Embeds, content and context

As a publisher you have 2 choices. You can either bring the people to your content or you can find ways for your content to flow towards the people. Historically that has meant using syndication technologies like RSS but in these days of #PeakRSS that's no longer sufficient. The audience are no longer just sitting in front of their aggregators. They're sitting in front of activity streams watching reshares and hitting reload on their favourite websites every morning.

To maximise the reach of your content you have to reduce the accidental friction (see Brooks on the difference between essential and accidental properties) involved in sharing to those activity streams. That means making it easy to share (hence the sharing buttons all over the web), making it clear why they should share (hence the various experiments encouraging you to share or tweet specific quotes from an article) and finally making the shareable unit something that can travel easily around the web.

This is where embeds come in. An embed is a card that contains a chunk of a site's functionality that can be ripped out of that site and reused elsewhere.

http://parochialaesthetics.tumblr.com/post/148169494570/eliel-saarinen-always-design-things-by-context

This can range from music players (like Soundcloud) to video players (like YouTube) to quotes (like Twitter) to whole discussion threads (like Google+). What distinguishes them from glorified screenshots or Xanadu's transclusions is their interactivity. Visitors to your site can interact with this foreign content without abandoning your site.

But isn't this what links are supposed to do? Unfortunately inline links have various problems:

• they take the user away from your site
• they break silently
• the content at the destination has to be consumed without the context provided by your site
• the destination can't provide guarantees about the experience your audience will receive and thus you can't set reliably expectations for anyone who clicks on the link

Embeds don't have these problems. They:

• keep the user on your site
• break in ways that are immediately visible
• are consumed in the context provided by your site
• can be constrained to a tiny card with a predictable UX within your site 

Embeds also represent a chance for publishers to change social media from something where your campaigns/integrations send traffic to someone else's site to something that delivers measurable value (traffic and revenue) to you. The most valuable embeds:

• convert your social efforts into traffic on your site 
• help you keep people engaged with your site
• help you increase the reach of your content
• help you use other people's content to enrich your site

Ultimately publishers will realise that embeds are just the first generation of portable content unit and they have their own limits. There will be other generations and they can offer different trade-offs.

The screens in our future

Through historical accident, television has come to be seen as the first screen with our mobile devices as the second screen. This implies a mental model that's usually driven by television people who really mean that television is the primary screen whilst all others are merely secondary screens. When these devices are viewed from the perspective of the programme makers that is correct. But things change if we look at them from the perspective of the user.

The first screen is the one in your pocket. All others are secondary.
— Adewale Oshineye (@ade_oshineye) May 26, 2013

When we look at usage it becomes clear that mobile devices (currently just phones and tablets) are the primary screen whilst television and desktop computers are the secondary screens.

Mobile is my screen.
Tablet is our screen.
TV is their screen.

-- Simon Davies and Ade Oshineye

The above quote is a synthesis of points made by Simon Davies and Ade Oshineye during an Internet Week panel discussion. They reflect a way of looking at screens/devices that may have surprising amounts of explanatory power.

The mobile (phone) screen is the most personal screen. It tends to belong to one person who carries it everywhere and seldom shares it. That person will customise it with a combination of apps and bookmarks that's practically a fingerprint. 

The tablet is large enough to be viewed by multiple people and is often shared within a family. As such it accumulates layers of choices from all the people who have used it. However it still tends to feel like a device that belongs to a small set of people. Whilst both of these devices empower people by giving them control over usage and content, the television is different. 

Whilst it may belong to one or many you're never allowed to forget that the content on your television is decided by other people. They decide what you can watch and when you can watch it. As for customisation…forget it.

The final step is to realise that we shouldn't be thinking about a fixed number of screens. We're facing a multi-screen future. That means there are going to be N categories of M screens in your life. And the values of N and M will only increase over time.

This is not a problem we will solve by building responsive websites with a fixed number of breakpoints. This is not a even problem we will solve by pouring the same content into a fixed number of buckets or screen sizes.

This is a Cambrian Explosion of contexts, interactions between contexts and user journeys across contexts. Time to adapt.