Tag: jonathan macdonald

Social Media Growth (Infographic)

Thanks for the heads-up goes to my good friend Jonathan MacDonald!

Technology & Transparency: Still need Ethics

Here’s a Confucius quote (which I unearthed via my good friend Jonathan MacDonald):

When you see a man of worth, think of how you may emulate him. When you see one who is unworthy, examine yourself.

And then there was the next chapter in the phone-hacking scandal (cf. here if it really did escape your attention): a newspaper (allegedly) breaking the privacy of an individual – this time amplified by the shocking fact that that individual had actually been murdered at the time of the (hacking) crime. The news brought about harsh reactions, not only from amongst the people but also from venerable bloggers and journalists. There’s even a Facebook Group asking people to boycott the publication.

The outcry bemoaned the failing of technology (hackable) almost as much as the futile attempts to cover the tracks of the wrongdoer.

So what’s new? Nothing!

Technology Facilitates Transparency

I have long been making the case that technology facilitates transparency, and that that is a good thing. I maintain that.

You may have heard the story of the elimination of different pricing for fish around Lake Victoria when the fishermen finally got their hands onto mobile phones, so they could call the merchants at other ports rather than relying on whatever the merchant in their home port told them the price was. Transparency facilitated by technology: win. The above is a fairly straight forward case of the reduction of transaction cost (here: the cost of information) leading to the eradication of previously existing inefficiencies.

There are countless anecdotes (and scientific studies) supporting this notion and providing powerful proof for its validity (which, again, is so simple: reduce the cost of information and you shall harvest).

And then comes someone who uses technology to pervert elementary rights of individuals. And all goes over board. Or does it?

Murdoch is irrelevant

I posit that the latest (as all of the previous) NOTW phone-hacking scandal is not actually turning the above into one big question; it is a mere distortion that has not actually anything to do with the merits: invading someone’s privacy is wrong (NB: whether it’s legal or not is another question). With or without technology. The principle of what constitutes an invasion is usually (there may be exceptions for public figures) dictated from the perspective of the “victim”. Or, in the words of any good anti-harassment memo: If you feel harassed, you are being harassed. If you feel your privacy is invaded, it is invaded.

However, the act as well as the debate following it highlight one crucial piece that is often overlooked. And it has nothing to do with neither the technology nor the morality of those using technology to breach laws, rights, feelings. It has to do with orientation.

Transparency Reduces Friction; It Does Replace Neither Judgment Nor Ethics!

Be it Wikileaks, Murdoch’s papers’ conduct or super-injunctions (and their factual lift by the freedom of speech in the Commons), transparency facilitated by technology (as the main tool to reduce cost of balanced information to meaningful levels for each [connected] individual) is merely a tool, albeit a very, very powerful one. It aids the exposure of partisan interests and hence helps eradicate inefficiencies (partisan interests almost always add cost). And it works: apparently advertisers review their ads in Murdoch papers (cf. here).

BUT it does not replace good judgment or makes a call on the ethics of an action or inaction. This is why I called it an issue of orientation. People are – perhaps more than ever – required to judge and apply ethical standards to the information they receive.

This means that every single on of us is required to query, ask, debate; no easy answers anymore. This makes the world a better but also an inherently more complicated place. And it makes it even more prone to manipulation (arguably the reason why some try it on…) since the imbalance of access to information (i.e. the anti-thema to transparency) provides a lever to uproot that newly won freedom. If, however, every single one of us applies the beliefs and convictions we know to be true (and, yes, your truth may be different to mine), and keep the lines open, I firmly believe that discourse will guide us to a result that is “right”. But you have to have the guts and courage to apply your own thoughts, query those arguments and render judgment – for as long as you are not presented with a better case.

Technology is the Great Equaliser

Access to information is the biggest asset in an information economy. Technology aids this. And mobile is the single biggest medium in the history of mankind to facilitate this. I can provide you with tons of examples (but I reckon it is probably undisputed).

Technology also enables every single one of us to use it in order to get to sound judgment, to debate, ponder and ultimately assess of what we deem ethical. It puts all of us into the drivers seat of opinion-forming, which is something that has never been there before. There had always been powerful intermediaries (the media in its various forms through the centuries; market criers, preachers, scribes, authors, newspaper editors, radio and TV producers all had the cost of dissemination of information on their side: it was inconceivable that anyone from outside these circles could invade and publicly query. Now we can. But: we also have to! If we choose to stay silent, we should not bemoan that others form and disseminate the opinions we believe to be wrong.

Confucius is still right. Technology does not allow you to be an immoral, unethical knobhead. And, no, no one said it was easy!

Namaste!

MLOVE 2011

Only two weeks or so, and we’ll be off. One of the most exciting (well, correct that: the most exciting) mobile events of the year will kick off, namely MLOVE. Hosted in a proper medieval German castle, it boasts an incredible line-up of holistic mobile thinkers and tinkerers and all the ingredients to “change your life” (quote some of the participants of previous iterations!).

So here’s the speaker line-up:

  • Grammy-winning musician and multi-platform entrepreneur Chamillionaire;
  • Yuri van Geest, the man behind Trend8;
  • Thomas Goetz, Executive Editor of Wired (!);
  • Russell Buckley, employee #1 at AdMob (and a ton of other things!);
  • Kei Shimada, one of Japan’s premier wireless ambassadors;
  • Jason Collins, Alcatel-Lucent’s VP of Emerging Technology and Innovation (and one of those awesome uber-smart people);
  • Daniel Graf of Google’s Mobile Apps Labs fame;
  • Jean Schmitt, one of France’s smartest investors (and with JolTech and powerhouse Sofinnova);
  • Rovio’s Mighty Eagle, Peter Vesterbacka (how angry can your bird get?);
  • Thorsten Dirks, CEO of E-Plus
  • Beverly Jackson, the Director Marketing & Social Media of the Grammy Awards;
  • plus leaders from Volkswagen, OgilvyOne, leaders in education, philosphers, bloggers, the CEO of Butterfly Corp, Dentsu (Japan’s #1 ad agency), Contagious and the indomitable Corvida Raven (of SheGeeks) and Jonathan MacDonald (of This Fluid World), composers, DJs, and, last but not least Adele Waugaman, the UN Foundation’s Sr. Director for their Technology Partnership.

We will also run a Teen Camp for the generation that really matters, which is run in conjunction with the Hasso Plattner (he of SAP fame) Institute, which I have the great honour to co-curate together with 16-year-old Tony Neidhardt (who – despite her tender age – is already a veteran in the scene!) and Jane Mason.

In one (well, few) word(s): it will be absolutely awesome!

If you feel inclined to join (and you really, really, really should!!!), check in here.

Empowered Media, Mobile and why @mashable is Wrong

Mashable founder & CEO Peter Cashmore (who I hugely respect) declared in his recent CNN column the death of privacy and has also found the culprit, i.e he spotted

social media hold the smoking gun.

With all due respect, this could not be further from the truth (although, to be fair to him, he really only used it as an opener).

The term “social media” is self-referential and, hence, pretty meaningless.

The term “social”

refers to the interaction of organisms with other organisms and to their collective co-existence.

Media is the plural of medium, which means

something intermediate in nature or degree.

Therefore, media in the context of communication is – by definition – a tool (sic!), which connects one (human) being (also kown as the publisher) with another (also known as the user, recipient, reader, consumer, …). When “media happens”, one therefore looks at (at least) two (human) organisms interacting, which is – again by definition – social behaviour. QED.

Thou shalst not blame a tool.

To “blame” social media is akin to blaming a shotgun for dead people (and a regular reply to the latter argument would bear “interesting” implications on the former indeed, namely result in advocacy for censorship!).

When Peter Cashmore claims that social media was to blame for the loss of privacy, what he really means is that the (relatively) new tools interactive media provides users with and – maybe even more importantly – the cost of these tools (or rather the lack thereof) has led to an explosion of “publishing” activity by every man (and – PC calling – woman) and his/her dog. The published opinions of all these men and their dogs lead to the creation of something like a “meta-opinion” (which need not always be true of course: cf. the example of billions of flies eating excrements).

The core of it then is people (and lots of them) grouping their proverbial voices to create a storm. This has often been seen and some stories like the one of the Stolen Sidekick have made history. Was Sasha’s (the girl who stole the Sidekick) reputation killed by Evan’s (the guy who published the story) website? What did it then? The server? A script? Some lines of HTML code? Hardly. What it did was the overwhelming response of the public (all those men and their dogs) reacting to something Sasha (the person) had done (stole the Sidekick). And – just as a reminder – stealing something is bad!

The Tube to The Power of Mobile or: the Rise and Fall of Ian

A more recent example concerned a (now unemployed) fellow named Ian. He is a guy who appears to have a problem with anger management. Unfortunately, he worked in a customer-facing job, namely on the tube platforms in London. He lost it and had a “little” rant at a passenger (“I’ll sling you under a train”). Happens every day. BUT: it should NOT happen. Not every day, not any day!

This time, something was different, namely there was a guy standing next to him who filmed it on his mobile. He then posted this to YouTube, blogged it, twittered about it and, soon after, it was on the front pages of newspapers, online and on TV. Ian never saw it coming. Admittedly, he was particularly unfortunate that the guy filming happened to be Jonathan MacDonald, one of the more prolific and knowledgeable “social media” gurus. Suffice to say that Jonathan has a good handle on how to get word out.

Reactions to this (as well as to the Sidekick story before) were wild and (sometimes) violent, in all directions. One common outcry was the one of “trial by social media“. Hang on. What did Jonathan do? He used YouTube (which is open to everyone, including Ian), he used a blog (dito), he twittered (dito). Via Google (or any number of other tools), everyone can get the Twitter handles of newspaper editors, TV news anchors and everyone else in the “professional” media in minutes (Ian, too). A trial is one where one side (the prosecutor) prosecutes and the other side (the defendant) defends. The person that decides, however, is the judge (and/or the jury depending in which country you live).

Therefore, even if one would slap the nasty tag of “prosecutor” on Jonathan, he still was only a little piece of this. And he was NOT the judge! If there was a “trial” by any media, one could/might/wish to look at the “professional” media who picked it up although I understand that they actually have been speaking to Jonathan but also tried to get word from TfL (the tube operator) and Ian. No reply, it seems. Which is whose fault precisely?

He could have responded. TfL could actually have used this publicity to turn it around: Ian has apologised (now), TfL could have shown that they do not tolerate this AND that they are constructively tackling issues when they know of them. Jonathan even offered his collaboration in that. Alas, all London mayor Boris Johnson had to say was that he was “apalled by the video”. He did it on Twitter, mind you. How very 21st century. The tool maybe, the reaction not.

Don’t Be Evil

Google’s famous motto “Don’t Be Evil” was first smiled at as being “quaint”, then hailed as revolutionary and then queried in the face of the company “balancing” acts e.g. with a view to their self-censorship in China).

As a general motto, however, this is what is at the very heart of society. It is the motto we are all (hopefully) being brought up with. Don’t do wrong. It is, I would pose, a fairly broadly supported smallest common denominator of society.

Back in the olden days, a true gentleman would be good for his word. He would stand up in the face of evil and would defend the poor and defenceless. Honourable. And men had to be responsible for their own actions and inactions. At its core, it is all about this:

Self-responsibility is the ability to respond yourself.

Then it all went South (or so said my late grandma).

Empowered Media

Grandma would be delighted though: for we are now in a position again where the straight-forward “man and his word” (and indeed woman, too) can be re-ignited. And the driver (or, in Peter Cashmore’s words, smoking gun) is a variety of newly empowered media.

Empowered media describes the causes and effects of what we are witnessing much better than “social”: digital media become empowered by the tools (devices, software, etc.) that can be deployed to help communication – of fact and opinion – from people to people. Period.

Distinct to the ancient past of newspapers, the number of people able to “publish” has vastly increased because the costs of doing so has decreased to virtually zero. The same is true for the receiving end (which can instantly also turn into a publishing side itself). Very powerful. Also a little intimidating maybe. Well, at least if you have a problem with anger management or need otherwise a broad shoulder to hide behind.

That broad shoulder, the “excuse” by reference to some foggy higher-ups, gods in the clouds, “superiors”, etc is being removed by the ability to record and report fairly accurate accounts of actions and inactions of basically everyone. It empowers everyone (including Ian) to respond: we just re-gained the ability to respond ourselves.

Mobile is the Most Empowered

Mobile is the most powerful tool in the armoury of digital media: it is with you at all times. It is switched on at all times. It is connected at all times (well, the new generation is anyway). It can record audio and video. It can transmit audio, video and text. And it’s yours, and yours alone. And whilst it is so personal, it opens a gateway to potentially 6bn people. That’s a lot of power.

And it’s in your hand!

Conference: European Mobile Media

On 22/23 April, the glorious city of Prague will play host to the European Mobile Media conference. The event will cover the entire spread of the mobile media sector from content (games, music, TV) through to advertising and marketing with a focus on – what a surprise – monetization. There’s a great line-up of speakers, including mobile advertising guru Russell Buckley from Admob, agency heavyweights Jonathan MacDonald (Ogilvy) and Mark C Linder (WPP) as well as one of the industry’s brightest analysts, Peggy Anne Salz (mSearchGroove) and, last but not least, yours truly.

The spice will hopefully added by the combination of executives from the production, publishing and distribution side with their counterparts from network operators with a large number already confirmed to attend.
Come along! Prague in spring is wonderful on its own. And a good conference won’t spoil it.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén