Skip to content


How to learn to stop hating the cellular telephone industry

John Crowcroft (a leading authority on communication systems, and a former lecturer of mine in Cambridge) has written a short informal paper on new directions in mobile communications. It is sub-titled “How to Learn to Stop Hating the Cellular Telephone Industry”, and more informally sub-titled “Rant about the cellphone industry’s failure of imagination”.

The paper draws analogies between the history of the internet (which has been absolutely astonishing over the last 30 years) and what the mobile phone industry could have done in the same time, had it taken the same sort of approach to innovation. Instead, the mobile telephone operators chose to lock down their systems, tightly control everything which goes in and out of them, and as a result have hardly experienced any innovation at all.

The key problem appears to be the fact that the telecoms companies have made a LOT of money from massively restricted services in the past, and they are continuing to do so today. If they open their systems and make it easy for third parties to provide services on top of them, they are probably going to lose some of that revenue in the short term. What they don’t realise (or do realise, but don’t want to face, for business or organisational reasons) is that they could make MUCH MORE money in the longer term by having an open system and providing great innovative services on top which people will happily pay for! The internet has proved that there are thousands of business models which are not only viable but actually extremely lucrative. You just need to be bold enough to take the risk of opening your systems to the competition.

Fortunately, there is a bit of movement — European mobile networks have at least made a few attempts at being reasonably open, and the US is gradually catching up too. But still it’s two steps forward and one back. Plenty of new devices (notably the iPhone) are still locked to one operator and don’t allow third-party software to be installed (unless you jailbreak it, of course). Eventually, we will probably get the same sort of innovation on mobile as we are getting on the internet, but it’s not going to be that quick.

Check Jon’s paper for a few business ideas, and then form a start-up. The more people try to make it happen, the more pressure there will be on the operators to open up, on the handset manufacturers to become compatible, etc.

Posted in business, mobile, mobile web.

Some mobile internet usage statistics

Mobile internet usage is one of those areas which is hyped a lot, but it’s actually pretty hard to lay your hands on some real figures detailing the number of users. In this week’s NMA, there’s an article by Tim Barber of Continental Research which gives a few useful figures to quote.

If you add up the figures, you see that there are currently a total of 7.4 million mobile internet users in the UK, which corresponds to 12% of all mobile phone users. I think that’s a pretty impressive figure already — it shows that mobile internet use isn’t just a toy for a small number of geeks, but it’s actually fast en route to mainstream adoption. (I don’t have an up-to-date growth figure, but I do know that from 2006–2007 the number of page views from mobile devices went up by 16%, according to the Mobile Data Association.)

Speaking of geeks, the data from Continental Research breaks the population into four rough categories: whether or not they are interested in technology, and whether or not they are interested in style. Considering just the former criterion:

  • Those interested in technology (the ‘geeks’) constitute 25% of mobile users, and of these people, 28% use the mobile internet. In this group, we therefore have 4.4 million mobile internet users.
  • Those not interested in technology constitute 75% of mobile users, and of these people, 6% use the mobile internet. In this group, we therefore have 3 million mobile internet users.

Spot something? A techie is 4 or 5 times more likely to use the internet on a mobile phone than a non-techie. However, the reality is that there are also 3 times as many non-techies as there are techies. This means they almost cancel out — right now, there are already plenty of people using mobile internet services even though they don’t care about gadgets and technology toys.

This is pretty good news: it shows that the general population has a genuine need which mobile internet access can address. It’s not just a toy, and we don’t simply use it just because we can. It’s actually something which can make our lives better.

Viewed in terms of Gartner’s Hype Cycle, right now, the mobile web and mobile internet are stepping out of the Trough of Disillusionment (into which they fell with the failure of WAP to match expectations) onto the Slope of Enlightenment.

I think this calls for a graph.

Graph showing the number of UK mobile phone and mobile internet users.

Posted in mobile, mobile web.

A day of remembrance for the digitally excluded

We received a phone book. It appeared on our doorstep. It was heavy and printed on paper and wrapped in plastic.

I looked at it like someone from a different planet. I hadn’t touched a phone book in years! Why on earth would somebody still want one?

My friends all have mobile phones, not landlines; and I have their numbers stored in my phone anyway, so I don’t need to look them up. For business contacts I have their business cards, which I store in a contact management database, which is also easily searchable. And if for some reason I don’t have somebody’s number, I would look it up in an online phone book which contains all people in the whole of the UK, not just Cambridge.

When I have children, they will probably fail to grasp why anybody could have possibly wanted a big heavy book with their neighbours’ phone numbers. And I will feel like someone from the middle ages because I still remember using them (back in the day when it took 2 minutes to connect to the internet by modem, so it was actually faster to use the paper phonebook). And hey, I’m 24 — how are my parents’ generation going to feel?

But then, take a step back. Why are they still distributing paper phone books for free? Because there are still many, many people who do not have internet access. Many millions in the UK — and outside the industrialised world it’s the vast majority of people. That online oxygen which I take so completely for granted, it’s not actually as omnipresent as I would like to think.

The internet has completely changed the world, I can hardly repeat it often enough — it is the same kind of massive shake-up as the industrial revolution or the invention of the printing press. But we who are involved in making that technology must not forget about those people who lack internet access. There is a divide between those who are part of the communication and democratisation which the internet is bringing, and those who are “digitally excluded”. We must not forget them, and we must do our best to get everybody online, anywhere on the planet, by making technology accessible, usable, and affordable.

Someone put a lot of money, time and effort into printing that phone book. Although it probably didn’t require a tree to be felled, it has still consumed a lot of recycled paper. I would have felt bad to put it in the recycling immediately, even though I know that we are never going to use it. So I stripped off the plastic wrapper and placed the book carefully in the drawer under the living room table. Last year’s phone book was there too, just as unused. At least now, the two phone books can keep each other company.

Posted in power-off day, usability.

Update on German train ticket machines

A while ago I wrote some posts about the user interfaces of ticket machines in Germany (article 1, article 2). Meanwhile I am told that they have been improved considerably: the ‘Fast purchase’ route is now considerably faster, requiring a minimum of only 4 or 5 clicks to buy a standard ticket (compare that to 16 clicks previously!). The way they have done that is to skip the whole timetable thing; instead you only select whether or not you want to take the fast trains (which has an effect on the price). That’s a very good start, since it optimises the common case: people who routinely buy the same ticket and know exactly what they need. And for those with unusual requirements, there’s still the long route with its multitude of different options to choose from.

Despite these changes, plenty of usability challenges remain. For example, my friend told me that he didn’t realise when using the machine when he had reached the payment screen: he could have just inserted his card, but instead found himself looking around for the “next” button to press. There was just some small and non-obvious bit of text on screen explaining that you were now ready to pay.

Scan of a newspaper article on a training course for train ticket machines In fact the usability problems of German train ticket machines are still so pronounced that the national rail company (DB) is now offering courses to teach people how to use them. (See the scanned newspaper article, taken from Aalener Nachrichten/Schwäbische Zeitung, Tuesday 18th December 2007. Sorry that it’s more than a month old, I’ve not had much time to blog recently.)

This article is somehow slightly scary and hilarious at the same time, in the way how the train staff systematically blame the users for their inability to use the system, rather than seeking the blame with the system itself. Hilarious because it’s so stereotypical, and scary because such a big organisation can get away with it without people putting up a fuss and explaining that this is just not acceptable.

Some highlights from the article:

Moschner [the course instructor] says that the new ticket machines have a more visible display and also accept cash besides credit and debit cards. “Are they just as cumbersome as the old ones?” an over-70-year-old lady enquires. The course instructor remains calm: “They are not cumbersome.”

Hmm. Complete denial of the existence of problems. Two more quotes indicate that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of user behaviour going on:

“Read what it says there. It is important.”

“The ticket machine really does tell you what it wants, you just have to look.”

Why should I be trying to find out what the ticket machine wants? It should be trying to find out what I want! Also, I shouldn’t have to read every word on the screen. That’s simply not what people do. People don’t even read whether doors are labelled ‘PUSH’ or ‘PULL’ before trying one or the other. People just press random buttons in the hope of getting somewhere quickly, and the system should be designed to cope with this sort of behaviour. Anything else is just unrealistic and designed for robots rather than humans.

Fortunately this course is a positive initiative, probably with a thought along the lines of “well, if we can’t get the design right, at least we can teach people how to use the broken design”. I guess that’s a valid approach to the problem. And hey, 8 people turned up to that course, maybe that’s 8 fewer people who get frustrated with the machines. Sounds a bit like a drop in an ocean to me though.

Posted in electronic devices, usability, user experience.

Bad usability calendar

Photo of the Bad Usability Calendar at Ept Computing’s officeNetlife Research, a usability consultancy from Norway, has come up with a neat humorous way of pointing out some design elements which can help improve usability (or rather, design errors which can render a product pointless for most of its potential users). They have put these handy hints together in the form of a calendar — the Bad Usability Calendar. You can download it and print out a copy for yourself. Such as I have done, see the photo (which includes a gratuitous reference to potted plants). Thanks to Johannes for pointing it out to me.

Amusing though the exercise is, it proves once again how hard it can be to practise what you preach. The Bad Usability Calendar website, although apparently designed by usability experts, doesn’t actually work. I was going to enter their prize draw for an Amazon voucher, for which a required step is to provide your address. This address appears to be used to look up your longitude and latitude, so that they can plot a little pin on a map. I tried four or five variations of my UK address, but unfortunately none of them was accepted by the site. It failed with a badly written error message which gave me no clear indication as to how I would have to construct the address so that it would be accepted. Well, I would have even been perfectly happy to find Cambridge on the map myself and stick a virtual pin into it, but no, that wasn’t a foreseen option. Moreover, the option for uploading a photo didn’t appear to work either — and there wasn’t any error message at all, just no picture. So unfortunately I was excluded from the prize draw.

At least I’m glad to see that nobody else from the UK has managed to place a pin yet. You know, bad usability always makes you feel stupid (even if it’s clearly somebody else’s fault, not your own), so it’s a bit of a consolation that nobody else has figured out how to make the site accept a UK address. Now I am wondering whether something like that could be incorporated into other products. Some means by which users can see that they are not the only ones who are grappling with a dysfunctional product, maybe by social network or something like that. Not that it makes the product any better; it just makes its users feel slightly better.

Edit (29 January 2008): Meanwhile the issue has been sorted out and we have been placed on the map manually. The address search also seems to be working now, and we’ve even been joined by another UK pin in London. Netlife handled the matter very quickly and nicely — thanks!

Posted in usability.

Potted plants and the mobile web

I just got back from a garden centre, where I had ventured on the exciting mission of getting some indoor potted plants to make our office nicer. So there I was, amidst a cloud of greenery, not having the foggiest clue what plants may be suitable for our office space (with good artifical light but not much natural light, and more importantly, with somebody taking care of them whose track record with plants hasn’t exactly been glamorous).

I couldn’t spot any shop assistants nearby whom I could quiz. There were little labels on the pots which detailed the required conditions, but I wasn’t sure I could believe them — they looked very generic, most were very similar, and sometimes two pots with plants of the same species had different labels, contradicting each other. They looked very much as though they had just been distributed willy-nilly without any regard for the actual needs of the plant.

Enter the mobile web. Fortunately many of the plants were labelled with the name of their species (except for those which were helpfully labelled “foliage plant”), and I had my phone with me. Casting those names into Wikipedia on my mobile quickly gave me a good idea which plants were likely to survive my “care”. Now the mobile web is happy because it has solved somebody’s problem; the garden centre is happy because they were able to sell me plants without even needing to employ a shop assistant; and I’m happy because Ept Computing is now a nicer place to work. We’ve even got, believe it or not, a corporate watering can. (Somehow this reminds me of Douglas Adams and towels.)

It’s nice to practise what you preach and show that mobile web access really is useful in everyday life.

Posted in mobile web.

The economic case for open source (for Google, Nokia etc.)

“Joel on Software” book cover (Image source: amazon.com)Over the Christmas holidays I was reading Joel on Software, the book summarising some of the most interesting material from Joel Spolsky’s blog. (The book is worth reading, although I did find it quite a shame that it was pretty much verbatim the blog contents pressed on paper for easier reading. It would have been nicer if the writing style had been changed from the slightly rambling, disconnected style of blogs to a more coherent style expected from a book. But the stuff Joel talks about is definitely worth reading for software engineers, in whatever form.)

The article which I found most interesting is his “Strategy Letter V” (page 281), which is also available on the web. It explains why, in his opinion, so many large companies are investing in open source software.

On the surface, open source seems a strange model for a business — why should a company spend a lot of time and money developing software, and then simply give it away? The claim that they have suddenly given up on capitalism isn’t exactly convincing. The claim that it’s cheaper from them to get free code contributions from teenagers than to write it themselves… not so sure about that one either.

Joel gives the first answer which I actually find convincing. He explains open source investment in economic terms, through so-called complements. For example, flights to Venice and accomodation in Venice are complements of each other: customers need both in order to get a holiday in Venice, but they are sold by completely different companies. And if flights to Venice get cheaper, more people want to go there, so there is higher demand on accomodation, so prices of hotel rooms in Venice go up. And vice versa. This economic effect of complements has been observed in many different markets.

So, if A and B are complements of each other, and the price of A goes down, then the price of B will go up. So, if you are a company selling B, and you are clever, you will try to push the price of A down as far as possible, even commodify it. That way, you can sell B for a higher price and you’ll be better off.

And now if you look around who is investing in open source software, you’ll notice that often the software released in this free manner is actually a complement of what that company is trying to sell. For instance:

  • Google want to sell advertising on mobile web sites. Mobile web browsers and mobile operating systems are complements of mobile web sites, so Google make Android and release it freely in order to drive down the price of these complements.
  • Our friends at Collabora are paid by Nokia to work on an open source platform for Nokia’s internet tablets. Nokia sell phone hardware, and the operating system is a complement of the hardware, so it makes sense for Nokia to commoditise it. Moreover, third-party applications are a complement of the hardware, so by opening the platform to the wide variety of freely available Linux software, Nokia increases the value of its hardware even more.

Once you think about it this way, it’s amazing how the economics begin to make sense!

Posted in book review, business, mobile web, software.

iPhone specific web sites — do they make sense?

Looking back at 2007, I can’t help but think that the iPhone was probably the most important and influential technology phenomenon of the year. It’s been talked about so much that I’m actually starting to get sick of it. But that doesn’t change the fact that it has had a significant impact, particularly on the way the mobile web works.

One of the most striking developments that ensued are the moves by several popular web sites to provide versions of their offering which are specifically tailored to people visiting their site from an iPhone. Amongst others, I found:

(Most of these sites show their iPhone look only to web browsers which identify themselves as Safari Mobile. To test them in a desktop web browser, see this article.)

iPhone specific development is fashionable, it seems. Some of those sites actually borrow and incorporate iPhone design elements (such as the style of lists and tabs, animation and icons), further blurring the distinction between web sites and applications. A List Apart, a widely respected resource for web developers, has even published a long article on how to develop iPhone-specific web sites (Part I, Part II). Apple themselves also offer in-depth information. iPhoneApplicationList.com maintains an extensive list of iPhone-optimised web applications.

Christopher Schmitt argues that making websites accessible for people with disabilities would expand a website’s reach far more than making an iPhone-specific site does. And Scott Gilbertson of WIRED thinks that the current situation is very similar to the old days when people were designing web sites specifically for Internet Explorer 4 (which was ahead of Netscape at the time). Jeff Croft suggests the opposite, saying that device-specific application development is going to happen anyway, and it doesn’t really matter whether it uses web technologies or not.

iPhone market share

What is the market share of iPhone internet browsing actually like? Hard to say, because it depends so much on what you measure. In terms of sold devices, the iPhone is performing strongly, but it is still a small proportion of the overall handset market. There are at least 100 million mobile devices with modern browsers (Opera Mobile, Nokia’s S60 browser, both of which are capable of displaying standard desktop web pages) compared to an estimated 2 million iPhones. Phones with WAP/XHTML browsers or adaptation browsers (such as Opera Mini) are a lot more numerous still. So in terms of the number of devices, writing iPhone-specific sites (as opposed to Opera-specific sites, for instance) really doesn’t make much sense.

Hitslink/Net Applications’ operating system statistics show that in December 2007, iPhone and iPod Touch users accounted for 0.14% of web page views, more than all other mobile platforms put together (Windows Mobile: 0.06%, S60: 0.02%). The Register reported this too. However, Ray Anderson, CEO of Bango, points out that these figures are misleading:

Hitslink produced this report by using data from their analytics customers. These people operate HTML/PC websites. They say: “You simply paste a small piece of HTML code on each page you wish to track statistics on”.

The 300 million or so mobile phone browser users (say 50 million S60) can’t or don’t browse HTML sites. They browse mobile friendly sites (WAP or XHTML or iMode) which will not have this HTML code in.

Considering that organizations like Bango, Admob, Peperonity, Vodafone report mobile browser traffic in the billions of pages per day, most of thse being S40 or S60 its clear that by ignoring non-HTML sites these stats are misleading and mistaken.

– Ray Anderson, in an email to Mobile Monday London mailing list, 5 Dec 2007

In other words, all that Hitslink’s statistics say is that iPhone users are more likely to visit more desktop web sites, but it doesn’t say anything at all about usage of sites which are specifically designed for mobile use. The conclusion I draw from this is that an iPhone user is much more likely to visit desktop sites than Windows Mobile or S60 users, and therefore non-iPhone users either mostly use sites designed for mobile, or don’t use the web much at all. This may have a variety of reasons — due to its large screen, desktop web sites are more usable on the iPhone than they are on devices with smaller screens; Safari Mobile has pretty neat zooming capabilities; and maybe iPhone users simply approach the device with a more web-oriented attitude, because after all it is more of an internet tablet than a phone.

If iPhone users actually prefer desktop-style websites, because they work quite nicely on the large screen, it really doesn’t make much sense to design a specific iPhone version of a site. On the other hand, if it’s that increased usability of the iPhone web experience which drives web usage per person to be many times higher than on S60 and Windows Mobile devices… then there’s a very strong case in favour of designing device-specific sites.

Is iPhone-specific design just a case of companies wanting to look cool by having an iPhone-optimised site and jumping on the bandwagon? Is this just a fashion which will go away again as quickly as it came? Or do such companies actually derive significant benefits from iPhone users? I’d be interested to hear your comments.

Posted in business, mobile, mobile web, software, user experience.

Imitating the iPhone User Agent in Firefox

There are a number of web sites out there which provide specifically optimised versions for the iPhone. I was curious to test them (and to look at their source code to see what they are doing), but don’t have an iPhone myself. Many sites will only give a visitor the iPhone version of their site if the web browser identifies itself as Safari Mobile. How do you get it?

The solution is the “user agent” — a string sent by the web browser to the server as part of every request. It contains the name and version of the browser software you are using, the operating system, and a few other bits and pieces. It’s a very useful piece of information to website administrators, who can use it to compile anonymous statistics about the people who visit their site.

Many people consider it to be bad practice to serve different versions of a site depending on the user agent, but it happens often enough anyway. And that’s exactly what is going on here. Fortunately there are tools which will let you modify the user agent, so you can see what you would get if you were using some other software. This is sometimes called “masquerading” as another browser. The technique described here is for Firefox, but it’s possible to do the same thing with other browsers too.

Download the User Agent Switcher add-on for Firefox, and restart Firefox. In the menu, go to Tools -> User Agent Switcher -> Options -> Options. Add a new user agent, with description “iPhone”, and the following entry in the user agent field:

Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/3B48b Safari/419.3

The remaining fields (app version etc.) can stay empty. Now you can click Tools -> User Agent Switcher -> iPhone, and your browser instantly “becomes” an iPhone. If the site uses features which are not available in Firefox, it will not render correctly, but at least the site should serve you the same content as it would do to an iPhone. (The user agent above is taken from a real iPhone; there are probably many others which work too, but that one has worked for me.)

One big caveat: you shouldn’t really be doing this! Use it only briefly for testing a site, then reset the user agent to the Firefox default. Otherwise you’ll end up sending the iPhone user agent to all other web sites you visit too, and that isn’t good for anybody. You may up being locked out of certain web sites or getting the wrong version, and administrators of web sites will hate you because you mess up their statistics.

So please, please reset the user agent to the default when you’ve finished testing.

Posted in mobile web, techie notes.

Christmas, political correctness and cultural identity

Usually I try to keep postings on this blog within my normal topic boundaries (usability, mobile and business/entrepreneurship) in an attempt to avoid the rambling and inconsequential nonsense which is seen on so many web sites. Please excuse me if I depart from this rule on this one occasion, to write a few (highly subjective, slightly opinionated and not very well qualified) comments about this time of year instead.

Christmas. A fairly bizarre cultural phenomenon in modern times. We have almost developed a kind of love/hate relationship with it: it seems that most of the world celebrates it in some form, although its meaning and background has become thoroughly warped. Everybody seems to have strong opinions about it, many of which are somehow contradictory. People look forward to it, but at the same time can hardly bear it any more. Snowy landscapes and fat men in woolly coats (Santa Claus and variations) are standard Christmas imagery even in countries where the temperature never drops below 15ºC. People accuse each other of cultural imperialism and then just celebrate anyway.

A Christian festival, versus other religions

Sometime in the past, it was quite simple: Various European peoples had a festival sometime around the winter solstice in pre-Christian times (a natural time of year for a celebration), then in Christianity it got associated with the birth of Jesus. Still it was considered to be vastly less important than Easter, and even the Epiphany is still more important than Christmas day in many parts of the world today. Makes sense that the most important thing about Jesus is that he died and rose again (Easter), second most important is that the news about him was spread throughout the world (Epiphany) and third most important is that he was born in human form (Christmas).

Gradually over the 19th and 20th centuries Christmas in western cultures gained economic significance, as merchants realised that selling presents was a great way to make lots of money. Nothing fundamentally wrong with making money, except that those people who wanted to stick to the religious orientation of the festival had to make a bit more effort to retain the spiritual dimension in spite of an environment which favoured the economic dimension. People criticised that Christmas shopping stress and a desire for a spiritual experience of Advent didn’t go together very well, but if you wanted to combine them you could still get by quite well.

Then within the last 10 years or so, there was an increased move towards a secularisation of Chrismas, sparking off the so-called Christmas controversy. The US retail industry was presumably thinking along these lines: “If we advertise Christmas presents, we can sell presents to Christians (plus a few cultural hangers-on). But if we advertise culture-neutrally and secularly, we can sell them to everybody.” There were also secularisation moves by public authorities, who feared that putting up Christmas trees (but not a nine-branched candelabrum or oil lamps, for instance) would be seen as religiously and culturally patronising to non-Christians.

In principle, paying attention to the cultural sensitivities of others is a very good thing. However, there’s also a massive risk of losing one’s own cultural identity, accumulated over centuries, in the process of excessive political correctness. When you start referring to Christmas as “Primary Giving Season” or replace Christmas wishes with nonsensical babble such as “Share the Magic of the Season” or “Pass the Cheer“, I am sad and feel that something precious has been lost.

Personally, I am delighted if somebody wishes me a happy Hanukkah or Diwali or Chinese New Year or Kwanzaa or whatever. I must admit that I don’t have much of an idea what the significance of most of these festivals is, but that doesn’t spoil the fact that somebody would like to share something with me which is special to them, and I consider it to be an honour that I may share a bit of their culture despite being pretty clueless about it. And it gives me an opportunity to learn more about that particular culture or religion, to begin to understand it better and to embrace its way of life.

Similarly I don’t feel particularly bad about wishing a happy Christmas to atheists, Jews, Muslims etc. — I just hope that they will understand my good intentions and translate it into something appropriate in their own culture. My deeper reasoning behind this is that even if I were to try to be culture-neutral, I would probably not succeed anyway. For instance, I may be wishing “Happy Holidays” to somebody for whom December is a month of mourning. Or my invitation to share the magic of the season may go to somebody who hates Christmas and doesn’t find it magical in the least. If somebody wants to be offended, they are going to be offended, no matter how neutral you try to be. So in the interest of sanity, I’ll rather be culture-specific in the first place (and apologise afterwards if somebody does take offence for some reason).

Christmas symbols

Shops and consumer brands all over the world seem to have agreed on an almost universal imagery of Christmas (or rather the “holiday season”, since many of the symbols are secularised). Visiting Hong Kong in December a few years ago, I found quite astonishing how these European/North American style decorations had been adopted with virtually no modification for local customs. Probably it’s mainly the shops which have developed these visual clues to highlight the fact that they sell products which may possibly be suitable as presents.

Symbols invariably involve snow (pictures of snowy landscapes, snowmen, fake snow, snowflake shapes), fat bearded men of some sort (Father Christmas, Santa Claus, …), reindeer, sleighs and bells, stars and fir trees. While some of these may have religious origins (stars spring to mind as a biblical motif), Santa Claus was consciously designed for advertising in modern times. Hardly anybody thinks about these symbols today, taking them for granted.

Not many of these symbols are appealing to me, but they must match other people’s tastes, otherwise we wouldn’t get so much of them. The curious thing is just that, unlike language (which, as discussed above, does not lend itself well to culture-neutral treatment), visual symbols seem to actually transcend cultural boundaries very successfully. Maybe that’s because imagery is less specific, and everybody can associate something with it. It does not matter if snowflakes are used as decoration by people who have never seen real snow in their life; it does not matter that the “cute” pastic reindeer bear very little resemblance to what real reindeer look like. The important thing is only the signalling effect, telling shoppers that it is time to buy presents.

Snow is not exactly a common feature in the Holy Land, where Jesus was born, so it does make you wonder where this imagery originates from. I don’t know for sure, but I would not be surprised if quite a few of the motifs originally come from Germany. Just before Christmas I visited the Christkindlesmarkt in Nürnberg — there in the biting cold, clutching Glühwein in my hands, the darkness scattered with thousands of lights, golden decorations glittering amongst branches of fir trees, angel figures singing their silent praises through the frosty but delighted crowds — there, in this Christmas market, a lot of the well-known Christmas images seemed to be appropriate.

I’m not saying that it’s wrong to borrow these symbols from that ancient Christmas market and put them in a well-heated, brightly illuminated shopping centre. There’s nothing holy about them, so if people like them, they should use them. I only hesitate because I fear that commercialised imagery might trample over older, more traditional symbols and suffocate them. For example, my mother goes to some effort every year to find chocolate figures of St. Nikolaus, traditionally given on 6 December. You’d be forgiven for mistaking the figure for Father Christmas/Santa Claus, but St. Nikolaus is shown with the insignia of a bishop (mitre and crosier), and the tradition of St. Nicolas’ day is much older than Father Christmas. But because so few people can actually tell the difference, more and more chocolate figures (such as the one from Lindt) are now actually Santas and not Nicolases. The lovely old tradition is in danger of being bulldozed by more modern imagery.

I wonder if a shop which does not participate in the whole Christmas decoration mania will perform any worse in its sales. Somehow I find it hard to believe that white plastic shavings (vaguely resembling snow), tacky plastic Christmas trees etc. actually encourage customers to spend money. On me they have more the opposite effect of making me want to run in the opposite direction, but I may of course represent a small minority.

Chrismas music

Finally a brief rant if you will allow. If there is one thing I really hate about Christmas, it is cheesy Christmas music. I don’t even know which I hate more: the soppy, sickeningly sweet arrangements of already bad traditional songs and carols, or modern pop groups’ attempts at making a Christmas hit single. I honestly find it very hard to imagine how anybody can bear this stuff, let alone enjoy it. Think about the poor shop assistants who have to bear with endless repetitions of the same awful syrup for weeks and weeks on end. If I hear bloody Christmas music in a shop, it instantly puts me in a bad mood and makes me want to get out as soon as possible (or sabotage the sound system, or burn down the factory where these CDs are produced). It certainly does NOT put me in a relaxed mood in which I will open my wallet wide. Please, please just stop playing this crap, and the world will be a better place.

There is some good Christmas music too, as demonstrated by the Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols, for example. If you really have to play something Christmassy, play something proper; even better just keep silence, there’s enough sound pollution already.

Anyway, Christmas is over for this year. Somehow I doubt though that my comments here will be outdated next year.

Posted in Uncategorized.