Ms. Adverthinker

Is our increasingly technological media world giving us so much information that we are distracted from pursuing independent and in-depth knowledge? It appears that our country’s president believes that. In May, President Barack Obama gave a commencement speech at Hampton University in which he, the very same president that leveraged online information channels to win his current post, said:

“‘You’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter,’ he told the students. ‘And with iPods and iPads, and Xboxes and PlayStations – none of which I know how to work – information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.’”

President Obama seems to be criticizing the media, technology, video games and the internet in one fell swoop, lumping it all into an “information” category. When did having access to more information become a bad thing? Is not good to hear many sides of a story so we can form our own opinions? And if the information comes to us in an entertaining way, doesn’t that just make us engage with it more?

The discussion that sprung on the internet following this speech was surprising: while many were quick to defend the technology, most agreed with President Obama and felt they were constantly attempting to manage information overload, with no time for processing and understanding. This brought to mind the two-year-old The Atlantic article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” (which has developed into a book just released this month entitled The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains (see the Ms. Adverthinker review of this book here) Some highlights from the article supporting President Obama’s opinion:

“…media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski.”

“A new e-mail message…may announce its arrival as we’re glancing over the latest headlines at a newspaper’s site. The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration.”

“Never has a communications system played so many roles in our lives-or exerted such broad influence over our thoughts-as the Internet does today.”

And, an excerpt that provides an argument for the other side:

“In Google’s view, information is a kind of commodity, a utilitarian resource that can be mined and processed with industrial efficiency. The more pieces of information we can “access” and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.”

One commenter had an interesting perspective in favor of the information abundance we are experiencing:

“…it may not be that the internet is making us stupid but making us more demanding. Before the internet we were given a limited number of topics that we could review from a newspaper, television, magazine etc. Since they were limited in scope they needed a greater amount of depth and description. However now that we can delve a wider range of topics there is no need for such depth. In fact if a person was to spend as much time on any given topic today as was 50 years ago or more it would be hard to stay up to date on the numerous happenings that are going on. No longer are people simply expected to know what is going on in their home town on a day to day basis, but all the important events of the modern world….So it is really a question of balance and of need. Is it truly necessary for us to wrap our minds around each topic that we stumble upon on the net, or is it more important to simply grasp the main points of each topic? In today’s world it is no longer necessary to be intimately familiar with each topic, I can say that I have often found it better to skim information so that I am aware of it’s existence, then when I find myself in need of it I can pull it up more quickly.”

The debate is an interesting one that has spawned books, articles and comments galore. The access to information is empowering. The knowledge we gain is the power. The question then becomes, are we turning that information into knowledge? Perhaps we are in the midst of an evolutional shift: those that can learn to navigate the information streams and turn them into applicable knowledge are the ones that survive.

This post also appeared on Talk Business.

South by Southwest (SXSW) is known for the parties every night. It has been called “Spring Break for Geeks” on more than one occasion. On Sunday morning, the third day of SXSW, it was very quiet. The people that were vertical weren’t saying much. And the empty rooms indicated that there were many who were still sleeping off last night’s activity.

Of the almost 120 sessions offered today, I was able to attend the following four:

• “Exploiting Chaos: How to Spark Innovation During Times of Change”
• “Monkeys with Internet Access: Sharing Human Nature and Digital Data”
• “Not Just for Obama: New Media Gets Local”
• “Improving Social Media with Live Streaming Video”

“Exploiting Chaos: How to Spark Innovation During Times of Change” was a presentation given by Jeremy Gutsche, Chief Trend Hunter at TrendHunter.com. Gutsche was a high-energy presenter, which was a good thing at 9:30 AM on a Sunday morning. He opened by talking about “popular” versus “cool.” Popular is not cool. Cool is unique, cutting edge and viral. We are on the lookout for cool because cool is what inspires a culture of revolution. Gutsche talked a lot about brand messaging: being concise, consistent and relevant to your target by speaking their language.

“Monkeys with Internet Access: Sharing, Human Nature and Digital Data” was a session led by Clay Shirky, a frequent and well-known speaker on emerging and social technologies. Shirky’s presentation focused on humans’ innate resistance to sharing when doing so takes something away from us, whether it is goods, services or time. But when sharing allows us to do so at no cost to ourselves there is no reason not to do it, so we do. This is the sharing of information.

To demonstrate this point, Shirky used music. When we listened to music on CD, we did not give our CDs to our friends, because then we would not have the CD anymore (sharing of goods). If we really wanted our friends to have our music, we would spend significant time and effort to make a mix tape (sharing of services). When Napster made it possible to share music as information, we had no reason not to share as it as easy and we didn’t have to give anything up.

The ability to share of information has become super abundant and abundances change the way the world operates: when things are abundant, they no longer have to managed carefully due to limited supply. Information is now being shared freely, so there is no reason to limit access to it. Wikipedia did not show up as a competitor to Encyclopedia Britannica; rather, it changed what it meant to be an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia Britannica still exists as a resource, but one that no one uses as the information is out-of-date and requires registration for access. The Patients Like Me organization and website has the potential to change the American healthcare culture by turning the premise of privacy on its head with the sharing intimate health details in an effort to help find cures. Shirky called these actions positive deviance: deviating from social norms in positive ways. The sharing of information has continued to manifest on the social web and has changed definitions.

“Not Just for Obama: New Media Gets Local” was a conversation led by two young online political strategists with campaign experience. The attendees in the room skewed younger than many of the other groups and many had political campaign experience. While we had much discussion about the specific tools that can be used, the moderators talked about the importance of having a strategy in place before beginning use of the tools. As with any communications plan, strategy will be driven by the audience, or in this case, the voter base. There was a lot of discussion about email targeting, SMS communications, Twitter versus Facebook, and what to do with new tools like FourSquare and Gowalla. There was much discussion about the dangers of the candidates tweeting for themselves (no filter and no barriers) and interns managing the channels (there was a story told about an intern playing Farmville while logged into the candidate’s Facebook account). The session provided more questions than answers, but at least brought the issues to the surface. Do you create issue-oriented feeds or manage all messages through candidate-branded accounts? Do you use different tools for different messages, or do you pull everything through one RSS tool like HootSuite to blast the exact same thing to every channel? Many attendees provided examples and stories of social media use in political campaigns from their hometowns.

“Improving Social Media with Live Streaming Video” was led by Brad Hunstable, president and co-founder of Ustream, a live video-streaming site that gets over 75 million unique visitors each month. Hunstable had some fascinating case studies demonstrating that live events online can provide a significant return on investment. For example, when Nick Jonas tweeted that he was going to give an impromptu concert and livestream it on Facebook, he increased his Facebook fans by 30,000 in one day, an increase of 4.5%. Hunstable suggested using live streaming video as an impetus for driving traffic to other sources and platforms that may be lacking needed traffic.

Hunstable talked about the introduction of the iPhone 3GS with video recording capabilities being a turning point for streaming video. He stated that by 2013, 97% of Americans will own a mobile phone and 47% of them will have Internet on their phones. With that kind of penetration, video can be delivered anywhere, anytime. Online video viewership will only continue to increase.

Day three of five is now complete. I have been impressed with the number of smart people attending this convention who are willing to share their knowledge and help others learn. The convention center is getting easier to navigate. I have found the food and water supplies. I am looking forward to the final two days.

Continuing its impressive use of technology last week, the White House announced that the President’s Economic Report would be available for free download on electronic book readers:

“As part of White House’s commitment to make government more accessible, the Economic Report of the President is now available as an eBook for your Amazon Kindle, Barnes & Noble nook, Sony Reader and a number of other devices. We are always looking for ways to bring people closer to their government through new technology.”

The @whitehouse tweet:

“A first: Curl up by fire w/ the Economic Report of President on Kindle, nook, Sony Reader.”

This White House has done more to engage the public in its processes than any other before it: Twitter, blogging, Facebook, an iPhone app, and now books for ereaders.  They have embraced this era of transparency and opened the doors for everyone to enter.  Regardless of political affiliations or presidential popularity, the effort must be applauded.

I made the point last night during SWIM that I think the media only started adopting social media at its fervent rate upon the use of social media by the Obama presidential campaign.*  His campaign used social media comprehensively and did it right.  Obama as president hasn’t let the social media advocates down: he proves that social media isn’t just for getting elected with the launch of White House 2.0.

By far, the best part of White House 2.0 is the Official White House Photostream on Flickr.  Social media is “about” a lot of things, but for President Obama it is about conveying his personality and bundling his messages up in that personality under an assumed premise that if we like him as a person, we will like what he has to say as a president, too.  That is what these photos seem to say.  And social media is good for that purpose.  We see him laughing; it seems genuine; we believe everything is going to be okay.  Our photogenic president appears serious when it is appropriate, accessorizes fashionably for events, and exudes confidence (or ego) in his overall presentation. 

In addition to the Flickr stream, on Friday the White House announced an official Facebook page, MySpace page and Twitter account.  There are also video postings by the White House on YouTube, Vimeo and iTunes.  All of this was announced as an effort to be more transparent and to engage the public.  And, they are allowing comments on all of these sites.  What I am not seeing in all of the comments are responses from the White House.  It makes me wonder if they are monitoring all of this feedback and providing a real two-way communication, or if this is simply another way to “push” information under the guise of engagement.  If they are not responding yet, I predict they will be soon: this White House knows how to use technology, the Internet and social media.

* While I recognize that many journalists and some media outlets had already recognized its power, for the rest of the slow-to-change media bunch, Obama’s success with social media was the turning point.  And now they just can’t stop talking about it.

Our “digital” president still reads hand-written letters (10 a day) and responds with hand-written letters.  As reported in the New York Times today, these letters can have quite an effect on President Obama:

“Designed to offer a sampling of what Americans are thinking, the letters are read by the president, and he sometimes answers them by hand, in black ink on azure paper.

“’We pick messages that are compelling, things people say that, when you read it, you get a chill,’ said Mr. Kelleher, 47. ‘I send him letters that are uncomfortable messages.’

“The ritual offers Mr. Obama a way to move beyond the White House bubble, and occasionally leads to moments when his composure cracks, advisers said. ‘I remember once he was particularly quiet,’ said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, ‘and I asked him what he was thinking about, and he said, “These letters just tear you up.” It was after getting a poignant letter from a struggling family.’”

While I am fan of technology and our ability to instantly connect by way of technology and social media, and while I am fan of President Obama’s digital savvy, I still appreciate the power of hand-written letters.  They are more personal and can convey more emotion.  There is something to be said for the more traditional communication tools every once in a while.  I am proud of our president for employing both traditional and digital communication to connect with his constituents.

Watching video online is mainstream at this point: more than 145 million U.S. web users watched 13 million videos in February, according to ComScore.  While most of the videos watched on sites like YouTube are amateur, there is new movement from YouTube to get more professionally-made content on the site and increase overall video quality (NY Times):

“YouTube draws about 100 million visitors each month, making it an enormous stage for media companies. But many television outlets have been reluctant to share videos with the site. Along with CBS, notable exceptions include ABC’s late-night program ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live,’ which has harnessed YouTube to great effect, drawing 11 million views for its videos in the last month. ‘Consider this your oasis in a desert of skateboarding dogs and popcorn-eating hamsters,’ a message on Mr. Kimmel’s YouTube channel says.

“With deals like the one with ABC, YouTube is working hard to revise that user-generated reputation. ‘They need the money,’ Mr. Vorhaus said of YouTube, and adding professional video is ‘how they’re going to get it.’”

President Obama has clearly taken advantage of an audience hungry for more quality video.  During his campaign, his team uploaded over 1,800 videos to BarackObama.com; he now he has an entire staff dedicated to new media (NY Times).  As expected, President Obama’s videos are always professionally shot and edited, contributing to his overall polished and “cool” image.  He is setting the example of how to present yourself in a public forum, when the video will live on forever.  People have become too casual in how they present themselves online, whether it be Facebook, YouTube or Twitter.  We have all become public figures in this online world.  No longer is it just celebrities that get ridiculed for ignorant behavior displayed in public: we are now inviting it on ourselves by not thinking before posting. The New York Times theorizes a movement toward more cautious behavior from public figures:

“We tend to assume that the proliferation of digital media must be coarsening American speech and behavior. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. The threat posed by video parodists appears to have turned public figures watchful and cautious, like people who affect polite reserve in crowds for fear of being mocked or mugged. In the midst of so much digital chicanery, celebrity comportment may grow steadily more formal.”

As with most trends, this behavior should eventually trickle down to the general public.  I am hopeful that it trickles quickly.

Obama has been lauded for his use of social media during his campaign.  And now many are anxious to see how it will transition that use into the working presidency.  According to an article in the latest issue of Wired magazine, he has many bureaucratic challenges ahead of him.  But Obama’s public has high expectations of transparency while he is in office.  They have become used to seeing him on YouTube (currently 20+ million views), reading his tweets (currently 144,000 followers) and staying updated through his Facebook page (currently 4.4+ million supporters).  And they don’t mind getting emails and text messages from him when the message is timely.  The power of social media on his being elected was evident.  Allowing Americans this same acces to him while in office can also have a powerful effect: engaging and educating more people in the work of government.  I hope that his office is able to overcome the challenges and share as much about the work of the president as possible.  If they can achieve this, we will have a more educated voter pool in four years.

Companies can learn from Obama’s successful foray in the world of social media.  It is where the people are, and they are there to listen and learn.  If you have something worthwhile to say, they will listen and share it with their friends.  It takes dedication and a lot of work.  And you have to experiement with all the channels to find the combination that works for your brand messages.

As reported by the Guardian, online activity dipped during the inauguration.  Google searches, Flickr uploads and Last.fm listening all paused while listening to President Obama’s swearing in ceremony.  Google reported that:

“…the overall query volume of Google searches dropped in the U.S. from the time President Obama took the oath of office until the end of his inaugural speech, demonstrating that all eyes were on today’s festivities.”

However, the number of people trying to watch the ceremony live from their computers was incredibly high and caused some streaming difficulties for viewers.  According to a New York Times article:

“CNN said it provided more than 21.3 million video streams over a nine-hour span up to midafternoon. That blew past the 5.3 million streams provided during all of Election Day. At its peak, CNN.com fed 1.3 million live streams simultaneously, according to Jennifer Martin, a spokeswoman for the site.”

As Google points out, there has been a significant shift in internet use since the last presidential inauguration:

“During the last nine years, the growth of the Internet has changed the way the world seeks information. From President Bush’s first inaugural address in 2001 to his second in 2005, the number of inauguration-related searches increased by more than a factor of ten. From 2005 to today’s address, the number grew even more.”

Bliss is one of my favorite brands: quality products, great selection and clever communications.  Their latest promotion is quite clever and ties nicely into current events.  It is a bikini wax promotion titled “say farewell to Bush” and is timed to start with the inauguration.  See it here.

Interesting interview with a designer of the Obama campaign logo.

More on the influence and importance of design: this week the NY Times had an article contrasting and comparing the websites of Obama and Clinton as if one were a Mac and one a PC.  This further illustrates the point made earlier this week in the comparison of font use by the different presidential candidates–never underestimate the power of good design.  According to the NY Times article:

“The differences between hillaryclinton.com and barackobama.com can be summed up this way: Barack Obama is a Mac, and Hillary Clinton is a PC.

That is, Mr. Obama’s site is more harmonious, with plenty of white space and a soft blue palette. Its task bar is reminiscent of the one used at Apple’s iTunes site. It signals in myriad ways that it was designed with a younger, more tech-savvy audience in mind — using branding techniques similar to the ones that have made the iPod so popular.”

“In contrast to barackobama.com, Mrs. Clinton’s site uses a more traditional color scheme of dark blue, has sharper lines dividing content and employs cookie-cutter icons next to its buttons for volunteering, and the like.”

The article does question, however, if this “being a Mac” is good politics:

“While Apple’s ad campaign maligns the PC by using an annoying man in a plain suit as its personification, it is not clear that aligning with the trendy Mac aesthetic is good politics. The iPod may be a dominant music player, but the Mac is still a niche computer. PC, no doubt, would win the Electoral College by historic proportions (with Mac perhaps carrying Vermont).”