I love this video, not only for the result (how cool is that?), but for the process towards that result.  Creativity seeps into each step along the way and it shows.  The “Big Idea” was not just one spark of inspiration, but a collection of minor (but miraculous) steps forward that led to a killer finished product.

So many agencies entrench their employees in departments and roles, specified tasks that should not bleed into the other.  But it’s the gray area where true collaboration occurs, where creatives and strategists and technologists (and more) can pool their abilities to create the things that have never been seen before.

This tactile touchscreen, from Tactus Technology, just did:

Whoa.

Physical buttons rising from a flat touchscreen?  This almost transforms a phone into a living organism. Theoretically, an iPhone can have a name (Siri), want to know where you are at all times, respond to your wants and needs, and physically react to your touch.  Why not just teach a dog to make phone calls instead?

Jokes aside, this signals a novel approach to innovation. While so many are focused on how to embed digital applications into physical objects and environments, Tactus Technology is taking an inherently digital object and implanting a physical application into it. This is a natural progression now that once revolutionary forms of technology (such as the touchscreen phone) are becoming commonplace – we’ve come to know technology so well that we’re interested in shaping it into something new.  But it doesn’t make it any less amazing.

It will be interesting over the next few years to see how far innovators stretch this notion of implanting physical components into technological items…without, hopefully, getting carried away:

Essentially, McGonigal suggested:

1. Gaming is an enjoyable experience and what is life if not the pursuit of enjoyable experiences
2. Gaming is an essential tool for improving ourselves

While one could argue the merits of her first point, the second was an interesting reframing of a longstanding – yet still powerful – marketing idea.  From hotel or airline points to loyalty shopping cards to Foursquare check-ins, advertisers have long leveraged the tracking and rewarding of consumer behavior.  Yet it seems to be a more recent trend to connect these reward to the type of gaming structures McGonigal references.

There are two main reasons for this.  The first (and most obvious) is the prevalence of technological tools that can layer digital gameplay on pretty much anything.  Couple that with an increasing number of consumers who came of age in a post-Nintendo era and you have the ability to create digital games and an audience that will respond to them.

The second, more elemental reason: the place marketing can and should have in a consumer’s life is changing.  Now that consumers have attained a certain consciousness of advertising, the industry’s goals are shifting from convincing consumers to providing for consumers.  There are a number of ways to provide, of course, but the most compelling tend to either entertain or support.

Gaming can do both.  If an activity is structured correctly, it can provide satisfaction (why else would you play?) and support (what do you win by playing?).  Such activities are now being used for corporate training, environmental sustainability, and even email management, but one of my personal favorites is the Nike+ FuelBand.  This tool tracks your every movement and translates your physical activity into points, thus encouraging you to be more active – a prime example of an experience that is at once enjoyable and beneficial.

The emergence of these types of consumer engagements should spotlight a specific opportunity for marketers: translate the elements of virtual gaming and transplant them in the physical space in a way that improves consumer’s lives.

For brands, the prize will be well worth playing the game.

There are a number of implications to this deal – the transference of user information, the future of the interface, the mind blowing amount of funny money passing hands – but the real story, to me, is just how valuable mobile is to the future of social media.

Facebook recognizes the shift towards mobile and wants to ensure their relevance in the space.  Instagram doesn’t bring a new audience, it wouldn’t be impossible to replicate internally, and it was reportedly only valued at half of what it was purchased for - but it is worth so much to Facebook because it is a proven tool that would be an asset in house and – perhaps more importantly – a rival out of it.

Yes: Instagram posed a threat to mighty Facebook.

To see how, one just needs to look in the not-so-distant past of fellow online behemoth Google. No, I’m not talking about the Youtube acquisition so many are chirping about today. I’m referencing a move Google did NOT make: their failed attempt to purchase a stake in Facebook in 2007.

At that time, the search giant had the cash to buy into Facebook but decided against it, instead putting the resources against developing their own network from scratch. Since that decision, Facebook has grown into a true rival for Google, while Google+ has, thus far, failed to capture the imagination of its audience.  Google did not yet equate social as a threat to search, but in doing so, they underestimated just how much a new platform could shift online behavior.

Facebook does not want to endure the same pitfalls as the online world swings to mobile devices.  Which results in this: a billion dollar expense to position themselves in (and remove their competition from) the more agile digital space its audience is evolving towards.