Rabu, 02 Januari 2013

Hey, E-Commerce Entrepreneurs! Aren't You Forgetting Someone?

Guest author Rudy DeFelice is CEO of Bizinate.com, a consulting firm that helps young firms get their social-media sea legs.

Over 20,000 e-commerce stores are opened every week in the United States. Most of them will fail. And most of those that crash will have one thing in common ' they neglected to tap their best audience.

Turns out that it's not what they are selling, but to whom they are selling, that matters most.

Finding Your Best Audience

It has long been understood that social phenomena ' fashion, a new band, a viral video ' spread through relationships. In fact, Malcolm Gladwell talked about influencers in his seminal book, The Tipping Point. Influencers spot and adopt trends and through their adoption influence others in their social sphere to do the same. (Further schooling about the spread of ideas through early adopters can be found in Geoffrey Moore's Crossing The Chasm.)

The common thread in these teachings is that ideas are best cultivated by planting a few seeds in the right fields. Only certain fields are receptive to a given seed, with the exception of weeds, which no one wants. So you can't just scatter seeds to the wind and expect them to take.

What does that mean for the 20,000 e-commerce stores that open each week? It means the first, most important, markets are their own social circles. These are the fields in which they should plant their first seeds.

People who know you ' who trust your judgment and care about your success ' are your early adopters. These may be friends, family, your broader personal network or professional acquaintances. But you should have a strategy devoted to tapping this market and enabling them to spread your message.

Why Is Your Social Network So Critical?

Today, it is so easy to buy almost anything. Search for your product or service and you're likely to find millions of results. How do you cut through the clutter?

A primary differentiator in a purchase decision is the customer's feelings toward the merchant or brand. When you can buy anything anywhere, the relationship with the merchant matters.

Major brands spend millions of dollars to simulate a relationship with consumers. But with your own social and business networks, you already have an authentic relationship.

It's an important asset, so taking advantage of that authentic relationship is the most powerful first step to success in your own e-commerce business.

Of course, you can simply open your store and hope that people find you. That's what everyone else does. And that's the problem ' you'll be lost in the great mass of options. 

Instead, you should have an affirmative market strategy, one in which you're reaching out to a core group of people that know you, and trying to set a viral chain in motion. If you make those people happy, they'll spread the word to their networks and you'll be on your way.

How To Reach Your Best Market

Fortunately, it's never been easier to reach your best market. As the wide variety of choices has made connection between a buyer and seller increasingly more important, various social-media tools and social behavior have made it much easier to reach people and tap that connection.

Consequently, a couple simple steps can get you in touch with this important market and should be part of your strategy.

1. Get Personal With Social-Media Tools. There have been few areas in marketing that have created more confusion than how to use social-media tools. There are certainly benefits to blogging and accumulating Facebook fans, but those are very hard to trace, and if they lead to transactions at all, it is usually over a long time.

Still, the tools are quite valuable for reaching large numbers of people you know. In a few strokes you can reach a whole network. The average Facebook member has 256 friends. That means your message can be in front of 256 people, and depending upon their response, their friends, almost instantly.

2. Say Something New. It is said in retail that the product stays the same, so the audience must change. Unless the audience stays the same, in which case the product must change.

In tapping your social network, a relatively constant audience, you'll need to continually change the product. That can be an actual change of the product ' let's say you expanded your inventory by adding new products or added some products that complement your services business (an IT-service company that is now selling electronics, perhaps).

Alternatively, perhaps there is something new to say about your existing products ' an upcoming holiday or change of seasons makes an existing product relevant in new ways. The important thing is, when you're tapping a constant audience over time, you must say something new and of value to that audience.

Your goal is to build awareness first from people who know you, trust you and have an interest in your success. Leveraging your broader social network and tap your best source of customers. If you live up to your promise with this group, they will help you spread your message to the rest of the world.

 

Image courtesy of Shutterstock.



6 Strategies For Cracking The Enterprise Tech Market In 2013

With all the recent teeth gnashing about startup investment shifting from consumer to enterprise technology, it's worth noting that successfully cracking the enterprise market is no easy task:

  • 70% of the U.S. economy hinges on consumer spending. Even with the pending fiscal cliff, it's kind of hard to ignore the numbers. 
  • Enterprise technology is not a short game.

Unlike most consumer technologies, enterprise infrastructure and applications run on a much longer upgrade cycle: 5-7 years. While you might ditch your smartphone every year or two for a newer model, few companies are willing to swap out their CRM systems, storage or security technologies that quickly.

Switching behavior is both the most complicated and important subject in the enterprise technology market. Even if enterprise customers have good reasons to be unhappy with their technology vendors (e.g., lack of innovation, price gouging, poor support), their business runs on that technology. This makes them highly incentivized to see existing vendors address any issues and continue the relationship. As we all know, moving's a bitch.

Of course, enterprise tech is a rich, rewarding game, so it's worth exploring the strategies startups can use to overcome the barriers to switching in the enterprise market:

1. Transformational Technologies. The ultimate startup is the one that changes the game on an incumbent in such a way that the latter neither can block nor retaliate. Classic examples include Virtualization and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). Because virtualization decouples compute functions from hardware (while running on top of the hardware), it is the ultimate disruptor because it's non-invasive. SaaS eliminates the stickiness of packaged software - and the lucrative support contracts that go along with it. Interestingly, while there tend to be many attackers in Virtualization and SaaS, only a few players tend to win big. Very big: witness VMware and Salesforce.

2. Changing Product Cycles. Catching technology giants in product transition cycles is one of the most effective ways to insert new technologies. However, this usually requires an outside force to speed insertion. Earlier in my career, Intel Centrino drove the need for enterprise Wi-Fi and forced an architectural change. In 2013 you can see many great examples of this idea, including Palo Alto Networks, Splunk, ServiceNow and Workday. These transition cycles don't last forever, though. Over time the incumbents typically build or buy their way into the new product segment and the situation stabilizes until a new cycle begins.

3. Trojan Horses. Sometimes a new enterprise IT category emerges in an indirect way. Cloud infrastructure eliminates the need to buy IT hardware and software; the rental model emerged as form of shadow IT for specific projects that could not wait for corporate IT to respond. It also became the preferred approach for brand new businesses (Netflix streaming). Amazon Web Services and Rackspace, two big early winners in cloud computing, sell computing cycles by the month, payable with with a credit card - often bypassing traditional IT purchasing processes. Once established, Cloud and SaaS vendors can then turn their attention to selling to mainstream IT.

4. New Buying Centers. The multi-hundred billion-dollar enterprise IT game now pivots on competition for the IT "stack," as we shift from the Client-Server/Web mobel to cloud computing. This change has created a new class of IT decision makers such as the "cloud architect." As companies move more to the cloud, this new IT leadership category drives key decisions for enabling new applications, also driving the buying all of the underlying IT components. And these new buyers may not be as wedded to the incumbent suppliers as were the decision makers they supplant.

5. The Consumerization of IT. The iPhone led to a watershed change both in enterprise mobility and computing. Not only did it challenge corporate purchasing patterns ("I buy, you enable," also known as BYOD, or Bring Your Own Device), it eliminated a final barrier to what constituted a business device. This is less about "consumerizing" enterprise IT, but rather, adapting enterprise IT to leverage consumer technologies. In addition to mobile devices, apps are challenging the application market for business software.

6. Coalitions of the Willing. For most small companies, hiring a large enterprise sales force and entering a year-long acquisition cycle is likely to be an expensive exercise in futility. Sure, you might be able to make a living selling to universities, hospitals and niche verticals, but attacking the Fortune 500 requires friends who need another reason to re-engage in a selling conversation. Manufacturing and strategic partnerships with hardware makers made a lot security companies rich during the client-server era (e.g., McAfee, Symantec). Today, companies like Box are changing the game through new kinds of partnership integrations.

Frontal assaults are the hardest attack strategy for an enterprise startup. Attacking a powerful technology company's profit sanctuary tends to piss them off. If you can pull it off, it might just get your company acquired, but run a big risk of perishing in the attempt.

That's why this tends to be the strategy of large companies (e.g., HP's acquisition of 3Com to attack Cisco) and does not have a great track record. The assault on the business PC by iOS and Android tablets and smartphones may turn out be a more successful example, but, Apple and Google and Samsung are hardly startups.

It can be done, of course. Many decades ago, Microsoft's PC operating system was such a technology and for a generation, a small company in Redmond changed the world. (With a big initial boost from IBM, of course.)

Current technologies that might have the power to force enterprises to switch and create hugely successful startups include Apache Hadoop, Network Virtualization, Flash Storage, and Cloud Storage and Collaboration. That's where I'd look for the next big thing.

 

Image courtesy of Shutterstock.



Four Months Later, Apple Still Censoring Drone Strike App

At the end of August, Apple made a disheartening decision. After NYU grad student Josh Begley submitted Drone+, an iPhone app that maps U.S. drone strike in Pakistan, the company decided that the content was too "objectionable" to be granted shelf space in their App Store.

Begley's app didn't contain graphic images of dismembered children or even classified information. In fact, the same data could be found, in one form or another, within other readily-available apps and on the Web. The decision made little sense, but it smacked of a sort of censorship that left many - myself included - feeling uneasy. Some called for Apple to reverse its decision. Four months later, they haven't said a word. 

The news cycle may have moved on from the Drone+ controversy, but others haven't. In mid-November Congressman Dennis Kucinich called on Apple to unblock the app, citing the need for more transparency about how drones are used by the U.S. military. 

Apple Needs To Get Out of Censorship Game

Apple's customers pay a toll when they enter the company's mobile ecosystem. When we purchase an iOS device, we willingly cede some freedom and control, allowing Apple to call most of the shots. In exchange, we get a highly polished, hyper-intuitive and very functional user experience. And we love it. 

But sometimes Apple's control goes too far. Every now and then, it outgrows its original intent - to maintain a superb user experience - and enters territories that can actually hamper that same experience. Even worse, it can turn a beloved technology brand into a type of censor. 

This is admittedly not as scary as a government censoring a news outlet. But iOS is a very widely-adopted platform and millions of customers instinctively turn to the App Store to load their devices with content and functionality. In some countries, iPhone apps play a pivotal role in popular protests against despotic governments, who undoubtedly find the content of those apps to be "objectionable." Why not give them the boot, too? 

Apple, some will argue, is free to make decisions like this. And they are. It's not a government after all, and consumers are free to go elsewhere or access whatever information they want via the Web browser. This is true. But what business rationale could Apple possibly have for blocking apps based on their content? As far as I can tell, there isn't any. In fact, stuff like this makes iOS less attractive compared to alternatives like Android. 

Why not just stop censoring apps? There would be no discernible degradation in the user experience and many of us would feel less creeped out. 

If Apple wants to draw a line at pornography and obscenity, fine. We'll get our porn elsewhere and the App Store will remain a spotless, kid-friendly place. But beyond obscenity and adult material, the content of apps shouldn't factor into whether or not an app is accepted into the App Store. 

Apple has not officially responded to Congressional calls to reinstate the Drone+ app. But we'll find out if the company has had a change of heart as early as late January. That's when Begley says he'll resubmit the app for approval. Around the same time, he'll submit an Android version as well. 



Selasa, 01 Januari 2013

Hackulous Death Only A Bump In The Road For iOS App Pirates

The bane of anybody that creates content for a living are pirates. These new-aged privateers love nothing more than to crack open your hard work, put it online and distribute it for free. Pirates are especially painful for app developers, many of which are independent individuals or small startups looking to make a living from their creative efforts to help people perform an activity like playing a game, listening to music, be more productive or find their way around. 

App pirates cost developers money. On Android, that sometimes means that just breaking even on your efforts can be near impossible. The problem has not been quite as bad on Apple's iOS, but the company has long fought the 'jailbreak' culture that allows users to bypass the App Store and download paid apps for free. 

Installous Is Dead

Apple and its devoted developers are probably singing songs of hosanna today. The rescue from the pirates has finally come, though it appears to be more of an implosion of the app cracker community than a concerted effort of legion forces coming to succor the developer community. 

The heart of the iOS pirate community, Hackulous, has shut down. That means that its Installous service that helped people pirate iOS apps through faux App Store Apptrackr has also been borked. 

Hackulous posted this message on its website over the weekend.

How Worried Should Devs Be About Piracy?

Piracy is a matter of scale. Those small and indie devs should probably be less worried about pirates than large developers who are reaching the heights of popularity and need to be worried about big percentages getting trimmed off their bottom line. In fact, some smaller developers might benefit from their apps being pirated as the viral quotient has the potential to rise when many users are spreading an app among themselves. 

Some developers think that piracy is a problem for the operating system manufacturers and not the app publishers themselves. Making sure your app is hard to crack can be a difficult task, especially if you do not have the resources or expertise to pull it off. Many app developers are proficient at certain tasks, such as HTML/CSS development or native codes like C/C++. Security in its varying forms sometimes falls by the wayside. 

'Piracy is a Ferrari problem for most app companies,' said Ryan Luedecke, online marketing manager at Mojo Helpdesk. 'It's not something to spend time worrying about until you've reached a critical mass of downloads - and even then it's probably not worth the effort. App developers should be thrilled when consumers like their app enough to try and steal it or if rogue developers respect it enough to try and copy it. Let Apple and Google work on the piracy issue because they have the resources to do so - they also have more at stake. The last thing we want to do as app developers is spend time becoming sort of Lars Ulrich-like crusaders against piracy.'

Piracy can also be regionally specific. Two developers dealing with piracy in 2012 noted that iOS and Android piracy in China was near 100%. Game developer Madfinger noted that its original Shadowgun app was almost entirely downloaded illegally in China. Other app developers see piracy rates of between 10% and 15% on both iOS and Android. 

From a developer standpoint, piracy can be a matter of some subjection. For instance, was the person downloading the app ever likely to buy the app? The case is probably no. Hence, that is not a lost sale. What about pirated apps costing money in terms of server costs, lost ad impressions and labor hours to combat the lost revenue? Yes, that can be a significant problem. 

Technical Solutions Hard To Come By

Installous and Apptrackr were cogs in the system. If you think that someone will not come around and recreate them within a week (and take off in popularity, given the Hackulous void), then you are kidding yourself. 

From a developer standpoint, it is very difficult to build an app that cannot be 'cracked.' Really, if your app is good and the pirates are motivated, they are going to crack it. The best you can do is make it harder for them by employing some decryption techniques but that will only deter the laziest of hackers. 

Many developers, especially game publishers, have taken to the freemium model to beat piracy. Logic and anecdotal evidence tells us that the higher a game is priced in the App Store or Google Play, the more likely it is to be cracked and pirated. The freemium model relies on in-app purchases and advertising for revenue while giving the actual download of the game out for free. The more stringent adherents to freemium might give away a nominal amount of content in their apps while making it next to impossible to do anything without making a purchase. Others may get you hooked with a fair amount of app features before blocking you before you go any further. In-app strategy or other creative revenue streams are the biggest and best weapons developers have against the pirates. 

The fact of the matter is, no matter how hard Apple or Google (or the FBI) try, nobody is getting rid of piracy in its entirety. Ask the film industry. Ask the music industry. The pirates are always, always, always going to figure out how to get what they want. The best deterrent is to make the barrier for entry into piracy sufficiently high so that only the most motivated will follow through. With Apptrackr and Installous combined with many developers' loose security practices, the piracy barrier was very low, which is what has led to the proliferation of piracy, especially on iOS. 

In the end, the death of Hackulous will be really no different than demise of AOL Message Boards or Usenet. Just because the forum has disappeared does not mean that the people on it are gone. We will likely see a drop in iOS app piracy in the short term. But that will not last forever. The current set of tools are gone but does not mean that people are not still motivated to get something for free. 

Image courtesy of Shutterstock.



Has Facebook's Reign Come And Gone Already?

A smart friend of mine, a longtime industry veteran, once shared with me an interesting observation about the companies that dominate the computing industry. His idea was that there's always a top dog, a company that Bigfoots over everybody else, instills fears in rivals, attracts the best talent and so on -- but that with each turn of the wheel, each new ruler's reign gets shorter and shorter. So: first came IBM, which ruled for 25 to 30 years, then Microsoft, which ruled for 12 to 15, then Google for six to eight years, and now Facebook, whose reign arguably began in 2010, when its traffic surged past Google's and it bullied Zynga, its biggest partner, into accepting Facebook Credits.

But is Facebook's reign already drawing to a close?

That's the impression I got from reading a thoughtful blog post by YouTube exec Hunter Walk titled, "Trying to be the one true social graph is like trying to hold water in your hand."

It's a great piece and really worth a read. But the gist is that while it might once have seemed that Facebook could become the "one graph that rules them all," that notion is already looking kind of silly.

One Social Graph To Rule Them All?

As evidence, Walk offers Facebook's acquisition of Instagram and its cloning of Snapchat with a feature called Poke. (The scary thing about the Poke fiasco is not that Facebook ripped off an idea, but that it failed to kill Snapchat. If you're really the top dog, that's not supposed to happen.)

Walk's premise is that the world keeps changing, and new stuff keeps bubbling up and becoming popular, and Facebook simply can't keep buying or copying every new thing that comes along. 

Facebook will "continue to be successful and useful for quite a long time - and they may even be the largest single graph - but it's not going to be the only one of consequence," Walk writes. 

For one thing, each new generation wants to have its own service, Walk says. That rings true in my own experience. I was taken aback recently when my nephews, who are in junior high, told me that they and their friends all use Google+, not Facebook. Why? "It's better," they shrugged. They see Facebook as kind of a spammy, low-rent place for the hoi polloi and people who don't know better (like parents and grandparents), while Google+ is for the cool kids.

Another factor, Walk says, is that instead of trying to shake off all the cruft that builds up in Facebook over time, it's easier sometimes to just start over with a new network and create a fresh social graph.

The Hacker Way

So is Facebook over? Of course not. But is there a chance we'll look back and say that 2012 or 2013 was the apogee? That doesn't seem so far-fetched.

Especially since Facebook doesn't exactly seem like the best-run or best-managed company on earth.

These guys live by the "Hacker Way," which sounds cool, as does Facebook's unofficial motto, "Done is better than perfect," except that over time all that imperfect-but-done stuff starts to add up, and not in a good way.

Look at the year Facebook just had in 2012. First came a botched IPO marred by allegations of self-dealing and government investigations and a collapsing stock price. (Done? Check. Perfect? Um...)

Then came the "promoted posts" scheme that has angered brands and pushed Mark Cuban to direct greater emphasis to other networks.

"Find Friends Nearby" launched and then unlaunched. A mobile ad network launched and then unlaunched too. 

The shift to mobile was listed as a risk in the S-1 for the IPO, but when that hurt the stock, suddenly mobile was being spun as a massive opportunity.

It seems not a week goes by without some kind of blow-up. Two weeks ago there was the kerfuffle over new terms of service at Instagram.

Today came news of a security flaw in a special New Year feature that made it possible for anyone to view other people's private messages and photos. Facebook quickly plugged the flaw, but still. 

Then again, what else do you expect? This is the epitome of the "hacker way." It's a great way to get things done quickly, but maybe not the best way to build a company that can last a long time.

So far Faceboook has managed to stay ahead of every new rival that comes along. But more will be coming this year, and next year and the year after that. At some point Facebook won't be able to keep up.

For what it's worth, remember my friend with the theory about ever-shorter reign of each new computer industry power? He thinks Facebook peaked earlier this year, on the day of its IPO.

Image courtesy of Reuters.



Top Web Series of 2012 Set New Bar For Quality

2012 saw a lot of great new web series from surprising new sources. For what seemed like the first time, tech companies invested big money - and pulled big names -  into original online video programming.

In this digital programming horse race there was one clear, seemingly from left field, winner:  Yahoo. Specifically Yahoo! Screen, the company's version of Google's original programming initiative.

Yahoo! Screen's web series had high production values, famous names and compelling, relevant writing. In an interview with USA Today back in July, Vice President and Head of Video for Yahoo Erin McPherson called the digital projects 'online digital blockbusters.'

The 'online digital blockbusters' however, failed to get the same marketing push most Hollywood blockbuster movies receive, so chances are you've probably never heard of them. This is not a problem unique to Yahoo; YouTube, Hulu and Crackle have also all failed to get the word out on their great web shows. (It is also possible one factor limiting the spread of Yahoo's original programming is the inability to embed their videos anywhere.) Regardless, this list is the best of the best, the true hidden gems of Internet content.  

Electric City (Yahoo Screen)

Created by Tom Hanks, who also stars as the leading man (and deadly assassin), this animated post-apocalyptic sci-fi series is thoroughly entertaining and ambitious.  Like most web series these days, there was also an interactive component, and like modern society, everyone is obsessed with electricity - except in this world, it is scarce. Also, the series is not really for little kids: Hank's character snaps a criminal's neck in the first episode, after said criminal beat his wife.  Nominated for a 2012 Streamy Award as "Best Animated Series."  

Cybergeddon (Yahoo Screen)

Anthony E. Zuiker, the same guy who created the hit TV show CSI, has tried his hand at a web series, and it's good. Cybergeddon is a pertinent, fast and fun cyber-terrorism thriller the New York Times called "better than your average TV-movie."  (I'd say it is way better.) The series is again not for children, and is a sly advert for Norton Internet Security. Nominated for four 2012 Streamy Awards; Best Male and Female Performance in a Drama, Best Ensemble Cast and Best Branded Entertainment series. 

Burning Love (Yahoo Screen)

Ken Marino stars in this "Bachelor" parody, meaning he lives in a house with a bunch of women and tries to narrow down who his contractually obligated bride will be based on superficial - sometimes absurd- criteria. The series was just signed for a second and third season, so you know it found an audience, despite Yahoo's marketing shortcomings. Not for kids. Nominated for five Streamy Awards, including Best Male and Female Performance, Best Ensemble Cast and Best Comedy.

Battleground (Hulu)

Hulu's first foray into scripted television is a mockumentary, in the style of The Office, about a dark horse political campaign for a Democrat in Wisconsin with a corrupt past. The comparisons to The Office stop there, however, and the film crew actually plays a pivotal role in the series by driving a major plot point. Not for kids, either. Nominated for two Streamy Awards, for Best Male and Female Performance in a Drama. 

Video Game High School (YouTube)

Created by Freddie Wong and Co (Rocket Jump), this web series was actually not part of Google's original programming initiative - with Wong raising funds successfully through Kickstarter. The series is a first for the seemingly self-taught film-maker, and comes close to being a romantic comedy. The action-packed series takes place in an alternative reality where video games are treated as a mainstream sport complete with TV commentators, and students are recruited to top schools based off their gaming skills. (So yes, this series is for a younger crowd.) Nominated for two Streamy Awards; Best Ensemble Cast and Best Production Design. 

The Lizzie Bennet Diaries (YouTube)

This re-adaption of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice has gotten favorable reviews from outlets like Wired, Gigaom and USA Today and the cast was a hit at last year's VidCon, but the series has struggled to break more than a million views on its first episode. (The series is rather niche in its appeal, after all.) Cast members also behave like real Internet citizens, with their own Tumblr, Lookbook and Twitter accounts, giving the audience that transmedia interactive experience that is so hot right now.  Created by Hank Green and Bernie Su, the duo hasn't ruled out adapting other classics for YouTube in the future. Nominated for five Streamy Awards including Best Writing; Comedy and Best Interactive Program.

Seven Minutes in Heaven (Yahoo Screen)/Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee (Crackle)

Both series are interview shows; SNL writer Mike O'Brien interviews various celebrities in a small closet and then tries to kiss them leading to a hilariously awkward exchange, and Jerry Seinfeld drives around in classic or unusual cars interviewing various comedians on a coffee run.  

Geek and Sundry/Nerdist (YouTube)

Both Felicia Day (Geek and Sundry) and Chris Hardwick (Nerdist) were funding recipients in  Google's original content investment, and the King and Queen of geek culture have diversified their channels offerings to include something for well, every nerd. Both Geek and Sundry and Nerdist offer a variety of shows for every day of the week: Geek and Sundry has Day vlogging on Monday and Space Janitors on Tuesday for example, while Hardwick has shows like All Star Celebrity Bowling, Neil Patrick Harris' Puppet Dreams and Star Talk with Neil Degrasse Tyson.   

MyMusic (YouTube)

This quirky mockumentary about the music industry was created by YouTube community favorites the Fine Brothers, and features a heavy set of Internet celebrities as well as pop culture and Internet references  - one character is based off 4chan phenom Boxxy, for instance - and has a bit of a Portlandia feel. The show also has various components including a regular music news component, and all characters have associated online Twitter profiles much in the way of the Lizzie Bennet Diaries. Nominated for nine Streamy Awards, including Best Editing, Best Visual Effects, and Best Comedy Series.

Lead image courtesy of YouTube.



Senin, 31 Desember 2012

Do Violent Video Games Really Cause Violent Behavior?

After the recent tragedy in Newtown, CT, some commentators and - notably - the National Rifle Association (NRA) remarked that video games played a role in a "culture of violence" and detachment that can ease the path to violent behavior. This, in turn, has given new life to the debate about the role of media violence ' particularly, violent video games ' on real-world aggression. It's a serious topic, so ReadWrite thought it was important to to recap the latest on the discussion and see where scholarly studies and popular opinion fall.

Understanding The Numbers

We all know the guy who plays Call of Duty eight hours a day, then goes home to a world of puppies and rainbows. We've also heard of the kid who plays a game for an hour or two, then goes on a shooting spree. There are exceptions to any rule, and if we're going to find real answers, we need to look at trends and averages, not statistical outliers.

It's also important to remember that even if there is a link between violent games and aggressive behavior, that does not imply causality. Violent criminals may well choose violent games, but tens of millions of gamers play those games every week, and the vast majority are law-abiding, normal citizens.

At the same time, it might be shortsighted to ignore such links. According to a recent publication by Iowa State University professor Dr. Craig Anderson, "Correlational studies are routinely used in modern science to test theories that are inherently causal. Whole scientific fields are based on correlational data (e.g., astronomy). Well conducted correlational studies provide opportunities for theory falsification. They allow examination of serious acts of aggression that would be unethical to study in experimental contexts. They allow for statistical controls of plausible alternative explanations." In other words, short of placing a subject in a dangerous situation, correlation is often the best evidence available, and it can be useful debunking other theories.

The State Of Research

At the moment, studies are all over the map, largely because just about every study of video game violence uses different definitions of the terms. The Legend of Zelda, Grand Theft Auto and Missile Command are all violent games in their own ways, but they're not at all similar. Likewise, throwing a fake roundhouse kick at your buddy, checking a box describing "elevated feelings of aggression," and setting fire to a building are all extremely different violent expressions. Unfortunately, current studies span both spectrums, so anyone with a vested interest can easily find a study to support their position. Worse, this makes meaningnful meta-analysis across multiple studies is effectively impossible. 80% of studies agreeing with a certain position doesn't mean much if half of those studies were poorly structured and the other half were measuring something completely different.

5 Emerging Truths

With that said, there seem to be five theories gaining traction. Each has its naysayers, of course, but they have real data to back them up:

1. At-Risk Populations Are Vulnerable To Violent Stimuli

One popular theory holds that some people are more vulnerable to the effects of gaming violence than others. This resonates with our gut instincts, and provides a happy, reasonable-sounding middle ground for both sides. In the Review of General Psychology, Drs. Patrick and Charlotte Markey outline the three most predictive traits for vulnerability:

  • high neuroticism
  • low agreeableness
  • low conscientiousness

This doesn't mean that games cause violent behavior. It suggests that violent games are among the many influences that can be linked to violent behaviors. We've seen copycat murders modeled after television newscasts, Mark David Chapman's obsession with The Catcher in the Rye, and thousands of years of killings based on stories from holy works. Violence and rebellion in media have always been lightning rods for the mentally ill, and video games are a popular medium for the young male demographic most likely to commit violent acts.

The upshot? Young people who are emotionally upset, detached or combative, and impulsive should probably not be exposed to violent games. Unfortunately, that describes a fair portion of teenagers, so use discretion applying the rule to your own kids.

2. Video Game violence Is Not A Significant Danger To The General Population

Even the most damning studies don't claim that video games will create violent monsters of your children. They can't. If that were true, we'd have blood running in the streets. For the majority of "normal" gamers, the worst claims seem to be short-term aggression without substantial consequence, and a general lessening of communication and empathy skills ' but again, without specific consequences attached.

The majority of research on the subject seems to indicate a fairly tenuous link between in-game and real-world violence. For example, two studies conducted by Texas A&M and the University of Wisconsin - Whitewater, respectively, found no conclusive evidence. "Structural equation modeling suggested that family violence and innate aggression as predictors of violent crime were a better fit to the data than was exposure to video game violence."

In other words, a predisposition to violence or a violent homelife is very likely a predictor of future violent behavior, while video games are not.

3. Fantasy Violence Is Less Dangerous

Killing Falatacot Raiders won't make you murder humans, though we're not sure about Hitman. Some people have pointed to studies showing that even E-rated games can lead to imitation (e.g., children punching or kicking) for a period following play, but it appears that transference of aggression from aliens, orcs, or Pokemon to humans is minimal, at worst.

4. Violent Games Do Increase Simulation

Just like watching action movies or sprinting down a street, violent video games (and other competitive or action games) increase stimulation and adrenaline production, which can produce short-term disruptions and enhanced moods. Some studies claim short-term affects can last long enough to disrupt sleep when played before bedtime, while others saw certain effects lingering up to 24 hours. At the very least, the "amp up" factor is real ' it's kind of the point. For parents of children who may be particularly affected by such things (e.g., those with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD), this can be a concern.

5. Content Ratings Matter

People on both sides of the issue agree that content ratings are important. Even absent a long-term impact on violent behavior, graphic scenes of violence, nudity and other adult situations can impact developing minds. Video game access should be restricted like access to any other type of media.

The Easy Answer

Anyone who wants the government to step in and make the call on what to do about video game violence will be sorely disappointed. There simply isn't enough evidence linking video games and violence to even start that discussion, particularly when films and images of far more graphic violence are readily accessible.

The answer to the problem seems to be the same as the answer to concerns about TV rotting your kid's brain in the 1960s: personal responsibility. If you're a parent, pay attention to the ratings, research the content of games online before you buy them, and above all, know your child's sensitivities and limitations. If you're in doubt about the effect of a game or other piece of media, say no.

That won't end the debate, of course. Truly troubled teens often don't have the parental supervision they need to limit their gaming or other media consumption. But it's unclear exactly what the right strategy would be to deal with that issue.