The Working Network

It is interesting how things are evolving. We all have many social networks. In the physical world, we readily flip between, or otherwise manage them.

In the physical world, it seems clear we maintain this separation as well as we do because we've had plenty of evolutionary time to work out the procedures -- so much so that they are, for the most part, unconscious. We are aided by physical separation, which is also necessarily integral to the strategies. In the online world, where time and space can, among other things, overlap, the strategies we have for managing our social networks don't apply. In the end, this will call for a re-visioning of the interaction venues, among other things.

In the meantime, to fill in the gap, a number of enterprising startups have appeared. Check out Tumblr and 8hands. I believe they're both addressing the same problem, but from different angles. I can't decide if they're stopgaps, or a permanent part of the new social landscape.

... weak give up and stay. It pains me to quote Hall & Oates  (really) but it seems they're onto something -- something I need to take to heart.

Why quitting may be good for you.

As we put together the community technology team's development agenda last year, it became clear to anyone actually listening, that the new online social would bring with it the need to evaluate standard marketing and brand management practices.

One question we often heard was, "can I use this to market to my customers". The answer was that online social networks (or social graphs, if you prefer -- Scoble's distinction aside) are changing the game, adding new tools, creating new opportunities, and so on. We'd often point out that central to the new game is the idea that you are -- or can be -- a participant in the conversation.

We thought this was exciting -- still do. Not everyone shares the feeling. For many, marketing is a set of activities orchestrated from behind the curtain against a target population -- it's white jacket clinical, safely creative, and anonymous.

I may be a little jaded, but I think this is the crux of the problem (from Josh Lovinson's blog):

Perhaps the one area where there is actually consensus among conversational marketing practitioners is the rule that marketers must first evaluate how they can add value to individual or communities before beginning a campaign.

Phrasing a list of value propositions is not the same as adding value in a conversation. The difference is related to broadcasting (or more kindly, informing) versus listening, responding, and contributing. I don't read Micro Persuasion because it tastes great and is less filling (or because I heard somewhere it included informed opinions, reviews, and insights into current and evolving trends). I read it because of those opinions. Someone might point out that Micro Persuasion is the product, and that due to the nature of the medium, it is it's own marketing vehicle. I would mostly agree. And that is why some traditional marketers are getting concerned.

To be clear, I'm in no way suggesting any sort of demise of the marketing profession -- far from it. Now is an exciting time to be in marketing. New tools, new attitudes, and an accelerating rate of change in both. What's not to like?

Here's a good post reviewing a recent conversational marketing conference. I'm sorry to report that I didn't get a chance to attend. But, many of the sessions were recorded and can be viewed here. Good stuff.

Stephen Downes on Learning 2.0

I've been working the learning problem lately. Stephen has been on it for a while. In this presentation he introduces a number of valuable ideas. It's an adjunct to my recent focus on support. I keep them apart in conversation, but the fact is, they're very much related. Is there anyone that would doubt the fact that solving a support issue involves learning?

BTW, I found this through Alex's blog. Here's a curve ball for ya. Collaborative filtering is a bit like fly fishing for me -- when I actually catch a fish with a bit of feather a laugh erupts from me that I can't suppress. It's like I just can't believe it actually works. When I go through my RSS feeds, and find gems like this, the same thing happens. It's amazing.

Picked up a fascinating map through my UC Berkeley Arts 23 course (Foundations of American Cyberculture):

Here's the site that created it. Thanks Chris Harrison. No, the world isn't flat at all is it?

How did I miss this? Some of these podcasts of university courses have been going on for over a year. I hate it anytime I find myself under a rock.

http://www.oculture.com/2006/10/university_podc.html

Got to expand my social network to include this "idea space".

I pointed to the UC Berkeley course schedule of classes that Berkeley is podcasting/webcasting a couple of weeks ago. At this point, I've made my course selections and have begun to survey, among others, the Astro C10 / LS C70U Introduction to General Astronomy.

This is just too good.

The possibilities are mind bending. Not to mention the (personally important) fact that creative acts can be related to the superimposition of what Ogle calls "idea spaces", these courses are exceptional raw material. Check this book out:

Then there are the business opportunities:

• Distance learning extensions leveraging existing resources
• The increased value proposition to students enrolled traditionally
• The marketing value of exposing the best professors to a broader audience
• Third party certification of students using UC Berkeley content (copywrite issues certainly, but enforceable globally?)
• And more

When I watch this stuff at home (the webcasts from home, the podcasts I listen to in the car), I'm constantly using my other monitor to search for material that relates to and augments the course material. I then tag it using the course number (currently I mark them as private, but I may change that habit -- I'm not sure why it got started). I'd love to share tags with other students. 

Here's a strange one: I'm getting to know the names of some of the students. I'm wondering how their grades are going to turn out. I'm rooting for them.

As the trend this represents spreads (and I do hope it does), innovation will skyrocket. It's such a shame companies have no clue how to manage and reward creative individuals and teams. Yes there are the structural and corporate cultural limitations at play, but still. So much will be wasted.

Hmmm. WebOS? I think I'm buying it. Definitely a development to keep an eye on. 

ReadWriteWeb provides a good review of Jooce. I've signed up for the beta. I can hardly wait...

My experience with Facebook has been great. I'm somehow engaged with Facebook nearly every day -- sometimes multiple times a day.

Of course I'm there not only as a participant, but as an analyst. That changes the experience. Think of it this way -- if you read several books on the subject of writing books, then your book reading experience changes. You no longer merely enjoy the story, you find yourself following the techniques the author has employed to impart life to the characters, develop the plot, maintain through-line, manage tension, build a believable world, and more.

So, as a social computing person, I find much to study in Facebook. Consider this: Facebook, through the use of shared applications, allows friend networks to define their own fluid experience/identity. Put another way, affiliations are defined not only by friend status and group memberships, but by the applications people share. Facebook apps are introduced by any member, then compete in what I suspect could be drawn as a classic fitness landscape. Usage equals survival.

I believe "ownership" of the apps in play at any time, across an affiliated network of friends, is a key ingredient contributing to the stickiness of the experience. That leads to the following social computing design principle: users own the experience. Give them building blocks, not finished experiences.

Of course, many of these general purpose social apps give users control over their UI. Interestingly, Facebook doesn't do as much of that (wall, superwall, html widget, and some other examples, aside) -- certainly not like MySpace (or Piczo, which I think has a great UI for simple customization). With Facebook, identity is defined through a balance of expression and affiliation -- affiliation beyond "see my many friends".

Imagination exercise: consider the tier-three design model I proposed earlier (as an essential reframing -- broadening -- of the social computing phenomenon). Next, superimpose clouds of shared social apps on top of and relating the connected people icons -- indistinct edges and all. You might start by imagining one app at a time. Now maybe you're seeing what I'm seeing. Don't let that worry you, it's not permanent. You'll feel fine in the morning.

What I find curious is that they haven't attempted to reinforce the shared spaces visually. Wouldn't it be interesting to experiment with ways of adding, to the individual's UI (opt in, of course, and with tools to customize), attributes that depict the affiliations in play?