TGIS by derek.skaletsky

Idle Complaints

“Be the change you want to see in the world…”

          - Mahatma Gandhi

“….or shut the fuck up.”

          - My addendum

Idle complaints get on my nerves.  

Is Klout leading us into a Dark Age of social media?

Friend of mine just sent me this interesting post by Leslie Campisi.  It’s yet another Klout-bashing post (at this point, I can’t tell whether these posts are helping or hurting the causes they claim to rail against), but I think Leslie makes some interesting points.  

While I don’t agree with everything Leslie says here (for example, I don’t agree that technology doesn’t have a role in helping make sense of this massive, open, oft-chaotic new world - after all we at Traackr are playing in important role in this), I really like the insight she brings near then end of the post.  Here’s what she says:

Turning social media into a game diminishes its potential – and might lead to a backlash. I can imagine a scenario, in several months’ time, where Klout’s gamification of social media turns against the PR world. If you’ve been in this industry long enough, you can recall the long march it took to convince brands (b-to-c and particularly b-to-b) that social media wasn’t the domain of interns and 13-year-olds.

Having now turned that corner, I cringe to imagine the conversation that might happen next:

“Social media? That’s just a bunch of weirdos pumping up their Klout scores for coupons. Oh sure, our last agency boosted our entire sales team’s Klout scores to X. Thought leadership and so on. That’s in the Klout magic quadrant, you know. But it didn’t mean a damn thing. We didn’t meet our sales goals, and in fact I laid them all off. And the influencers we ended up ‘engaging’ with? Yeah, turns out they were more interested in freebies than actually becoming, you know, actual customers. So no, I don’t think we’ll be doing any Twitter campaigns anytime soon.”

Leslie is one of the first people to really understand what Klout is — a game.  It’s a game built for the benefit of the advertising agencies.  Period.  Nothing more.  It’s not an influence measurement…it’s a game.    

But what I like about Leslie’s insights is that she not only recognized Klout for what it is, a game, but she also recognized the ultimate danger of this game.  And it’s something I’ve worried about for a while.  The game that Klout has created has the potential of throwing social media into a very dark age.  

What I’ve always loved about social media, and what has made it so great, is the freedom it has given people to join & contribute to communities built around the things in which they are most passionate.  To this point, social media has been an ecosystem built around passion.  Genuine passion.  

Games like Klout threaten this foundation.  Instead of being driven by genuine passion, we are coming to a place where most of social media activity is being driven by the passion for free shit.  And that’s a dark, ugly place.  An ecosystem of beggars looking for handouts.  A place where connections aren’t real, but means to a selfish end.  Not really a place I want to hang.  And I’m afraid, we’re heading pretty quickly in that direction.  Some of this is the inevitable clash of business & human nature.  And some of it is due to the irresponsible acts of Klout & others like it.  

But…I’m an optimist.  And social media is incredibly young.  I see this kind of hiccup as part of the natural evolution of a young system.  Do I feel like we’re heading in a dark period of social media?  Yeah, I think it’s going to get worse before it gets better.  But will we be there forever?  No, I don’t think so.  Eventually, the disingenuous will fade away and we’ll end up with an even stronger, more powerful form of social media on the other side.  

At least that’s what I hope  :)

Is Klout leading us into a Dark Age of social media?

Friend of mine just sent me this interesting post by Leslie Campisi.  It’s yet another Klout-bashing post (at this point, I can’t tell whether these posts are helping or hurting the causes they claim to rail against), but I think Leslie makes some interesting points.  

While I don’t agree with everything Leslie says here (for example, I don’t agree that technology doesn’t have a role in helping make sense of this massive, open, oft-chaotic new world - after all we at Traackr are playing in important role in this), I really like the insight she brings near then end of the post.  Here’s what she says:

Turning social media into a game diminishes its potential – and might lead to a backlash. I can imagine a scenario, in several months’ time, where Klout’s gamification of social media turns against the PR world. If you’ve been in this industry long enough, you can recall the long march it took to convince brands (b-to-c and particularly b-to-b) that social media wasn’t the domain of interns and 13-year-olds.

Having now turned that corner, I cringe to imagine the conversation that might happen next:

“Social media? That’s just a bunch of weirdos pumping up their Klout scores for coupons. Oh sure, our last agency boosted our entire sales team’s Klout scores to X. Thought leadership and so on. That’s in the Klout magic quadrant, you know. But it didn’t mean a damn thing. We didn’t meet our sales goals, and in fact I laid them all off. And the influencers we ended up ‘engaging’ with? Yeah, turns out they were more interested in freebies than actually becoming, you know, actual customers. So no, I don’t think we’ll be doing any Twitter campaigns anytime soon.”

Leslie is one of the few people to really understand what Klout is — a game.  It’s a game built for the benefit of the advertisers.  Period.  Nothing more.  It’s not an influence measurement…it’s a game.    

But what I like about Leslie’s insights is that she not only recognized Klout for what it is, a game, but she also recognized the ultimate danger of this game.  And it’s something I’ve worried about for a while.  The game that Klout has created has the potential of throwing social media into a very dark age.  

What I’ve always loved about social media, and what has made it so great, is the freedom it has given people to join & contribute to communities built around the things in which they are most passionate.  To this point, social media has been an ecosystem built around pockets of passion.  Genuine passion.  

Games like Klout threaten this foundation.  Instead of being driven by genuine passion, we are coming to a place where most of social media activity is being driven mainly by the passion for free shit (& shallow ego stroking).  And that’s a dark, ugly place.  An ecosystem of beggars looking for handouts.  A place where connections aren’t real, but means to a selfish end.  Not really a place I want to hang.  And I’m afraid, we’re heading pretty quickly in that direction.  Some of this is the inevitable clash of business & human nature.  And some of it is due to the irresponsible acts of Klout & others like it.  

But…I’m an optimist.  And social media is incredibly young.  I see this kind of hiccup as part of the natural evolution of a young system.  Do I feel like we’re heading in a dark period of social media?  Yeah, I think it’s going to get worse before it gets better.  But will we be there forever?  No, I don’t think so.  Eventually, the disingenuous will fade away and we’ll end up with an even stronger, more powerful form of social media on the other side.  

At least that’s what I hope  :)

How We Will Read: Clay Shirky

Reminds me of a post I wrote 3 years ago about the publishing industry going Hollywood-style.  Clay is wicked smart…

fndgs:

This post is part of “How We Will Read,” an interview series exploring the future of books from the perspectives of publishers, writers, and intellectuals. Read our kickoff post with Steven Johnson here. And check out our new homepage, a captivating new way to explore Findings.

This week, we were extremely honored to speak to Internet intellectual Clay Shirky, writer, teacher, and consultant on the social and economic effects of Internet technologies. Clay is a professor at the renowned Interactive Telecommunications Program at NYU and author of two books, most recently Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age.

Clay is one of the foremost minds studying the evolution of Internet culture. He is also a dedicated writer and reader, and it was natural that we would ask him to contribute to our series to hear what he could teach us about social reading. Clay is both brilliant and witty, able to weave in quotes from Robert Frost in one breath and drop a “ZOMG” in the next. So sit down and take notes: Professor Shirky’s about to speak.

How is publishing changing?

Publishing is not evolving. Publishing is going away. Because the word “publishing” means a cadre of professionals who are taking on the incredible difficulty and complexity and expense of making something public. That’s not a job anymore. That’s a button. There’s a button that says “publish,” and when you press it, it’s done.

In ye olden times of 1997, it was difficult and expensive to make things public, and it was easy and cheap to keep things private. Privacy was the default setting. We had a class of people called publishers because it took special professional skill to make words and images visible to the public. Now it doesn’t take professional skills. It doesn’t take any skills. It takes a Wordpress install.

The question isn’t what happens to publishing — the entire category has been evacuated. The question is, what are the parent professions needed around writing? Publishing isn’t one of them. Editing, we need, desperately. Fact-checking, we need. For some kinds of long-form texts, we need designers. Will we have a movie-studio kind of setup, where you have one class of cinematographers over here and another class of art directors over there, and you hire them and put them together for different projects, or is all of that stuff going to be bundled under one roof? We don’t know yet. But the publishing apparatus is gone. Even if people want a physical artifact — pipe the PDF to a printing machine. We’ve already seen it happen with newspapers and the printer. It is now, or soon, when more people will print the New York Times holding down the “print” button than buy a physical copy.

The original promise of the e-book was not a promise to the reader, it was a promise to the publisher: “We will design something that appears on a screen, but it will be as inconvenient as if it were a physical object.” This is the promise of the portable document format, where data goes to die, as well.

Institutions will try to preserve the problem for which they are the solution. Now publishers are in the business not of overcoming scarcity but of manufacturing demand. And that means that almost all innovation in creation, consumption, distribution and use of text is coming from outside the traditional publishing industry.

What is the future of reading? How can we make it more social?

One of the things that bugs me about the Kindle Fire is that for all that I didn’t like the original Kindle, one of its greatest features was that you couldn’t get your email on it. There was an old saying in the 1980s and 1990s that all applications expand to the point at which they can read email. An old geek text editor, eMacs, had added a capability to read email inside your text editor. Another sign of the end times, as if more were needed. In a way, this is happening with hardware. Everything that goes into your pocket expands until it can read email.

But a book is a “momentary stay against confusion.” This is something quoted approvingly by Nick Carr, the great scholar of digital confusion. The reading experience is so much more valuable now than it was ten years ago because it’s rarer. I remember, as a child, being bored. I grew up in a particularly boring place and so I was bored pretty frequently. But when the Internet came along it was like, “That’s it for being bored! Thank God! You’re awake at four in the morning? So are thousands of other people!”

Read More