Connecting the Dots

Virtual Communications: Using Lessons Learned Elsewhere

Moviemakers of the suspense, horror and drama genres learned long ago that in order to build tension in the audience, slowly lowering the sound makes moviegoers start to strain to hear the dialogue (and yes, music and other sound is added to build to a crescendo). Tension builds, the muscles in the bodies of the audience tighten, they begin to lean forward slightly and THE HAND FLIES INTO THE SCREEN, GRABS OUR HERO AND THE AUDIENCE JUMPS IN THEIR SEATS SCREAMING!

Works every time.

Now take a technology we've used for a long time -- conference calling on the Plain Old Telephone System (POTS) -- and realize that people calling in on a variety of devices (headsets, cell phones, office phones) add noise and the telephone system (and conference bridge) sample at only a measly 8khz. The result? Tension builds, our muscles tighten and we actually shift our attention (you know who you are....you surfin' the web folks when you're supposed to be listening to us on the call!) and the quality of the conference and what we're trying to communicate to one another suffers.

Let's look at Skype and how using it decreases tension and increases the quality. Sampling at 16khz means the quality is substantially higher than POTS and is so good that you can hear people breathe, move something on their desk or even click their mouse. The "resolution" of the audio is much higher and thus the call quality is better. The result? Lower tension (or none at all), the callers are relaxed and the communication is higher. Thankfully there are emerging conference bridges that can handle call-ins via Skype and sample at 16khz to maintain call quality (e.g., HighSpeedConferencing).

Let's take this one step further to other forms of social media: Imagine you hosted a party and when your guests arrived, no one greeted them at the door, clusters of people were broken up into little cliques ignoring them, and as you glanced over at them in the doorway thought, "They're on their own and are just going to have to figure out how to participate."

The Cognitive Age: Why Social Media Matters

Our economy is down, gas prices are up, jobs are being lost and outsourced, we're at 'war' with possible escalation (e.g., attacking Iran), and there is tremendous uncertainty in nearly every industry being disrupted in some way by the connecting of the globe and the increasing influence of the Internet.

Let me submit for your consideration that the impact of social media -- technologies, software and approaches connecting any of us willing to participate with them online -- is pointing the way toward new systems and behaviors that will enable us all to move higher up the value chain as we learn how, together, we can create and deliver what the world needs in new and innovative ways.

One of the best op-ed pieces I've read in some time, The Cognitive Age, was published in the New York Times on Friday by David Brooks.

In this piece he's putting globalization in context in this election cycle, which is chiefly on competition with other countries and the policies of government that ostensibly is accelerating job loss in the US. Brooks puts forth this premise which bears emphasis:

"The chief force reshaping manufacturing is technological change (hastened by competition with other companies in Canada, Germany or down the street). Thanks to innovation, manufacturing productivity has doubled over two decades. Employers now require fewer but more highly skilled workers. Technological change affects China just as it does the America. William Overholt of the RAND Corporation has noted that between 1994 and 2004 the Chinese shed 25 million manufacturing jobs, 10 times more than the U.S."

Then he outlines his central argument which, I should add, I completely agree with:

"The central process driving this is not globalization. It’s the skills revolution. We’re moving into a more demanding cognitive age. In order to thrive, people are compelled to become better at absorbing, processing and combining information. This is happening in localized and globalized sectors, and it would be happening even if you tore up every free trade deal ever inked."

What does this have to do with social media and why does that category of technology matter?

Behind The Eyeballs: 75% of All Ads and Content Ineffective?

So many designers, user interface creators and arm-chair critics think they know what makes really compelling content, how ads should be displayed or even how a web site or application should be delivered. But do they? Do any of us really know what it takes to present and communicate content and ads that are truly compelling, cut above the noise, and garner attention from an increasingly scattered audience who have in front of them an overwhelming and accelerating number of choices?

One company is staking a claim to an understanding of the cognitive landscape behind our eyeballs with their quantitative and measurable solutions: NeuroFocus (via AdLab). Dr. A.K. Pradeep, CEO of NeuroFocus, said this in a follow-up interview with Media Post: "We've found that about 75% of all content--not just advertisements--is not neurologically optimal."

"For example, consumers interpret info on different parts of a screen with different sections of their brain. [...] So an advertiser or TV show producer has reduced the engagement potential and effectiveness of their content from the onset if the bulk of the textual and numerical info is placed on the left side--with the imagery or brand logos on the right."

The company obtains their results through biometric measurements. That means volunteers strap on a skull cap with electrodes on it and engage with the content and advertisements of which they're presented. The thing that troubles me a bit, is that like the uncertainty principle in quantum physics, my experiences have shown that when observers know they're being measured their behavior and cognitive processing changes. It does seem, however, that NeuroFocus' research at least provides a baseline from which content and ads can be more precisely delivered. Then further refinement can occur (with we unaware and passive brains behind eyeballs) with other analytical tools or simple measures of clickstream data.

The Nielsen Company (the grandaddy of TV measurement) has made a strategic investment in NeuroFocus so they're obviously on to something.

The promise (to advertisers) of the shift to internet-based ad delivery is measurement and to us (the online user) it's ad relevancy, contextualized or personalized ads. Rarely does significant  and ongoing ad placement occur without measurement nor do venture capitalists sit still for long as ad-dependent-for-revenue companies attempt to drive user engagement and expansion of our involvement with their offering...and thus garner advertisers.

Solid measurement is healthy. Best practices more so as they're indicators of actions we can take with understandable and quantifiable returns. It's still pretty early in the evolution of the internet, but knowing what to do, how to deliver it and how to measure it is key to economic success on the 'net and continued innovation.

To read more, take a peek at this well done New York Times article here and the CEO has a couple of mp3's and a white paper here.

Twitter: One more way human connection is accelerating

There is a subtle shift going on that is accelerating how we humans are connecting over this global grid called the Internet. Regardless whether or not you are participating in this sort of connection, are even aware of it, or look at those who are using it as people who really need to get a life, there's no question Twitter (and others like Pownce and Jaiku generally seen as being micro-blogging tools) are accelerating human connection and this is a phenomena you need to understand.

That little red dot on the earth is me just outside Minneapolis, Minnesota. Because of all of my digital breadcrumbs around the 'net (as well as my speaking engagements, my blog and participation in a myriad of Web offerings), I've been able to connect with other thought leaders all over the world. Ironically, all the other online participants in my own State of Minnesota were relatively unknown to me and I wasn't connected with most of them.

Until now. Until Twitter.

In addition to connecting with other thought leaders I'm already following (and at times connecting with people they follow), folks locally are finding/following me and thus I'm finding/following them, creating a new web of connections that's already opening doors too numerous to recount just now.

I won't give you a history lesson on IRC, ICQ, instant messaging and other technologies which preceded Twitter and the others, but suffice to say many methods to connect already exist in the same way that audio online existed before podcasting; video before YouTube; and online diaries before blogging. The fundamental difference is that these micro-blogging tools are easier to use than the others (or more widely distributed than proprietary instant messaging services), more efficient and persistent since there's a trail left of messages one can backtrack and follow, and these micro-blogging tools have turned into platforms being extended by others (e.g., see this and this post).

Sounds pretty optimistic Borsch...any downsides?

What if you're NOT social?

As social networks proliferate and more investment is made into them (and companies deploy their own networks trying to capitalize on the explosion in internet participation), I keep thinking about the people who aren't all that social, not inherently "connectors" or are folks not much interested in virtually connecting.

I always thought not being social was, well, being antisocial. The weirdos who smell bad and can't be trusted around small animals or children. The nerds with whom I connected who would prefer alone-time with code instead of hanging around with me after work. The meditators whom I always seem to stumble upon when hiking in the woods.

Then I became enlightened.

Some time ago I was in an executive workshop where my "motive profile" was taken. This profile was based on the work of the late professor David McClelland, in which he proposed that an individual's specific needs are acquired over time and are shaped by one's early life experiences. Most of these needs can be classified as either achievement, affiliation, or power (or what McClelland apparently wished he'd called that last one: influence due to "power's" often miscontrued meaning).

I learned that I had a "power V" with 91% achievement, 28% affiliation and 74% power which is an entrepreneur's profile (large organization CEO's typically score the same but are in the upper 80th or 90th percentile in power).

When these results were handed to me by the workshop leader, I was stunned since anyone who knows me would laugh at the notion I'm low on affiliation and actually not a social animal. I pulled our workshop leader aside immediately, "28% in affiliation!?! But I *like* people, can talk to a rock and have always been perceived as an extroverted good host at parties and a fun coach and mentor," I protested. Our workshop leader calmly explained to me (and the group) that what our scoring meant was the measure of what each of us needed to be whole and satisfied each-n-every day. Thus I had an innate drive to achieve, to influence others, but mostly didn't need to be around or connect with people at all in order to meet my core needs. Affiliation with others wasn't (and isn't) a motivator for me.

This made perfect sense as it sunk in...though I find my best ideas and energy come from being around others and brainstorming but, I must admit, I do love solitude and need daily time by myself to feel right. Learning this about myself was (and still is) incredibly instructive, but when I think about my need to connect with others through social media and networks I have to chuckle: as a guy consulting in the social media space, ironically I don't care all that much and don't have a lot of energy for social networks, LinkedIn or networking in general.

So what's the lesson in all of this for you?

Mesh is a Mess...unless you're in-the-know

If the web is truly going to become a place where we can move about freely -- instead of deciding which social network or hottest-n-latest service to use and then investing in that closed proprietary network -- then open standards all meshed together and portable are what we need...and now.

Many people I follow have written extensively about "profile" and participation fatigue" since we users are more and more reluctant to join yet another new service and do what's necessary to maintain it and get all of our friends to join. I personally just had another 'friend request' to Pulse...but I'm invested in LinkedIn, using Twitter, and are wrapping it and other stuff up in FriendFeed,  and have little desire (or the time) to go invest in and maintain yet another service.

Marc Canter wrote today about How to Build the Mesh Part #1 and he hit many of the points I care about deeply that address the mess we're in right now with mostly closed web-based social services. Though I think he mostly writes for an audience of a few dozen (those with social media offerings, are the folks building out standards or influencing them), he has FINALLY written something that someone just outside this circle of insiders might actually comprehend.

The essence of his post is this: you and I are investing ourselves all over the web in currently non-integrated sets of services that don't talk to one another for the most part. In order to move toward a time when all of these different services allow YOU to coordinate, orchestrate and integrate your online life, there are sets of behind-the-scenes services that have to interoperate seamlessly so YOU can "own" your digital life and parcel pieces out to others with whom you'll allow access to some, most or all of it.

As more social networks, services and applications arrive that ask you and I to invest time, energy and effort to participate with them online, they'll fail if an interoperating mesh of services doesn't exist since you and I will begin to resist joining and maintaining without that interoperating just happening seamlessly on the backend.

If you're thinking of building out just such a network or community site, you must choose a platform vendor that understands the mesh is needed and is working toward a set of industry standards comprising a mesh of interoperating services. To do otherwise would see you not choosing a strategic vendor and you'll paint yourself into a corner. You'll then have an even bigger mess on your hands when your users realize what you've done and stop joining and participating in favor of those are open and connected or completely abandon your service.

Social Media: Lessons to be Learned from Cruise Critic

In 2005 my wife, kids and I reluctantly went on our first cruise...the inside passage of Alaska. We were reticent since my wife's favorite cousin, husband and girls *love* cruising and have been all over the world doing so -- at this point over 20 cruises have been experienced by them -- but we're not keen on being captive when we travel nor doing anything with huge throngs of people (especially dining with people clamoring for the free food). These family members were pretty certain that if they could convince us to do one cruise and we had a great time, we'd be ongoing cruise buddies and be on all sorts of adventures with them.

They know ships; cruise lines; have connected with many other cruisers; and have this whole network of contacts from cruising that ensure they get the best accomodations, the newest ships, the best crews, the atypical entertainment offered on specific cruises and more.

How did they get so adept?

Just going on these cruises they learned, but the real empowerment and knowledge acceleration came from hanging out at Cruise Critic and being fully immersed in this affinity network.

Five million visitors strong, Cruise Critic is a critically acclaimed interactive community comprised of avid and first-time cruisers who enjoy the fun of planning, researching and sharing their passion for cruising. No other single resource covers the world of cruising as thoroughly as CruiseCritic.com. Cruise Critic’s world-renowned editorial staff offers objective cruise reviews, features, ports of call profiles and destination stories. The Cruise Critic message boards are the most active in the world.

So how did Cruise Critic become such a cruising magnet for those with an affinity for cruising?