The COMRADITY Journal

Innovation and education

This is not about the importance of education to innovation, but about the importance of education to selling and realizing the potential of innovation.

They say that the typical human uses only a fraction of their brain in a lifetime.  Education is the key to unlocking the curiosity, analytical skills and communication skills to understand problems and solve them. Therefore new products and services which are nuanced and complex will never succeed in the marketplace unless prospective customers are educated about their benefits.

Educating doesn't happen in a :30 second commercial or a print ad.  Peaking curiosity does.  Educating is most effective face to face and is even more successful when that interaction is one with many.  People learn from interacting with each other as much as listening passively to a presenter.

Most businesses want to be able to sell to people through a medium and pre-produced communication materials because it is simple, predictable, and controllable.  In contrast, the interactivity of educating someone and especially a group of people looks like a nightmare.

To avoid business and VCs invest in new technology simple enough to communicate in a :30 commercial and novel enough to peak curiosity and start "Word of Mouth".   The result is lowering the bar of innovation.

To raise the bar, consider that the "last mile" is educating customers.  Consider that costumers and business need a trusted medium where they can learn from each other.  Consider that marketing could accelerate the process of being receptive to new ideas, learning about them, and then applying new innovation to realize potential value.

There may be returns from investing in the "novel" whcih can be adopted without learning anything new, media which pushes business at customers intrusively, and marketing which uses discounts to push customers to buy.  But the returns would be more significant from investing in innovation which is worth spending the time and money to learn to use, media which enables discovery and learning, and marketing which cultivates the camaraderie which increases receptivity to new ideas and experimenting with realizing potential value.

The Game Changed the Day We Learned What People will Pay For

The tide has turned. People are switching from paying for a "pipe" (e.g., cable) to paying subscriptions for content available anywhere, like Netflix.  And a new source of revenues is paying to participate.  What's next?

In November 4, 2010, we learned that Netflix has a 20% share of prime time web traffic, causing some to speculate that internet usage isn't complementing traditional television viewership, but replacing it.  Specifically, the Wall Street Journal reports that on-demand viewership of already aired primetime television shows are being watched online instead of on television during prime time.  This makes sense when you consider the other not-widely-reported trend that young people who got used to watching TV on the internet during college aren't subscribing to cable when they graduate and move into an apartment.  UPDATE: Fortune names Netflix CEO, Reed Hastings the #1 Businessperson of the year with 20 Million subscribers and $150 Million in net earnings on November 18, 2010, ranking him above #2 Ford CEO - Alan Mulally, #3 Steve Jobs and #4 Mark Zuckerberg.  And on the same day, in the Financial Times, we learn that:

The number of people subscribing to US cable television services has suffered its biggest decline in 30 years as younger, tech-savvy viewers lead an exodus to web-based operations, such as Hulu and Netflix. . . with subscriber numbers falling by 741,000

On November 8, 2010, we learned that people paying a premium for Massively Multi-Player On-line Games (MMOGs) is a growing trend, revealing that the "no one will pay" believers have made an assumption based on what people say, but not what they will do.  (Note: the above link includes a comment stream between Paul Graham and me in which we disagree about the inevitability of the "no one will pay" assumption.)

Two Financial Times articles on November 8, 2011, one by Chris Nuttall and the other by Matthew Garrahan, reveal that the shift is significant and will spread quickly. 

The shift is significant because Nuttall reports that after 2 years of ignoring digital trends to focus on retail sales declines in the Video Game market ("NPD, the official source for industry figures, has tended to ignore (digital) sales in the past as it has charted declines in hardware and software sales over the past two years."), attention is being paid to industry leaders', Activision Blizzard and Electronic Arts, reports that digital sales are up: "Last week, Activision reported 15 per cent growth in digital sales in the first nine months over 2009, while Electronic Arts, creator of the Medal of Honor game, reported 35 per cent growth over its past two quarters compared to the year before."

The shift will spread quickly for two reasons.  First, Hollywood has already discovered it: Garrahan reports that "Sony Pictures Entertainment has . . . with its new movie The Green Hornet, starring Seth Rogen, launch(ed) a free game that can be upgraded for a small fee."  Second, that deal finally  establishes a marketing agency compensation model that rewards marketing performance: "Sony and Trigger will split the profits generated by players paying to upgrade the game."  When the studio, and the agency business find an entirely new revenue stream and the customer is happy to pay, that's a trend which will be siezed upon.

This shift is not a surprise to Bruce Woodcock.  He's been tracking MMOG subscriptions.  As of 2008 they were 16 Million, quadrupling from about 4 Million in just 5 years since 2003.  According to Bruce, NPD only just started tracking subscriptions in 2008. 

 

Most are probably dubious about this "light at the end of the tunnel" right now with the unexpected Disney 3rd quarter profit decline (possibly due to an undisclosed decline in ESPN cable subscription revenue shares among their critical 18-34 male audience, as implied by the not-widely-reported trend discussed above?) and Viacom has writen-off and is selling Rock Band game creator, Harmonix.  

But this bad outcome is likely the result of going against the tide (hoping customers will pay for what they bet on - continued cable subscriptions by ESPN and disc sales at retail by Viacom) instead of developing what customers will pay more for, as revealed by recent trends of Netflix for a la carte viewership and the dramatic growth in MMOG subscriptions.

The MMOG growth offers the most insight into the future because it suggests people will invest time and money to participate in new technology not just passively watch a TV show or movie for less by eliminating the redundancy of both a cable and ISP subscription. 

You may be tempted to interpret the demand in MMOG's as meaning that all content from news to books to video should be transformed into games, but do think bigger.  Consider what digital buyers are getting, that they couldn't get at retail. Digital buys are subscribing to play with others. When they upgrade they are paying to improve their performance so they can play with the players they aspire to play like.  Camaraderie is the "something" people value enough to pay for online.

The Video Game business has discovered what movie theaters, live sports and concert events have known for a long time.  There is a reason beyond "content" and "technology" motivating people pay a huge premium to attend an event at a theater or stadium when they could watch the same event in the comfort of their home with friends and family.  Entertainment stimulates camaraderie with complete strangers who share a common passion, creating a possibility to participate in a community that has as much or more value as friends and family.

In the Comradity Vision for the Future of Media, we look to history to help us understand what it has taken to motivate the adoption of a technology which required more participation than a flip of a switch.  For books to be widely adopted, the average guy had to invest the time and money to learn to read and interpret meaning.  As experienced marketers, we suspect it takes confidence-building to convince the person that it is worth investing the time and money it learning what it takes to participate. 

What's next is:

• traditional content creators integrate participation,
  
• search and marketing visualizes all participants and their roles to increase confidence in investing the money and time it takes to learn to participate,
  
• education enables people to learn from each other,
  
• venues integrate both physical and virtual participation,
  
• archives give the individual control over personal assets and their release.
  

"If You Were Running the NY Times What Would You Do?"

On GigaOm, Om Malik posts: "There is No New Media: It's All New Consumption".  "Huh?" criticizes the article for lacking any specific recommendations, ending with the above question.

Our response is to stop being a silo and start being a medium for connecting.  Here's our response:

1) Quit tinkering and aim for profound innovation.
2) Send the legal department on vacation and tell them to come back open to re-think the legal implications of our new revenue streams.
3) Transform database lists and behavior monitoring into a dynamic, visual, multi-dimensional representation of all the segments of the New York City “cultural community” and provide free access to anyone interested in probing to find out where they might fit in.
4) Invite those interested in being a part of the community to pay to be on the “map” and manage who has access to which personal assets shared on their profile page.
5) Provide tools for open collaboration between editors and programming management and members to identify what matters and probe diverse implications.
6) Position all talent, editorial and programming on the free “map” relative to which segment it is relevant to.
7) Add paid live event programming, accessible from anywhere, where journalists representing different points of view, probe all the implications, and in which the paid audience may participate with each other and with the presenters.
8) Then have legal department re-define terms of use and eliminate the privacy policy.

What Customers Want to Pay For

For decades now, many argue that the future of the US economy is about replacing manufacturing with information and communication technology.  Technology innovation thought leaders have argued that the free internet makes it possible for innovation to come from the bottom up instead of top down from big corporations.  And by making technology development open, anyone can contribute to making it better.  The theory is that by removing the friction of money and “ownership” from the creative process, the end result will be faster, better.  This “democratic” innovation process is evangelized by Steven B. Johnson in his recent book Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation.

After twenty years of "Shoot, Ready, Aim", this product development process isn’t yielding economic growth, according to the Financial Times:

In new calculations for the Financial Times, Eswar Prasad, a former International Monetary Fund official now at the Brookings Institution and Cornell University, finds that the rich economies will owe a rapidly rising share of public debt worldwide, while contributing relatively less to global growth.

Rich countries already experiencing heavy demographic pressures on their public finances, such as Japan, will be joined by others, such as the US, which is beginning to experience the full force of the postwar “baby boomer” generation retiring.

Professor Prasad finds, rich countries will see the average government debt per person of working age rise from $31,700 in 2007 to $68,500 in 2015.

To both replace manufacturing and grow the economy with information and communication technology, we need a creative process that yields something worth paying for.   That creative process needs to start with an objective to serve a benefit customers will pay for not What Technology Wants, as argues Wired founder Kevin Kelly in his new book. 

What do customers want to pay for?  They pay to share live, interactive learning and entertainment among complete strangers with a common interest. They pay hundreds to attend a live sports event or concert for a few hours.  They pay thousands to attend a course in an institution of higher learning or a professional conference.  They pay only pennies per minute for access to the cable and the internet where at a recent “Future of Media” conference everyone agreed 95% of all content is junk. 

The challenge facing technology thoughtleaders is the same one facing leaders of big corporations.  How ironic that both are so disconnected from what customers want to pay for at a time when communication is so possible.

COMRADITY seeks developer partners

COMRADITY seeks developer partners to accomplish two design objectives:

1) “Social Network” Mapping.
2) A “Social Contract” Information System

1) COMRADITY “Social Network" Mapping
COMRADITY mapping is designed to do what all maps have done - create the freedom to explore without risking getting lost.  But this map isn't intended to be a flat picture which could be printed on a piece of paper.  To engage participation, it will be as fun to explore and interactive with other people as a MMORG.  Participation starts with voluntary information sharing, which is used through cluster mapping analysis to show people where they fit, by their interests primarily and their location secondarily.  Then, we will dynamically update the map based on participants’ real time, intentionally public input.  We won't need to collect data surreptitiously.

We believe mapping is the first missing key to unlocking the value of “social networking” technology. Historically, it  appears that new technology was the tipping point for discovering new worlds, but the scale of participation probably corresponds with the availability and accuracy of maps.

We will know we’ve succeeded when people waste less time and money looking for receptivity, and more participating.

2) COMRADITY “Social Contract” Information System
The COMRADITY “Social Contract” Information System is designed based on rules which balance the rights of the individual with the common good. COMRADITY is open to integrating with other technologies which foster participation and will defend the right of all individuals to control when, why, and what they contribute.

We believe that a “Social Contract” is the second missing key to unlocking the potential of today’s new technologies. Historically, “The Great Experiment” - America – was not an inevitable result of the discovery of the “New World”. Before the promise of a “Social Contract”, the Declaration of Independence, the uncertainties of surviving in the “new world” perpetuated a defensive “me” mode, inhibiting the openness to share information and collaborate – the “culture of we” - which is essential to personal growth and innovation for the benefit of all.

We will know we’ve succeeded when both culture and commerce can flourish.

Paul Adams nails it.

@Padday, this is brilliant. Thanks. We relate to your approach of reflecting how real world personal relationships work.  We do this by putting the purpose of the relationships at the center instead of an individual person.  (For more on this see our post "What's the Point?")

By putting the purpose at the center instead of a person, we believe our approach is inherently more scalable than current social network models.     

For example, relationships in a 'cultural community' have the purpose of sharing & discovery, teaching & learning, creating & cultivating, and enjoying the camaraderie of each other doing something everyone cares about more than themselves.  We are starting with music makers with MusikMosh.com.

The Real Life Social Network v2

View more documents from Paul Adams.

Why isn't interactive technology stimulating the economy?

This week Ben Bernanke warned that without new business creation, the US debt levels are unsustainable. 

Supposedly we have a vibrant new business creation driver, interactive media (internet & mobile). 

What I've read this week sounds like it is written in the context of a vibrant economic boom driven by innovation via interactive media. My comments all relate to what I think it will take for interactive technology to stimulate the eoncomy.

Here are the articles I've read and commented on:

Paid Content: by Ben Huh  A Guide To The Cultural Battle That Is Reshaping The Media Business : Makes the point that Internet Culture is in a battle for dominance vs. Popular Culture and suggests that Internet Culture will win.  

A VC: Ad Spend Trends:  Fred Wilson points out the good news that Internet share of ad$ is up from 0 to 5% in just over 10 years.

Find an airplance to jump out of: Dave Winer tells the NYT  that there's still time to take a risk.

Software Product Granularity: building depth-first vs. breadth-first Bradford Cross tells us about the advantages of scaling up software development based on user scenario (breadth first) instead of technology function (depth first).  

Why Mark Zuckerberg should have a Carol Bartz Moment Robert Scoble suggests that even if he thinks Mark Zuckerberg has made mistakes, he deserves credit for growing a business, maybe even more than Carol Bartz has done for Yahoo!.   

Here are the comments I've made on these articles.  In sum, in my opinion, here's what it will take for interactive technology to stimulate the economy:

1. Don't rely on a the crumbs of a shrinking pie of advertising spending, instead, create value people will pay for.
2. Guarantee to NOT use personal data in ways that violate the sensibilities of the consumers to differentiate paid alternatives from free, ad-based options.
3. Interactive and traditional media should use the traditional licensing relationship to collaborate to experiment with and find new value worth paying for by the consumer.
4. When developing technology, consider both marketing scalability and user experience in addition to engineering efficiencies.
5. Instead of emulating/competing with Google and Facebook, emulate or compete with Steve Jobs and Apple. After all that's what Google and Google's former advertising strategist, Tim Armstrong at AOL, are doing. 

Tweet Archives-Competitive Product Design

Starting with most recent on September 24, 2009

@RolandLegrand Socratic Conversation "a methodology for..online conversation, ..critical collaborative thinking" http://bit.ly/2ocXZ

#hybridmedia example: http://bit.ly/Fbunh via @earljwilkinson @inmaorg #futureofmedia #futureofnews

Some good advice for local news B2C competitive strategy via @chrisguillebeau RT @BW http://bit.ly/d6RR4 #futureofnews

nails it RT @comradity: #futureofmedia #futureofnews good food 4 thought from @cshirky via live blogger Ethan Zuckerman http://bit.ly/33DxTA

Here http://bit.ly/iQu5L is audio of @cshirky speech on accountability journalism via @saduros #futureofmedia #futureofnews

#futureofmedia #futureofnews good food for thought from @cshirky via live blogger Ethan Zuckerman http://bit.ly/33DxTA

"Netflix..announced the winner of its $1 million contest to improve its ratings system.via @Jmichele http://bit.ly/wr6rE

Summary of membership business models for media via @CriagSilverman RT @niemanlabs http://bit.ly/26ks6w

"MySpace..is primed to be..a social portal with ties to entertainment content." RT @Prof_K http://bit.ly/W8qdK

RT @comradity: Reader's Digest online going back to roots as trusted content aggregator (via @FT) http://bit.ly/10aJxp (adv + DTC revenue)

@ia link to att 1993 ad on maptrend is broken here is correct link http://bit.ly/GqCZ8 via @howardowens

CORRECT link to ATT 1993 comm'l http://bit.ly/GqCZ8 WOW! 16 years & still waiting for all this! via @howardowens @jeffjarvis

@comradity @jeffjarvis CORRECTION, video is still up http://bit.ly/GqCZ8

@comradity @jeffjarvis mind-blowingly stupid if AT&T did takedown notice. Only objection would be copyright.

@jeffjarvis @howardowens ATT 1993 ad is "not available" anymore on YouTube - What did it say that ATT objected to?

RT @comradity: Reader's Digest online going back to roots as trusted content aggregator (via @FT) http://bit.ly/10aJxp (adv + DTC revenue)

@comradity DTC = direct-to-consumer. RD will use online platform to promote their own products as well as for outside advertising.

@glecharles - what's DTC rev?

RT @comradity: Reader's Digest online going back to roots as trusted content aggregator (via @FT) http://bit.ly/10aJxp (adv + DTC revenue)

Reader's Digest online going back to its roots as trusted content aggregator (via @FT) http://bit.ly/10aJxp Still relies on ad revs tho

Obama on restructuring tax credits for pubs to go nonprofit http://bit.ly/4tNSuX - why just for nonprofit? http://bit.ly/4zv41C

thanks @howardowens - so I'm curious about what you think about the Graham post?

@comradity that would be an @howardweaver post.

"(listen) to them and (value) their input,& (make) them an equal partner.." RT @mathewi @niemanlab http://bit.ly/4AWnSd

"..to make money directly from consumers..come up with non-ephemeral offerings." RT @steveouting http://bit.ly/Ty3HT

"Fantasy Sports Ventures..helping (McD's) reach fant. ftbll (fans).. w/ a branded prod. that aggregates 'tweets" http://bit.ly/1MPPDQ

" RE: @andrew_null Big fat pencils and plain white paper were also the tools at Leo Burnett, back in the day. Conferen… http://disq.us/d53d"

@comradity breakthrough will come when high profile club regularly lists self-pub or digital only books. Otherwise it's same-old same-old

@comradity Hey thansk for calling. I'll go check this out tonight.

#socialmediamarketing good points from @billsledzik Have you hugged your favorite brand today? http://bit.ly/lyUEd

huffington bk comm'ty great, but why start ANOTHER book club Arianna? Why not ours? http://bit.ly/ajior @glecharles @agnieszkasshoes @jny2

RT @comradity: This makes perfect sense. You can't investigate the people who pay your ad $'s. http://bit.ly/Ocqjv, http://bit.ly/15Bqdq

Acorn supports my Pew study analysis that the Press is better at breaking news than invest. reporting http://bit.ly/lMckt

@SaveTheNews re low press accuracy perceptions: my thoughts:http://bit.ly/lMckt #futureofnews #futureofmedia

@jayrosen_nyu responded. offense taken but not given. exc. example of prob. http://bit.ly/bUBhM #futureofmedia #futureofnews

"old guy's'" (& gals') knowledge of ind. b'ness model vulnerability is a missed #opp'ty for VCs. RT TechCrunch http://bit.ly/2hN7og

@NicoleFerraro @sjcobrien @1938Media @stevebuttry re: aud. debate and 11 Things: Transforming Audience into Members http://bit.ly/bUBhM

@jayrosen_nyu @jeffjarvis @dangillmor re: audience debate and 11 Things: Transforming Audience into Members http://bit.ly/bUBhM

woops forgot link RT @NicoleFerraro of Internet Evolution "Busting the Great 'Audience' Debate" http://bit.ly/XkRyY @sjcobrien @1938Media

comradity could help @Newsweek http://bit.ly/fHzoE "Ann McDaniel..said..will aim for a 'smaller..very committed ..& get more $'"

Wow* #futureofmedia RT @tomforemski ~Gold Mine of Online Social Behavior Research~ http://bit.ly/dxIWI

#futureofmedia is audience driven RT @NicoleFerraro of Internet Evolution "Busting the Great 'Audience' Debate" @sjcobrien @1938Media

RE: I suspect people are here because they feel comfortable participating and learning from each other. There aren't m… http://disq.us/czfw

RT @comradity @RachelSterne opp'ty to emulate "live" ....@Livestream launches live web events with web2.0 integration. http://bit.ly/NhJ9s

RT @RachelEsplen Who knew?! RT @AdamVincenzini ..104 yr old paper leading UK media revolution: http://bit.ly/AACce #futureofmedia

@timoreilly ThX for the intro to VRM http://bit.ly/89Xlv - very interesting

#opp'ty to emulate "live" virtually YES! RT @RachelSterne Livestream launches live web events with web2.0 integration. http://bit.ly/NhJ9s

RE: Logo at Leo Burnett - back in the day - was a hand reaching for the stars with slogan "When you reach for the stars… http://disq.us/cyok

RT @copyblogger .. fighting human nature? http://bit.ly/16OJXZ [same guy: http://bit.ly/D0vUZ scroll to"What is a 'User'?"]

Information Hierarchy :} RT @pressearbeit no comment - just nice http://bit.ly/GcciN

via @berkmancenter More carrot, less stick! http://bit.ly/46OLDt D. Rand on human cooperation: http://bit.ly/xQxGb #collaboration

#context RT @mthomps Last chance: Let's ignite the conversation on adding context to the news. Vote! http://bit.ly/futureofcontext

#context via @lavrusik Magazines creating ads http://ow.ly/o35u

RT @jonathanmendez: Ads as Content - Content as Ads http://bit.ly/xG7ds via @glecharles ME: #context is everything

@davewiner Fox's Twitter TV Experiment Tweets Its Way to Epic Failure. http://c.oy.ly/jb36 ME: OR creates demand for improvement?

RT @lavrusik: just glad people are experimenting. ME:ditto via @mashable on Fox Twitter experiment http://ow.ly/o9sS

RT @davewiner "Hire execs who love the product.." http://bit.ly/j63NZ ME: What a great investment strategy too!

Magazines producing contextual ads. Link to NYT http://bit.ly/3NKd2 Link to my post on dig. cust. pub. #opp'ty http://bit.ly/ER0Ih

link to npr story on Imogen Heap fan collaboration http://bit.ly/uX5hJ #collaboration

@jkristufek my response to Divide and Conquer on your blog: http://bit.ly/CnkSE

@ love this! @mthomps 3 missing parts from story cont'd http://bit.ly/6Mcbb

RT @OCReport Facebook, Twitter Revolutionizing How Parents Stalk Kids | The Onion http://ow.ly/nzyG ME:is this why F45+ users growing?

@lavrusik re: possibilities of hyperlocal/power of proximity get a "whoops" page on PBS?

@jowyang re: survey ?'s ME:Content Creators, Distributors (Publishers/Programmers, Media, or Techs), or Sellers? Buyers or Users? Fame or $?

YES! RT @CodyBrown "If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they'd have said 'a faster horse."- Ford via @scobleizer http://bit.ly/mnJtv

woohoo! my hometown paper is 1st! RT @sjcobrien Pgh Post-Gazette launches members-only site ($36/year) midnight. http://is.gd/2JYUz

@yelvington Here's my take on Howard, Steve, and you: http://bit.ly/ftiKi

My take: @stevebuttry is correct; @howardowens "spinning off" internet does not work http://bit.ly/ftiKi

@NewsFuturist Re: "We must kill press freedom to save it http://bit.ly/cbxfF" OR http://bit.ly/PEr9D

@jeffpulver re: more virtual = more need for face 2 face ME:Live is the gold standard for tech to emulate http://bit.ly/C6kW9

#bingo Guardian to launch Guardian Club http://bit.ly/8nePn

@glecharles fyi related to tool-house: combinatorial innovator http://bit.ly/ZG3Vk, ycombinater http://bit.ly/42Cm0L

@agolis yes I am a combinatorial innovator http://bit.ly/ZG3Vk and I've been looking for others. How do I get in touch w/hammer?

@jayrosen_nyu re: testing loyal user news knowledge - how about sponsoring live virtual event and listening to what they say?

RT @yelvington Fascinating.. RT: @robbmontgomery: Scientist.. prototypes "Article of the Future." http://bit.ly/m5PWt

RT @stevebuttry 3 missing parts from news stories @mthomps. http://ow.ly/l5n4 - ME:"more important" and "more valuable $"

@1938media ever wonder what % of tweets are consumed in #realtime?

RT @AmberCadabra "There is NOTHING like live music to stir things up." ME: "Stir things up." That's what we'll pay for.

@rachellesplace and "All passes. Art alone endures." is an unknown source, but I find it very true. (Tweets are long enough for this level)

@jeffjarvis re rutten lack of engagement - accepted no comments on article!

RT @GuyKawakaski restarting IP program http://snipurl.com/qnsw3 [#futureofmedia WOW Good process for any new product dev.]

Love this post by Matt Thompson http://bit.ly/uv2L6 he recos what Teens want to: http://bit.ly/1yG3OS

RT @pricing "visulaize the End-to-End user experience: why they - want it, pay for it, renew it, why they'd tell others."

RT @edyson #focas09 - we need experimentation more than research

@craignewmark @jeffjarvis NPR discussion "confirmation bias" impact on link economy is interesting

@Mediazoic http://bit.ly/H2w1p why we need to remember "live" to get what's worth paying for http://twurl.nl/ycduon

@craignewmark @SteveCase WP Facebook/Friendfeed [me:NOT how to capitalize on aud. participation http://bit.ly/FeeZl

@jeffjarvis: RT @stevebuttry . . . failing to innovate. http://bit.ly/wUzwq [isn't this the future of news? http://bit.ly/10fMuy]

RT @craignewmark The Squirrelizer http://bit.ly/kyeu6 [me:way to capitalize on fan participation! http://bit.ly/19NcMS]

Prohibit fans from sharing: http://bit.ly/ppc4a [when capitalize on fan participation? http://bit.ly/19NcMS]

RT @craignewmark @SteveCase WP: "Facebook just bought the rights to nearly everything you do online" http://bit.ly/4uLshO [#comradity_fav}

RT @brainpicker A Roadmap to Success – delightful allegorical map http://bit.ly/4yrQm5 [me: #comradity_fav]

Teens on news: understand the basics to form own opinions and talk about news. http://twurl.nl/0m848w [me too!]

RT: community building more important than paid content http://ow.ly/jZn1 [me: THIS IS CORE REASON WE WILL PAY http://twurl.nl/a6rhwm]

RT @andrewhaeg:@gakembel: Wait to define the problem until after you have empathy for people. #chqlive

RT @gakembel empathy key 2 creativity eg 'crummier the prototypes, sorrier people feel . . more likely 2 give you feedback' [me:#bingo]

10 Things we don't understand about humans http://twurl.nl/v0nkfp LOL never saw so many "comment breaches our user agreement" before!

Narrate Your Work is a great example of the power of live. That is: satisfying the need to be connected with others in… http://disq.us/1pxz

B-WK story on Real-Time Web http://twurl.nl/1bclqh [me:real time is essential to interactivity - w/o it, WEB is like telephone party lines]

Posted: "What's worth paying for?" yesterday during the blackout: http://twurl.nl/ygsf2h

RE: @hymanroth This is a great thread to pursue - what are the interactive features we would pay a premium for? http://disq.us/1cua

RE: Context is a "self-regulator" and inspires better outcome. Which results in better party: a costume party or a come… http://disq.us/1cu6

RE: @bsaitz Facebook fans will pay for the choice to retain rights of their personal content. They are figuring it out.… http://disq.us/1cta

@kevin2kelly just found your better than free http://twurl.nl/30105t piece and have commented on it here http://twurl.nl/kqsy4k. love it!

"When you charge . . . you quickly find out the true value of your product." http://bit.ly/WXAH4 [me: & understand your customer]

@cshirky re http://bit.ly/Y2bb1 comments reveal the paradox: Everyone wants to be like Nike without the marketing $ and time.

"Live" is the gold standard technology should aim to emulate.

(updated on August 31, 2009)

Initially all media evolved as a means to emulate this gold standard to the best of its abilities.  Print shares content, radio shares the sound, movie and tv adds the visual. 

BUT all media struggle to overcome several barriers: 

1) Context:  when everyone is gathered together for the same reason there is a context to start from for the speaker or the artists to relate to.  In contrast, communication and entertainment via almost any  mass medium risks being taken out of context.

2) Collaboration: there is a sense of mutual investment in a live event that fosters a willingness to collaborate - the promoter/theater owner wants a full house, the audience wants to enjoy it, the speaker or artist wants the audience to respond, the backstage support knows there are no opportunities for "another take"

3) Timing: The audience has planned to come. Anticipation has been built.  The imagination is primed to receive and process more nuanced, sophisticated stories.

4) Real Time: As the story unfolds, the opportunity for the magic that only happens spontaneously and authentically happens.  No shooting scenes out of sequence and building a story post facto in the editing room.

5) Affinity: As Ken Burns said on Monday night about speaking to a Chautauqua audience - "I feel we are kindred spirits."  This is the energy that is only realized to its fullest potential at a live event. 

The interactivity of the internet is an advantage for media to overcome many of these hurdles to emulate the gold standard of communication and entertainment and deliver the energy of "kindred spirits." 

Existing technologies exist to overcome these barriers.  But, as of yet, they haven't been combined to offer one seamless solution.  Hal Varian calls it "Combinatorial Innovation"  A guy named "Hammer" (?) clearly communicates the untapped opportunity.

UPDATE: Have discovered 2 interesting concepts that have the potential to overcome these barriers.  One is a design concept created by IDEO and featured in this Fast Company article.  Key is that is uses visualizations to efficiently communicate a TON of information, facilitating real time interaction.  Another is the Newsroom Cafe concept proposed by Dave Cohn which is a neat way to capitalize on the power of news to stimulate comaraderie and a civilized forum for discussion to build sense of community.  As discussed above, these concepts would be great together. 

We haven't begun to tap this potential.   The first hurdle is establishing a transaction system to support the "link" economy that is "frictionless" as Fred Wilson says.   Maybe this is where government can facilitate.

When will media capitalize on audience participation?

UPDATED: August 18, 2009: According to Mashable, the SEC revised the policy.  As I point out in my comment,  this revision merely brings the policy within existing legal precedence.  Video is the only form of communication that is absolutely protected.   Legal precedence on Images and Editorial, especially editorial, is not strong.  MLB lost a lawsuit in an attempt to protect the leagues exclusive rights to game/player statistics. 

“No Bearer may produce or disseminate in any form a “real-time” description or transmission of the Event (i) for commercial or business use, or (ii) in any manner that constitutes, or is intended to provide or is promoted or marketed as, a substitute for radio, television or video coverage of such Event. Personal messages and updates of scores or other brief descriptions of the competition throughout the Event are acceptable. If the SEC deems that a Bearer is producing a commercial or real-time description of the Event, the SEC reserves the right to pursue all available remedies against the Bearer.

Absent the prior written permission of the Southeastern Conference, game action videos of the Event may not be taken by Bearer. Photos of the Event may be taken by Bearer and distributed solely for personal use (and such photographs shall not be licensed, used, or sold commercially, or used for any commercial or business purpose).”

Here's another example of why media needs to go back to its fundamental reason for being - to extend limited access live communication and entertainment to a broader audience.

On August 16, 2009, the St. Petersburg Times (TampaBay.com) talks about the new SEC policy and the huge controversy it has begun in the sports entertainment world.  The Southeastern Conference has announced a new policy: "Ticketed fans can't "produce or disseminate (or aid in producing or disseminating) any material or information about the Event, including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the Event. …"

This is probably knee-jerk reaction to satisfy broadcast rightsholders who are threatening to call fans publishing content a breach of their exclusivity. 

How about capitalizing on new media's opportunity to enable live audience participants to extend the experience to virtual fans.   Instead of screaming "breach!"  both the SEC and the broadcasters should be considering how to capitalize on this.   Why isn't anyone asking how much you could charge a fan for the right to post images/video, etc. from the game on their websites and even offer the fans an opportunity to have access to professional content to post?  Why isn't the SEC/broadcasters considering adding language on the tickets that says you consent to let us use images of you or broadcast you in the stands when you publish them online? 

Why not consider new ways to create value for the virtual audience by actively encouraging participation of the live audience and new revenue sources. 

I've seen other examples of this.  On Facebook, members receive cease and desist orders when they post daughter suzie performing a song from a Disney musical.  Clearly, this is a kneejerk reaction dictated by FAcebook attorneys.  The letter certainly wasn't written by someone in marketing or CRM departments - its plain rude!  Why isn't Facebook talking to Disney and other rightsholders about what it would cost to charge fans a license fee and even help them with a better audio track.  Facebook is struggling to find a business model - here's one!

But wait there's more!.  What about the potential for these fans to generate more fans and more paying customers through their passion for the content. 

When will media capitalize on audience participation instead of trying to defend the status quo?  When there's a frictionless way to debit for audience use of the rightsholder's content and credit for generating more business for media by the audience participation.