What’s up with the pretty boyz? Random thought for the day…

Officially, I have seen enough men on the metro this week who dress, well, metro.

I think these guys are wearing girlier jeans than I’ve ever even owned. Slim fitting with flared bottoms, worn in all the right places, decorative pockets?! And um, I *think* these guys are straight. Is it the new hot thing for men to dress all pretty like women?

Why this ad doesn’t work

Recipe for Ineffective Video

1 Foreign Concept (Earmarks!)

Several splices of C-SPAN (mmmmmmm!)

2 highly recognizable pop songs

Mix together. Serve hot on YouTube! Enjoy (if you can).

What this video does manage to accomplish, is it makes me kinda wanna be at a ball game, eating a hotdog, watching the jumbotrons.

In all seriousness, I appreciate what this video wants to be, but it just doesn’t work. All I hear is “wah wah wah wah wah…earmarks…wah wah wah…”

Which is unfortunate, because this IS an important issue that is terribly complicated to simplify for the layman. Some might argue otherwise. But why don’t you ask a real expert, even if he does reference House Democratic Leadership’s change in course “begrudgingly.”

Emergency Response in Rosslyn

so I spent the past 15 minutes staring out the 10th floor window of 1200 wilson, overlooking the 15+ emergency response vehicles staged outside the Rosslyn Center building at Moore street. Stay tuned as I figure out what the heck is going on…

12:04 p.m., the trucks are clearing out, and I still have no idea what happened.

Play Money

Julian Dibbell dabbles in exploiting the world of MMORPGS (massively multiplayer online role-playing games) in Play Money, Or How I Quit My Day Job and Made Millions Trading Virtual Loot. There are parts where I find myself enthralled by the mysticism and intrigue (having never engaged in MMORPGS myself), and there are parts where I am like, you have got to be kidding me. People do this? But, I give Dibbell credit for drawing out some larger concepts that are actually quite truly based in reality–that is physical reality. He cites that there is “a desire not to fall to the bottom of the social food chain, a desire to rise through the ranks, to achieve and acquire as a way of marking our status within the massive monkey troop that is human civilization.” I gotta agree with the guy. And whether it means exercising that desire in the physical world or the virtual world, it is hardwired in the human intellect. Its survivalistic.

I find it intriguing that virtual reality games have developed their economies at such a rapid fire pace, moreover, that the virtual economies and physical economies have become interoperable. That’s just bizzare to me. While it probably shouldn’t be, as Dibbell points out that the very currency we use day-to-day is just as arbitrary/imaginary as virtual gold bits.  

The other larger concept that stood out for me was that again of scarcity versus abundance (as discussed in The Long Tail). Dibbell states “People will choose the world that constrains them over the one that sets them free.” (How very blue pill Matrix). For as much as we whine and moan, there is something to be said for limitations and scarcity–there is another part of us that craves boundaries; clearly, there are limitations within each of our own lives that we have chosen. A quick anecdotal aside, I remember one vacation being on a mediterranean cruise. Meals were included of course; and at dinner time one evening, we could not decide what to select off of the menu. The waiter said “I’ll just bring you both.” WHAT? Both? But, that’s not supposed to be an option. I’m only supposed to get one meal. If you bring me two, that totally takes the desirable pain out of choosing one. Right?

In any event, Play Money is helping me to understand virtual reality economics as illustrating what is just plain human nature. We do what we need to in order to advance in our niches–via bots, via mouseclicks for hours on end, via the Radny’s of the world, via whatever we decide is our path to salvation.

The Long Tail II

“Abundance is the driving force in all economic growth and change.” -George Gilder

And the excitement continues in the latter half of Chris Anderson’s The Long Tail. Iam intrigued by the concept of an economic shift from a traditional model of scarcity to a model of abundance. And while there may be a “tyranny of the new” as Anderson calls it, hits all end up down the tail eventually too. While we are in the midst of this shift to abundance in consumer choice, Anderson is careful to point out that we still have a scarcity of human attention and hours in the day. I often find myself wishing for more time in the day to be able to do all of the things I want to do. Otherwise, I inevitably end up making sacrifices, choosing some things over others with the limited amount of time that I have.

Another couple of interesting points on the structure of the long tail: 1.) it is comprised of curves within curves within curves, of micro tails that are genre based; and 2.) You need the head and the tail! Anderson uses the example of MP3.com, where their business model completely lacked a head, and therefore, there was no familiar point of entry. It didn’t work!!

One challenge of the physical world that the virtual world gets around, is that of Ontology. I never really stopped to think about how limiting the taxonomy of a grocery store or department store can be in terms of allowing customers access to the products that suit their needs and wants best. It’s always a pain in the butt when I’m looking for a product I don’t necessarily use regularly and have to read the sign from the ceiling–where intuiting it’s respective category ain’t exactly a walk in the park (I’ll talk folksonomy over taxonomy any day of the week)–then finding my way to the respective aisle. With online shopping however, Anderson says it best: “Being able to recategorize and rearrange products on the fly unlocks their real value.” Not to mention convenience.

In thinking about product placement at the grocery store, I suppose it’s true that I’m more inclined to purchase a product at eye level or thereabouts, as opposed to something on the bottom shelf. Again, this isn’t something I consciously give much thought to, but it obviously makes sense. Now in the online world, if you go to the trouble of making suggestions and pairing products for me, well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle if I don’t see something appealing enough to actually buy based on the suggestions that are being made to me. Perhaps if RFID shopping carts come to fruition, that will bring physical stores one step closer to matching the capabilities of online shopping, but I’d venture to guess it will pale in comparison. I suspect that the virtual world will always remain several steps ahead of the physical. but hey, go ahead and prove me wrong. that would be sweet.

The idea that we as consumers need info about the variety available to us is key. “The more choice we have the more we have to decide what it is we really want.” I’ll take as much help as I can get from whatever filters are willing and able to direct me. I love choice–but without experimentation–or enough time to do it– it is tricky for me to know exactly what my preferences are amidst this multiplying mass. Have you ever seen the movie Gremlins? Remember what happens when the mugwai get wet??! Or better yet, have you seen the Trouble with Tribbles Episode of Star Trek? Apply this to choice (set aside the lack of variety component here–I’m talking about the growth effect)!

The long tail might say a lot about our economics, but I think it says more about how we are evolving as people–drilling down to very specified common interests. And while some might argue that the niche concept is divisive, I would argue, strangely that it’s unifying us on a much more fundamental level than we are used to — where before we were only scratching the surface of our “common ground.”

The Long Tail

I am TOTALLY JAZZED for the LONG TAIL! At long last, we can move beyond the hit culture that has dominated for so long. No longer, do we have to envy the cool kids at the popular lunch table (or rather the star-studded prime timers, or Casey Kasem’s countdown); now, we can take pride in seeking out those other niches that better suit our individualized needs and wants. Moreover, we can take pride in knowing that collectively, all of our quirky niche interests collectively add up to give the “hits” a very real run for their money.

I am thankful to have some one as masterful as Chris Anderson outlining the concept of the Long Tail in very easy to grasp terms. The internet has revolutionized the marketplace. We are no longer limited by finite shelf space. While the nostalgic part of me misses the old Tower Records in Tysons (a fav spot during my high school years), a bigger part of me is ecstatic to have new online resources that almost guarantee me access to the obscure indie bands that I could rarely before find on the shelves.

The 3 overarching principles behind the shift from hit-driven to niche-driven marketing and culture are as follows: 1.) a democratizing of the tools of production, increasing the population of available goods (providing more stuff and lengthening the tail; such as digi video cams, blogging software, etc); 2.) democratizing of the tools of distribution, allowing more access to niches (and fattening the tail; such entities as Amazon, iTunes); and 3.)a connecting of supply and demand (driving business from hits to niches via such sources as Google, blog reviews, etc.). It is truly amazing that we have all been empowered to be equally influential as both creators and consumers, having the fluidity to ease from one role to the other.

I also think it is an amazing concept that (perhaps latent) demand has grown with an increase in supply. Basically, the more choices you can throw at us, the more varied, specialized content we’ll consume.

According to Tim O’Reilly in “What is Web 2.0,” the 90s notion was that the web was about publishing, not participation; advertisers, not consumers, called the shots. Now, with Web 2.0, we see a shift. The idea now is to harness collective intelligence. Users add value in 2.0. This is the same concept that allows Linux and other open source communities to thrive, and it’s right in sync with the logic of the long tail. With a population of producers expanding exponentially, we can see Reeds Law in full effect!

More Smart Mobs

“Reputation marks the spot where technology and cooperation converge.”

-Howard Rheingold

“It’s not just how we use the technology that concerns us. We’re also concerned about what kind of people we become when we use it.”

-Amish Guy

In chapters 4-8, Rheingold continues in the same vain, discussing the possibilities of what’s to come in the way of lifestyle and cultural changes that result with advances in technological advancements. It’s funny to me that some of the things that Rheingold discusses here in these chapters as predictions or projections are already well on their way to fruition, and this book was only published in 2002. With Wi-Fi hot spots for instance, we are on our way to breaking 50,000 locations in the U.S. alone, according to this website that tracks them!

Rheingold goes into more depth on the subject of reputation as well. He poses two key questions on this subject: 1.) who owns our reputations? and 2.) Are universal reputation systems [even] possible?

I would argue yes on the second question and I shudder at the thought of not being the keeper of my own reputation. To me, not owning my reputation is like not owning my own identity. Reputation is identity. SCARY. Moreover, in terms of who owns at least our virtual street cred, I’d say Google is pretty well on the way to maintaining at least a huge piece of that pie; perhaps with organizations like Epinions and Ebay having a few suplementary slices themselves. Then the question becomes, can you separate the virtual from the physical anymore?? When you have technologies like WearComp, Bluetooth, and RFID (barcodes are so last season!) specifically designed to bridge those two worlds popping up everywhere, is there any turning back?

Multiple entities are going to vie for control in this crossbread era–those who are used to monopolizing from the top down, whose profits stand to soar; government entities under the premise of national security and public safety; and the very people themselves who will carry forth a grassroots movement. 

Smart mobs will need not only adapt to the new technologies that continue to develop, they will also need to safeguard against the potential derived threats to society that Rheingold identifies: threats to liberty, threats to quality of life and threats to human dignity. Take heed: don’t let the technology bring you down, but stay alert and let it instead hoist you up–”learning to become new kinds of humans.”

Smart Mobs/Cathedral and the Bazaar

Those seven little words: More People Pooling Resources in New Ways.

In Smart Mobs, Howard Rheingold details his global pursuits of digital technology as transforming social trends across cultures. Using examples ranging from mobile phones and SMS technologies to peer-to-peer networks, Rheingold highlights how we are now beyond the step of building the tools: “Now it’s about what people use the tools to do.” It is truly a remarkable concept, for example, that a mobile phone is quite well on the way to being a “remote control for your life!”
Rheingold highlights the importance of trust and reputation in cyberspace. This is reminiscent to me of similar points that were made by Scoble and Israel in Naked Conversations–particularly with their example of the Savile Row Tailor who earned a reputation for being a trusted source first and foremost. Wikipedia operates under a premise of trust and reputation for encyclopedia updates (incidentally, that Sinbad error earlier in the week was surely a black mark if not a black ball for that particular contributor). Another example where trust gets you recognized is on group blog sites such as Slashdot. Whether in the physical or virtual world, trust and reputation are earned.

An important question that Rheingold poses is this: In the face of temptation to behave selfishly, how do people manage to cooperate? One approach to that question is by Marc A. Smith, whereby he states that “people who can put a little of what they know and how they feel into the online network and draw out larger amounts of knowledge and opportunities for sociability than they put in.” Sounds pretty rewarding to me. Another explanation would be what Corey Doctorow deems “sheep who shit grass,” whereby users provide the same resource that they consume. Napster in its p2p days would be a prime example.

Rheingold also covers a series of four basic laws that apply to the digital social revolution: Sarnoff’s Law, Moore’s Law, Metcalfe’s Law and Reed’s Law. Each of these laws expands upon the previous, landing at a point of exponential growth in social networks linked to computer networks.

The open source movement is a prime example of how digital technological advancement is benefiting from the efforts of many. In the Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond (incidentally and admittedly off-topic, having seen the movie 300 just last weekend, in conjunction with having read The Cathedral and the Bazaar, I can’t help but draw parallels between the egos of Xerxes, as portrayed in the movie, and Eric Raymond as portrayed by himself. The self-congratulatory overtones were abundant throughout his piece) differentiates the bazaar model (that applies to the open source community) from the more traditional Cathedral model, where software is carefully crafted by individuals or small bands of programmers in “splendid isolation.” Under the bazaar model, where the more self-selected contributors the merrier!, the Delphi Effect yields a more reliable average opinion of a mass of equally expert (or equally ignorant) observers than the opinion of a single randomly-chosen one of the observers; seeming to work precisely because of the variation in the perceptual set and analytical toolkit. You get around the selfish interest problem here too, because developers are often scratching their own personal itch anyway. And while the problem of free riding will continue to be a challenge for the growth of the digital social movement, I think it is fair to say that “the collective innovations of millions of contributors” will continue to raise the ante across all digital social platforms.

The Search Continues

Source:
August 2009: How Google beat Amazon and Ebay to the Semantic Web, by Paul Ford

In the second half of The Search, John Batelle goes on to detail the further evolution of Google, spending some length on the intitial public offerring, and extrapolating with some speculation about where the technology-media industry is headed in the future. Oh the Places [We'll] Go! when the Web fully assumes the role of the next great computing platform! How simultaneously sweet and scary is the idea of a Google Grid??
Batelle raises the public/privacy issue in the context of reverse directories. It’s funny to think that people are generally okay with their information being publicly accessible (i.e. phone numbers and addresses), but it is not until a middle man (in this case, Google) connects those dots and makes it easy to identify that personal information that people begin to hit the panic button (since I don’t have a land line, I looked up my dad’s phone number for kicks); this phenomenon Batelle deems “the balance between a right to privacy and a right to know.” We can certainly all give thanks that the USA PATRIOT Act was renewed!

I also find it interesting that Google continues to stubbornly hold onto it’s nouveau (my descriptor, for lack of a better one) business model, even post IPO. When comparing and contrasting Yahoo and Google, Batelle raises an interesting distinction: Yahoo is far more willing to have editorial and commercial agendas, and to let humans intervene in search results. I think there is something to be said for allowing human intervention here. While I do respect Google for sticking to their guns so to speak, if they are to continue on the most successful path, they ought to revisit the idea of human intervention. There are only so many things a computer can do. As an aside on this topic, I think it is brilliant that Carnegie Mellon has established the ESP Game for tagging purposes. Why not let the collective human consciousness make a few calls and have a little fun in the process?

In quick sum, I think it is fair to say that media, technology, and search specifically are all merging into some kind of hybrid (look at Itunes and YouTube for an appertif). Google can dance the dance all they want, but they can no longer distinguish themselves completely from the media label. We are well beyond our more simplistic days of Google epiphanies. And we’re moving ahead at warp speed!

Naked Conversations–Part II

The second half of the book focuses more on problem areas of blogging and what not to do, to reinforce how to do it right.

One key point: Dialogue beats monologue. This point rang particularly true for me this weekend, as I sat, the passive listener during a time-share presentation. The sales rep did the talking, I did the passive listening. No sale.

Blogs need to be a two way street. I think a blog that does not permit comments for interaction indeed deserves a lame rating.

One point I disagree with Scoble and Israel on is the third party voice blogger. They say they have some ambivalence about this form of outsourced blogging, but still credit it as better than no blog at all. I’d say this form is less credible and might do more harm than good for a company.

I also think it’s somewhat confusing how Scoble and Israel acknowledge on one hand how corporate cultures very loosely define their employee blogging policies, if at all; while on the other hand, they encourage bloggers to know how far they can push the safety knob. How can one know how far to push without some clear definition on limitations? They are asking people to take some major risks when they might have a family to feed and a job on the line.

One area where I do think Scoble and Israel make a valid point, is in regards to deleting content. Bad bad bad! The strike-through method is much more transparent; and/or, if you must delete, a new post with a clear explanation of the deletion that has taken place is essential. Otherwise, it’s going to breed distrust. The exact opposite effect of what a blog is meant develop: trust.

Overall, I think Scoble and Israel make a strong case for how blogging can benefit businesses if they follow the basics (i.e. be transparent; don’t be BORING!); but one of the catches here is if you can be the first one to break blogging ground in an industry or a community, you instantly have an edge over your competition. The same sorts of benefits may not carry over if the competition tries to follow in turn.

Blogging is not the silver bullet. It is yet another tool in the toolbox for global communications. Companies should take care not to simply hop on the blog wagon because it’s the latest greatest trend in communications; they should, however, certainly utilize it as as supplemental tool if they can devote the proper resources to keep an active, transparent dialogue with an existent or developing customer base.