Global Neighbourhoods

Some Social Media Department [SMD] granularity

2009-11-03T09:41:45-08:00

I am heartened that I've received some comments and thoughtful questions that indicate I am not alone in thinking the time has come to establish social media departments in the enterprise.

This follow up post offers a few thoughts on just what this department would--and would not--do. And I need to start with a disclaimer. I do not think this new department should own social media in the enterprise. That is as bad an idea as one department owning email and deciding how it should be used, or the telephone and so on. Social media encompasses a set of tools that improve communications by making them interactive and by decentralizing who can speak for the enterprise.

Why am I pushing this? It seems to me that recent recession has caused most enterprise thinkers to recalibrate what their organization can and should look like as recovery becomes more real. We seem to be pretty much at a turning point. The smart business thinker realizes that it would be unwise to just go back to the way it was before the bottom started falling out.

It is now time to evaluate what works with te greatest efficiency and effectiveness and in a great many cases, the answer is social media worked and traditional marketing did not.

But the issue is what to do about it. And the answer is to make a few adjustments to allow social media to take its rightful place on the org chart. It cannot reach it's full potential by remaining some sort of ad hoc, penniless orphan constantly scurrying for resources.

My answer to tat is now is the time to create a social media department [SMD]. Here are some of ways I see them functioning:

The SMD should be the center of expertise in social media just like IT is allegedly the center of expertise in enterprise technology. They should be paid and entrusted to explore the possibilities of social media. They should attend conferences and events where they can learn and share ideas and information on social media. Its team members should explore the guidelines by which social media should be used in their organizations.
They should incubate new ways to use social media and educate other enterprise community members on smart--an lame-ways to use social media. In fact,SMDs should be charged with training, informing and advising other departments including marketing, support, product development, investor relations and corporate communications on how to use social media wisely. It should have a help desk for the enterprise and ints infrastructure.
SMDs should become experts on how to measure social media programs. Many enterprise experts now understand that ROI, followers and visitors are not always the most valuable measurements to a social media program. But the SMD should help companies think through just what a social media enterprise is intended to achieve and how to best evaluate it for better or worse.
Structurally, the SMD should be equal to the marketing department. It should report to the same level. It will have its own budget and will be accountable for the money it spends. It should run some of the showcase social media programs, because it's team members should be the most expert on the subject in the enterprise. But it will not be in command or control f other programs by other departments. Instead it will be an expert resource for refining and improving those departments.

Time to draw a Social Media box into the org chart

2009-11-02T20:52:45-08:00

I was having lunch with an old friend who has spent the better part of the last four years pushing the social media rock up the enterprise mountain. She was frustrated. Marketing, after disdaining and ignoring her social media team efforts four years ago; after having then gotten angry and tried to shut down the social media efforts two years ago, now wanted to fold the social media team into the marketing department.

She is not alone. Almost every enterprise has a small band of social media champions. They have almost operated as a skunkworks operation, one who existed from project to project with money they scraped and cajoled from various org chart boxes--PR, marketing, branding corporate communications, vendor agencies.

Their salaries and operational budgets have been historically chump change, funds perhaps from a few ads that got canceled or a PR budget for a canceled product press tour.

But now we are in a time of prolonged budget cuts. Fat marketing budgets have been scraped to the white bone. Now chump change matters. So does control. One fact has emerged and that is that social media does get results that can now be measured and quantified with increasing accuracy. Social media is efficient.

Yet, in almost no cases does a social media department have its own place on the org chart which means it does not have its own budget. It is always a muddy and complex issue determining who the head of a social media team should report to.

Lately, marketing departments, smarting from the pain of having had several legs either amputated or trimmed seems to be trying to take over. After all, they are the message people. More and more marketing is being conducted in social media venues, why not fold it in neatly to the corporate structure.

The answer is simple. Social media is for communications and communications is not the purview of any one department. Marketing, PR, brand managers, communications officers, customer support all need to use social media increasingly to get the information they need, to share ideas and build relationships with customers. HR needs social media to recruit, train and inform employees. In fact most departments need social media.

It seems to me that if you fold social media into marketing, it becomes a marketing tool and support will suffer. Conversely, if you put it into support, marketing will suffer and so on.

It seems to me the time has come to build a new department into the enterprise org chart, one that interacts with various departments just as product managers or IT do, one that has its own budget, operational plan and roadmap into the future.

If any incumbent department takes ownership, the company will lose far more than it gains. More important, so will the customers.

Personal Brand & the Humanization of Corporate Brand

2009-11-02T09:29:37-08:00

A great deal is being said these days about personal brand and as is usually the case, with a new term, there is debate on how new or important it is. There are those who feel personal brand is just a new term for good old-fashioned reputation and others who feel there is an opportunity for old advertisers to try a new spin on their creative attempts to insert position messages into human minds.

I see some truth in all of this, and the whole truth in none of it. To me personal brand is very closely connected to human reputation. There are two aspects that I think make it at least slightly different:

Social media is allowing a tremendous amplification of personal brand and in so doing personal brands can emerge into just another form of contrived marketing noise, and we need to be aware and concerned about that.
Personal brand is changing corporate and product brand in an increasing number of cases. This changes who shapes brand and why and how it is done. It changes how markets perceive brands and this is an area where little thought and conversation has emerged so far.

Corporate brands themselves are defined indifferent ways, but it generally has to do with how someone in your market feels about your company, its products and services. It's primary tools involve advertising and graphic design. Traditionally branding was used to create the illusion that an organization consisting of tens of thousand of employees spoke with a single voice, marched in unison and never, ever made a mistake--or at least one that the company would admit to.

Over time, this form of branding has lost effectiveness and the cost of maintaining this sort of brand strategy has simultaneously become more expensive. Those high costs in these down times have much to do with the current acceleration of large companies into social media.

While there are quite a few exceptions, generally speaking traditional type brand messaging has fallen flat in social media venues while personal brand has thrived.

How does this impact the marketplace? In several ways. But at the essence of them all is the current realization that companies are not branded monoliths but are comprised if many people, diverse people, whose views sometimes differ and even collide; talented people wh sometimes screw up, but are human enough to admit their mistakes and to promise to do better next time.

A fundamental problem with corporate branding is that its strategies are designed to be one directional--to send messages out. This collided with the most common complain people have against large organizations: "they don't listen to me. They don't want to hear my complaints. The support people want to get me off the phone."

But social media lets markets talk back at companies. We can shout, ask or suggest. And we often get answers. Instead of being disdained we are getting respect.

Personal branding has much to do with this. Personal brands are far more human than corporate brands. I think personal brands are reshaping corporate brands and it has far more to do with social media than traditional marketing. We hated Dell when they had the audacity to call us Dude in ads while giving us support people who did not speak our language. But now there are dozens of people there; people we have come to know in social media; people who sometimes don't have good answers, but at least they tried.

Many of us feel better about Dell than we used to and that translates into corporate brand equity.

Much has been said about personal brand and what it does for the individual. If we blog, tweet, podcast or engage in all these new tools it allows us to create a new for of web-based ever-changing resume and that seemed great in a world where we took jobs while simultaneously planning to move on to a new employer a couple of years hence. But the economy's great swan dive into the toilet may have changed that.

We and our personal brands are more likely, I think, to stay put for longer times. The thought of being a lifer just may start inching back into workforce thinking. And this too will apply personal brand to the reshaping of corporate brand.

Time was traditional branders designed our business cards. And when someone received it, that logo may have shaped their view of you. Now it's the opposite. What that person thinks of you is shaping their emotions of your corporate logo. Brand seems to me to work much better on both sides of that business card when there is a perception that real humans are part of those graphic representations.

SM Global Report: Howard Rheingold [Part 2]

2009-10-28T08:35:06-07:00

Where we're going

[Howard Rheingold. Photo by Oscar Espiritusanto]

Note: This is part part 2 of two parts. You can see Part 1, Where we've been here.

This title is just slightly misleading. Howard really offered no predictions of where people and technology is heading in the Conversation Age, and I didn't try to get him him to make forecasts.

While his writings have displayed more than a little prescience, he is more of a thinker than a futurist. But he did offer some interesting observations about at least one emergent technology and some useful insights into his students at Stanford and UC Berkeley and from there you might draw some conclusions yourself.

Q. You were an early champion of virtual reality, which may not have taken off as quickly as you forecast. Do you think it is still likely to evolve? How do you see it being incorporated into social media moving forward?

You win some, you lose some. I can't really take credit for being prescient without taking blame for foreseeing events that have yet to come to pass -- may never come to pass. To be fair to myself, I did note that truly photorealistic immersive virtual worlds would not exist until sufficient affordable computation power came along, some time in the early 21st century. And people like Jeremy Bailenson at Stanford have been doing some extremely valuable social science research using today's version of virtual reality.

There are some fundamental unsolved problems. If you can move your perceptions around a limitless virtual world, what keeps your body from slamming into the wall when you try to run toward the horizon? In regard to social media, I've spent enough time in Second Life to see exactly how seductive to a small portion of the population an immersive virtual world with photorealistic or Photoshop unrealistic avatars that can not only navigate and communicate but build and exchange landscapes, buildings, objects with behaviors can be.

But it's work to create an avatar and learn how to navigate it and where the action is. In an infinite landscape, human actitivies seem to take place far apart. So I don't see such worlds as ever becoming universal.

It's NOT the "future of the Web."

However, I do see them getting less centralized and easier to use, and people will start inventing uses for them that we don't foresee right now, and the population of enthusiasts will grow from a tiny cult following to a small cyber subculture. There are things you can do in such environments that you can't do elsewhere.

[At right--giant sunflowers from Howard's garden. Those suckers are 16 feet tall.]

Q.I’ve argued that social media is disrupting all institutions, business, government, education, health, etc. Do you agree or disagree? What is your vision for how technology will make this a better/world for everyday people 10 or 100 years hence.

Isn't it evident from what I've written that I've been immersed in experiencing, influencing, learning about, and communicating about this disruption precisely because I think it's the single most fundamental critical uncertainty of the present age?

I think "better world" is an unrealistically rosy way of framing the present situation. We're in deep shit. Doug Engelbart and Vannevar Bush saw it coming half a century ago, and the Whole Earth Catalog started looking at planetary-scale systemic problems decades ago -- which is part of what drew me to it. We have ancient human problems of tribalism, hatred, and atrocity meeting modern armaments, including WMDs.

We have global warming, loss of species and habitat, collapse of key populations like salmon, the energy and food needs of the world population, emergent epidemics. I'd say that the main goal of the human species ought to be our own survival. The next 50 years are going to require a lot of problem-solving. The most powerful tool we have are all those people.

If only enough of them could be healthy, fed, and educated enough to help us tackle those problems. Technology and social media and new knowledge about human collective action can help.

But I don't want to be quoted as saying that the technology, the social media themselves are the linchpin. I think the way people end up using these media, our degree of knowledge about how our literacy is connected with a struggle between power and counter-power, the degree of education of the people who pollute or nourish the infosphere, even plain old fashioned netiquette -- all matter now. I am an anti-determinist.

I believe in human agency. But there are no guarantees that democracy will win over totalitarianism, that tools will be used to feed people, that our social and political and economic institutions and our own minds will be able to cope with the pace of change that our inventions have helped us bring on ourselves.

Q. You teach at Stanford and UC Berkeley. How has technology changed education and learning since you were at Reed in the 60s?

Education and learning haven't changed, but the circumstances under which they take place are radically different.

The lecture-and-test method goes back a thousand years, to the days when books were written by hand and chained to a podium, where a professor stood up and read them. In recent years, without (I strongly suspect) any real consultation among faculty about the pedagogical consequences, wireless Internet access was installed in classrooms and lecture halls around the world. For the first time, students could look up information to determine whether the professor really knew what he or she was talking about. Students can now chat and share information among themselves during lectures and if the professor is too boring, there is always Facebook or World of Warcraft.

Many professors are in denial about this, and drone on with the same lecture they've delivered for decades. Other professors make extremely bad use of technology by reading their text-laden PowerPoint slides to their students. Others simply demand their students keep their laptops closed for the duration of class.

Of course, since I teach social media, I can neither ignore nor prohibit laptop use, so I've taken steps to help my students become mindful of the way they deploy their attention.

One strategy is to have only the student co-teaching team keep their laptops open while they are helping me lead the class; one member of the team makes notes on the wiki, sketching in top-level headings that the other students will fill in AFTER class, another member of the team identifies words for the lexicon and adds them to the wiki (and again the class, as a whole, fills in the definitions before the next class), and a third member of the team looks up sites online and projects them (I have three screens in my classroom at Stanford).

Another strategy -- 20% of my students are allowed to have their laptops open at any time, but it's up to them to self-police. I have also made video of my students from my point of view and from theirs and have shown it to them.

More profoundly, social media have enabled students to engage in collaborative inquiry with peers, engaging in online discussions that are no longer solo performances for the teacher, but engage other students in digging down into issues that came up in class via forums, collaborating with each other and me in real time through a Twitter back channel, reflect on their learning for their own benefit and that of classmates on their blog, and learn how to learn and compose collaboratively via the wiki.

The technologies are not used to add contemporary appeal or techie flashiness but are affordances for a kind of learning based more in inquiry, collaboration, and discourse than on trying to detect what is going to be on the test and memorize it.I ask my students to read in advance my extensive description of what is expected of them and to commit themselves in writing to the kind of participation I ask. It has taken me five years, in close consultation with my students, to come up with a set of procedures that work. It's tremendously exciting to see the classroom come alive, and to engage students between class meetings via their blogs, the forums, and the wiki. Here's a presentation of one of our class sessions.

Q. Can you tell me what’s on college student minds these days?

It's not easy to get into Stanford or Berkeley these days. By the time I get them, students are highly trained grade-making machines. They want to know what's on the test. They are so institutionalized that they aren't even aware of it.

For example, in my open classroom, the students come in on the first day and take chairs from stacks and arrange them -- with no direction on my part -- into rows and columns. If I don't intervene, they will do the same thing the second week, and sit in the same place they chose the first day of class.

I ask them to arrange the chairs in a circle -- there is no back row to hide in in a circle. It isn't easy to overcome learned helplessness.

Students are accustomed to having knowledge delivered to them. But in an era where knowledge, media, and professions change so rapidly, storing knowledge is not adequate. Students need to learn how to learn, learn how to evaluate new media as they come along, learn how to evaluate the way they deploy their own attention in an always-on world.

They need to learn how to collaborate, how to find knowledge and how to determine whether what they have found is credible. A whole set of meta-skills are required by the times -- and traditional university education doesn't necessarily introduce those meta-skills. That's why I'm teaching, and that's why I am excited -- and when I do it right, why my students are excited -- by the opportunities afforded by technology.

Explaining my SM Global Report

2009-10-27T08:18:16-07:00

Yesterday, over on Twitter, I asked for suggestions for my SM Global Report and was surprised by the confusion that caused. Some people thought I was offering some sort of proprietary report, perhaps a PDF.

This post is to help me explain and to give me a link I can point to in the future. [If you know all about the SM Global Report and how I use it, just skip this report and come back later.]

The Social Media [SM] Global Report is at the core of what I do. Since 2005, I have interviewed people about how they use social media in their work and lives. In all there have been over 400 interviews with people in 40 countries. These people have varied from CEOs of global enterprises to pioneers in NGOs, elected officials and regime change activists; a cancer victim using Twitter for ideas and support; a member of the Lebanese Parliament using Facebook to talk with constituents while hiding from Hezbollah.

And so on... It began essentially as a business report, but it seems that I am following social media wherever it goes. I am looking for new stories that either inspire others or give pragmatic ideas of new ways social media can be used.

Almost invariably the SM Global Report is at the core of the books and articles I write. People I interview often become subjects for my speaking engagements and when I get a new project, the SM Global Report gets renamed for a period of time. It became "Twitterville Notebook" for a while. when I was working on my recent book.

I am always looking for stories of people who have used social media successfully. It doesn't matter where, but it most certainly matters how. These are case studies. I write about things that have already happened partly in the hope that it will help others make adopt social media in new ways.

In that light, I rarely--if ever--write about new companies with new tools or APIs. Despite that fact, I get more than a few pitches for stories like that and I get very few pitches for the stories I am really after. When I tweeted yesterday that I wrote about people not companies, I immediately received a few company pitches. So if you are a PR practitioner, please keep that in mind. You can email me with story ideas whenever you like, but it would be best for me if you took the time to click on the SM Global Report category button in my sidebar and read a few of the Reports first.

If you have such a story or an idea on how I can find one please let me know.

SM Global Report: Howard Rheingold, Part 1

2009-10-25T12:12:42-07:00

Where we've been

[

[Howard Rheingold in his backyard giant sunflower patch. Photo by Shel Israel]

Howard Rheingold is a founding father of the Conversational Era. He has spent much of his past 40 years exploring the impact and promise of the convergence of technology and the human brain. He is a student of the many people, incidents and trends that have brought us to today, and as a prolific thinker, writer and speaker, he has contributed significantly to the body of knowledge and thought.

He's not sure just how many books and articles he has authored or collaborated on, since 1970, but Amazon offers 72 titles with his byline. Two of these books, The Virtual Community [2000] and Smart Mobs [2003] have profoundly influenced my thinking and writing over the past half dozen years and if you happened to be into social media he is among the early pioneers who blazed the trail the rest of us have followed. He has been a friend & colleague of many of the thinkers and doers who have delivered us to today and in many cases he can say he had been there and part of the collaborating team that did that. He has also been often prophetic in seeing the seeds that began as visions and have since become reality.

Arizona-born in 1947, he graduated Reed College in Portland, Oregon, then moved to the San Francisco Bay Area, where he became an integral part of America's most controversial Renaissance Era. He drank the original KoolAid. He also dabbled at Xerox PARC, the legendary tech experimental tech center where, among other innovations, the personal computer's graphical interface was developed. He started writing professionally in 1970 and has rarely stopped for long.

He was editor of the Whole Earth Catalog Millenium Edition, an almanac that supported the counter-culture lifestyle. Founded by thinker-enterpreneur Stuart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogs were a grassroots compendium of alternative lifestyle resources. A young hippie fruitarian of that time named Steve Jobs would later describe the Catalog as both the forerunner to the Worldwide Web and Google.

Rheingold was an early and enthusiastic member of the San Francisco-based " Well," the first internet-based community to gain widespread notice and momentum. His speaking and writing about it, particularly in The Virtual Community introduced a great number of people to the vision of social media for the first time.

These days he continues to write and speak on issues related to the human brain and technology--his central focus throughout his adult life. He also teaches courses at both Stanford University and the University of California at Berkeley.

I have divided this interview into two parts. In this first part, Howard reflects and illuminates on what has happened so far. Most of Part 2 will discuss his thoughts on tomorrow, partly by discussing what he sees in his students.

One word of caution: this is not a quick read. It is filled with links to some of the people and events that have brought about the Conversation Age and I hope that you will follow some of these links to see and learn. Maybe it will give you some ideas on what you can contribute to tomorrow.

Q. You attended Reed College in the mid 60s, an elite liberal arts college known for free thought and lifestyle. How did that experience shape who you have become?

It's very astute to start with this question. My relationship with Reed was co-evolutionary: Reed seems to send out a kind of invisible signal that attracts a certain kind of person, and the people who are able to stick it out (very high dropout rate) tend to remain "Reedies" for life.

I was a National Merit Scholar, which meant I could have gotten into any university, but Reed was the only place I applied! I originally got wind of it because the character in Kerouac's Dharma Bums who was based on Gary Snyder who went to Reed. Snyder, more than Kerouac, was a hero of mine when I was 16 years old, so that was about all I needed to know. In retrospect, I'd say that the dominant characteristics of a person meant for Reed are:

   a. A stubborn commitment to think for oneself
   b. A deep and broad interest in texts and intellectual discourse
   c. Because of the first two characteristics, we were mostly the smart weird kids in our high schools
   d. We dropped out of the brand-name college game

Reed alumni magazine did an article on me, written by Wired [Howard was founding exec editor of Wired.com] writer and fellow Reed alumni Gary Wolf.

The Reed years were 1964-68 for me, so these were also tumultuous times. And I took a lot of LSD. I want to be clear on this: Many of my friends got in serious trouble or died because of drugs (and many more because of one drug: alcohol), so I'm not an advocate of indiscriminate use of recreational drugs. But LSD was an extremely important influence on my thinking.

I didn't drop acid and go to concerts. I dropped acid and stayed in my room and painted, read -- I read most of the Bible on acid -- and explored other dimensions with my fellow travelers.

In particular 1968 -- the Tet offensive, Prague Spring, China's Red Guards and Cultural Revolution; May revolt in Paris; Chicago, and assassinations of RF Kennedy and ML King; riots in American cities. We weren't participants in these events, but the world stage seemed particularly apocalyptic. I became convinced that we were living in times that would decide the future of the human experiment, and just as I went to Reed because I wanted to engage in a meaningful and deep dialogue with others about the curriculum (the sex, drugs, and rock&roll were part of it, but were always secondary to the intellectual quest), I left Reed and entered the world with a conviction that what I said and did with my education would matter not just to me but to everybody.

When I got involved with people I met from the Well, my wife, who I met at Reed said: "This is just like Reed. A bunch of intelligent misfits have found each other and are going to town."

Q. The common thread that seems to tie your considerable writing and thought together is the interaction of the human brain and technology. It seems to have developed in the early 80s between your work with The Whole Earth Catalog and your involvement with The Well. Can you walk me through how that developed?

The brain and technology--and evolution and consciousness--were the subjects of my undergraduate thesis. One of the things that LSD taught me was that what we think we know about our minds is tiny compared to what we have to learn. I felt technology would open a new front, along with that of chemical agents (it's too bad that legitimate psychedelic research was shut down), and the approaches pointed to by Eastern mysticism, in understanding consciousness -- which seemed to me to be the essential stuff of which the universe is made.

I had what I later learned I could call a "noetic" conviction about these conjectures, and was determined to somehow add to our body of knowledge about our minds and how we could control our minds better.

3. You coined the term “Virtual Community” and it became the title of one of your most influential books. It’s first chapter talked about the Parenting group in The Well. Your stories in that chapter are strikingly close to stories I found in Twitter. Can you compare/contrast The Well and Twitter? What has remained the same and what has changed?

Absolutely true! In my first months on Twitter, I told fellow Well veterans Twitter felt just like the Well. While it would be a categoric error to call the Twitter population in general a community, it was clear that communities were forming there. People were getting to know each other, strangers were engaging in discussions with each other; new forms of fun were being invented; new ways to use the platform to communicate socially like the hashtag and retweet were being invented by users; people were exchanging and reciprocating knowledge; social capital was accumulating in some groups.

At the same time, Twitter was totally different. In the Well, each user might participate in different topic threads in different conferences (forums), but the discussions were centered on topics and were like places where a group of people accumulated. In each discussion, we paid attention to each other. In Twitter there is no such social symmetry. There are no topics, outside of hashtags and each person sees a different group of others.

Despite, and because of, this asymmetry, Twitter always had a social vibrancy.

Another similarity is the sense among the users that what we were co-creating with the Twitter founders would take on new forms as we went along. The Well was built on Unix, so coders and users were in dialogue, but with the Twitter's open API and the explosion of third-party applications, that co-evolving relationship seems to be in overdrive.

Twestival, 300,000 tweets/hour from Tehran, the Twitpic of the airplane that landed in the Hudson -- events that change our minds about what Twitter can be used for seem to be happening with increasing frequency

Q. For the benefit of our studio audience, just what do you mean when you say the computer is an amplifier of the human mind?

I've learned that most people don't know much history, and those who know it seem to quickly forget it. Until a couple of mavericks who were not at all related to the existing computer industry started thinking seriously about using digital computers to augment human intellect and create new communication media, this was a crazy idea.

Computers were for scientific calculations and business data processing. But JCR Licklider [computer time-sharing], Doug Engelbart [the mouse], Bob Taylor [the internet], Alan Kay [graphical interface] thought differently. What if we could move words around on a screen by pointing at them, instead of retyping the whole page? What if we could create documents as outlines, then expand and contract them so we can zoom from big picture to detail? What if we could command computers by clicking on icons instead of typing commands? What if we could link texts, documents, and different media and move smoothly from one to another by clicking on the link?

By automating these low-level symbol manipulation tasks, would that free the brain to take in larger pictures, see relationships between micro and macro levels that couldn't be observed, try many more hypotheses than old methods afforded? All these capabilities seem obvious today, but not only were they not obvious until Engelbart's Mother of All Demos in 1968. I told the story of this creation of revolutionary innovation by a small group of outsiders in my book, Tools for Thought. I started using a modem when I first started exploring personal computer culture in the early 1980s, but didn't join the Well until after Tools for Thought was published in 1985.

I started out to make a living as a writer when I was 23, in 1970. I had a typewriter, a telephone, and a library card. Comparing the tools I had for thinking, researching, communicating, organizing back then with what I have now, it's like starting out my career with a horse and buggy and now I have my own 747.

It took me about 5 seconds to look up the passage of Engelbart's that originally fired me up, and to copy it. And I did it sitting here in my garden, via laptop and WiFi. Keeping in mind what I said previously about my interests in brain and technology and my conviction regarding this historical moment and my role and responsibility to it, it still makes sense to me as an answer to your question:

By "augmenting human intellect" we mean increasing the capability of a man to approach a complex problem situation, to gain comprehension to suit his particular needs, and to derive solutions to problems. Increased capability in this respect is taken to mean a mixture of the following: more-rapid comprehension, better comprehension, the possibility of gaining a useful degree of comprehension in a situation that previously was too complex, speedier solutions, better solutions, and the possibility of finding solutions to problems that before seemed insoluble. And by "complex situations" we include the professional problems of diplomats, executives, social scientists, life scientists, physical scientists, attorneys, designers -- whether the problem situation exists for twenty minutes or twenty years. We do not speak of isolated clever tricks that help in particular situations. We refer to a way of life in an integrated domain where hunches, cut-and-try, intangibles, and the human "feel for a situation" usefully coexist with powerful concepts, streamlined terminology and notation, sophisticated methods, and high-powered electronic aids. Man's population and gross product are increasing at a considerable rate, but the complexity of his problems grows still faster, and the urgency with which solutions must be found becomes steadily greater in response to the increased rate of activity and the increasingly global nature of that activity. Augmenting man's intellect, in the sense defined above, would warrant full pursuit by an enlightened society if there could be shown a reasonable approach and some plausible benefits.

In 2002, you authored Smart Mobs, which has been critically acclaimed for it’s foreshadowing of social media. Among the incidents that most impressed me was how street people used mobile SMS to out maneuver police & eventually overthrow the government. When the Iran election took place in June of this year, did you see a certain similarity? How did has technology involved to empower people. Where do you see/hope it is ultimately headed?

Let me start with the conclusion and then unpack it: With a billion people on the Internet and 4 billion mobile phones, the ability to gain information, to process it computationally, to organize collective action with others, to publish and broadcast has been radically democratized -- but whether or not that democratized communication and coordination capability will lead to more or less democracy is not a function of the technology but of the social, political, economic activities of the people who use it.

The events in Iran should be an object lesson that access to digital media and networks guarantees that it will be impossible to keep the world from witnessing massive oppression, but does not guarantee the victory of forces of counterpower who seek liberty from oppression. Power always wakes up and mobilizes when counterpower threatens it.

The Iranian regime broadcast disinformation. They shut down Internet access. They ran cloaked proxy servers as honey pots to catch dissidents. So far, they are succeeding.

In China, the Great Firewall and tens of thousands of human cyber-police make sure that over a quarter billion Chinese netizens enjoy the power to do anything they want online as long as it doesn't challenge the authority of the party.

The victory of smart mobs is not guaranteed by the power of the tools they hold in their hands. That's just magical thinking. However, the events I described in my book were real. There were other forces at work in the Philippines -- there are always other forces at work -- but the SMS-organized People Power II demonstrations were a large part of what brought down the Estrada regime. The elections of heads of state were tipped away from the frontrunner through smart-mobbed demonstrations and get out the vote campaigns in Korea and Spain.

Where do I see it headed? My experiences have convinced me that the most important focus for public attention right now should shift to the literacies that bring power to those who possess them and leave behind those who don't know how to use their telephone as a medical instrument, educational medium, social radar, political organizing tool.

Chip fabrication plants, teenage personal computer wizards and moguls, networks of fiber optics and satellites have played and will continue to play their parts in the distribution of computing and communication power to every human on Earth.

But now that devices with such enormous untapped power are in the hands of so many, the factor that will most powerfully shape the resulting social institutions is literacy. My definition of "literacy" builds the thinking of Neil Postman: I mean the inward-looking skill that enables an individual to read and write, to decode and encode messages with a medium, and I also refer to the external community to which this skill provides entrance. As I've written recently in regard to "Crap Detection 101," the literacies I am talking about are not just about individual empowerment, but are crucial to the health of the commons.

We can't stop the Web from being overwhelmed with misinformation, disinformation, hoaxes, urban legends, spam, porn, porn-spam by controlling the sources - the Web is powerful precisely because there are no controls on what people put on it. We can only guarantee the ultimate health of the Web as a source of useful and trustworthy information by encouraging the spread of crap detection skills. That, to me, is the most important meaning of the "social" in "social media" -- that we are not just amplifying our minds and showing off for each other, we are learning and organizing, creating, innovating, building, liberating together.

To me, individualism versus collectivism is a toxically false dichotomy. Humans are humans because of our individual capabilities, the evolved genius of what we've taught each other to do with our expanded forebrains. But the "taught each other to do" part is crucial. Our individual genius would not only be useless, it wouldn't exist without our social interchanges.

Josh Bernoff's Tweet-based interview--an experiment that Teetered

2009-10-16T15:15:39-07:00

Groundswell co-author Josh Bernoff interviewed me on Twitter this morning. You can see his transcript of it here. For 30 minutes, he asked me questions & I answered, Then we opened it up for anyone to ask questions.

It is the fourth such tweet-based experiment in which I participated and I think it will be my last for a while. There are certain aspects of it that I think have potential. In our talk prior to doing the interview, Josh likened it as a panel talk at a conference followed by a Q&A. For two college classrooms, it was a good way of demonstrating what can be accomplished in quick conversational tidbits.

But for folks viewing my interchange with Josh this morning, there were too many moving parts. The latency between Q&A was some times painful. People did not know who to address questions to. Sometimes I forgot to add our #tville hashtag and so on.

Maybe someone will find a way to refine how this sort of interchange could succeed. Maybe Twitter or a third-party will figure out a plug in or addition that will make it work.

Until then, there are lots of other venues. Even for classrooms, I think Skype is a better social media tool. It still leaves a great many useful applications for my favorite tool.

Bloomberg Buys BusinessWeek.

2009-10-15T07:56:06-07:00

I have a few friends at BusinessWeek. I imagine each of them is breathing a little easier today after being purchased yesterday by Bloomberg Business News, for a rumored $5 million.

Bloomberg, a news service for financial and business professionals is only 20 years old, but it has grown into one of the world's largest media companies, thriving in a period when most media companies have waned. It employs 10,000 people, many of them business news reporters covering 160 countries via its legendary computer network that often gets business information out in near realtime. It distributes news through a computer-based wire service, TV, video, and audio.

My sense is that this computer network is at the core of the reason Bloomberg is thriving while most media companies are floundering. Bloomberg was born in the Information Age and has no legacy of loving paper. It's significant subscription fees are based on the value and speed of the information it delivers, not on the medium it uses to deliver it.

Another asset, to my thinking, is New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg who essentially owns the network. Because the news organization is not a public corporation, Bloomberg is not obliged to focus on delivering quarterly profits to shareholders. He is free to do what the families who once owned newspapers used to do: focus on longterm strategy and reputation-enhancing activities.

Unlike, private equity companies, that also considered acquiring BusinessWeek, and were likely to chop the organization up, selling it for parts, Bloomberg Business has vowed to buildup BusinessWeek, improving the content. The cloud of massive layoffs appears to be breaking up. The fact that Bloomberg is a candidate for reelection also seems to be a motivation to build rather than dissect.

The new entity is likely to be called Bloomberg BusinessWeek, according to NPR. It is a good name. It merges two brands that are respected in business sectors. Whie plans are currently to maintain the paper format, the owners roots are on computer networks, not large printing presses in the basement and fleets of delivery trucks. We shall see.

I have said this many times: the world will not be a better, smarter freer place if traditional news organizations perish leaving bloggers and tweeters to fill the void. We don't get to attend many White House news conferences. No one assigns us to cover wars or earthquakes. We don't have editors demanding we find second sources and check our facts. We are mostly amateurs who just happen to be there when news breaks.

I am hoping to see a resurgence of what is now BusinessWeek--perhaps as something new called Bloomberg BusinessWeek. I hope the new magazine has the wisdom and vision to braid social media into a resurgent new entity.

SM Global Report: InBox Alarm's Janis Krums

2009-10-13T10:26:40-07:00

[Janis Krums takes & makes his shot for the Florida Lakewood Ranchers , an amateur league team. He also took another kind of shot in January 2009, which you probably saw. photo by Angie Tyler Jula]

It's one of my favorite stories in Twittterville. In January 2009, Janis Krums, the a 23-year-old entrepreneur from Sarasota, Florida was on a ferry crossing the Hudson River when US Air Flight 1549 careened from the skies, skidding to a halt on the river about 200 yards from the ferry and immediately began to sink as passengers poured out onto the wings.

Janis whipped out his iPhone and took the photo below, which you have probably seen. He handed the phone to another passenger and then assisted in the rescue of a flight attendant who had broken both her legs and needed assistance getting off the plane.

Helping the attendant to safety, Krums got his iPhone back. It was ringing and when he picked up he was surprised to find he was talking to MSNBC and his voice was being carried live on national TV. Viewers were looking at the photo he had taken less than 30 minutes earlier.

In Twitterville, I argued that the incident changed the relationship between professional and amateur journalists; that it has begun to braid the two together on social media venues. I predicted that braided journalism is how most people will consume news in the near future.

It also has changed Janis Krums. The following is an update on what he has been up to since that unintended moment on the Hudson River. He is simultaneously starting two business in two separate categories, one of which has been a passion for years. The second, something called InboxAlarm would probably have not happened had he not happened to be crossing a river at a specific moment in time; and if my favorite social media platform not been victimized by a DDOS attack that rendered it inoperable for several days in early summer.

Please see my recent interview with him below.

Q. How has the incident changed your life?

I am associated with an event that changed the perception of citizen journalism and the evolution of news and media. The coolest part is to see that my one tweet changed the way that CNN, Fox News, and others interact with their viewers. They are actively engaged with viewers now, and seek the opinions in realtime from all the available resources.

Plus, I have a great story to tell at parties!

Q. How active were you in social media before the "Hudson River Miracle" incident? How many follower/following did you have going in to that day? How many do you have now? How much time did you spend on social media before the incident. How much now?

Before the incident I was exploring all the different services and seeing which one made sense for me. I had about 170 followers before the incident. Now I have almost 5,800. Before the incident, I was spending maybe 20 minutes a day on updates. I think right after I was spending a lot of time. Now I have learned some tricks and services (su.pr, tweetdeck, tweetie 2) that I use to monitor and use the different sites more efficiently.

Q. When I interviewed you for Twitterville, you were planning working on Elementz a nutritional enhancement drink for professional athletes. How long have you been working on it? How is it doing?

We started a year ago with the idea of what we wanted to do. At this point we have finalized 5 custom formulations and are finalizing the paperwork to produce the first two products, Vanilla and Chocolate Whey Protein. We have some very influential people on board and will be making some really cool announcements in the near future. You can check out our Facebook page for the latest news.

7. More recently, you announced InboxAlarm.com. Can you tell me what it does and how you got the idea for it?

InboxAlarm is burglar alarm for your email inbox. You are able to create decoy emails that can be as simple as fake password information or custom emails that cater to your specific security concern. After creating an email, you send it to one of your personal emails addresses, open it once, and then forget about it. It sits in your archives until someone opens it. Once opened, you are instantly notified by a text message that there has been a breach.

We got the idea after the Twitter breach happened. In that case the hacker had days to gather information and was able to go from one employee's email account all the way up to the CEO's.

We thought that there should be a way for you to protect yourself in the case someone breaks into your inbox. There are other high profile examples; Sarah Palin getting hacked; the latest phishing attack, and countless others that don't make national news.

8. Is InboxAlarm potentially a new business for you, or is it just a one-off from Elementz Nutrition?

InboxAlarm has the potential to be a new business for Eric and I. It is too early to tell how it will go, but the initial reaction has been very positive.

Q. How have sales gone since you announced InboxAlarm?

We have steady sales up to this point. We got some initial press from PCmag.com and BNET, which helped the site's exposure. As well as local Sarasota coverage ) We will be focusing on a major marketing push in the coming weeks.

Q. You have previously told me your two passions are health and social media. Can you compare and contrast starting businesses serving in the two industries? For example how are the the process and time-to-market similar or different? o

It's been very interesting to see the evolution of both Elementz Nutrition and InboxAlarm. For Elementz we had the concept few years ago, but only last year said, lets start the process and develop supplements that we can be proud to stand behind.

We were very naive in our projected timeline to get the products out into the market. We thought that it would take few months to research, develop, test, etc the formulations. That estimate was way off, it took us around a year to finalize the formulas. Right now we are finalizing everything with our manufacturer.

However, with InboxAlarm, we had the idea in July and were able to launch the initial site during the second week of September. We had the core functionality thought out in the first day and after that just kept refining until we thought it was good enough to be released to the public. I agree with Reid Hoffman's observation: "If you're not somewhat embarrassed by your 1.0 product launch, then you've released too late."

We wanted to get it out as soon as possible and then see what the customers did and didn't like. We've improved the sign-up process and have couple of other improvements that are directly linked to the feedback from our users.

No matter how different the market, at the end of the day it's about selling and getting the word out about your product. It doesn't matter what industry you are in, if you don't move product, you will not be around for too long.

A Tweet-based interview with Josh Bernoff

2009-10-12T15:15:56-07:00

I am pleased and flattered that Forrester Principal Analyst Josh Bernoff, co-author [with Charlene Li] of Groundswell, the seminal corporate social media book has asked to interview me for his Groundswell blog. It is fitting that he suggested we do this on Twitter itself. We are set to go at 9 a.m. Pacific this Friday morning.

Josh has the details here. A good way to follow will be to use our hashtag: #tville.

So far, I've done one previous "twinterview" live on Twitter as well as two "tweach-ins" in which we used Twitter as the conversational venue. The first two went great, but a couple of weeks ago when I was talking to students in Mihaela Vorvorreanu's graduate student class at Purdue, a few people started to jump in with questions of their own.

While I had posted that this was a chance for people to observe the conversation, it was apparently not sufficient to cause confusion.

Using Twitter in this fashion is experimental. Both Josh and I--as well as students in two universities see some unique advantages and I hope this time it works better, so that the focus is our conversation--rather than our choice of venue.

From 9-9:30 Pacific, Josh will interview me. If you ask questions Josh will keep them on hold until 9:30 am at which he will then open it up. As he says on his post--it's like a panel talk at a conference that gets opened up to the floor.

I hope you join in. I hope that this experiment proves both useful and interesting. Either way, I hope that when it is completed you will give us your feedback.

Nobel Award: Who more than Obama? I have someone

2009-10-10T13:24:31-07:00

As an admirer of both Barack Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize, I have been scratching my head a bit about his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

Yes, the world loves him and his words and approaches and his apparent high-roaded intentions, but I have to admit the world does not seem a more peaceful place since he has taken office. The US is meandering out of a troop investment in one war whose purpose is confusing into another one whose goals seem to me to be equally unclear.

Yes the most people in the world seem to admire the US more under his administration than under the previous guy, but let's face it: George Bush is an easy act to follow. He was arguably the most disliked and distrusted president in history.

“The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world,” the Nobel committee chairman, Thorbjorn Jagland, was quoted as saying in the New York Times yesterday, “And who has done more than Barack Obama?”

That question has had me thinking yesterday and today. Selecting Obama, was clearly a statement of hope more than achievement as critics have charged. And they have a point. But who has done more for world peace in the last year than he has.Perhaps it was just a bad year for wold peace and no one stood out.It would seem better to award the Nobel to someone who seems to be trying than no one else.

Who more than Obama?

Well, I came up with one name, someone who until June of this year we had never heard of and someone who was no longer with us by the end of the year: Neda Agha-Solton, the 27-year-old student gunned down during the unrest that followed Iran's highly tainted June 12 election. The video [below] of her assassination has been seen by millions of people all over the world. If you have seen it, you probably will not forget it. It is a moment that that is etched in the minds of all sorts of people everywhere.

But so what? Why suggest her worthiness for the Peace Prize? Freedom protesters have been slaughtered by the score in every year of the planet's history. In her part of the world, children are being raised and prepared to blow their own bodies in the name of a God that taught peace, yet has disciples who believe in killing on his behalf.

Why Neda?

First, because we saw. Social media has not been present before when such atrocities have occurred. Such slaughters have not even made paragraphs of copy in newspapers, because until social media and handheld devices and students who understood technology better than their governments could not spread the word of what was happening like they can today.

Governments, like Iran's can kick out the free press; but they cannot silence people anymore. Now when they use Gestapo tactics on the people they are supposed to serve, the world will be watching. People will know. Neda did not give her life willingly as a warning to oppressive regime. She was just as student on the street who thought her vote should count. Yet because of the horror of her extermination, governments are now forewarned that the world will see what they do and may think twice about such action.

Second is the issue of many children of the Muslim world; children being raised see Iran's theocracy as a role model; as the type of government worth fighting for, worth killing for; worth dying for. And now,because of Neda, they have witnessed what young people of Iran think of that role model government and how that role model government treats its own young people.

The esteemed Nobel chairman asked, who has done more for peace this year than Barack Obama. I think perhaps Neda has and she has sacrificed far more than he has as well.

SM Global Report: Timeraiser Jessica Evans

2009-10-10T11:49:47-07:00

Jack Kennedy was president when I entered college. Like Obama today, he had a great impact on the hearts and minds of young people. In Kennedy's case, he introduced a concept of volunteerism through programs like VISTA [Volunteers in Service to America] and the Peace Corps. The attitude that we can do something to make a difference for a good cause or people in need has stayed with many of us through our lives.

When I met Jessica Evans in Vancouver last month, I was reminded of that volunteer attitude when she told me the story of Timeraiser where she has donated over 100 hours of her time in a little more than a year and how she has helped the organization expand into social media.

Timeraiser is a Canadian organization formed by the Framework Foundation. It gets corporate sponsors finance their acquisition of selected works by local artists. Then it holds a silent auction, where mostly people, mostly in their 20s and 30s, bid their time--instead of money--to acquire a piece of art. The funding sponsors display the art in their offices for a year or so, while the volunteer works off the time pledged.

Most of the volunteer work is focused on using the professional skills of the volunteers, rather than ladling soup in food bank kitchens.

Since it started in 2004, Timeraiser has held these auctions in all major Canadian cities and has generated more than 45,000 volunteer hours for more than 250 nonprofits and has supported local artists to the tune of over $300,000.

Jessica Evans, 30 is one of those 45,000 volunteers, she is an IT professional at a Vancouver-based software company by day and has boundless energy for other activities. It was literally a rocky road she traveled that took her to both Vancouver and Timeraiser.

She tells her story in this interview:

Q. You spend much of your free time in outdoor physical activities such as bike riding and something called "bouldering." Just what is that, and when and how did you get into it?

Bouldering is a style of rock climbing – literally climbing on large boulders without a rope. Your landing is protected by “bouldering pads”- high-density foam mats similar to those used in gymnastics. It’s a great way to climb completely free and push your limits.

I started climbing in 2001 - yes, I think you could say I’ve traveled extensively to boulder. At the height of job dissatisfaction and restlessness when I lived in Toronto, I called myself out on my dream to live on the road and climb. I blogged the entire experience from the inception of the idea where I used up my health benefits before giving my notice, through the emotional challenges and steep learning curve while living on the road. There’s also advice on the art of living on a few dollars a day.

It was an amazing experience and one of unexpected personal growth. I lasted almost 6 months, living on the road camping and climbing by myself.

Q So you boulder climb alone? It doesn't involve the teamwork and interdependent teamwork of technical rock climbing. Why did you choose it?

I think you could say that bouldering chose me. When I was on My Big Roadtrip, I had my gear for rope climbing too but found that it was easier to boulder since you don’t need to search for a dedicated partner. In roped climbing, you literally place your life in the hands of the other person. I found that not knowing my climbing partner well enough to fully trust them made it tough to focus. I ended up bouldering more and more, either by myself or trying to get in with a group that was out. By the end of the trip I found that I was a "boulderer," and now I very rarely rope up to climb.

Sure, I traveled alone and I’ve gone on some solo bouldering trips since. There’s a bit of teamwork involved – the energy of the group really affects if you’re able to focus on the moves. It’s so much better, and even a bit easier, if there’s a good group of people.

Q. When, how and why did you discover Timeraiser?

I crash landed in Vancouver after the road trip and when I heard about the Timeraiser in 2008, I saw it as a way to get more involved in the community of the city I had settled in and had grown to love. Besides, I thought it sounded cool. I like art, especially by local artists, and I had been meaning to volunteer.

It’s a mashup of silent art auction and volunteer fair – there are representatives from local nonprofit agencies, and about 25 pieces of local artwork. The bidding opens for an hour and participants bid with a pledge of volunteer hours instead of money. Too cool.

Q. What appealed to you about Timeraiser, since there are so many other options where you can volunteer your time?

One of the featured agencies at the Vancouver Timeraiser was Big Sisters. Being a Big Sister was something on my life to-do list, and it was just so easy to go to the Timeraiser event and talk to a representative in person. After talking to someone face-to-face, there was a more natural commitment to follow up.

You could say that I fell in love with the concept at the Timeraiser event. It was far cooler than I had expected. Bidding on artwork gave me a taste of a society I may never be a part of – but the concept of Timeraiser makes it fun and easy to get involved.

Q. Can you walk me through the process in which you volunteered through the the Timeraiser silent auction for Big Sisters and how you obtained the photo?

After talking to the agencies at Timeraiser, I was pretty excited at all the volunteer opportunities that suited my skills. I ended up getting the winning bid on a photograph by a local artist [Miklos LeGrady] and I fulfilled my pledge over the following year by volunteering as a Big Sister. Donating time goes so far and you can see the impact you’re having on the community. It’s more fulfilling than, say, writing a check, though if you can afford that, go for it!

We volunteers are given a full year to complete our pledges. At this year's Timeraiser, I received my artwork.

Q. I understand you introduced social media components to Timeraisers. Can you tell me how and why you did that?

Last spring, Timeraiser sent out a message needing volunteers for planning the next two Timeraiser events in Vancouver. You could say I was getting hooked on volunteering and was happy to spread the word.

I applied for the position of Media & Awareness Leadership and my pitch was all social media. How can we reach our target demographic? Well, I’m a member of the target demographic and I’m always online. I could see the need to leverage Twitter as well as Facebook fan pages.

We’re getting to a point on the Web these days where people search Twitter to connect with a business entity, and Timeraiser needed to represent. I also brought us onto LinkedIn and worked with Timeraiser employees to implement the Facebook fan page.

Q. Got an interesting story to share that happened on Twitter involving Timeraisers?

The entire “Tweeting for Charity” experience has been interesting. I’ve been online since the local BBS days back in the mid-90s. Twitter is the online vehicle to reconnect with people locally and in person, or globally due to our common interests. I’m not looking to network or promote myself as a climber or a Project Manager, so getting out there to talk about something I feel so passionately about – Timeraiser – feels quite natural.

One constant I’ve experienced while engaging in social media for charity is that when I explain the concept of Timeraiser to people, if they’re interested, they’re excited like me and eager to help. It’s important to reach as many people as possible to build the network of eager excited people.

I have to say it was powerful to watch the word spread and excitement grow along with the network. We ended up selling the event out, which was an incredible accomplishment. A CBC reporter saw a retweet about the Vancouver Timeraiser and picked up our story the day before the event. Members of the blogging community posted up about the Timeraiser and some had tickets to give away via their sites. I think everyone worked together – Team Twitter.

Q. How has social media changed Timeraiser? What additional potential do you see?

It was very valuable to tap into the local, grassroots media in Vancouver. Getting the word out via local bloggers is the way to go. Civic Footprint (Timeraiser's sister nonprofit) is now working on social media strategies for other Timeraiser cities, to connect via Twitter and social media.

In the Spring, I’ll be leveraging Twitter again to connect with the local art community. Artists selected for the Timeraiser are paid market value for their work. In 2009, 20 of the 25 selected artists were from BC. In 2010, I’d like to see that extend to 25/25.

Also, it would be great if we could get a participant to blog their experience fulfilling their pledge, so we can all follow along. I’ll see if I can put that into place. @Timeraiser_couv is still the only account dedicated to the Timeraiser, but I hope to see the other cities follow suit. I’m excited to see how next year unfolds, since I can incorporate what I learned this year.

Q. I understand that you found romance on Twitter. Can you tell me just what happened and how has it worked out so far?

That’s quite the bonus, I know! The first networking event I attended as @Timeraiser_couv was a Meetup and I was looking for others with @ Twitter IDs on their name badges. I ended up clicking with a guy there – I remember that I could read him quite well and found him intriguing. We talked about cycling and I sent him an @ from my personal account, not Timeraiser! When I got home, he had sent me a DM to request a coffee to “learn more about that charity stuff you do.” We’ve been hanging out since. You could say we get along quite well.

Q. Additional comments.

I’m not climbing as much as I used to and it’s amusing because I made the move out to BC to climb full-time. Dreams change over time, and I got to see my 2009 dream of selling out the Vancouver Timeraiser come true.Timeraiser helped me Commit to Vancouver, and now I’ll never leave.

Life on the road always meeting new people prepped me for this.

Cameras, cops, free speech & lame British laws

2009-09-30T10:24:41-07:00

I was in Seville, in a major city square where I saw the two, uniformed, armed policemen on little mopeds. I smiled at them & they smiled back until took out my little pocket camera. Then there's hands went up and they moved toward me gesturing to put the camera away. I complied.
I had a similar experience at the Rome Airport when I tried to photograph a heavily armed soldier smoking a cigarette outside security.
I would later find out that both countries had passed laws against taking pictures of law of officers and the military after very serious acts of terrorism had occurred. The thought of censorship in democracies had crossed my mind, but terrorism has certainly caused my own country to pass disturbing laws in the name of democracy that restricted some people's freedom.
Perhaps the laws are necessary. I have personal doubts. But those who know more about the tools that lead to machine gun fire in Italian Airports and bombs in Spanish planes and jets smashing into high-rise buildings are supposed to know more abut what is required than I do.
But then, the cases of over response in the name of freedom are long and well document. And the use of the camera is an instrument in revealing those abuses are even longer, as we have seen during Mumbai and the Iran election; in the record excessive use of force in a BART station on New Years Day this year and in the clubbing of Rodney King in LA back in 1991.
The camera has shown the truth when authorities entrusted to protect the public were in fact deceiving the public.
I write all this because the British have passed and are attempting to defend one of the most abusive and discriminatory laws I have heard of since maybe the Stamp Act in the time of the American Revolution.
It seems that in the name of freedom countries sometimes do the lamest things, as the US has so recently done in the case of Guantanamo. The British law is being explained by authorities as not being applicable to innocent tourists but will applied to people who appear as though they might be terrorist.
I assume that means white people in Western clothing can take pictures. Darker people in Eastern--or mid-Eastern-garb may be subject to arrest, interrogation or the mere confiscation of their cameras.
I really shouldn't have to tell you what's wrong with that. British citizen of all hues and clothing tastes shouldn't have to fight against such appalling, subjective discrimination.
And in the name of fighting for freedom, freedom itself should not be so easily tromped upon by any government claiming to be a democracy.
[NOTE: I am running late to make a plane and I have not added quite a few pictures and links that may be useful when I get a chance. I assume it is still legal for me to post the pictures.]

Citizen Journalism & Tear Gas at the G20

2009-09-27T10:36:49-07:00

I first heard about the the incidents two days after they started. William Herring, tweeted me a link to the first of four videos I would see. Each gave the impression that police were using overwhelming force against an apparently small and nonviolent group of protesters in a park near the University of Pittsburgh.
After I retweeted that, I would discover the protests were against the G20 assembly of top level leaders the world's 20 largest industrial and developing nations, a gathering that I overwhelmingly support, in the US city that has made the best comeback over the past half century.
Video such as this one disturbed me. It was sandwiched between slabs of street-protest rhetoric and was clearly edited. Yet it displayed pretty good evidence that police had been more than a little zealous in their disbursement tactics. It was also the first indication that police had been "federalized." Why had that not been reported in traditional media. When had they been federalized and what was the reason?
As a tweeter-blogger, I didn't know; nor did I feel free to call the US attorney general's office and say I was a blogging citizen journalist whose readers wanted answers.
So I stayed with the videos and I found them ugly. When I tweeted that there had not been anything like this in the US since the 1960, I was almost immediately corrected. The G20 meeting in Seattle in 1999 had caused havoc on the streets where avowed anarchists clashed with police, causing personal injury, property damage, and disruption to that city for almost a full week. Not much got accomplished inside the World Trade Organization summit of financial ministers.
At about that point, Perry Caldwell, a new Tweeter sent me a clip from KDKA, Pittsburgh's Channel 2 news site reporting many windows being broken and other minor damage. He condemned violence on both sides, but seemed to me to think police had acted properly.
I felt the KDKA story was one-sided and did not explain the massive police action involving tear gas, smoke grenade and new ultrasonic "sound cannons" that evoke a head-splitting noise that seemed suited for an Orwellian novel.
I have my own one-sided view as well. I was a protester against war and for civil rights in the 60s. I tasted tear gas and came very close to feel a policeman's club on my head. My attitudes have changed, but I'm generally skeptical of unlawful assembly charges because they fly in the face of American rights to assembly.
Then Ed Shah jumped in. Ed and I frequently talk in Twitterville. He impresses me as passionate as I am about human rights and police states. Ed pointed out that the US had an obligation to protect world leaders when the are assembled on American soil. He also speculated that the street noise could be a distraction for a more dangerous act of terrorism against the G20 and of course he is right.

I quieted down and stepped back. There were lots of issues intertwining here. I really didn't know much about what was going on. Nor did I know much about the events building up to the confrontation on the streets.

I realized that I am not a news organization. The people with whom I connect to "report" on an issue are not a news network. We were stepping in to fill a void created by a media industry in atrophy but we really still lack the organization, leadership, legs and budget that the old dynasties had provided.
Had I been an editor, with budget and staff and Pittsburgh or the G20 had been part of our beat, here are a few things I would have done:

I would have assigned and coordinated a handful of reporters, correspondents and stringers. I would have assigned one to interview the police chief, mayor, Pitt officials to get their side of the story. I would have a political correspondent speak with officials at Justice, State and maybe FBI. I would have that reporter write about the government thinking and decisions as well as what they knew that helped them reach the decisions.

I would have assigned anther reporter to attach her or himself to the protesters, writing human interest pieces about them, where they were from, how they got to Pittsburgh and why as well as what they hoped to accomplish. I would have insisted the leaders be interviewed and their backgrounds checked out. I would have investigated where their money had come from.

I would have had someone research both the protest movement against globalization as well as a brief history of US street protests and what they did or did not achieve.

I would have had my art department draw maps showing the proximity or distance between protesters and the G20 Summit. I would have investigated the possible vulnerabilities caused by the protests.

I would have spoken to local citizens and non participating eyewitnesses who could shed light on what they had seen.

And so on. But I am in no position to do any of those things. Unfortunately, it appears that neither is the press whose coverage of this protest has been thin at best and apparently written without having been there or seen anything firsthand.
This why I have become a proponent of what I call braided journalism, the coming together of tweeters like me with professional organizations like the New York Times. We have seen samples of this in the last 18 months; the Szechuan Earthquake, Mumbai, Gaza, Iran Elections, Station Fire and many other incidents.
When citizen and traditional journalism braid together the pubic is better served. We come closer to getting the whole story. The information provided tends to be more balanced. Our right to know allows us to form opinions on sufficient information.
G20 is now over. All parties will go home and share their thoughts with friends. Maybe some reflective commentary will appear online. But overall most people won't know what happened there because of a failure of braiding the information together and reporting on it.

Ok, it's 'Lethal Generosity,' but I'm going to need your help

2009-09-26T08:14:27-07:00



               [Rubbermaid's Jim Deitzel, a lethally generous guy]
A few days ago, I asked for feedback on my next book. Should it be about Braided Journalism or Lethal Generosity, two concepts that I discuss in Twitterville? The response was not huge, but it was overwhelmingly in favor of Lethal Generosity.
Far be it for me to go against the wisdom of my own crowd. While I do not need to make any decision in this area for several months, I am going to start thinking through this subject and most important, I need to find examples--lots and lots of examples, from viewers like you of Lethal Generosity.
Let me explain; Lethal Generosity is the business strategy of doing as much good for your customer as possible, thereby screwing your competitor who has to either follow your lead or ignore programs that serve them.
I mentioned three such examples in Twitterville:

When Jeremiah Owyang was at Hitachi Data Systems, he started the Data Storage wiki for all members of the data storage community. The purpose was to openly share ideas, information and recommendations that would be helpful to customers. Jeremiah invited competitors to join in because that best served customer interests. If a competitor joined, then they were following the HDS lead. If they stayed out of wiki participation then they were turning their backs on a conversation dominated by and serving existing and potential customers. Universally, the wiki became known as the Hitachi wiki and Hitachi became the perceived thought leader.

Rubbermaid, Jim Deitzel just joined Twitter at first to point to other social media content they were producing, but soon discovered that there were numerous professional organizers hanging out on Twitter as well. These were the rare folk who had passion about Rubbermaid's bins, racks, dividers and dish strainers. So he began using Twitter as a way to help these people form a Global Neighborhood on Twitter. He played a key role in organizing it into a community where it shared information. Further, he arranged for Rubbermaid to give these organizers product discounts for which they had not previously been eligible. Now if a competitor wants to join in they will have to join a community that is being de facto led by Rubbermaid. Or they can continue to keep out of the conversation.

When Molson Canada, learned that the Toronto Transit Authority was short $85,000 it needed to have public transit run all night on New Year's Eve 2009, Fergus Devins kicked in $20,000 and called upon the Toronto business community to kick in to save the program and support "responsible drinking." He specifically called upon arch-rival Labatts to follow the Molson's lead. If Labatts failed to follow would it be supporting "irresponsible drinking?" Labatts joined the Molson lead. Toronto citizens obviously benefited. But so did Molson.

That's it. That's my entire repertoire of Lethal Generosity case studies, and I I used all three in my last book. So n I need about 100 new ones. The three elements I'm looking for:
    1. A company must demonstrate an action that directly and indisputably benefits         the community;
    2. The action preempts a competitor in a way that goes to reputation;
    3. Social media is involved [preferred but not required].
Do you have a story for me? I am going to do the next book pretty much the way I did Twitterville. I will ask the social media community for ideas, case studies. I will post notes of many of them on this blog and I will acknowledge anyone who contributes in the next book.
I also would appreciate any and all thoughts about Lethal Generosity. Share with me here or in Twitterville.