Networks create value. It's the lesson of Reed's Law (Group Forming Network Theory, see resources) and one which is repeatedly being demonstrated by the success of numerous social networking sites.
Ubiquity, allowing the constantly connected community, makes the value still greater.
And often it seems we talk about the business benefits of this model - the way it enables a new ecology of co-creators - converged prosumers (see Media is the New Way of Doing Business).
But there are other, more transparently beneficial, areas the same thinking should be applied to.
I'm thinking of the medical profession, police forces - education, too?
Anyone going through medical treatment will know you'll see a succession of highly trained individuals. Typically you'll have to describe your symptoms over and over. Typically it gets written down on paper. And while professionals within a department or even at a certain strata within that department, may discuss case studies, they won't connect with others on the other side of the same hospital (or even 'above' and 'below' themselves) - who may have seen the same patient previously or learned something useful from another experience with a patient.
Imagine if doctor A had shared with doctor B about patient X. And symptom Y rang a bell for doctor B because he'd shared with doctor C on a previous occasion. Simply, allowing for emergent intelligence in the network should result in more accurate, swifter diagnoses. That cuts costs for the medical service and heals the patient faster.
Win/Win - new value created by the network.
If networks of professionals beat the best individual professional in predicting the stock market (see Reingold's Smart Mobs), shouldn't they also be better at healthcare? At policing? At educating our children?
The further ahead you look - the faster you go | davidpcushman AT gmail.com | These are my views and my views only.
Showing posts with label social consumption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social consumption. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
End of the retreat: How media is the new way of doing business
Like many a traditional media company, the one I work for has been scratching its head over how to convert revenues as traditional revenues fall and digital ones seem more elusive than we'd like.
It's easy to develop a bit of a siege mentality.
If you're on that side of the wall - here's a message of hope: The retreat is over. The offensive has begun.
Why so positive?
A crucial penny has dropped for me (and if you're a regular reader/contributor to this blog you may well have seen me edging towards it in recent posts, before I worked it out for myself...)
It is this: There is NO business (model) in the world of We Species we now inhabit (see Alan Moore's work at Communities Dominate Brands) which does not benefit from the application of the ideas of We Media.
If all this sounds a little too much like buzzwords gone mad, let me explain.
Not only does my definition of what a Media Brand now is (ie a platform for a community of shared interests) apply to what we think of traditional media plays, it is also equally essential for any business model - full stop.
So the ideas encapsulated in this post 'Does a straightforward transaction site need a social play?' and in this 'A new definition of media brands'. can, indeed MUST, apply to any wannabe business model in this post mass-media/industrial age.
No longer are traditional media companies in retreat - now I see media companies as uniquely positioned to take advantage of the new way of doing business which is emerging from our new community dominated ecology.
In 'A new definition of media brands' I argued:
Media companies (and I am deliberately not distinguishing between new media (eg google) and traditional media (eg emap) because I think both have advantages) are uniquely well placed to benefit from the cultural shift towards community (evidenced by social networking etc).
Those with expertise in specialist niches may well be the best positioned of all (and yes, I have to declare an interest here - I am employed by a company with exactly that expertise). They are best suited to activating and engaging the long tail.
Why?
1. New media companies are brilliant at connecting (socialising) us digitally, traditional media companies have big audiences to activate. Traditional media companies have tons of insight to help identify the new business opportunities (by which I mean opportunities to help build and join with co-creating communities).
2. Combine this with our experience in building communities (not particularly connected ones in the case of traditional media, but communities none-the-less) and you have a position of significant advantage in the age of constantly-connected communities.
In a new economy dominated by social consumers (prosumers) the niche global community platform creators hold the cards.
As always your views, reactions and suggestions are welcome. Please share below.
It's easy to develop a bit of a siege mentality.
If you're on that side of the wall - here's a message of hope: The retreat is over. The offensive has begun.
Why so positive?
A crucial penny has dropped for me (and if you're a regular reader/contributor to this blog you may well have seen me edging towards it in recent posts, before I worked it out for myself...)
It is this: There is NO business (model) in the world of We Species we now inhabit (see Alan Moore's work at Communities Dominate Brands) which does not benefit from the application of the ideas of We Media.
If all this sounds a little too much like buzzwords gone mad, let me explain.
Not only does my definition of what a Media Brand now is (ie a platform for a community of shared interests) apply to what we think of traditional media plays, it is also equally essential for any business model - full stop.
So the ideas encapsulated in this post 'Does a straightforward transaction site need a social play?' and in this 'A new definition of media brands'. can, indeed MUST, apply to any wannabe business model in this post mass-media/industrial age.
No longer are traditional media companies in retreat - now I see media companies as uniquely positioned to take advantage of the new way of doing business which is emerging from our new community dominated ecology.
In 'A new definition of media brands' I argued:
- A media brand is a platform for a community with shared interests.
- Focused on the interests of this community, we should aggregate content and offer services.
- Services are best delivered at the point they are needed – and that is always, always mobile!
Media companies (and I am deliberately not distinguishing between new media (eg google) and traditional media (eg emap) because I think both have advantages) are uniquely well placed to benefit from the cultural shift towards community (evidenced by social networking etc).
Those with expertise in specialist niches may well be the best positioned of all (and yes, I have to declare an interest here - I am employed by a company with exactly that expertise). They are best suited to activating and engaging the long tail.
Why?
1. New media companies are brilliant at connecting (socialising) us digitally, traditional media companies have big audiences to activate. Traditional media companies have tons of insight to help identify the new business opportunities (by which I mean opportunities to help build and join with co-creating communities).
2. Combine this with our experience in building communities (not particularly connected ones in the case of traditional media, but communities none-the-less) and you have a position of significant advantage in the age of constantly-connected communities.
In a new economy dominated by social consumers (prosumers) the niche global community platform creators hold the cards.
As always your views, reactions and suggestions are welcome. Please share below.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Social consumers - and what ratings are for
The emergence of TheGorb.com raises questions about the best way for communities to rate.
Most site builders insist on registration and have a preference for IDs etc.
This is based on protecting the site owner and our drive to 'own' user data. These factors gain priority over the altogether simpler imperative - helping a community to accurately share its assessment of things it regards as important. In short - we forget what ratings are for.
The approach of The Gorb may seem a little extreme for some tastes. It takes the no-barrier route. No need to register, and you get to remain anonymous.
There are controls on this. The ratings are weighted (though god, and gorb math alone knows how...)
"This is a sophisticated mathematical algorithm that detects and eliminates ratings that have a high likelihood of being biased. It also uses an innovative rater scoring scheme to provide people with incentives to rate truthfully, as well as to recognize frequent and thoughtful raters."
In essence there is a community control which scores you down if you appear to be dissing for no good reason. If you misuse the tool you'll lose respect in the eyes of TheGorb. Reingold's 'shadow of the future' is cast across every user the moment they begin to interact with the site.
It seems to me they've done a great job of putting the value of ratings first - and doing all they can to remove bias. TheGorb argues, for example, that linkedin is positively skewed by the simple fact that you aren't anonymous. You say nice things in the hope that the receipient will say nice things back. TheGorb aims to get closer to the truth.
Its whole big idea is to raise up the quiet, good, people and modify the behaviour of the bad. To make the world a better place (eg: Take greater incentive to do the right thing, encourage others to do so, and celebrate those opportunities together. ).
Seems vague and tree-hugging, doesn't it? But consider google's mission statement for a moment (...to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful). - and you might recognise the potential TheGorb really has.
But I do wonder how it'll cope with the potentional for ruinous litigation - ie Defamation cases (since it's entirely about personal reputations). There would be a certain irony in the 'losers' finding themselves a great lawyer using it.
And anyone who's read The Tipping Point is going to struggle with the notion of reducing personality to a non-contextual abstract... but that's another story altogether.
Most site builders insist on registration and have a preference for IDs etc.
This is based on protecting the site owner and our drive to 'own' user data. These factors gain priority over the altogether simpler imperative - helping a community to accurately share its assessment of things it regards as important. In short - we forget what ratings are for.
The approach of The Gorb may seem a little extreme for some tastes. It takes the no-barrier route. No need to register, and you get to remain anonymous.
There are controls on this. The ratings are weighted (though god, and gorb math alone knows how...)
"This is a sophisticated mathematical algorithm that detects and eliminates ratings that have a high likelihood of being biased. It also uses an innovative rater scoring scheme to provide people with incentives to rate truthfully, as well as to recognize frequent and thoughtful raters."
In essence there is a community control which scores you down if you appear to be dissing for no good reason. If you misuse the tool you'll lose respect in the eyes of TheGorb. Reingold's 'shadow of the future' is cast across every user the moment they begin to interact with the site.
It seems to me they've done a great job of putting the value of ratings first - and doing all they can to remove bias. TheGorb argues, for example, that linkedin is positively skewed by the simple fact that you aren't anonymous. You say nice things in the hope that the receipient will say nice things back. TheGorb aims to get closer to the truth.
Its whole big idea is to raise up the quiet, good, people and modify the behaviour of the bad. To make the world a better place (eg: Take greater incentive to do the right thing, encourage others to do so, and celebrate those opportunities together. ).
Seems vague and tree-hugging, doesn't it? But consider google's mission statement for a moment (...to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful). - and you might recognise the potential TheGorb really has.
But I do wonder how it'll cope with the potentional for ruinous litigation - ie Defamation cases (since it's entirely about personal reputations). There would be a certain irony in the 'losers' finding themselves a great lawyer using it.
And anyone who's read The Tipping Point is going to struggle with the notion of reducing personality to a non-contextual abstract... but that's another story altogether.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Long tail will wag the mobile internet dog
Internet success stories have long valued the long tail. And all the predictions are that the value of the mobile internet will follow the same pattern.
What's interesting to me is the way the socialisation/democratisation of the web has set new standards for users and means they want to take that with them into the mobile web.
The result of this is that while the fixed line net was initially grown by content providers of the mass industrial age, the mobile web will explode as a direct result of User Generated Content.
And because of the social nature of 2.0 I expect the growth to be exponential - and to dominate the way the mobile web develops in a faster and more pervasive way than we saw with the original fixed-line internet.
The long tail will wag the mobile internet dog more vigorously than it has the fixed line internet.
I don't know the facts and figures - and I'd welcome hearing from anyone who does - but I suspect, where mobile internet is concerned, already content provided by mass media makes up a tiny percentage of all content on the mobile web. The vast majority must be coming from users setting up their own mobile sites, creating their own content and services and selling them.
I think of sites like mynumo.com where users can create their own ringtones, and a mobile webpage to sell them on.
I think of sites like peperonity.com where you can create your own mobile internet page in seconds - and then start charging for content and downloads from it (360,000 plus have already).
These are sites which converge the user, the buyer, the seller, the marketeer, the employee - all in the one person. This is the social nature of trade described in more detail here.
I think of Admob, which allows you to start making money from your content - if you can add its code to your mobile site.
But there's still a gap in this. I set myself up a fasterfuture.peperonity.com mobile version of this blog. But I'd have to call it a 'lite' version. There's no ability to add an rss feed (ie of latest items from this blog) and there's no way I can monetise (should I wish), beyond actually selling the content in a micro-payments model. And who pays for content?
Peperonity do ok from this model as they place ads on my content. I get a site to play with, they get a way of serving mobile ads. But wouldn't you want a cut of the earnings from the ads?
Widsets.com allows you to choose fasterfuture as a widget to download to your mobile - and that delivers every post as it's made from this blog to an organised rss feed. But there are few design options, no ad model (from a ugc perspective), no ability to add code etc etc.
For the long tail to truly go exponential I think we need something which allows all of these:
1. Really easy creation of mobile pages (on fixed line and on mobile)
2. Really easy ability to change the design to our tastes (and I'm thinking icons/desktop style as well as background colours and layout)
3. Ability to add and create rss feeds
4. Ability to add code snippets (ie YouTube video, google adsense)
5. Really easy share/ creator propogation (ie socially networked)
6. Enabled for social trade.
7. It has to be free to the site owner.
8. Option to offer as an application-based widget.
So, a lot of the things we expect from our blogsites on fixed line - and a few which don't.
If you know of anything that ticks the boxes - or is about to. Please share.
If I'm asking for the moon on a stick, let me know why!
What's interesting to me is the way the socialisation/democratisation of the web has set new standards for users and means they want to take that with them into the mobile web.
The result of this is that while the fixed line net was initially grown by content providers of the mass industrial age, the mobile web will explode as a direct result of User Generated Content.
And because of the social nature of 2.0 I expect the growth to be exponential - and to dominate the way the mobile web develops in a faster and more pervasive way than we saw with the original fixed-line internet.
The long tail will wag the mobile internet dog more vigorously than it has the fixed line internet.
I don't know the facts and figures - and I'd welcome hearing from anyone who does - but I suspect, where mobile internet is concerned, already content provided by mass media makes up a tiny percentage of all content on the mobile web. The vast majority must be coming from users setting up their own mobile sites, creating their own content and services and selling them.
I think of sites like mynumo.com where users can create their own ringtones, and a mobile webpage to sell them on.
I think of sites like peperonity.com where you can create your own mobile internet page in seconds - and then start charging for content and downloads from it (360,000 plus have already).
These are sites which converge the user, the buyer, the seller, the marketeer, the employee - all in the one person. This is the social nature of trade described in more detail here.
I think of Admob, which allows you to start making money from your content - if you can add its code to your mobile site.
But there's still a gap in this. I set myself up a fasterfuture.peperonity.com mobile version of this blog. But I'd have to call it a 'lite' version. There's no ability to add an rss feed (ie of latest items from this blog) and there's no way I can monetise (should I wish), beyond actually selling the content in a micro-payments model. And who pays for content?
Peperonity do ok from this model as they place ads on my content. I get a site to play with, they get a way of serving mobile ads. But wouldn't you want a cut of the earnings from the ads?
Widsets.com allows you to choose fasterfuture as a widget to download to your mobile - and that delivers every post as it's made from this blog to an organised rss feed. But there are few design options, no ad model (from a ugc perspective), no ability to add code etc etc.
For the long tail to truly go exponential I think we need something which allows all of these:
1. Really easy creation of mobile pages (on fixed line and on mobile)
2. Really easy ability to change the design to our tastes (and I'm thinking icons/desktop style as well as background colours and layout)
3. Ability to add and create rss feeds
4. Ability to add code snippets (ie YouTube video, google adsense)
5. Really easy share/ creator propogation (ie socially networked)
6. Enabled for social trade.
7. It has to be free to the site owner.
8. Option to offer as an application-based widget.
So, a lot of the things we expect from our blogsites on fixed line - and a few which don't.
If you know of anything that ticks the boxes - or is about to. Please share.
If I'm asking for the moon on a stick, let me know why!
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Could social consumer tech make your 1.0 site a 2.0 one for free?
I've been ferreting around among the 2.0 social shopper applications and have started to think they may offer a fast, free track to 2.0 social-facing consumption for 1.0 websites.
For example; imagine if argos.co.uk added the offertrax
button (see below) to all its inventory, suddenly they get all the advantages of 2.0 with none of the costs, trouble of conversion, need to convince consumers to take up a novelty etc etc.
And so it goes for any digital play which lists stuff for sale - particularly if those catalogue listings change with fairly regular rapidity (consumer electronics, clothing, groceries etc etc).
It could even apply to a classified model (though eBay might fill your rss inbox a bit quick!) - provided you allow users to update their offering (eg change the price).
For more on offertrax and similar social shopping offerings, see links below.
For example; imagine if argos.co.uk added the offertrax
button (see below) to all its inventory, suddenly they get all the advantages of 2.0 with none of the costs, trouble of conversion, need to convince consumers to take up a novelty etc etc.And so it goes for any digital play which lists stuff for sale - particularly if those catalogue listings change with fairly regular rapidity (consumer electronics, clothing, groceries etc etc).
It could even apply to a classified model (though eBay might fill your rss inbox a bit quick!) - provided you allow users to update their offering (eg change the price).
For more on offertrax and similar social shopping offerings, see links below.
Social consumption: A rapid and sticky way to close the trust gap
diigo.com is a 2.0 browser download that enables 'social annotation'.
They say: Highlight, Clip and Sticky-Note for any webpage
just as you would on paper --> write on any webpage!
make them private or public --> interact on any webpage!
Share your online findings with your friends and colleagues
complete with highlights and sticky notes
as lists, as blogs, as albums, as feeds, or via email.
I can see this proving very useful as a tool in beta testing of sites (see example, here)
But it's also worth considering as a social consumer tool, hard on the heels of offertrax et al.
And it set me thinking: There are many social consumer sites cropping up now.
How disruptive to traditional BUYNOW classified models do you think they are likely to be?
These social consumer sites offer a new and fast way to close the trust gap - ie "you might have the right price, mate - but I've never heard of you. Why should I give you my money?"
The notion of customer loyalty to any particular vendor brands has pretty much been crushed by the internet.
It's essentially because vendor brands (shops and online retailers) have way less influence over us than the communities we want to share our thoughts and lives with.
Now we follow the price - the brand of the product itself is where the value resides for us - provided the vendor has a certain level of trust about them.
There are some exceptions - and they are perhaps those brands which work hardest to engage (think Amazon's onsite CRM) but ultimately that loyalty to vendor brand only makes you choose that particular brand as one of your preferred places to search/visit (a definite advantage even in a 2.0 world, it has to be said).
Vendor brands which make themselves useful to us - and which we can trust - still gain an edge.
But the trust gap can be closed much more rapidly by new vendors than ever before. And that means it just got easier to launch against No1 in any market.
If members of your community have shared with you that this new vendor is indeed all he's cracked up to be, then the vast majority of buyers are likely to be swayed.
It's always been possible to read user reviews of their experiences with a particular vendor of course - on their own forums etc. But can you trust them?
So you could go trawling the internet on the off chance that someone else has posted about them on some other consumer forum somewhere (though many wouldn't bother, they'll just tootle off to a brand they already have some trust in). And why trust those posters? They aren't part of your particular community (in most cases).
What diigo does is make the thoughts of other members of your community apparent at the moment you view the offer from the vendor (new or old) on any site.
You get instant advice from the community you do trust.
Great news for new vendors. Great news for consumers - because if the new boy gets it wrong everyone (from that community) who visits his site will see the message.
All they need is critical mass.
They say: Highlight, Clip and Sticky-Note for any webpage
just as you would on paper --> write on any webpage!
make them private or public --> interact on any webpage!
Share your online findings with your friends and colleagues
complete with highlights and sticky notes
as lists, as blogs, as albums, as feeds, or via email.
I can see this proving very useful as a tool in beta testing of sites (see example, here)
But it's also worth considering as a social consumer tool, hard on the heels of offertrax et al.
And it set me thinking: There are many social consumer sites cropping up now.
How disruptive to traditional BUYNOW classified models do you think they are likely to be?
These social consumer sites offer a new and fast way to close the trust gap - ie "you might have the right price, mate - but I've never heard of you. Why should I give you my money?"
The notion of customer loyalty to any particular vendor brands has pretty much been crushed by the internet.
It's essentially because vendor brands (shops and online retailers) have way less influence over us than the communities we want to share our thoughts and lives with.
Now we follow the price - the brand of the product itself is where the value resides for us - provided the vendor has a certain level of trust about them.
There are some exceptions - and they are perhaps those brands which work hardest to engage (think Amazon's onsite CRM) but ultimately that loyalty to vendor brand only makes you choose that particular brand as one of your preferred places to search/visit (a definite advantage even in a 2.0 world, it has to be said).
Vendor brands which make themselves useful to us - and which we can trust - still gain an edge.
But the trust gap can be closed much more rapidly by new vendors than ever before. And that means it just got easier to launch against No1 in any market.
If members of your community have shared with you that this new vendor is indeed all he's cracked up to be, then the vast majority of buyers are likely to be swayed.
It's always been possible to read user reviews of their experiences with a particular vendor of course - on their own forums etc. But can you trust them?
So you could go trawling the internet on the off chance that someone else has posted about them on some other consumer forum somewhere (though many wouldn't bother, they'll just tootle off to a brand they already have some trust in). And why trust those posters? They aren't part of your particular community (in most cases).
What diigo does is make the thoughts of other members of your community apparent at the moment you view the offer from the vendor (new or old) on any site.
You get instant advice from the community you do trust.
Great news for new vendors. Great news for consumers - because if the new boy gets it wrong everyone (from that community) who visits his site will see the message.
All they need is critical mass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
FasterFuture.blogspot.com
The rate of change is so rapid it's difficult for one person to keep up to speed. Let's pool our thoughts, share our reactions and, who knows, even reach some shared conclusions worth arriving at?
