11.04.2023 Views

Interview with tech-anthropologist Abigail Posner

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.

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.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Leverage SEO-optimized Flipbooks, powerful backlinks, and multimedia content to professionally showcase your products and significantly increase your reach.

Das Magazin für Marketing und Kommunikation<br />

DAS MAGAZIN FÜR MARKETING UND KOMMUNIKATION<br />

Humans and Machines<br />

Tech-<strong>anthropologist</strong> <strong>Abigail</strong> <strong>Posner</strong> about AI, communication and creativity > p. 8<br />

Star economist Roubini:<br />

«Act or perish!»<br />

> p. 24<br />

David versus Goliath:<br />

Richard Edelman up close<br />

> p. 44<br />

ADC Young Creatives:<br />

The future of advertising<br />

> S. 64


8<br />

TECHNOLOGY<br />

Humans<br />

and<br />

Machines<br />

<strong>Abigail</strong> <strong>Posner</strong> has always been fascinated <strong>with</strong> the intersection of humanity<br />

and <strong>tech</strong>nology – be it as a Harvard-trained <strong>anthropologist</strong>, a leader in global<br />

advertising or the head of Google's «Creative Works» in the United States.<br />

A conversation about AI, communication and creativity.<br />

By Johannes Hapig<br />

Illustrations Silvan Borer


9


10<br />

M&K You’re a Harvard-trained <strong>anthropologist</strong>,<br />

you’ve worked for several<br />

leading advertising networks – and<br />

now you’ve been <strong>with</strong> Google’s creative<br />

team in the US for more than<br />

eleven years, the last five of them<br />

running the «Creative Works» department.<br />

What’s the line that connects the<br />

different dots of your career?<br />

ABIGAIL POSNER Well, at the very core of<br />

anthropology – if you boil it down to its<br />

essence – is the study of why people<br />

do what they do. Why do they eat<br />

something, wear something, talk about<br />

something? Why do they behave in a<br />

certain way when they’re <strong>with</strong> friends,<br />

but in another way when they’re at<br />

work? Anthropology is the endeavor of<br />

decoding what makes human beings<br />

«tick». The basic assumption is that<br />

there’s a rationale, a purpose behind<br />

anything – and if you dig beneath the<br />

surface and try to uncover that, you get<br />

a lot of amazing insight.<br />

How did you use that in advertising?<br />

Let me give you an example: On<br />

behalf of the agencies I worked <strong>with</strong><br />

as a brand strategist, I would try<br />

to uncover why consumers went and<br />

bought a Coca-Cola, or a piece of<br />

<strong>tech</strong>nology, or amusement park<br />

«At the very core of anthropology is the study<br />

of why people do what they do. Why do they<br />

eat something, wear something, talk about<br />

something?»<br />

tickets. But not just in the «They like<br />

the taste»-, «They like the design»-<br />

or «They like to have fun»-kind of way;<br />

rather by understanding what these<br />

things were «doing» for people and<br />

how they were enhancing their existence<br />

<strong>with</strong> them. I was then able to<br />

consult our clients on a much broader<br />

scale and help them to develop<br />

completely new ways of establishing<br />

connection <strong>with</strong> potential customers.<br />

To tell more profound stories. That’s<br />

something I’ve been able to transfer to<br />

my job <strong>with</strong> Google – quite successfully,<br />

which is a bit funny, because<br />

when I started here I thought I<br />

wouldn’t last a week (laughs).<br />

Why did you think that?<br />

Well, I was excited about the opportunity<br />

and embraced it immediately, but<br />

then I had some second thoughts:<br />

«What do I know about <strong>tech</strong>nology?<br />

What do I know about sales? I'm a<br />

strategist, and maybe even a bit of an<br />

anthropology … weirdo» (laughs).<br />

However, I had recognized something<br />

very important: The company – already<br />

more than a decade ago – had a<br />

fantastic amount of data and knew<br />

what people were doing <strong>with</strong> its<br />

<strong>tech</strong>nology. The particular motivation<br />

of those people, the «Why», wasn’t<br />

always clear, though. There were all<br />

these questions floating around: «Why<br />

do people feel such a strong connection<br />

<strong>with</strong> their phones? Why are cat<br />

videos trending on YouTube? Why<br />

would somebody want to use Augmented<br />

Reality – why would that<br />

<strong>tech</strong>nology be regarded as beneficial?»<br />

I felt that those questions needed<br />

to be addressed, and Google<br />

shared that assessment. So after I had


11<br />

started there, I went to work on those<br />

questions <strong>with</strong> various teams – and<br />

even hired a bunch of other, very<br />

clever <strong>anthropologist</strong>s. We conducted<br />

studies and went on field trips, in order<br />

to uncover the deep, profound, beautiful<br />

relationship we have built <strong>with</strong> all<br />

these digital places and spaces. We<br />

gave the project quite a beautiful<br />

name, too: «Humanizing Digital».<br />

You’ve just made a distinction that has<br />

become the focal point of many of<br />

your theories, and which you speak<br />

about frequently in keynotes, podcasts<br />

and interviews: The distinction between<br />

the «what» and the «why» of<br />

<strong>tech</strong>nology, and – or – digitization.<br />

Could we go a little more into detail<br />

here?<br />

For instance, take a look at your smartphone.<br />

At first glance, your smartphone<br />

is just a small computer you can<br />

walk around <strong>with</strong>. There were brillant<br />

engineers who created it, who came<br />

up <strong>with</strong> a touchscreen, and a semi-professional<br />

camera in the back, et cetera.<br />

Then, there were amazing developers<br />

who programmed apps that you can<br />

read your e-mails <strong>with</strong>, or take notes in,<br />

or text your friends <strong>with</strong>. All this belongs<br />

to the «what». But there is no<br />

inherent meaning either in the hardware<br />

or in the software I just described<br />

– we, the users, need to give them<br />

meaning, and that would be the «why».<br />

See, we’re using <strong>tech</strong>nology – for<br />

example – in order to do something I<br />

call «Place-Making». Even thought we<br />

live in the virtual world so much, we<br />

still feel the need to connect to our<br />

local, physical environments…our<br />

homes, streets and local haunts. It<br />

grounds us and orients us emotionally.<br />

Human beings have an innate urge to<br />

«Why do people<br />

feel such a strong<br />

connection <strong>with</strong> their<br />

phones? Why are cat<br />

videos trending on<br />

YouTube?»<br />

make sense of their physical surroundings<br />

by assigning meaning to them.<br />

The places that surround us help us<br />

create, store and bring back powerful<br />

memories. Technology can facilitate<br />

and help to speed up the «Place-Making»<br />

in locations that we’ve never<br />

been to before. I’ve been experiencing<br />

that, too.<br />

Who's who?<br />

<strong>Abigail</strong> <strong>Posner</strong> is the director<br />

of the U.S. division of<br />

«Creative Works», Google's<br />

link to agencies and advertisers.<br />

Together <strong>with</strong> her team,<br />

she advises Google customers<br />

on how they can best<br />

use the company's tools for<br />

their individual purposes.<br />

Prior to joining the <strong>tech</strong><br />

giant, <strong>Posner</strong> worked as a<br />

Strategy Director <strong>with</strong><br />

Publicis New York and as a<br />

Director of Brand Strategy<br />

<strong>with</strong> DDB Worldwide.<br />

Holding a degree in anthropology<br />

from Harvard<br />

University, she is also a<br />

sought-after global keynote<br />

speaker and holds various<br />

supervisory board mandates.<br />

Further information:


12<br />

«Human beings have an innate urge to make<br />

sense of their physical surroundings by<br />

assigning meaning to them.»<br />

Would you tell me about it?<br />

I live in the middle of Manhattan, and<br />

when I had my office at Chelsea Market<br />

– now, it’s in Soho – I was able to walk<br />

to work. So one day, I left the house<br />

<strong>with</strong> a bit of time on my hands, and I<br />

passed by Hell’s Kitchen, which is<br />

essentially one restaurant after another.<br />

The sheer amount of places one<br />

can visit there usually makes everything<br />

blend together a little bit, almost<br />

like … a canvas. But there was a place<br />

I’d never seen before and that stood<br />

out. I was intrigued. I pulled out my<br />

phone, checked Google regarding<br />

what this place was about – who the<br />

chef was – and what the menu looked<br />

like. I also checked the ratings, and the<br />

pictures other people had taken. I<br />

went inside and treated myself to a<br />

really nice breakfast – a few minutes<br />

ago, I had no clue this place existed,<br />

and here I was, enjoying a dish<br />

strangers recommended online,<br />

feeling at home. That’s the first layer of<br />

the «why» of <strong>tech</strong>nology – «Place-Making».<br />

But there’s more. There’s an<br />

opportunity for interaction, too…<br />

…when you «share» the restaurant?<br />

Yes. I take a picture of my breakfast, I<br />

post it on a social media page. And<br />

then, I get all these comments in<br />

return. One of my friends has probably<br />

been there, and goes: «Oh, this is my<br />

favorite dish!»; or a co-worker says:<br />

«This is the restaurant where my<br />

boyfriend proposed to me» – and that<br />

makes the place even more meaningful<br />

to me, and deepens the connection<br />

to the people who react to my post.<br />

The reason I’m telling you this is that<br />

«seeing the world through our phone»<br />

is often frowned upon, and there’s<br />

always somebody saying: «Put that<br />

away, enjoy the moment.» But what if<br />

our phone helps us to enjoy the<br />

moment even more? I think this example<br />

shows how people add a «why» to<br />

the <strong>tech</strong>nological possibilities they’re<br />

provided <strong>with</strong>, and they constantly<br />

alter and re-create their purpose.<br />

That’s the kind of creativity that makes<br />

human beings so amazing.<br />

I had to chuckle when you mentioned<br />

the example of the person who complains<br />

about the phone. With everything<br />

you say being totally comprehensible<br />

to me, one would probably still<br />

have a hard time convincing those who<br />

refuse to embrace <strong>tech</strong>nology.<br />

And that’s okay. Skepticism is fine.<br />

Throughout history, there has always<br />

been new <strong>tech</strong>nology that we have<br />

integrated into our lives, whether it's<br />

fire, or metallurgy, or the printing<br />

press. Some people used that <strong>tech</strong>nology<br />

to do more harm than good, and<br />

that’s why a few others were – and<br />

remained – skeptical of innovation. But<br />

the anthropology mindset is a positive<br />

one: For the most part, people will use<br />

whatever they have at their disposal to<br />

just … try and make their lives better.<br />

They’re generally benevolent, and so<br />

they take these new tools, and they<br />

make sense of them … a fire is not just<br />

a fire, but something that keeps you<br />

warm at night; something that lets you<br />

and your family enjoy warm food.<br />

Again, my point is, of course people<br />

abuse <strong>tech</strong>nologies, and sometimes<br />

<strong>tech</strong>nologies go awry, but for the most<br />

part, we tend to take them, reinterpret<br />

them, because we're ingenious ourselves<br />

as human beings. And then we<br />

give ourselves the liberty of being<br />

better storytellers, being better connectors<br />

being better builders, which is<br />

really fundamental to being human.<br />

«There’s<br />

always somebody<br />

saying: ‹Put that phone<br />

away, enjoy the moment.›<br />

But what if our phone<br />

helps us to enjoy<br />

the moment even<br />

more?»<br />

In the seemingly simple act of looking<br />

up and texting about a restaurant<br />

online, there lies «Place-Making», and<br />

connection – and there’s also an<br />

element of great creativity to what<br />

you’ve been describing, right?<br />

Yeah. Because the picture that I take of<br />

that food … I'm going put a filter on it,<br />

I'm going to alter it, I'm going to use it<br />

as some form of expression of myself.<br />

There’s a plethora of things I can do<br />

<strong>with</strong> it. Whenever I mention that in<br />

front of an audience, people tend go:<br />

«Oh, wow! I do that, too!» – it’s just that<br />

they never think about how «deep»


13<br />

this actually is. The seemingly banale,<br />

small, daily things we do carry such a<br />

lot of meaning, and we hardly ever<br />

recognize it.<br />

That would add yet another layer:<br />

Using <strong>tech</strong>nology not just as a means<br />

of «Place-Making» and connection,<br />

but also to show the world who we are<br />

and who we want to be seen as<br />

through what we create.<br />

This goes both ways – we can put<br />

something out there, anything really,<br />

and then get people to react to it. It’s a<br />

back and forth movement. That’s an<br />

aspect I call «Self-Making». Let’s say I<br />

get a new haircut, and put a picture of<br />

it out there. And then I get responses,<br />

and I get a sense of whether that’s a<br />

good look for me. Doesn’t that prove<br />

that selfies are not merely a testament<br />

to vanity, but that they’re a way to look<br />

at ourselves via the mirror of the<br />

digital realm? If you want a more<br />

intellectual example for «Self-Making»,<br />

take a podcast: You have an idea, you<br />

record what you’re thinking, and<br />

you’re putting it out there. Some<br />

people will love it, some will criticize<br />

you for it, and you get a sense of what<br />

the majority of listeners like – and a<br />

chance to adapt.<br />

«Putting yourself out there» also<br />

requires one to accept a certain<br />

vulnerability, though.<br />

That’s correct. That’s precisely why I<br />

call it «Self-Making». Because if you're<br />

not vulnerable, you're not open. There<br />

may always be some bullies who post<br />

a stupid comment under a photo, or<br />

«Selfies<br />

provide a way<br />

to look at ourselves<br />

via the mirror of<br />

the digital<br />

realm.»<br />

who talk trash about your podcast – I<br />

don’t mean honest criticism, I mean<br />

comments that are intended to belittle<br />

efforts, or to hurt. Well, so what? I’m<br />

not trying to be apologetic of that<br />

behavior, but there’s bullies in school,<br />

too. And if we allowed them to stop us<br />

from going there, and learning, and<br />

growing … what kind of a world would<br />

we live in? That is why I’m a strong<br />

advocate for using <strong>tech</strong>nology and<br />

digital tools to the fullest extent, for<br />

trying to create something unique,<br />

and positive, and beneficial – and not<br />

allow a few bullies to take that away.<br />

Now we see that there’s numerous<br />

examples for the «why» of <strong>tech</strong>nology,<br />

and – or – digitization. I loved an<br />

example you gave in a keynote in<br />

California – about sharing funny<br />

videos …<br />

Yes, that could be subsumed under the<br />

«connection» part, but we can do a bit<br />

of a deep-dive on this: If I send you a<br />

video I like, and which made me laugh,<br />

then the message is not just: «Video!<br />

Watch!» The message is: «This is<br />

something that has made me happy,<br />

and I want you to be happy, too. Also, I<br />

think I know you well enough to<br />

estimate that we share the same<br />

humor. And last, not least, I think<br />

you’re intelligent enough to understand<br />

what I want to show you.»<br />

A very nuanced way of establishing<br />

common ground. Can brands tap<br />

into that?<br />

Yes, they can, and they should definitely<br />

try. Marketing has evolved over<br />

time. For long, it was very functional.<br />

But then it became more emotional<br />

– and more funny. I won’t forget how<br />

my first boss in advertising said to me:<br />

«Never, ever underestimate the value<br />

of being funny.» Because therein lies


14<br />

«Instead of over-engineering channels and KPIs,<br />

let’s reverse-engineer and get back to a discussion about<br />

basic human needs, wishes, desires. Let’s connect to<br />

people’s ‹humaneness›.»<br />

the true recognition of the person on<br />

the other side. Also, a good friend of<br />

mine recently stated: «We really need<br />

to get serious about being funny», and<br />

I think that’s spot-on. Having a laugh<br />

together, again, is a fundamental<br />

exchange of energies; and if brands<br />

get access to that – which isn’t easy,<br />

because it requires an understanding<br />

of culture, of trends, of many subtle<br />

factors that may not immediately be<br />

recognizable – they have a tremendous<br />

opportunity to get way ahead of their<br />

competition. Instead of over-engineering<br />

channels and KPIs, let’s reverseengineer<br />

and get back to a discussion<br />

about basic human needs, wishes,<br />

desires. Let’s connect to people’s<br />

«humaneness».<br />

You’re basically saying that we’re<br />

not «distracted» from being human<br />

by <strong>tech</strong>nology, or the digital realm,<br />

but that we’re using them to become<br />

even more of who we are – and who<br />

we aspire to be. Have you thought<br />

about how generative AI – the era of<br />

which we’re now entering – may<br />

contribute to that?<br />

It’s interesting that you’re asking me<br />

this! I’m currently working on an<br />

article <strong>with</strong> a Harvard Business School<br />

professor, we want to co-author<br />

something … I can’t say too much<br />

about the content of the text yet, but I<br />

can tell you something about artificial<br />

intelligence: It was late on Thursday, I<br />

was at the airport, and while I was<br />

waiting for my flight I started playing<br />

around <strong>with</strong> «Bard», which is Google’s<br />

collaborative AI. I used «Bard» to help<br />

me test a hypothesis on a certain<br />

leadership trait and search for examples<br />

of leaders who exhibit this trait.<br />

That supported me in expressing my<br />

ideas for the paper more clearly. So I<br />

have a really good starting point from<br />

which I can now take over and progress.<br />

Generative, conversational AI is a very<br />

elaborate tool – yet, it remains a tool.<br />

Do you, being both an <strong>anthropologist</strong><br />

and a <strong>tech</strong> executive, sometimes<br />

wonder about what may come after<br />

that? An AI, probably, that would no<br />

longer be distinguishable from human<br />

intellect – and would force us to<br />

re-evaluate «who we are»?<br />

«We’ll make<br />

it work. We’ll keep<br />

evolvingin the right<br />

direction.»<br />

First, I want to say that there is still so<br />

much mystery, so much that we do<br />

not know about the way our brains<br />

function. Neuroscience is absolutely<br />

fascinating, and while I have barely<br />

scratched the surface of that field, I<br />

can tell you that there’s so much<br />

going on in our minds …and in our<br />

bodies! … that we do not fully understand.<br />

So if there was a <strong>tech</strong>nology one<br />

day that could be more creative, more<br />

innovative, generally more clever than<br />

human beings – I first would be<br />

surprised, I think, but I would also be<br />

intrigued. Because to qualify as such,<br />

the <strong>tech</strong>nology would need to have<br />

understood all the mysteries we have<br />

yet to uncover, or else it wouldn’t be<br />

superior to our intellect. And frankly, I<br />

don't see any <strong>tech</strong>nology being up for<br />

this task any time soon. It would need<br />

a lot more time and development<br />

before I would even be concerned<br />

about AI being more human than us.<br />

And the reluctancy towards<br />

the generative AI we’re testing<br />

now, and which is constantly in<br />

the media…?<br />

We’ve talked about <strong>tech</strong> skepticism<br />

before. It’s as old as time. My mother<br />

was a professor of chemistry and the<br />

Dean of Wellesley College in Massachusetts.<br />

And she remembers days<br />

when there was panic around using<br />

calculators; when her colleagues were<br />

protesting against them: «These<br />

machines are now doing the math for<br />

us. What do we do, then? And how do<br />

we keep challenging our students?»<br />

All of a sudden, academics had to<br />

rethink what it means to challenge a<br />

student. That’s not the worst thing in<br />

the world, right? (laughs) Another<br />

example: More than two decades ago,<br />

the internet provided billions of<br />

people <strong>with</strong> all the knowledge that<br />

humanity ever possessed – but that<br />

has not made human judgment<br />

obsolete. It has become our most<br />

important crutch, and it has enhanced<br />

and elevated our life in so many ways<br />

… but it has not made us redundant. I<br />

read an interesting piece in a magazine<br />

a couple of days ago which made<br />

the point that the broad use of AI may<br />

lead to a renewed interest in liberal<br />

arts – because what we’ll need in the<br />

future are people who can do things


15<br />

powers of artificial intelligence. But<br />

most of us will adapt to its existence in<br />

a positive way, and it will help us to get<br />

further. My son wrote one of his college<br />

admissions essays about his<br />

interest in astrophysics. He's fascinated<br />

by it because of the mysteries of<br />

science and how much we still don't<br />

know, don't understand and don't see<br />

yet. That compares to the previous<br />

example of our brain. I am convinced<br />

that, to tap into that knowledge of the<br />

«great beyond» – both <strong>with</strong>in ourselves<br />

and in the universe surrounding us<br />

– we will need all of the help we can<br />

get. And we’ll make it work. We’ll keep<br />

evolving in the right direction.<br />

that artificial intelligence can’t do:<br />

People who feel the subtlety of humor<br />

I mentioned, people who connect dots<br />

that have never been connected<br />

before, people who show empathy in<br />

storytelling. I mean – the delicate<br />

balance of «what to mention and what<br />

not to mention» in smalltalk at a<br />

cocktail party; the next trend in clothing;<br />

the almost invisible strings that<br />

direct human interaction … that’s<br />

something an AI won’t be able to<br />

«get», in my opinion. At least for now.<br />

So you’re seeing a beautiful future?<br />

Maybe I'm naïve. Actually, surely I am<br />

naïve, to some extent (laughs). I don’t<br />

know all that lies before us. And who<br />

does? Again, there’s going to be<br />

people who will try to abuse the<br />

I imagine a world where artificial<br />

intelligence for our brain becomes the<br />

equivalent of what robotic exoskeletons<br />

are for our bodies: Something<br />

that doesn’t hinder us, but that increases<br />

the strength we have and enables<br />

us to take on more challenging endeavors.<br />

I like that idea. Having a clever AI that<br />

grabs, summarizes, or breaks down<br />

information from all the corners of the<br />

web can be tremendously helpful in<br />

simplifying almost any intellectual<br />

work we’re doing. It can offer us – to<br />

get back to your very first question –<br />

the dots, and we are the ones who<br />

connect them. If history is my data<br />

point, then, yes, the future is bright.<br />

Because that's what we've been doing<br />

over the course of time. We've been<br />

taking these <strong>tech</strong>nologies, we've<br />

adapted them. We've leveraged them,<br />

we've navigated through them to<br />

make us more human, to make us<br />

better storytellers, more loving, more<br />

innovative, more creative. And don’t<br />

forget: We’ve also been having quite a<br />

lot of fun along the way.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!