside nonetheless, poking and prodding towards a question I haven’t managed to form yet. (via graemem)

    This is the flipside of defining a generation as “digital natives” who are “constantly connected”. It gives you an excuse to ditch them in traditional media.

    (While pampering 30-something and 40-something nostalgists: it’s no accident that when the BBC talked about closing down 6Music a couple of years ago, the cry “GET RID OF BBC3 INSTEAD” went up. Mostly, of course, on social media, where people my age are WAY more ‘influential’ than the teens and 20somethings we commentate on. Not saying they should have closed down 6 Music either, the people need their Supergrass B-Sides and all that. It was just telling.)

     

  4. Emergent Optimisation

    To understand this post you need to look at this other post I just reblogged. So open that in a new tab.

    That post is a nested reblog thread. One of the things people really hate about Tumblr is nested reblog threads – they are ugly and clunky and hard to read. What could possibly be good about them?

    Read More

     
  5. keep-calm-and-read-fanfic:

    winchester-kelly:

    badgerdash-cumberquat:

    the—superwholockian:

    twistedthicket1:

    trypophobic-canine:

    perks-of-being-chinese:

    heroscafe:

    everyonesfavoriteging:

    my-weeping-angel:

    eatsleepcrap:

    syd224:

    eatsleepcrap:

    wincherlockedintardis:

    even with those four numbers there are countless possible combinations good luck with figuring out which one is the right one you punk

    *straightens calculator*

    It’s pretty likely that it’s a four digit number, and as there are four digits chosen there, that means that there cannot be any repetition. This mean that there are:

    n!/(n-4)! possible orders. As ‘n’ is 4 (number of digits available). 4!/0! which becomes 4x3x2x1/1 which simplifies to 24. That means that there are 24 possible combinations of codes. This would take you about two or three minutes to input all possible codes.

    Unless an alarm goes off if you don’t get it right in 3 tries

    *straightens calculator again*

    Kick the fucking door in

    well ‘technically’ the code is most likley 1970. statistically, a majority of people, when told to choose a 4 digit code will choose their birth year. and this key pad is obviously a few years old to put it nicely, thats most likley it. 

    some sherlock holmes shit just went down over here

    image

    No, no, no. Don’t base your deductions of psychology. Let’s talk chemistry. When you first press a button, there’s more of the natural oils on your skin, and therefore it wears down the numbers on the keys faster. Obviously 0 is the first one, then. Try 0791 first.

    image

    Sherlock out.

    woah.

    it got better

    and this is why the sherlock fandom could either rule the world or end it….

    Close, but not quite, I think. People will almost always choose a number they can remember. What’s memorable about 0791? Try 0719 - a birthday, 19th of July. That is more likely.

    Those deductions are great and all, but unnecessary.

    The light is green.

    The door is already open.

    And that’s why we have a John Watson.

    This is probably my favourite post to ever come out of this fandom. 

    (via stupidpichu99)

     

  6. For once I get to break with tradition and link my latest entry in my #1 reviews blog from Blackbeard rather than my usual Tumblr - because the front half of this piece is a potted history of branding in the 90s and 00s and the problems with it.

     
  7. bmichael:

    My #EXTREME cookie-flavored protein bar gets me.

    Good grief.

     

  8. toffeemilkshake:

    alexwhines:

    At this point, you’ve probably already heard that the new FIveThirtyEight has some problems. It seems a little unsporting to pile on, but if Nate Silver is gonna be a dick, I’d like to make a nomination for FiveThirtyEight’s worst piece yet.

    The piece, a blog post by Mona Chalabi, is…

    So, when I saw Mona Chalabai was writing for the site I have to admit I a little sceptical given her work at the Guardian. I guess that wasn’t entirely unfounded.

    Interesting that the problem isn’t just misunderstanding of rap music, it’s also basic sloppiness. This is the issue with FiveThirtyEight’s collision of data analysis and the rapid-content multiple-update model: good analysis takes time, particularly if (as here) you have to define your variables and outputs from the off. If you don’t have time - and running a fast-content site means you don’t - the output suffers.

    This is not news - in particular, anyone who’s worked in the subjective-analysis biz - criticism, op-eds, and the political analysis that Nate Silver so despises - knows the corners that get cut when speed to publish is the main or only thing that matters, rather than just one important factor. Thinking takes time, and analysis (both pre AND post data collection) is thinking. The hubris is to imagine that because data analysis is a numbers game that this somehow doesn’t apply - that the “objectivity” (ha) of quant analysis speeds things up.

    Maybe it does - IF you know your data sets very well and the analysis is basically similar. If you’re working on a tracker, in other words. And polling and baseball data - what Silver made his reputation on - are pretty much the ultimate trackers. So the problem of FiveThirtyEight is the problem of what happens when tracker analysts start trying to deal with ad hoc data sets - like this rap one they’ve made up - and don’t take into account something as astonishingly basic as songs having more than one MC or instrumental breaks(!).

     
  9. murketing:

    This Is a Generic Brand Video (by Dissolve Footage)

    This Is a Generic Brand Video is a generic brand video of “This Is a Generic Brand Video,” written by Kendra Eash for McSweeney’s Internet Tendency. No surprise, it’s made entirely with stock footage. All video clips used are from dissolve.com. See and license them here: http://www.dissolve.com/generic

    The original piece is published on McSweeney’s: http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/this-is-a-generic-brand-video

    First: This video is definitely worth watching. It’s an incredibly effective send-up of generic b.s. advertising etc. etc., made entirely of actual stock footage. (As indicated, the voiceover is from this wonderful McSweeney’s piece by Kendra Eash.)

    Second: If I understand correctly, it was made by a company that licenses stock footage. In other words — it’s an ad.

     
     

  10. It’s conference write-up time. It’s 1700 words about the Market Research Society event this week..

    I appreciate this is quite a few words, so the “6 lessons” are, very roughly.

    1. Do more split testing, and if you can’t, at least think like a split tester sometimes.

    2. But also, price big risky ideas into yr innovation “funnel” or whatever you’re calling it. (This one was a bit vague, I just liked Tim Harford’s way of framing it so I gave it its own point).

    3. Storytelling is a false friend to consumer and researcher alike, and even for marketers it’s a lot more dangerous than it looks.

    4. Don’t be bounced into crap decisions just because you want approval from people who aren’t going to like you anyway. (And don’t stick to your guns just because you hate the people disliking you - basically, if somebody’s angry with your company, do not trust your own reaction: get other opinions).

    5. If you want to reach “hard to research” people, recruit some as fellow researchers not just as participants (this is NOT a new approach at all, but there was a good case study).

    6. And to be honest, make improved diversity in the business a priority anyway, because it’ll make the whole industry better.

    I have a ton of other notes, too - though not at all evenly distributed from the various sessions.