How to avoid vomit-inducing interactive experiences | Mumbrella360 video
Ever wondered how to execute an effective interactive experience without leaving your customers either yawning or vomiting? Experiential software company founder Jack Gillespie reveals the tricks of the trade during this session from Mumbrella360.
According to Jack Gillespie, musician, programmer and technical solutions specialist, VR is something “a bunch of you are going to be excited about, and I’m going to say is terrible”.
“In terms of interactive stuff… a whole bunch of people are going to vomit if your experience goes for more than about three minutes,” he tells the audience during the following session from June’s Mumbrella360 conference.
“The first time you do something amazing in VR, you’re like ‘Holy sh*t, that was great’,” he says. “However, most of the things you’re going to see in VR are not that. The best things I’ve seen in VR across the whole industry have been video.”
According to Gillespie, it’s important to remember that “you’re not trying to be the future forever – nobody’s the future forever – but if you can do something no one’s done before for a minute, then someone’s going to get excited about it.
“You want people to have to go there. If your content is only as interesting as stuff that I can do on my phone… you’re going to lose.”
He introduces the audience to the concept of “jankyness”, which is that “if this stuff was good, it would be mainstream, and you wouldn’t need me to tell you about it”.
“This stuff”, according to Gillespie, includes Kinect, VR, Leap Motion, AR, Arduino, live MMOs.
“Nothing I’m going to talk about is good, it’s just interesting,” he says.
On a scale of one to janky, VR scores between two to four out of five, Kinect scores a three, while Leap Motion gets a “max janky” five out of five.
One area of tech that’s not janky, according to Gillespie, is holograms. “It’s really cool, not enough people are doing interesting stuff with it, it’s surprisingly not janky, because it’s just a screen,” he says. “At the end of the day, all we’re talking about is a new type of screen, we know about screens, we’ve done screens for a long time.
“It’s very future-y, people do care. There’s some great data out there that showing that particularly if you are selling a small product, or a premium product, people will engage with it in an incredibly interesting way.”
Another experience that’s almost always a guaranteed winner is photobooths. “People love photobooths, just inherently,” he says. “We’ve built incredibly cool things, but photobooths will absolutely get you big numbers. If you want a lot of people to do a thing and then say it was great, make a photobooth.”
He concludes with a warning: “Be really cautious when you’re on the internet. Technically possible actually often means practically impossible.
“Things will be solvable for a million dollars, but do you really have a million dollars to spend on this one element of this one campaign? Probably not.”
I would have serious concerns about anyone who says “The best things I’ve seen in VR across the whole industry have been video.”
User ID not verified.
Absolutely feel the same as the above commenter. I actually produce VR videos (360 videos as they’re actually known though many don’t refer to them as that!) for a 360 virtual tour company (www.onlinevr.co.uk) and though they’re fun to look around, nothing beats the engagement you get from actually being able to interact with an environment. I’ve been experimenting recently with adding interactive elements to my media but even so I don’t think my interactive photos and videos come close to the engagement levels of even a basic VR game. Even if that’s something as basic as a gear VR controller game such as Drop Dead, you go from feeling like a passenger to an interactive player by being able to take part.
User ID not verified.
A very fair point. If I could clarify my intention, I didn’t mean to imply 360 video was superior for every content or medium, and interactive VR is a demonstrably engaging.
However, I believe for the target industry it is often not an effective choice. Interactive VR is a comparatively costly to produce, and the crowd throughput (often an essential metric) is reduced. I don’t think that in 2017, the average Australian is naturally comfortable or familiar with the methods of interaction in a VR environment. This often results in a steeper learning curve and a much longer time for users to feel comfortable. In many cases, the complete experience needs to be extremely time efficient, 2-5 minutes total.
Factors like needing to clean the headsets, helping people get them on, motion sickness etc can also really hurt the number of people who get to use the created experience.
Thanks for watching!
Jack
User ID not verified.