RemainComm

Word of Mouth 2.0

In an article published in the New York Times there is evidence that, despite what your father or grandfather mumbles (from under his hat while his turn signal continues to blink…for miles), young people do give a crap! They just go about it differently.

The internet and all of its social elements have driven those under 30 to sources other than TV, radio, or newspapers for that in-depth information. I’ll leave it to you to decide if their version of “in-depth” is good or bad. 

The focus of the piece was on politics but it underscores the overall trend towards “…replacing the professional filter — reading The Washington Post, clicking on CNN.com — with a social one.” when it comes to news and current events. More specifically, “According to interviews and recent surveys, younger voters tend to not just be consumers of news and current events but conduits as well — sending out e-mailed links and videos to friends and their social networks. And in turn, they rely on friends and online connections for news to come to them.”

This point was echoed at a recent media forum I attended that pointed to the trend of going straight to the source, bypassing the context and analysis that journalists provide.

This is the part that needs a bit of attention. As with any word of mouth activity, there is always the chance of the correct information becoming distorted or deleted as it travels. Remember the old telephone game where you would whisper a phrase to someone next you and they would in turn do the same to the person next to them and by the time it got to the last person in the line it would make no sense. (We would laugh and laugh…ah…good times.)

For better or worse, journalists, commentators, editors, etc. do serve as the gatekeepers of the information. We have come to count on them. That’s not to say that these gatekeepers always use the best judgment in getting info to the masses. We liberals point to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh while conservatives point to…well…everybody else in media.

With out any kind of oversight, will the news and information be correct? Is word of mouth always the best way to get that information? Is this good or bad? The statement from an Intelligence Group focus study subject saying, “If the news is that important, it will find me.” is, you have to admit, just a bit troubling, if for no other reason than incredibly  myopic.   

The debate will continue (and be the basis of many more forums) but, as it does, Word of Mouth 2.0 is happening. People younger than I are looking to their peers for information. And I kind of like it. If nothing else, it’s healthy and it’s good for “traditional” communicators and media. The crowd is getting the chance to have much more input and it makes those that thrive on the “one to many” paradigm to rethink it.

Just be sure the facts are correct before you send the message to the next recipient….and tell your grandpa to shut off his turn signal.

Covering Minnesota Innovation…Minnov8.

As I alluded to in a previous post I’m privileged to be joining some other tech and interactive folks in launching a new website dedicated to covering innovation here in our home state.

Dubbed Minnov8, we’ll be reporting and/or commenting on technology innovations including websites, applications, software, gadgets and technology initiatives here in the State of Minnesota.

As our chief visionary, Steve Borsch noted in his blog Connecting the Dots, “Minnov8 began as an idea in late 2007 when several Minnesota geeks realized that we shared a passion and a realization that we were living in a time of the greatest shift in communication and connection — affecting both humans and machines — than we were ever going to experience again in our lifetimes.”

One of our other band of merry geeks…er…technology enthusiasts, Graeme Thickins pointed out at Tech~Surf~Blog, “The community needs a forum like this, we're convinced, and it was time to let 'er rip. We all really believe strongly in our community.”

I look forward to contributing as much as possible to Minnov8 with an eye toward what all of this innovation really means to the average person. How are companies using tech? How are users reacting to it? How is it making our life easier or better? If we as contributors can point you in the direction of something that can make a positive impact then, at the very least, I will rest easy in the notion that we made it just a bit easier to uncover it.

So check out Minnov8 and by all means let all of us know what you think.

Time to Launch A New Site (Or “Hey, we’ve got a URL, let’s put on a show!”)

I’ve added to my list of “things I do everyday that most people do for a living but I make no money on”. Much to my wife’s chagrin I have joined with some other new media geeks and am contributing content to a site dedicated to innovation in our home state of Minnesota. (More in another post that is much less sarcastic.) And, adding to her look of “What the *#@ are you doing?” I’m about to return a call from a fellow Dad about launching a site for our son’s swim team.

What can I say I love this stuff! Basically, why on earth would a guy who loves communication not take advantage of every opportunity to participate in it? Okay, there’s that time thing.

A few key things I learned in the last 24 hours…

Keep it simple…stupid. (Also known as KISS.)

Set expectations. You mean I’m not going to change the world?

Do something you love...but don’t forget to let out the dog.

Use the Web, Luke! (Best said in your James Earl Jones voice.) I found a great post by Leo Babauta on Freelance Switch highlighting 8 tools to help you manage your time.

Take heed and be productive. Now about that making money thing…

Chris Anderson on Charlie Rose...More please.

I caught a great interview with Wired editor in chief and author of The Long Tail as well as the eventually to be published Free, Chris Anderson on Charlie Rose. You can take a peek at it below.

Chris has some great observations regarding the business of Free, the Long Tail, open source, some insights on the Microsoft/Yahoo deal, and (listen up my radio buddies) he gave props to broadcast media, referring to the internet and "the triumph of the media model". I also was intrigued with his take on the difference between Google and Yahoo! He did mention a bit about production quality not being as important to a hyper-targeted group...something I take a bit of issue with.

All in all...good stuff. What would have made it great? Simple, more time. If the last topic got off the ground. Check the last two minutes...Rose: "Are we going to continue to lead in the internet age?" Anderson: "Everything I believe is written on the back of the iPhone. 'Designed in California. Made in China." His contention that the USA's place in the world is that we design it and they make it.

Now right or wrong (which Rose thought he was), agree or disagree (and Rose did) this is where the interview could have really taken off. Conflict baby, that is what makes the conversation really interesting. I personally couldn't think of better people to watch disagree than these two. Unlike the shoutfests I see, and did see this very day on CNN about the Spitzer case, I'm quite confident that it would have been a great debate (and probably was once the cameras were off). 

Why is this? Why did something that had such great potential for making this encounter reach beyond a good interview into the realm of great...stop? Beats me. I don't think there is anything afoot here, no issues, no conspiracy. It just did.

My point is that a friendly lively discussion is just fine but what creates emotion, creates entertainment, creates something memorable that we'll all talk about tomorrow is usually a bit of conflict. Ain't nothing wrong with it.What makes it even better is when those embroiled in the conflict can shake hands and part as friends without raising voices or leaping from their seats once the discussion is done.

NPR Is Radio Too

This morning my friend Steve Borsch from Connecting the Dots sent me a link to a post by Jeff Jarvis over at Buzz Machine. It is regarding CEO Ken Stern being forced out at NPR (not my words, theirs). It appears to many, though not the “official” reason, that his push to move NPR further into the world of program distribution via new and emerging media had ruffled too many affiliate feathers.

My reaction… you seem surprised? I don't know Ken Stern from Adam and have no idea if his internet strategy had anything to do with his termination. However, I do know that many in radio believe online is the enemy. You've heard me rant that this has been going on in commercial radio for years.

We can talk forever about how NPR is "different", how they are most concerned with the quality of what the listener hears. Clearly, to a great extent that's true. But after all the puffery, high-mindedness, and the hob-nobbing with the hoi polloi (perceived or real), for the local affiliate NPR’s focus is to help them get people to listen to their stations.

You bet NPR has made great strides in distribution, but if all of the public radio listeners, especially the younger ones...with money, head to the internet for their news, information, book chat, and Bach (a bit snarky, I know) then Hooterville Public Radio has a stick (antenna) that they have invested in that suddenly becomes worth a whole lot less. Number of listeners and revenue derived from them is what stick value is all about.

In most of my conversations with those in public radio, the honest ones anyway, they have been quite frank that even there, the bottom line is...well…the bottom line, the same for all radio. Look you can’t pay the bills without revenue, I don’t care who you are. 

The opportunity for radio is still a big one. People, currently the vast majority, still turn on the radio. But every day  as technology evolves they are given more and more ways to get the same or better content. Yes, there is opportunity for the medium to try and build a strategy and revenue around the new distribution channels but the real opportunity is to provide great content for those channels to keep people tuning in. Gone are the days of counting on revenue because it’s the only place to get content. Now it’s about where to get the best content.

Broadcast is freaked out because the big money is on the distribution channel not on the content in it. Content is where they save money through quantities of scale. That's why NPR exists, that's why affiliates like Hooterville Public Radio need them and that's why many fear change.

It is clear that NPR, at least under Mr. Stern, is aware of the need and is trying to change the paradigm. The affiliates may or may not have the same vision, but they most certainly don't have the same money to dedicate to exclusive content.

If Ken Stern was shown the door for his internet/new media strategy that's a shame...but it wouldn't be a surprise...at least to me. 

Futuretainment or…Presentainment?

I caught a great post by O’Reilly’s Robert Kaye the other day. Robert’s coverage of ETech in San Francisco included a rundown of Mike Walsh’s Futuretainment: The Asian Media Revolution presentation. Here are some highlights on the topic of how the young people in Asia consume media compared to the good ol’ US of A…

Because many of the kids were born in the post Mao era, they have no idea what media was like as it evolved in the US and Western Europe. (CD’s? Never heard of ‘em.) Mike points out that most Asian’s use the internet for their main source of entertainment and they get most of that on their cell phones, not at the desktop. They have no problem creating multiple identities online, are more “group” focused yet seek to find a higher status for themselves in those groups on line.

Here’s something that we all have seen in movies but probably never really grasped…”Asian cultures blend low tech solutions with hi tech solutions seamlessly. For instance, while nearly everyone has a mobile phone in their pocket, bamboo is still used to build scaffolding for buildings.” Wow!

What all this increased “density of information” has lead to is Asians being able to grasp many more pieces of information at once and the culture actually cranking out so much more content. This is fascinating stuff.

As I consider all of this I’m struck by the word “futuretainment.” It’s quite easy to point to all of this and say this is the future of media in the US. To some degree, I believe that to be true. But, I’m not sure our culture will evolve the same way. Consider the circumstances for this “revolution” in Asia, specifically China. Here are a people who for years were cutoff from the advances (a very subjective term) that we experienced. It’s like the lid being lifted off a barrel in the rain. Suddenly all of this history, these advances, and this growth just start pouring in on a people that were familiar with something so simplistic. Of course there is a need to quickly decide what to adopt and what to scoop out of the barrel. If they didn’t they would surely drown. So what you see are a people hurdling over some of the stuff that has become part of our culture, in effect being unburdened by history. They don’t need to or even can stop at the CD era if it’s already passé. Why spend money on or time sitting in front of a computer when they can take it all with them on a phone.

In the US, for better or worse, we as a people are naturally going to be a bit slower to adopt. In many cases we are content with where media is and see no reason to change. For the purposes of example, we’ve spent our money on the CD and player or the computer. We’ll get to the mp3 player and smart phone; just give us a bit more time. Damn, this history of innovation can be a real burden, can’t it?

So while the “media revolution” is raging on in Asia, it may not necessarily be the future but the present without all the encumbrances of a past. Who knows, the Asian youth may decide that creating new IM accounts, assuming different identities for different purposes and precipitating virtual characters landing sponsorship deals is a waste of time and return to more simplistic “bamboo-centric” pursuits. That sure would allow all of us to stop paddling so hard in our barrel.