WebProNews » Commentary

Twitter Campaign Lauds Laxer Rules For Congress 2.0

WebProNews Staff — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:44:55 +0000

Though many were disappointed yesterday in Representative John Culberson’s (R-TX) partisan scapegoating via Twitter, he did sort of fall backwards over an important issue. The issue wasn’t that Democrats were seeking to abridge Congressional freedom of speech as it related to Web 2.0 applications, but that Congressional freedom of speech had already been abridged via previously established draconian gag rules.

Culberson’s outburst had good timing though. That same day (yesterday), The Sunlight Foundation registered LetOurCongressTweet.org. They launched a Twitter petition immediately.

How’s that for lightening-fast activism?

The people behind the Sunlight Foundation, though, are what you might call "Internet savvy." See if you recognize these names: board members Craig Newmark and Esther Dyson; advisors Lawrence Lessig, Kim Scott, and Jimmy Wales; funding in part by the Omidyar Network.

In case you don’t recognize their names, here are some others they’re associated with: craigslist, CNET, Stanford, Google, Wikipedia, eBay. Sort of a who’s-who of successful Web ventures.

They appear to believe Culberson was right about his outrage against what were later revealed to be existing regulations, even if he sort of shot the wrong dog (or donkey, if you will). LetOurCongressTweet thinks the rules should be changed, too, and have launched what could be the first ever petition via Twitter.

Twitterers passionate about the subject are asked to tweet this message:

Congress, change the rules. Talk to us on our social networks. http://LetOurCongressTweet.org Let our Congress Tweet! #LOCT08

It does seem rather un-American that US legislators are supposed to have their messages to the masses approved by some higher content authority, and those messages are to be posted on officially approved channels. One can imagine there must be some national security argument, or at least the rationale that some pre-publishing consultation will prevent Congressmen from tweeting their false alarms.

But still. . .

I doubt my own sentiments yesterday (though I haven’t yet thrown them out), that a person cannot simultaneously be a legislator and a member of the press/citizen media. 1.) Legislators should be too busy for that. 2.) How does a dog watch itself?

But the idea of governmental transparency, a direct pipeline to remote Congressmen, two-way open conversations, and virtual town hall discussions are all beautiful concepts dripping with American idealism—you know, that dream (that myth) of power and voice residing with the people, how Congress works for you and not against you.

Robin Sloan nearly convinces me it’s possible in this piece about former House member Matthew Smoot’s pioneering of an online forum for his district to chat about what was important to them. This passage was choice:

Tad Clawson emerged from the codebase to write a signature post that articulated what we’d all been thinking:

"Direct democracy or representative republic? It’s a false dichotomy. With these new tools, we can harness the best of both: Matt is as much a communicator as he is a legislator. Maybe that’s what representatives should become: Nodes where the collective intelligence of their district comes together, coalesces, and finds expression.

This is a smart country."

Of course, like forums often do, Smoot’s Forum 12 became an unwieldy battleground he wouldn’t have had time for anyway once he reached the Senate side of the Capitol. (Apparently, Senators are busier than Representatives, not having time to run forums or watch "Lost" in their pajamas—you should read Robin’s essay; it’s a revealing one.)

But still. . .

It’s a good idea, right?

And hey, it just might work. Four hours ago, Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) tweeted his first message, and once he was finished with an energy policy discussion (what? you think all he has time for is Twitter?), he signed (tweeted) the petition statement to change the rules. Not bad for the first day.

Update: Looks like the Speaker of the House is on board, too, via her blog.

Social Networks and the Importance of Trust

Neville Hobson — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:15:22 +0000

2008 will be the year of business networking, says Bernard Lunn, who offers six predictions about some of the social networks that are getting a lot of attention at the moment – Facebook, LinkedIn, Xing and Plaxo.

He also mentions one I’ve not thought of as a social network – Viadeo. It seems to me to be more of a news portal. Plus no mention of MySpace, still the giant of social networks.

But I’m sure Lunn will turn out to have made some pretty good predictions. He has some good arguments on developments by marketers in monetizing social networks as well as what might happen in a marketplace that’s rapidly changing through a mixture of acquisitions, investments, combinations and evolving offerings.

As a member of some of these social networks, I’m not sure I find any of this appealing at all.

I’ve been a member of LinkedIn and Xing (previously known as OpenBC) since 2004, MySpace since 2006 and Facebook earlier this year. I had a flirtation with Plaxo a few years ago that never went anywhere.

Facebook is currently my network du jour although I’m becoming quite disenchanted with what’s going on there regarding the Beacon advertising opt-in/opt-out debacle, a disastrous idea that seems to be gaining more negative commentary every day.

Basically, my trust in Facebook is rapidly diminishing.

And it’s all about trust, isn’t it? If you can’t trust the people who run the places you participate in, you’re going to leave.

Looking at much of what Lunn predicts I get the feeling that anyone who’s a member in any of these big social networks is seen as a commodity, a number to be marketed at, sold to and generally regarded as just another notch on a marketer’s scoreboard.

Well, count me out in that case.

In July, I wrote about Facebook versus other networks and relevance concerning what you want to put in and get out of being a participant in a social network.

This is to do with niche networks – those social networks that are small, and tailored to specific interests that aren’t necessarily mainstream.

In my case, I’m referring to niche networks like MyRagan.com and Melcrum’s Communicators Network, both relevant to my professional interest area of organizational communication. Both of those networks are growing fast.

In that July post, I also talked about why Facebook was so compelling, which focused on its ease of use, cool applications and informality.

All important things, to be sure, yet nowhere near as important as trust.

In July, my conclusion was this:

[…] Sooner or later, a crunch may come where I decide to go with the one that provides all I need in one place – the opportunities to connect and the opportunities to collaborate.

I wonder how long that will be.

I think that moment has arrived.

Ironic, really, as I meant that conclusion to be about moving closer to Facebook. The meaning for me today is not towards Facebook and other big networks but away.

Here’s my prediction for 2008 – we’ll also see a rise in niche networks, well outside the frame of the big ones Lunn talks about.

The ones that become successful – which certainly doesn’t necessarily mean the ones that are biggest – are the ones you trust.

Comments

Facebook & Multiple-Personality Syndrome

Mathew Ingram — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:57:23 +0000

A recent commentary piece by Alice Mathias in the New York Times says Facebook should really be called “Fakebook” — at least for the student users who first made the social-networking site popular. As she describes it:

“Facebook did not become popular because it was a functional tool — after all, most college students live in close quarters with the majority of their Facebook friends and have no need for social networking.

Instead, we log into the Web site because it’s entertaining to watch a constantly evolving narrative starring the other people in the library.”

She describes the use of Facebook as being like online community theatre, with users putting on different masks depending on which groups or individuals they are connecting with, and what impression they want to give of themselves. This aspect of online behaviour may be more prevalent among younger users — as sociologist danah boyd has described in her research into social networks such as Friendster and MySpace — but I don’t think it’s unique to them.

I think we all have different personas we use, depending on where we are and who we’re interacting with, whether it’s work or home, co-workers or neighbours, family or old friends — people who have only known us as adults, vs. people who knew us when we were teenage hoodlums. The tension between those different personas is why some of us feel a little uncomfortable when we run into our boss wearing a grungy old T-shirt and surfer shorts with a two-day growth of beard and a wicked hangover.

Scott Karp thinks that kind of thing is why Facebook may never really work as a business tool. I’m not convinced that’s true — but it’s certainly going to make things a little more complicated (or interesting, depending on your point of view).

Comments

Tag:

Don’t Try Crawling Google News Comments

WebProNews Staff — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:32:52 +0000

The newest feature on Google News – comments solicited from participants in a news story – won’t be part of anyone else’s news.

Don’t Try Crawling Google News Comments

When AOL broke down its subscriber walls, it looked like the end of walled garden content models on the Internet. They have been coming back in some ways, Facebook being one less-restrictive example.

Google News doesn’t seem like the place to find high walls and ivy creeping up the bricks. TechCrunch thinks it is, citing Techmeme’s Gabe Rivera about the policy for comments on Google News:

One thing that bugs me: they

Facebook Eating MySpaces Cafeteria Lunch

Roger Dooley — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:12:56 +0000

My fellow FutureLab blogger, danah boyd, wrote an interesting and controversial essay about the social network migration of high school students: Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace. (Boyd blogs at Many-to-Many and Apophenia about social networking and related topics.) She sums up her point:

Hegemonic American teens (i.e. middle/upper class, college bound teens from upwards mobile or well off families) are all on or switching to Facebook. Marginalized teens, teens from poorer or less educated backgrounds, subculturally-identified teens, and other non-hegemonic teens continue to be drawn to MySpace. A class division has emerged and it is playing out in the aesthetics, the kinds of advertising, and the policy decisions being made.

Boyd’s blog has received a massive amount of commentary since she published the essay a few weeks ago. Much of it agrees with her basic points, though not all. A number of commenters make the point that the supposed divide is too simplistic and either doesn’t exist or simply reflects the fact that Facebook is still in transition from exclusivity to open enrollment. Some commenters prefer to refer to the college bound teens as “mainstream” vs. the somewhat pejorative “hegemonic” – a sentiment with which I agree.

However you interpret it, there’s clearly a shift underway. According to Helen A. S. Popkin of MSNBC’s article, OMG! YR still on MySpace? Loser!, “U.S. MySpace visitors under 18 dropped 30 percent over the past year, while Facebook’s nearly tripled.” It was inevitable that Facebook’s strategy of open enrollment would appeal to high school kids. After all, Facebook began as a college student-only site, and was something that high school students would have to wait for (to the extent that high school students were aware of Facebook at all). Status conscious high school kids are always looking to be part of a slightly older group, and Facebook’s change gave them that opportunity. This both illustrates the fickle nature of teen fads and also their need to belong to groups that seem to confer higher social status. As one of boyd’s commenters, Valerie Bock, aptly puts it, “Of *course* young people will choose to hang out where the people who are already where they hope to be going are hanging out! It’s the next best thing to sneaking into the bars in the nearest college town.”

The real question is where Facebook goes from here. If an exclusive club throws open its doors, it will be mobbed… for a while. Once it’s evident to the original group members that now everyone can get in, they move on to another exclusive venue. As the environment grows less and less exclusive, even newer members may start seeking novel environs. Will Facebook demographics move downscale (assuming boyd is right about the Facebook/MySpace divide) and attract more MySpace users? Will this shift in demographics cause older Facebook users to move on? How will Facebook’s decision to open their platform to third party applications affect their member base?

Comments

Rubel vs. PC Mag

Mathew Ingram — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 15:11:15 +0000

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t get most of the reaction to Steve Rubel’s little Twitter-related gaffe (Twaffe?), in which he said that he throws his PC Magazine in the trash, and now has had to apologize to the editor-in-chief of PC Mag, etc. First of all, you mean they still publish PC Mag? Who knew. I stopped subscribing years ago, and so did anyone else with any sense.

And secondly, yes I totally understand that it was probably unwise of Steve to say that about PC Mag, seeing as how Edelman pitches companies to PC Mag, and that we all have to watch what we say now, Twitter is not like instant messaging, etc. etc. Totally get that. But still — what the hell is Jim Louderback doing posting a long commentary on what Rubel did to some anonymous PR gossip rag like Strumpette? He has his own website, although it currently just hosts a bio and some links. Why not put it there?

Better yet, why not post a comment on Steve’s blog, or send him an email? Or talk to Edelman privately? Instead, he posts it on Strumpette, and muses aloud about penalizing Edelman in some way — not to mention that he takes what Rubel said completely out of context. What kind of person does that? It’s like overhearing someone say something offhand on the streetcar and then writing a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. Bizarre.

Comments

Tag:

PayPerPost Solicits Gizmodo, Gets Wagged

WebProNews Staff — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:09:40 +0000

PayPerPost offers bloggers payment for writing reviews of products or services. Their business model has drawn criticism from sites like Valleywag, which just happens to be under the Gawker Media umbrella with Gizmodo.

Marketers take note – a little research can save the company some embarrassment when making a pitch. If the recipient is already hostile, trying to break through might work, but it could backfire. Valleywag has engaged in substantial PayPerPost mockery, with several posts consistently making the same point: Nick Denton and company don’t like the company’s business model:

The problem with PPP isn’t that it’s not effective, assuming it is effective versus other kinds of product promotion. The problem is that it’s sleazy manipulation, pure and simple. You either recognize that sleaze for what it is, or you don’t.

Now that Denton is back to handling Valleywag’s editorial duties after a break, he was probably delighted to see that Murphy had provided him a little grist for the morning posting mill. Murphy dropped a note in the Gizmodo mailbox, asking about their interest in working with Pay Per Post. Denton promptly reposted the email at Valleywag with accompanying commentary:

One would have thought that the attitude of blog publishers, including Gawker Media, publisher of this site, was clear: Pay Per Post, the blog marketing scam backed by Tim Draper, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist, is payola journalism. Disclosure does not absolve those publishers which take bribes from Pay Per Post clients such as Hewlett Packard.

Not everyone agrees that a paid review is tantamount to abducting homeless people and selling their organs on the black market. Andy Beard blogged about his experience in writing about Volusion for another pay-for-review service, ReviewMe:

There is not even a hint of the paid review affecting my opinion There is no question of bias towards the product I have provided what I feel is constructive criticism that will hopefully help improve the service for both new and future customers Asking a blogger for a real opinion about a product, and being willing to pay them some compensation for the time invested is a very worthwhile method of gaining feedback, and is not buying opinion.

Allen Stern at Center Networks thinks Murphy would benefit from a shift in business model:

Become an advertorial company. Do what TV, print and radio does… charge for a slot. So for example, you could buy a full page post on Gizmodo, CN, TC, BB, anywhere that will allow it (I am not saying these will/would). Then the advertiser provides the full content for that post, title, links, etc.

Does PayPerPost appeal to you as a blogger? Vote and let us know; voting will be open for one week.

—

Astroturfing: Time to walk the talk

Neville Hobson — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:40:36 +0000

Last month’s anti-astroturfing initiative by Australian PR bloggers Trevor Cook and Paull Young got off to a good start with plenty of commentary in support of the idea.

The supporters list now shows the names of 32 people who have signed up to publicly support this grassroots campaign, intended to throw a spotlight on an insidious practice that is the opposite of transparency yet is dressed up as such.

Those 32 names are communicators who are bloggers, academics, practitioners and students. It includes two highly influential names – David Weinberger and Seth Godin.

The list also includes the names of four PR agencies who have publicly stated their commitment to the campaign statement – Altyris, Jackson Wells Morris, Flatiron Communications LLC, and Voce Communications.

Kudos to these four.

Conspicuously absent, however, is any of the big-name PR firms.

Perhaps Keith Jackson of Jackson Wells Morris may embarrass some of them into publicly stating their support for anti-astroturfing and this campaign.

He’s started spotlighting some of these firms by posting extracts from their vision/mission/here’s how we behave statements that convey those firms’ positions on ethics in PR, and issued a challenge to each of them to publicly support the anti-astroturfing campaign.

Keith has challenged two firms so far – Weber Shandwick Worldwide and Fleishman-Hillard Inc. More to come, he says.

One PR agency who might have a problem publicly supporting the campaign is DCI Group if reports on how they allegedly were behind the Al Gore’s Penguin Army (supposedly) viral video on YouTube turn out to be true.

Then again, here’s a great opportunity for DCI to set their ethics record straight.

I’d like to see our professional associations also getting openly involved with this. IABC, CIPR, PRSA, for example. Why wouldn’t they?

Tag:

Yahoo! My Web | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

Neville Hobson is the author of the popular NevilleHobson.com blog which focuses on business communication and technology.
Neville is currentlly the VP of New Marketing at Crayon. Visit Neville Hobson’s blog: NevilleHobson.com.

The Twisted Jupiter Tale

Neville Hobson — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:21:17 +0000

I’d intended to title this post “more twists in the Jupiter tale” but I think the actual title is far more appropriate.

Quick recap: Last month, Jupiter Research published a study about corporate blogging that led to Toby Bloomberg asking questions about their research methodology. She received a brush-off from Jupiter’s PR agency. Fard Johnmar purchased the survey report and also asked questions about the research methodology. He, too, got the brush-off. His post concluded with a recommendation to treat the research with a pinch of salt and not buy the report.

My own commentary on this story a few weeks ago attracted quite a few opinions from readers of this blog on Jupiter’s behaviour and that of their PR agency. A particularly thoughtful view on that latter point came from John Mims:

[] I think that the agency does have to shoulder some blame. I would hope that the agency would have at least anticipated some of the questions from the media. Number one question would have to be: How did you conduct the research? As someone who has managed a fair amount of research, that is the basis of the believability of any research project. If I can’t provide that basic information *to protect my reputation* as well as that of my client, I am compelled to walk away. Our responsibility as public relations pros is to provide accurate information for our clients to various publics. If that information is not accurate and we know it, we ruin our reputation and that of our industry. In this case, this agency might have provided accurate information, but they have done so in a way that it makes the information look suspect. They should have better advised their clients or offered a referral to another agency.

Ian Betteridge did a good job as devil’s advocate, standing up for Jupiter and the agency in questioning whether bloggers like Toby and Fard had really done enough in reaching out to Jupiter before posting criticisms. Fard’s response makes it clear to me that they had (and majority view in the comments: yes, they had.)

The latest opinion added to that discussion came yesterday from Clyde Smith:

[] As a highly trained qualitative researcher (PhD, OSU, 2000) I’m deeply disturbed by this whole affair. I’d like to get into more commercially relevant research myself so seeing a major research firm undermine the credibility of such research is quite disturbing. It’s been interesting to read the comments about the agency and I’ve gotten much more interested in the relationship of research and pr. But doesn’t any company have to take responsibility for the services they outsource? I don’t see how Jupiter Research could get off the hook at this point in time. [] Deep research always produces a lot of maybes and the media, politicians, etc. don’t handle that very well and remove the nuances that they don’t understand or can’t fit into a soundbite. In the process they typically misrepresent the research. It’s a mess and it’s sad to see a research firm contributing to the situation in this manner.

I agree with Clyde’s last point. No matter how you look at this story, the way in which Jupiter Research and the PR agency have reacted to questions about the research simply raises more questions. Those questions, and the people asking them, aren’t going to go away. It places Jupiter’s credibility on the line, in my view.

It gets worse, though.

Yesterday, Toby posted an email exchange between her and David Schatsky, president of JupiterKagan (the owner of Jupiter Research), in which Mr Schatsky effectively ignores the focus of Toby’s questions – asking about the research methodology – and, instead, goes on the offensive to accuse Toby of misleading her readers.

I’m astounded at this behaviour. Mr Schatsky has a great opportunity here to engage with an influential blogger, provide the information requested and so open up a further opportunity for far more relevant commentary.

He did, however, provide a snippet about the research methodology:

[] I’ll tell you that some of the data cited in the report you are discussing and mentioned in our press release is from a survey of 251 executives from a variety of industries who make decisions about their company’s Web site spending and who work at companies with $50 million or more in revenue.

Why stop there, Mr Schatsky? Come on, let’s have the whole story! Add to that little snippet. Let’s try and make your survey’s claims a bit more credible. Or not, as the case may be.

But perhaps this is nothing more than a mess, as Clyde said. If so, Jupiter’s doing a good job at adding to that.

DiggThis | Yahoo! My Web | Furl

Neville Hobson is the author of the popular NevilleHobson.com blog which focuses on business communication and technology.
Neville is currentlly the VP of New Marketing at Crayon. Visit Neville Hobson’s blog: NevilleHobson.com.

Microsofts Opportunity After Robert Scoble

Neville Hobson — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:31:04 +0000

Some of the blogosphere commentary following Robert Scoble’s news that he is leaving Microsoft to join Podtech in July is on who will be the next Scoble at Microsoft.

If such a question refers to someone taking on the same or a similar blogger/evangelist role as Robert’s, I don’t think there will be a next Scoble.’

As Microsoft’s most prominent, visible and, yes, famous employee blogger, Robert developed his Scobleizer blog and the tag “Microsoft geek blogger”into a major brand, one that is consistently high up in the popular blogs list at Technorati (currently at number 22) and often mentioned in mainstream media reporting. That blog-brand goes with him to Podtech.

The blog is a vehicle for Robert to articulate his thoughts about many topics including opinion about Microsoft. That it has been an effective communication channel for him almost goes without saying. Like employees in many organizations, though, Robert’s job isn’t as a full-time blogger. His primary role is that of making videos for the Channel 9 website, breaking through barriers and jumping hurdles in the Microsoft organization to get to people to interview them. So perhaps a more significant question might be who will fill Robert’s shoes in that role?

But staying with blogging for a second, a post last night on the Mini Microsoft blog includes this comment:

[] It will be interesting to see where the future of Microsoft blogging goes now. There’s a certain amount of openness and honesty and vulnerability in the best writing, let alone blogging, that you just can’t fake, and those that try are going to get ripped to shreds.

It’s a good point. One of the keys to building relationships via a blog is the writer’s personality, style of writing and many others factors relating to the writer. Robert is Robert so anyone else at Microsoft who wishes to emulate him will have to build his or her reputation on their own credentials.

In any event, I wonder whether this change doesn’t present Microsoft with an interesting oppportunity to try and marshall the collective personality of the other 3,000 or so employee bloggers into a coherent communication commons’ for Microsoft.

I can just hear the objections to that idea! Blogging is personal! This idea stinks of corporate spin and control!

Not at all – if it’s done the right way. Corporate communication is changing and the idea of any large organization continuing to regard employee blogging as a self-organized hobbyist type of activity makes little business sense at all.

I’m thinking of Microsoft proactively encouraging people, perhaps in a similar fashion to IBM’s initiatives with employees and social media where those initiatives provide signficant freedoms for employees within a clear and business-focused framework.

It’s been said before that Microsoft has little or no formal guidelines for their employee bloggers. Perhaps the time is now to formally establish such guidelines on a wide scale, what I’d prefer to call best practices.

If you believe as I do that employee blogging in many organizations will become as common as email, then now is the time for Microsoft to start with establishing best practices that provide every employee with the opportunity to speak.

Meanwhile, Robert, good luck as you start the next chapter in your life.

Related post:

FIR podcast #145 yesterday includes commentary about Robert Scoble’s move from Microsoft. Starts at about 4:17 into the show.

Neville Hobson is the author of the popular NevilleHobson.com blog which focuses on business communication and technology.
Neville is currentlly the VP of New Marketing at Crayon. Visit Neville Hobson’s blog: NevilleHobson.com.