Quantcast

May 3, 2007


The media landscape is changing…

Filed under: social media, Internet, Technology, new media — erik @ 8:10 pm

If anyone doubted that the media landscape is drastically changing and that we will see new outlets should definitely take a look at the article in todays Guardian - We all helped to speed the demise of professional photographers. I don’t fully agree with the title of the article as the future media scene will be a symbiosis between what we not call traditional media and specialized user contributed media sites.

Clearly Web 2.0 is not sufficient and we need to create more intelligence in the business logic of the future online media sites to take advantage of the power of the loose publishing model of social media and counteract the problems with it. Also the future media is facing issues both on the business model side as well as the legal side too. I prefer to start to explain by brushing up everyone on the true intention of the web and one of my favorite quotes from Tim Berner-Lee explaining his ideas behind the web:

“Suppose all the information stored on computers everywhere were linked… Suppose I could program my computer to create a space in which anything could be linked to anything…”

I do believe that this idea is lost to many times in the current debate on the web and the future of the web. I have written about this issue before – In the Wake of the Birth of the Web and The Social Web also known as Web 2.0.

The underlying idea of the web directly implies that philosophically it should be perfectly fine linking to other sites, thereby directly or indirectly giving them the credit for the content. If you are not storing their content, I will have a very hard time understanding why that would mean infringement of copyright. If that is copyright infringement then isn’t just telling it to my friends about the content also be copyright infringement? I know I am totally over exaggerating and the examples are not really compatible as the nature of broadcasting in the two different cases is very different. However online it is sometimes very hard to tell the two cases apart. I do believe we instead should try to adapt to the situation and find new ways to deal with copyrighted material and in particular how to make sure that the creators get credit and money for it. I do believe by letting them be part of the creation they will help us find a solution which will satisfy all parties. I would like to emphasize that I do not in any way – directly or indirectly - encourage copyright infringement and you should always respect copyrighted material.

The previous and ongoing disputes with Google News will also shed some light on the problem with linking to sites and how you can do that. From the case in Belgium, it is clear so far that you are allowed to link to the sites and even store a small snippet, but not store the full article. If someone disputes even that, we might as well start to think about banning search engines as they then also would be illegal - they link to sites and store a short snippet for each link. It opens up for a very interesting discussion which basically means no one can do anything with any content of the web if you do not ask them. To me, the whole thought behind the web is then completely lost and I certainly don’t believe that is the right way to go.

As for the business model, I do believe the outcome of the case between YouTube and Viacom will give guidance to the IT industry on how to treat the copyright issues online in a monetized environment (especially how to judge when a video clip becomes a copyright infringement and when it is not). The future advertising is definitely moving towards online video or IPTV (pick your flavor) so the case is highly relevant and timely. (The outcome will probably also impact the other available distribution channels too though.) The industry is in definite need of some guidance to handle these issues when you have advertising as a business model and it is still very much an unknown territory. What does the law really mean as for which solution is the right one? No, it is not very clear today.

My intention with this blog is to emphasize that the media scene is changing and will continue to change if yet only faster. Unfortunately the business models as well as the legal models have not evolved to match the development. The entrants, who best understand how to take advantage of all the different available distribution channels - offline, online, broadcast – the evolution of the media as well as the flatness of the world, will become huge hits. I have a bet on which site will be that, but that is a later question.



April 9, 2007


The Stickiness and the Viral Nature

Filed under: Social communities, social media, Internet — erik @ 8:55 pm

I have of various reasons had a lot of discussions lately on viral marketing and stickiness. It is interesting to look around on the web these days and you find numerous examples of sites claiming to be viral and using these techniques to build their communities. Very few seem to have thought it through though.

I think viral marketing is conceptually simple yet it requires some fingertip feeling to do it successfully. It is something we all can relate to, something that is personal and something very intuitive and thus you just want to and can share it instantaneously with your friends. It sticks to your mind like glue to your finger. You just remember it without taking notes. You might forget a few details but the concept is never lost. The best examples are urban legends. We have all heard about the lady who tried the dry the cat in the microwave. I haven’t met a single person who doesn’t instantly start to discuss it. In music it is these annoying phrases and melodies, which just doesn’t go away (even though you sometimes want them to).

Anyhow, I sometime ago spoke to one of the professors at Stanford on another matter. We were talking about water issues on the border between Mexico and USA. He said that one of the main problems they faced when solving the issue was to explain the abstract law. The moment they started to explain the situation in personal stories they reached success. He explains the concept as embodying thoughts, giving the story legs. The impersonal abstract thoughts transformed into something simple, relatable and credible. It was not big, difficult words anymore. I got another example in a speech by another Stanford professor on environmental stability; he used an analogy to explain child mortality in Africa. It all came down to, maybe not that surprising, the availability of water. Sounds simple right? He put it like this to exemplify the complexity of the problem: “How would you prioritize 4 liters of water per day? You need it to cook and you need to drink it. Would you prioritize your personal hygiene? If so, what would you choose?” The effect got bigger as he took four of our water bottles and put them in front of him. Instantaneously, everyone realized the problem and the issues faced.

Viral marketing is about the same. You package your message to something everyone can relate to and the word will spread. A pretty package is not necessary. It is the message which should stick, not the presentation of the message even though it might help. I did my own little viral marketing example last summer during the last conflict in Lebanon. I sent out an email, to be honest not very polished, that I wanted people to start sharing their stories via cell phones to a blog I have set up. It took only 1.5 days before I got the first reports from Haifa and Beirut and the readership grew beyond my wildest expectations. The email was sticky as we all could relate to the message in it. It was simple. “Please tell people in Lebanon and Israel that they can tell their stories to this blog simply by sending one SMS or MMS.” I haven’t met anyone who hasn’t wanted to hear what the people felt and experienced there or anywhere else in the world where conflicts are or closeness in the society rules. There is the need for the emotional element of the messages, but also further exemplifies the need of simplicity.

A Stanford Graduate School of Business Professor Chip Heath talks about branding stickiness in his book “Made to Stick” and he concludes the key attributes (my comments after the dash) to be:

  • Simplicity – simple messages are more easily remembered than abstract equations if anyone doubted that.
  • Unexpectedness – who doesn’t remember the first Matrix-trailer? Who didn’t just want to see the movie just to get that answer: What is the Matrix?
  • Credibility – If the message is not credible, why would anyone pass it on? Please do remember that it is the current credibility that matters.
  • Emotions – We are emotional creatures and want to see especially emotional or even controversial material regardless if we agree or disagree. Even if you hate the reality show, you will watch it, just so that you can tell everyone else why it is so bad.
  • Stories – messages gets passed on by people to people everywhere. You just don’t have the time to tell an introduction, method, results, conclusion and discussion over a beer or a coffee. Your friends will most likely go to sleep or start to play with their cellphone and there goes that evening.

This has very high relevance for building online and real communities, viral brand building and social media. Community building is easier online as the sharing of information is much faster. (Of course there are cases where you have communities supported by real communities, or vice versa.) Why is stickiness the central component of any social media site? It really is pretty simple. Communities are about people, and then I am not talking about the creators. My good friend Tom Calthrop once said to me when we started to discussed the permission system inside AroundMe: “Erik, social communities is about what your members want, not what you want”. I do think it is one of the main wisdoms of the online media of today, but very often forgotten. The community will tell where you want to go and especially social media sites such as MySpace, YouTube but let us not forget the very often forgotten amazing social media channel email has been formed by the users. It also opens up for viral marketing.

Communities are about people. People easily relate to other people. Moreover the ones who can convince you the best are your friends and family. Why not use them to market your site or help you build your community? (It is very much like recursion in computer science yet simpler. You only need to worry about the first step, then pass it on!) Now we come to a piece that is very central in viral marketing and why the simple and relatable message is so important.

Let us step back and think of a well-known psychology phenomena.

Many have done the experiment of the 10 people chain where the first person tells a story to the second, the second to the third and so forth. Most of the times, the story the 10th person hears has very little to do with the first person story. Why? We usually don’t put so much care into telling stories to be passed on to multiple people, and thus it seldom is simple and contains too many details. The key is to tell the story where the listener relates to the story regardless of who that is, the persons background or education.

Even if you know how your friends and family will be convinced, you need to make sure that the message sticks well-enough for them to be able to pass it on where the important pieces are there. A good friend of mine told me recently: “Stick to one message, not several. Erik, you can handle many messages, most people cannot.” So true.

So how do you do this?

What I have realized lately is something very simple. You as a viral marketer must know your business or objective that well that your misconceptions and uncertainties are not passed on to the rest of the chain. Misconceptions and uncertainties propagate, just like the errors in numerical solutions of equations. If you have misconceptions or uncertainties make sure that your message doesn’t contain even pieces of them or almost worse will change when you get the answer to them. The later is the main challenge, but the successful sites on the web have all these elements. Look at Google who basically said “Here you can search” and their UI was matching the message. I can still remember when I got the link to Google over ICQ then from a friend. (The same friend convinced me that MSN messenger was better. More viral marketing.) When I got to the site it was impossible not to realize what to do. I do still doubt this was an intentional UI. I think it is more an artifact of the fact that Google was more focused on the backend rather than the front end simply based on the fact that they developed algorithms for the ranking of pages. A textbox and a button with search was the only thing needed to as fast as possible get to the list of search entries. Looking back, it is a brilliant UI yet not planned as far as I believe.

It brings up to another attribute of the message. It needs to be consistent with the rest of your organization, the content of your website, the behavior of your staff, your user interface, your technology solution and so forth. Don’t tell the user something you are not as you will not keep misguided users, and even worse from a business perspective. They are very less likely to come back again. If you tell the users you are something you better be that to. The ultimate example of successful viral marketing YouTube basically said: “Hey guys, here you can upload videos…” again with a matching, simple UI. They never told you which videos to upload, just videos and that is the brilliant move. They could adapt to their users whatever they chose to and the success is then history. They also listened to the users as they enabled sharing via email and related videos, which really created their explosive growth. What I am missing in the attributes for sticky messages by Professor Chip Heath is the consistency of both your brand and message. It can be claimed to be covered by the credibility, but I do think it is a separate attribute.

You can say that all messages you send out from your organization must be packaged exactly as your viral marketing message. We all are aware the key in branding is the consistency in your interaction with your users, or else your users get confused. Viral branding is about letting you users build your brand. If you are uncareful when you specify your “viral message”, they might build a brand you didn’t intend. The main problem with viral marketing is that you cannot really prove success nor check if your message sticks before you try it out.

Viral marketing is the future yet it is completely different from regular marketing. The success rate is much higher than normal marketing if done correctly though.



February 2, 2007


The Passion

Filed under: social media, Internet, new media — erik @ 6:49 am

I have gotten a lot of questions lately on my passion.

There are stories out there which deserve to get heard and moreover understood. These voices are all around the globe. Constantly present. These voices regardless of where they are from and in whatever form get lost in the incredible information noise of this modern world. If they despite this incredible noise make it, the context is usually lost or become too distorted in it’s delivered package to really make sense. These voices should get heard in the right context, so that people around the world can listen and understand them. This is the key: Most people don’t listen to the voices because they cannot interpret them. It is about simple communication and connection between people, or in more direct words, a way to create human respect between people.

These personal stories and accounts give perspectives on events around us. You see the context in which the events happen in, and see the relations between the stories and even between the events. The frustration among people in war zones is tremendous. People are tired of the fighting and the wars, especially in the Middle East. The attention the blog I put up during the conflict in Lebanon for people to share their experiences clearly points this out. People don’t feel they have a mean to tell their side of the story. The result is boiling pot of emotions, frustration, and desperation for ways to tell their side of the story. When you have seen your mother, brothers and sisters die in a carbomb or smart bomb, seen the enemy soldiers rape your mother and sister, the rational decisions seem very far away. The anger, frustration and helplessness are overwhelming to anyone, and can easily be directed in the wrong direction. I do not and will never accept violence and terror, yet the root of the problem can and must be understood. This is not a political statement. It is a human statement of freedom of speech and openness about opinions. You could even claim it as a human right of freedom of choice.

It is not about reading one story, getting the comfortable perspective on things. For sure it is easier that way. It is about listening to people, understanding the context of their experiences, seeing the real context of events around you if you so choose. Feeling their emotions, getting the colors of the story. Getting the true citizen media, the true user stories. Real people telling their unedited experiences. Most people however need help to see and grasp the context and it needs to be packaged so that it easy and quick to digest but they also need to feel part of that process regardless whether they are consumers or contributors.

The absolute right or wrong about any event doesn’t exist. It is easier and more comfortable looking at the world in black and white, and being in a mode of on or off. Seeing the real context is something necessary and essential for our future. That is why you will need user contributed media, and that is why I am passionate about inthefieldONLINE.net where we provide tools today and continue to further develop the concept and create the proper framework for it.

To provide make this seamless and easy for consumers as well as contributors you will need advanced technology. Yet technology is secondary (even though necessary for scalability) and secondary it will be for a long time. It is all about giving people a vehicle to tell their stories in the right context. Technology is the tool and framework, nothing else.

Necessary, yes. The driving force, certainly not.

… and now for the skeptics. Please explain me this to me. Why is there an enormous difference between feeling the closeness of another person and watching that same person on video? What will it take to change that? A lot right?

Let us put the human aspect of technology into the business again. It will be so much more fun.

Most of all: This is the path to the true citizen media.



October 12, 2006


Some notes on Google

Filed under: social media, Internet — erik @ 4:47 pm

Just after the deal between Google and YouTube I wrote a short entry on why noone is discussing Google:s very impressive strategy to become the number one player on the whole internet market. It really surprises me is that the same people who blamed Microsoft now seemed completely blinded by the “vision” of Google. Wasn’t this exactly the same scenario Microsoft had to face when they had the same positioning on the PC market? Interesting enough I today read another entry on the same subject which you find here.

Considering Google:s strategy, I think their mission statement soon can be changed to “Google’s mission is to organize, own, and use in whatever way Google see fit the world’s information and make it universally accessible, useful and in as profitable way as possible.” Okay I put this intentionally on the extreme side. However Google has now grown up from this young fresh teenager rebel and now found out they want their own house, and they want it big, they want it all. They seem not to realize that however.

The word ‘own’ is here very interesting as they tend to disrespect copyrights if it doesn’t fit into their strategy. Their moves give a sense that they would like to put all intellectual property right issues as “Google concludes that the copyrights legislation should be interpreted as…” It gives a sense of arrogance which I don’t really see fit nor can understand. From a business perspective, I can understand it. Otherwise it just feels as they are behaving like an obnoxious teenager. Maybe they should listen to the Nobel Prize winner in Peace from the Supreme Court of Iran, who said something like: “You should obey the laws as long as they are there. You can question them and participate in the process to change them, but you should obey them. It is one of the prerequisites of democracy.”

Copyright issues are hard and delicate, but we still should discuss them in a democratic way!

Personally I don’t want company to make legislation decisions as they certainly shouldn’t. I think Google is pushing it in some aspects. For instance their decisions about China really don’t help them.

Doesn’t that feel and look like the same behavior everyone accused Microsoft about before? I definitely think so. Are they evil? Definitely not. They are as evil as Microsoft were or seemed like before they hired Rob Scoble. They are not angels, nor were Microsoft. On the other hand neither Google nor Microsoft is purely evil. Anyone who has thought so is just fooling themselves. In a way I think Google have too much money, too much success. Google has had a party for so long now that I think they have forgotten where they came from. They have lost touch with reality. They will stay big, but they need to realize that they are a big, huge company as so should everyone else.

I think the most important part is really that more people realize that they are a huge company and acting as such. They are not the cool little startup anymore. They are a huge player at the arena. Maybe they are starting to get too big…



October 10, 2006


Ethics of bloggers

Filed under: social media, Press, new media — erik @ 5:54 pm

Nicholas Carr is writing about the ethics of blogging in a way I haven’t thought of that much before. I think his post is excellent, and brings up some issues which need to be discussed in the blogosphere. I have for a long time been firm on stating that we need “some” structure and praxis in the blogosphere, and I have discussed similar issues when talking about The Future of the New Improved Media.

The post at RoughType you will find here:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/10/a_glass_house.php



« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress
© 2005 Erik Sundelöf