Web stars speak
continued / Interview with Lance Arthur
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
/ How
did you get involved in cross-media publishing?
I was writing things for myself on my own site and never considered that
anyone else would give care about my words. The Web provided a window for
me to throw things out of. I never really wanted anyone looking in the other
way, I wanted to plaster the glass with my writing.
My friend Alexis Massie had just come back from San Francisco where she'd
run into a guy working at the offices of Wired named Derek Powazek. Derek
had an idea for a Web site called the fray that would feature first-person
true stories that he would design around to present a sort of interactive
conversation based around the story. She said I should submit something
to him and I resisted for a long time because I didn't want to be rejected.
Besides, I had my own Web site where I could write anything I wanted to,
why submit to another site? But she kept after me and I finally did do it
and he published my piece and that single action suddenly opened up this
whole new world for me.
I had always assumed that writing for others meant writing their way, giving
up some portion of what you think, surrendering your writing uniqueness
to conform to how writers write. I wasn't a writer, I didn't consider what
I did - writing. But I learned that the power of voice in writing was actually
what others truly valued. Derek, in particular, wanted to hear my voice
in my stories. It sort of gave me the courage to go ahead and write the
way I wanted to and I started submitting stuff all over the place. Pretty
soon, I started getting people asking me to submit stuff, which was even
weirder. Because what they wanted, mostly, were opinion pieces. And I'd
be thinking, "Well, what does my opinion count? What do I know?"
And what I discovered was that my opinion in this medium was as valid as
anyone else's. All anyone was ever giving, even the so-called experts, was
an opinion. And I had an opinion, and I could express it fairly well, and
if I needed facts to back it up I was sitting on the frigging Web, right?
Type in a keyword and go explore and investigate and gather the facts you
need. Check your sources, verify, express your opinion.... Ta da! Instant
pundit!
If you write well, you're 90% there. A talent with words is more valuable
than being right. Amazing, but true.
/ What
makes a good team?
A sense of humor is vital. Something is going to happen, and if you aren't
getting along you need to be able to joke about it. I've heard it said that
you don't need to get along with your co-workers, but I think that's bull....
A team is a team, you need to get along with each other. If you think someone
else is stupid or an ass, the team isn't going to work.
Also, it's important to recognize that everyone has responsibilities and
talents other than your own. You do not always know best. Know your role
and know where it ends.
/ Describe
what is *inspiration*.
Inspiration is 50% jealousy and 50% admiration. Jealousy plays an important
part because without it, you aren't inspired to try something. You can admire
something and walk away from it, but if you admire something and feel jealousy
regarding its beauty, or the creator's ability, or your own reaction to
it then you're inspired to go do something, make something.
Inspiration is always positive, even if the drive isn't. Many people consider
jealousy to be a negative force, but I think you can make it positive by
using it to propel your creativity.
/ Describe
what is a top-notch client.
As before, I'd say they need to convey trust and that they listen. The
best client I had, I ended up working for them because it was clear that
they knew where they were smart and they recognized where they weren't,
and that's why they wanted me. They weren't second-guessing my decisions,
they weren't looking to assign blame or hand off responsibility. They wanted
to do the best work they possibly could and their first obligation was to
the audience, not the site.
What I mean by that is that it's easy to allow the design of a site or
project, its beauty, its interactive tricks, its simplicity, to overshadow
the ultimate goal which is *not* the building of the site itself but the
*use* of the site. If you focus on the delivery date and forget everything
that comes after -- which is everything -- you can start to lose sight of
the bigger picture. You may end up concentrating on details and nuances
as a sort of war to get your way, have your "vision" be realized
when it was never your vision in the first place. You have a role to play,
but the ultimate goal is to create something the visitors will want to use,
will have pleasure using. Not just seeing, but using.
A top-notch client also recognizes that the audience is the ultimate critic.
So when you're making decisions based on what's best for the project goals
and not the site's design, they agree immediately. They take no convincing.
They know you have their best interested in mind, and their customers'.
/ How
do you protect clients from their own bad taste?
About the only way I know how to do that is to do what they ask and show
them why it's a bad idea. That way you accomplish two goals; you've satisfied
their request and made them happy, and you've managed to bill a few more
hours onto your own overhead that weren't there before. You made more money
(assuming you're billing hourly rather than project), you proved your point,
and you did as your client asked.
Another unfortunate side-effect of this may be that you discover that they
were right, and you were wrong. Sometimes it's hard to admit that, but I
always think it's better to appease than argue and, ultimately, the answer
is always the right one. If it's ugly, but it's what they want, you've doing
your job. Your job is to deliver something your customer wants. If you add
-- in writing, of course -- the drawbacks to a bad design decision then
you've also done your job. Once the site launches and the problems you knew
end up cropping up, you have a document to point to.
You don't, you point it out to them and instruct them. Protecting them,
to me, means doing just as you please as you nod to their suggestions and
ignore them. This is 100% wrong.
Firstly, you may want to work with them again. You never know where a person
ill end up after they leave the company they're at. People appreciate being
treated as smart. Validate their conclusions and opinions, then introduce
reasons why they may not be the best solutions in this case. Explain why,
document your own point of view -- document everything, just to be safe,
plus you're usually more articulate in writing than in speaking -- and do
what the client wants you to do.
Again, divorcing yourself from the designs you're selling is always a good
idea. They aren't yours. If you like, show the rejected designs in your
own portfolio with a link to the ultimate design and discuss with potential
employers how it got from your concept to production. You'll show that you're
intelligent, you listen to your client, and you're willing to compromise.
/ You
have been invited to many web related events. Can you tell us why?
I think it's because I'm funny. Seriously, there are any number of people
vastly more talented, more intelligent, more knowledgeable and with tons
more experience than I have. They're probably all a lot nicer than me as
well, come to think of it. But I'm "the funny one."
As I mentioned, I have no degree, no formal training, and not a lot to
show for the years I've spent online. But I have no qualms about saying
what I think. If you say you're an expert, you become one after a while.
I'm comfortable in front of people -- probably that acting training helps.
I'm what you call multi-talented, which means I do a lot of things well,
but nothing spectacular. I'll never be Josh Davis or Matt Owens or Auriea
Harvey. I don't try to be. But I think I speak well and present well, which
is a talent in itself. I suppose I'm not the best judge to answer this question.
Ultimately it's up to the attendees.
/ Explain
the value of peers recognition.
This will sound elitist, I'm sure, but I'm of the opinion that elitism
is a good thing. Elitism gives you something to shoot for. Why would anyone
want to be "like everyone else." When was the last time someone
said, "Oh, God, what I would give to be average!"
To put it another way, which would you rather have happen to you: You're
standing on a street corner and you spot the person who inspired you to
do whatever it is you're doing. This is the person whose talent seems preternatural
and who moves in a different circle than you, a circle you dream of one
day inhabiting. That person spots you, comes over to you and says, "I
saw that thing you did, and I thought it was great! I loved it! I wish I'd
done that!" They shake your hand, beam at you, and then you go your
separate ways. Now, in a second scenario, someone you've never seen before,
someone you wouldn't know from Adam or Eve, they come up and say the same
thing. You could call them, I suppose, a fan of yours.
You get a sense of pride from both encounters, but you'd probably be more
jazzed about your hero saying that to you than your fan. Humans are competitive
by nature, and sometimes the only person to compete against is yourself,
to make yourself better, to challenge yourself. To do that, you need something
to shoot for, a goal, a symbol, a model. To spur you to challenge yourself,
to do better, you need a reward and that can be that handshake on the street
corner, or a gold statue awarded by your peers, or a monetary reward.
Now, why is peer recognition more valuable than popular recognition? Why
is the Oscar more desired than a People's Choice Award? To be frank, people,
in general, are ignorant. It's hard for anyone not in your field to appreciate
what you went through to achieve what, on the surface, may seem very simple.
But maybe its very simplicity is why it was difficult to achieve. And your
peers will recognize this, the public won't. Again, would you rather accept
an award in a room full of strangers, or in a room full of people you admire,
people doing what you're doing? One is more meaningful than the other, and
that meaning spurs us to be better at what we do, to achieve more, to enter
the circle of the elite.
/ Is
branding an important issue online?
Extremely. Branding is a term that's thrown around a lot with derision
and bad-mouthing, but everyone likes it whether they admit it or not. Branding
is the "feeling" you get about certain products or companies,
and it can be attached to people as well. When you see the Nike swoosh or
the McDonald's arches or the name George Clooney, you have certain preconceptions
about them. You may not have those same feelings about Puma, or Burger King,
or Michael Douglas. Those preconceptions are created in the media through
the press and advertising, and that's branding. It isn't just the logo,
it's everything about that thing.
On the Web, you're in competition with literally millions of other sites.
Most of which are not in the same business as you, whatever that happens
to be. But they are all competing for the same sets of eyes. You, as a designer,
are also in competition with every other designer out there. If you want
to become a "name" designer, someone who's always at the top of
the list, you need to be cognizant of the power of branding and use it to
your advantage. How will you set yourself apart? How will you set your sites
apart? How will you integrate your client's needs into every design you
make?
You must also be mindful of your client's branding. If they don't have
any, maybe they need you to help define that for them through your design.
If they had to describe their company as a person sitting across the table
from them, what would that person look like? What would they be wearing?
What would they drink and eat? What kind of car would they drive, if any?
How would they speak, what would their vocabulary be like? When you start
defining the "person" the business is -- and that *isn't* describing
their customer, it's describing the company's personality -- you start defining
brand.
/ What
was the catalytic thought that gave birth to Glass
Dog?
I was already doing a personal site at Hurricane Electric, which I believe
is still in business. It was growing bigger and bigger as I was learning
how to make pages and use Photoshop -- actually, I was using Aldus Photostyler
at the time -- and I wanted my own domain. No one else I knew had one, I
didn't even have an idea of what it took to get one, how to set it up or
anything. All I knew is that I didn't want to be lancearthur.com because
that seemed so egotistic and sort of distasteful at the time. And also not
very creative.
On my "tilde account" I had invented a character called Glass
Dog who would rant and whine about anything and everything. The idea of
personal avatars was very prominent all over the place and I had been reading
Sherry Turkle's "Life on the Screen" about virtual relationships
and identity and decided I wanted an avatar to use to give voice to my most
honest opinions. I was, and still remain to some extent, very leery about
revealing too much about myself online. I realized the power of the Web
and the possible ramifications of publishing your thoughts and opinions
into a public space where those words could be recorded in perpetuity and
I thought that if I, perhaps, put another identity on particular thoughts
and ideas I could still publish them but lose some responsibility for them.
It made sense at the time, but I realized it was a cop-out and that if
I wanted to voice my opinion it should just be mine, I had to own it. I
think a big problem with the Web is that it welcomes anonymity too easily
and people do feel as though they can say anything without ramification,
which isn't true. But whatever, that's another discussion.
So I used the name of my avatar, which was based on the first thing I saw
when I needed a name for it -- a small glass dog I've carried with me forever
-- as my domain name. The idea of an all-consuming super corporation bent
on world domination came later and as a result of Microsoft's foray into
public advertising with its "Where Do You Want To Go Today?" campaign,
which I retitled "World Domination Now. Is That So Wrong?" and
I redesigned the site to mimic Microsoft's site at the time. That theme
has remained constant because it's a fun character to play with, the global
corporate entity trying to be serious and dominate everything while its
employees have control of the Web site and take nothing, not even itself,
seriously. That happens to be my own philosophy, of course. Never take anything
seriously.
/ Describe
what the internet means to you.
As a medium, it's the ultimate expression of the word "possible."
When you feel you have no voice, there's a place for you somewhere on the
Net, whether that's flaming your way through a newsgroup or explaining why
you think Bush is an ass... in a forum or constructing a huge virtual edifice
to self, putting up all those works of art and literature you never thought
would get out of your school binder. The Net is an unpoliced landscape of
freedom of everything.
As such, you have to learn, also, to take everything with a grain of salt.
The Net also allows people, via its doorway to public anonymity, to be their
"truest self," to let out all the vile and putrid and distasteful
things they hold inside. The sexual fetishes, the racial slurs, the blue
language and nightmarish visions can all be fed here as well. And you'll
find outlets for that, too, so it can teach you better than almost any other
thing -- TV, magazines, movies, books, pornography, what have you -- that
the vast and beautiful spectrum of human nature includes things you wish
you never knew existed and could push away from you.
But you'll also learn that you can't. The harder you tell someone to shut
up, the louder they'll scream. The more you attempt to put down the things
you don't agree with, the things that "should not be," the more
people will find outlets to get exactly that. It's an historical truism
written over and over and over. You can't put anything back once it's been
released. Laws won't work. Elections won't work. Police won't work.
And, really, what we're talking about on the Net is thought more than deed.
Images and stories of things. Once you start trying to police that, to say
"you can't think that way, that way is wrong," then where does
it stop. What else can't you think? Who's telling me what I can or can't
think? The Internet's ultimate freedom is going to break things apart. We
can already see this happening in issues of copyright and art versus pornography.
You try to shut something down, someone else will just mirror it. You shut
them down, ten more mirrors spring up. You try to shut down Napster, up
pops Gnutella. You try to shut down Banzai Kitten, suddenly you have 25
banzai kittens to contend with.
It's wonderful and maddening. It teaches you to accept, or at least tolerate,
ideas that don't agree with yours.
/ Describe
3 qualities necessary to succeed online.
A sense of humor, a willingness to release control of everything, and a
recognition of the power of words over images.
You need a sense of humor just to survive life. The Web is like a big mirror
you hold up to life. It reflects and magnifies everything. Whatever you
love or hate or fear or feel inspired by is out there, and it's been distilled
and concentrated. You can find the outlet for every fetish, stories that
will tear your heart out and so much information and lies that you won't
know which way is up. You have to take it all in with a grain of salt, and
not get too upset about anything.
When you put yourself on the Web, you have to concede control over those
pieces. People will steal from you, or borrow from you if you prefer, and
reuse your words and designs and thoughts without your permission, and sometimes
against you. Realize that it's an open environment and either come to terms
with the fact that seizing control of anything once you've set it loose
on the Web is nearly impossible. You give that up to a large extent because
of the freedom we all enjoy. It backfires on you, that absence of the police
force. You can literally say or do anything you want to, mostly. It used
to be even less controlled than it is now. But it remains an environment
where "borrowing" anything from anyone is extremely easy. If you're
a corporation, you have the cash to pay a legal team to hunt down those
borrowers and demand they give everything back. If you're me, you realize
it's a losing battle and you hope there are enough good people on the Web
to countermand the bad ones. The good news is, there are.
Finally, I've made pretty pictures and I've written lots of words, and
far and away it's the power of the word that has a more lasting impact than
event the prettiest image. I think maybe it's because we still like using
our imagination. TV and movies are probably the most powerful medium to
convey emotion and idea, but on the Web, it's words.
/ What
is the single achievement that makes you most proud?
Haven't done it, yet.
/ If
there were no budget limitations - which single dream project would you
launch?
here's a project I've wanted to get off the ground for a while that's based
around communication. It would include discussion forums and first-person
articles regarding how we all communicate (or don't) but it's not only about
communication but includes examples of communication, i.e. interviews. These
would be like this one, email-based, but also audio and video interviews.
The interviews would be conducted by anyone who wanted to of anyone they
wanted to. I would also try to interview "famous" people about
mundane things, not about the projects they're doing but more about a story
they could tell or about a subject they're passionate about. Then those
streaming interviews would be mounted on the site. Streaming and storage
of media files is expensive, so I'd need a big budget.
/ Give
a one line counsel to newbies.
Try everything; never think anything is beyond your abilities. Surprise
yourself.
/ What
is your opinion of the present situation in the dotcom industry?
I think it's a case of reality slapping us in the face, frankly. How did
we ever expect most of the failed dot-coms to make any money? The dream
was that by getting into a certain area of commerce first, like selling
dog food or plants or furniture, that you could corner this new avenue of
retail and make a fortune... eventually. But no one ever asked if this *was*
a new avenue of retail and commerce. Did people want to buy furniture online?
Were people willing to wait a week to get their garden supplies, and pay
the shipping costs on top of the taxes? Why would anyone want to use a service
to get something they could already get locally by getting in their car
and driving to Walmart? Why would they be willing to wait a week to receive
a CD they can get at the mall?
Then the answer was, we'll give it to them cheaper! 30% off, 40% off, 50%
off. Free shipping! Every fourth order free! Okay, so you're enticing people
to buy online because it's cheaper, but you weren't making money in the
first place and now you just cut your bottom line in half? And this makes
business sense how?
And then they forgot that on the Web, you can always shop for the lowest
price by using MySimon or shopper.com or any number of other comparison
shopping sites, so everything becomes a commodity. You can get anything
for the lowest price without haggling or driving from store to store or
opening the yellow pages and dialing up half-a-dozen clerks who put you
on hold for 20 minutes. You can't guarantee the lowest prices anymore because
I no longer have to trust you, I can find my own lowest prices. It's a retailer's
nightmare!
So it's no wonder those sorts of sites failed left and right. The consumer
never emerged to support the business model because the business model was
insane. And the content-based Web started out by giving everything away
for free and relying on advertising. But advertising doesn't work, everyone
knows that. We turn down the sound on TV when ads come on. We deface billboards.
We resent having our highways sponsored. Why the hell would anyone think
we would suddenly enjoy advertising just because it was animated or allowed
you to play golf or some such nonsense?
So what we'll be left with is companies that already know how to do business
via delivery, like catalogs and outlet stores. They already have warehouses.
They already have inventory. They already know how to manage that business.
There are still lots of jobs for designers and IA people and coders. I think
you'll end up working for "real" companies instead of virtual
ones, is all.
/ In
your view, explain what is convergence?
Everything is becoming digital. All media. Music, television, motion pictures,
books, magazines, comic books, video games, everything. Once something is
in the digital form, what it is otherwise becomes meaningless. All you need
is a transport method and a storage method for that data, and then a database
to organize it all. So you need a screen to view it, and speakers to hear
it, and an input device to interact with it. So where we're heading is an
entertainment center, or an information center, or maybe media center is
the most apt term, that acts as the central interface for everything.
The internet becomes the transport method of choice because it's cheap,
it's everywhere and it's easy to manage. Then you need a box of some sort
to manage the connection and the traffic and the media. Some media you buy
and hold on a drive. It includes an interface with the cover and the lyrics
or details about the music or film and so on. Or, optionally, you buy a
disc for your library. Other media streams in and you don't save it. Or
you elect to save it for later viewing, like TiVo. You gain access to a
universal library of literally everything ever produced, every album, every
song, every book, ever magazine and newspaper. Maybe you pay a monthly access
fee, maybe there are premium fees associated with some of the material.
Where we are now is at a piecemeal place where we have different devices
for different media. A computer, a digital video recorder, a DVD player,
an MP3 player, and so on. At some point, all those different things disappear
and you have media players. You have a home media player, a car media player,
a portable wireless media player. They all talk to each other, all access
your media account, you can have anything anytime you want or need it.
Convergence.
/ Is
the www an international network?
If your primary language is English, then yes. That's the primary stumbling
block, I think, to a truly international Web. We don't all speak or read
the same language, so access is limited unless we produce content in a variety
of languages and are cognizant of different cultures and nationalities.
Obviously, access can be global. You can get the Web via satellite, now.
But what is there for people in China to look at?
/ Tell
us what the future (net) looks like.
You're paying for services. You're paying for access to content. You're
paying for media. You're paying. The Web tried to achieve acceptance and
garner growth by giving everything away. Now no one can sustain a presence
because no one's making money. You have to pay something, whether that's
giving away your personal information so marketers can more easily market
to you, or signing up for subscriptions, or micropayments for access to
pieces of information or entertainment, I think we'll start seeing more
and more businesses charging access fees in one form or another.
The net as transport mechanism becomes more important than what's on it.
Webcentric content disappears as it becomes integrated with other forms
of digital media. CDDB is an example of that, already. Playstation2 and
xBox are going to be broadband enabled and they are, for all intents and
purposes, small computers. xBox comes with a hard drive built-in, it'll
be an option on Playstation. Sony and Microsoft have already announced their
intentions for these game consoles to become the central point of net access
for the wired home. Sony has invested in TiVo and you can use that database
currently used for television schedules for all sorts of things, Subscribe
to onscreen magazines as well as TV shows. I would think they'd have TiVo'd
televisions before the year is out, big flat screen beauties HDTV-ready
with 1048 lines of resolution with hard drives built-in housing the TiVo
engine and you tie your cable into the back of them, subscribe to cable
broadband access, give your TV Web access, etc.
Either that or everything reverts to 1995 and the Web is nothing but a
huge clique of personal spaces abandoned by business because of its inherent
security flaws and continuous email worms. But I doubt that'll happen. The
prospects are too valuable, and they still exist. What we've seen was a
pre-emptive strike that failed. People aren't ready to change their habits
just yet, and it's less convenient instead of more.
You know what I love about Amazon? The fact that it's a store that learns
what I like. It isn't the prices, it sure isn't the waiting for delivery.
It's that it knows, more or less successfully, what I would be interested
in if I'm interested in something else. I can teach it more by rating things,
writing reviews, telling it what I already own, stuff like that. It can
keep track of my friend's birthdays, remind me when it's close and show
me what they want. It'll gift wrap for me and deliver it directly to them.
Where else but on the Web am I going to get that kind of service without
paying for a personal shopper?
The Net is bound to survive and thrive. Once we get all the delivery and
platform problems resolved -- meaning its continual failure to prove secure
and reliable (thank you, Microsoft!) -- it'll live up to its promise. Until
then, I'm going to keep using it as my playground and keep making new stuff.
There's no reason not to.
<- Previous
^
