links for 2009-06-18

links for 2009-06-17

  • Kevin: Terry Flew, Professor of Media and Communication in the Creative Industries Faculty at the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, writes about coverage of the Iranian election protests with what I call social media journalism. It's a hybrid of traditional media and newsgathering process and standards to filter social media and use social media as a source of contacts. There is a lot of opportunity here, and we're just scratching the surface.
  • Kevin: Jonathan Zittrain, author of The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, tries to answer the question being asked by many in the media of whether Iran could shut down Twitter. He first describes Iran's control over the internet. Iran is "able to treat its Internet-using public the way a school can filter what its kids see on their PCs". But could they shut down Twitter, which is being used to report in real-time the events on Twitter. "So it’d be trivial for the Iranian government to block access to Twitter as it could to any particular Web site, and it could even block access to some Twitter user’s feeds there while leaving others open, by simply configuring its filters to allow some Twitter urls through while filtering others. But Twitter isn’t just any particular Web site. It’s an atom designed to be built into other molecules. "

links for 2009-06-16

  • Kevin: Marc Ambinder says that this is how a CIA Analyst would look at the events in Iran, but I suggest that it's also the way that journalists should. "Watch for disinformation. … Don't assume. … Look for sources that disprove your thesis. Go outside the country and outside your comfort zone. See what, say, China's news agency reports about the protests."
  • Kevin: Like many projects, I spotted this in the flow of links via Twitter. It's a fascinating look at '12 different voter communities' in the United States. The map is fascinating, but I'm curious about the journalism that the Christian Science Monitor and US public television's News Hour will be doing. I need to investigate how they came up with 12 different voter communities. The political parties and their models often slice the US electorate into often twice as many demographic groups in terms of targeting, but it's interesting to see news outlets do this kind of coverage. I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this project to see how it evolves.
  • Kevin: Richard Sambrook, head of the BBC Global News division and a friend from the BBC, compaired Twitter to mainstream media coverage of the outcome of the 2009 Iranian elections. His conclusion:
    "Result? Mixed.
    If you, as an average news consumer, relied on Twitter you might believe all sorts of things had happened, which simply hadn't, running a high risk of being seriously misled about events on the ground. You might at best, have simply been confused. You probably wouldn't have thought Ahmadinejad enjoys much popular support at all.
    But if you had a reasonable understanding of social media, how to set up and assess feeds, how to compare and contrast information, if you had a reasonable understanding of news flows, a developed sense of scepticism, and an above average understanding of the political situation in Iran, you would have emerged much better informed than the lay viewer relying on TV or Radio news."
  • Kevin: Vin Crosbie writes: "Ask most people who think of themselves as new media experts what the greatest change in the media has been in the past 35 years, and you'll hear such answers as "the Internet," "social media," "search engines," or "iPhones."

    They're wrong.

    The greatest change has been that people's access to media has changed from scarcity to surfeit. It's an even bigger change than Gutenberg's invention of a practical printing press, the invention of writing, or even the first Neolithic cave paintings. It's the greatest change in all of media history. And it occurred in only 35 years — half a human lifespan."

  • Kevin: Jeff Jarvis writes: "The question is whether the legacy press – for the benefit of its staff even more than its audience – can issue enough caveats to enable it to work real-time. Forget blogs in this discussion. Will The New York Times ever be comfortable working on the standards and practices of 24-hour cable news? Can it afford to? Don’t they have to?"
  • Kevin: This is a succinct outline of social media journalism from Jeff Jarvis: "I emphasized to a reporter today that Twitter is not the news source. It's a source of tips & temperature & sources. Reporting follows."
  • Kevin: Dougald Hine, former BBC journalist and co-founder of the School of Everything writes about why journalists write a lot of ill informed nonsense about Twitter. Like a lot of things, they focus on celebrities that use Twitter, or bands that use MySpace or campaigners who use Facebook. They don't get under the skin of social media. Also with Twitter, they don't spend the time necessary to really understand what is going on. "So unless a reporter has been using the service personally for long enough to get a feel for it, they are very likely to pick up the wrong end of the stick. Or mistake the stick for a snake."

links for 2009-06-13

links for 2009-06-12

Key drivers of change

Having all this info about the future of social media is great – I get to slice and dice it in multiple ways. Going back to the idea of there being three different types of driver – predetermined, uncertain and wildcard – I’ve split everything into those three types, and then tried to see which are the most relevant when it comes to the development of social technology and how third sector organisations might use it.

Below is my list. What do you think?

Predetermined
Increase in number of interpersonal connections.
Ubiquity of technology and connectivity.
Social software moves into the mainstream.
Increase in surveillance, by government and citizens alike.
Self-organisation.
Ageing population.
Decrease in trust of authority figures.
Green issues become more important.
Cuts in public services spending and access.

Uncertain changes
Split between inwards-looking individualism and outwards-looking collectivism.
Experimentation and failure becomes more acceptable.
Wide availability of information leads to either overload or smart/group filters.
Consolidation of the media; rise of community-sourced news.
Over-regulation of the internet stifles growth.
Multiculturalism leads to either tolerance or increased conflict.
Flexible, portfolio careers becomes more common.
Businesses engage in more “co-opetition”.
Self-organisation leads to greater political engagement, or loss of trust in politicians leads to apathy.
‘Web of things’ leads to realtime monitoring of inanimate objects.

Wildcards
Massive population change, either increase or decrease.
Fragmentation of large political entities, increased localism.
Resources shock as peak oil, water and food passed.
Huge increase in war, insurgencies, and social unrest.
Change in value system from GPD to happiness index.
The Singularity: Advances in biotech, nanotech and genetic engineering usher in the post-human age.
Pestilence and global pandemic.

Same drivers, except Wildcards, but organised by topic
Politics/Authority
Increase in surveillance, by government and citizens alike.
Decrease in trust of authority figures.
Cuts in public services spending and access.
Consolidation of the media; rise of community-sourced news.
Over-regulation of the internet stifles growth.
Self-organisation leads to greater political engagement, or loss of trust in politicians leads to apathy.

Society/Culture
Ageing population.
Multiculturalism leads to either tolerance or increased conflict.
Self-organisation.
Split between inwards-looking individualism and outwards-looking collectivism.

Personal
Increase in number of interpersonal connections.
Green issues become more important.

Technology
Ubiquity of technology and connectivity.
Social software moves into the mainstream.
Wide availability of information leads to either overload or smart/group filters.
‘Web of things’ leads to realtime monitoring of inanimate objects.

Business
Experimentation and failure becomes more acceptable.
Flexible, portfolio careers becomes more common.
Businesses engage in more “co-opetition”.

links for 2009-06-11

  • Kevin: Hubspot research finds: "Namely, that many of the accounts on Twitter aren't actually using it all that much." This isn't surprising. The UGC Pyramid or the 1-9-90 'Rule' about user participation shows that almost all participatory sites or services have huge disparities in usage. This and other reports are being held up as reasons why Twitter has been over-hyped. This is actually pretty standard in the media obsession life cycle, which goes from dismissiveness from the media to wonder and astonishment and a growth spurt to claims that a service has been over-hyped to claims that the service or site has jumped the shark.
  • Kevin: "In 2008 the total European online advertising market, or at least the 19 markets analyzed by IAB Europe and PwC, was worth €12.9 billion (approx. $18 billion) with a like-for-like growth rate compared to 2007 of 20%. For comparison, online advertising grew 10.6% in the United States in 2008 (outpacing TV) and was worth €16.6 billion ($23.4 billion). However, the 20% growth figure paints a better-looking picture than the harsh reality, which is that it is far below previously stated expectations"
  • Kevin: Google has released Google Fusion Tables in Labs. "Fusion Tables allows users to upload more data than they can in Google Spreadsheets. With Google Fusion it is possible to upload tabular data sets of up to 100 MB per data set."
  • Kevin: There was a session last week at the Deutsche Welle Global Media Forum about serious games, and this post looks further into the trend. It starts off highlighting a video from New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof from the recent Games for a Change Festival. "The MacArthur Foundation have been putting time, energy and money into this cause — it seems obvious to me that large companies in the gaming space should also be involved as well if they're not already from a "double bottom line" perspective. Perhaps journalism organizations should join them."
  • Kevin: "In a piece written for paidContent.org, Richard J. Tofel proposes a new way of "remaking" newspapers and "rethinking the role of the print paper. … Another factor of Tofel's restructuring plan is eliminating columnists and reviewers who don't have a "committed, interested following" as another means to cut costs by cutting down content that may not be of interest to the readers.

    Ultimately, Tofel proposes newspapers should strive to be "distinctive" and publish content that sets itself apart from other news sources, such as focusing on local news, effecitvely including graphics, images, games, and puzzles, or by "being new 'scoops' of fact or thought."

  • Kevin: Data collection: Mobile phones provide new ways to gather information, both manually and automatically, over wide areas.
  • Kevin: I realised recently that I feel so comfortable online and the culture of the internet and social web is so much a part of my life that it's sometimes difficult for me to articulate to people who aren't steeped in this culture on how to engage with people online. To me, it's like breathing. But this study unpacks a lot of issues on how to generate, foster and nurture conversations. It's a very useful skill, and it's something that I think that journalists resist because they don't see it as part of their jobs. This is a good read, and although it's focused on education, there are a lot of lessons about building participation and conversation online regardless of the application.
  • Kevin: My colleague Charles Arthur thinks out loud very effectively in this piece and comes to the conclusion that we 'need new wrappers for journalism'. I think that this goes to the heart of the matter that. The problem for the business of journalism right now is the unbundling of the commercial package that has supported print journalism for much of the last 150 years. Advertising-based revenue streams that support newspapers have been disrupted by digital competitors such as Craigslists, Monster.com and Google. The difficulty for newspapers is that new advertising providers are more efficient than aggregating eyeballs with content. Charles says: "To repeat: journalism is the process and publishing is the wrapper that you put around journalism in order to make it profitable and sustainable."
  • Kevin: The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has wasted no time in sending an open letter to the new culture minister with an ‘economic stimulus plan for local media’, which includes a "tax credit for individuals who buy quality media" and "A levy introduced on commercial operators who benefit from quality public service content – including local news – but do not contribute to its production". Laura Oliver asks how 'quality media' will be defined. That is one of the biggest issues for public support of journalism, outside of established public broadcasters, who decides who gets the money.

links for 2009-06-10

  • Kevin: Quick response (QR) bar code was originally created by Japanese company Denso-Wave to keep inventory. They are the square codes often seen on products, but as the post says, because they can store more data than the 10-digit bar code they are popping up in a number of interesting applications. Here are five interesting ones, including a Pet Shop Boys protest against an ID card scheme in the UK.
  • Kevin: Brady Forrest at O'Reilly goes through the impact on location-based services of the 2009 iPhone 3GS. Platial and Pelago have some tough thinking ahead about what their business model will be. But the iPhone 3GS open up some real opportunities in terms of augmented reality and real-time location updates. There are still some things that need doing. Safari has no access to the camera. Apps can only send data if they are open. Apps can't send data if they are in the background.
  • Kevin: It's another good guide on how journalists can use Twitter, but it's good and comprehensive, exactly what you'd expect on Mashable.
  • Kevin: Jeff Jarvis says that members of the union at the Boston Globe shouldn't have rejected the package of pay and benefit cuts that parent company New York Times is offering but rather reject the strategy they have put forward. Jeff says: "The Guild should have demanded a strategy that transforms the Globe into a smaller but profitable venture that concentrates only on news and serving the community and not on printing and distribution, jettisoning huge costs but coming out with a sustainable plan."

links for 2009-06-09

Hi. My name is Suw and I’m a social media expert

I’m getting increasingly fed up with a meme that’s been doing the rounds for the last several months, and I’m afraid this morning on Twitter I kinda snapped a bit. The idea that’s been spreading through the social media community is that no one in social media should ever call themselves an “expert”. There have been a number of blog posts and Twitter conversations about it, and although I can’t recall all of them (please leave links in the comments if you want), the one that pushed me over the edge was 6 Reasons You Shouldn’t Brand Yourself as a Social Media Expert by Dan Schawbel who is, I note, “the leading personal branding expert for Gen-Y”.

The big problem I have with this anti-expert meme is that it totally mischaracterises what it is to have expertise in the realm of social media. After five years of being a professional social media consultant, I can promise you that it takes a lot of hard work to really understand how social media functions in a business context – not just for marketing but for internal use too. It’s not just about understanding how the tools work, it’s about understanding the business context (doing gap analysis, for example), it’s about understanding how people work, both in relationship to the technology and each other (basic psychology and sociology), it’s about communication skills, management skills, analytical skills.

None of that is stuff that you can just pick up overnight. A super-user is not the same as an expert – it’s not about knowing how the tools work, how to make a new blog post or set up a new wiki. It’s a much more nuanced job and involves constant learning from sometimes unexpected sources. I never thought I’d end up talking to psychologists about email when I started as a consultant, but understanding why people are wedded to their inbox helps me to understand the problems I will face when trying to introduce them to a wiki. Being an expert in social media means that you are constantly pushing to understand the non-obvious, constantly questioning the assumptions and the so-called common sense explanations for why things happen the way they happen.

Frankly I feel that I and my peers all fit the definition of expert:

a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area

And we should be able to call ourselves experts without being censured by the community for doing so.

I think some of that censure comes from the idea that the internet is a truly democratic space where everyone is equal and to decide to elevate oneself by using the term ‘expert’ is somehow repellant. Well, I’m afraid the idea that the internet is a level playing field is bunkum. The history of the internet is shot through with elites and the people they look down upon (AOL, anyone?). Humans naturally create hierarchies, it’s part of being human. Hierarchies exist everywhere one looks, and they exist on the net too.

Whilst social media is a great democratising force, I fear people are confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. The important thing about the internet and about social media in particular is that everyone has an equal opportunity to use it, but the truth – unpalatable as it may seem – is that not everyone will use it equally as well. However you define success, whether it’s on a personal self-expression level or whether it’s on a professional earnings level, some people will be more successful than others. The outcomes are not, and can never be, equal.

Yet we’re not supposed to use the word ‘expert’, despite the fact that some people clearly are more expert than others. Why this squeamishness? Partly I think there’s a real hatred amongst social media types for the self-promotional excesses we see all about us on the web. We see people bigging themselves up and it makes us squirm in our seats. And we don’t want others to think that we are that egotistical, that far up ourselves. Instead we want the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from someone else’s praise of our work, those third-party accolades and testimonials.

I can understand that. I’m not particularly great at self-promotion. It makes me feel dirty and unhappy. But relying only on external validation for our work is unhealthy, not just for us and our own mental health, but also for our industry. By censuring anyone who says they are an expert, we imply that there are no leaders and that everyone is equal. That implication devalues everyone working in the area by bringing us down to the same common denominator, making us no better than the whippersnapper carpetbagger who’s been on Twitter six weeks and thinks they know it all.

It also seems to me that the desire to punish people for saying they are an expert may, in some quarters, come from our own insecurities about a profession that seems like it should be easy. “I don’t feel like an expert, so anyone else who says they are an expert has to be bullshitting.” I have some sympathy for this, given my own recurrent self-doubt, but it is wrong. Being a social media expert is not easy at all and anyone who is one knows that.

I can’t think of any other professional field where is is frowned up on to simply call oneself an expert. Indeed, in every other field I can think of, we actively seek out experts. If you have a bad problem with your drains, you call a drainage expert without even thinking about it. If you want to learn about the nuances of the Bard’s great works, you seek out an expert in Shakespeare. If your MacBook conks out, you take it to an Apple expert.

There’s nothing wrong with being an expert in these fields, so why is it wrong in social media?

In the Twitter conversation this morning, @BenjaminEllis said “@Suw It’s hard for the true experts when people with 6 months experience and no results to show for it call themselves experts too.”

That’s a fair point. We deal with false experts in other fields by assessing their claims about themselves in the light of the evidence we can gather about how well they perform. Recommendations, reviews, even our intuition as we talk to them about our problem, help us understand whether they are as good as they say they are. The same is true in social media. People, hopefully, don’t just judge a social media consultant based on what they say about themselves, but also delve into their past work and their reputation.

But we don’t help that process by denying people the right to call themselves experts. By doing that, we also deny ourselves the opportunity to tell stories about expertise that help people outside of our field understand what a genuine social media expert looks like. If I can’t talk about what I think makes me an expert in social media, how are we going to find out what other people think makes an expert? I can say that I think Leisa Reichelt is an expert in usability, and I can point to her work to illustrate my point, but Leisa knows better than I what it takes to be expert in usability. If we never have that conversation, I’m none the wiser about how to compare her expertise with other people’s. How can I tell if Mr X is as good as he says he is?

The number of people self-identifying as social media consultants has sky-rocketed in the last year or so, and we need to start having conversations about what makes an expert an expert. If we can’t talk about it, understand it, and communicate it, how on earth do we expect clients to make good decisions about who to hire? We all decry the carpetbaggers, but we can’t do that and decry the experts too! We have to let people say that they are experts and we have to talk about what that means and how to compare claims of expertise against evidence of expertise. We can’t go on pretending that we’re all equal, and that experts don’t exist (whatever reasoning you give for it), because we’re not and they do.

There’s more I could say, but I’m going to leave it at this for now:

My name is Suw and I’m a social media expert.