Interview with tech-anthropologist Abigail Posner

Das Magazin für Marketing und Kommunikation
DAS MAGAZIN FÜR MARKETING UND KOMMUNIKATION
Humans and Machines
Tech-anthropologist Abigail Posner about AI, communication and creativity > p. 8
Star economist Roubini:
«Act or perish!»
> p. 24
David versus Goliath:
Richard Edelman up close
> p. 44
ADC Young Creatives:
The future of advertising
> S. 64

8
TECHNOLOGY
Humans
and
Machines
Abigail Posner has always been fascinated with the intersection of humanity
and technology – be it as a Harvard-trained anthropologist, a leader in global
advertising or the head of Google's «Creative Works» in the United States.
A conversation about AI, communication and creativity.
By Johannes Hapig
Illustrations Silvan Borer

9

10
M&K You’re a Harvard-trained anthropologist,
you’ve worked for several
leading advertising networks – and
now you’ve been with Google’s creative
team in the US for more than
eleven years, the last five of them
running the «Creative Works» department.
What’s the line that connects the
different dots of your career?
ABIGAIL POSNER Well, at the very core of
anthropology – if you boil it down to its
essence – is the study of why people
do what they do. Why do they eat
something, wear something, talk about
something? Why do they behave in a
certain way when they’re with friends,
but in another way when they’re at
work? Anthropology is the endeavor of
decoding what makes human beings
«tick». The basic assumption is that
there’s a rationale, a purpose behind
anything – and if you dig beneath the
surface and try to uncover that, you get
a lot of amazing insight.
How did you use that in advertising?
Let me give you an example: On
behalf of the agencies I worked with
as a brand strategist, I would try
to uncover why consumers went and
bought a Coca-Cola, or a piece of
technology, or amusement park
«At the very core of anthropology is the study
of why people do what they do. Why do they
eat something, wear something, talk about
something?»
tickets. But not just in the «They like
the taste»-, «They like the design»-
or «They like to have fun»-kind of way;
rather by understanding what these
things were «doing» for people and
how they were enhancing their existence
with them. I was then able to
consult our clients on a much broader
scale and help them to develop
completely new ways of establishing
connection with potential customers.
To tell more profound stories. That’s
something I’ve been able to transfer to
my job with Google – quite successfully,
which is a bit funny, because
when I started here I thought I
wouldn’t last a week (laughs).
Why did you think that?
Well, I was excited about the opportunity
and embraced it immediately, but
then I had some second thoughts:
«What do I know about technology?
What do I know about sales? I'm a
strategist, and maybe even a bit of an
anthropology … weirdo» (laughs).
However, I had recognized something
very important: The company – already
more than a decade ago – had a
fantastic amount of data and knew
what people were doing with its
technology. The particular motivation
of those people, the «Why», wasn’t
always clear, though. There were all
these questions floating around: «Why
do people feel such a strong connection
with their phones? Why are cat
videos trending on YouTube? Why
would somebody want to use Augmented
Reality – why would that
technology be regarded as beneficial?»
I felt that those questions needed
to be addressed, and Google
shared that assessment. So after I had

11
started there, I went to work on those
questions with various teams – and
even hired a bunch of other, very
clever anthropologists. We conducted
studies and went on field trips, in order
to uncover the deep, profound, beautiful
relationship we have built with all
these digital places and spaces. We
gave the project quite a beautiful
name, too: «Humanizing Digital».
You’ve just made a distinction that has
become the focal point of many of
your theories, and which you speak
about frequently in keynotes, podcasts
and interviews: The distinction between
the «what» and the «why» of
technology, and – or – digitization.
Could we go a little more into detail
here?
For instance, take a look at your smartphone.
At first glance, your smartphone
is just a small computer you can
walk around with. There were brillant
engineers who created it, who came
up with a touchscreen, and a semi-professional
camera in the back, et cetera.
Then, there were amazing developers
who programmed apps that you can
read your e-mails with, or take notes in,
or text your friends with. All this belongs
to the «what». But there is no
inherent meaning either in the hardware
or in the software I just described
– we, the users, need to give them
meaning, and that would be the «why».
See, we’re using technology – for
example – in order to do something I
call «Place-Making». Even thought we
live in the virtual world so much, we
still feel the need to connect to our
local, physical environments…our
homes, streets and local haunts. It
grounds us and orients us emotionally.
Human beings have an innate urge to
«Why do people
feel such a strong
connection with their
phones? Why are cat
videos trending on
YouTube?»
make sense of their physical surroundings
by assigning meaning to them.
The places that surround us help us
create, store and bring back powerful
memories. Technology can facilitate
and help to speed up the «Place-Making»
in locations that we’ve never
been to before. I’ve been experiencing
that, too.
Who's who?
Abigail Posner is the director
of the U.S. division of
«Creative Works», Google's
link to agencies and advertisers.
Together with her team,
she advises Google customers
on how they can best
use the company's tools for
their individual purposes.
Prior to joining the tech
giant, Posner worked as a
Strategy Director with
Publicis New York and as a
Director of Brand Strategy
with DDB Worldwide.
Holding a degree in anthropology
from Harvard
University, she is also a
sought-after global keynote
speaker and holds various
supervisory board mandates.
Further information:

12
«Human beings have an innate urge to make
sense of their physical surroundings by
assigning meaning to them.»
Would you tell me about it?
I live in the middle of Manhattan, and
when I had my office at Chelsea Market
– now, it’s in Soho – I was able to walk
to work. So one day, I left the house
with a bit of time on my hands, and I
passed by Hell’s Kitchen, which is
essentially one restaurant after another.
The sheer amount of places one
can visit there usually makes everything
blend together a little bit, almost
like … a canvas. But there was a place
I’d never seen before and that stood
out. I was intrigued. I pulled out my
phone, checked Google regarding
what this place was about – who the
chef was – and what the menu looked
like. I also checked the ratings, and the
pictures other people had taken. I
went inside and treated myself to a
really nice breakfast – a few minutes
ago, I had no clue this place existed,
and here I was, enjoying a dish
strangers recommended online,
feeling at home. That’s the first layer of
the «why» of technology – «Place-Making».
But there’s more. There’s an
opportunity for interaction, too…
…when you «share» the restaurant?
Yes. I take a picture of my breakfast, I
post it on a social media page. And
then, I get all these comments in
return. One of my friends has probably
been there, and goes: «Oh, this is my
favorite dish!»; or a co-worker says:
«This is the restaurant where my
boyfriend proposed to me» – and that
makes the place even more meaningful
to me, and deepens the connection
to the people who react to my post.
The reason I’m telling you this is that
«seeing the world through our phone»
is often frowned upon, and there’s
always somebody saying: «Put that
away, enjoy the moment.» But what if
our phone helps us to enjoy the
moment even more? I think this example
shows how people add a «why» to
the technological possibilities they’re
provided with, and they constantly
alter and re-create their purpose.
That’s the kind of creativity that makes
human beings so amazing.
I had to chuckle when you mentioned
the example of the person who complains
about the phone. With everything
you say being totally comprehensible
to me, one would probably still
have a hard time convincing those who
refuse to embrace technology.
And that’s okay. Skepticism is fine.
Throughout history, there has always
been new technology that we have
integrated into our lives, whether it's
fire, or metallurgy, or the printing
press. Some people used that technology
to do more harm than good, and
that’s why a few others were – and
remained – skeptical of innovation. But
the anthropology mindset is a positive
one: For the most part, people will use
whatever they have at their disposal to
just … try and make their lives better.
They’re generally benevolent, and so
they take these new tools, and they
make sense of them … a fire is not just
a fire, but something that keeps you
warm at night; something that lets you
and your family enjoy warm food.
Again, my point is, of course people
abuse technologies, and sometimes
technologies go awry, but for the most
part, we tend to take them, reinterpret
them, because we're ingenious ourselves
as human beings. And then we
give ourselves the liberty of being
better storytellers, being better connectors
being better builders, which is
really fundamental to being human.
«There’s
always somebody
saying: ‹Put that phone
away, enjoy the moment.›
But what if our phone
helps us to enjoy
the moment even
more?»
In the seemingly simple act of looking
up and texting about a restaurant
online, there lies «Place-Making», and
connection – and there’s also an
element of great creativity to what
you’ve been describing, right?
Yeah. Because the picture that I take of
that food … I'm going put a filter on it,
I'm going to alter it, I'm going to use it
as some form of expression of myself.
There’s a plethora of things I can do
with it. Whenever I mention that in
front of an audience, people tend go:
«Oh, wow! I do that, too!» – it’s just that
they never think about how «deep»

13
this actually is. The seemingly banale,
small, daily things we do carry such a
lot of meaning, and we hardly ever
recognize it.
That would add yet another layer:
Using technology not just as a means
of «Place-Making» and connection,
but also to show the world who we are
and who we want to be seen as
through what we create.
This goes both ways – we can put
something out there, anything really,
and then get people to react to it. It’s a
back and forth movement. That’s an
aspect I call «Self-Making». Let’s say I
get a new haircut, and put a picture of
it out there. And then I get responses,
and I get a sense of whether that’s a
good look for me. Doesn’t that prove
that selfies are not merely a testament
to vanity, but that they’re a way to look
at ourselves via the mirror of the
digital realm? If you want a more
intellectual example for «Self-Making»,
take a podcast: You have an idea, you
record what you’re thinking, and
you’re putting it out there. Some
people will love it, some will criticize
you for it, and you get a sense of what
the majority of listeners like – and a
chance to adapt.
«Putting yourself out there» also
requires one to accept a certain
vulnerability, though.
That’s correct. That’s precisely why I
call it «Self-Making». Because if you're
not vulnerable, you're not open. There
may always be some bullies who post
a stupid comment under a photo, or
«Selfies
provide a way
to look at ourselves
via the mirror of
the digital
realm.»
who talk trash about your podcast – I
don’t mean honest criticism, I mean
comments that are intended to belittle
efforts, or to hurt. Well, so what? I’m
not trying to be apologetic of that
behavior, but there’s bullies in school,
too. And if we allowed them to stop us
from going there, and learning, and
growing … what kind of a world would
we live in? That is why I’m a strong
advocate for using technology and
digital tools to the fullest extent, for
trying to create something unique,
and positive, and beneficial – and not
allow a few bullies to take that away.
Now we see that there’s numerous
examples for the «why» of technology,
and – or – digitization. I loved an
example you gave in a keynote in
California – about sharing funny
videos …
Yes, that could be subsumed under the
«connection» part, but we can do a bit
of a deep-dive on this: If I send you a
video I like, and which made me laugh,
then the message is not just: «Video!
Watch!» The message is: «This is
something that has made me happy,
and I want you to be happy, too. Also, I
think I know you well enough to
estimate that we share the same
humor. And last, not least, I think
you’re intelligent enough to understand
what I want to show you.»
A very nuanced way of establishing
common ground. Can brands tap
into that?
Yes, they can, and they should definitely
try. Marketing has evolved over
time. For long, it was very functional.
But then it became more emotional
– and more funny. I won’t forget how
my first boss in advertising said to me:
«Never, ever underestimate the value
of being funny.» Because therein lies

14
«Instead of over-engineering channels and KPIs,
let’s reverse-engineer and get back to a discussion about
basic human needs, wishes, desires. Let’s connect to
people’s ‹humaneness›.»
the true recognition of the person on
the other side. Also, a good friend of
mine recently stated: «We really need
to get serious about being funny», and
I think that’s spot-on. Having a laugh
together, again, is a fundamental
exchange of energies; and if brands
get access to that – which isn’t easy,
because it requires an understanding
of culture, of trends, of many subtle
factors that may not immediately be
recognizable – they have a tremendous
opportunity to get way ahead of their
competition. Instead of over-engineering
channels and KPIs, let’s reverseengineer
and get back to a discussion
about basic human needs, wishes,
desires. Let’s connect to people’s
«humaneness».
You’re basically saying that we’re
not «distracted» from being human
by technology, or the digital realm,
but that we’re using them to become
even more of who we are – and who
we aspire to be. Have you thought
about how generative AI – the era of
which we’re now entering – may
contribute to that?
It’s interesting that you’re asking me
this! I’m currently working on an
article with a Harvard Business School
professor, we want to co-author
something … I can’t say too much
about the content of the text yet, but I
can tell you something about artificial
intelligence: It was late on Thursday, I
was at the airport, and while I was
waiting for my flight I started playing
around with «Bard», which is Google’s
collaborative AI. I used «Bard» to help
me test a hypothesis on a certain
leadership trait and search for examples
of leaders who exhibit this trait.
That supported me in expressing my
ideas for the paper more clearly. So I
have a really good starting point from
which I can now take over and progress.
Generative, conversational AI is a very
elaborate tool – yet, it remains a tool.
Do you, being both an anthropologist
and a tech executive, sometimes
wonder about what may come after
that? An AI, probably, that would no
longer be distinguishable from human
intellect – and would force us to
re-evaluate «who we are»?
«We’ll make
it work. We’ll keep
evolvingin the right
direction.»
First, I want to say that there is still so
much mystery, so much that we do
not know about the way our brains
function. Neuroscience is absolutely
fascinating, and while I have barely
scratched the surface of that field, I
can tell you that there’s so much
going on in our minds …and in our
bodies! … that we do not fully understand.
So if there was a technology one
day that could be more creative, more
innovative, generally more clever than
human beings – I first would be
surprised, I think, but I would also be
intrigued. Because to qualify as such,
the technology would need to have
understood all the mysteries we have
yet to uncover, or else it wouldn’t be
superior to our intellect. And frankly, I
don't see any technology being up for
this task any time soon. It would need
a lot more time and development
before I would even be concerned
about AI being more human than us.
And the reluctancy towards
the generative AI we’re testing
now, and which is constantly in
the media…?
We’ve talked about tech skepticism
before. It’s as old as time. My mother
was a professor of chemistry and the
Dean of Wellesley College in Massachusetts.
And she remembers days
when there was panic around using
calculators; when her colleagues were
protesting against them: «These
machines are now doing the math for
us. What do we do, then? And how do
we keep challenging our students?»
All of a sudden, academics had to
rethink what it means to challenge a
student. That’s not the worst thing in
the world, right? (laughs) Another
example: More than two decades ago,
the internet provided billions of
people with all the knowledge that
humanity ever possessed – but that
has not made human judgment
obsolete. It has become our most
important crutch, and it has enhanced
and elevated our life in so many ways
… but it has not made us redundant. I
read an interesting piece in a magazine
a couple of days ago which made
the point that the broad use of AI may
lead to a renewed interest in liberal
arts – because what we’ll need in the
future are people who can do things

15
powers of artificial intelligence. But
most of us will adapt to its existence in
a positive way, and it will help us to get
further. My son wrote one of his college
admissions essays about his
interest in astrophysics. He's fascinated
by it because of the mysteries of
science and how much we still don't
know, don't understand and don't see
yet. That compares to the previous
example of our brain. I am convinced
that, to tap into that knowledge of the
«great beyond» – both within ourselves
and in the universe surrounding us
– we will need all of the help we can
get. And we’ll make it work. We’ll keep
evolving in the right direction.
that artificial intelligence can’t do:
People who feel the subtlety of humor
I mentioned, people who connect dots
that have never been connected
before, people who show empathy in
storytelling. I mean – the delicate
balance of «what to mention and what
not to mention» in smalltalk at a
cocktail party; the next trend in clothing;
the almost invisible strings that
direct human interaction … that’s
something an AI won’t be able to
«get», in my opinion. At least for now.
So you’re seeing a beautiful future?
Maybe I'm naïve. Actually, surely I am
naïve, to some extent (laughs). I don’t
know all that lies before us. And who
does? Again, there’s going to be
people who will try to abuse the
I imagine a world where artificial
intelligence for our brain becomes the
equivalent of what robotic exoskeletons
are for our bodies: Something
that doesn’t hinder us, but that increases
the strength we have and enables
us to take on more challenging endeavors.
I like that idea. Having a clever AI that
grabs, summarizes, or breaks down
information from all the corners of the
web can be tremendously helpful in
simplifying almost any intellectual
work we’re doing. It can offer us – to
get back to your very first question –
the dots, and we are the ones who
connect them. If history is my data
point, then, yes, the future is bright.
Because that's what we've been doing
over the course of time. We've been
taking these technologies, we've
adapted them. We've leveraged them,
we've navigated through them to
make us more human, to make us
better storytellers, more loving, more
innovative, more creative. And don’t
forget: We’ve also been having quite a
lot of fun along the way.