The business of social media

I had the opportunity/chance/pain of being on a social media panel for our Third Tuesday Meetup, so I couldn’t resist a post called Ten Questions Not To Ask A Social Media Panel. It’s a humourous post with much truth between the lines. I’ve found that just about everybody today is a social media consultant and I’m glad that I never used that descriptor for my professional services.

As much as I enjoyed Berkowitz’s main topic, there is one comment that answers several of the questions that I get asked about this “Web thing”. It’s by Janet Johnson who provides the specifics that most people want from panels but don’t often get:

I’ve personally observed ROI (expenditure = time) mostly in the following areas:

1) Improving collaboration for virtual teams scattered around cities, countries and such – Twitter is especially great for that.

2) Lead generation for consultants – especially in the areas of RSS, infrastructure and social media (big duh, but it’s true).

3) Awareness and thought leadership – especially for those whose markets serve early adopters/18-35 year olds today, although the baby boomers are adopting to, and using the social web quite quickly.

Negotiating the mesh of social meaning

I finally got around to reading Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder by David Weinberger. I thought that I understood the premise and contents fairly well from my readings on the Web but I was pleasantly surprised by this book, which is now available in paperback. There is lots here that I will refer back to and the book will definitely stay on my reference library shelf.

For instance, I already knew this concept ;-)

In the miscellaneous order, the only distinction between metadata and data is that metadata is what you already know and data is what you’re trying find.

But then we go one step beyond the Cluetrain:

The markets that conversations make are real markets, not mere statistical clusterings.

I highlighted this passge near the end:

In the world after the Enlightenment, the cultural task was to build knowledge. In the miscellaneous world, the task is to build meaning, even though we can’t yet know what we’ll do with this new domain. Certainly some will mine it for knowledge that will change our lives through science and business. But knowledge will only be one product. Knowledge’s new place will be in an ever-present mesh of social meaning. Knowledge is thus not being dethroned. We are way too good at knowing, and our continued progress – and survival – depends on it. But knowledge is now not our only project or our single highest meaning. Making sense of what we know is the broader task, a task for understanding within the infrastructure of meaning.

This made me pause and think about what we mean when we discuss knowledge work, and if it may be the wrong label.

Your market is laughing; at you

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has hit some success with a program that gets viewers to create mash-up advertisements that spoof traditional advertising.

The number of ads made for a range of fictional products – a beer, an anti-ageing cream and a bank – and the number of times they have been watched, 280,000, has surprised ABC programming chiefs.

However, this is not going over well with the industry:

But yesterday the chairman of one of the biggest industry groups, Robert Morgan of Clemenger Communications, panned the series, saying it “demeaned and trivialised” the business.

Here is an important note to corporations; Cluetrain Thesis #20:

Companies need to realize their markets are often laughing. At them.

Gee, what’s next, people making fun of education?

Meetings

Two meetings in one day. One was traditional. Use the telephone; get everyone on the same page through lengthy discussions; follow up with e-mail; work several iterations; many phone calls and lots more e-mail. No one uses social media in their work flow. Getting paid for this work. Conference call – almost three hours.

The other meeting was between three bloggers, all who read each other’s writing and understand their perspectives. The idea is to try a new initiative and see what happens. Invest some time but no money. Initiate first discussion on a collaborative web document. Get going now. Conference call – one hour.

Which will be more successful? Which do you think gets me more excited? Which one pays the bills :-(

OLDaily Summer Edition

For the next month I’ll be a co-editor of Stephen Downes’ OLDaily newsletter, with Barry Dahl and Gary Woodill. This will probably mean fewer posts on this blog.

I’m looking forward to the challenge of an enforced daily posting. My own blog averages about a post per day but if I don’t feel like writing anything I don’t feel any pressure to do so. Now I actually have a deadline. Luckily I’ll have two great partners in this endeavour.

See you on the Summer Edition!

Moncton’s open source community is growing

This week I attended the Social Media Meetup in Moncton and had the opportunity to spend some time with guest speaker Jevon Macdonald and several other folks, hosted by Steve in his new business digs. I met Steve Mallett over five years ago when I gave a presentation on open source at the local Cybersocial. Steve has been running the Open Source Directory for many years and at that time I’m sure he was trying to figure out who this local guy was talking about OS. Our meeting was my first glimpse that there may be people “below the radar” who work globally on open source projects but don’t advertise their local presence.

On my flight back from Ottawa on Friday evening I was lucky to meet another open source evangelist. Deb Richardson, the intrepid girl reporter, was on her way back from Silicon Valley after this week’s successful mega launch of Firefox 3.0. Her post on the Field Guide to Firefox 3 is worth a read for those +14 million who have downloaded it so far:

We’re done. Firefox 3 is going to be launched very soon. In anticipation of this long-awaited event, the folks in the Mozilla community have been writing extensively about the new and improved features you’ll see in the browser. The new features cover the full range from huge and game-changing to ones so subtle you may not notice them until you realize that using Firefox is just somehow easier and better. The range of improved features is similar — whole back-end systems have been rebuilt from scratch, while other features have been tweaked slightly or redesigned in small ways. Overall the result is the fastest, safest, slimmest, and easiest to use version of Firefox yet. We hope you like it.

Firefox 3 Deb Richardson

BTW, Deb, since you like the Peterson Field Guides so much, you’ll have to try your eyes on all the species in Sackville, or at the Atlantic Wildlife Institute [I work there from time to time].

Pitching work literacy

Bill Brantley responded to my post on work literacy:

In fact, as the rise of social network-based learning has demonstrated, employees no longer need the company to develop their knowledge, skills, and abilities.

This is the conundrum for those of us who would like to help organisations [and get paid] in enabling their employees to become work literate. It may be that knowledge workers need to become more autonomous to be effective and that this would be good for the organisation in the long run. However, one result will be that workers will need less supervision and direction. A do-it-ourselves approach to learning and development also means that there is less of a need for training, HR and several other organisational functions. I doubt that any training department will fund its own demise.

So how do you get employers to spend money unlocking  their employees from the indentured servitude model of salaried employment? This is the client/customer challenge. The workers may be the customers who need the skills, but the employers are the paying clients. Why would employers help employees become more independent and maybe even leave the organisation?

I’ve suggested that work literacy may be best left to professional associations or communities of practice. Higher education may take up the challenge, but I won’t hold my breath. I’m quite certain that pitching real worker empowerment to hierarchical organisations is going to be a hard sell.

The work literacy gap

Yes, there is a work literacy gap.

My experience shows that in North America, where I have done most of my work, a significant portion of the workforce has not been able to develop the skills to learn for themselves. This does not mean that they lack basic learning skills. What they lack are tools, methods and practices to learn and to take action. They also face significant barriers to being autonomous learners on the job. Richard Florida has noted that one of our great challenges will be to enable everyone to become part of the creative class, including the millions of currently low-paid workers in service industries.

We are trained early in life to look to authority for direction in learning and work. The idea that there is a right answer or an expert with the right answer begins in our schools. John Taylor Gatto describes this in the seven-lesson schoolteacher.

The fifth lesson I teach is intellectual dependency. Good people wait for a teacher to tell them what to do. It is the most important lesson, that we must wait for other people, better trained than ourselves, to make the meanings of our lives. The expert makes all the important choices; only I, the teacher, can determine what you must study, or rather, only the people who pay me can make those decisions which I then enforce. If I’m told that evolution is a fact instead of a theory, I transmit that as ordered, punishing deviants who resist what I have been told to tell them to think. This power to control what children will think lets me separate successful students from failures very easily.

Good employees wait for their supervisor to tell them what to do. The industrial workplace is not much different from the military – “you’re not paid to think”.

The Internet has changed the way we communicate and has given each of us with a computer and Net access more power than the Press barons. However, our organisations (schools, businesses, bureaucracies) have not changed yet.

The basic problem is that workers need to be adaptive, innovative, and collaborative but most work in organisations that have tremendous barriers to critical thinking. Does the following describe any organisation that you have worked in?

a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority based on information, knowledge, trust and credibility, enabled by interconnected people and technology

Yes, individuals need to take control of their learning and skill development (AKA “work literacy”) but organisations have to give up some control. Michele Martin commented on my post on the dysfunctional workplace:

What strikes me is the fundamental sense of disempowerment in the workplace that suggests that people are essentially at the mercy of the companies they work for. While obviously there’s some truth to this, especially in an economic downturn, I still believe that people have far more control over these issues than they believe. One of my main goals in working with people on integrating social media and professional development is to point out how empowering it is to take control of your own learning by starting a blog and pursuing DIY professional development. If the will is there, the means certainly exist.

Developing practical methods, like PKM and Skills 2.0 (PDF) can help, but at the same time we need to work on creating and supporting new models of work that are more democratic and human. This means that we need to think about and talk about work differently. For myself, I have found that not being a salaried employee has freed my mind in many ways. I know that this is not the answer for everyone, but it’s time to make slogans like, “our business is our people’, a reality.

So yes, there are skills, especially critical thinking, that are necessary for real knowledge work, but without changes to the structure of the workplace, these skills will not be enough.

Photo by dykstranet

Canadians demand fair dealing

In 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that:

Excessive control by holders of copyrights and other forms of intellectual property may unduly limit the ability of the public domain to incorporate and embellish creative innovation in the long-term interests of society as a whole, or create practical obstacles to proper utilization.

On June 12, 2008, the government introduced Bill C-61, which strengthens the rights of media conglomerates and makes many everyday practices, by average citizens, criminal acts. Teachers, students, writers, musicians, business operators and especially start-up businesses stand to lose their rights with this bill.

More images from Gaetan.

It’s time to learn about Copyright Law in Canada.

Read the issues at Fair Copyright or from Michael Geist.

Contact your Member of Parliament, before it is too late. If this law passes, our children will become criminals. Is this what we want?

Learning content should be hackable

Early in my training/education career I did a bit of content development; some classroom training, a couple of web-based courses, and some CBT. I found content development rather boring and have spent the last decade focusing on analysis (what would be best?) and evaluation (how does the current program work?)  George Siemens raises a good point about learning content development:

Key point: while much of the initial process for gathering information (or, if you will, creating a course) is unchanged, what is most unique now is the iterative, corrective, and subsequent interaction and enhancement around the content after it has been created (again, think courses and programs if you’re an educator).

We have a lot of material on what works for training or education and how to make better programs from a pedagogical perspective.  One example is Ruth Clark’s Six Principles of Effective e-Learning (PDF). However, there is one principle that is not taught or followed in instructional design that would really reflect the nature of the Web. There should be a principle of  making learning content hackable, so that it can change with the times, the needs of instructors or learners. Licenses such as CC-By-NC would allow remixing. Perhaps we need a special “CC-Education Remix” license.

Anyway, if you want your content to live a long, healthy and even diverse life; make it easier to hack.