Friday, November 18, 2011

Netflix scores new Arrested Development episodes for 2013 | Electronista

Netflix scores new Arrested Development episodes for 2013

(0) 0

updated 08:20 pm EST, Fri November 18, 2011

Netflix gets lock on Arrested Development return


Fox and Imagine Television confirmed a major deal on Friday to get new episodes of Arrested Development. The agreement outlined by Variety would revive the cult hit TV show starting from early 2013. It reportedly won out in a fierce bidding competition with traditional TV that included Showtime, among others.

The terms of the deal weren't given out, but are likely to be expensive. Netflix' first exclusive show, the Kevin Spacey headliner House of Cards, is unofficially believed to have cost over $100 million.

It comes in sync with plans for an Arrested Development movie and could be crucial to Netflix keeping its status as the primary source of online video in the US. Netflix is on the verge of losing Starz content that, while a small piece of its overall content, may cost it variety that it has been working for years to build. A deal, while not coming for over a year, would help smooth out the public relations fiascoes created first by hiking the price of getting both DVDs and streaming as well as the flip-flop on splitting off DVDs under Qwikster.

If exclusive, it could significantly shut out competitors like Apple and Amazon. Both as a whole get much more recent content through their willingness to sell TV episodes, but they rarely have true exclusives.


By Electronista Staff

Share the Article

Posted via email from papafouche's posterous

Sunday, November 06, 2011

Metamemory and the User Experience | UX Magazine

An article published in Science Magazine in June provides evidence that the Internet has become an “external part” of our memory systems. Rather than remembering information, we seem to have “outsourced” this effortful task to an entity other than ourselves.

On the face of it, this is not an astounding finding in that psychologists have demonstrated for over 30 years that we use outside sources, such as family or team members, to supplement our less-than-perfect memories. What makes this research remarkable, and of interest to the UX community, is that the researchers found that when we expect to be able to access information in the future, we tend to have reduced memory for the actual information, but enhanced memory for where to find the information. Thus, while we do measurably worse at remembering that the capital of Vermont is Montpellier, we apparently remember with greater accuracy, where on the bookshelf the atlas is located. These findings suggest that making sites memorable as the repository of information may be the key to gaining return visitors.

What the Science Demonstrated

The Science Magazine article’s authors conducted a series of experiments that explored whether the Internet actually functions as an external memory source. In the first experiment they found that attempting to answer difficult trivia questions disposes people to think of computer-related terms and brand names such as Google and Yahoo!. In the second experiment they found that memory for information is better if people do not believe they will have access to the information in the future. In the third and fourth experiments they showed that when people believe they will have access to information in the future, they are more likely to remember where to find the information than actually remembering the information itself.

The authors propose that this is an adaptive use of memory—we use the Internet as an external source of memory because it is available as an easy repository for knowledge we do not store in our brains. They conclude that we are using the Internet in a manner akin to transactive memory, a social form of external memory in which individuals within a team or social group rely on one another to be sources of information.

These findings suggest that people are willing to spend more energy remembering the location of information rather than the information per se. What does this mean for the UX community? Perhaps not surprisingly, the answer lies in the three components of transactive memory: specialization, coordination, and credibility.

Transactive Memory and Reliance on a Conglomerate

Transactive memory theory is based on the idea that individuals can serve as external memory stores for others. Typically, the theory relates to groups of people such as families or work groups. Each individual has specialized knowledge, and other group members rely on the “expert” to be the keeper of that knowledge and share it when necessary. Although people often form their own memories of information, they also rely on others to hold that knowledge. For example, one spouse might be the keeper of knowledge about how the furnace works, allowing the other spouse to ask for the information if it’s needed without having to retain the memory him or herself. The memory is transactive in that the content of the memory is passed between the knower and the person with the need to know.

Transactive memory is thought to be composed of three components: specialization, coordination, and credibility. Specialization results from one member of a team assuming expertise in knowledge not held by other team members. Coordination occurs when the team members develop a “metamemory” of each member’s specialization, and credibility describes the extent to which team members believe in the accuracy and trustworthiness of one another’s knowledge. In other words, once a team has developed a transactive memory and each team member believes in each other’s skills, then success of the group is predicted by the conglomerate rather than relying on each individual to remember everything. The gain here is twofold: first, the group can rely on an expert, and second the group gains greater efficiency.

Successful Websites Reflect Elements of Transactive Memory

Singular purpose

It’s spooky, upon consideration, how many successful websites faithfully mirror the components of transactive memory described above. Some of the most successful sites specialize in a particular offering—Expedia does travel, Epicurious focuses on food, and Amazon sells stuff. Even though they are large sites, there is a core offering that is easy to remember. Amazon may sell many products, but they do not offer information about how to use these products or news about the product manufacturers. Similarly, Expedia is known for travel—booking flights, hotels, car rentals, cruises, etc.—but is not known for advice on planning a trip. These sites have a singular purpose and state it unequivocally. We return to them when we want what they offer; there is no need to search for “travel” or “books.” Thus, site specialization may contribute to memorability.

Lack of specialization can potentially hurt a site’s memorability. Case in point: About.com. This site attempts to be all things to all people. Lack of broad loyalty may be due to users’ inability to pinpoint what precisely the site can offer them. Breadth makes it cumbersome.

There is one way, however, where breadth is apparently, powerful: what if people believe a site is the gatekeeper to all knowledge? As a matter of fact they do. Google appears to have become our metamemory and in this way has cornered the information market. Don’t believe me? Just Google it!

Niche market segments, products or services, or geographic concentration of resources may be recommended. This strategy may increase the probability that users will remember the location of information rather than the information itself.

Coordination is metamemory

Coordination is the user’s awareness of all the sites needed to get through the day. Supplies, sustenance, and resuscitation easily translate into shopping, food, and vacation. This, in turn, is one step away from Amazon, Recipes.com, and Travelocity. Metamemory, therefore, is the awareness and categorization of all information sources.

Just being memorable is not enough

Finally, credibility of a site is crucial for return visits. Memorability of information location is not enough; users need to feel that a site is trustworthy in order to make it worth remembering. Trust can be generated in multiple ways. Firstly, trust comes through making a site understandable. Understanding provides a feeling of control that results in positive regard for a site and site owner. Trust is also increased when a site functions without errors and appears professional. Credibility is also dependent upon the perceived accuracy of content. Sites like Yelp and TripAdvisor utilize user-generated content, and trust is an emergent property based upon convergence of opinions. Additionally, the authenticity of posted information is subject to questioning by the users themselves and thereby subject to the requisite checks and balances. Alternately, sites like CNET gain their credibility through the use of expert reviewers. Regardless of how it is earned, trust is a critical component of memorability.

The science has offered us a blueprint for gathering and keeping a loyal and satisfied customer base. This is likely to work best when websites use the heuristics of human cognition to allow the customer’s experience to echo their own natural behavior. In this specific case, being a credible information source for a specialized offering seems to form the foundation and framework for loyal customers because of the human penchant to form metamemory systems.

Posted via email from papafouche's posterous

Narcissists Feel Like Better Leaders | Psychology Today

Because narcissists are so confident in their abilities and opinions, they may keep group members from sharing information.  In situations where shared information is crucial to good performance, a narcissistic leader may cause a group to be very confident that their leader is a good one and yet they may perform poorly.

To test this possibility, groups of three people were asked to evaluate candidate for job.  Before getting together as a group, a leader was selected at random.  The group leader was the one who had to make the final decision in the task.  The participants in this study also filled out an inventory that measured their level of narcissism

 Each group member was given a list of 9 characteristics for each of three job candidates.  Some of those characteristics were given to each group member, but some were given only to individuals.  The descriptions were cleverly set up so that one job candidate would look best if only the information that all group members shared was considered, but that if the group pooled all of its information, then a second job candidate would actually be the best one. 

 Two results emerged from this study.

 First, group leaders who had a high score on the narcissism scale, were generally seen as more effective leaders than group leaders who had a low score on the narcissism scale.  That is the typical result from studies of narcissism and leadership.

 Second, groups with more narcissistic leaders tended to share less information than those with less narcissistic leaders, and as a result, they made worse decisions.  So, even though the groups with narcissistic leaders felt better about their group leader, they actually performed more poorly than those with less narcissistic leaders.

What does this mean?

There are often two distinct issues in group performance.  First, groups do need to have some confidence that they are going to succeed.  That confidence can increase motivation to continue with a difficult task.  In that way, a narcissistic leader can be good.

However, if the group needs to share information in order to succeed, then narcissistic leaders need to curb their tendency to dominate the discussion and decision making and let others share information.  Otherwise, the group runs the risk of rushing to judgment without key information that might lead to better performance.

 Follow me on Twitter.

 Here's my page on Facebook.

 Check out my new book Smart Thinking to be published in January, 2012.

 

Posted via email from papafouche's posterous