A study conducted by NewMediaMetrics found a significant difference in the types of digital behavior embraced by the X and Y generations when it comes to child raising.  Gen Y is much more attached to media that connects them to other moms (online communities, blogs, video-sharing sites, etc.), while Gen X moms are more likely to embrace the web for task-oriented activities like shopping online and uploading photos. The study concludes that this might signify a shift in the way that marketers should be targeting the next new generation of moms online.

Both groups X and Y share similar objectives of exploring mom-related issues online, Gen Y moms tend to have much higher attachment to interactive tools that allow them to connect directly with other moms.

The findings show that Gen Y moms make use of digital tools and activities that allow them to create
and own content (i.e., online profiles, blogs), as well as connect and interact with other moms
(i.e., text messages, photos and video, online community).

These behaviors demonstrate Gen Y moms’ confidence in their use of these technologies as forms
of communication and self-expression. It also reveals a trend among the younger Gen Y moms
of relying on the common experience of members of their cohort to help them navigate their journey
through parenthood.

Gen X moms use online technologies very differently.

They tend to engage in more task-oriented activities, such as online shopping, researching and
reviewing products, and organizing photos. This illustrates a significant generational shift in
how they behave in comparison to their Gen Y successors when it comes to the use of digital tools.

Source: Center for Media Research; NewMediaMetrix August, 2008

Thinking out loud here.

There’s a trap that we all fall into in Web development, which is building something we want and then trying to figure out how to get people to use it.

Let’s take a different approach, identifying an audience first and target their needs.

I know that’s not as much fun, but really, it’s the most logical approach.

We’ve all built sites that have underperformed and if you look at the main factor, it would probably be that there was no underlying need for what we’d launched. I’ll use IndyPaws.com as an example:

We built the site for pet owners in central Indiana to socially connect, but looking back there was clearly not a large enough audience to make this a viable brand following that model.

What we should have done instead was build the site with a focus on galleries, games and contests - concentrating more on the “fun” aspect. I wouldn’t have eliminated the social networking, just downplayed it.

The problem I’m faced with now is that the users have already rejected the product, so relaunching it will not be an easy task. You only get one chance to make a first impression, so it’s important that to research before building - so that it’s no longer a crapshoot.

All of the projects we’re going to concentrate on in 2009 will we audience-first, and cool-factor second.

Stay tuned for more updates.

I heard an interesting comparison today.

During a video conference with our corporate brethren, someone compared the use of mobile technology to the use of internet in 1998. While I think that’s accurate, I think that there’s an important distinction to make.

Namely, the speed by which the landscape changed in the last ten years is not a constant. The users are not going to continue to evolve at the same rate. The general acceptance of the internet into daily life, combined with the rapid advances of technology/infrastructure guarantee that things will change at a different pace.

So when do I think “Mobile 1998″ penetration will catch up to current traffic patterns/usage of traditional web sites? Realistically, I’d say about 24 months.

What that means is that we’d better get off our collective asses and start developing a real strategy for all of our web sites and applications that take full advantage of the mobile platform now.

Seriously, 24 months. Now that says a lot when you consider that my current traditional sites generate roughly 40 million page views per month and over 2 million unique visitors, while our mobile footprint is a fraction of that.

It doesn’t matter whether we can quantify the development resources needed at this juncture in time or not - it’s about protecting the future of our businesses and organizations.

Either we embrace mobile now, or be undercut by others who will have less to gain by relying on existing technology. Really, it’s the same argument that we made with print media 10 years ago - evolve or risk losing your market share to someone else.

In 24 months were going to be looking at digital devices that can deliver high speed video, perform every function of current web sites, and maintain advanced social networking - in the hands of more than half of the people in the United States, and more than that in Europe/Japan.

Better get started, because we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us.

So check out my new lunch box, which will be replacing the old Godzilla-themed pack that I’ve been using since FOREVER.

I was doing some surfing today, and I realized that Flash - which is a great tool - is often more annoying than it is useful. The reason for that is simple - the developers that utilize it tend to be one trick ponies. Many of them are masters of the tween and the art of action scripting, but couldn’t do a simple ajax affect if their lives depended on it.

To best utilize Flash, you need to understand that it is just another tool in what should be a comprehensive toolbox. If you really want to serve your clients and users interests, you should build everything simply and economically. Use Flash where you need to use it, but don’t force it to accomplish every little task.

The end result of over-Flashifying a site is that you end up with something that is incredibly difficult to maintain over time - thus driving up production time and costs. It becomes even more complicated once the original designer has handed off the Flash piece to someone else. There’s nothing as frustrating as trying to fix a Flash file that was build incorrectly in the first place.

One thing that I find frustrating is the overused Flash intro. It’s great to see a cool intro on my first visit to a site, but when I come back I should never have to sit through it again. It’s just a waste of my time. Since an intro - which I’m not a fan of anyway - is used to introduce your brand/product/message to the users, do you really want that brand/product/message to be irritating? The answer is a resounding no.

Flash works best as a user-initiated method within an established web 2.0, css framework, so let’s use it that way. To all the Flash designers out there that can’t cascade a stylesheet, it’s time to join learn.

Digital designer Matthew Rogers sent me a link for a site that you can use to create background patterns. I kicked the tires and it’s fairly intuitive. Try it the next time you need to create a pattern for one of your clients.

Click here to go to the site

Our moms-centric social networking site, conceived, designed and built by our I&D department, revolutionized how newspapers thought about digital audiences. After 2.5 years, the site boast more than 25,000 users and nearly 2.5 million page views per month.