DISQUS

The definition I've found most interesting lately is that "a brand is the summation of the conversations being had about an experience"... which would of course help set the behavioral expectation.

I was incredibly bored by what I perceived to be the "rote learning" system in high school. Just hold on a little while longer I was told - university will be quite different. Unfortunately, when I went to get my undergraduate degree it was more of the same. Just hold on a little longer and pursue your Master's, I was told - graduate studies are much different. Having been fooled before, I held off on following this advice for almost a decade, but last year returned to higher education to get my Master's. Guess what? It was more of the same old, same old. Attend class, copy down what the professor scribbles on the board, try to memorize it and pass the test, move on.

Go get your PHD I am now told - it will be much different. Already ashamed for being fooled twice, it's going to be pretty hard for me to follow this advice. While I'd love to see more technology used in the school system, the first barrier that has to be broken down is the uni-directional, broadcast model of education that continues to dominate most schools.

Excellent comments thus far... which are going to help lead into another post I'll be doing soon!

Picking up on Daniel's point, there is this notion that most of us heavily engaged with the blogosphere are connectors - but is it useful to think about "what" these people were before blogs game them an outlet for connectivity? I could see an argument where it was through the adoption of this particular social media tool that a large number of people who may previously have been viewed as "anti-social" morphed into connector. This notion would tie back to (and partially refute) part of Avinash's comment - rather than being hostile to blogs (and perhaps wikis, etc.), "anti-social" people could be eager adopters of technologies that allow them to connect in a way that's comfortable to them. More on this in my next post.

The cost/benefit analysis Mike brings up is particularly interesting in comparing blogs to twitter feeds. I would argue the former carriers a HIGHER cost in terms of time required to create or digest the contents of blog posts... but the benefit is much higher (in being able to better articulate ideas, or see them explained more fully).

Starbuck's role the evolution of the music industry also deserves some attention. I wrote about their deal with Paul McCartney (June 2007 - http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2007/0...), and you can also check out their hearmusic.com site. While the company hasn't quite pushed as far in this space as I had hoped, they're light years ahead of many others connected to the music industry...

You raise an excellent point about transparency Chris - this initiative doesn't appear that it will help much at all. It's interesting how they throw "fans" into the group being connected to in the second paragraph, but in the third paragraph there is no real indication of how fans might be connected - but rather focused on security staffs and umpiring crews. By "connecting fans" I guess they mean only cutting down on counterfeit memorabilia, which is a bit of a stretch.

I find the officiating issue interesting from two perspectives:

1. Given the referee scandal that has emerged in the NBA, a need for the leagues to be more transparent is becoming abundantly clear (even if the commissioners continue to ignore). Opening up some of the data they are collecting for public viewing would go a long way in this direction, if the league chose to pursue it - but I'm not holding my breath.

2. Paragraph 5 talks about giving umpires more advanced insight into player tendencies (etc.). Given that umps are supposed to be totally neutral, what is the risk that this increased information could actually make them more biased? In theory, a player's tendencies should not matter in terms of a given call. Given that much of the criticism directed towards umps and refs is that they do favor certain players/ stars, I could see the problem actually getting worse here, depending on how well the training is done.

You're right - it's hard to make the connection between this software and steroids. I referred to this issue in an earlier post talking about the infamous Buzz Bissinger panel - it appears that both the people employed by the league, and the reporters that were supposed to be scrutinizing them, willfully chose to turn a blind eye. As we see in many cases, I believe a cultural transformation will have to occur here, in terms of accepting transparency, before the technology proves to be beneficial in addressing such challenges. Again, I'm not holding my breath.

Cheers,
Denis

Now the question goes out to you wikinomics readers - should we integrate Facebook Connect with this site?

I think social media can make "blockbuster" movies a little more money, good quality movies a lot more money, and bad movies... well I'm not sure. I think a case can be made that social media could be counterproductive for bad movies... when you engage more deeply with something that's obviously a crappy film, it will likely only solidify your opinion.

It's unfortunate that when people think 'social media' and 'movies' at the same time, the first thing they jump to is Snakes on a Plane. Since they were so effective in generating "buzz", and the box office sales were so poor, the conclusion everyone seems to have drawn is that 'social media' is a failure in terms of putting butts in seats.

I wonder if there's an alternative perspective - such as Snakes on a Plane was a bad movie, and while all the viral stuff might have been fun for people to play around in, they could still tell it would be a bad movie - so they didn't go. Another might be that it was so bad, only a Herculian social media effort enabled it to grab $15 M in the opening weekend (it is notable that they declined to screen the film for critics before opening).

Anyways, I'd love to see a broader range of films - particularly better ones - test out similar social media approaches to what Snakes on a Plane in order to help figure it out...

Great comments - Dan, you certainly hit the nail on the head on the 'power user' point. I just find it fascinating how people can find that the 'crowd' being wise enough to let their appointed expert (who they know have better 'immediate' information) select the squad is seen as a negative for the "crowdsourcing" idea.

Jim- thanks for bringing up the power-law distribution, I didn't think of it when writing the post. For those that might be interested, check out this post from Shirky - an oldie but a goodie:

http://www.shirky.com/writings/powerlaw_weblog....

My man Luis! Where were you last week - I could have used your help! :)

We're adding a "Regular Features" tab shortly to the left margin, which will have a link to my Dilbert mashups (and the wikinomics roundup, report card, and blogosphere reports)... I hope you come visit the site! And rest assured the next time I come up with one that clearly fits the wikinomics themes, it'll be up here in a flash.

Cheers,
Denis

There is a very good argument that can be made that Stage 4 is a WONDERFUL place for a country to be in - and things like Social Security and other support systems just need to be adapted to suit it, which requires certain sacrifices (such as delayed retirements, etc).

The problem is these changes our hard, because our entire economic system - from banking itself all the way down to social security - has been built on a leverage model that depends on continuous population growth continuing forever. If you think that sounds like a pyramid scheme, you're not far off.

It's a peculiar aspect of economics, and our markets in general, that we've been conditioned to think of a gradual decline in population as a bad thing / something to panic about - like more resources per-capita is somehow an awful outcome. I think a global birth rate below replacement levels doesn't sound that bad at all... we just need to think about things a little differently to make it work.

Rob,

Thanks for the additional comment - I'm sure/hope you realize I was just having a little fun with the "no sense of humour" cross-out, in the spirit of Dilbert and all. As you note, if one needs proof that I thought your comment had merit, all one has to look to is the solution I came up with. We're ALWAYS interested in constructive feedback around here.

But that Steve guy - he's just piling on ;).

Cheers,
Denis

Thanks for the comment Rob - it seems some people like them, and some people don't. Maybe I'll take them off to a seperate page that doesn't go into the feed... should be an acceptable comprimise.

Adam - thanks for the timely feedback!

This gaming problem seems to be a recurring theme on many loosely related issues right now... I suppose I can see why random might have been preferred for a contest on such a short timeline.

Good to hear you have some thoughts about a more engaging route though - I'll spend some time on the topic as well.

Has anyone ever attempted a time delayed connection between a blog and a newsletter?

What I mean by that, using the investment advice example - when the idea is first articulated it is sent directly to the paid subscribers. The advice then goes on the "public" blog X days later. Benefit for the subscribers is timely access to the advice, and if they take a position they also benefit later when any members of the "public" also takes the advice. Author is providing full transparency into his past advice for potential subscribers, which should help with WOM marketing (assuming he/she is any good).

I continue to be intrigued by what the cat said that deemed it worthy of being fuzzed out. :)

Chris,

Thanks for the heads up on Cocomments... I hadn't heard of it. While I've only played around with it a bit it does seem to enable what I was talking about. Guess I should spend some testing out the user comment widget!

Something occurred to me at the end of my comment that I thought I'd bump up to the top (using this site as an example): I'd love to see a feed of comments that you have made on other people's posts. Something like "Chris' comments" that would point me towards interesting conversations you've decided to join... if a lot of people started doing that it could really get the blogosphere humming and encourage more comments and conversations.

Now back to the original start of my comment. I wonder if there's a way to look at the comments issue as a simple function of time available in the day.

I find myself reading more and more blogs, news feeds, etc. Each new thing I add to my regular reading list takes additional time from my day, and since time is of course finite, I must allocate that time from somewhere else. Given that I'm already sleep deprived, comments are one of the few areas that can easily be scaled back on.

Further on that note, just like a good blog post takes longer than what many people might expect, so does a good comment. A "keep up the great work" comment is easy, and quick, but doesn't really add anything to the conversation - as noted above. Providing insightful comments on multiple posts on any given day can eat up a lot of time.

(this led me to the thought I bumped up to the top)

The incentives issue is well raised - it's one of my particular areas of interest.

What about (first crack at it):

- your company must be innovating all of the time.
- all customers should have 'input' into this innovation at some point in time (directly or indirectly)
- some customers should be innovating with you at all times.
- innovation leadership enables customers to innovate with you AND each other.

Two thoughts jumped into my head when looking at the list:
1. Is it really neccessary for ALL employees to innovate some of the time?
2. Could a similar list be developed in relation to prosumer / co-creation communities (and if so, what might have to be changed)

Thanks Conor! I can assure readers that the fact Conor and I both belong to the exclusive society of "people who's names are more commonly spelled with a double 'n' and we're tired of having to correct people", this in no way influenced his comment. Any Briana's out there with anything to add? :)

Thanks for the props! I was quite proud of incorporating the bottle behind the glass in an appropriate way... and the implied visual of a nude anti-Dilbert of course.

The interruptions / distractions issue is one of the most interesting to me. I find when people first look at any new technology, they just see it as an additional demand on their time attention. In the short term, this can be bang on, as you must keep using the "legacy" approaches - particularly if that's what everyone else in the organization is doing, in addition to whatever learning curve exists.

But over time, with technologies like wikis (and tags, etc.) the amount of time savings and increased productivity can be extraordinary... the saddest cases are the people / organizations that go through the early transition phase but give up just before the rewards start flowing in.

I had a great idea that involved the headband being confused for a belt... but this is a PG site after all.

when you fight your own mash up battles, then you can come talk to me. That's right, I went THERE!

I tip my hat to a superior mashup. Can anyone trump it?