November 2006 Archives
What are the ethical and social ramifications of blogging?
The other day Michael asked a question that relates closely to something I've been noodling on for a while: "Is it ethical to blog about something that you find through a link from a contact inside your network?"
Personally I believe the answer is yes, mainly because I see posting your links to del.icio.us as another form of blogging. But putting aside the ethical issues, for a moment, it seems we are at an interesting time in the development of self expression. Mainly, it is now possible to express yourself via your implicit gestures instead of just your explicit ones.
I know that sounds strange, and I have to admit, I don't have this idea fully baked. But basically as a result of digital technology and the metadata it creates, we are able to share parts of our lives in much more fluid ways and that brings up a whole lot of unknowns when it comes to social interaction.
How about a concrete example? Netflix allows you to add friends, when you do so you expose your queue and watched movies list to them. For the first time (maybe ever) I can keep up with what my friends are up to without any conversations. While they had to approve our 'friendship,' after that there's no additional work or reminders that all your actions on the site are being recorded and exposed to your friends. In a way it allows us to 'converse' without the conversation.
In the not-too-distant future, we will be able to 'blog' much of our world: Our phones will be able to record our locations and upload them and our televisions will record all our shows and make recommendations.
I'm kind of out of it and having trouble formulating a conclusion. So how about I leave that up to you.
[CONCLUSION GOES HERE]
Leave a Comment
It's time for another likemind.
It's time for another likemind and I swear after this round we will come up with a more permanent schedule. For this round we'll be hitting up four cities: New York (Piers and I), San Francisco (Mark and Tad), Seattle (Scott and Elizabeth) and Oslo (Nick and Trude.
It's been amazing to watch this thing grow from a whim Piers and I had into a global empire (well, maybe not empire). Thanks so much to everyone who's come out, it's really been amazing to meet so many of you. Those who are not in New York, I hope you'll make it to one of the other cities. Also, watch out for some new ones come the New Year, we've got a couple of expansions in the works.
All festivities start at 8am local time except for Oslo, where 9am is the new 8am.
For all the location info and everything else visit likemind.us (since we're now global the .us stands for us, not United States -- just thought I'd add that).
Leave a Comment
Ten links to fill your Monday with.
The last few days were spent gorging myself on turkey, stuffing and links. That's right, I caught up on enough reading over the last five days that I thought I might pop.
What's painful for me, however, is good for you. What better way to start a week than ten links handpicked for your thought and enjoyment.
Without any further ado . . . (and in no specific order).
- Will It Copy: Will the Second Life CopyBot help us rethink the way we handle intellectual property?
- The Family Un-Planner: Bush appointed Eric Keroack to the office that oversees the family-planning program. "Until recently, he served as medical director of a pregnancy-counseling organization that runs down contraception and gives out scientifically false health informationâ€â€for instance, that condoms 'offer virtually no protection' against herpes or HPV. Keroack also promotes a wacky piece of pseudoscience: the claim that premarital sex disrupts brain chemistry so as to create a physiological barrier to happy marriage." That is scary.
- The Young Economist: A profile of behavioral economist Ulrike Malmendier. She writes about stuff like how people pay not to go to the gym. Behavioral economics is the best thing going right now. (For a great intro to the subject, check out Marketplace of Perceptions.)
- 'Beer goggles' effect explained: Researchers at Manchester University have worked out a formula to calculate the beer goggle effect. I'm really glad there are people working on problems like this.
- Two Thoughts: George Seiemens' connectivism theory brings many of the principles of the digital world to education. Here he talks about "content as a conduit for conversation," saying, "Content is not an end itself, but a means to forming connections with others. I wonder how well we understand this as educators when we design our courses..." If only the rest of the system worked this way.
- On Saturday, They Rested: Only the New York Times could get away writing an article about how 'real' New Yorkers don't go out on Saturday night. So elitest, yet so good.
- Quick Tips on Corporate Blogging: If you haven't read Organic's Three Minds blog, it's one of the better corporate blogs out there. In this ClickZ article they highlight some of what helped them reach the success they have. My favorite: "We have an editorial policy we share with people inside the agency that's quite simple: if you wouldn't be comfortable sitting around a dinner table discussing the content of your blog posting with your mother, your largest client, your best friend, your boss, and your mentor, then you probably shouldn't post it. So far, this has been a great filter." Simple and straightforward.
- Put Any YouTube Video On Your iPod: Like the title says, this TechCrunch article explains how to pull videos off YouTube and do with them what you will (including put them on your iPod). I had no idea you could do this. Cool stuff.
- Riddling left, right and center: CK's got something big brewing and it's all based on the 'the share economy', which she is kind enough to break down in this entry.
- This Week's Non-Racists: Michael Richards and Clint Eastwood: Last but definitely not least is an article from this week in race, co-written by my good friend Charlton McIlwain. The article breaks down the Michael Richards debacle, follow up apology and how another opportunity to seriously talk about race was squandered.
That's it for now. Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving.
Leave a Comment
A special thank you to all my readers.
Today, as most of you know, is Thanksgiving. In the spirit of the holiday, I just wanted to take a moment to thank all of you. Your contribution to this site makes it what it is. Your comments and email are so incredibly thoughtful and insightful, it makes me feel incredibly special that all of you are willing to share your brilliance with me here. You inspire me more than I could possibly explain.
With that said, here's a (most likely incomplete) list of some of the commenters over the last few months. If I missed you, leave a comment and I'll add it to the list. (THIS IS IN NO SPECIFIC ORDER.)
Thank you . . .
Rob Fields
Chet Gulland
Mike
Justin
Max Kalehoff
Debbie Millman
Jeff
Loren Feldman
Russel Davies
El Gaffney
CK
Roger von Oech
Orli
Johanna
V-+a%S(p#E*rsT=`hE..]gra_Te[
Michael Surtees
Jecklin
Robert Tsai
R
Josh
David Berkowitz
Jason
Amber
Chartreuse
Dave
Ray
Christian
Peter Caputa
Nate Archer
Stephen Denny
Barbara
Josh Owens
Paul McEnany
Charles
Mark
Liz
Candice
Sergio Rebelo
Pam
Corinne Flax
Howard Lindzon
David Armano
Noah Winecoff
Kim
Rohit
Piers Fawkes
Bill Rice
Paul Watson
Scott Berkun
Jack Cheng
Happy Thanksgiving
PS - For those that haven't left a comment or dropped an email now is as good a time as any. But not to worry, I've got nothing but love no matter what.
Leave a Comment
Again I turn to all of you to help me come up with a better word than consumer.
I'm quickly starting to realize that one of the advantages of having a blog is that you can outsource the really tough work to your readers. Last time I needed a new word for finding something way more important than I originally imagined and you guys came through with some amazing recommendations. So once again I turn to you for help.
The other day Gareth was kind enough to post a booklet from 1994 written by British ad agency Howell Henry. It outlines why and how the advertising industry must change. It's pretty forward thinking for 2006 and imagining it was written 12 years ago is amazing.
While reading one of those thoughts that has been floating around my head for a while came to the forefront: Consumer is the wrong word. It comes from a different age. "This world was simple; one where consumers were passive creatures, quietly taking in whatever message was directed at them or buying whatever product marketers wanted them to buy."
That's not our world any more. People are buying products and associating with brands as a way to form their identity. It's not that this is new, but we live in a much more savvy culture where people are more aware of the role of marketing in their lives. As Debbie Millman put it, "whether we like it or not, these objects are also now defining us. As we 'give style' to our character, we do nothing more than claim and renounce freedoms and choices. Style know ends up signifying our beliefs and our affiliations."
On top of this, the line between producer and consumer is diminishing. Trends like co-creation, handmade and conscious shopping are giving people a completely new perspective.
Bottom line is consumer to me feels like 'predator', it assumes that's all these people know how to do. It sounds like they're programmed to consume like a lion is programmed to hunt and kill. That's just not it at all, however, it's so much more active and thoughtful.
So I ask all of you, what's a better word than consumer?
Leave a Comment
I've had a bunch of ideas floating around that I've been meaning to write about. Instead of putting it off any longer, I decided to write up a quick digest.
I've got a couple big ideas floating around in my head that I'd
like to write more about, but I'm not quite sure how to form any of
them into full entries. So I figured I'd just throw them out there
and see what sticks.
Theory People
You know those people who are always saying "I have a theory
that . . ."? Well my friend Shana has a theory that those
are the most interesting people. When you have theories about things
you are showing that your observant and that you make connections
between seemingly disconnected things. I also think you're exposing a
lot about yourself and how you view the world. (By the way, Shana
requested that link herself.)
It's All in Your Mind
Credit on this one goes to Martin. We had a long conversation about the idea that brands only exist
in the mind of the beholder. It's kind of like color: Two people see
green in completely different ways. Or, to take it a step further
(courtesy of Noah), there is no color unless there
is light. In the dark color ceases to exist. You can put your product
out there and do your best to control a person's experience, but the
brand belongs to them. It's not so easy to comprehend, but as Martin
wrote in Adweek, "What I realized is that this idea [that all products are brands]
may have been true in the past, when product, brand and need (or,
said another way, 'the consumer') were all neatly aligned. But it's
not true now. Now they are three distinct entities. And as such, each
requires its own champion."
Desire Lines
I wrote this in May: "Desire lines are
the unpaved paths that people wear down over time. In a way, does
that represent collective intelligence? What about the "ask the
audience" feature on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Yeah, it's post
internet, but the idea is not revolutionary. When people can
contribute to the group anonymously, without worry of social
repercussions, honest answers will emerge. When aggregated, those
honest answers will represent collective intelligence." I first read about it in an Adaptive Path article titled "Metadata for the Masses". It's one of those ideas that pops up all the time, but I'm just not quite sure how to apply it. Go any good ideas?
Blog Everything
Really, all these different services we use (del.icio.us, last.fm and even Netflix) are blogging platforms in one way or another. The way I see it is if you're sharing information about what you're paying attention to you're 'blogging.' That can be what movies you're watching or what links you've read lately. This isn't a new idea or anything, but I've been thinking about it more now that Netflix offers a mass example to us (the friend feature exposes your queue to people).
Well, that's it for now. Any thoughts on any of these ideas would be greatly appreciated. If there's any one in particular you'd like to read more about I can write a full post on them in the future.
Leave a Comment
An idea that will help put an end to bad meetings everywhere.
This morning I went to Russel's New York coffee morning. At some point we started chatting about how great the little stop/go button is at Brazilian churrascaria. (For those that haven't been, when you eat there they keep bringing around meat until you turn it over to red.)
We were discussing the merits of having one for your entire life, so you'd be able to turn things off and on at any moment. Then Russell said how great it would be in a meeting, that way when things got bad you could flip it to red. As we built on the idea a little bit, I think a pretty great thing emerged.
So here's the idea.
Everyone has a hidden button, maybe it's under the table, maybe on their chair. Because it's hidden, each person can vote anonymously (there's a bit of Wisdom of Crowds at work here). When you hit the button a light turns from red to green (or off to on). When a majority of the lights go red, the meeting is over. It's that simple.
The beauty of the idea is twofold. One, it would allow the presenter or leader to adjust their strategy based on the real-time feedback of the audience (this would work great for conferences as well). Second, it would put an end to all those terrible meetings where everyone knows it's bad but it just keeps dragging on forever.
Would it actually work? Got any ways to make it better?
Leave a Comment
It's a busy week, so here are some Tuesday evening links to tide you over.
Just got back from a weekend in Chicago watching the Chicago Bears lose. Also have a pretty busy rest of the week ahead of me. So, I think I'm going to give you all some links and let you talk amongst yourselves. I still need to respond to my Netflix post and write more about binary and ambiguity, and promise to when I get a few minutes. Thanks so much to everyone who commented. If you haven't been following in the comments, it's really worth a read, that's where all the action is.
Now for the links (in no order).
Actually, before I hit the links, Renegade, where I work, got some serious love from Media magazin. We were profiled as an "Idea Factory" and the story includes a few choice quotes from yours truly. (By the way, if you're in NYC and looking for a job at a marketing agency, send your resume my way.)
And now onto the show.
The FACT edition
That about wraps it up. If you have anything else to talk about or some good links to share, do it in the comments please. Hopefully regular posting will resume in short order. Until then, please accept my apologies.
Leave a Comment
Netflix actually helps us fight our bad tendency to devalue the future.
I joined Netflix about a month ago and so far it's been an incredible experience. I'm finally catching up on a long list of movies I've been meaning to see for ages. Problem was, when I hit the video I either couldn't think of the movie I wanted or decided that it was too serious and went for something easier to swallow (of course a lot of the movies I've rented like North by Northwest and What's Up Tigerlilly aren't really serious at all).
Instead of talking about what I've rented, though, I'm more interested in the ways that Netflix actually allows me to act against the human tendency to devalue the future. This is actually one of the core tenets of behavioral economics.
Broadly "speaking, "People act irrationally in that they overly discount the future," says Bazerman. "We do worse in life because we spend too much for what we want now at the expense of goodies we want in the future. People buy things they can’t afford on a credit card, and as a result they get to buy less over the course of their lifetimes." Such problems should not arise, according to standard economic theory, which holds that "there shouldn’t be any disconnect between what I’m doing and what I want to be doing," says Nava Ashraf.
That comes from a Harvard Magazine article titled "The Marketplace of Perceptions". Basically we place a premium on the now. That's why there's so much credit card debt and why people don't go to the gym: It's easier to put off what's best for you today until tomorrow. To quote the article again, "Now we want chocolate, cigarettes, and a trashy movie. In the future, we want to eat fruit, to quit smoking, and to watch Bergman films." We know for our 'well-being' we should see the classics, but it's a lot easier to grab Dumb and Dumber off the shelf of the video store (no offense to Dumb and Dumber, it's just an easy target).
What Netflix, and specifically the queue, allows you to do is pre-commit, thereby working against your predisposition to devalue the future. Because you add movies to a list and then they just send them, it's easier to place all those films you've always wanted to see on there and just wait for them to arrive. Sure you can go in and rearrange, and most certainly do at times. But for the most part I'd guess people just let the thing flow. (Is this accurate?)
In a way this is not much different than something like a 401(k) (also talked about in "The Marketplace of Perceptions") in that it forces you to commit to something and then just stick with it. The beauty of a 401(k) is it all just happens in the background. Like Netflix, to change your contribution or cancel it entirely, is actually more work than just getting that percentage taken out of your paycheck each month. In a way both services use our tendencies towards laziness for us instead of against.
Wouldn't it be great if more services considered factors like this and helped us fight our bad tendencies?
As a side note, I have a few more Netflix entries in my mind. One's about the 'Hotel Rwanda Effect' where people rent a serious movie and then it just sits around for hours because there's never a particularly good time to watch a movie about genocide. The other is about friending on Netflix. If you have any thoughts on either I'd be curious to hear.
Leave a Comment
Hi, I'm 
