This was originally published as an item in Issue 005 of the designspun email newsletter.

Great art can be born out of great unrest. Anti-government, anti-evil propaganda harnesses the frustration and despair people feel in times of crisis. Mark Fox and Angie Wang (aka Design Is Play) are following up their award-winning “Trump 24K Gold-Plated” poster with a new series of anti-Trump agitprop. The pair have launched a Kickstarter campaign to help fund three posters, “Trump: Lord of the Lies” and a diptych called “White Lies Matter.”

From their Kickstarter page:

We designed Trump: Lord of the Lies to create a succinct mnemonic for Donald Trump’s corruption. Likewise, the White Lies Matter diptych crystallizes Donald Trump’s history of rhetorical flirtations with white supremacists. And after he is voted out of office, this work will add to the body of evidence that many Americans can still tell the difference between what is true, and what is false.

(Side note: I used Design Is Play’s No Trump symbol in my little anti-Trump agitprop, Inside Trump’s Brain, a single-page website to protest then-candidate Trump.)

Protest art is created all around the world. Hong Kong-based designers last year made many compelling posters. Most take the stance of solidarity in the face of an overbearing and overreaching authority. Hence images that reference the Galactic Empire from Star Wars or homages to Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People.

Raw defiance gives way to a more hopeful aesthetic from Shepard Fairey’s We the People series from three years ago. Slogans such as “Defend Dignity” and “We the Resilient have been here before” adorn striking portraits of people of color. I remember seeing so many of these during the Women’s March in Los Angeles.

In The New Yorker, Nell Painter highlights a couple of anti-racist artists from the 1960s, photographer Howard L. Bingham who took many pictures of the Black Panther Party, and Emory Douglas:

More intriguing to me now is the agitprop artwork of Emory Douglas, the B.P.P. Minister of Culture, which was published in the The Black Panther newspaper and plastered around the Bay Area as posters. Week after week, Douglas’s searing wit visualized the urgency for action, such as this image of children carrying photographs, one that shows police victimizing a child…

This was originally published as an item in Issue 004 of the designspun email newsletter.

When I went to design school in the 1990s, of course, graphic design history was part of the curriculum. I didn’t realize it at the time, but everyone we studied—and therefore worshipped—was a white male. For minorities, representation is so powerful. And as the conversation in our country about race righteously heats up and expands from police brutality to systemic racism, it’s time to look at our own industry and ask ourselves about diversity and representation.

Toronto-based creative director Glenford Laughton compiled a great list of 13 African-American graphic designers we should all know. It includes greats like Georg Olden, who was the first African American to design a postage stamp, and Archie Boston, the designer-provocateur who started and chaired the design program at Cal State Long Beach.

According to the AIGA’s 2019 Design Census, just 3% of designers are black. African Americans make up about 14% of our population. Last year, product designer Wes O’Haire from Dropbox created Blacks Who Design. It’s a directory of black creatives on Twitter, giving them a platform to be seen and found, while simultaneously inspiring young people by showing them successful designers who have their same skin color. Representation is powerful.

Hoping to start a dialogue about changing the design industry, Where are the Black Designers is holding a virtual conversation on June 27, 2020.

Aggie Topkins writes in Eye on Design, “Graphic design, by focusing on its own version of monarchs and dynasties, maintains an outdated approach to history that further entrenches it as a hierarchical society.” In other words, maybe it’s time to teach design students about the societal and social changes happening, rather than the individual geniuses who channeled those influences into some work.

This was originally published as an item in Issue 003 of the designspun email newsletter.

It is no secret that Twitter has enabled and emboldened Donald Trump by not restricting any of his tweets, even if they violated their terms of service. But earlier this week, they put misinformation warnings on two of his tweets about mail-in ballots. This angered the President but also got the ball rolling. Snapchat shortly followed by saying it will no longer promote Trump’s account. Against the backdrop of growing protests against the murder of George Floyd by police, some tech companies finally started to grow a conscience. But will Silicon Valley change? Mary-Hunter McDonnell, corporate activism researcher from the Wharton School of Business says, “Giving money to organizations that are out on the front lines is more helpful, but it’s also to some extent passing the buck. People are tired of that.”

As designers, we have some power over the projects we work on, and the products we create. Mike Monterio wrote in February, “At some point, you will have to explain to your children that you work, or once worked, at Facebook.”

While at Facebook, Lisa Sy designed ways to flag hate speech on the platform—using Trump’s account in the mockups. In 2016. Four years later, Facebook has not implemented such a system and continues to leave up dangerous posts from Trump, including the highly-charged “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” post.

Tobias van Schneider wrote in 2016,

The role as a designer, or even as an engineer has become more influential and powerful than ever. The work we do makes an impact and naturally brings up the discussion around ethics, responsibility and accountability.

Many of us will work on pieces that are seen by hundreds, maybe thousands. A few of us, having larger clients, or working at a tech company, might work on something used by millions, if not billions of people. We hold great responsibility.

We produce work for audiences, users. Humans who are on the other end of that screen, poster, or ad. Mike Monterio again:

You don’t work for the people who sign your checks. You work for the people who use the products of your labor. If I were to put my hope in one thing, it’s that you understand the importance of this. Your job is to look out for the people your work is affecting. That is a responsibility we cannot defer.

This post was originally published on Medium.

I have longed cringed at how the mainstream media reports on the technology industry to the public. From use of randomly-selected synonyms to just downright misunderstanding of particular technologies, it’s sort of embarrassing to the reporter (usually someone who calls themselves a “technology reporter”) and the publication.

The latest examples come courtesy of The New York Times. I was alerted to this via a piece on BGR by Yoni Heisler titled, “The New York Times’ latest Apple hit piece is embarrassing and downright lazy.” Disclosure: I am a subscriber to The Times because I support their journalism. Their political reporters in particular have done a tremendous service to our country over the last couple of years. I usually trust what The Times writes about politics because I am not an expert in it. But the two pieces mentioned by BGR, about screen-time apps, and the editorial about Apple’s supposed monopoly are downright silly, because I do know a thing or two about technology and Apple.

Privacy, Security, and Violation of Terms

The premise of the article is that Apple has “removed or restricted at least 11 of the 17 most downloaded screen-time and parental-control apps” over the past year. There are quotes and POVs from app developers and parents, and there are a couple quotes from Apple defending its actions. This is the full quote of what they printed from Phil Schiller, Apple’s marketing chief:

In response to this article, Philip W. Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide marketing, said in emails to some customers that Apple “acted extremely responsibly in this matter, helping to protect our children from technologies that could be used to violate their privacy and security.”

When the article broke, an Apple customer wrote to Tim Cook who had Schiller respond (emphasis mine):

Unfortunately the New York Times article you reference did not share our complete statement, nor explain the risks to children had Apple not acted on their behalf. Apple has long supported providing apps on the App Store, that work like our ScreenTime feature, to help parents manage their children’s access to technology and we will continue to encourage development of these apps. There are many great apps for parents on the App Store, like “Moment — Balance Screen Time” by Moment Health and “Verizon Smart Family” by Verizon Wireless.

However, over the last year we became aware that some parental management apps were using a technology called Mobile Device Management or “MDM” and installing an MDM Profile as a method to limit and control use of these devices. MDM is a technology that gives one party access to and control over many devices, it was meant to be used by a company on it’s own mobile devices as a management tool, where that company has a right to all of the data and use of the devices. The MDM technology is not intended to enable a developer to have access to and control over consumers’ data and devices, but the apps we removed from the store did just that. No one, except you, should have unrestricted access to manage your child’s device, know their location, track their app use, control their mail accounts, web surfing, camera use, network access, and even remotely erase their devices. Further, security research has shown that there is risk that MDM profiles could be used as a technology for hacker attacks by assisting them in installing apps for malicious purposes on users’ devices.

When the App Store team investigated the use of MDM technology by some developers of apps for managing kids devices and learned the risk they create to user privacy and security, we asked these developers to stop using MDM technology in their apps. Protecting user privacy and security is paramount in the Apple ecosystem and we have important App Store guidelines to not allow apps that could pose a threat to consumers privacy and security. We will continue to provide features, like ScreenTime, designed to help parents manage their children’s access to technology and we will work with developers to offer many great apps on the App Store for these uses, using technologies that are safe and private for us and our children.

Here is a layman’s summary of the above. The parental control apps that Apple kicked off the App Store were using a technology intended for large corporations to control their company-owned devices. This technology gives the corporations purview over, and access to all their devices’ location info, app usage, email accounts, web history, camera usage, and network access, and can remotely wipe their devices. In other words if an end-user installed one of these parental control apps that used MDM technology on their child’s phone, that app developer had access to all that information, and would be able to control and wipe that phone.

The Times and the general media have been lambasting YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter for allowing users and other entities to stay on their platforms and abuse their policies. From hate speech (white nationalists, Alex Jones) to huge privacy gaffes (Cambridge Analytica), the media and the public have demanded these companies take responsibility and action, and prevent such episodes from happening again.

And yet, when Apple does take action here—when about a dozen or so companies release so-called parental control apps on the App Store using Apple technology in a way that violates its policies and gives access to thousands of iPhones belonging to kids, The New York Times has a conniption.

Apple does not have an issue that there are apps that compete with its own apps in the App Store (Apple Music vs. Spotify, Pandora, SiriusXM, iHeartRadio, SoundCloud; Safari vs. Google Chrome, Opera Mini, Firefox Focus). That’s what a vibrant developer-centric marketplace is: competition. But when an app violates its policies, Apple should be able to act.

Who Owns a Marketplace?

The second piece referenced by the BGR article is an op-ed by The Times’ Editorial Board, “Why Does Apple Control Its Competitors?”

First the op-ed compares Apple to Microsoft. Kind of ironic since Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy in the 1990s:

Apple’s management of the App Store is also dangerously reminiscent of the anti-competitive behavior that triggered United States v. Microsoft, a landmark antitrust case that changed the landscape of the tech industry.

Then the piece complains about Apple’s control over the App Store marketplace and its fees:

But Apple’s operating system for mobile devices makes it almost impossible to get an app outside of the App Store that will work on an Apple phone. Ultimately, the company controls what a user can or cannot do on their own iPhone. Apple also takes up to a 30 percent cut of in-app revenue, including revenue from “services” fulfilled in-app — like buying a premium subscription or an ebook. Because all apps go through the App Store, this 30 percent cut is nearly unavoidable.

Apple doesn’t ban apps like Amazon Kindle or Spotify, which compete with Apple Books and Apple Music, respectively. But the 30 percent fee still stings. That’s the reason you currently can’t buy a Kindle ebook through the Kindle mobile app. Spotify, a much smaller company, now pays Apple between 15 and 30 percent of its in-app revenue in order to serve streaming music to its premium subscribers. Spotify recently filed a complaint with European regulators, accusing Apple of anticompetitive practices. In the United States, an antitrust lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court alleges that the 30 percent cut drives up prices for consumers.

Let’s try this analogy. Suppose Apple is a department store. This department store has products lined up on shelves and racks, organized by sections and aisles so customers can find what they’re looking for. This store has endcaps that feature certain promoted products. What The Times is asking is this: Why can’t any company that wants to sell in Apple’s department store just set up shop inside the store and sell direct? And why should Apple make 30% gross profit on selling each item in the store?¹

If Apple allowed any product inside its department store, what if the product is shoddy and doesn’t work? What if there’s a safety issue? What if a seller wants to line the shelves with porno magazines? This tarnishes the reputation of Apple’s store. Customers will start to think Apple doesn’t care about the quality of products it sells, or that the store is now inhospitable for families with children.

(If the department store analogy doesn’t work for you, what about a farmers’ market? The App Store is the market and the developers are the vendors. Organizers of farmers’ markets decide who to allow in to sell, and what they can sell.)

A core of The Times’ monopoly argument seems to be around the fact that the App Store is the only place to get apps that work on an iPhone:

But Apple’s operating system for mobile devices makes it almost impossible to get an app outside of the App Store that will work on an Apple phone. Ultimately, the company controls what a user can or cannot do on their own iPhone.

True. But time and again Apple has argued that its thorough review process is critical to prevent malicious and low quality apps from appearing in its App Store.

And consumers face compatibility or “walled garden” scenarios with lots of things they buy. Printers need specific toner cartridges. Coffeemakers only accept certain shapes of pods. Video game systems can only their own cartridges or discs. In all these examples, including iPhone, consumers can find workarounds. But use at your own risk and don’t go crying to the manufacturer if your product breaks as a result. Fair enough, right?

And finally…

Even if we take Apple at its word that it was only protecting the privacy and security of its users by removing screen-time and parental-control apps, the state of the app marketplace is troubling. Why is a company — with no mechanism for democratic oversight — the primary and most zealous guardian of user privacy and security? Why is one company in charge of vetting what users can or cannot do on their phones, especially when that company also makes apps that compete in a marketplace that it controls?

Short answer is because Apple created the marketplace and controls the rules. eBay is a marketplace and controls its own policies, banning the selling of body parts, government IDs, and Nazi-related artifacts. Airbnb, Uber, and Upwork are all marketplaces with their own policies.² Why is Airbnb — with no mechanism for democratic oversight — the primary and most zealous guardian of what hosts can and cannot do with their listing? Why is Uber — with no mechanism for democratic oversight — the primary and most zealous guardian of how drivers should behave with their passengers? Why is Upwork — with no mechanism for democratic oversight — the primary and most zealous guardian of how workers should interact with clients?

But again, I go back to the two-sidedness of The Times. In one breath it wants Facebook and “Big Tech” to be better at preventing the viral spread of horrific imagery, by removing posts with said imagery, thus having a tighter grasp on its own platform. And in another it wants Apple to loosen up its control of its own marketplace. Comparing the spread of a video of a mass shooting with App Store policies is crass, I know. But they are sending mixed messages to Silicon Valley.

I actually agree with The Times about how Facebook and other social media platforms must somehow use technology to combat humanity’s most wretched behaviors. They do need to figure out a way to reign in the monster they’ve unleashed.

However, I disagree with their view that Apple must relax its tight control over the App Store, because I want a company that has been the most socially responsible in this age of Big Tech to curate over two million apps in the App Store and prevent me from downloading an app that could brick my phone or expose my private data.

The press plays an important role in our society—to hold powerful entities and individuals to account. However, before lobbing any accusations, before sparking any debate, it really should get its facts straight and understand the material first.

[1] Most retailers mark up the products they sell by 50%. Example: They buy a tube of toothpaste for $2 and sell it to you for $4.

[2] By the way, here are the sellers’ fees for each of these marketplaces:

• Airbnb: 20%, https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1857/what-is-the-airbnb-service-fee
• Uber: 25%, https://www.ridester.com/uber-fees/
• Upwork: 20%, https://www.upwork.com/i/how-it-works/freelancer/

We’ve come to this. The K-12 Florida Christian School in Miami is selling bulletproof panels for children to insert into their backpacks. Teachers will show students how to install these ballistic shields. You know, because mass shootings and ’Merica.

We have come to this, when schools need to outfit their students with bulletproof gear just to keep their students safe. This is the endgame for the National Rifle Association of America (aka NRA). It is guns everywhere. Schools, churches, hospitals, courthouses, bars. Everywhere.

In a recent interview on Fresh Air, journalist Mike Spies said:

So what you’ve seen over the last decade is a proliferation of legislation that has been enacted that has allowed people to carry firearms in places that they’ve never been able to carry before. That includes bars, churches, college campuses, day care centers, government buildings. That’s ultimately at the core of their agenda, is to normalize gun carrying in as many places as possible until it just becomes as natural of a thing to see in society as any other accessory that people carry around.

While the NRA wants to normalize guns everywhere via concealed carry laws—and it’s working very well legistlatively at the state level—gun ownership is steadily falling.

Source: Washington Post, 2016

Source: Pew Research Center, 2017

For the 69% of us who don’t wish to arm themselves we must live in fear of gunfights breaking out wherever we are. Remember that 20 children were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. At least 12 of the people wounded or killed last Sunday in Sunderland, TX were children.

Bulletproof backpacks are a good idea. They solve a problem that’s growing increasingly frequent. A problem that we’ve let a special interest organization create because of its hardline stance against any gun control legislation. A special interest group with only 5 million members (6% of all gun owners, or 1.5% of the U.S. population) who have control of the Republican Party.

From Spies again:

The NRA has become essentially an organ of the Republican Party. It doesn’t do anything for Democrats. It hasn’t for a long time. And the way it spends on election bears that out. It spends essentially all of its money, and quite a lot of money, trying to keep Republicans in power, putting new ones in power.

And how powerful is the NRA? Since 1998 it has spent $203.2 million on political activities. That includes direct contributions to candidates, contributions to political parties and PACs, lobbying, and outside spending. What’s outside spending? “Efforts expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.” Oh by the way, the NRA spent $30 million on Donald Trump last year.

In addition to money, the NRA can decide who wins and who loses. Here’s Spies talking about how a vindictive NRA lobbyist in Florida dealt with a lawmaker who let one of their sponsored bills die in committee:

After that happened, he was also — or as it happened, he was also in his final term as a lawmaker, and he was hoping to be appointed to, like, a circuit court in Jacksonville and was among the, you know, final three potential candidates for that position. And it seemed like he was actually the favored candidate for Governor Scott, and Marion Hammer, remembering what he did, put together a huge campaign in which many thousands of NRA members sent emails to Governor Scott telling him under no circumstances to appoint Charles McBurney to the circuit court judgeship. And very shortly after that happened, McBurney was not appointed to the circuit court judgeship. Someone else was. And it was directly — I mean, you could say directly because of what he did.

So there you have it. We’ve allowed an organization like the NRA make the United States of America a country where we need to send our children to school with bulletproof backpacks. Well fucking done.

P.S. For children in preschool, you can buy them bulletproof nap mats.

Sex

With coffee in hand, I flipped through Facebook yesterday morning. “Me too” read one post from a female friend I used to work with. Incredibly intelligent, hands-down one of the smartest women — no, people — I’d ever worked with just posted two words. I thought it was a mispost that was supposed to be a reply, a butt-post if you will. Then I saw another, and this time with an explanation. And throughout the day, my feed depressingly filled up with “Me too” posts, illustrating how common sexual harassment and assault of women are.

Of course this movement was spurred on by the bombshell investigative journalism by the New York Times and the New Yorker. Last week they broke open a story that’s eluded the media for so long: Harvey Weinstein and his serial sexual harassment and assault of women in Hollywood.

Why would a man who was successful, married, and the father of five children decide to regularly try to convince young starlets to sleep with him, give him a massage, or just flash their breasts? As I read and listened to women recounting what had happened to them, and how Weinstein actually acted, I realized just how small and backwards of a man he is. He negotiated with them. He sounded desperate. And he sounded guilty and scared immediately after committing any of those acts. Weinstein knew he wasn’t supposed to use his position of power and act like a predator. But he did anyway.

And he is not alone. Fox News Channel’s cofounder Roger Ailes, that channel’s biggest star Bill O’Reilly, Amazon Studios’ Roy Price, and disc jockey David Mueller, were all recently exposed or convicted. And it’s not limited to just the entertainment industry either; see SoFi’s CEO Mike Cagney, Binary Capital’s Justin Caldbeck, Uber’s Travis Kalanick, and many others. And of course, let’s not forget our president Donald Trump!

Men have sexually harassed or assaulted women close to me. Stories I’ve been told and my Facebook feed yesterday affirm that. There is a significant portion of men out there who, because they succumbed to their urges, have made women feel ashamed, dirty, and slimy. It’s pervasive, even in our first world country. Even in our liberal state. And even in a progressive city like San Francisco. Penis trumps brain.

Violence

I sat in my car in my driveway, listening to the remaining nine minutes of the podcast. The reporter, Jeffrey Gettleman, was recalling the horrific tale of a 20 year-old Rohingya woman named Rajuma who survived an attack on her village by the Myanmar military. She was one of the few survivors. The soldiers had shot, decapitated, and slit the throats of all the men in her village. They took her 18 month-old baby boy she was clutching to and unemotionally threw him into a fire. Then the men pushed Rajuma into a hut and proceeded to gang-rape her. Rajuma woke up to smoke and fire. Her mother dead. Her sisters and brother, all dead. Almost everyone in her village murdered. But she escaped. And eventually joined thousands of other refugees in Bangladesh.

I was heartbroken hearing that story. How could a human being do that to another human being? What could make them so savage that they could do those things to children? To babies? This vicious act was not the isolated act of a psychopathic serial killer. This was systemic, coordinated ethnic cleansing, carried out by groups of soldiers. Since August, the above scene has played out 288 times, with many thousands of Rohingya people killed.

Evolution

Schoolchildren are taught that male animals put on a show when they’re looking for a mate. Peacocks fan out their feathers. Pigeons dance around in a circle. But male mammals go further. Primates like chimpanzees will coerce females to mate with them by charging at them, ripping out their hair, or beating them.

Chimpanzees have also been observed killing other chimps who do not belong in their territory, or in an effort to expand. In fact, Jane Goodall watched one tribe of chimps, called the Kasakela, kill all six of the other tribe’s — the Kahama — adult males over four years.

As modern humans, we are many species away from our genetic ancestors. Proto-humans separated from chimpanzees seven to 10 million years ago. We developed a consciousness and a conscience. And yet our animalistic tendencies still persist. I’m not talking about core biological functions like hunger, or our fight or flight response, but acts that require thought and effort like arranging a “meeting” at the Peninsula Hotel or torching over 200 villages and killing all their inhabitants.

Values

“Hey! Stick to your side!” my daughter yelled from the back of the car. Her little brother is sticking his arm or leg past the mid-point of the row of seats. As he needles her, he’s smiling devilishly.

I’ve lost count the number of times that vignette has played out in my car over the years. Being possessive and territorial is instinctual. Children say “Mine!” all the time. But we teach them to share. We teach them that it’s good and nice to share with their friends. We also teach our children to be empathetic and help those who are less fortunate than us.

These are core human values: sharing and caring.

At least I’d like to think so.

Kayla Chadwick wrote a great piece last week, “I Don’t Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People” that connected a few dots for me.

Chimpanzees may resort to sexual coercion and murdering rival tribes. But us, modern homo sapiens, should not do that. Yet we do sometimes. Our human society should be about cooperation and shared prosperity. But we don’t always adhere to that either. Instead, just like chimps, it’s each sub-group for itself.

Politics

My core human values are indeed sharing and caring. I am squarely middle-class and believe in sharing my tax dollars to help those who are less fortunate. I care for the plight of the homeless, the immigrants and refugees, Black lives, and the disenfranchised. This is the liberal platform. That all boats rise together.

But on the conservative side, the values are fundamentally different. It’s about the opportunity to prosper or fail by one’s own hand. In other words, it’s every man for himself. The fight over the Affordable Care Act illustrates this. Insurance is, by definition, pooling financial resources to share in the cost. Which, again by definition, means that healthier people’s premiums pay for sicker people’s costs. The Right’s constant drumbeat of repealing and replacing Obamacare is a demand for healthy people to pay less, and sick people to pay more. In other words, not sharing and not caring.

Healthcare costs for the sick can be extraordinary. A year’s course of treatment for a typical breast cancer patient is over $140,000. So if she were in a high-risk only insurance pool, her premiums would be incredibly high — upwards of $18,000 — compared to a healthier person her same age. Would a person making minimum wage or on disability ever be able to afford such insurance?

Republicans conveniently forget that Americans already share in a lot of costs that may not apply to us individually: mass transit on the other side of the country, the Library of Congress, the military, disaster relief from hurricanes. Adding healthcare — something that affects each of us — seems obvious to me.

We’re just not there yet

Perhaps we’ve been fooled by liberal idealism. We’ve been overly optimistic in our assessment of our own evolution as a species. Despite millions of years of continued brain growth and refining our societies, humans are still pulled by our primal instincts of sexual aggression, territorialism, and tribalism.

I want to believe that we can do better. I want to believe that someday, there will be peace and prosperity on Earth for 100% of us. That someday, men will no longer be pigs, and we won’t squabble and kill over a plot of land. The only way we can achieve that is by pulling the other way and moving forward. By believing and acting better, together.

P.S. This essay was not written from a point of moral superiority. The opposite is in fact true. I acknowledge that we are all imperfect, including myself. But that we can—and should—improve in our own lifetimes, and in the generations to come.

Sen. John McCain standing up for regular order by voting down an Obamacare repeal.

What we are witnessing, friends, is the beginning of the end of American democracy. With senators and representatives who used to believe in “regular order” — as Senator John McCain would say — retiring, we are electing ideologues.

I’m a liberal and believe in liberal ideals (gun control, universal healthcare, social safety net, helping the disenfranchised, etc.). However, if we continue to send to Congress, ideologues who will not compromise with the other side, we all lose. Whether we like it or not, America is made up of hundreds of millions of individuals with different experiences and values than you or me. Therefore we all won’t always agree. Which is why compromise is so incredibly important.

To believe that we must pass universal healthcare in this Congress is to believe in a fallacy. To hold out for it, is dangerous. To believe and hold out the ACA will be repealed and replaced is just as dangerous. Because then, as we are now seeing, we will have done nothing and millions of people will suffer.

At home, at the office, at school, don’t we all learn to compromise? Don’t we teach our children that they’re supposed to compromise? Why can’t we ask our representatives in Congress to do the same?

Our own echo chambers are making it harder and harder for all of us to believe in compromise and moderation. We want outrage and intractability to be the new normal. Why? Our media diets are shite. Facebook and Twitter are like ice cream and chocolate, and MSNBC and FOX News are like french fries and onion rings. We all get caught up in the mob mentality of these outlets, and we turn around and ask our representatives in government to do the same.

We forget to listen, to compromise.

And therefore, we lose American democracy.

I was working from home on Friday and happened to have the TV turned on to CNN. Therefore I watched the defeat of the House Republican’s American Health Care Act (AHCA) in real time. But I wouldn’t have if I were tuned to Fox News Channel instead. A conservative friend of mine was watching Fox News Channel that day, and was moved by its assertion that the “mainstream media” was not covering the Maryland rape case sufficiently. Our two different experiences actually illustrated this great article from the New York Times called “One Nation, Under Fox: 18 Hours With a Network That Shapes America.” It’s an excellent reminder about media bias — right or left.

After reading the article this weekend, I came to this conclusion: There are roughly 325 million people in the United States. More than ever in my life I’ve come to understand that there are then 325 million different experiences. Each of our life experiences is different. There is no way that any media outlet can cover all those stories. But those same media outlets can impose their own worldviews onto their audiences. Those individuals in the audience will either have their own worldview reinforced, or go elsewhere for that reinforcement.

My conservative friend posted a video from Fox News on Facebook. It’s a clip of Bill O’Reilly doing his own media critique about the amount of coverage this story got, comparing Fox News’ amount to that of the mainstream media networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC. According to the NY Times article, this same media critique was leveled by at least three other Fox News shows, “Fox and Friends,” “The Five,” and “America’s Newsroom.”

First of all, Fox News Channel is mainstream media, whether they’ll admit that or not. They are the most-watched news network in America. Mumford & Sons, an “alternative” music darling made $40 million last year according to Forbes. That’s almost as much as Katy Perry ($41 million). I’d argue that they’re mainstream now, no longer alternative. Likewise, in January 2017, Fox News Channel had 14 of the top 15 programs in cable news in total viewers. Therefore I’d say that the outlet is indeed “mainstream news.”

So Fox News hit this point all day long: Why isn’t mainstream news covering this horrific rape of a 14 year-old girl by two boys, one of whom is undocumented? Rapes do actually get covered. Steubenville High School (50 media links in the footnotes), Stanford (134 media links in the footnotes), Richmond High School (39 media links in the footnotes). Over 90,000 rapes were reported to the police in 2015. Unfortunately not all of them were covered in the news. If they were, we’d be learning about 246 new rape stories everyday on TV. But of course Fox wanted to give more credence to this one case by an undocumented immigrant because it fits into the conservative narrative they’re spinning — America is in danger, and the danger is being perpetrated by outsiders who are coming into this country legally or illegally. And never mind that in past coverage of high profile rape cases, Fox News actually tends to downplay the role of the assailants and will even go as far as blaming the victims. Example, Fox’s Stacey Dash said that “alcohol doesn’t get you drunk, you get yourself drunk.” Fifteen more specific examples can be found here.

Why did Fox News focus on the Maryland rape story and the London terrorist attack while almost all other outlets focused mainly on the impending vote and then pulling of the AHCA? The amount of coverage a particular story gets at any particular outlet is determined by its editors and publishers. I think we all know that media is inherently biased by those views because someone has to make the decision to dispatch reporters to cover story A or story B and then give airtime or print space to said story. Roger Ailes, who is the founder and former CEO of Fox News until July 2016 when he stepped down over allegations of sexual harassment, was formerly a Republican Party media consultant. John Moody, Executive Editor and Executive VP of Fox News, issues daily memos to the news department with instructions on exactly how to cover news stories, as well as the themes of the day. A former Fox News producer has said, “The roots of Fox News Channel’s day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered.” So the agenda for the day? Cover the healthcare bill vote if it’s looking good. But run with rape and terror if it isn’t. Almost all other media outlets decided that the AHCA vote was the most important to America that day.

The amount of coverage a story gets communicates its importance. It was important to Fox News to continue their portrayal that undocumented immigrants are bad — reinforcing the right-wing worldview, but more importantly Trump’s worldview — and it was important for many other outlets to continue their criticism of Trump’s presidency (some of it more harshly than others). You could argue that it’s the job of the media to support our president and government, or you can argue that it’s their job to keep government officials honest, and the American people informed. I would agree with the latter. And so would our Founding Fathers:

The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs.

From an advertising standpoint, I believe Apple has been on fire recently. (Disclaimer: I have been an Apple fanboy since 1985 and used to work there many years ago.) Beginning with the “What will your verse be?” iPad ad that debuted in mid-January, they’ve continued with the “You’re more powerful than you think” iPhone 5S that began airing recently.

When I first saw “Your Verse” on TV it stopped me in my tracks. Using audio of Robin Williams speaking to his class in Dead Poets Society, it features footage of people using the iPad around the world for making music, photography, tracking tornadoes, playing professional hockey, and more. The haunting melody combined with the breathtaking images and Robin Williams’ voice really struck a chord with me. It evoked a deep sense of wonder and faith in humanity. These were real people doing extraordinary things with this product. In the mere three years that iPad has been available* it has created a whole new category of devices and enabled millions of people to do ordinary and extraordinary things.

Here’s the text from the speech:

We don’t read and write poetry because it’s cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. Medicine, law, business, engineering. These are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love. These are what we stay alive for. To quote from Whitman: “O me, O life of the question of these recurring, of the endless trains of the faithless, of cities filled with the foolish. What good amid these? O me, O life.” Answer: That you are here. That life exists, and identity. That the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse. …That the powerful play goes on and you may contribute a verse.” What will your verse be?

It ends with a challenge, raising the question for the viewer, “How will you make your dent in the universe?”

And just this week, Apple debuted a similar people-do-awesome-things-with-Apple-products video called “Powerful.” It features people using the iPhone to make music, perform art, video their kids, and more. It’s set against a youthful cover of the Pixies’ “Gigantic.” The film is an anthem much like the iPad ad that preceded it, and about how Apple products have empowered millions of people to do some pretty cool things.

(As an aside, I think “Powerful” is better executed than “Your Verse.” My issue with the first ad is that it had too many cuts in it. And the voiceover did not lend itself to a 30-second or even 60-second ad. Only the 90-second version works. Whereas all the cuts of “Powerful” are just as effective. And additionally interesting, my sources have told me that “Your Verse” was done internally at Apple. I would suspect that “Powerful” was also executed in-house.

As a second aside, this is one of the rarer moments when Apple’s campaigns are integrated, with a strong digital presence. See for yourself: Your Verse, Powerful.)

So what’s the takeaway?

These ads are not meant to convince the non-believers to buy Apple products. Instead, they’re both calls-to-arms for the Apple faithful. It’s their CRM strategy if you will. These ads are meant to inspire “the rest of us” and reinforce that we made the right choice in terms of the iOS platform and devices. These epic films depict a world made better by Apple products which makes us feel good. With Samsung and other Android devices eroding at Apple’s historic lead, this is exactly what they need.

These ads are reminiscent of Apple’s classic comeback “Think Different” campaign. Here is the text of the commercial that launched it:

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. But the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.

As documented in Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs, Apple needed to make a statement that they were still a viable company able to make world-changing products. Isaacson writes, “It was designed to celebrate not what the computers could do, but what creative people could do with the computers.” And he goes on to say that this ad wasn’t only directed at the general public, but also to Apple employees who had forgotten what Apple stood for.

And I believe rallying the base is exactly what Apple is doing again.

• iPad was announced January 27, 2010, at MacWorld in San Francisco and began shipping April 3, 2010.

Yesterday Apple announced its third-generation iPad, simply named “iPad.” Buried in MG Siegler’s excellent take on the press event is this statement:

What’s more likely — 5 years from now, your primary home computing device is a PC? Or 5 years from now, your primary home computing device is a tablet? Just two years ago, this question would have been an absolute joke. Now it’s a joke to think it will take a full five years.

In the post-PC world, tablets are becoming the new normal more and more. In just the two years since the iPad was first introduced, we’ve seen it pervasive on airplanes to entertain children, many executives in Silicon Valley walking around with them instead of lugging laptops, and even the President of the United States receiving his Presidential Daily Briefing via iPad instead of a sheet of paper.

How We Really Use Tablets

Rosetta—the agency for which I work—released a study last month around how we consumers use tablets. Consumption and entertainment are still the primary uses of tablets today, but here are some interesting points to note:

• 33% of tablet users (who owned one 12+ months) prefer to read/check email on their tablets
• 38% of them prefer tablets to read e-books, magazines or newspapers
• 34% of them use their tablets at work
• 45% on the go

In other words we’re witnessing the trend of users either adding to their repertoire of connected devices or in some cases shifting away from traditional PCs to tablets. As MG Siegler said in the quote above, tablets are poised to become the primary computing device at home.

But I would argue that place is a misleading distinction. Yes, PCs will likely still be a primary computing device at the office, but maybe it’s the wrong way to put it.

Work/Life, Life/Work

PCs today are not stationary. Almost every workplace I’ve come across in recent years outfits its workforce with laptops. Those laptops are often taken home so that work can be done at home. And here’s the thing: as much as we’d like to draw a hard line between work and home, it’s too fuzzy. It’s too gray.

Workers check their personal emails and Facebook while at work, on their work machines. They IM their friends or watch funny cat videos on YouTube in the office. Conversely they check their work email on their personal smartphones and catch up with industry-related reading before bed.

The workforce of today achieves work/life balance by seamlessly blending the two to get things done. Wherever they are.

Responsive Web Design

Out of this notion of users being connected constantly and wanting access to information all the time, wherever they are, the responsive web design movement was born. Essentially it’s a set of techniques to enable a single codebase to deliver multiple layouts for different screen sizes. The redesign of BostonGlobe.com has become the poster child for this modern and forward-looking approach to designing for the web. It’s about letting users access content from whatever devices they have, wherever they are. And with this approach, content creators are also saving money on operating expenditures because they only have one site to maintain, not two or three. No longer should you need to write a different headline for mobile.

The Impending Future Is Here

With all this data staring at them in the face, it amazes me that when it comes to digital marketing, many corporations still have the traditional view of developing for mobile. They are still stuck on starting with the desktop experience and then dumbing it down for smartphones and tablets. The old way of thinking made sense at the time (three, four years ago?): users on the go have different needs, and the screen real estate is too small to do anything significant.

However, as we’ve become used to having the Internet in our pocket and as we’ve found a place for the tablet to live in our lives, that four year-old thinking is sadly out of touch with the impending future.

432 million users use Facebook on a mobile device every month. Facebook partially attributes the 76% increase from 2010 to the release of its iPad app. With Apple selling more iPads in Q4 2011 than PCs sold by any PC manufacturer, and with annual tablet sales projected to be at over 45 million by 2016, tablets are here to stay and will become more and more prevalent.

Additionally 472 million smartphones were sold in 2011, 46% of the U.S. adult population have smartphones, and 69% of smartphone owners use it for business. Last, but not least: 81% of smartphone users browse the Internet. The mobile web and the notion of content anywhere cannot be ignored.

The workforce of tomorrow will read their work emails on their smartphones and tablets. They will do research and consume work-related content on those devices. And they will go beyond consumption and produce work on those devices.

As designers and marketers, to ignore this is ignoring the inevitable.

This post was originally published on Bow & Arrow from PJA (my employer) on February 3, 2011.

The New York Times recently published an article about how apps and web services are enabling consumers to customize how they read their online content. From apps like Flipboard and Pulse to services like Readability and Instapaper, users are increasingly demanding to consume content whenever, wherever and however they want.

When Apple introduced the iPad a year ago, many print publishers saw it as a panacea for their dwindling readership. By creating digital editions, they hoped to recapture some of the eyeballs lost to aggregators and RSS feeds. One of the pioneering publication apps was the WIRED Magazine iPad app. Because of its novelty, its debut issue sold 73,000 digital copies in nine days, almost as much as on newsstands. There is a clear desire from users to read magazines on their tablets.

What that first generation of attempts miss though, is they are trying to replicate 20th century print experience on a 21st century device. The magazine apps feel very one way. But the iPad is an Internet-connected device and users on the Internet demand more interactive experiences. They want to copy and paste passages to put on their blogs. They want to share articles via Facebook and Twitter. Using Adobe’s Digital Magazine Solution, Condé Nast is starting to address some of these issues.

Meanwhile apps such as Flipboard are aggregating content and repackaging it for their users. Flipboard presents news items according to a user’s social graph, creating a personalized and highly relevant news stream. Additionally, the app presents this content in a unique way: as a paper magazine. The visual is striking, yet it still holds familiarity with users since it loosely mimics the experience of reading a real-world magazine, with the benefits of interactivity. And so far it has been a hit with users, even earning an [App of the Year](http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-calls-flipboard-ipad-app-of-the-year-2010-12 “Apple Calls Flipboard “iPad App Of The Year"") award from Apple.

Different kinds of content demand different kinds of packages. For example as a designer, I—along with most designers and art directors—flip through magazines such as Communication Arts and Print, and peruse blogs and websites like LovelyPackage.com and SmashingMagazine.com. Seeing something cool usually sparks an idea for whatever we’re currently working on.

To get through the hundreds of design-related sites out there, I use RSS feeds to aggregate this content for myself in Google Reader. Unfortunately, because I am so busy, I am not able to keep up with all my feeds. I may manage to check it only every few days. And I dread seeing that “1000+†number next to my unread items.

So last year, when the iPad was introduced, I decided to find a solution as an independent side project. I knew that an app on this large dedicated canvas could be created to serve this need of efficiently consuming visual inspiration. I teamed up with a developer friend and we started work on DesignScene.

We set out to create something that designers would enjoy using and become part of their daily ritual. We had two primary objectives:

• The UI must serve the content and the audience. It has to be beautiful and show off visuals well.
• The content must be relevant. There’s a glut of design-related websites and blogs on the Internet. Let’s help designers navigate through them.

The UI we designed is sparse—a simple grid that takes advantage of the screen real estate afforded by the tablet. Users flick through the various grid cells to see an assortment of images. They can enlarge the images to fill the screen or read the accompanying text from the original source via the built-in web browser. DesignScene surfaces up the latest inspirational images of not only design, but also architecture, photography, art and so on. The content is a curated list of sources and—as a whole—has an editorial point of view to enhance discovery.

It’s been two weeks since DesignScene launched. [This was originally posted three weeks ago on the PJA blog.] So far we’ve had great response from users and media. We built social sharing into the app and we can already see hundreds of discoveries being shared on Twitter. Our users are interacting with content in a way that was not possible just a year ago.

“1000+” should be a familiar number for Google Reader users. My RSS feeds have been neglected in past months. Emails from AdAge.com, Creativity-Online, and links from friends go unread and unclicked. I’ve just been running 100 miles per hour at work. This is not to slam my current employer (because I truly like working here), but more of an observation.

If we creatives are always so busy with projects, and never take the time to look up, take off our headphones and find inspiration, our work will suffer. Our work will stagnate. Our work will suck.

So this is a reminder to myself (and to other creatives) to take a bit of time each day to remain inspired. Surf the web. Watch TV. See a movie in a theater. Listen to new music. Read a magazine or a book. Go to a bookstore. Go to a museum. Go hiking.

Eric Baker spends 30 minutes every day scouring the web for inspirational images. He shares them regularly on Design Observer.

And I’ve started to try to gather images and links that delight me in a couple of Tumblr blogs (ELT and ___ is awesome.)

This is also a reminder to managers of creatives: you must let them play. You have to structure your organization and processes to allow creative folks time to recharge and get inspired. Google’s 20% time is a great example of how structuring some R&D/inspiration time can yield results. The Scotch Tape and Post-it Notes were invented by engineers at 3M during their 15% time. Or taken to the extreme, Stefan Sagmeister closes his studio every seven years for a yearlong sabbatical to get inspired again.

Now how can I get someone to pay me for a sabbatical?

There’s been a lot of chatter in recent weeks about how so-called “digital” agencies are or are not ready to be the lead for a campaign. But I think the question is a little off.

Instead the question should be “Why are clients splitting up campaign work based on tactic?”

Despite the maturing of digital agencies such as Razorfish (for whom I work), R/GA and AKQA, today’s clients are still sending digital work to digital agencies and traditional work to traditional agencies. And equally bad is having a third company plan and buy their media (sometimes there’s a traditional media agency and a digital one). Why is this bad?

OK, the end-zone is down that way 50 yards! Make sure you talk to each other along the way. Now go! [Download PDF]

I’ve seen it time and time again: if you want an integrated marketing campaign, how could you possibly brief all the companies and hope they work together and come back with something good and cohesive? The agencies will pay lip-service and say they’re collaborating, but there’s only so much collaboration that can happen in reality. Each agency is moving fast and really has no time to talk to the others. Plus there is always unspoken political jockeying for protecting the work each agency does have and trying to steal more business from the others. I strongly believe that this model is inefficient (money and time), makes agency people insane, and creates less-than-stellar campaigns.

What should instead happen is the client needs to brief one agency who will create a singular idea and execute on that idea across different tactics and mediums. Therefore the messaging, art direction and strategy for the campaign are cohesive.

Let the one Agency bring in specialists as needed to serve the idea. [Download PDF]

Agencies should not be labeled “digital,” for digital is only a tactic. I’d say the same with “traditional.” What clients should ask for is strong strategic work that drives results. Let the agency—regardless of its label—decide on who to sub-contract to if necessary.

When we see clients trust their agency and its vision, we witness great work all around:

• TBWA\Chiat\Day + Apple
• Crispin Porter + Bogusky + Burger King
• Goodby, Silverstein Partners + Sprint

Oh wait. There isn’t a “digital” agency on that list. But there soon will be.

Further reading:

• Why Digital Agencies Aren’t Ready to Lead
• Why Digital Agencies Are Indeed Ready to Lead
• What if we held a controversy and nobody cared?
• Digital must be anchored at the heart of agencies

Please feel free to use the above diagrams which I’m making available through a Creative Commons license.

In the age of digital and social media, and in the age of realtime marketing, what matters more? The big idea or the smaller idea and execution?

Many digital agencies have been experimenting with new ways of working to try to get at those ideas and executions that a traditional agency couldn’t dream of. I was working at Organic when we rolled out the “Three Minds” initiative, meaning that for every brainstorm, we needed to have at least three people from three disciplines in the room. This is similar to what Big Spaceship has been trying to do by throwing together teams of creatives, strategists, technologists and production.

Digital agencies think that this is a point of differentiation. They think that online, social and viral are so complex that they need all this brainpower to figure it out. What ends up happening when you put a technologist and/or producer into a room with creatives? Executions. It’s a natural and inevitable thing. And I believe it’s a distraction from getting to a better and bigger idea.

I believe that when you add in people whose jobs are to make things (technologists build, producers produce, etc.) too early in the creative process, before the idea is baked, you shortchange the idea. The idea becomes smaller and less compelling.

Creative teams go there all the time too. Too often do I hear an art director or copywriter say “OK, so the idea is a game within a banner.” No. That’s not the idea. That’s an execution. What’s the idea?

People may argue that the mass audience doesn’t care about the idea; all people will remember is the commercial, billboard or Facebook app (no one remembers banners). I disagree. People remember the campaign which was essentially that story dreamt up one late night in a conference room by a creative partnership.

In the traditional advertising agency model, the two-person copywriter and art director partnership is designed to tell stories. The idea isn’t a TV spot, a print ad or a billboard. The idea isn’t a banner, a microsite or a Facebook app. The idea is a story. It’s a story with a hook, that draws people in, makes them feel something and act on that. And as humans, we love stories.

I believe that for digital agencies to compete with the traditional ones, they need to be better at developing compelling ideas. A big traditional shop can always farm out a digital execution, but digital agencies can’t farm out the idea generation.

A couple of weeks ago, I happened upon a site called crowdSPRING. I forget exactly how I got to the site, but what I found there made me feel a little icky and left a bad taste in my mouth. I wrote a tweet about it (which in turn updated my Facebook status) and many of my designer friends had strong negative reactions too.

Stepping back a bit, what is crowdSPRING? It’s a website that allows companies to post briefs for design projects (mostly logos and websites), with the expectation that dozens if not hundreds of designers from around the world will post their solutions to those projects. Finished solutions. Not portfolios, resumes or even sketches. But the finished logo, website comps, CD packaging design, etc.

Why the ick factor? It took me a few days to process it internally, but I eventually came to this conclusion: the site sucks time away from thousands of budding designers. They are all working for free. Only the lucky ones whose solutions get chosen are paid. Imagine if you ate dinner at five different restaurants and only paid for the one dinner you liked? That is what’s happening on crowdSPRING: free work.

This Forbes article talks about pushback from the design community. I’ve long been against spec work. It’s just plain wrong from the free work angle as I’ve already illustrated. The AIGA has also had a long-standing policy against spec work because in their mind it compromises the quality of the work. How? Company asks for free submissions; young, inexperienced and unqualified designers submit solutions; established professionals stay away. That is a recipe for sub-standard creative work. Or how about designer Mark Boulton’s argument that spec work is bad for business? “Architects are invited to submit bids, proposals and designs for prestigious competitions. The winner gets the contract and the glory. The losers get nothing; the work is conducted speculatively.”

My friend and colleague at Razorfish, Garrick Schmitt wrote an article at AdAge.com titled “Can Creativity Be Crowdsourced?” He posits that crowdsourcing creativity is here to stay. Whether it’s finished product ala crowdSPRING or inspiration ala FFFFOUND!, there is a place for it. I honestly don’t know if crowdsourcing creative output in an ethical way is possible. Maybe. But crowdsourcing creativity is entirely possible.

Rivers Cuomo from the band Weezer did a collaborative songwriting project called “Let’s Write a Sawng” on YouTube last year. He started with a single video, saying that he needed help writing a song. He led his large base of fans through the process, breaking it down step-by-step, starting with suggestions for a title, through lyrics and melodies. What worked was that he crowdsourced for ideas, picked the best ones and came up with a compelling pop record. On NPR’s Fresh Air he mentioned that if the song were ever officially released, it would probably break a record for songwriting credits.

Intel also experimented with crowdsourcing via an advertising program call Mass Animation last year. Via Facebook they invited animators to animate shots that would be part of a larger animated short film. I think it works here too because an animated film is very much like an open source dev project: the work can be divvied up into small discreet parts and worked on by volunteers. Intel goes one step further and has promised to credit and compensate contributors whose work appears in the final film.

I think the aforementioned two examples ultimately work as crowdsourced creative because they were volunteer collaborative efforts. Rivers Cuomo’s fans or Intel’s animators really wanted to be part of a project larger than themselves. Whereas design contests or sites like crowdSPRING feel unethical are because they’re requesting intellectual capital without investing a dime.