Re: http://joncarder.com/post/549498751

kellyrued — Thu, 13 May 2010 13:20:16 -0000

Nice overview, Jon. I agree that it isn't rocket science, but it's also harder than it looks to execute a game well. Dreaming it up and copying mechanics from other games is easy, but testing, balancing, and understanding the total cost (esp. for reward payouts) and anticipating all consequences of the user behaviors you are motivating are all much harder to do. For one, people seldom think of opportunity costs (if my user is focused on x due to our game design, they are not focusing on a, b, or c).

I'm not sure if Foursquare has a broad appeal as it stands. They seem kind of stuck in certain demographics (who are a good match for tech-savvy mobile app users). The problem with their core demographic is that "shiny" and "new" can transform them from the MySpace of 2006 (top of the world) to the MySpace of today (laid off 30% of their workforce in 2009).

If Foursquare doesn't significantly innovate on their game design I really don't think they will last. The success they are riding is something of a fad with young/hip people who will quickly move on when the next service offers something more novel and foursquare is old news.

Foursquare is also limited to young people simply due to the laborious nature of gameplay (busy adults with families and long work hours are not keen on traveling all over town just to grab explore badges). The flip side is that their gameplay alienates a lot of people who might be far better customer demographics for many businesses. College kids are great for bars but not so great for luxury vehicle showrooms, fine dining, kid's clothing stores, etc.

With modifications, the Foursquare gameplay could be extended to reach more demographics, especially with a family-focused features to funnel families through kid-friendly destinations on evenings, weekends, and summer outings. To me, the key though is having more online gameplay that can be accomplished from a home or work computer rather than on-location. Many people can't afford the time to go see if something is worth the trip.

Like bunchball, I am a game marketing service provider but I work with small businesses, startups, and niche verticals with special considerations for privacy, security, and internationalization.

PS I couldn't get comment submission (w or w/o disqus login) to work in IE (latest version).

Re: The Plus-Size Model Debate arises at London Fashion Week

kellyrued — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:30:23 -0000

Fantastic! I won't be forgetting the name Mark Fast.

The fashion industry needs more unprejudiced people with healthy attitudes toward diversity and weight. Runways are still too white, too tall, too skinny, and just plain too homogeneous. It's boring. It seems like being a high fashion model isn't even about being beautiful or interesting to look at (wouldn't want to distract from the clothes, I guess). Many of the models on runways are rather homely but they are all tall, narrow-as-a-young-man, and they have bland, symmetrical features. Why not just replace runway models with motorized mannequins? Then they'd all be the exact same size and designers could make sure no inconvenient features like hips or breasts or butts disrupted the presentation of their looks-good-on-paper-and-5%-of-women "designs."

Seriously, variety is good for creativity. Only designing to one size/style of human form is weirdly limiting. From an aesthetic perspective, it doesn't make sense. Until I see 5'4" models on the runways, I will always be skeptical about the design skills of "fashion designers" because finding an idealized canvas for your work is not the same as designing solutions within realistic constraints (like the majority of women's heights and shapes).

And is that pic a plus size model? I can't tell because she looks fit, healthy, and totally not fat.

Disqus - Latest Comments for kellyrued

Re: http://joncarder.com/post/549498751

Re: The Plus-Size Model Debate arises at London Fashion Week