… in name only, mind you.

2010: A new year, a new decade. It’s also an opportunity for us to eschew some of the vocabulary that has rotted since it attached itself to the lexicon of the industry over the last few years. We’re all painfully aware of some of the offending terms and phrases. “2.0″, “Smartphone”, “Twitter/Facebook/Google” (as verbs instead of nouns), … and my least favourite of the bunch…

Slap this term onto just about any product and you’re guaranteed to increase its [sales] appeal. Back when I worked in retail, I used to joke with my co-workers about adding the term “digital” to certain items just to see what would happen (we sold recreation/games related items at the time – pool tables, board games and such). People responded to it then, when it largely applied to products. People still respond to it now, as the term has spread like a virus to describe just about anything. You can’t have HDTV unless you have a “digital” cable box. Most billboards are being replaced by “digital” signs. Telcos boast about running their services on “digital high-speed networks” (at least they do north of the border). In fact, the term even defines the industry that I have been a part of for the last 9 years; “Digital” Marketing.

The following is (by and large) the accepted dictionary definition of the term “digital”:

1: (adj) digital (displaying numbers rather than scale positions) “digital clock”; “digital readout”
1: (adj) digital (relating to or performed with the fingers) “digital examination”
1: (adj) digital (of a circuit or device that represents magnitudes in digits) “digital computer”

Going by those definitions one can see that there is, at best, a tenuous connection between the term and how it is applied in common usage. For most, the term digital has come to mean something similar to the following:

“Anything to do with modern technology, gadgetry, computers, circuits, sci-fi, fast cars, outer space, and shiny things.”

Truth be told, this is still how I communicate all that is digital to some members of my family that are … less “with it”, but that’s both for their own good and my own sanity. I digress.

There is an argument to be made for the fact that “digital” (by definition #3 anyways) does in fact describe the mechanism that drives a LOT of the products and services we use. Pulses of electrons – 1′s and 0′s – provide the core syntax of the binary language, and it is this language that was first described as being digital. Thus, any bit of technology that made use of that language also had the unfortunate privilege of being described as such.

It’s time to stop. 1n 2010, using the term “digital” to increase the selling power of anything makes about as much sense as extolling the liquid properties of water. In fact, I would further suggest that if that’s the only thing you can think of to make your widget stand out from the rest, it’s probably not worth purchasing in the first place.

So, following by example, from now on AppTheta will no longer carry the Digital bit in its by-line. I promise to give the associated image a proper edit when I’m in front of a machine that sports something a tad more functional than MSPaint.

From Wikipedia:

LiveJournal was started on April 15, 1999 by Brad Fitzpatrick as a way of keeping his high school friends updated on his activities.

Today, some 10 years later, it boasts some 10 million users (with the usual percentage of duplicate/inactive accounts being taken into consideration). It’s an established platform with a rich community, and a feature set that lets you choose your level of involvement. I remember when it was released, it wasn’t met with an incredible amount of fanfare, but it got enough attention to grow into a pretty sustainable organization. It played in a space with few competitors, each of whom managed to carve out their own niche in the marketplace. It predates MySpace, Bebo, Orkut, and many of the other global players in its space.

There aren’t that many celebrities with LJ accounts (I’m informed that Dave Coulier may have had one at one point, but he’s the most *ahem* famous one that I’ve heard of). I’ve never heard of it making the news. In fact I think it’s safe to say that there just aren’t that many people that know about this service and it’s lovable, pants-eating mascot.

Enter another mascot. Except this time it’s not a goat. It’s an unassuming little blue bird that represents the most talked about phenomenon in social media since Facebook and MySpace. Just this past week, the battle over who was to be crowned the “Twitter King” took place. I’m not sure who won that battle aside from Twitter itself, which got more free publicity than they could have afforded on their own. Which brings up another point; Twitter has no business model, or at least not one that’s apparent anyways (they’re largely funded by venture capital).

What’s more, is that Twitter does less than LiveJournal. Much less in fact. It’s limit of 140 characters per post aside, if you actually look at what Twitter does, it’s hard to fathom why this thing has soaked up so much of the limelight. Well, maybe it’s worth asking other Twitter users just why this thing is so useful. The Twitter site features a rotating set of testimonials that should shed some light on the issue:

“If you aren’t familiar with Twitter, it is one of those things, like MySpace, that sounds totally ridiculous and stupid when you first hear about it. But once you start using it, you realize how much fun it is.” – Eric Nuzum, Author of The Dead Travel Fast

“Twitter is the first thing on the web that I’ve been excited about in ages.” – Jason Kottke, Blogger

“Incredibly useful.” – Wired

“When I first started doing it, I thought, ‘geez, not another website to worry about updating and checking’, but now I’m glad I did it.” – point_chevalier, livejournaller

… Alright. So I’m gathering that its immediate benefit is unclear, but it’s fun, “incredibly useful” to all of Wired, and exciting? Further, the point of testimony from the apparent LJ convert “point_chevalier” seems questionable at best. There’s got to be something more to this. I mean, if the US Prez and Britney Spears are on the trolley, then surely I’m missing something no?

Perhaps it’s got some indefinable charm. Something that’s uniquely Twitteresque. … Something that Pownce and Identica don’t?

Now, those who know me often suggest that I’m a naysayer when it comes to new technology like this, but that’s not entirely true in this case. Firstly, it’s not new. The technology has been employed in the past to do exactly what Twitter is doing. And secondly, it’s not that I’m saying Twitter is bad per se. I’m just trying to understand exactly why it’s been the one to receive so much attention when it really isn’t any different from existing platforms.

For the record, I’m neither a “Tweeter” nor do I have an actual LJ account. It’s just not my particular brand of vodka.

I am now going to have a sandwich. Ham and Swiss on white. I may also have a drink. Or not. Stay tuned for more.

I figure the first post on this blog should explain the name, which in turn should give readers a sense of what it’s all about. In the 1998 film Pi written and directed by Darren Aronofsky, protagonist Max Cohen is seen sitting in a cafe explaining to onlooker Lenny Myer that when you divide each successive number in the Fibonacci sequence into one another, the result “approaches Theta.” He then explains that Theta is a Greek symbol representing one of the key numbers in mathematics linked to The Golden Ratio, a mysterious and profound concept that manifests itself across several aspects of our Universe.

What’s interesting is that (like many ideas derived from the movies) this is only partially true. In actuality, the symbol Phi is more closely linked to this concept than Theta. But unless you’re either versed in mathematics or take the interest to research it further (the latter applies to me), you’d be among those confidently distributing “the Theta hypothesis” at your next dinner party.

What I’ve realized is that there are a lot of similarities to this albeit unintended deception in the world of Digital Marketing, a world that I’ve been a part of for the last several years. At some point, we’ve all met a Max Cohen who attempts to explain a concept like Online Segmentation or CPM ad campaigns, but fails to do so because of errors in communication or what have you. We’ve all been in Lenny’s shoes, blindly adopting the explanation and treating it as gospel. In fact as far as the world of Digital Marketing is concerned, I’d wager that there are thousands of Theta hypotheses out there, influencing corporate decisions and consumer behavior.

The important question doesn’t really have to do with the perceived “wrongness” of such hypotheses though. I think there’s a lot more value in examining the responses that are generated as a result. Let’s look at the recent atmosphere surrounding two social networking darlings. Facebook has been receiving seriously negative feedback in light of its new layout, whereas Twitter is positioning itself to be the next emerging giant in the marketplace. Should Facebook focus on figuring out “what went wrong”, in order to self-correct? Should they primarily try to understand what Twitter is doing correctly that’s driving their success? Or is there more value in evaluating the landscape for what it is; constantly in flux. It could be that by the time they’ve re-evaluated their Theta hypothesis and executed a new strategy, consumers will have moved on, even beyond Twitter, to the next greatest thing.

The over-arching theme for this blog involves looking at Digital Marketing from that perspective. Rather than wrestling with the semantic innards of concepts like Social Networks, Microsite Campaigns, Mobile Subscriber Turnover and the like, I’ll be discussing how those concepts drive responses and stimulate change (if any) in an industry that refuses to remain static and easily understood.

There’s also the fact that “Approaching Phi” was a rather unwieldy blog name. But I digress.

Enjoy.