RemainComm

Did I Put the Twit In Twitter?

Monday evening I had the chance to attend an event at the UBS Forum at Minnesota Public Radio focusing on New Media, New Standards. It featured Dan Gilmore and was moderated by MPR’s Bob Collins. (It’s been a slammed kinda week so I hadn’t had a chance to post until now.) There were some great points made on the topics of ethics, standards, and credibility. Gilmore made some great observations and you can get a good feel of how the night went here.

What I found particularly fascinating was what was going on in the audience on all of the laptops that were open. Twitter was running rampant. Here I am with my handy notebook out ready to jot down a few notes and I think, “Hey, why not jump on the train to Twitterville and see what’s going on.” So, out comes the Macbook and I’m off and running courtesy of the fine folks at MPR and their foresight to have wireless access for guests.

As I said to some other folks, I’m still not sure what role I want Twitter to play in my life. Time is one thing I never have enough of and I have found that Twitter can be a big time sucker. Plus, I’m already pretty outspoken with a healthy supply of sarcasm and to have yet another channel for me to blab, especially in short bursts…well…perhaps I should step away from the keyboard.

In this case I thought it would be interesting to see the “tweets” fly in a room with a bunch of “new media” types gathered to discuss standards and credibility of citizen journalism. Here’s what I learned:

1. I find it difficult to listen to a discussion and write a comment at the same time. How the hell do kids text so much without missing a step? I was in no position to be a participant in the discussion in the room.
2. There are many brilliant thoughts being exchanged by people who seem to be more prone to write about them than verbally express them.
3. Sarcasm is really easy on Twitter.
4. Twittering away while a discussion is going on is like talking when someone else is…It’s kinda rude.
5. Twittering is like talking only it’s written down…forever…to be repeated… and reprinted.

In fact, in the day following the forum #5 overshadowed the topic of the event itself…and also bit me in the butt a might. As it turns out many in the crowd were less than satisfied with the energy level of the discussion or the interaction between audience and presenters and it was Twittered about. So what happened was rather than people talking on the way out about their dissatisfaction or commenting politely, “That wasn’t what I expected.” and then moving on, the tweets were right there for the entire world to see…warts and all, myself included, as noted in Bob’s blog.

As with so much these days, only negative stuff was reflected upon. There actually where some great points made in the tweetstream by many of those in the audience not “speaking up.” As I pointed out to Bob in my comment to his post, indicating I didn’t like the event was far from the truth. My “live” Twitter participation was worth the evening itself. The topic and some of the discussion throughout the forum was icing on the cake. 

In the end, the evening and its’ two conversations, online and in the room, was best summed up by one of the bloggers in attendance (and I apologize, I can’t locate who it was that said it) as the difference in two generations, further emphasizing the difference in the two mediums.

For me, there was another two lessons learned…

6. Remember, to those that don’t know you, what you write could define you. Needless to say, to some I, as Ricky Ricardo would say, “have got some ‘splaining’ to do” to avoid being pigeon-holed.
7. Finally, Twitter is more about quotable salvos lobbed into the ether. It's not a replacement for a conversation. I believe I’ll keep my notebook closed when a conversation is happening in actual life. If nothing else, it’s more polite.

So, did I put the twit in Twitter. I don't think so. This is what Twitter does, and it turns out it does it very well.

Life at GhandiCon One

I’m working on a presentation for a new business venture and came across this little bit of jargon…those of you have been in the new media/technology world have probably heard of this phrase…”GandhiCon”.

What is Ghandicon? According to this FAQS.org jargon file it relates to a quote from Mohandas Gandhi, describing the stages of establishment resistance to a winning strategy of nonviolent activism. First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.

The open source world has adopted it to describe what they see when they to get corporations and other large institutions to take new ways of doing things seriously. Together with the U.S. military’s degrees of war alert, known as DefCon, the levels of GhandiCon were born.

At GhandiCon One, you're being ignored.

At GhandiCon Two, opponents are laughing at you and dismissing the idea that you could ever be a threat.

At GhandiCon Three, they're fighting you on the merits and/or attempting to discredit you.

At GhandiCon Four, you're winning and they are arguing to save face or stave off complete collapse of their position.

There are so many places you can relate GhandiCon. Apply it to negotiating for anew car, finding a job, pitching a new idea at work, or launching you own blog or website. How about dating? I remember the years of therapy that came from GhandiCon Two…sheesh.   

No matter what you’re pursuing where this might apply remember that the satisfaction of being at GhandiCon Three and the sheer jubilation of GhandiCon Four are worth the trip

Now…Another Music-Free Commercial Sweep

This was always a running gag for us in music radio. The battle between art (us) and commerce (them) raged endlessly. The challenge of balancing the wants and needs of both of our customers, listeners who want more music and clients who want more ad space, was the topic of 95% of management disagreements.

This argument is one that rages on in all forms of advertiser supported media. I dare say it comes up in the halls at PBS or NPR as well…though in a much more civilized fashion (He says with tongue planted firmly in cheek.).

Just look at TV. There’s what, 20 minutes of “show” in a 30 minute program? And the newspaper, well just take a look at the before and after pictures of our local Sunday paper once the circulars are pulled out….

Then of course those subscription cards, fold outs, scratch and sniff, and regular ads in a magazine that will drive you nuts. There are even a growing number of ads at the start of a movie at the local Superplex 28 Cinema. How about the average website? Well ya know…most aren’t too bad thanks to hyperlinks, unless of course it’s the website of one of the other media outlets mentioned above.

For traditional media, what is the right amount of ad space? What is the deciding factor on how many spots you can air or ads you can cram on the page? The answer…it depends.

It depends on the content. How compelling is it? If it’s fantastic you can run more ads, if it sucks…well…don’t give me another excuse to bail. It also depends on choice. Caution: with so many choices of media, even the best content can be dwarfed by too many ads if some other outlet has good content and fewer ads. As the battle rages on between art vs. commerce be sure and note that it's a new, much smaller, world. There is more…allot more…choice.

So, what’s your content to ad ratio? Make sure you don’t make it too easy for your viewers, listeners, or users to choose someone else.

I Want Better Sound…and That’s Vinyl(?)

I mentioned in my New Media Resolutions post at the first of the year that I want to do whatever I can to improve the quality of audio on line and in downloadable media. I was reminded of that “cause” this past Sunday morning by the folks at, well, Sunday Morning. The CBS show presented a piece on how vinyl records are becoming “cutting edge.”

Just as I pointed out in January, the sound of what is being sent into the cloud needs to improve, if for no other reason than to avoid trying to figure out how to cram a “record” into your iPod. Seriously, for those that are my age, it’s unfair for us let those brought up on listening to audio in the mp3 format think that’s the best music can sound. For those that have never heard the sound of a vinyl LP you owe it to yourself to hear all of what the artist labored to put into the music, especially the parts the mp3 format has had to discard.

I know, I know, you’re going to say that the human ear can’t detect the difference between a vinyl album, a CD, MP3, WAV, etc. I’m sorry, I disagree. I hear a difference. And it’s especially noticeable in the MP3 format, the most popular format for portable devices and online streaming. The reason it is the most popular, if you didn’t already know, is that it is the smallest file size. An MP3 file is a fraction of the size of, say, a WAV file. File size is directly related to download time.

So what do we do about better sound quality on “the net?” First, don’t settle. If you can find a way to make that audio sound better then do it. Start with a Variable Bit Rate setting if you can. VBR allows the music to be compressed in places where the full audio spectrum will most likely not be missed, a fade in or out for example. Another option would be, with such advances in bandwidth and more and more access to higher speed connectivity, offer your audio in the WAV format. I’ll take a WAV over MP3 any day.

Whatever the case, I refuse to settle for what we now accept for high-quality audio. I don’t believe going back to vinyl is the answer. Memories of the cracks and pops of an over-played album and the need for the pennies on a tone-arm are enough to keep me away from climbing on that bandwagon.

If, as Eliot Van Buskirk of Wired commented, vinyl is the nail in the CD’s coffin in his article back in December, and is the best we can do then I would have to be very disappointed in technology. And, to date, I’m not.

Look I have great memories of opening that new album (I still distinctly remember taking the shrink wrap off that debut Boston album…sigh.), but beyond the romance of it all, I don’t want to go back. Hey, I liked the show Happy Days…it doesn’t mean I wanted to slick my hair back and do the stroll. Let’s move forward.

Have you got some tips? Let’s have em.   

Cramer on Radio

Many of my broadcast brethren, including one I highly respect, Harve Alan, have posted the video of Jim Cramer commenting on the business of radio this week on Wall Street Confidential on TheStreet.com. Many radio types bristle at the comments but don’t really say much more than that. And really, there may not be much more to say...but that's not gonna stop me.

From the opening introduction by host Farnoosh Torabi, including the words “Radio…maybe a dying medium” to Cramer’s defining, comment of “Radio is over as we know it.” Clearly, this is not a PR video from the NAB. However, it is completely true.

What Cramer says in this video is exactly what is going on.  Look, I’m not a financial whiz. I could tell you I know everything there is to know about “the street” but I would be lying through my teeth. I know I have a 401k and I know every time I’ve tried my hand at trading stocks I have wisely invested in companies that are no longer with us. I hope it wasn’t my fault. (I don’t need that kind of guilt.) But, I do know the truth when I hear it.

1. When you decide that all that matters is great cash flow, and cash flow starts to go down, then you don’t have anything.
2. Once XM and Sirius team up then there will be a uniform satellite service and will be in every car.
3. Cars are what radio is about. (At least for the last 30 years)
4. People who own radio talk a big game (Nothing wrong with that, gang. It’s show biz.)

And the big enchilada…

    5.  Radio is finished, as we know it!

Yep it is…JUST LIKE IT ALWAYS IS! Radio…as we know,is always finished; just like any medium that reflects its audience. That’s just fine. Radio must continue to reinvent itself. That’s what makes radio great!

The trouble is, going back to the cash flow truth; there is no money to re-invent. If you only have people and marketing to cut back, then you have no one to re-invent and no way to tell anyone about it.  (So I guess from a logical standpoint, if you don’t have anything new to say then save the money on saying it.)

So the truth is, let radio…as we know it, be finished but look ahead to what it is now and where it will be next. It might be more difficult than it has ever been, but radio must look at ways to exist and differentiate itself in a world crowded with even more listener choice.

Many of those choices wouldn’t be around if it weren’t for radio. Perhaps radio can learn from the choices it helped to create. 

When Should You Be Social?

I want to share something that happened at a recent board meeting for an organization I have participated in for years. We’re a “working board” meaning the organization doesn’t have much dough to pay a huge staff. The two we do pay are exceptional but we still need to put on a conference every year and there is a lot to be done.

During the course of our rather long meeting we started talking about our plans for a new website. One of our members suggested we start a social network in conjunction with our new site roll out. Well, the little voice inside my head started screaming…I hate when that happens. You know I’m a big fan of everything online and Web 2.0 but we were getting close to jumping into something for the sake of it doing the “cool thing”.

There are many social network resources out there from Ning to Onesite. You could also set up a profile on Facebook or Myspace for your group or organization. Needless to say it's fairly easy to set up, the question is; will it work and will it be worth your time? Will it be social or will it be just one more thing someone might sign up for…a glorified database?

With some help from Brett Bonfield at Idealware and this post at Techsoup along with some common sense here are some signs that social networks aren’t for you.

1. You're still trying to get a handle on your basic software infrastructure. There are plenty of “new media” tools to use to make your organization better and your communication with your audience easier. Social networking should not be the first to use.
2. Your target audiences aren't using social networking tools. This relates to knowing your audience. Social networks tend to work best for younger users. There is a new definition of what privacy is among the younger demographic and they are more prone to actually use these tools. So to simplify…hunt where the ducks are.
3. You don't have time to experiment with something that might not work. No matter what you think or have heard, social networks don’t run themselves. You’ll need someone to oversee and maintain the site.
4. You're not ready to invest in gaining a real understanding of the medium. Making social networks effective means you need to understand the culture and communities you’re joining or serving.
   
5. You want clear editorial control over your brand and message. Social networks are not all about your message. You may find yourself trying to understand why the users don’t look at your brand the way you want it to be looked at. You can’t set up rules regarding that message and expect users to follow them. You’ll need to be able to let the users have their own voice…positive or negative.
6. Mission and Purpose. Whether it's organizational or personal, does using a social network further your mission?

In our case, we decided to put the idea on hold until we overcome some other technical and organizational items. I’m confident that when we do enter into the world of social networking we’ll do it right and take advantage of the opportunities it offers.

More on those opportunities next week.