The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.

The future of publishing. If I had any concrete idea of where it was headed, I would sleep better at night. We're living in a rapidly changing world (come to think of it - has anyone ever said, "The times I live in are pretty mellow. Not a lot happening."?), where the continued advancement of technology alters the landscape we inhabit every day. Reading Groundswell has helped lower my panic level about how quickly technology changes by reminding the reader to focus on the relationships underlying this technology. And I think that's an important lesson to remember. The face of publishing may alter completely within the next ten years, but the foundation will remain: people will want to read, people will want to write, and people will want to facilitate this exchange. There is comfort in that thought. The avenues for reading, writing, and publishing will undoubtedly change, and it will be vital to stay on top of these changes, but the end result is the same.

I think the online world of publishing will, like everything else online, continue to grow, as companies work to rival Amazon's business plan. More authors will choose to self-publish as POD technology becomes less expensive, more pervasive, and easier to use - publishers will do the same. Small presses will perhaps flourish in the future. They're small enough to have the nimbleness to accept and incorporate new technologies that larger publishers don't have. They can also build rapport with local communities and support authors on a more personal level that will encourage both authors and buyers to support them. This is already happening now, but as we progress, I see the big-time publishers increasingly becoming lumbering giants, staggering along in the wake of those who can keep up (if the majority of their websites is any indication).

E-books are definitely the wave of the future (a tear), but printed works will never go out of fashion (hurray!). Reaching consumers (marketing) will be moved almost entirely online, as that is where almost everyone is, or will be. Manipulating online media tools appropriately will be integral to any successful publishing enterprise.

We are becoming a SuperOnline culture, and I don't see this changing anytime soon. We will increasingly communicate, read, and buy on our computers. This doesn't necessarily have an adverse affect on "literature" and "culture." There will always be innovators, creators, thinkers. Where technology and books are concerned, they become evermore intermingled.

ARGs: The future of marketing?

So I was reading Maxim the other day - naturally - and ran across an interesting article, titled "Mind Control, Inc.: How a new form of marketing that blurs fact and fiction is changing the rules - for better or worse." This new(ish) form of marketing consists of ARGs: alternate reality games. It started, unofficially, with The Blair Witch Project and became more mainstream with Steven Spielberg's AI. ARGs are marketing campaigns designed to pique the interest of people through cryptic clues, a mystery to solve, on the internet and in the real world. The article describes them as "[...]a new strategy, one that combines viral videos, guerrilla hype, performance art, and scavenger hunts."

I've never heard about this marketing technique, although I remember when everyone wondered if The Blair Witch Project was based in reality or not. It' s one of the first films to become insanely successful based on the strength of its online marketing campaign - which blurred the lines between fantasy and reality. Viewers weren't really sure what they were getting into, or where they were headed, or even why. Entering the Labyrinth (or Down the Rabbit Hole, if you will). Nowadays, television shows like Heroes and Lost have ARG marketing campaigns on the internet, as do video games like Doom and Halo 2. Movies like The Dark Knight use them. Musical groups like NIN use them.

I had no idea this was such a prevalent marketing strategy, but it seems to be effective. People like to be a part of something new and strange, especially on the Web; and everyone likes a good mystery. It's a great way to involve people on a different, deeper level than, say, the relative supeficiality of purchasing a movie ticket or CD based on personal taste or reviews; they become personally involved in the narrative and feel that they helped shape the success of a given project. It makes people feel smart, clued-in, connected, to put the puzzle pieces together themselves.

Some people find ARGs dangerous for those very reasons: Tom Hespos, prez of Underscore Marketing says "I get concerned when people don't realize it's a game from the get-go . . . You run into issues of authenticity and brand backlash when people realize they've been led on a wild goose chase." Others think that ARGs are the future of marketing, and I have to say, I see their point. In today's society of reduced attention spans and multi-media dexterity, having a marketing campaign that engages consumers on several levels, that requires their active participation and appeals to their sense of being ahead of the curve, is perhaps necessary in order to be a success.

I wonder what Ooligan could do to take advantage of this type of marketing. The campaigns I mentioned earlier in this post all had price tags of several million dollars. Would it be possible to adapt this model to a much smaller sphere? Would it take too much time, energy, and coordination? There must be a way to engage the potential reader through more than the average online resources. Even if it does feel a bit like playing The Pied Piper.

Has anyone else read much about ARGs? They're new to me.