James Burke Information Surge talk

James Burke came to Microsoft and gave this speech when I was on WinWord 2.0 (or so). It rocked my world. The whole Word team changed a bit of their focus away from adding more features and towards creating ways for people to re-order information. I just found this talk online and didn't want to risk such a treasure getting lost in the mists of time. I think you can still see the truth of this reverberating through society over the PC specifically.

---------------

Each time there was a major advance in the ability to generate, store or disseminate knowledge, it was followed by an "information surge" and with it a sudden acceleration in the level of innovation.

Thanks to information surge, each one of us in the modern world has more machine power available at a fingertip than any Roman emperor. A medieval king would have needed legions of horsemen riding for months to be able to deliver one-thousandth of the number of messages we can transmit in a few moments to the ends of the earth by phone or fax. A single CD-ROM can carry the whole of Renaissance science and philosophy.

When information surge happens, it sweeps through human society in a powerful, innovating wave that in some way changes everything everywhere. Surge brings together people and places and ideas in totally new ways. From these new relationships come new entities and new ways of living. Most important of all, information surge changes the way we think. We are experiencing a transformational surge of innovation and convergence of information technologies.

Three thousand years ago the Greek alphabet was the first truly transparent means of communication, because it could be used to express any language. But in the way left-to-right script was processed in the brain, the alphabet also triggered the analytical, step-by-step mode of thought that would give us logic. We could now cut up the universe the better to understand it. Before the alphabet, such an idea was, literally, unthinkable.

Today we stand on the threshold of another such revolution in thought. It is already happening in the most esoteric disciplines of science. Some of the most important equations in fundamental particle research, for instance, can now be attempted only because supercomputers can solve them in a few months. Before, since they would have taken more than a researcher's lifetime to complete, they could not even be attempted. Bringing this extraordinary aspect of knowledge manufacture to the service of society as a whole raises questions that will have to be answered. For example, can we accept and live with innovation that cannot be explained by the innovation machines because we do not live long enough to hear the whole explanation?

The answer to this kind of challenge may lie within the same systems that generate them, in the form of electronic agents. These surrogates are not new. Each time surge occurs (and with it, massive increases in the levels of innovation), society has delegated responsibility for handling the effects to filtering entities. After Descartes' scientific method triggered the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, the avalanche of data was diverted into different management disciplines. Today there are over twenty thousand of them, from anatomy to zoomorphology.

Electronic agents will explore the treasure house of this specialist, arcane knowledge that will be made available to everybody by the next information surge, in order to find for us only what we need at the time and to translate the data into forms that are individually meaningful to each of us.

This new freedom of access to information through the networks spanning the globe will also change the social meaning of information. Up to now, the limitations of communication technology at any time gave special importance to all knowledge, irrespective of what it might have been, simply because it was inaccessible. What was not generally available was usually regarded as valuable.

The innovations produced by the few people who had access to this secret knowledge were, from time to time, let loose upon communities who had to adapt to it as best they might. Such esoteric innovation was impossible to prepare for because it was inaccessible, its effects were serendipitous. How could anyone have foreseen that Venturi's investigation of water-flow dynamics would lead to the perfume spray that would in turn make possible the carburetor?

The coming information systems will offer the chance for people to see these patterns of innovation even as they occur and to make judgments about them before their effect on society has to be accommodated. With open sources of information, technology assessment will finally be possible, unhindered by ideological half-truths. The same will be true of the process of political participation, suggesting a rapid end to the present representative system, designed for the eighteenth century and failing us today.

Institutions of many kinds will be changed or even removed by the next surge. When an American manager can, in real time, run automated factories in Argentina the way a Rome accountant says the Berlin headquarters requires, with software uplinked via a Japanese satellite from Korea, what happens to national sovereignty and the hundreds of items of domestic legislation that will then be obsolete?

This kind of networking is typical of the way in which information surge generates social complexity and, with it, diffusion of power outwards from the center. The fifteenth-century printing press broke the hegemony of Rome, gave political control to a hundred kings and princes around Europe, and brought the birth of the nation-state. The next surge will also shift power in much the same way, but at every level and in every place around the world.

(c) James Burke

Local Newspapers again. They really are feeling well!

The Economist did a scary story on how newspapers are dying and everybody freaked out to the place where corporations have started divesting themselves of their newspaper business. But as an industry trend, it just isn’t true. There is very little data to back it up and lots of data that contradicts it. One study did say that print circulation is down 2%. (Yes, but is circulation up on the newspaper's web site?) TV viewing is also down by about that same amount, but nobody is saying that the TV is dead.

I talked about this once before. About how they are measuring increases of market penetration of over 50% for papers with a web site.

And here is another link to back it up:

“Contrary to conventional wisdom, newspaper circulation is growing and new
newspapers are being launched at a remarkable rate, new and revised data from
the World Association of Newspapers shows.“

http://www.wan-press.org/article12949.html


I think the big guys may be in trouble and that is creating a skewed picture. It used to be that one of the few choices you had for national / global news was a big newspaper. It was the local paper or the NY Times or Wall Street Journal. But now national and global news comes at us 24 / 7 from every direction and every type of media format. I see this market continuing to splinter. The success of Fox news and Olbermann’s rocket growth makes me think that more and more people are seeking out a news source that matches their own biases.

I wonder if this is a trend. It used to be that news sources did their best not to have a bias. Most would say they still do, but I’m not sure it’s possible in today’s time. Is news like Fox News a trend that is going to grow or a flash in the pan? Something I need to think about.

On the other hand, the local newspapers themselves are doing fine. It’s a little scary right now because things are changing for them, but I think that local papers have some amazing opportunities now.

Good web properties can make millions and millions a year from online advertising and sponsored links. Anybody or anything that can capture a good chunk of readers is in line to make money. I think local newspapers have a huge advantage going into this business. For example, they already have relationships with all the big local advertisers; they already have brand awareness and trust from the readers, they have niches for in-depth, investigative and/or local coverage.

And probably their biggest advantage they have is that they already have me. Eventually I realized that I was going to have to make some space and time for my local news. Where does one go for local news? Duh – the local newspaper. And once I get started with one news source it will take a lot to make me feel like picking up another

It’s a huge advantage.

And although some people will tell you that the bloggers (i.e. new media) are going to take over the world, I would answer that this might be true as soon as they get off their asses and actually cover a 5 car pileup on the highway at 11:00 pm on a rainy Sunday night. Right now 99% of what they do is sit around and criticize the content created by old media. This isn’t a bad thing. Actually, it’s a really, really, really cool thing, but not an empire toppling kind of thing. Especially the same empire that gives them their content.

Maybe the print side of the newspaper is going away, or at least slowing down. But to me, the delivery format is not what a newspaper is about.

A newspaper is:

· A lot of useful information in a useful package.
· The go-to place for trusted investigative information.
· The go-to place for trusted local coverage. Nobody else does that
· Good judgment and cachet. If they cover something, it’s important and it’s real.
· Free (or pocket change.) They make their revenue from advertising.
· What ever else I need to achieve the basic goal of being part of “a well-informed citizenry.”

On a high level I want my local newspaper to take their responsibilities seriously:
· Original Content -- Not just a rehash of news I can get elsewhere. This content needs to be touched by a local human.
· Branding -- TRUST -- How do you know if it's true? A known bias. Be my friend.
· Investigation -- this is the value add over blogs. Again – a local human.
· Murrow level reporting: Justice for the powerless and protection from the powerful
· Pride – I want them to break open a national scandal occasionally. Play in the same sphere as the NYT or LAT. We need every media outlet to step up to the responsibilities now. Local scandals as well, but that’s more obvious than national ones.

I was in Miami for this winter's big Seattle wind storm and blackout. My husband had lost power and so I could only talk to him once or twice a day. I lived on the Seattle Times site. I felt like they were there for me and I felt like they were fanning out across the area for me. They were on the ground, seeing and feeling and helping. This is something the local papers know how to do. They’ve been doing it for two centuries. They are not going to be taken down by the cost of paper and ink.

Talk: Online Marketing Trends that include Web 2.0

I've learned my lesson. No more Worth1000.com for me. I'm like an addict!

I'm working on a session for a confrence given by Seattle BizNik.

I know my target audiance is a small business owner that in many ways doesn't want to know about this. They know they should, but it's never worth the time to sit down and sort it out. They are confused about Web 2.0 and don't know which direction to turn.

“Online Marketing Trends that include Web 2.0” (I don’t like the title. Suggestions?)

This talk will be a speedy romp through hot trends and technologies. Logic says that businesses should apply at least one hot trend every year, but which one? Which will give the most dazzle for the buck? Online marketing will be the focus, but no marketing campaign should stand alone.

Many businesses are frustrated when they try to apply one or a mix of online strategies. How is a person supposed to target their marketing in a world where the experts do not agree on anything? There are multiple definitions for even things as basic as what Web 2.0 actually is. Not to mention that every expert is giving contradictory predictions for what they think is going to be the next big thing. The long-tail supporters and trendwatchers.com say that the days of having one mega-trend are over. Business people have to get a passing understanding of all of the top trends and technologies and how to apply them appropriately in order to best get their message out.

This talk will relieve some of this confusion. We will have to move fast to give a glimpse of these trends and technologies. Some of the trends we will cover are honor, sharing, social/community, transparency (no spin), reciprocity, participation, global collaboration and viral. Some of the technologies we will talk about are the web, blogs/RSS, spaces, stores and associates, podcasts and wikis. We will stay on the practical side spotlighting things that are neither prohibitively expensive nor
difficult.

All suggestions are welcome!

Viacom gets it or Jon Stewart .vs. YouTube

Viacom moves on without YouTube CNET News.com:

"YouTube throws down the gauntlet for any television network or content producer to ask, 'Why is it better for people to consume our video on YouTube rather than my site?' Erik Flannigan, senior vice president of digital media for Comedy Central"

I can't believe I'm saying this but Viacom gets it.

Around 33% of Generation-Next watches Viacom's Comedy Central channel's Daily Show every week. That is ONE FREAKING THIRD of the KEY generation! I doubt that as many of them actually visit YouTube.com on any given week (but I didn't look for statistics to back that up.)

Who believes that now when Jon Stewart says something funny, his viewers will be too confused by the lack of "youtube" in the link that they couldn't possibly email it to their friends?

YouTube is a great storage place for videos and they have built an unbelievably great community. For people making amateur or short independent videos there isn't any place better right now, and there may never be one. And I agree that they have changed the world in wonderful ways and that they still have a lot of world changing zing left in them.

But I agree with the Viacom CEO when he described what he would have said to YouTube -- "You are not going to take the stuff that we made in our house and control it for other people." Not to mention a little thing like giving up the advertising profits.

So, step one in the fall of the current mega-sites has begun. The circle of life continues.

The Platinum Rule

Over in the Seattle Biznik community, I got into a discussion about Squeezed Pages (see below). And I came up with a particularly clever turn of phrase, even if I do say so myself! Below are my replies from that discussion, edited a little to keep this as small as possible. But the phrase is:

Just goes to prove the Platinum Rule, which is “There is no Platinum Rule.”

It seems like there are all these rules of marketing and management. There is always somebody telling you that you should do X because of some rule. And then somebody else will come along and tell you that doing X will break another rule. I have always found that when people start quoting rules, it is really time to rethink the project. But now I have the the Platinum Rule to quote.

Ok, here is the phrase in context:
--
Squeezed .vs. Non-Squeezed Web Sites

Non-Squeezed world:
1) Visitors can explore your site without joining first
2) When they join, you gather just the name/email visitor information
3) You send out generic mass mailings

Squeezed world:
1) Site visitors must join your site before they can see anything
2) You gather email and as much other information as you think you can get from site visitors
3) You send personalized mailings to individuals.

How do I say this? A squeezed site is considered slimy by many people. Not that slimy is necessarily wrong, but there is a cost to be paid for employing those tactics.

Modern trends suggest implementing this using transparency and reciprocation.

Visitors are able to play around your site and get to know you before you ask them for their information. And when visitors do give you something (their information), you should give them something. So a more polite version of Squeezed Marketing would be an offer to email them one of four eBooks for signing up on the site. You can then make your response back to that user more personal by using something from the book they chose.

- - -

Overnight I thought of two squeezed sites that are good: The New York Times and LA Times are very quick to make visitors join and ask for a lot of information and they send targeted mass mailings. But somehow it's OK coming from them.

Just goes to prove the Platinum Rule, which is "There is no Platinum Rule". :-)

MySpace is dead.

Ok, it's not dead yet. It's feeling particularly well, but it is doomed.

It won't go away 100% but it will go away 80%. Why?

1. AOL.

AOL flourished and expanded and was considered "the" place while the whole of the Internet existed. I remember the day AOL turned on their portal to Usenet (primitive discussion boards where practically the whole Internet population gathered to talk). It was a scary thing because suddenly all these AOL people started talking about how unsafe things were and the first spam started and all the old Internet people just shuddered.

After the first wave, most of the AOL people never ventured out of the safe AOL boards for a decade. They were afraid of the vastness and chaos of the Internet and so they crawled back into their little fish bowl. It was a no brainer for most AOL members. They got a CD in the mail and stuck it into their computer and found a board or two that they liked and they were happy.
They turned into vocal ambassadors for AOL. Loudly proclaiming that it was THE place to be. I was even belittled by an AOL member because I couldn't read the same board that she did. When I replied that I didn't want to pay the monthly fee, she told me that I could never be anybody unless I joined AOL.

But over time the AOL members got used to ocean that is the Internet. They explored. They found the rules and limitations of AOL were too limiting and that there were other people that they wanted to interact with that weren't on AOL and so they moved out of the fish bowl.
It's now about 10 years since their heyday and AOL has all but disappeared. They don't have members any more, anybody can see their boards. They are still a reasonable conglomerate of content, but nothing that you can't get elsewhere with more value.

MySpace is a fish bowl. It's a beachhead where teens can own their first Internet property and not have to think about the vastness of the Internet ocean. It has the functionality they need to feel cozy, just like AOL had the easiest user interface. (Although I must say that the MySpace user interface sucks.) But time, functionality and the Internet march on. And every generation gets more comfortable with the Internet out of the womb.


2. Cliques

Teenagers do not exist in the same space without somebody getting hurt. Although I doubt I'm talking Columbine hurt, I do think that the virtual equivalent will probably happen if it hasn't already. Security on MySpace isn't great and once you log in as the person you are angry at, a host of evil possibilities are easily in your reach.

Although this will hurt MySpace, it's not really the thing that's going to kill them.
If you look in the cafeteria of any high school or junior high, you will notice that the kids sit in cliques. Freaks hate the Jocks. Computer Geek's hate the Student Government types, etc., etc., etc. The Cheerleaders are not going to co-exist in close approximation to the Stoners any longer than is necessary. They would like to exist in an exalted and exclusive board with lots of pink and other Cheerleaders. This way they can plot how to be extra mean to all the people around them. (Can you tell I wasn't a cheerleader?)

This is a small twist on the LongTail "don't be a Big Fish" thing and "Small is the new big."


3. That is *so* 2006!

If the right teen idol declares that MySpace isn't cool they could lose 50% of their traffic overnight.

When the next mini-generation notices that all the un-cool older people are on MySpace, they will find a new place (or many new places) to swarm to.


4. Time

As the number of social networks that people belong to grows, the time it takes to service each network becomes more irksome. The number of blog hits is contracting right now rather than growing because they all just became too much for people to keep up with.

As MySpace becomes less valuable to their users the cost of time to maintain my profile/email/blog, etc become a drag.

(This point could also have been made in the AOL section)


5. When I became I man I put away childhood things

People grow up, move on and leave childhood behind them. None of my high school friends (4-Eva) kept in touch, even though we all were home for the holidays. We had moved on.
None of my college friends keep in touch, same reason. Same with single friends, same with friends before we moved across country, etc.

My brother keeps in touch with his high school friends and even gets together with them once a year, but they organize it through email. They wouldn't put up with the advertisements, spam and other crap that is MySpace.

So MySpace is doomed and there is nothing they can do about it. Changing their interface isn't going to stop the march of time. Creating Clique Groups isn't going to change the fickle fashion sense of teenagers and teenage idols. Streamlining everything to reduce their drag is going to kill their bottom line and not broker peace between the freaks and the jocks.

The bottom line is that in the long run, you can not successfully create a fish bowl for humans.

Repost: Internet TV is Now

Fundamentally it's the wrong question.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

From: http://www.marketingvox.com/archives/2007/01/10/streaming-online-content-to-tv-has-some-worried/

Streaming Online Content to TV Has Some Worried

New products from Sony, Microsoft, and Slingbox that allow consumers to
stream content from their PCs - such as YouTube videos - onto their televisions
were among the myriad devices shown off at CES this year. And they might
yet challenge traditional media distribution channels and strategies, such as
cable TV's video on demand services, writes Reuters.

However, consumers are currently unwilling to pay more for a device
that lets them view PC content on TV screens, according to a poll of 5,000 U.S.
homes by Forrester Research. Moreover, the bandwidth constraints of current
broadband services essentially rule out downloading or streaming of
high-definition programs.

Moreover, DirecTV, a rival to cable, is already in talks with YouTube
and MySpace to let viewers watch content directly on TV - without needing to use
the new devices.

It's not a question about WHO or HOW content gets delivered, it's all about being entertained versus being bored.

It's the networks that have created the universally understood whine "There's nothing on TV!" All DirecTV did was change the wording to "There are 1000 channels and there still isn't anything on TV!" This tells me that these two entities are not meeting the needs of their consumers and are going to be knocked out of the market the second something changes unless they are very, very smart or very, very lucky.

Right now there are only a few people that would pay extra for the content that's available on the Internet; not because they want it coming from one the current TV services, but because the quality of the content stinks. And I seriously doubt that even 2% of the videos on MySpace will ever be compelling. And I believe the jury is still out on YouTube's being the "go to" place in the future. (But that's another post.)

Generation Content (and the geeks that mostly stay on the edge) don't give a damn about the issues raised in the above article . They care about being entertained and they have all the tools in the world to find what they want. And I mean "they" the individual, not "they" the generation. This is a huge new concept that is not familiar to the today's TV services.

This blog (along with every other blog on the planet) is the equivalent of a TV Channel. I organize videos I like and people who trust my tastes may watch them. It's not a question of how these videos get delivered. I could easily say "Watch House on TV tonight", but ultimately it's much more convenient if I post an link with the channel and schedule information.

Some people get paid to do this (TV networks and Big Name Bloggers). I don't and I don't even mind. It's not why I do it. So, the question really is, do consumers need formal channels (blog or TV)? Not really. They know how to use Google. But maybe if the channel brings enough individual value to the relationship there's still a place for it. This is something TV networks have been struggling with since cable.

When I knew that Bill Gates was giving his keynote at CES I was a bit surprised that I couldn't tune in and watch it on my TV. I could get it on my computer. Same with Steve Jobs and the Apple iPhone announcement. And if Gene Roddenberry was alive, do you really think that he would put up with all the stuff the network put him through when he knew he could easily release his videos directly on the Internet? This would give him a great revenue stream, with no censorship, full creative control and no middle man. There are millions and millions of content streams and no TV network or distribution medium is going to be nimble and smart and fast enough to catch all but a very small percentage of them.

Another point that is missed is that most homes already have dedicated Media Center PC's. "Whaa??" You say. In the next year or just about everybody will be buying a new PC to run Vista. What are they do with their old boxes? This may not happen next year because the content on the Internet still stinks, but once it crosses a threshold, it's going to go fast.

And I don't buy for one second the argument that connection speeds are not fast enough. Hello!! We used to sit through 12 minutes of commercials for every 30 minutes of TV shows. I guess people without digital recorders still do. I almost never watch "live" TV any longer. What makes anybody think that I suddenly would if the content was coming into my house from a different plug? There is an hour long delay when recording an hour long show and it doesn't stop anybody from loving their digital recorder. Still, I think watching live TV is the corner case.

The most common case is that people will RSS (subscribe) to content conglomerates (Web Pages / Blogs, Celebrities, Producers, etc) that they like and as new shows become available consumers will have the content automatically downloaded to their digital recorder (computer). They will watch what sounds good to them and delete the rest. Every Media Center PC will have it's own TV schedule. To compete in the future, TV cannot be a question of watching what is on, or worrying about who it comes from, but purely the individual quest to be entertained with as few hassles / hurdles/ interruptions as possible.


Update: One last note. The creation of information has always moved from the hands of the very few (i.e. Monks writing books for Kings) to the masses. It's an unstoppable force that shows up with every new form of ordering information. Along with this are the people who say it will never happen! It kind of makes one feel all warm and fuzzy that things are so predictable!

repost - Trend Watching 2007

Link to trendwatching.com: January 2007 trend briefing TOP 5 CONSUMER TRENDS FOR 2007

In my cynical mind, any site called TrendWatching.com is probably going to suck. But it *doesn't*.

The above post makes my brain melt to read it, but I think they get it.

1. Status Lifestyles

But conspicuous consumption for conspicuous consumption's sake is going
out. Now it's about experiences and diversity of life. Grabbing the
gusto in new areas kind of stuff.

2. Transparency Tyranny

Every wart in society is exposed via blogs, pictures, cell phone videos,
etc. Not only should you get used to it, but you must let this guide your
every business decision.

3. Web N+1

Nobody can agree on what the next thing will be and there won't be ONE next
thing

4. Trysumers

A little redundant with the experience seekers in #1. With so much of the
world reviewed and sanitized, why not try new things?

5. The Global Brain

Kind of like the next incarnation of Wikipedia, but on everything and harnessed
by businesses.

There is kind of a gusto attitude that sums it all up. It's like the whole '911 pull deep into our dens' is over and we are looking for light hearted adventures both on line and off.