« May 2007 | Main | July 2007 »
I will be in line with the masses on Long Island waiting for the iPhone commeth. If you want to follow along, check out my Twitter page. If you're out my way and you'd like to come hang out you can find me here today. Email me and I will help you find me on line.
Gramercy Park, New York, New York by Dmadeo
---
A few weeks ago during the Edelman New Media Summit, Jay Rosen (as usual) said something incredibly wise. He equated the media - and essentially other walled gardens - to New York's Gramercy Park. Leah Jones, my colleague, eloquently captured Jay's remarks...
"Gramercy Park is a beautiful, soft, manicured park in the city. It is the best park, luxurious and green. Gramercy Park is gated. Only the wealthy people who own property around the park are allowed to access it. What would happen if NYC raised the capital to buy the park and take the gate down?It would get dirtier. There would be more people. It would be harder to police. There would be graffiti. There would be more crime. Gramercy Park would no longer be Gramercy Park."
Rosen went on to add that the gates are already off the media's Gramercy gates. Openness is thriving and so the old rules no longer apply. And that's difficult for people to contend with because the park is no longer pristine.
Over the years we have seen time and again that open systems trump closed loops. Back in the 1990s. Windows beat out the Mac operating system, in part, because it was more open and it ran on all kinds of hardware. Later on, AOL was toppled, for among other reasons, because web browsers and broadband connections liberated the most valuable content inside the walled garden.
Today, open systems are continuing to thrive. Wikipedia is growing in import because we can all edit it, not just a select few. Google, Amazon and countless others offer powerful APIs that allow developers to add value with their own creations. Openness wins time and again.
That leads us to social networks and, in particular, Facebook. (I should preface this by adding that Edelman represents MySpace.)
Despite the age of openness we live in, Facebook is becoming the world's largest, and perhaps most successful, walled garden that exists today.
Most social networks (which I am characterizing here broadly to also include sites like Flickr, Vox, del.icio.us and digg) let you determine what you share with the general public through Google vs. what you only share with your circle of friends. This level of flexibility is a win-win for everyone. If you don't want to share anything you don't have to. On the flip side, if you're a voyeur, go for it.
For all of the excitement around Facebook and its application platform, it's essentially a giant walled garden. You can embed virtually anything you want inside Facebook. Just like open APIs, Facebook's developer program lets anyone create value in the ecosystem.
The problem, however, lies in this fact - Facebook gives nothing back to the broader web. A lot of stuff goes in, but nothing comes out. What happens in Facebook, stays in Facebook. As Robert Scoble noted, it's almost completely invisible to Google. You can share only a limited amount of data on your public page - as he has here. That's fine for many users, but not all.
To thrive, all social networks need to enable the community to create value. Facebook gets a big check mark there. However, they also need to give back to the web. Usually this isn't an issue. When you give back to the web, you get a return in Google Juice. So it's unclear why Facebook to date remains a walled garden.
Can walled gardens continue thrive in an era of openness? Can a social network be social even though so little of the community's value is visible to the outside world? Facebook is writing this book as we speak.
I join a lot of social networks. It's part of what I do to keep ahead of where the audiences are going. The latest rage is direct messages. You can use the social network system to send messages to others in the network. Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and many others have this tool.
The problem with this feature, however, is that it's basically like having another email account. When people send you messages through the system, you need to log in and use it to read the notes and respond. It's great that these networks are flat hierarchies. However, direct messaging systems add to The Attention Crash.
As social networks begin to really tap into their analytics and search data, they will become virtual brains that know what you're interested in and what you're circle of friends are following. Then these systems will be able to push content and advertising that's highly relevant to you. Further, you will be able to personalize your results. You also will be able to control this setting based on your privacy preferences.
That's how these direct messaging systems should be used - as a funnel for content to find you. Flickr Explore does this to some degree, but the interface should be some sort of syndicated system like email or RSS. All other communications should go to your regular email where you can respond via a pass-through that funnels your note back through the social network to protect everyone's email addresses.
Community is the glue that unities us all, as humans. It has for thousands of years. We identify ourselves with the physical communities in which we live - local, national and global. Our family is a community. Our circle of friends and fellow alumni are communities. The workplace is a community. Even Starbucks - the third place - is a community for thousands of web workers and new moms.
More recently, thanks to Web 2.0, search and mobile devices, community is becoming an equally huge part of our online lives. Technology has given rise to thousands of micro global villages where people find each other, talk and collaborate around shared interests and/or goals.
This isn't a new idea, of course. I remember spending hours on GEnie's RoundTables as a teenager in the mid-1980s. When the web blossomed in the late 1990s, many of us hung out on community sites like GeoCities and the late great Six Degrees.
Today this is all much easier and natural because of broadband. It has changed the way we view the web and the time we spend online. It's important to note the role that community has always played in driving the Internet revolution and how that will continue.
The aforementioned communities were the prehistoric predecessors to the water coolers where we spend time today. This includes the blogosphere (a giant, distributed community), social networks like Facebook and MySpace and virtual worlds like There.com and Second Life.
Community, however, is no longer limited to just the specialist sites. It's becoming completely ubiquitous online, just as it is off.
You can find it everywhere, really, if you look. USAToday.com, MLB.com, Edelman.com and even Apple.com all are, at least in part, communities. In the near future, every corporate-owned site will either have community features, showcase content from communities in a picture-in-picture approach, or simply point people to where they can find them.
This is just the beginning, however. The most exciting moments will come when online communities are increasingly used to foster offline connections. That's the big idea behind Meetup.com, for example, and why it's thriving. It's also why eBay Live and Gnomedex (and soon Techcrunch 20) are very successful events.
During the Paley Center summit I attended earlier this month in Silicon Valley, Vint Cerf talked about this at length. He was referring specifically to the power of video inside virtual worlds. He echoed many of the themes he covered in this recent piece in Forbes. Video is a hybrid between offline and on.
The lesson here for media, entrepreneurs, marketers and PR pros is that even though we are spending tons of time online, it does not replace what happens offline. In fact, it amplifies it. Last night during an event I participated in at Wharton School of Business, Ed Keller discussed his research into this phenomenon. More here (PDF)
The secret to success is gluing together online with offline and real and virutal. Use the web to make the physical connections we have stronger. That's one big reason why the words public relations are really finally beginning to have a literal meaning.
I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia but when I do I use these handy keyboard shortcuts. You don't need Greasemonkey and they work on any browser. In Internet Explorer hit the Alt key followed by the command listed below. In Firefox 2 for Windows, use Alt and Shift. On the Mac hold down the control key.
| Key | Command | Description |
|---|---|---|
| + | Start a new discussion | Allows you to add a new section (talk pages only) |
| . (period) | My user page | Opens your user page if logged in |
| = | Protect | Allows you to protect the current page (sysops only) |
| Unprotect | Allows you to unprotect the current page (sysops only) | |
| c | Content page | Shows the content page associated with the current article |
| d | Delete | Allows you to delete the current page (sysops only) |
| Undelete | Allows you to undelete the current page (sysops only) | |
| e | Edit this page | Allows you to edit the current page (non-protected pages) |
| View source | Shows the source of the current page (protected pages) | |
| f | Search | Allows you to search Wikipedia |
| h | History | Shows the current page's history |
| j | What links here | Shows all of the pages that link to the current one |
| k | Related changes | Shows recent changes in pages linked to the current one |
| l | My watchlist | Opens your watchlist (logged-in users only) |
| m | Move | Allows you to move the current page and its talk page (non-move-protected pages only) |
| n | My talk | Opens your user's or IP's talk page |
| p | Show preview | Shows a preview of your changes (on edit pages) |
| q | Special pages | Shows a list of all special pages |
| r | Recent changes | Shows a list of recent changes to the Wikipedia |
| s | Save page | Saves the changes that you have made (on edit pages) |
| t | Discussion | Opens the current article's talk page |
| u | Upload file | Allows you to upload images or media files |
| v | Show changes | Shows what changes you made to the text (on edit pages) |
| w | Watch | Adds the current page to your watchlist (logged-in users only) |
| x | Random article | Loads a random article |
| y | My contributions | Opens a list of your user's or IP's contributions |
| z | Main Page | Goes to the Main Page |
The PR business has long put a premium on strong media pitching skills, especially at the junior and mid levels. All you need to do is scan the help wanted ads and you will see what I mean. However, pitching is on its way to becoming a lost art because the landscape is changing rapidly.
Communities like Facebook, the blogosphere and digg are becoming even more influential than certain traditional media outlets.Their relevance to PR pros is rising and the industry is responding by wisely trying to beef up its new media acumen.
Unfortunately, the biz is not evolving quickly enough. Many in PR seem to be treating Web 2.0 as simply an extension of the traditional media - another venue for buzz. They are pumping thousands of email pitches into the community every day. I know because I receive hundreds of these emails every day, as do many other bloggers I have spoken to over the last several weeks. Some are good, most are not. And many are getting fed up.
Journalists are accustomed to the PR mating dance. They know that as soon as they get a desk, a phone and an email address they're going to get bombed with inquires from PR pros. Some of these will be helpful, others won't be. Journalists know that PR inbound is an occupational hazard that comes with the territory.
Online social networks and communities are completely different. Bloggers, social networkers, diggers, social bookmakers and Wikipedians don't want to be pitched. They're collaborating on these sites for a reason - to share, be entertained, to become informed, to connect, etc. They place value on people who contribute regularly and selflessly.
Further, the lines between old and new media are blurring. Community is becoming a river that flows through virtually every web site, The media is adding social networking features while also embedding itself into big horizontal hubs like Facebook or Twitter. They have embraced changed faster than we have.
To thrive in this new distributed environment, the PR community must step out in front of the curtain, become a bit more technically adept and participate transparently as individuals in online communities. We will have to openly collaborate and add value to the network and help the companies we represent do exactly the same.
My fear? If we continue down our current path PR will lose any credibility we have left with the public and the industry could one day cease to exist. However, if Darwinism creates change then I am all for it.
For pretty much as long as the Internet has been part of our lives, pundits have been talking about smart technology that's able to surface content that interest you. This was one of the ideas behind General Magic in the 1990s. (Historians, please correct me if this is wrong.)
That early vision is now closer to a reality. It was one of the big themes to emerge from last week's International Council conference, hosted by the Paley Center for Media.
This is the first of two posts on the subject. The first covers the four underlying pillars of content that finds you. The second will cover the impact of this major change in how we interact with media and the impact on marketing. In addition, Part II will address how content that finds you might even mitigate The Attention Crash by helping us focus more, perhaps to a fault of exclusion.
As I mentioned, several underlying forces are coming together in a powerful way that will very soon help everyone find content that they care about more easily.
The first underlying technology is search. Specifically, I am referring to what John Battelle describes in his great book, The Search, as databases of intention. Search tools are gathering so much data that they are able to show you related content, such as advertising, just at the moment you need it.
The second building block is personalization. Today consumers are balancing the benefit they get from personalizing services against the downside risks of privacy. This will become less prevalent as the Net Generation ages. They live their whole life online already. I personalized my Google News page for example, and now it recommends news stories that are relevant to my interests.
The third is Web 2.0 people-powered services, such as del.icio.us, Flickr, digg and others. For example, Flickr Interestingness consistently surfaces incredible photos based on the activities that the community generates through comments, clicks and favorites. Similarly, Techmeme taps the global brain that is the blogopshere to show us what's hot in the tech news sphere today.
The fourth and final building block, perhaps the most critical, is RSS. Feeds by their nature bring us content that we care about to our desktops. However, today consumers need to preselect the content. We need to tell Google Reader or Newsgator that we want the Sports section New York Times. However, soon that will change and the readers will get smarter. Check out Newsgator Buzz for a glimpse of the future.
So how will this change how we consume media and the PR/marketing business? Stay tuned for part II.
Last week, I had the privilege of representing Edelman at a fascinating three-day, off-the record meeting attended by about 75-100 marketing, media, entertainment and tech company CEOs. The event was organized by The World Economic Forum and the Paley Center, in conjunction with Google, Yahoo and Sun - who hosted us on their campuses one day each.
The meeting marked one of the final public appearances for Terry Semel as Yahoo's CEO. He resigned today, just days after I met him. Google CEO Eric Schmidt spoke on the record, as did Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz. Chad Hurley from YouTube and incoming Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang participated too. A straw-man agenda is posted here.
While unfortunately I can't blog about the specifics of what was said during the closed-door event, I can certainly provide broader perspectives now that I am back. This is exactly what I plan to do over the next several days. (It was difficult to blog thoughtfully during the event since it was literally going morning, noon and night.)
I was one of only a handful of marketing executives in the room and the most junior overall. The execs flew in from around the world. At times I was a bit star-struck by who I got to know. I will join this select club - one day (at least that's the current plan!).
What became clear almost from the get-go, however, is that there is a big disconnect - a valley if you will. On the one side of the valley is, um, the Valley (go with me) - e.g. the tech industry. On the other side lies the media-industrial complex. This is the giant yarn-ball that includes marketers/agencies, media and entertainment companies.
How do I know? I work in the marketing industry but know many leaders in the tech and media business since I blog about the convergence of these industries.
Silicon Valley (e.g. the tech/Internet businesses that dot its landscape) created many of the popular Web 2.0 communities we live in. They revolutionized our lives. The Internet today is the life bloodstream for some one billion Internet users worldwide. There's no putting the genie back. Our lives are changed forever as the Flat Earth communes online.
However, for it to continue to thrive economically, Silicon Valley must break bread with the media-industrial complex. The challenge is there is a vast chasm in the culture and ethos between the two sides. Scoble alludes to this in discussing Yahoo's challenge in finding the right CEO who can address all of these very different constituents.
Tech and Internet companies develop their products in the open. As I mentioned last week, beta (e.g. unfinished products) is viewed as a good thing. A beta brings valuable feedback that makes version 1.0 even stronger. Further, many Valley companies happily share and open kimono to all - competitors too. Take Yahoo's Hack Day for example, which is now underway in London.
This is very different in the media-industrial complex, where secrecy rules. He/she who dies with the most information is king/queen. This is why leaks are constant, more so than in tech. Washington DC operates in a similar way, though it's even more complicated there.
However, technology is changing all of us. We are all becoming more and more Valley every day, whether we like or not. We live online in the Valley's creations. Business recognizes that to thrive, it must embrace technology because that's what we do as consumers.
Very slowly, media, marketing and entertainment companies are changing their cultures to become more like their counterparts in Silicon Valley. Take business casual attire, for example. It started in the tech industry and now most of us have it at least part time.
The changes go deeper, however. Media companies like the BBC, WeatherBug, The Economist, The New York Times and Reuters have lab sites (these liks go to the lab pages). These are sandboxes where consumers can play with and give feedback on betas.
Marketers are joining the club too. American Express just launched a beta program where you can test new concepts. Everyone is beginning to recognize that the principles of Wikinomics that were pioneered in the Valley - openness, peering, sharing and acting globally - are good business overall. It's like the end of communism in the 1980s. The changes were gradual at first, then dramatic.
Last week's event certainly was a step in the right direction to closing Silicon Valley's Valley. Progress was made. But we still have more to go. However, it's clear that the Valley and the media-industrial complex are committed to closing the gulf and that is very exciting.
I am on the road the rest of this week representing Edelman at a small, private event for execs hosted by the World Economic Forum and the Paley Center for Media (formerly the Museum of Television and Radio). The docket includes briefings by senior execs from Google, Yahoo and Sun and other tech/media companies. I will resume regular postings this weekend but will occasionally post tidbits on Twitter when possible. At today's session I met Eric Schmidt, who briefly flashed his iPhone to the group.
Life is a perpetual beta.
In childhood, you're in alpha mode. You're just trying to find your footing, much like a technology product that's got lots of bugs.
From adolescence onwards, you're in a perpetual beta mode. As an adult you're constantly learning new skills and capabilities, even as you age. The best and brightest among us are constantly growing. As a human being, you really don't "ship" (as the technology parlance goes) until you're dead.
Everyone accepts that you are not perfect. You're allowed to make mistakes - hopefully not too many of them, but enough to learn and grow.
In business, however, the total opposite is true. Nobody wants to see a product or service learn and grow in the open, or worse, fail.
When a company releases a product or service, everyone wants, no expects it to be perfect. Who wants to fly a plane that doesn't reach it's final destination? Who wants to go to a restaurant where the service is always iffy? We constantly insist on perfection. However, the irony is businesses are made of people so how can they be perfect?
This week Apple, a company that certainly strives for perfection, launched a new beta version of its Safari Web browser. It's buggy on both the Mac and Windows and lots of people are grumpy. It even broke several of my Dashboard widgets.
Yet, Apple, as a technology company, seems to be allowed to make such mistakes. They are permitted to learn and grow out in the open by slapping the "beta" label on products and services. Everyone else, however, is expected to be perfect. That's like asking Curt Schilling to pitch a perfect game every outing. It's ludicrous.
Business, however, is evolving. In the new Web 2.0 landscape where everyone is connected, more and more companies will open kimono start to talk about their products and services before they even ship - and collaborate with their audiences in the process.
As business opens their communications, they will learn as will consumers that it's ok not to be constantly perfect - though certain things (like planes that fly) will remain non-negotiable.
Web 2.0 will facilitate openness and collaboration with consumers and hopefully soon business too will be able to operate in beta mode to a certain degree, just like humans and technology. PR will play a valuable role here.
Recent Comments