So, here's the thing that keeps going through my head:
Whitney Houston clearly had a serious serious problem or series of serious problems all stacked on top of each other. We put her on TV and the cover of magazines, making millions of dollars off of her series of problems. Which, don't be mistaken, is not my main point and is what it is, because "we" wouldn't have exploited her problems if "we" weren't watching/buying said exploitation - supply and demand.
The knot in my brain is around these questions:
1) Was as much energy spent on trying to get her help as was spent on her problems? [Not something any of us not in Whitney's inner circle can answer]
2) How far gone do you have to be to have all the resources/attention/support that she had and not have the help matter?
3) If this is how it played out for an uber talented super star, what does that have to say about how it plays out for millions of everyday people everywhere?
Millions of everyday people everywhere.
4) And how does/should/could a happening like this change how it plays out for millions of everyday people everywhere?
Because, really.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
ISO a new word for "Social Media" [See Nicole ramble]
Posted over at the Beacon: In search of a 'social media' definition
Monday, January 23, 2012
What am I missing? [Things we have seen before]
Last Friday, Apple announced, among other things, iBooks Author.
Essentially, as Microsoft Word is to Documents, iBooks Author is to highly interactive iPad iBooks.
I say iPad iBooks because a book created using the iBooks Author software can only be read on an iPad. And can only be sold via the Apple App Store.
There is a great deal of hubbub and ire over this, and as I look into it more and more, I become convinced that I must be missing something.
Because, really.
As far as I can tell, and as highlighted in the HuffPo article above, the restrictions are applied to "work you create using this software." iBooks Author is a sophisticated piece of software that puts the equivalent of hours and hours of highly skilled programming in the hands of anyone who can understand the "Drag and drop" concept. I'mma bet you a good deal of money that the product you create for FREE, unless you are one of the developers of - no, even if you are one of the developers of iBooks Author is going to look NOTHING like what you can create using the (also FREE) software in the same amount of time. On an iPad, interactivity, easy of use, flow - essentially HOW it leverages the medium - could be argued as essential to the value of the product.
So, what I'm missing, is why is this awful? Also, why is this not simply awesome? Also, if you don't agree with is why wouldn't you just go on your merry way?
And perhaps most importantly, this isn't about content. Well, it is, secondarily. It's about DISTRIBUTION. Remember that thing back in the day that popped up and could only be played in certain software on certain hardware and people were like "no way, I'm against that, I'm not going to participate in that."
Right. iTunes.
Because, really.
[and I really am wondering if I'm missing something. So please, lay it out for me if I am.]
Essentially, as Microsoft Word is to Documents, iBooks Author is to highly interactive iPad iBooks.
I say iPad iBooks because a book created using the iBooks Author software can only be read on an iPad. And can only be sold via the Apple App Store.
There is a great deal of hubbub and ire over this, and as I look into it more and more, I become convinced that I must be missing something.
Because, really.
As far as I can tell, and as highlighted in the HuffPo article above, the restrictions are applied to "work you create using this software." iBooks Author is a sophisticated piece of software that puts the equivalent of hours and hours of highly skilled programming in the hands of anyone who can understand the "Drag and drop" concept. I'mma bet you a good deal of money that the product you create for FREE, unless you are one of the developers of - no, even if you are one of the developers of iBooks Author is going to look NOTHING like what you can create using the (also FREE) software in the same amount of time. On an iPad, interactivity, easy of use, flow - essentially HOW it leverages the medium - could be argued as essential to the value of the product.
So, what I'm missing, is why is this awful? Also, why is this not simply awesome? Also, if you don't agree with is why wouldn't you just go on your merry way?
And perhaps most importantly, this isn't about content. Well, it is, secondarily. It's about DISTRIBUTION. Remember that thing back in the day that popped up and could only be played in certain software on certain hardware and people were like "no way, I'm against that, I'm not going to participate in that."
Right. iTunes.
Because, really.
[and I really am wondering if I'm missing something. So please, lay it out for me if I am.]
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Thanks to Facebook, my mom now understands software development [The future is here]
At this point, it's as part of the vernacular as "boy meets girl:" Facebook makes changes, Everyone is confused by changes, Everyone rails (utilizing the new features they are complaining about - how meta!), Everyone threatens to breakup with Facebook, nobody does.
The recent changes are a pretty major shift. I guess.
I say "I guess" because to my mind, these changes are part of The Book that is Face being The Book that is Face.
And I say "to my mind" because I am fully aware that because of what makes me tick, I look at The Book that is Face through a different lens than most. The iterative process of making things or figuring things out - organizations, websites, new recipes, a home - is like oxygen to me. Dive in, engage, try things, test them, assess, adjust, repeat - discussing it ad nauseum all the while. This is how I see Facebook. It's a living piece of software, plugged into 500 million people who are using it, contributing to it and informing it from all over the world, 24/7.
That is hot.
So I don't so much care about the specifics of the changes. That they are happening at this scale at, I consider awesome. I enjoy sharing and connecting with people at the level and reach that the Facebook platform allows, so I'll figure out how to incorporate the changes in whatever way I need to to continue to get out of the platform what I desire. Simple.
But the super duper bonus point I see in all this is the way it is changing The User Experience. And I use title case there because I'm talking about the way people use all stuff. People who cannot set an alarm clock use Facebook. The pressure to see photos of their grandkids or monitor their teen's activities or to keep in touch with friends when heading off to college or a new city was too great, and people who couldn't tell you what a social network is (and could care less) have signed up for and regularly use this living breathing pile of code that is Facebook. And they are along for this ride. They have free (in terms of cash out of their pocket) access to some of the most robust and powerful software in existence. Yes, Google is also as free and as (maybe more) powerful, but (so far) Google does not give them a smoothly integrated and polished window into every shared aspect of their friends and families lives. They are able to set preferences and privacy settings, give feedback and curate their own feeds. And not everyone becomes a super user, but when these upgrades happen and the cut and paste status updates on how to change x,y or z or event invitations to "bring back the old Facebook" outlining the changes in detail start flying, they learn and notice whether they want to or not. And this becomes a collective knowledge, conscious or not, about what technology makes possible. How flexible it can be. How our preferences and feedback can be incorporated. How things that we make don't have to be set in stone.
And that knowledge, that evolution of The User Experience, raises the bar throughout the Matrix (yeah, I said it). Apple - with iTunes, the iPad and the iPhone - has a major part in this collective learning as well. We want our cars to be smarter, our devices to be more integrated - it starts to be the way we expect things to be.
Those of us who create and distribute content would do well to recognize this shift. We've always had to remind ourselves to remember the user, but now, more than ever, it's key. The user is being trained, en masse, that they can control their own experience. And not just in a "have it your way" sort of way, in a very tactical, very personal, very human sort of way. That? Cannot be ignored.
Because, really.
Note: After publishing this, it occurred to me that my mother knows COBOL, so clearly. But if we think of our collective moms, I think the title still works :).
The recent changes are a pretty major shift. I guess.
I say "I guess" because to my mind, these changes are part of The Book that is Face being The Book that is Face.
And I say "to my mind" because I am fully aware that because of what makes me tick, I look at The Book that is Face through a different lens than most. The iterative process of making things or figuring things out - organizations, websites, new recipes, a home - is like oxygen to me. Dive in, engage, try things, test them, assess, adjust, repeat - discussing it ad nauseum all the while. This is how I see Facebook. It's a living piece of software, plugged into 500 million people who are using it, contributing to it and informing it from all over the world, 24/7.
That is hot.
So I don't so much care about the specifics of the changes. That they are happening at this scale at, I consider awesome. I enjoy sharing and connecting with people at the level and reach that the Facebook platform allows, so I'll figure out how to incorporate the changes in whatever way I need to to continue to get out of the platform what I desire. Simple.
But the super duper bonus point I see in all this is the way it is changing The User Experience. And I use title case there because I'm talking about the way people use all stuff. People who cannot set an alarm clock use Facebook. The pressure to see photos of their grandkids or monitor their teen's activities or to keep in touch with friends when heading off to college or a new city was too great, and people who couldn't tell you what a social network is (and could care less) have signed up for and regularly use this living breathing pile of code that is Facebook. And they are along for this ride. They have free (in terms of cash out of their pocket) access to some of the most robust and powerful software in existence. Yes, Google is also as free and as (maybe more) powerful, but (so far) Google does not give them a smoothly integrated and polished window into every shared aspect of their friends and families lives. They are able to set preferences and privacy settings, give feedback and curate their own feeds. And not everyone becomes a super user, but when these upgrades happen and the cut and paste status updates on how to change x,y or z or event invitations to "bring back the old Facebook" outlining the changes in detail start flying, they learn and notice whether they want to or not. And this becomes a collective knowledge, conscious or not, about what technology makes possible. How flexible it can be. How our preferences and feedback can be incorporated. How things that we make don't have to be set in stone.
And that knowledge, that evolution of The User Experience, raises the bar throughout the Matrix (yeah, I said it). Apple - with iTunes, the iPad and the iPhone - has a major part in this collective learning as well. We want our cars to be smarter, our devices to be more integrated - it starts to be the way we expect things to be.
Those of us who create and distribute content would do well to recognize this shift. We've always had to remind ourselves to remember the user, but now, more than ever, it's key. The user is being trained, en masse, that they can control their own experience. And not just in a "have it your way" sort of way, in a very tactical, very personal, very human sort of way. That? Cannot be ignored.
Because, really.
Note: After publishing this, it occurred to me that my mother knows COBOL, so clearly. But if we think of our collective moms, I think the title still works :).
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Hate groups and radical right - same thing? [Help a sister out, please]
The Southern Poverty Law Center has released a report that shows hate groups in the United States top 1,000 for the first time. This is a clear reminder that organized hate, among other things, is on the rise, but the thing that struck me was in the opening paragraph of the announcement of the report:
The number of active hate groups in the United States topped 1,000 for the first time and the antigovernment “Patriot” movement expanded dramatically for the second straight year as the radical right showed continued explosive growth in 2010.[Insert noise made by cute animated puppy that is suddenly confused]
I imagined posting a link to this report on this very jarring statistic, but the first thing I though of was how at least 5 people I know would never make it past that first paragraph and how quickly, the conversation would ignore the very important and jarring statistic and instead focus on the interchangeable use of the term "hate group" and the term "radical right."
I read the rest of the release, hoping that at some point they mentioned the research behind this automatic correlation, but to no avail.
Can someone break this down for me? Because, really...
update:
NPR has a report on the findings without the sloppy conjecture.
Black History Month: Thumbs up or thumbs down? [Discussions that need to happen]
Today was going to be the day that I left my cellphone in my purse and logged out of Facebook. I have mounting involved and mentally challenging things to cross of my list and multi-tasking was not on the agenda. Just as I went to my Facebook tab to log out, the following ensues on my wall:
Before you continue, read the blog post she linked to on Jack and Jill Politics here. And make sure you actually go and listen to the referenced Bloggingheads video here.
February is almost over. I almost made it through without having this discussion head on. But as I read the blog post and then actually watched the video in full, it became clear that I was going to have to jump in. I've given myself 30 minutes (now 15) on this, but it's something about which I feel strongly, so here goes.
1. We have to be able to have conversations. I kind of wrote about this in my Beacon blog post yesterday, and even more explicitly earlier this month. We have got to stop shouting from the extreme boundaries of conversations and be willing to get uncomfortable in the gray areas because that is where progress happens. The Jack and Jill Politics post plays the shouting game, not only leaving out any sort of nuance when quoting sound bytes from the video, but by escalating this to be about the NYTimes having an agenda around Black History Month and indicating that the bloggers in the video (John McWhorter of the New Republic and Glenn Loury of Brown University) are sellouts (a whole other powder keg conversation) - "I don’t know where they found these brothers or what they paid them to say this," blog author Jill Tubman says. Unnecessary.
2. McWhorter and Loury speak the truth: People of all colors do roll their eyes at Black History Month. Black History Month does house a set of standard rituals and auto-pilot events that don't really raise, change or challenge the consciousness of the very people it exists to enlighten. They don't so much call for the end of Black History Month (though you can take sound bytes away from the video discussion that would support such a claim), but push us to think about whether or not it is the best way to achieve what those who fought for it wanted to achieve. They are of the opinion that it does not, however they are not dismissing the need to find some way, some new way more appropriate to our current society, to get the same ideas across. To fixate on the fact that they are "calling for the end of Black History Month" and not go on to discuss why, why not and the forces at play is to waste precious time and energy -
3. Because I do think Black History Month is no longer effective. (There! I said it!) I also concede that something is better than nothing. I also understand that different people are at different levels of understanding and that I run in an uncharacteristically open minded circle of people. So what do I suggest instead? I've always been of the opinion that limiting the focus on Black History to a month is by definition marginalizing it (while understanding that some feel that setting aside a month is a needed highlight). A concerted and on-going effort to highlight people of color, achievements and contributions, issues as they effect us today in our daily lives - that to me would be more challenging and have more impact. A good friend of mine and I always talked about re-branding February as a celebration of all races and ethnicities - "February Festival" we called it. Anyone who has seen my Facebook wall knows that it does not have to be February for me to stir the pot and encourage (some would say force :)) discussion on issues of race.
So, while I understand and agree with why Black History Month was created, I am of the opinion that it no longer addresses the issues it set out to tackle. The fact that there's now a month for everything and everyone, to me, only supports this opinion. We tune out, we roll our eyes, we go on auto-pilot.
In short (because now I'm approaching 45 minutes, though I only gave myself 30), everything is contextual. Even "black" history doesn't belong solely to black people. Showing it through a singular lens is to distort it, is to leave out part of the story. This is the history of us - all of us. Coming together and moving forward isn't possible - on any subject or belief - if all the energy goes toward separating things out.
And PS, I'm not asking anyone to agree with me, I'm asking you to talk about it. Because, really - that's what keeps the world going around.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
The non-secret to social media [Duh]
originally published on the Beacon Blog
A crazy thing happened last week. A friend of mine, chief executive of Nurses for Newborns Foundation, posted a Facebook status noting that their diaper reserves had been reduced to zero.
Early intervention, specifically programs that help babies, being a pet cause of mine, I put out the call to my network. A few people immediately responded that they would be dropping off diapers. It seems like a small thing, but a newborn can go through 75 diapers in a week and many of the families NFNF serves have to decide between diapers and food, diapers and bus fare to get to work, etc. A crying baby is something that can cause a level of stress and strain only understood if you've experienced it. Among its many services, NFNF provides diapers to families to help with that most basic need - to keep a baby clean and comfortable.
I felt that if I explained the above, I could get some of my friends to help out who wouldn't otherwise think about how far something so simple can go. So I took about five minutes and set up a Facebook event for a "Virtual Diaper Drive," and invited all my friends from the region to take part. Soon a few of them messaged or posted to say they were setting up drives of their own and a few reposted to their group of friends. NFNF posted the event to its Facebook page, and people who were connected to them started to repost.
By the end of the first day (Tuesday, Aug. 31) Hartford Coffee Co. stepped up as a drop off point (with a $1 off incentive even!) and shared the drive with its network. After only 24 hours, NFNF counted 5,000 diapers through their office doors. Thursday afternoon the count hit 10,000. By Friday afternoon, 15,300. KMOX 1120 aired a story Sunday morning, and Sunday night, Fox 2 and KPLR 11 aired a story on every news broadcast. Final count as of last night 22,734 diapers.
When people start talking social media strategy, I am quick to remind that social networking did not start with the advent of MySpace, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. A chain letter is social media. Quilt circles. Amish friendship bread. It all comes down to very basic offline behavior: We choose our network, we listen to our network, we rely on our network, we trust our network - and even then, if the message isn't relevant, useful or impactful in some way (even if it's a good laugh or the gnashing of teeth) it's not going to resonate with the network, no matter how strong the ties.
Last week happened partially because of a perfect storm (I saw my colleagues post, I had time to post an event, the right number of people saw it and shared it, it was a slow news weekend, all of the people and organizations involved have established networks, etc.), but mostly because I knew someone I trusted, that person had a selfless and important need, the need was digestible and tangible and we communicated it well, and it resonated with enough people in all our networks to catch fire.
Everyone's clamoring to use social media because it's cheap, fast and easy. But when you really look at what you're trying to accomplish, you may find that it's none of the above. You may find that it's completely inappropriate for your message; but if you look harder, you may see that it can support your message in other ways.
So the secret to social media, in my opinion, is to go back to basics. Forget all the technical bells and whistles and apps and ask the basic questions: Does this matter? To whom does it matter and why? What is the best way to get the information to the people who want/need it?
Because, really.
A crazy thing happened last week. A friend of mine, chief executive of Nurses for Newborns Foundation, posted a Facebook status noting that their diaper reserves had been reduced to zero.
Early intervention, specifically programs that help babies, being a pet cause of mine, I put out the call to my network. A few people immediately responded that they would be dropping off diapers. It seems like a small thing, but a newborn can go through 75 diapers in a week and many of the families NFNF serves have to decide between diapers and food, diapers and bus fare to get to work, etc. A crying baby is something that can cause a level of stress and strain only understood if you've experienced it. Among its many services, NFNF provides diapers to families to help with that most basic need - to keep a baby clean and comfortable.
I felt that if I explained the above, I could get some of my friends to help out who wouldn't otherwise think about how far something so simple can go. So I took about five minutes and set up a Facebook event for a "Virtual Diaper Drive," and invited all my friends from the region to take part. Soon a few of them messaged or posted to say they were setting up drives of their own and a few reposted to their group of friends. NFNF posted the event to its Facebook page, and people who were connected to them started to repost.
By the end of the first day (Tuesday, Aug. 31) Hartford Coffee Co. stepped up as a drop off point (with a $1 off incentive even!) and shared the drive with its network. After only 24 hours, NFNF counted 5,000 diapers through their office doors. Thursday afternoon the count hit 10,000. By Friday afternoon, 15,300. KMOX 1120 aired a story Sunday morning, and Sunday night, Fox 2 and KPLR 11 aired a story on every news broadcast. Final count as of last night 22,734 diapers.
When people start talking social media strategy, I am quick to remind that social networking did not start with the advent of MySpace, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. A chain letter is social media. Quilt circles. Amish friendship bread. It all comes down to very basic offline behavior: We choose our network, we listen to our network, we rely on our network, we trust our network - and even then, if the message isn't relevant, useful or impactful in some way (even if it's a good laugh or the gnashing of teeth) it's not going to resonate with the network, no matter how strong the ties.
Last week happened partially because of a perfect storm (I saw my colleagues post, I had time to post an event, the right number of people saw it and shared it, it was a slow news weekend, all of the people and organizations involved have established networks, etc.), but mostly because I knew someone I trusted, that person had a selfless and important need, the need was digestible and tangible and we communicated it well, and it resonated with enough people in all our networks to catch fire.
Everyone's clamoring to use social media because it's cheap, fast and easy. But when you really look at what you're trying to accomplish, you may find that it's none of the above. You may find that it's completely inappropriate for your message; but if you look harder, you may see that it can support your message in other ways.
So the secret to social media, in my opinion, is to go back to basics. Forget all the technical bells and whistles and apps and ask the basic questions: Does this matter? To whom does it matter and why? What is the best way to get the information to the people who want/need it?
Because, really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)