• Two sides of an argument/book review about the value of unpaid internships in the modern workforce
• Compelling infographics on voice recognition applications, inspired by the launch of the iPhone 4S
• Scott Adams (Dilbert) on creativity, and the stifling thereof
• A press release for an academic article on learning while sleeping
• We’ve posted several entries about publishers moving content online, but here are some folks who are moving in the opposite direction
• On confidence
• The End of the Future
• “Creative Class” around the globe
• There is no evidence supporting auditory and visual learning…(some psychologists say…)
• The back story on Lorem Ipsum
• Tumblr on the up and up

The sudden declaration from a panel of nine septuagenarians about the validity of video games as an art form is not a singular turning point in our cultural relationship with video games, but it is as good an excuse as any to look at how the debate has evolved. Here a couple of interesting perspectives:

• Seth Schiesel writing for the New York Times suggests that video games need to “grow up” and that their designation as art has imbued them with a duty to contribute to society.
• Not long ago, Roger Ebert was excoriated by gamers everywhere after issuing his thoughts on the matter in a succinctly titled blog post, “Video games can never be art.” He later conceded to the angry gamers on his front lawn in a post with an equally efficient title: “Why video games are indeed Art.”
• There are indie game designers who have been using video game design as artistic expression. Here’s a profile from Esquire that focuses on the work of Jason Rohrer, an independent game designer who makes games that make you think as opposed to react.
• In 2006, Chuck Klosterman wondered why no one was writing about the artistic and cultural implications of video games.
• And finally a relatively new site that does just that.

I’ve created a version from the W5 twitter feed and it’s an easy way to browse all the stuff I miss during the day.

Since everyone else seems to be talking about this spot, I figured I’d throw my two cents in. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s simple…Tiger stares into camera. Tiger’s dead father provides the voiceover. Cameras flash. Simple.

Most of the comments I’m seeing are critical, to say the least. Take this New York Times article:

“Did you learn anything?” Earl Woods asks. A valuable question, and one that his son has attempted to answer in his no-questions news conference in February; his brief interviews with ESPN and the Golf Channel last month; and his pre-Masters news conference on Monday.

But the answer to the father’s question appears to be that serial philandering and addiction rehab can be positioned as a commodity — and that you can roll it out in phases leading to the Nike amendment to the 12 steps: a TV commercial.

Personally, I like the spot. It’s an apology, a glimpse into Tiger’s conscience, and a return to the spotlight all rolled into one. When I read the criticism, I have to wonder what people expected. Short of keeping one of their marquee endorsers on the bench, or cutting him loose altogether, this was the only thing Nike could do.

Nike frames him as the fallen hero. Anything else would have been an outrage.

This week two very different organizations’ policies about participant depictions of their events were heavily discussed in the news: The Burning Man Festival and the SEC Conference. For different reasons (one concerned about privacy & control, the other about profit and partners like ESPN), each of these entities are essentially saying that they might actually own your recollections and stories about their events.

Many brands are beginning to wade into the social media space and are wondering how best to adopt social media and interact with consumers in a new way.  I would argue that these two examples illustrate the worst in social media policy. The key is to allow consumers, participants, people to have the conversation they’re going to have anyway:

• If it’s positive for your brand or event, leverage it and try to ride the wave of good will to help promote.
• If the attention is negative, do what you can to learn from the message being spread and correct the problem. Often proactive approaches create enough goodwill to turn the PR problems around.

The great thing about social media is that more and more people are getting the chance to participate and tell their stories. From a research and branding perspective, it opens a whole new insight into consumer behavior and attitudes. Attempting to control the conversation, regardless of the motive, will only backfire.

What’s interesting is that while this is going on, the news breaks that Facebook has purchased Friend Feed, the site designed to share your entire interwebs life with your friends. The interesting thing about Friend Feed is that it’s always seemed much more powerful and nicer looking than Twitter but not as widely adopted. It will be interesting to see how this acquisition unfolds and what it means to both services.

Interestingly enough, Friend Feed users are already complaining about the acquisition, just hours after it has been announced. Here’s hoping that Facebook will bring more users to FriendFeed and not just cannibalize its features into their own site.

Investing attention and energy in these issues has helped in my work life this year as well, as we’ve seen an increase in interest for marketing research and strategic guidance for products and services in the green business realm.  We’re always looking for new information sources – let us know if you have any “green business” recommendations!

I’ve had quite enough of the coverage of Michael Jackson’t passing, but this little blog post by John Quelch for the Harvard Business Review is great.

As was seen in the wake of Michael Jackson’s death, Twitter has become the new go-to place for news. It was one of the first to report Jackson’s death, it was correct, and it was significantly faster than most of the main news sources. So what’s the problem with this? Well according to Twitter, Rick Astley, Britney Spears, Natalie Portman, and Jeff Goldblum are all dead.  Clearly, this is not true.

It seems that people are more concerned with obtaining information quickly than worrying about the validity of the content. What people are forgetting is that, despite delivering compelling hearsay, Twitter is not a legitimate news source.

Perhaps Twitter’s only positive affect on the news industry has been restoring faith in fact-based news reporting of the New York Times, CNN and Fox News. Still, it is a shame that it’s now the job of reputable news sources to clean up Twitter’s mess.

As newspapers shut down and once-serious news organizations become about ratings and profit, it may be years before we understand what this does to our democracy or even informed consumerism.  All of this doom and gloom for the news industry reminded me of a great plan by Steve Brill that I read earlier this year. Maybe it’s time we started to pay for information like we used to in order to ensure that IMDB doesn’t become the most reliable news and information source.