Thomas Power on the transition from CSC (closed, selective, controlling) to ORS (open, random, supportive).
The big shift we are making this century is from institutional to networked thinking. Very cluetrain, too!
Category Archives: Cluetrain
The art of selling, part 2/2
Did you read the first part? Okay then, now I'll tell you what happened to me yesterday.
(In the spirit of the Live Web, I'm publishing this while I write. Please check back for a more complete take of this post in a while – I'll be having a little tea break next)
I've had a Nokia N97 for a bit over two weeks now. When I started using it throughout the day, I was somewhat disappointed to notice that on some days, the battery only lasts for about 16 or 15 hours.
Yesterday, I had a bluetooth connection to my headset, and a "3.5G" connection to the Internet, while scanning for WLAN access. Made me wonder if that multitude of connections was the reason why the battery, for the first time, turned rather warm, or if something was wrong with the battery itself – a concern fuelled by the disappointing battery power.
Hence this micro-blog post:
@Nokia, @Saunalahti: Right now, the battery of my new Nokia N97 is getting really warm. Should I be worried?
After I sent that message from my ASUS Eee PC netbook, I wanted to access my Facebook account with my N97, curious to see how fast Facebook would update my status and what it would look like.
Now, it is not a priority to me to access Facebook from the front screen, which is why I had removed the Facebook app from the display when I customized the N97. After all, the Facebook application is still available under the applicatons menu, right? So it's only three clicks away. (apps menu button -> applications icon -> Facebook app). Right?
Well, in theory, yes. When I tried to fire up Facebook that way, the app kept booting forever until I gave up and decided to quit the app. But there's no Esc key, not Crtl-Alt-Del, or any other way I know of to stop the app. Hence my next micro-post:
@Nokia, @Facebook: I just rebooted my Nokia N97 using the on/off
button, because the FB app took forever to start. Is there a better way?
Someone replied to me:
use the browser. The client doesn't work properly, yet.
I realize there is a good chance that some people at Nokia are not going to be pleased with this story. I worked with the company for six years, was proud to be a Nokian and actually caring about its business. I am also a strong subscriber to the Cluetrain Manifesto – which explains the first part of the name of my present company.
What I fear is that even some of the colleagues at Nokia who have read the Cluetrain will not appreciate that with feedback like this, bloggers and customers such as myself are actually doing the company a favor.
Of course it's easier to frame this as a "cheap shot" since Nokia happens to be down in the polls. Some marketing communciations folk tend to take the "wounded game" perspective rather seriously, thinking that the journos and the bloggers are smelling blood and are looking for the first opportunity to take the company down. Well, if that makes it easier for people to sleep at night, they hardly deserve the favor. It's really how you choose to look at this stuff.
Umh… did I get a little defensive there for a moment? 
With some 250 million users, Facebook is about the largest social networking service out there. The company is proud to say in a YouTube video that Robert Scoble has called the N97 the ultimate Facebook device.
Then how can you ship this product that costs 650 euros unsubsidized, with a Facebook app which is not ready?
I am still a Nokia believer, because I feel that mobile participation requires not only a QWERTY keyboard, but also real buttons with tactile feedback.
But Robert is right about there just not being the same buzz around Nokia's N97 now as there was around the N95. He even goes as far as to say that 'Europe no longer matters to lead position in mobile':
"(…) in the back of my head I remember how cocky the same entrepreneurs used
to be when showing me their cell phones and noting how far ahead of the
world they were. That cockiness is done and that has deep implications
for entrepreneurs across Europe. They must now visit Cupertino and
Mountain View to get access to customer bases. (…)"
It scares me.
Anyways. Since the Facebook app didn't work, I went to look for an S60 social networking client. Found an interview with my friendly ex-colleague Mark Squires, titled: 'Nokia and Social Media: We Learn It All'. Mark tells us that his favorite new Web 2.0 app is "No question, Gravity (…)".
Now, note that this is an interview article on a Nokia-sponsored site, the Traveling Geeks – an initiative in which, incidentially, Scoble has also participated.
No link to Gravity, so I Google " Gravity S60". The first source I dare consider is half-way down the first results page. It points to the S60 Blog, which I happen to know is also Nokia-sponsored and I consider fairly authoritative on S60 matters. It sports a link which says:
"Download Gravity here".
So I click through and get to 'MOSH by Nokia', which says:
"MOSH by Nokia is no longer available – You are being redirected to Ovi Store, the global market place for
mobile apps, games, videos, ringtones, widgets and more. If you are not
automatically redirected, please click here http://store.ovi.mobi/."
It redirects to a page that says: "
"We're sorry.
Your device is not compatible with the Ovi Store.
Please check back as new Nokia devices are being added frequently.You can also visit http://store.ovi.com on your PC for help and information about compatible devices."
I can see that my device is not compatible because I am browsing on a netbook. But couldn't your system recognize that and at least give me some information about your wonderful mobile app? Perhaps redirect me?
I still went back to the review of Gravity on the S60 Blog and noticed that it mentions a "free 10-day trial". Right! So they're even asking money for it. Then I noticed the first comment on the page, by John Mark:
"i prefer snaptu which is free and has many other applications on it like facebook and sports
you can download it from http://www.snaptu.com they also have a help forum at http://forum.snaptu.com"
Downloading Snaptu was, well, a snap Thanks, John!
Notice the contrast? Well, ya'll draw your own conclusions. I'll stop right here, before this gets out of hand
(PS.: I tend to post my micro-blog posts and status updates via Ping.fm onto a number of social media / social networks, including Twitter, FriendFeed and Facebook. As I'm trying to link to some of those posts here, it brings home Doc Searls' urging for searchable micro-blog archives; e.g. for Twitter.
First of all, there is no single reference to the "origin" of these posts. My "recent posts" on Ping.fm are not public and they are in fact published onto various services in parallel, all of which are silos in this sense.
Secondly, there is no way of knowing if and when the URLs to the various instances of these post will expire. So what am I supposed to link to? Perhaps I should start using Bit.ly?)
‘Transform Your Conversation!’
[UPDATE: As per January 21, 2009, my firm will be operating under two
new names: Cluetail Oy and Cluetail Ltd. It's an hommage to the Cluetrain Manifesto and the Long Tail, two concepts which, IMHO, are particularly insightful when we try to understand the Internet and where it will take us. Cluetail builds on the value proposition listed in this post below. Our office is at the
business incubator MikTech in Mikkeli, Finland. Cluetail's website is
in the making; more about that later.]
Hi and welcome to my blog!
Panta rhei: everything is in flux. I recently left Nokia’s global communications team after six years, for I couldn’t hold back any longer on the desire to pursue my own business vision.
I will always feel privileged when looking back at my Nokia years. There was great chemistry in the teams I’ve worked with, we’ve set impressive benchmarks for organizational communications strategies as well as process and tool implementation, and of course the whole thing was also a fantastic learning experience.
After a beautiful Finnish summer and spending most of my time with my family, now it’s time again to look at the future.
The business of ‘human conversation’
In whichever direction it will take me, the business I am in is the business of “human conversation”. Human conversation is what drives all business as well as public and private affairs. From media to customer relations, from organizational communications to individual coaching: it is through human conversation that we grow and create value.
Here’s to those who share my passion for human conversation: let’s link up to create value by living and working that passion.
In concrete terms, I’m open for business. Let me express my value proposition by way of this initial scope:
- Organizational communications auditing
- Strategic communications (re)design
- Process and tool concepts, development, (outsourced) operations, training and support
- (Outsourced) content and channel management
- Content creation
- Media monitoring & business intelligence
- Media research & education
- Coaching & mediation
- Internet service development
Do you see how this offering can add value to what you are doing?
Do you have needs which are within or adjacent to this scope?
Do you want to contribute to extending this offering?
Drop me a line or give me a call!
Jos Schuurmans
http://www.josschuurmans.com/contact
Dugg: Who is Who: Interview with David Weinberger | Ulrike Reinhard
Reply
Via David Weinberger: "(…) Ulrike
Reinhard, of WhoIsWho, video-interviewed me on our back porch last
week. She asked me about the need for serendipity, what an “open”
Internet means, the costs of social networks, the new sense of privacy,
user-controlled identity systems, Web 3.0, market conversations,
categorization and control, Twitter, Obama… (…)"
Serendipity is a fascinating concept. I strongly believe that the way we learn new things and expand our horizons is through serendipity. In order to discover and, if you will, accept something new, this "news" needs to be presented to us in a familiar, trusted, i.e. "old" context.
We hardly ever buy into something entirely unfamiliar. For example, if we don't know the source, we are less prone to trust the news. In conversations, I am more likely to learn something new from people with whom I have, say, 80 percent in common, than from people with whom I have, say, 10 percent in common. If you get my drift…
Dugg: Blogging as a Form of Journalism | J.D. Lasica / OJR
"(…) Weblogs offer a vital, creative outlet for alternative voices (…)"
When cleaning up my paper (sic!) archive the other day, I came across a printed article in two parts, by J.D. Lasica for the Online Journalism Review (OJR), published on May 24 and 31, 2001. Just before I’m throwing this away for the benefit of the paperless office, I’ll quote what I highlighted back then:
From: ‘Blogging as a Form of Journalism‘, May 24, 2001:
‘Channels’ does not sufficiently describe the dynamics of distributed online conversations
Interesting conversation about "channels" developing here with Bill French.
Totallly agree that people create channels in efforts to create order from chaos. The way I used "channels" in my post on ‘The End of Channels?‘ was with the traditional notion of, if you will, media titles, in mind: TV/radio channels or shows, zines, newspapers, websites, blogs, forums…
I suppose what they have in common is that they all have a name, an address, and usually a more or less defined scope. They are often furnished with editorial policies and they may be designed to further particular political or commercial interests. Also, most often they have a brand identity.
But if we look passed the keeper of the gate and over the garden wall, I am willing to accept that channels – as in "meta-handlers" – are not necessarily disappearing, but rather evolving into new forms, such as distributed conversations connected by tags.
The point I am trying to make is that old-style channels are designed to contain conversations within them. Sure, they are helpful as meta-handlers in creating order. And, agreed, the new meta-handlers are facilitated by social media, e.g. through tags. However, I hesitate to go as far as to call those tag-connected (micro-content contributions to) conversations, ehm, "channels".
In Dutch, we use the same word for channel and canal: "kanaal". So it won’t surprise you that I quite strongly associate the word channel with a human-made, one-directional, controlled flow.
Bill writes:
"(…) People tend to prefer the benefits that channels provide – they create the notion of a "meta-handle" that makes it easier for them to understand, know about, and share. (…)"
Well, I won’t deny that people find channels convenient. Still, to me, even "virtual channel" or "conversation channel" doesn’t quite sufficiently express the dynamic nature of distributed online conversations. These conversations do not have ONE name, ONE address or even a defined scope.
Tags are useful in searching and navigating these conversations, – in particular because they add social filtering to the mix – and "tag cloud" is a metaphor that helps people venture into the Web 2.0 era.
And yet, even tag clouds cannot contain or accurately scope conversations. The Web, and in particular the social media web, makes our culture and economy more "probabilistic", as Chris Anderson puts it in The Long Tail.
So, why not liberate the conversations from their channels and simply call them "conversations"?
(See also: ‘www.josschuurmans.com: ‘The concept of "conversation" as in the Long Tail of Conversations‘)
The End of Channels?
Summary: The two aspects of social media that I’d like to view as qualitative departures from the past are: (1) ‘The Dilution of Channels’ in that online conversations happen all over the place; and (2) ‘The Wisdom of the Crowd’, social
software helping people navigate their way through online
conversations.
[ADDITION, October 26, 2007: I've added one more charasteristic to the social media mix: (3) 'Participation'. See also the addition towards the end of this post]
My local professional communicators’ association wishes to pick my brain on "social media". So it’s about time I captured the concept in writing.
The media have, of course, always been "social". Any form of human communication (where there are messages sent by senders and processed by receivers) is social. The Internet is a disruptive technology that accelerates certain properties of everything social, in particular human communication, including what we call "the media". In other words, to some extent "social media" is a pleonasm.
Also the Internet has always been a social space.
For homework I Googled the term. The Wikipedia entry, Robert Scoble‘s entry, and some other references I found seem to position "social media" mainly as something that has more "capacity" than "traditional media": online means faster and more immediate, easier to interact with, easy to copy and share, unlimited space…
Quantitative or qualitative?
Are we really talking about quantitative differences only? Or should we make some qualitative distinctions as well?
The concept of “conversation” as in the Long Tail of Conversations
I’m preparing to have a conversation (okay, a presentation) at the MindTrek 2007 Conference in Tampere, Finland, early October. My topic is to do with the Long Tail of Conversations, and how we might connect people to the conversations across the Long Tail distribution graph that matter most to them.
(I was kinda getting there in one of my previous posts: ‘Look at the Long Tail for the highest-value conversations‘.)
When I submitted my draft conversation (ok, yes, presentation), one of the organizers asked me to elaborate on my understanding of the concept of "conversation". That was really good feedback, because it caused me to realize that I was using the term in different ways for different purposes, and it forced me to think about defining them better.
So here we go, sketchy at best:
Look at the Long Tail for the highest-value conversations
Excerpt: Where do you think creativity and innovation is born? And where do you think that the best-match conversations about the things you are interested in are taking place? The answer is: in Long Tail conversations!
[UPDATE, July 29, 2007: Whoa, I just noticed on Technorati that it's
Doc Searls' birthday today. Happy "round" birthday, Doc! (I just
celebrated my 40th on 070707)]
Not perfectly sure how and why Doc Searls associates my excerpts from the Cluetrain Manifesto with Ben Peters‘ talk
about close reading of text (particularly since I haven’t heard Ben’s
talk), but I hope he means he can see that I’ve read the cluetrain
closely
Doc: "1) I haven’t read the book in years;"
I
was somewhat suprised to read that, although surely the contents of the
book are so much part of Doc’s being that in practice, he may never
really feel the need to go back and look things up. (I do.)
Dugg: The Doc Searls Weblog: Saturday, July 28, 2007
"(…) This comes to mind as I read Jos Schuurmans’ The Cluetrain Manifesto on the rebirth of conversations, wherein he excerpts a long series of quotes that remind me of three things: 1) I haven’t read the book in years; 2) There’s a lot of good stuff in there; and 3) The future, as William Gibson said, is not evenly distributed. (…)"