The clip was first posted on Mashable as a calming antidote to the excitement and hype around the iPad2 launch as “basically the most soothing thing ever” (who can disagree?).  But apart from being a lovely interlude to your day, it seems to touch on something consumers are increasingly seeking. Namely elements of the tactile, the nostalgic, the honest, the home-made and the retro. You only have to walk around London’s trendy East End to see how this is influencing fashion. Nobody’s really sure whether it’s ironic or not anymore, but wearing dubious knitwear is a big deal for this not insignificant youth sub-culture…

I suppose what I’m getting at is that while people are becoming increasingly technology-literate across the generations, they are also increasingly looking for the human touch in their experience. And despite what you are told, largely by people with a financial incentive, not everyone wants to immerse themselves in new technology. A manifestation of this can be seen in the way people are abandoning search engines to access online content and clicking through links their peers have recommended to them through Facebook or other social networks. My point is that ‘human’ interaction and genuine engagement is more important than ever if you want to make people really sit up and listen.

Also, looking for the ‘next big thing’ in technology might just prevent you from fully grasping the current one, both as a consumer of online content and as a provider of it. It goes back to that old chestnut of what the point of investing in a bells and whistles website or forum is if there is already an active community just around the corner? Wouldn’t it be far better to listen to that community in an attempt to understand the interests and concerns of those people, and perhaps even engage with them yourself, before even thinking about launching a me-too marketing or awareness initiative to them?

And what about the technology itself and the healthcare setting? Yes, there are numerous new apps and opportunities to optimise technology for healthcare purposes, whether it’s a disease information app or a platform to help doctors manage their patients. But these are no good without fully and truly understanding the audiences that use them. For example, you might think of using Twitter to communicate to a group of young adults about contraception. But the average Twitter user is more likely to be in their 30s than tweeting in school, and unless they ‘choose’ to follow you may be tweeting to yourself!

The worst thing you can do is assume that just because something is new and shiny, people will like it. In fact, the worst thing you can do is make assumptions at all. So why not take a long hard look at that expensive looking digital media proposal and ask the question, is all this technology relevant? If the answer is ‘yes’ then all you have to do is put your best foot forward down the intended path. If the answer is ‘no’ then you should congratulate yourself on your honesty, go back to listening to the people you want to engage with and then get thinking about what you have to bring to the party.

We have blogged before about some of the best iPhone and iPad health apps around, and the massive growth in the number of apps. And while it is too early to see what health apps will be available on the Playbook, it is clear that tablet devices such as these could soon be preferred over laptops. They will inevitably also influence laptops themselves, where usable apps are preferred over complex software.

Like the iPhone and iPad, it is possible for anyone to create apps for the Playbook. This means the app market is crowded and competitive and any ventures must make the cut, either by being niche interest or better than what already exists. Apps for healthcare professionals must bear this in mind, but there are still untapped opportunities to help patients manage their healthcare in a range of ways using tablet devices. Neglect this and others will prosper, making the market yet more crowded and more competitive.

The theory behind the initiative is that teenagers are more likely to play games on computers or mobile phones than they are to watch educational programming. So Channel 4 is trying out ways to make the most of their education budget by experimenting in this area (more information on this in a detailed article by The Guardian).

There is a thriving industry out there of games developers making this software specifically for healthcare campaigns , as we discovered just by reaching out on Google. These games can be really effective, although there are a few golden rules we’d think would be essential:

•  Relevance: Pretty much rule number one. ‘Privates’ will work for a select audience of teenage boys, but as one commenter on The Guardian article put it nicely, “playing games inside a vagina … I wonder whether this will appeal more to boys than girls”. If the target audience in this case is girls (which we can only assume it is not), this is obviously a bad route. Similar Flash games suit audiences perfectly, like these particularly cute but shocking heart operation games by the British Heart Foundation. Children play games like this and would definitely engage in them
• Integrated publicity: Like any online health awareness campaign, there must be something driving traffic to the site, such as a wider public relations campaign with engaging spokespeople, patient case studies and the like
• Educational/recreational balance: Are the learning objectives going to be achieved best by a game or through peer to peer consensus around an issue, which might better be achieved through social networking or a more traditional media outreach focus? One issue with Flash games is whether the educational content will just be skipped through. If so, perhaps there is some ‘subconscious’ learning occurring, but if a game can have an unobtrusive, in-built evaluation mechanism (like a knowledge test), it would be an excellent way to ensure the objectives are achieved

There’s one further issue to consider with these games, and that’s the incompatibility of Flash with Apple iPods, iPhones and iPads. For some audiences, you might be better off developing an app, although the great thing about Flash is that you can use it on most computers by going to a webpage, rather than having to download an app.

The over-riding consideration to come back to is always that games like this can be good content, but without some strong educational context, ‘edutainment’ is at risk of becoming exactly what it’s detractors think it is. But if it’s done right, you have the potential to captivate a large new audience, and have a lot of fun at the same time.

Firstly, the concept of apps is here to stay, no question. Over a nine month period, there were 1 billion app downloads through iTunes. 2 million iPads have been sold in the first two months following launch in the US alone. Yes, the NHS has limited resources and healthcare professionals are unable to get free iPhones, iPads and smart phones from their employer, but an increasing number will have them for personal use, and also use them for work. In other words, there is a huge potential for pharma to begin to develop apps – it’s not going away any time soon.

Secondly, developing apps does not have to be expensive, nor does it need to have absolutely mind-blowing revolutionary functionality. Apps can just be another highly effective way to communicate to healthcare professionals, and potentially patients when it comes to health awareness campaigns and other non-branded activities.

Pfizer is collaborating with Epocrates, who are creating a drug reference app. Clinicians will be able to report adverse events related to the drugs referenced in the app directly to Pfizer. Drugs information is also provided on the app with the aim of ‘enhancing the safe and effective use’ of Pfizer medicines. Other companies will follow, which means ultimately we could be in a place where apps enable doctors to ask questions to pharma companies about their drugs and receive prompt responses. This kind of ‘value added’ service could improve treatment outcomes and from a company perspective, will do great things for customer relationships (if managed well).

The GSK app is slightly more specialist. MedTrust Online, the company they are working with to develop the app, provide specialist data and technology to oncologists. According to a useful Pharma Times article , “the application enables cancer doctors to find and share experimental therapies in clinical trials. It includes a quick search menu based on 12 common cancers as well as more advanced features that refine searches based on criteria such as gender, age or trial status.”

The principles of the oncology app could be applied elsewhere. How many apps cater for specialties in medicine and facilitate peer-to-peer communication and collaboration? There is scope for a lot more of this. There is also huge potential for patient-support apps, and regularly updated patient resource apps.

These first two pharma apps will hopefully give us a clue of the shape of things to come, and help to get the ball rolling.

One answer is an iTunes model. People are so used to paying for apps and 79p song downloads that something like a 20p charge to view an article – or perhaps a more in-depth report – could be fairly well received. Interestingly also in his address yesterday, Murdoch spent a good deal of time praising the new Apple iPad, calling it “a wonderful thing” and commenting that “if you have less newspapers and more of these … It may well be the saving of the newspaper industry.” So within weeks it’s not unlikely we’ll have content from The Sun and The Times available on iTunes (Murdoch has previously stated he will look to implement pay-walls by summer this year).

Under a Cameron government also, the media industry is bound to change to some extent. The Conservatives have been vocal about scaling down the BBC, which would directly benefit newspapers and private media organisations who suffer from this competition. However, even if the next UK government is aligned with the wishes of News Corp, it seems unlikely that all news providers would follow suit and erect paywalls. Murdoch doesn’t acknowledge this however, saying that “When they [consumers] have got nowhere else to go they will start paying. If it is reasonable.”

However, will we ever be in a media landscape that is void of news content? Especially at a time when citizen journalism continues to rise? While criticism that Murdoch is a dinosaur living in the bubble of an antiquated media world sounds unfair, his solutions are yet to inspire many throughout the wider media industry…