I taught two sections of Organizational Communications this semester. Some students in the course struggled to write effectively for business. Some students don't comprehend why using a hesitation form (umm...ahhhh) after every sentence yields a mediocre presentation grade. Check out this word-for-word evaluation that a student submitted (using an online survey instrument) about me:
"The professor was inappropriate toward students. He lacks communication skills even though that is course he is supposed to teach. Grades too harshly on presentations when this is practice...there should more presentations with smaller points fixed to them. THe videotaping was rediculous " (forgot the period).
Fortunately, the positive comments about the course were well-written. Maybe there is a correlation?
:)
Friday, December 19, 2008
Monday, December 01, 2008
Don't Start Drink'n Our Own KoolAide...Yet
The blogosphere is filled with odes to Obama and the change he'll bring. We certainly need some change and I hope he's the answer. My problem is not with Obama, but with the "crowdsourcing" advocates who think Obama will rule by checking Facebook.
Web 2.0 is great for campaigning. Truthfully, it's especially great if you're a Democrat and have a high proportion of younger voters. Howard Dean was the first to show this, not Obama. Obama can take credit for actually getting the social network crowd to vote and contribute. Dean was a bit early on this front. Some PR groups have annointed the Facebook crowd as the next face of public policy makers. I think, however, that people who believe their voice will be heard because of a Facebook group are drinking their own KoolAide. I'm a technophile and I still believe these collaborative tools can move us towards a more collaborative democracy. But in the next 8 years? Unlikely.
Campaigning for change is one thing. Everyone wants change. The problem is that even people who support Obama have different opinions of change. Unions want card check rules, employers want tax breaks, middle class wants less taxes but more services, and everyone has a different opinion on how to change the economy and our global image. Wrapped into this fray is a Congress that wants to take money home to get re-elected and a judiciary that remains very conservative. The forces which will come to control Obama's decisions will remain traditional. Large constituencies will be heard, lobbied for, and remain influencial.
As people from current generations get elected the social networking trend will become a public affairs device. But not this year...or next year. Too many old school control issues exist for Twitter to be the next policy research tool. Money and power count. 20,000 people without money or power on Ning.com only count during an election, not after.
The Technorati are quick to label the Obama campaign as historic. I think the campaign's use of technology was masterful. To get elected. Now that Obama is putting together people in his adminstration he'll stop checking Facebook and start asking his cabinet. There are many reasons why I predict this, but be assured that yelling at the top of your lungs on Twitter won't get you heard after the election.
Howard Dean started using technology. Obama perfected it for the campaign. If you think the next logical step, one crowdsourced public voice will come quickly (e.g. like during Obama's reign) you're drinking your own Koolaide.
Web 2.0 is great for campaigning. Truthfully, it's especially great if you're a Democrat and have a high proportion of younger voters. Howard Dean was the first to show this, not Obama. Obama can take credit for actually getting the social network crowd to vote and contribute. Dean was a bit early on this front. Some PR groups have annointed the Facebook crowd as the next face of public policy makers. I think, however, that people who believe their voice will be heard because of a Facebook group are drinking their own KoolAide. I'm a technophile and I still believe these collaborative tools can move us towards a more collaborative democracy. But in the next 8 years? Unlikely.
Campaigning for change is one thing. Everyone wants change. The problem is that even people who support Obama have different opinions of change. Unions want card check rules, employers want tax breaks, middle class wants less taxes but more services, and everyone has a different opinion on how to change the economy and our global image. Wrapped into this fray is a Congress that wants to take money home to get re-elected and a judiciary that remains very conservative. The forces which will come to control Obama's decisions will remain traditional. Large constituencies will be heard, lobbied for, and remain influencial.
As people from current generations get elected the social networking trend will become a public affairs device. But not this year...or next year. Too many old school control issues exist for Twitter to be the next policy research tool. Money and power count. 20,000 people without money or power on Ning.com only count during an election, not after.
The Technorati are quick to label the Obama campaign as historic. I think the campaign's use of technology was masterful. To get elected. Now that Obama is putting together people in his adminstration he'll stop checking Facebook and start asking his cabinet. There are many reasons why I predict this, but be assured that yelling at the top of your lungs on Twitter won't get you heard after the election.
Howard Dean started using technology. Obama perfected it for the campaign. If you think the next logical step, one crowdsourced public voice will come quickly (e.g. like during Obama's reign) you're drinking your own Koolaide.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Society was never improved…by knowing the color of Paris Hilton’s Rolls Royce…
One seemingly positive result from so much interest, use, and traffic at Wikipedia is that the repository has cut down on the incidence of controversial content and wars between differing opinions. This reduction of controversy to civility, censorship, and bland entries is precisely why Wikipedia might never become a world-changing service. For now, it is simply a repository of facts.
Don’t misunderstand me, Wikipedia is a great repository of facts. Old school traditionalists in my field, higher education, love to bash Wikipedia and normally fail to grasp the new way that people access, combine, and collaborate to make knowledge. But the elimination of controversy and disagreement essentially reduces Wikipedia to a fact checker. Which is my point, mankind was never furthered (or impeded, for that matter), by the color choice for a celebrity’s car or the accepted birthdate of jazz. New and good things come from controversy. Controversy makes people evaluate their position, thoughts, beliefs, and actions. Controversial opinions, products, and people make us uncomfortable but make an impact, even if it is a stronger resolve for what we already believe.
I don’t know the answer to how Wikipedia can store and even foster the controversies that occur in our societies. I don’t know how Wikipedia can take a controversy like the Israel/Palestine disagreement and portray it so that society understands the complexities, difficulties, and history. I suspect, having been a writer all my life, that we need narratives, opinions, and long detailed pieces. We need good journalism, photographs, and people from both sides of the conflict weighing in with content. All of this content will cause different people have different opinions. This breadth of opinion is what ultimately spurs people to action and furthers society. A Wikipedia entry with the timeline of the history behind the Israeli/Palestine conflict is not going to change the world. It will never come close to chronicling the issue for future generations. And it will probably not stir anyone reading it to action.
The world is not facts. The world is emotion, color, imagery, disagreement, acceptance, and non-acceptance. I’m not really sure that Wikipedia can do all that with some text and bullet points. Until it can, we shouldn’t credit Wikipedia with being a “library” or being like the “library of Alexandria”. We should credit it for being a repository of facts, some true, some stretched. None really have much potential to change the world.
Don’t misunderstand me, Wikipedia is a great repository of facts. Old school traditionalists in my field, higher education, love to bash Wikipedia and normally fail to grasp the new way that people access, combine, and collaborate to make knowledge. But the elimination of controversy and disagreement essentially reduces Wikipedia to a fact checker. Which is my point, mankind was never furthered (or impeded, for that matter), by the color choice for a celebrity’s car or the accepted birthdate of jazz. New and good things come from controversy. Controversy makes people evaluate their position, thoughts, beliefs, and actions. Controversial opinions, products, and people make us uncomfortable but make an impact, even if it is a stronger resolve for what we already believe.
I don’t know the answer to how Wikipedia can store and even foster the controversies that occur in our societies. I don’t know how Wikipedia can take a controversy like the Israel/Palestine disagreement and portray it so that society understands the complexities, difficulties, and history. I suspect, having been a writer all my life, that we need narratives, opinions, and long detailed pieces. We need good journalism, photographs, and people from both sides of the conflict weighing in with content. All of this content will cause different people have different opinions. This breadth of opinion is what ultimately spurs people to action and furthers society. A Wikipedia entry with the timeline of the history behind the Israeli/Palestine conflict is not going to change the world. It will never come close to chronicling the issue for future generations. And it will probably not stir anyone reading it to action.
The world is not facts. The world is emotion, color, imagery, disagreement, acceptance, and non-acceptance. I’m not really sure that Wikipedia can do all that with some text and bullet points. Until it can, we shouldn’t credit Wikipedia with being a “library” or being like the “library of Alexandria”. We should credit it for being a repository of facts, some true, some stretched. None really have much potential to change the world.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Was vertical social media preceded by...the web?
WSJ's "All Things Digital" section has a video where journalist Kara Swisher interviews Demand Media's Richard Rosenblatt. Let me say that Rosenblatt seems like a very intelligent yet grounded guy. None of the proto-typical ranting and nonsense that spews from many Silicon Valley entrepreneurs who are drinking their own juice. Rosenblatt was the co-founder of MySpace and sold it to News Corp. He comments in the interview about how his new company builds vertical social networking communities. For example, if you are an impassioned golfer, why go to Facebook and join a golf group? Why not go directly to an online group specifically for golf? I agree completely.
The growth of the web foretold this phenomena. Destination websites that served as general knowledge pages (Yahoo, for example), helped connect us to different and new webpages. Gradually, we began to visit the pages we knew and that led to less surfing and less need for a general directory. We still search a lot. But not for new web destinations, mostly for new information.
I think Rosenblatt has it right. But our behavior on the web in the 90's was a pre-cursor to our behavior today. In viewing it from this perspective, one doesn't need to wonder why Yahoo is in trouble. And we have to admit that Yang is stuck in the past drinking his own juice if he thinks a Google ad pact can save Yahoo from the fundamental change in audience behavior.
The growth of the web foretold this phenomena. Destination websites that served as general knowledge pages (Yahoo, for example), helped connect us to different and new webpages. Gradually, we began to visit the pages we knew and that led to less surfing and less need for a general directory. We still search a lot. But not for new web destinations, mostly for new information.
I think Rosenblatt has it right. But our behavior on the web in the 90's was a pre-cursor to our behavior today. In viewing it from this perspective, one doesn't need to wonder why Yahoo is in trouble. And we have to admit that Yang is stuck in the past drinking his own juice if he thinks a Google ad pact can save Yahoo from the fundamental change in audience behavior.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
The Inability to Model KT...Due to the Unpredictibility of Humans
If business was predictable, business theorists could create several models for business operations, make them Open Source, accept donations and consulting, and retire to a place more suitable for thinking. But the unpredictability of business is what makes it interesting. Business is filled with quantitative measurement of itself. Manufacturing companies collect data on raw materials, optimum manufacturing cycles, environmental factors, and just-in-time inventory. Services industries have adapted this analytical perspective of work, examining customer satisfaction rates, average support call time, and other customer based metrics. Service sector companies in the knowledge economy appear to have a much harder time than manufacturers in creating a template for the perfect product. Much of the work is what Robert Reich calls Symbolic/Analytical and requires analysis and decision. Injecting human beings into the business equation sometimes creates a level of unpredictability that cannot be measured. Human unpredictability accounts for two significant problems in the enterprise: first, it makes the modeling of many business processes very difficult due to the inconsistency of human thought and action. Second, it stymies the ability to create a clear model of knowledge management due to the human interaction that needs to occur for knowledge creation and transfer.
KM is not a set of known processes that function consistently. Imagine that your enterprise wants to upgrade its database capabilities. So you license an Oracle database and integrate it into your ERP system. You pay Oracle for some support, add some knowledgeable staff members, conduct training, and pay an integrator to complete the project. Never easy, but once the database is optimized the processes that control the DB and employees is fairly consistent. You can measure all types of metrics from the database and using standard protocols you can guarantee consistent behavior from the database and the people accessing specific kinds of data. This isn’t the case with KM integration. There is no component (like a database) that forces a significant amount of consistency on the processes. In a KM collection effort, some employees feel incentivized to enter information and some don’t’. The sharing of data is inconsistent. Some people share due to relationships and projects. Some prejudicially don’t share due to poor relationships or turf wars. Collaborative exchanges resulting from cross-functional projects might vary and subject matter experts in important areas retire and take a goldmine of untapped information to the flower beds, golf courses, and beach houses of retirement. All of this inconsistency cries for a unified model. But how do we create a model that accounts for human inconsistency and the randomness of some KM exchanges?
KM is not a set of known processes that function consistently. Imagine that your enterprise wants to upgrade its database capabilities. So you license an Oracle database and integrate it into your ERP system. You pay Oracle for some support, add some knowledgeable staff members, conduct training, and pay an integrator to complete the project. Never easy, but once the database is optimized the processes that control the DB and employees is fairly consistent. You can measure all types of metrics from the database and using standard protocols you can guarantee consistent behavior from the database and the people accessing specific kinds of data. This isn’t the case with KM integration. There is no component (like a database) that forces a significant amount of consistency on the processes. In a KM collection effort, some employees feel incentivized to enter information and some don’t’. The sharing of data is inconsistent. Some people share due to relationships and projects. Some prejudicially don’t share due to poor relationships or turf wars. Collaborative exchanges resulting from cross-functional projects might vary and subject matter experts in important areas retire and take a goldmine of untapped information to the flower beds, golf courses, and beach houses of retirement. All of this inconsistency cries for a unified model. But how do we create a model that accounts for human inconsistency and the randomness of some KM exchanges?
Friday, June 13, 2008
Am I the ONLY communications professional sick of advertising?
I love communications. I've been involved in marcomm, technical writing, advertising, PR, and technology for my whole professional life. But I'm a bit downtrodden by the idea that a huge percentage of people in the knowledge economy spend their time contemplating where to put more ads. Consider this quote from a online advertising listserv that receieved:
[quote] "To date, it's been one of those Holy Grails of the advertising business, and agencies have invested goodly sums in both proprietary and syndicated research to get at the answer of this seemingly idealistic "seamless media plan." Here's how the scenario goes: "Joe's radio alarm clock wakes him at 5:30 a.m. tuned to a local news/weather report. (Bam! Broadcast an ad message relevant to starting his day.) Joe turns on the local TV news channel while he quaffs his morning cup of java. (Reach him with a TV ad impression.) He unfolds the a.m. newspaper, or more likely, clicks on its site. (Serve him a banner or print ad.) He checks his morning inbox. (Send him an email marketing offer.) Then he's on his way out the door (ping him with a mobile marketing message.) Then driving to the train station. (Reach him with a.m. radio drive time.) On his daily commute. (Expose him to transit ads.) And so on and so forth throughout his day -- until he rests his head on his pillow for the only seven-hour respite from the commercial marketing world. [end quote]
I'm sick of ads. I love creative ads online, in print, and around town. But I think our existence will be a rather bland and dull one if we cannot perform a function online, drive somewhere, or use our cellphone without seeing an ad. Despite the appearances of the last few years, consumers in the U.S. DO have a limited amount to spend. This disposable income has already reached close to the limit. So a crush of more ads will create two scenarios: people become so disenchanted with ads that they no longer pay attention to them or the ads work, but it pulls disposable income away from another source, that source must create more ads to maintain market share and a big, never-ending ad war of ensues.
Am I the only communicator that doesn't want to see our society filled up with ads?
[quote] "To date, it's been one of those Holy Grails of the advertising business, and agencies have invested goodly sums in both proprietary and syndicated research to get at the answer of this seemingly idealistic "seamless media plan." Here's how the scenario goes: "Joe's radio alarm clock wakes him at 5:30 a.m. tuned to a local news/weather report. (Bam! Broadcast an ad message relevant to starting his day.) Joe turns on the local TV news channel while he quaffs his morning cup of java. (Reach him with a TV ad impression.) He unfolds the a.m. newspaper, or more likely, clicks on its site. (Serve him a banner or print ad.) He checks his morning inbox. (Send him an email marketing offer.) Then he's on his way out the door (ping him with a mobile marketing message.) Then driving to the train station. (Reach him with a.m. radio drive time.) On his daily commute. (Expose him to transit ads.) And so on and so forth throughout his day -- until he rests his head on his pillow for the only seven-hour respite from the commercial marketing world. [end quote]
I'm sick of ads. I love creative ads online, in print, and around town. But I think our existence will be a rather bland and dull one if we cannot perform a function online, drive somewhere, or use our cellphone without seeing an ad. Despite the appearances of the last few years, consumers in the U.S. DO have a limited amount to spend. This disposable income has already reached close to the limit. So a crush of more ads will create two scenarios: people become so disenchanted with ads that they no longer pay attention to them or the ads work, but it pulls disposable income away from another source, that source must create more ads to maintain market share and a big, never-ending ad war of ensues.
Am I the only communicator that doesn't want to see our society filled up with ads?
Friday, May 23, 2008
The Next Big Thing...Technology to Support Business Culture (not just function)
4-17-08
Driving into work I was listening to a story about how people across the world were rioting over food prices. Even some Middle East countries, flush with oil money, had riots over the cost of food. As the impact of high oil prices begins to constrict around business I began to postulate how technology can make business less reliant on oil.
In some ways, we’ve already begun the process. Virtual teams, reduced travel using videoconferencing, and working from home all contribute to oil savings. The biggest shortcoming in this first wave of distributed work environment is the challenge for the communication that occurs between colleagues. This cultural communication, as I term it, is essential to business success. More than just the water cooler talk, it involves seeing people in meetings, reading body language, and being able to pop into someone’s office for advice or feedback. A lack of opportunity to communicate in a face-to-face environment is what prevents managers, supervisors, and other team/department oriented workers from working from home. In some cases, this type of human interaction is what separates our home environment from our work environment and give us a sense that we’re “working”.
Anecdotally, which is my way of saying I have no research but my own experiences, this type of interaction varies in frequency. Some days, it seems like meetings, conversation, and group problem solving dominate one’s day. Other days, one just hunkers down with the door closed while churning out documents, reports, and deliverables. Herein lies the challenge. When we’re working in our office or cubicle, we might as well be working in our basement. There is no advantage, given technology, to be at the office. But when we’re needed – for a meeting, for feedback, for an immediate problem, then the accessibility for communication, and especially face-to-face communication, becomes an issue. And while the telephone has some merit, nothing beats a 20 minute impromptu face-to-face team meeting to overcome a new challenge and re-energize the effort.
So the next big thing in business, prompted by the oil prices, commuting, and the inefficiency of driving (even with cell phones), is Virtual Reality. I’m not sure how it will work, but it will be a technology, despite some unevenness of implementation, that will rise to dominate how we do business. I’m interested to what you feel how this virtual reality will take form. Here are some of my ideas:
Holograms- I don’t know much about 3-D technology. I do know that scans, compression, and transmission of all kinds of images have progressed to the point where this might be feasible.
Virtual World – If Second Life could be controlled by your real movement and if SL could show emotion, it might be worth actually using. SL has a lot of potential, but it still needs more input from your REAL avatar, you. For casual and recreational users of SL, the fact that nothing in SL needs to connect to their real life, body, or feelings is exhilarating. In order to do business and communicate, this feature is a drawback.
Video – no company is really enthused about videoconferencing because the technical requirements prevent spontaneity and, let’s face it, we all look bad 2D. Some work needs to be done to get this technology usable.
Currently, technology has been refined to support the functional aspects of our jobs: documents, conversations, analysis tools, and access to corporate resources. The next big thing will be the recognition that place isn’t important as long as we can replicate the important human interactions that occur in the corporate office. If we can, then everyone can work from home a few days a week, save the fuel and commute time, and still have the sense that they “worked”. Virtual Reality Distributed Work, trust me Dustin, it’s the next big thing….!
Driving into work I was listening to a story about how people across the world were rioting over food prices. Even some Middle East countries, flush with oil money, had riots over the cost of food. As the impact of high oil prices begins to constrict around business I began to postulate how technology can make business less reliant on oil.
In some ways, we’ve already begun the process. Virtual teams, reduced travel using videoconferencing, and working from home all contribute to oil savings. The biggest shortcoming in this first wave of distributed work environment is the challenge for the communication that occurs between colleagues. This cultural communication, as I term it, is essential to business success. More than just the water cooler talk, it involves seeing people in meetings, reading body language, and being able to pop into someone’s office for advice or feedback. A lack of opportunity to communicate in a face-to-face environment is what prevents managers, supervisors, and other team/department oriented workers from working from home. In some cases, this type of human interaction is what separates our home environment from our work environment and give us a sense that we’re “working”.
Anecdotally, which is my way of saying I have no research but my own experiences, this type of interaction varies in frequency. Some days, it seems like meetings, conversation, and group problem solving dominate one’s day. Other days, one just hunkers down with the door closed while churning out documents, reports, and deliverables. Herein lies the challenge. When we’re working in our office or cubicle, we might as well be working in our basement. There is no advantage, given technology, to be at the office. But when we’re needed – for a meeting, for feedback, for an immediate problem, then the accessibility for communication, and especially face-to-face communication, becomes an issue. And while the telephone has some merit, nothing beats a 20 minute impromptu face-to-face team meeting to overcome a new challenge and re-energize the effort.
So the next big thing in business, prompted by the oil prices, commuting, and the inefficiency of driving (even with cell phones), is Virtual Reality. I’m not sure how it will work, but it will be a technology, despite some unevenness of implementation, that will rise to dominate how we do business. I’m interested to what you feel how this virtual reality will take form. Here are some of my ideas:
Holograms- I don’t know much about 3-D technology. I do know that scans, compression, and transmission of all kinds of images have progressed to the point where this might be feasible.
Virtual World – If Second Life could be controlled by your real movement and if SL could show emotion, it might be worth actually using. SL has a lot of potential, but it still needs more input from your REAL avatar, you. For casual and recreational users of SL, the fact that nothing in SL needs to connect to their real life, body, or feelings is exhilarating. In order to do business and communicate, this feature is a drawback.
Video – no company is really enthused about videoconferencing because the technical requirements prevent spontaneity and, let’s face it, we all look bad 2D. Some work needs to be done to get this technology usable.
Currently, technology has been refined to support the functional aspects of our jobs: documents, conversations, analysis tools, and access to corporate resources. The next big thing will be the recognition that place isn’t important as long as we can replicate the important human interactions that occur in the corporate office. If we can, then everyone can work from home a few days a week, save the fuel and commute time, and still have the sense that they “worked”. Virtual Reality Distributed Work, trust me Dustin, it’s the next big thing….!
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
DCOM 290: Online Advertising and PR
I am teaching online advertising and pr to an undergraduate class this semester. Here are their blogs on the subject of online advertising:
Dan Hoover
http://dhoover.blogspot.com/
Drew Autenrieth
http://dautenrieth.blogspot.com/
Zach Barkus
http://zbarkus.blogspot.com/
Ben Wagner
http://benjaminswagner.blogspot.com/
Tony Gorick
http://coastermaniaccp.wordpress.com/
Kristin Huber
http://onlineadvertisinghuber.blogspot.com/
Lauren Sanford
http://lsanford.blogspot.com/
Jamie Booker
http://jamiecbooker.blogspot.com/
Jen Schwalm
http://jenniferschwalm.blogspot.com/
Dan Hoover
http://dhoover.blogspot.com/
Drew Autenrieth
http://dautenrieth.blogspot.com/
Zach Barkus
http://zbarkus.blogspot.com/
Ben Wagner
http://benjaminswagner.blogspot.com/
Tony Gorick
http://coastermaniaccp.wordpress.com/
Kristin Huber
http://onlineadvertisinghuber.blogspot.com/
Lauren Sanford
http://lsanford.blogspot.com/
Jamie Booker
http://jamiecbooker.blogspot.com/
Jen Schwalm
http://jenniferschwalm.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)