Low fidelity.

At 12.30pm, on the 22nd November 1963, the owner of a local clothing company stood on one of the pedestals that are situated alongside Elm Street, in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas. As a sufferer of vertigo he was accompanied by his receptionist, she helped keep him steady as he started videoing the passing motorcade of the then President - John F. Kennedy.

In my teens I was rather obsessed with the JFK assassination. I read every book I could find, watched every documentary available, and argued vehemently that the CIA were the ones that were reponsible. But the thing that haunted and fascinated me most was the film shot by Abraham Zapruder. Clearly much of this was to do with the gripping and horrifying content, especially if, as I did then, you were a card carrying conspiracy theorist. But there was something else about it, something beyond the content, something in the production values (or lack of them). I think what intrigued me so much was the low fidelity nature of what I was looking at - there was a lot of environmental noise, accidental distortion. Resolution, detail, and information were lost. Yet paradoxically this has the effect of making the the film feel more conspicuous, more alarming, and more real.

This still interests me now, even though I long gave up believing the conspiracy theory (I finally actually read the Warren Commission and understood the views from the other side of the debate). It interests me now because the film is such that it could quite easily have happened recently, and been cirulated on YouTube. In the new media landscape of; blogs, Myspace, Twitter, and their like, it seems that authenticity and immediacy conquer production prowess on most occasions.

This has important ramifications for brands that want to be relevant in this new world. Sure, for some, standing against these low fidelity values will be a useful strategy - being beautifully produced, highly consistent, and dripping in quality cues that tantalise those who asprire. But most other brands need to understand that the answer to being relevant will increasingly become about embracing low-fidelity. Understanding that brands will be influenced by the environment, and distorted by it. It will become harder and harder, if indeed it was ever possible, to determine and control top down brand meaning. And be much more a case of allowing consumers the opportunity to both derive and dictate the meaning and role the brand will play in their life (much of which will be done on the fly).

So, weirdly - the solution to relevancy in a high-tech future could well end up being low fidelity.

Comments

[Will]

Paul - would this be a fleshed out version of your 'high definition' theory?

Those who haven't read about it, go here:

http://wannabeadman.blogspot.com/2006/12/no-matter-try-again-fail-again-fail.html

[Colman]

Different but related.

Not sure how I feel about either idea at the moment, but that's what good about blogging - you can post stuff and see if it still makes sense in the morning.

[claire]

Great post.

[beeker]

I saw this with a few drinks in me last night (god only knows why I ended up switching on the computer when I got home) and was absolutely knocked sideways by the footage. I have seen it before...but there's something about it being Youtubed. Jesus.

So I think this low fidelity idea is really interesting (and I'm not just trying to avoid an armbar). I was flicking through Vogue the other day when I had one of those flashforwards to a time when models won't be like they are now. They had this ridiculous article about fashion blogs (the kind where the words pronouce 'blog' or 'web log' like they do on Radio 4. As if they've been asked to spell it out loud) with three models looking in 'joy' and 'wow' and 'ooh' at a laptop. And I thought, this level of parallel universe can't last for long. At some point it's all going to get more real. And that will all look as dated as pictures from the forties do now. It does already. Anyway I think you're right.

[patrick]

Great post, Mr C. But did Zapruder really use a video camera?
Yours pedantically,
Mr Patrick P. Syms

[Colman]

Yup, a digital one, didn't you know?

[henry Lambert]

great post. But i'd argue that low-fidelity is just a strand of authenticity.

[Colman]

Very possibly Henry, but I reckon it might be a more useful and informative one.

[Picklin paul]

I think power of low fidelity is more than just authenticity. I think participation and imagination also play a part.

Because of the film's poor production you have pay more attention to it - to screen out extraneous noise, to work out what is being shot (stop wobbling the camera..). Your brain also tries to fill in missing detail and imagine the full story. The film is only a snap-shot providing more questions than answers.

High-fidelity, high production footage wouldn't have provided this space for interpretation and imagination. Low fidelity gives people space to overlay their own story.

That reminds me of a Saki quote "When baiting a mousetrap with cheese always leave room for the mouse."

[henry lambert]

I think high production values can have just as much ambiguity, intrigue, space for interpretation and imagination as low-fidelity. Lost or the Sopranos are both great examples of this, but both rely on high production values.

Film directors have realised for sometime now that the more authentic a shot or scene feels, the better it is. That's why when tension is high they use a handheld camera rather than a wideangle tracking shot. It's not low-fi, just authentic.

[Lauren]

I couldn't stop watching this last night. Very creepy; it doesn't seem real.

[Lebowski]

Nice post.

Isn't part of what lies behind this thought that we are in an age where people can choose not to watch all the spam we produce, and instead want to engage with brands which don't market or sell to them? An easy way of doing this is to not waste millions of pounds a year marketing but speaking with them in a lo-fidelity way. Authenticity is a big part of that, but it also says good things about what you value as a company or brand to be lo-fi.

I have to say though, and I don't know if this is at odds with your comment on content, but I think lo-fi production just highlights the importance of having good content. If there were two bars in a town, one with an amazing High-def tv which was showing tellytubbies, and the other with a small fuzzy black and white one showing the world cup final, it's the second bar that would be crammed with people. How something is produced or looks does matter, but not nearly as much as the actual content. There were lots of other films shot on similar cameras as the JFK one, but we're not talking about them now because they don't show the assassination of a president.

[Colman]

Well put Lebowksi.

[Steve Bowbrick]

Good post. We're learning that authenticity trumps quality every time. Think there's a lesson there for the HiDef crowd who are convinced that audiences and advertisers desperately want wall-filling terrapixel fidelity...

[Charles Frith]

Nothing to do with Lo Fi but the Warren commission (held in secret..erm why?)is a shabby piece of investigation.

Bertrand Russell had sixteen important questions about the W.C report which I'm sure you've come across.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/russell/Sixteen_questions_Russell.html

[Colman]

It wasn't perfect Charles, that's true. But in my experience it's most often maligned by people who haven't read it. Though regardless of the robustness of the report - I think many of the questions Russell asks have now been cleared up (though I admit it's been a long time since I considered the question).

Where do you stand Charles? (Or anyone else.)