PGreenblog

Coming to a Neural Cortex Near You

This one is just out of....well, let me not get ahead of myself.

A company who for the moment shall remain nameless (don't peek below), both has patents and applied for another patent that would create a "playback system" that bypasses the eyes and the ears. For those interested, the accepted patents are named and numbered "Method and System for Generating Sensory Data onto the Human Neural Cortex (patent nos. 6,536,440 and 6,729,337) and the patent application is called and numbered, "Scanning Method for Applying Ultrasonic Acoustic Data to the Human Neural Cortex" (application number 20040267118).

The concept is amazing. It is a theoretically non-invasive way of creating sensory impressions (meaning in this case vision (video) and sound including full blown stereo or 5.1 surround sound separation) across the neural cortex of the brain.

The neural cortex a.k.a. the cerebral cortex is the area of the brain that's responsible for the thought, reasoning and sensation, voluntary muscle movement, and memory. In other words the parts of the brain that were affected in the study of the ALCS I mentioned in this blog entry a few days ago. The implications of these are staggering for the neuromedical field, though that's hardly why the patents were filed. But imagine if you could provide the sensory experiences without the eyes and ears being the direct pipelines for sight and hearing? Instead, sight and sound would be transmitted by firing "pulsed ultrasonic signals that modify the firing rate of neural tissue" meaning the auditory and visual are reproduced directly on the neural cortex. What does that say for the way it could help the blind and/or deaf? Wow.

But the purpose of it is more mundane. The idea is to show movies and listen to music that would be directly delivered to your head in 20/20 vision and with perfect hearing.

The implications of that are less staggering than the medical ones, but they become outright freaky (to me in a sort of "amusing if it weren't so not funny" kind of way) when you hear who owns the patents and the application.

The Kicker

Sony.

Yes, my all time favorite, "I Can't Dance That's Why I'm With the Band" customer unfriendly company, Sony, is the owner of the patents. That's the same Sony that does everything for itself. That embraces the concept of "customer as vermin." The same Sony that charges a premium for all its proprietary formats that it insists that you use if you want to own a Sony product. The same Sony that has a highly developed engineering culture - which makes great hardware - but I don't really think I would be comfortable with them shooting images and sound across my cerebral cortex. My very own brain stem.

When you know its Sony who owns these patents, it creates a whole new meaning for "rootkit" doesn't it? Imagine if they do this and follow the same strategy as they did with the rootkits that the Sony CDs installed on your PC unbeknownst to you that created such an incredible stink last fall because of the damage they did when you tried to disable or remove them.

Putting Out the Neural Fire: The Movie

Here's what I would envision the scenario looking like.

Sony releases the PSP (Patented Sensory Projection) device. With it, you can watch movies priced 250% over a DVD and 50% over a UMD, in the SNM (Sony Neural Media) proprietary format. But unbeknownst to you, by watching an SNM movie, the PSP will install a cerebral "root kit" which, if you attempt to stop watching the SNM movie before its conclusion, will remove your ability to voluntarily move your muscles. If you then attempt to disable or remove the cerebral root kit itself, it will nuke your neural cortex a.k.a. your "operating system."

Even though I'm only speculating, the patents are real enough. I can't wait to see what Sony does with it.

The Shape of Things to Come?

About 28 years ago, (yes, I AM that old!!) there was this movie called "Wild in the Streets" which was about a rock star named Max Frost and his band the Troopers. It starred Christopher Jones, Shelly Winters, Hal Holbrook, and others and was a tale about how a rock star under 35 manages to manipulate his way through 'groovy young folks' by doing these dramatic, pyrotechnic, emotionally manipulative rock concerts where he railed against the old people (over 35). He then gets elected President of the U.S. and puts anyone over 35 in concentration camps where they are fed LSD all day and are kept "happy." Actually, a hit song "Shape of Things to Come" came from that actually climbing to #22 on the Billboard charts in 1968.

When you watched this movie, you thought - Leni Riefenstal and the Nazi "Nuremburg Rallies"

Before I get into why this has ANYTHING to do with CRM and the customer experience, one weird aside. I was watching TV the other day and I saw this commercial for Target and the THEME SONG was "Shape of Things to Come." Just totally bizarre as you'll see in not too long.

Green Day's "Shape of Things to Come?"

First a preface. I LOVE Green Day. They are one of my favorite groups (though not in the top 9 as you saw the other day). I think they are fantastic.

Because I do, I went out and bought their new CD/DVD combo album "Bullet in A Bible" and of course watched them do their thing on the DVD during their June 2005 two-night run at Milton Keynes National Bowl in England. It was amazing, but the first thing I thought of while watching them sing "American Idiot" was "Max Frost and The Troopers" and "Shape of Things to Come" (not related to the Target commercial). Their use of pyrotechnics, heart stopping chords to end a song so that the emotions you feel are raw and oceanic. Explosions, fire, and their rabble rousing attacks on the "rednecks across the pond" and their announcement that the UK was going to be their new home, ad infinitum.

Then, I thought, uh, oh, I'm now over 35!!"

It got me to thinking because I just witnessed masterful crowd manipulation at its "finest." I didn't mind. I said I loved Green Day and while I knew they were manipulating the crowd, I knew I was watching a show, not a Nazi rally. But it made me think about the "customer experience" and how much is manipulation and how much should be evocation.

Manipulation v. Evocation: Round 1

One of the cardinal rules of mapping the customer experience is to ask questions that trigger an answer, not guide the customer to an answer. But how thin is the red line here (did it again. ANOTHER movie reference) between a truly successful "evocation" of the emotions mixed with the interaction or a manipulation? If you're designing the customer experience - how much of that is manipulation? Probably all of it, really...or not? I'm not sure which is why I'm putting this out here.

Manipulation v. Evocation: Round 2

Ultimately, it seems that the difference is who controls the experience. If I am in control of my own experience than what the business does is evoke a response to some event or interaction. If I'm not and thus am led to the response, then it is manipulation. While this might seem to be an abstract philosophical issue, it is actually not that. It is a profoundly affecting business issue.

Manipulation v. Evocation: Round 3

Let's make it personal. Would you rather be told what to do without a choice or manuevered into doing something that you didn't want to OR would you rather do something that you wanted to do or made a choice about how you did something? In fact, lets drill down more.

You are told that you have to lay off 35 people or you'll be fired. You don't know much about how well they are doing their jobs or even the reasons that they are being let go, but you know its you or them. Which do you choose? OR You've decided that 35 people have to be laid off because they are not performing well and not earning their paychecks. You have the information you need to make the decision on which 35. Neither of the scenarios is comfortable but in the first one, you don't have sufficient information to make a choice on the 35. You're being manipulated into doing it because your choices are you or them. In the second, you're making the decision based on sufficient information to understand who should be let go and why and though uncomfortable, you're not manipulated into it. So neither is a comfortable thing, but how you feel about it are two entirely different things as a result of whether or not you've been manipulated or the decision is one under your control. N'est ce pas? Or am I being stupid?

Manipulation v. Evocation: Round 5

Ever been manipulated into doing something unwittingly and then figured it out? How does that make you feel, sucker?

Manipulation v. Evocation: Round 6

Look at the S/M/A International Design Group's mission statement:

We achieve our targeted goals by using the appropriate traffic patterns, manipulation of attention; our store design styles and our merchandising techniques, manipulation of the mind; and most importantly, our lighting design techniques, manipulation of the eyes, among others. We believe that, a carefully planned and executed store design with a focus on the above, can and does make a difference between a successful retail store and a mediocre one!

This company won the DDI (Display & Design Ideas Magazine) award for "Top Retail Design Firm" for 2003, 2004, 2005. So a company that believes in the conscious manipulation of the mind, attention and the eyes, wins design awards year in and year out.

Manipulation v. Evocation: Round 7

Is there a moral and ethical issue here? Or is it a business design issue? For example, everyone lauds Disney for their remarkable efforts at creating a customer experience designed to...what? Evoke a "wow!" or manipulate an emotional response? I love Mickey and Donald and Goofy and Pluto and Minnie and Daisy and Dumbo and Kirk Russell but does it make me buy Disney stuff? If I was younger, sure it would. Is that a bad thing? Not really. They have a business reason for creating the experience and that is to get me to repeatedly purchase their goods and services and to convince my friends to do likewise. That's why businesses look at the idea of a customer experience in the first place.

Manipulation v. Evocation: Round 8

One of my clients (my favorite actually) is David's Bridal. They did a customer mapping session which was exceptionally powerful and intelligent and in the interviews were very careful not to manipulate/guide the answers of the customers they interviewed but instead evoked a response that was fresh, honest and ultimately quite powerful in knowing how the customer really thought. Great job. Best I ever saw actually. Now, here's the question? If they alter/redesign the customer's experience based on their results are they manipulating or simply making things better or both? All customer experience design is manipulative to a large degree. The issue is how much control you give the customer in determining what they do to personalize that experience based on your new design, isn't it?

Manipulation v. Evocation: Round 9

Or is it?

Manipulation v. Evocation: Final Round

You tell me. Is this manipulation a bad thing? An immoral or unethical one? A neutral thing? A good thing? What's the difference between manipulation and evocation in an environment that calls for improving the customer experience? Is it how much control the customer has over his/her actions? I haven't solved this which is why I'm bringing this up and yet it seems to make a difference in how you both design the experience and how you think about the business. So BIG PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUE and TOUGH BUSINESS ISSUE. Abstract but has concrete implications. And I don't know the answer yet. Help me out here with your thinking.

The purse for the fight's best punch from you? A $25.00 Amazon gift certificate.