Well, well, it looks like Dell finally worked out that they ought to be using the web to talk to their users and have started a blog called One 2 One. Of course I only found it because Scoble's talking about it.
Hint for corporate marketing types - don't bother launching a blog if you can't get important bloggers in your industry to mention you. I guess the Hit mentality is still there in the blogging world.
Perhaps just as important, you must allow your staff to make mistakes whilst communicating with customers on the blog. They must be able to attempt to have open, honest and human communication with customers, otherwise it's just another one-way information pipe (oh yeah, Scoble talks about that too).
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Death by Wikipedia
The Washington Post has an interesting article by Frank Ahrens called Death by Wikipedia: The Kenneth Lay Chronicles. Frank looks at the hot topic of how much we can trust Wikipedia given that it is entirely user-editable. He looks at the way Kenneth Lay's death was handled as the classic case of this and concludes:
I think that's a fair call, there is some very questionable material there. Perhaps more importantly, the basic content of any Wikipedia article is dynamic. This can lead to people getting all sorts of ideas about the topic, or indeed about Wikipedia's accuracy, when the offending material might be reverted, edited or removed within moments of them leaving that web page.
For example Dave Winer mentioned on his blog that a friend had looked at the Wikipedia page about Dave and thought it pretty terrible stuff. Dave's critics on the Eye on Winer blog found this laughable as (to them) the article steers a fairly neutral course between the fairly polarised views on Dav'e contributions to blogging, RSS and podcasts.
However, a stroll through the History tab on his Wikipedia page shows a number of vandalism attempts that have been reverted (usually within a few hours), as well as some toning down of material deemed too "fanboy" by one or another named Wikipedia users. Usually vandalism is done by anonymous users, not registered Wikipedia users, a fact which helps Wikipedia editors identify vandalism more quickly (any edit by an anonymous user is worth checking out, especially on disputed articles).
If Dave's friend had seen the article at the wrong time, it might have looked very bad, and certainly this is the impression they got, whilst later viewers looking at it see nothing wrong with it (let's leave aside the two sets of viewers obvious bias). The ephemeral nature of Wikipedia edits is one of the main problems that I have with trusting it for anything other than fun research on hobby topics (like Vikings). Yet, increasingly, we see news websites referring people to Wikipedia for detailed information on a specialty topic (I've seen this at least twice myself from news.com.au).
I doubt that there's an easy answer to this issue, other than suggesting that people use more than one source for facts, and take anything they read with a grain of salt. This does speak to the issue of whether wikis are appropriate tools for the enterprise environment. Whilst they are great at capturing corporate knowledge, they are just as good at enshrining stupidity and promoting divisive views. But perhaps that is their real strength, the ability to lift the veil between people at work and reveal the real talent or lack thereof? To expose dramas and stresses that are hidden below normally civil exteriors?
That Wikipedia's greatest strength is its greatest weakness.(emphasis mine)
If the statement that "history is written by the winners" is too gross, it does speak to an underlying truth: All definitive encyclopedia authorship comes with the point of view of its times. It is unavoidable. As august and reliable as the Britannica is, one need only look back to 19th-century versions to see its Anglo-centric viewpoint and curious study of others that treated foreigners (say, Africans) as anthropological subjects rather than human equals.
An encyclopedia written from many points of view should, in theory, help eliminate that flaw. Further, as well-girded in research as encyclopedia authors are, there are countless experts on thousands of topics that know more than the Wikipedia authors; every topic has its fetishists, and thank goodness. If the goal is the ultimate compilation of truth-tested facts, Wikipedia could be a powerful tool.
...
But here's the dread fear with Wikipedia: It combines the global reach and authoritative bearing of an Internet encyclopedia with the worst elements of radicalized bloggers. You step into a blog, you know what you're getting. But if you search an encyclopedia, it's fair to expect something else. Actual facts, say. At its worst, Wikipedia is an active deception, a powerful piece of agitprop, not information.
I think that's a fair call, there is some very questionable material there. Perhaps more importantly, the basic content of any Wikipedia article is dynamic. This can lead to people getting all sorts of ideas about the topic, or indeed about Wikipedia's accuracy, when the offending material might be reverted, edited or removed within moments of them leaving that web page.
For example Dave Winer mentioned on his blog that a friend had looked at the Wikipedia page about Dave and thought it pretty terrible stuff. Dave's critics on the Eye on Winer blog found this laughable as (to them) the article steers a fairly neutral course between the fairly polarised views on Dav'e contributions to blogging, RSS and podcasts.
However, a stroll through the History tab on his Wikipedia page shows a number of vandalism attempts that have been reverted (usually within a few hours), as well as some toning down of material deemed too "fanboy" by one or another named Wikipedia users. Usually vandalism is done by anonymous users, not registered Wikipedia users, a fact which helps Wikipedia editors identify vandalism more quickly (any edit by an anonymous user is worth checking out, especially on disputed articles).
If Dave's friend had seen the article at the wrong time, it might have looked very bad, and certainly this is the impression they got, whilst later viewers looking at it see nothing wrong with it (let's leave aside the two sets of viewers obvious bias). The ephemeral nature of Wikipedia edits is one of the main problems that I have with trusting it for anything other than fun research on hobby topics (like Vikings). Yet, increasingly, we see news websites referring people to Wikipedia for detailed information on a specialty topic (I've seen this at least twice myself from news.com.au).
I doubt that there's an easy answer to this issue, other than suggesting that people use more than one source for facts, and take anything they read with a grain of salt. This does speak to the issue of whether wikis are appropriate tools for the enterprise environment. Whilst they are great at capturing corporate knowledge, they are just as good at enshrining stupidity and promoting divisive views. But perhaps that is their real strength, the ability to lift the veil between people at work and reveal the real talent or lack thereof? To expose dramas and stresses that are hidden below normally civil exteriors?
Friday, July 07, 2006
Long Tail Wisdom
Chris Anderson's Wired article, The Rise and Fall of a Hit is an extract from his book The Long Tail that I've read a lot about, but not actually read myself. Coming after yesterday's post it is interesting how it highlights the way that the hit mentality is evident in the world outside of music/movies:
This seems to be happening in many different areas, for example, makers of tabletop/pen-and-paper roleplaying games (RPG) are bemoaning the death of the industry as they know it. This is largely because the market has fragmented, and other than a handful of successful companies, the average RPG publisher is working on it as a hobby, a part-time, or at most marginally successful business.
Chris Anderson claims it has had broad impact; “Practically every other sector of mass media and entertainment has witnessed a similar shift away from hits.” He points to popular music, movies, TV and even best-selling novels as all exhibiting a move of consumers away from the mega-hits, to exploring more specific niche selections. If Web 2.0 companies are aiming their products/services at the consumer market, then this fragmentation is both good and bad news. Good news in that there is a place in the market for almost anyone, bad news in that it is becoming increasingly difficult to clearly capture enough of the market to justify the capital expenditure required to develop the products/services being offered.
I think that increasing numbers of entrepreneurs will have great ideas and launch them using their family/friends' capital, but fail to either attract enough of the market to continue to fund growth internally, or to promise to move the needle enough to attract VC investors. My answer for them is to look towards natural aggregators of users, and in one sense that is exactly what the large enterprises are. The Web 2.0 edge in that enterprise market must surely be that users can be attracted and looked after as individuals consumers first, and then second become evangelists for the Web 2.0 product within the enterprise itself. Leave it to IBM to employ a thousand salespeople to win over the CIO, Web 2.0 will win through guerilla tactics, winning the users heart and minds, and taking the IT department by surprise!
If it’s not a hit, then it’s a miss. It has failed the economic test and, therefore, never should have been made. This Hollywood mindset is now how we allocate space on store shelves, fill time slots on television, and build radio playlists. It’s all about allocating scarce resources to the most “deserving,” which is to say, the most popular.Fred Wilson (the guy who coined the term Freemium) has this to say:
... I believe VC fund sizes have gotten very large requiring ever bigger winners to move the needle. When I started in the business 20 years ago, a $100mm exit, generating $20mm in value to our fund was always considered a big win. For many of the VC funds today, that would be a yawn. And that's a problem because for many entrepreneurs, a $100mm exit is plenty big, particularly if they can figure out how to hold on to 20+ perecent [sic] of the company before the exit happens. The $100mm exit moves the entrepreneur's needle but not the VC's. That's a problem.It's a problem because it generates a chasm between entrepreneur and VC expectations, one that may well be leading good ideas to not find VC funding, and therefore get trapped in the “lifestyle” business stage more because there is a lack of VC vision, than it suits their business model. The VCs are still trapped in the Hits model, but the market has moved on from them.
This seems to be happening in many different areas, for example, makers of tabletop/pen-and-paper roleplaying games (RPG) are bemoaning the death of the industry as they know it. This is largely because the market has fragmented, and other than a handful of successful companies, the average RPG publisher is working on it as a hobby, a part-time, or at most marginally successful business.
Chris Anderson claims it has had broad impact; “Practically every other sector of mass media and entertainment has witnessed a similar shift away from hits.” He points to popular music, movies, TV and even best-selling novels as all exhibiting a move of consumers away from the mega-hits, to exploring more specific niche selections. If Web 2.0 companies are aiming their products/services at the consumer market, then this fragmentation is both good and bad news. Good news in that there is a place in the market for almost anyone, bad news in that it is becoming increasingly difficult to clearly capture enough of the market to justify the capital expenditure required to develop the products/services being offered.
I think that increasing numbers of entrepreneurs will have great ideas and launch them using their family/friends' capital, but fail to either attract enough of the market to continue to fund growth internally, or to promise to move the needle enough to attract VC investors. My answer for them is to look towards natural aggregators of users, and in one sense that is exactly what the large enterprises are. The Web 2.0 edge in that enterprise market must surely be that users can be attracted and looked after as individuals consumers first, and then second become evangelists for the Web 2.0 product within the enterprise itself. Leave it to IBM to employ a thousand salespeople to win over the CIO, Web 2.0 will win through guerilla tactics, winning the users heart and minds, and taking the IT department by surprise!
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Success/Failure Web 2.0 Style
Ben Barren has an interesting post on New Web Success vs New Web Failure. Hip dude that he is, he's using the "New Web" term to encompass the old "Web 2.0" world. The basic idea is that whilst things are easier (i.e. cheaper) to start nowadays, the payoff is also less, initial investors don't get a big bang IPO.
There is some value in that, after all many of these businesses are breaking new ground, and there is no guarantee that the original idea ('hey, let's do an online linking game'), will match the end result when the mob gets a hold of it ('a collection of favorites' a la del.icio.us). For people wondering what is the attraction of this model, David Beisel says:
It does ignore the fact that a user does NOT = a paying customer, however they are certainly potential customers (prospects), or at least people who could recommend the service to potential customers (referrers/fans). I suspect that a lot of the business successes and failures we will see over the next few years will be due to a basic failure to convert prospects to customers. Funnily enough, that is Sales 101 ... and is the very essence of an old web business.
One very real barrier to the Freemium model's paid level is that the business world still doesn't get Web 2.0. There are slow signs that they are using hosted solutions, looking at RSS, etc., but I suspect that the real paradigm shift will only come as staff bring their personal favorite Web 2.0 tools into the workplace and then demand an enterprise version of it (probably for improved security, reliability and secrecy). Until that changes, you are looking at convincing consumers to buy your premium level, or small businesses. Both are highly competitive areas for Web 2.0, and both tend to have very fickle customers that are as likely to cancel a service as quickly as they take it up. The answer I'm afraid is that Web 2.0 must break into the enterprise market (as Google Maps is trying to), I wonder who will do that first?
There may well end up being many more “lifestyle” businesses than billion dollar IPO’s, but hopefully there will be less failures, and a less savage bust next time around, as overall expectations are better managed.I think a lot of the Web 2.0 entrepreneurs are looking to the Freemium business model, getting busy implementing the free level, and hoping that they'll work out the premium level's business case before they go broke.
There is some value in that, after all many of these businesses are breaking new ground, and there is no guarantee that the original idea ('hey, let's do an online linking game'), will match the end result when the mob gets a hold of it ('a collection of favorites' a la del.icio.us). For people wondering what is the attraction of this model, David Beisel says:
The answer is that they separate the initial delivery of value to the customer away from the ultimate monetary payment corresponding to that value. This time lag minimizes the risk involved for the customer, thus prompting increased usage.And the Web 2.0 mantra is that the more users you have, the more likely your business will succeed.
It does ignore the fact that a user does NOT = a paying customer, however they are certainly potential customers (prospects), or at least people who could recommend the service to potential customers (referrers/fans). I suspect that a lot of the business successes and failures we will see over the next few years will be due to a basic failure to convert prospects to customers. Funnily enough, that is Sales 101 ... and is the very essence of an old web business.
One very real barrier to the Freemium model's paid level is that the business world still doesn't get Web 2.0. There are slow signs that they are using hosted solutions, looking at RSS, etc., but I suspect that the real paradigm shift will only come as staff bring their personal favorite Web 2.0 tools into the workplace and then demand an enterprise version of it (probably for improved security, reliability and secrecy). Until that changes, you are looking at convincing consumers to buy your premium level, or small businesses. Both are highly competitive areas for Web 2.0, and both tend to have very fickle customers that are as likely to cancel a service as quickly as they take it up. The answer I'm afraid is that Web 2.0 must break into the enterprise market (as Google Maps is trying to), I wonder who will do that first?
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Standpedia - Web 2.0 Argumentation
Here's an interesting concept, take basic argument mapping and bring it to the web, opening it up for general use as a social site. In a sense this is what Standpedia does, and it seems to be aimed at being an online resource of arguments, in the same way that Wikipedia is an online resource for facts.Standpedia is wiki-style encyclopedia of controversy. It's a place where tough questions are answered from a variety of perspectives, instead of a single 'neutral point of view'. Standpedia users work together to build maps of controversial issues that everyone can agree on -- not because the map offers one right answer but because all the perspectives are well-represented within the map.
I am a little bit jealous, I have had a similar idea myself, ever since discovering formal Argument Mapping as presented by Austhink. It is certainly a timely idea as it can help people communicate more easily, but I wonder whether it will really work as presented by Standpedia.One of the most hotly contested aspects of Wikipedia is the way that articles are often vandalised, hacked, tainted with inaccuracies, biased and dominated by a few editors. And this is whilst trying to present facts, let alone emotional issues like Standpedia aims to.
Blogger Jeremy Heigh points out that conversations on the web are often "more like many monologues at once". Jeremy also calls this "philosophical voyeurism spiced with a hint of insanity", and Kottke thinks that while "choice of topic, the way in which the question is posed, and the pace of the commenting has a lot to do with it", "there's still a ton of chaff out there obscuring the wheat."
There seems to be a fundamental disconnect here between what people would like to do (discuss an issue) and the end result of what they actually end up doing (spurt out their opinion as fast as possible). A public website that stores your opinions/thoughts/rants seems like an invitation to many of us to scrawl anything that currently inhabits our mind, often to the detriment of the conversations already taking place there. Standpedia is fighting this issue by supplying an online gladiatorial arena for people to present their thoughts on a particular topic, with some visual tools to help convey argument structures.
The problem for Standpedia is that as the site gains popularity/notoriety it will require a great deal of self-policing by users to combat the inevitable slife towards chaos, miscommunication and general comment-graffiti currently found on many blogs and online forums. Making the user interface as simple as they have may actually contribute to this problem, as the barrier to entry for a casual uncaring user is remarkably low.
Perhaps they could assign user's ownership of topics they create, allowing that user to moderate the edits that others suggest. But perhaps that is simply too un-Web 2.0 for the 21st century?
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Soccer Sucks, Bring on the Rugby!
I can't believe how Australia was sent out of World Cup 2006 by a lousy referee decision (it was a certainty that Italy could put the penalty away). At first I blamed Lucas Neill, then Grosso for his artistic 'dive', then the ref, then finally FIFA. Finally I realised who the real culprit was ... soccer itself is to blame. Check out the end of the Italy vs Australia match:
Italy vs Australia - World Cup 2006
Not only is the game far too slow (although Australia made even that interesting), but the scoring methods are far too hard, leading to low scorelines and games that are decided far too much by luck, and the ref's decisions, than by preparation, strategy, or actual play on the day.
Personally, I find rugby union to be a far more exciting game, with a greater degree of preparation and strategy required (which probably contributes to rugby's 'minnows' finding it so hard to compete).
Finally, compare the huge rugby (union and league) tackles in the video below with the pathetic play-acting of Grosso above.
Huge Rugby Tackles
Italy vs Australia - World Cup 2006
Not only is the game far too slow (although Australia made even that interesting), but the scoring methods are far too hard, leading to low scorelines and games that are decided far too much by luck, and the ref's decisions, than by preparation, strategy, or actual play on the day.
Personally, I find rugby union to be a far more exciting game, with a greater degree of preparation and strategy required (which probably contributes to rugby's 'minnows' finding it so hard to compete).
Finally, compare the huge rugby (union and league) tackles in the video below with the pathetic play-acting of Grosso above.
Huge Rugby Tackles
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Why so quiet?
Things have been quiet here in Falkayn-land. Mainly that's been because I started a new role around the middle of March, and between the hectic work to get finished where I was and the hectic work to get caught up where I am, plus some really hairy end-of-financial-year stuff at the new place, I've been busy.
I;ve also got less access to the internet than I did before, specifically to my GMail account, so a lot of my home time on the computer gets spent clearing my email.
Is Cattle Dog dead? Well, not quite, but in its current form, yes. The good news is that I will focus this blog more on Web 2.0 stuff, and restrict my private posts to my game/fun blog, Infini-nut.
I;ve also got less access to the internet than I did before, specifically to my GMail account, so a lot of my home time on the computer gets spent clearing my email.
Is Cattle Dog dead? Well, not quite, but in its current form, yes. The good news is that I will focus this blog more on Web 2.0 stuff, and restrict my private posts to my game/fun blog, Infini-nut.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)