Two significant problems exist with most social media. The first problem is that marketers are actually the most interested people in having an exchange with you. I know, you might have 500 "friends" on FaceBook or MySpace, a loyal cadre of followers on your blog (even if they are 11 year olds), and gazillions of IM addresses. But the more people in your network, the more the marketers actually want a dialogue with you. Second problem - the whole web of social media is supported by the ad revenue model. Ultimately, the web will become one large advertisement as everybody seeks to monetize their content.
Consider this story about affiliate programs sending fake Twitter tweets filled with ads. This should not come as a surprise. Just when Twitter began to show some promise beyond "what I had for breakfast"...the advertisers took over. As a person who sometimes develops marketing strategy, I find some of these tactics in Web 2.0 unique, annoying, and sometimes creepy. But it provides some opportunites. I like to call it Search and Rescue. The search part has grown due to the challenges finding of information on the ever-growing Internet. Google? Yeah, still doing pretty well. Rescue is my term for all the technologies which save us from the creepy and annoying effects of the ad revenue model: spam filters, virus/worm checkers, ad blockers, identity protectors, widgets for FB and MySpace which limit ads, etc. I could decry all the annoying stuff created by the ad revenue model. Since this is my blog, I just might in the future. For now, I think I'm going to find some Search an Rescue stocks and try to capitalize...
Monday, April 13, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Society Was Never Improved…by knowing the color of Paris Hilton’s Rolls Royce…
Last summer the Wikipedians met in Egypt (metaphorical?).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 leave 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. Until Wikipedia stirs someone to action…it is just a bunch of facts.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The Cost of Free
The news that the Seattle Post Intelligencer was closing and shrinking to a small, Internet-only publication should be good news to those people (like me) who want to see journalism move to the digital age. But it isn't good news. Seattle loses its oldest newspaper and the true guts of the newsroom, hard and investigative news, is eviscerated, never again to work for the people of Seattle.
I've been a proponent of the positive changes the Internet has wrought from the beginning of the commercialization stage (circa '95). I've coded html, laughed at ridiculous dot-coms, embraced Web 2.0, played around with OS software, and initially decried the tactics of the music industry and RIAA. So I feel like I'm balanced on the issue of free stuff on the Internet. There is a cost to free. Just like the TV commercials that offer free gifts along with your purchase (YOU PAY ONLY SHIPPING), free has a cost on the Internet. Look at the cost of free:
- Traditional journalism is endangered because the ad revenue model of the Internet cannot replace the traditional advertising model
- Free classifieds have decimated newspapers and free classifieds papers to the point of extinction
- Free music has changed the landscape of the music industry
- Free software - Open Source software is great - is everywhere, but who is actually paying for the development of it?
- Free movies now flood the market with the growth of bandwidth
In some form, people will ultimately pay for free. In music, it comes at the expense of the artists and record labels, who no longer receive revenue to back bands. In film, it comes at the expense of movie companies, who lose out on revenue for future production. If this doesn't make you shed a tear, then consider the loss of journalism. It is the journalists who expose corruption, follow dirty money, promote transparency, and force leaders of all walks of life to maintain integrity. It is not called the fourth estate lightly. When we lose the people asking the hard questions of Wall St, by gaining the fluff journalists who ask Paris Hilton about her new boyfriend, we lose more than people. We lose our ability to know. We lose our ability to "smell a rat", "follow the money", and "catch them in the act".
In regards to big cities, the competition between big newspapers is what often leads to the best investigative reporting. Sure, it leads to some exaggeration and sometimes pulling the trigger before confirmation. But it keeps us informed and it keeps a lot of entities honest. If we lose this, we begin to lose true democracy. I don't know how to monetize news information. I don't know how to encourage the average reader to care, just a little, about important events beyond Hollywood and style. But I do know that if we lose it because we think it's free...we are definitely going to pay for it.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Where is the UCD in future cars?
The greening of America has brought attention to many of our wasteful behaviors (and rightly so). One thing is clear as car manufacturers roll out energy efficient models - to save energy, cars need to be smaller. The problem is that we are a physically large society that is used to space in our cars. This is true for everyone, even commuters! The suburbanites who take a gaggle of kids to soccer, school, or play practice will be slow to relinquish their car space. We have physically gotten larger as a society, both height and weight. Unless we all turn into health conscious vegans, there is little chance of a quick reversal. Look at the tricycle car in the photo. Do these two handsome models look like the average American? Did you see the photo of six-foot-six (I think) GM CEO Wagoner getting out of the Chevy Volt when the car manufacturers went begging for money? Priceless. This guy, million dollar salary aside, would never purchase this car. It simply is not comfortable for a guy of his size.
I know cars need to weigh less and still be crash safe. I understand the complexity of building a truly fuel-efficient car that can be mass produced at a reasonable cost. But car designers, environmentalists, and other stakeholders in the system need to understand something about User Centered Design (UCD). People aren't going to become smaller to accomodate a car. Families aren't going to stop having kids just so they can fit into a small car. Sure, our behavior is wasteful. Let's start to address this with public policy (like we have with recycling). Over time, we can encourage people to adapt to smaller vehicles. Expecting that everyone will want a Volt or Prius by 2010 is simply not reasonable. Small cars are uncomfortable for the mainstream America. Let's acknowledge this as we work towards better fuel efficiency and recognize that significant transition steps must occur to get people into smaller vehicles.
Al Gore's son drives a Prius (I know this because I saw he was busted for drugs in it in a news story). But I'll guarantee you Al, who gained weight like the rest of America, isn't tooling around on trips in this car. I fact, if you google Al Gore and car, you get a bunch of photos where he is chauffeured around in Audis and Benz's. Because he's a hypocrite? No, I honestly don't think so. Because he's a typical overweight American? Bingo!
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Puzzling AMD Cloud Strategy
WSJ reported on Friday that AMD is building a huge supercomputer to deliver cloud computing experiences to gamers. In a nutshell, the system would permit the company to deliver "specialized" hardware and software to users, thus limiting the use of the processor (or graphics chip).
Excuse me, but isn't AMD in the business of supplying the very chips which they are looking to reduce dependence on? If this system enables smart phones and other simple devices to run games in a web browser, as proposed, wouldn't that make a PC or device with a robust chip virtually obsolete?
If I read this correctly, is this a bet that chips won't rule, and even if they do, it will be Intel that rules them? Or is this simply a hedge because everything in IT seems to be "cloud" these days?
Excuse me, but isn't AMD in the business of supplying the very chips which they are looking to reduce dependence on? If this system enables smart phones and other simple devices to run games in a web browser, as proposed, wouldn't that make a PC or device with a robust chip virtually obsolete?
If I read this correctly, is this a bet that chips won't rule, and even if they do, it will be Intel that rules them? Or is this simply a hedge because everything in IT seems to be "cloud" these days?
Friday, December 19, 2008
Funny Student Evaluation...Pretty Much Says it All!
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?
:)
"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?
:)
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/
Monday, December 17, 2007
Google vs. Wikipedia...
Google has announced a collaborative encyclopedia that will feature experts writing on topics. Some FLOSS and Wikipedia supporters think this is a bad thing. I'm not sure why. Yes, Google wants to put ads on the pages (call Knols). And yes, maybe we should keep an eye out to make sure that knols aren't given precedence in organic search results. But seriously, do you really believe we can take all the wonderful wisdom of the world and store it in the servers of a non-profit organization that makes money from donations?
Capitalism and free markets have made everything more efficient, useful, and accessible in terms of the Internet. Why should Societal KM be any different? Google innovates because it has talent and money. Not all innovation needs money, but very few innovation projects succeed without it. Who's going to pay for Wikipedia as terabytes of data are added? What are the long-term consequences of people involved in FLOSS projects literally dying, losing interest, or, God Forbid, waking up one day and realizing that there is economic value in their efforts which they aren't getting paid for. I vote for Google. Because, you know, anyone who's motto is "Do no Evil" seems like a good candidate for something.
While the debate rages, however, I am interested to see what a knol looks like. This site might be more like the About.com expert model than Wikipedia. No one seems to sense that connection.
Capitalism and free markets have made everything more efficient, useful, and accessible in terms of the Internet. Why should Societal KM be any different? Google innovates because it has talent and money. Not all innovation needs money, but very few innovation projects succeed without it. Who's going to pay for Wikipedia as terabytes of data are added? What are the long-term consequences of people involved in FLOSS projects literally dying, losing interest, or, God Forbid, waking up one day and realizing that there is economic value in their efforts which they aren't getting paid for. I vote for Google. Because, you know, anyone who's motto is "Do no Evil" seems like a good candidate for something.
While the debate rages, however, I am interested to see what a knol looks like. This site might be more like the About.com expert model than Wikipedia. No one seems to sense that connection.
Friday, November 23, 2007
1/2 laptop per child...
Nicholas Negroponte is upset because Intel is picking on him and his One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project. While it appears that Intel has made peace and joined the OLPC board, its competing product called Classmate is selling well in foreign countries. Intel's Classmate, which uses MS Windows software, is an interesting case study. Many countries are telling Negroponte, who is on leave from his MIT position, that they can't go wrong with "Windows" and questioning who will train and support the OLPC computers.
The FLOSS (Free/Libre Open Source Software) community has always said that foreign countries would embrace Open Source software due to its low cost. But what if the shortage of talented support staff in developing countries pushes them to Windows? Microsoft is offering a cheap version of Windows to many foreign countries. Interestingly, Intel got involved in developing Classmate because it's fierce competitor, AMD, was providing chips to the OLPC project.
I've always admired Negroponte's idea. But he can't be mad that the free market has stepped in. If his true goal is to put inexpensive technology in the hands of emerging nations then it doesn't matter who gets there first, non-profits or companies. But if his ego and lack of knowlege about free markets block the path to a collaborative solution, then shame on him. He should be proud that it was his effort has spurred industry to emulate his OLPC computer. But sometimes, academics (and I am one), aren't the best people to run multi-million dollar projects.
The FLOSS (Free/Libre Open Source Software) community has always said that foreign countries would embrace Open Source software due to its low cost. But what if the shortage of talented support staff in developing countries pushes them to Windows? Microsoft is offering a cheap version of Windows to many foreign countries. Interestingly, Intel got involved in developing Classmate because it's fierce competitor, AMD, was providing chips to the OLPC project.
I've always admired Negroponte's idea. But he can't be mad that the free market has stepped in. If his true goal is to put inexpensive technology in the hands of emerging nations then it doesn't matter who gets there first, non-profits or companies. But if his ego and lack of knowlege about free markets block the path to a collaborative solution, then shame on him. He should be proud that it was his effort has spurred industry to emulate his OLPC computer. But sometimes, academics (and I am one), aren't the best people to run multi-million dollar projects.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
IDMAa
I just returned from the International Digital Media Arts Association conference in nearby Philadelphia. The conference is centered on academic digital media programs and the organization has provided some great networking and knowledge opportunities to me over the last five years. While I enjoyed learning about college programs, I especially enjoyed the commercial media companies that came to show their work. Peter Rivera from AOL spoke about how the new AOL is about content and media. Two executives from the highly successful creative agency Schematic showed some impressive work and spoke about the need for "fearless" problem solving employees with broad skills and training.
More than anything, though, the commercial enterprises validated our program at LVC. People spoke about the importance of technological education that is interdisciplinary develops critical thinking, emphasizes problem solving, and builds skills for adaptive learning. It's a theme across the spectrum of technology and high tech companies. If you don't know what kind of company you'll be in 5 years, then you need people that can learn and adapt to the changes that technology and the marketplace bring.
More than anything, though, the commercial enterprises validated our program at LVC. People spoke about the importance of technological education that is interdisciplinary develops critical thinking, emphasizes problem solving, and builds skills for adaptive learning. It's a theme across the spectrum of technology and high tech companies. If you don't know what kind of company you'll be in 5 years, then you need people that can learn and adapt to the changes that technology and the marketplace bring.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Social Tolerance for Disagreement
Warning: this is not a technology post. As a I tell my students, you need to engage in the world around you. This is this THAT kind of post.
But it's not really a political post. Ward Churchill, the academic from Colorado who said that the World Trade Center was filled with "little Eichmanns" during the 9/11 bombings, was fired. The university claims it was due to research misconduct and not the the comment he made. I don't really care. My interest is the ACLU and supporters who ran to his aid to cry "academic freedom". Where were these supporters when Lawrence Summers said that men are better at math that women when Summers was President of Harvard? No one said that was protected by academic freedom (even though he was an administrator, he certainly deserved the freedom faculty have).
I don't agree with either statements made by Churchill or Summers. But that doesn't mean I favor canning them, either. Welcome to the dirty secret of academia, we're tolerant here...to comments that come from the left. We ARE NOT tolerant here in academia for comments that are conservative, critical of people or groups that we consider "diversity groups", or comments that favor business, capitalism, or money. You can make all the outlandish comments you want if it's leftist. If you get fired, well count on help from individuals and groups "committed" to academic freedom - the ACLU, and others who hold out academia as the last bastian of tolerance and egalitarianism. When these tolerant police come running into save you, please don't ever mention that you shop at Wal-mart, outsource your web projects to India, believe in strict interpretation of the bible, or don't favor homosexual marriage. Because they'll leave faster than they've assembled.
We need tolerance for disagreement in this country. Not tolerance for any particular group of people, idea, or worldview. The polarization of politics and the hateful nature of social discourse has only begun to draw attention to this problem. Let me know if you have ideas on how I can build tolerance for disagreement into college classes.
But it's not really a political post. Ward Churchill, the academic from Colorado who said that the World Trade Center was filled with "little Eichmanns" during the 9/11 bombings, was fired. The university claims it was due to research misconduct and not the the comment he made. I don't really care. My interest is the ACLU and supporters who ran to his aid to cry "academic freedom". Where were these supporters when Lawrence Summers said that men are better at math that women when Summers was President of Harvard? No one said that was protected by academic freedom (even though he was an administrator, he certainly deserved the freedom faculty have).
I don't agree with either statements made by Churchill or Summers. But that doesn't mean I favor canning them, either. Welcome to the dirty secret of academia, we're tolerant here...to comments that come from the left. We ARE NOT tolerant here in academia for comments that are conservative, critical of people or groups that we consider "diversity groups", or comments that favor business, capitalism, or money. You can make all the outlandish comments you want if it's leftist. If you get fired, well count on help from individuals and groups "committed" to academic freedom - the ACLU, and others who hold out academia as the last bastian of tolerance and egalitarianism. When these tolerant police come running into save you, please don't ever mention that you shop at Wal-mart, outsource your web projects to India, believe in strict interpretation of the bible, or don't favor homosexual marriage. Because they'll leave faster than they've assembled.
We need tolerance for disagreement in this country. Not tolerance for any particular group of people, idea, or worldview. The polarization of politics and the hateful nature of social discourse has only begun to draw attention to this problem. Let me know if you have ideas on how I can build tolerance for disagreement into college classes.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Where I have been?
Yes, I haven't posted in quite some time. I've been in New Zealand with my family and a group of my college students. You can see all of our posts from NZ off our NZ blog. I used the time to not blog about technology, business or anything work related for 6 months. A true international experience to re-adjust. I did do some research on the knowledge transfer between academics and practitioners in NZ. I also taught a class. But a break from the normal is always good. I'm back!
Google wants your health records.
I'm all for solving problems. It's what I've been doing in business for almost 20 years. But Google solving the healthcare records problem by maintaining your records doesn't diagnose well for me. Google sees a future with people in charge of their own healthcare records. This part is good. The part where Google keeps feeding me ads based on my record is not so good. Google only gets revenue from ONE place, advertising. So it presumably has a better relationship with its advertisers than it has with me. Does this seem like the company you want to protect you're super-secret private medical records?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a communications professional and love advertising. But ads have their limits (at least to me). I don't envision a world where advertising revenue can be used to solve all of our social problems. I think our government, despite its methodical slowness, still has the best shot at this.
Certainly, Google's solution has its problems. Remember when MS wanted to keep all your passwords with Passport? Multiply that by 1000 when it comes to sensitive medical information. Maybe this trend of knowing everyone's personal stuff - blogging your personal stuff, people knowing where you're at, and all things celebrity - has an upshot. Possibly, by the time Google gets health records uncranked, people won't care if others see their medical records. They'll mash their medical records with their e-harmony dating profile, bank statement, and twitter GPS location. "Hi, I'm a mildly diabetic obsessive compulsive Leo who loves horses, kayaking, and books by James Paterson and I have a $351.42 in my bank checking account after my last check cleared for my car payment while I was sitting at Cyndi's House of Nails on 16th St." Maybe transparency isn't such a good thing...
Don't get me wrong, I'm a communications professional and love advertising. But ads have their limits (at least to me). I don't envision a world where advertising revenue can be used to solve all of our social problems. I think our government, despite its methodical slowness, still has the best shot at this.
Certainly, Google's solution has its problems. Remember when MS wanted to keep all your passwords with Passport? Multiply that by 1000 when it comes to sensitive medical information. Maybe this trend of knowing everyone's personal stuff - blogging your personal stuff, people knowing where you're at, and all things celebrity - has an upshot. Possibly, by the time Google gets health records uncranked, people won't care if others see their medical records. They'll mash their medical records with their e-harmony dating profile, bank statement, and twitter GPS location. "Hi, I'm a mildly diabetic obsessive compulsive Leo who loves horses, kayaking, and books by James Paterson and I have a $351.42 in my bank checking account after my last check cleared for my car payment while I was sitting at Cyndi's House of Nails on 16th St." Maybe transparency isn't such a good thing...
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Old Media Extends Life Expectancy with New Media
I watched the TBS show "The Funniest Television Commercials" this evening. I was struck how the life expectancy of some traditional shows have been extended by the Internet. Much of the content from the TV show was advertised as being online at veryfunnyads.com. The website also includes bonus ads and commercials deemed to explicit for TV.
Two issues take form with Hollywood and the Internet. Traditional TV shows that air only one time can extend their life expectancy with the use of the internet. A second theme is that the Internet can be used as a custom filter to show content not appropriate for mainstream media (everyone has known that, but now the networks are catching on!).
The beautiful fit between Hollywood and the Internet lies in the compatibility of the media. If you're a company and want to put your content on the Internet you need to take a print based communications structure and make it digital. Making Flash presentations for your products, creating a digital map of the world and linking your sales forces, creating back-end databases and building an interactive experience. All Hollywood needs to do is convert NTSC to mpg or Quicktime and build a simple interface. Compare YouTube's interface with that of General Electric.
Content is still king! AOL was wise to buy Time Warner...they just didn't wait long enough or build the structure to take advantage of it. Look for the emergence of Hollywood on the Internet in 2007.
Two issues take form with Hollywood and the Internet. Traditional TV shows that air only one time can extend their life expectancy with the use of the internet. A second theme is that the Internet can be used as a custom filter to show content not appropriate for mainstream media (everyone has known that, but now the networks are catching on!).
The beautiful fit between Hollywood and the Internet lies in the compatibility of the media. If you're a company and want to put your content on the Internet you need to take a print based communications structure and make it digital. Making Flash presentations for your products, creating a digital map of the world and linking your sales forces, creating back-end databases and building an interactive experience. All Hollywood needs to do is convert NTSC to mpg or Quicktime and build a simple interface. Compare YouTube's interface with that of General Electric.
Content is still king! AOL was wise to buy Time Warner...they just didn't wait long enough or build the structure to take advantage of it. Look for the emergence of Hollywood on the Internet in 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)