From Webmasters to Content Curators

Recently read Rohit Barghava’s post Manifesto For The Content Curator: The Next Big Social Media Job Of The Future? and the first thought that entered my mind was how many new, semi-ridiculous job titles have been created since the dot-com era and how many more will likely be created in the future.

The Webmaster

My very first business card

You start off as a “web paduwon” and after rigorous training and a series of tests, you become anointed a WEBMASTER. What were we thinking? Was it a product of some D&D dungeon masters wanting to parlay their fantasy title into the real world? I checked Monster.ca, there were only two job postings for webmasters. The single wizard with mastery of all things web has fragmented into a large mix of job titles that actually describe what the people do web developer, web designer, information architect, etc.

The Content Manager

Used to see more of these and the job descriptions seemed to resemble that of a magazine editor (only the content was online) or that which  we currently call an “information architect”. I saw one posting on Monster.ca for a Content Manager:

This role will involve:

- Assisting in the planning of and responsible for maintaining the presentation layer of product offerings

- Maintaining relationships with clients and suppliers.

- Providing ongoing guidance and support to clients.

- Testing video and audio content for use on devices.

- Analyzing and troubleshooting issues related to platform.

Huh?

Content Engineer

This was actually a job title I held while freelancing for an agency in Australia at the turn of the millennium. I was an HTML coder; I’m not sure what was engineered and I don’t think actual professional engineers would’ve liked code monkeys sullying their professional designation much like sanitary engineers (see the second definition).

The Community Manager

Here’s one of the first web 2.0 titles that have come about. Community managers do important work listening to their constituents and evangelize the brands they represent. They tend to be skilled communicators and excellent at creating and managing relationships. But it’s sounding too much like content managers so I’m wondering how long this title will last.

The Content Curator

Rohit Barghava describes the content curator as “someone who continually finds, groups, organizes and shares the best and most relevant content on a specific issue online”. I bet a lot of people do this as part of their job and it summarizes a lot of people’s tweetstreams (myself included). I just can’t see this being a full-time gig.

These are just a sample. There are likely many more to come. Afterall, in Karl Fisch’s  Did You Know/Shift Happens series of videos, he states that the top 10 in-demand jobs in 2010 didn’t exist in 2004.

Passing Notes in the 21st Century

First of all. It’s great to be blogging again after a summer absence and I’m starting off by committing a bit of a blogger faux pas, I went to see Shel Israel speak at Third Tuesday and I’m waiting until now to write about it. Only I’m not really going to write about it per se.

See, one of Shel’s remarks about twitter was that as a consequence of twitter being so mobile friendly, more and more speaking gigs involved him lecturing to people’s foreheads as we live tweet his talk. And what is the nature of these tweets? They seem to fall into three categories.

Quotes

At every event I go to I try to live blog great quotes for future reference. The benefit to speakers, they get real-time feedback on the most memorable parts of their presentation. Shel had a lot of great ones, but my smartphone fingers have yet to catch up to my computer typing speed. I have but one saved one and it might be a paraphrase:

“Lethal generosity is the key to screwing your competitors”

Note Passing

Here’s where people make snarky remarks or arrange for post-event drinks usually during the presentation. This is probably why teachers ban cell phones in the classroom. Social media speakers love it. Afterall, the more tweets about the event, the more publicity for the next event. NOTE to bar owners and restaurant owners, need incremental business? Scan the twitterverse for upcoming events near your establishment and make a customized offer to participants in the event.

Asking questions

If you’re shy or just couldn’t think of the right question during the Q&A period, here’s your chance.

I’m definitely mis-using the term but there’s a certain augmented reality experience in participating, tweeting, and reading other people’s tweets during an event or presentation. It’s like you’re experiencing the same thing on different planes. Plus it lets you reveal you’re inside voice…in a respectful way.

How “normal” is Normal Distribution?

With so much talk in the past half-decade about “the Long Tail” it got me thinking about that other popular curve, “the bell curve”. In school, some classes were graded on a bell curve in order to “normalize” the marks across the student body, afterall, it’s called “normal distribution”.

But after seeing so much of the power law distribution long tail in action, from Pareto’s findings to countless examples in biology and physics, I’m wondering if grading according to the bell curve is more rooted in our sense of “fairness” than in reality. I’m sure there’s a sound statistical reason for it and I invite anyone to illuminate that for me.

In the meantime, I’m asking myself: Is normal distribution really normal?

Why Kids Don’t Dig Twitter

There’s been a slew of articles and posts pointing out that unlike Kellogg’s Trix, Twitter ain’t for kids (See here and here). Why? Here’s my theory.

When you go to school (from nursery school up to 4th year university), your social life is laid out right in front of you. Forced into classes where for the majority of the day you’ll be spending close quarters with 20-30 other people your age, it’s a trial-by-fire lesson on navigating the social landscape and that forms the basis of your social life. You make friends in the offline world and you enhance those friendships in the online world. Email and later Facebook were perfectly suited to this social enhancement.

Then you leave school, when you do, you leave the convenient social life. You’ve grown apart from many of your own friends and meeting new people now takes effort. Lavalife and eHarmony have built their business on this insight. Twitter did so unconsciously. As I tweeted a while ago, “Twitter let’s you instant message the public”. The public, not your friends, not your acquaintances, but people you haven’t met yet…but might like to.

This is the crux behind Dave Allen’s post, Facebook Linkedin Twitter – Past Present and Future. Facebook connects you with your past friends and your current friends online. LinkedIn for the most part connects with you with professional contacts you’ve crossed paths with. Twitter’s an open network. You follow whomever you like, you @reply whomever you like, and Tweetups are generally open to anyone who knows about them. Twitter is the social network where you get to know new people. Something you really don’t need to make an effort to do when you’re young.

Joel, Please Don’t Jump the Shark

An open letter to Joel Moss Levinson:

Dear Joel,

I was looking for examples of entrepreneurial Gen Y’s and I came across an article in the New York Times about you. It’s my all-time favourite social media story. While everyone else was getting their 15 minutes of fame and then moving on with their lives, you figured out how to turn a hobby into cash…by entering viral video contests

Then I saw this video for Murphy Goode. Joel, what gives? What happened to the playful Flight of the Conchord-esque videos. This one was too earnest, you were trying too hard. I know, you didn’t get the Tourism Queensland Best Job Ever and that was very wrong of them. It’s possible they just didn’t want to give it to you because you won so many other contests. When I was in Australia, Americans were seriously underrepresented among the backpacker population and having you as their resident blogger would have gone a long way to getting more US visitors.

Don’t get bitter on me Joel; keep the smiles coming. For the rest of you, here’s my all-time favourite.

For more Joel Moss Levinson check out his blog

Why Authors Rarely Give Each Other Bad Reviews

I was a rather shocked when I read Malcolm Gladwell’s scathing review of Chris Anderson’s new book “Free: The Future of a Radical Price”, by way of Seth Godin’s defense of Chris. It’s not because Chris Anderson’s position is beyond reproach and isn’t open to debate, but because I’ve never seen a fellow author slam one of his own. When I tweeted this bewilderment, my friend Duane Brown reminded that “authors aren’t part of a gang”. For some reason, I remembered seeing a lot of quid pro quo among the writing community, particularly on the back covers of each others’ books. I wasn’t entirely right.

Looking through my library, I didn’t see a direct “You’re great, no you’re great” mutual gushes on each other’s back covers. There was, however, some quid pro quo on each other’s blogs and definitely a lot of gushing amongst best selling authors.

First, the quid pro quo:

Jeff Jarvis on Seth Godin on his blog Buzz Machine
Back in June, I wrote, inspired by some posts by Seth Godin, that small is the new big. Seth was similarly inspired by his own posts and wrote that small is the new big. Seth liked the line so much he used it as the title of his new book (and was nice enough to acknowledge the synchronicity). But now we both get beat to print by Inc magazine’s cover this month.

Seth Godin on Jeff Jarvis’ What Would Google Do?
Wait. Stop. In your hands you hold a rare thing, the work of a genuine visionary, someone willing to regularly and aggressively challenge the status quo. Five years from now, many people are going to regret the fact that they didn’t read this book today, when they had the chance. Don’t make that mistake. Google wouldn’t.”

Now all these books are great reads, but here comes the gushing:

Seth Godin on Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff’s Groundswell
“Groundswell is jammed with big ideas, useful stories, and quotable stats. This is the new industrial revolution. Are you on board?”

Seth on Daniel Gilbert’s Stumbling on Happiness with another Malcolm compliment
“This is a brilliant book, a useful book, and a book that could quite possibly change the way you look at just about everything. And as a bonus, Gilbert writes like a cross between Malcolm Gladwell and David Sedaris.”

Malcolm Gladwell on Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s Freakonomics
Steven Levitt has the most interesting mind in America, and reading Freakonomics is like going for a leisurely walk with him on a sunny summer day, as he waves his fingers in the air and turns everything you once thought to be true inside out. Prepare to be dazzled.

Malcolm Gladwell on James Surowieki’s The Wisdom of Crowds
“The Wisdom of Crowds” is dazzling. It is one of those books that will turn your world upside down. It’s an adventure story, a manifesto, and the most brilliant book on business, society, and everyday life that I’ve read in years.

I think if I had one more use of the word “dazzled”, I’d have a Jon Stewart bit.

Alan Cross mentioned on his show that the Beatles and Rolling Stones never released albums at the same time. I can’t remember the last time two blockbuster movies went head to head on opening weekend nor can I remember the last time two bestselling authors released a book at the same time. In the content industry, there’s always room for one more movie, book, album, play, etc. so it’s simply good business to space out release dates. It’s also probably also good for business to talk up your fellow artists; wouldn’t want to miss a potential collaborative opportunity.

So why the public spat between Malcolm, Seth, and Chris Anderson? Hmmm, maybe when you’re all guaranteed bestsellers, a little semi-scandalous debate is needed to generate hype. Works for Hollywood.

The 70-20-10 rule of marketing

For years, there was always a line in advertising (apart from the tagline) that separated mass media from everywhere else. Mass was above the line, everywhere else was below. Enough pundits have spent enough screen real-estate (ok I’m trying to come up with a more internet appropriate term to “spilled enough ink”) talking about the death of the line or the death of mass media and I don’t have much more to add to that subject here.

I would like to suggest an alternative for marketers as discussed with me by a former colleague:

70% of your budget should go to efforts with a fairly known ROI

20% of your budget should go to efforts that push the creative boundaries and have a lesser known or harder to callculate ROI

10% of your budget should go to purely experimental efforts

What do you think?

Why the NHL needs Jim Balsille

Last week’s court ordered setback on Jim Balsille’s quest for an NHL team is not just a disappointment to the city of Hamilton. It’s a disappointment for the NHL.

Believe it or not, Balsille’s experience with RIM might be the jolt the NHL needs. Let’s look back to the last time a tech guy bought a major sports franchise.

When serial tech-entrepreneur, Mark Cuban bought the Dallas Mavericks in 2000, the NBA was struggling to find its way in the post Michael Jordan era. Cuban brought a new energy and the best aspects of the dot-com thinking to the NBA. He sat amongst the fans in jeans and a sweater (or a Mavericks T-shirt) cheering with the rest of them. He encouraged fan participation giving out an email address (this was before Facebook) where he took suggestions (the 3-sided shot clock was one of the implemented ideas). He treated his players like high-tech employees outfitting their lockers with a flat-screen television, a DVD player, headphones, and a video game console. He did the same for the visiting team (after all they were potential recruits).

Now I’m not suggesting Balsillie will be like Cuban, the two men’s temperaments could not be more different. However, I do believe that Balsillie will bring some fresh tech-inspired ideas to the NHL at a time the NHL really needs it.

Old Philosophies, New Technology Part 2

Freud remarked that since the invention of the first tool, we humans have extended the functions of our own organs to the point that we’ve become ”prosthetic gods”. Motor power extends our muscular abilities while modern transport lets us travel around the globe. Telescopes and microscopes extend our vision while photography and recording devices extend our memory of a fleeting visual or audio event.

So what about the shiny new tool of the present, social media? Does it extend the depth and breadth of our ability to relate to one another. Well…no but yes. The oft-quoted Dunbar number states that the average person can maintain stable social relationships with 150 people. Facebook’s in-house sociologist seems to confirm Dunbar’s theory, the average Facebook member has 120 friends.

Give it a few years and I bet that number grows significantly. When Facebook first opened to the public everyone’s first instinct was to find all their old friends. Once a sizeable number of the old gang from high school, university, camp, etc. was reconnected our networks didn’t grow as fast and we slowly started adding people we met in real life. But we were scrambling. The kids are just starting. As they move from elementary school, to junior high, to high school, university, and beyond they will keep their old networks intact. Will childhood friendships last longer?

Maybe not, but the ability to call up old friends, flames, and acquaintences is much easier now. So our prosthetic godliness has gotten better. Whereas photography and recording devices extended our memory of a fleeting event, the multimedia lifestream that is social media extends our memory and lets us keep tabs on all the people we meet.

Old Philosophies, New Technology

In a recent article in Wired, Kevin Kelly remarked that “the frantic global rush to connect everyone to everyone, all the time, is quietly giving rise to a revised version of socialism.” He’s got a point. Wikis, peer-to-peer file sharing, and creative commons licensing do seem to follow the “for each according to his ability, to each according to his need” creed. And it’s rather ironic that the fruits of entrepreneurial dot-com capitalism would spawn such collectivist eco-systems.

Or have they? I think the digital eco-systems to which Kevin Kelly speaks isn’t socialism at all but more like a hallmark of American democratic capitalism. Back in 1831, Alexis De Tocqueville observed that Americans displayed a peculiar fondness for civic associations,

Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools…I have often admired the extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the United States succeed in proposing a common object to the exertions of a great many men and in inducing them voluntarily to pursue it.

(Democracy in America Volume 2, Chapter 5)

Sounds a bit like the meetups and tweetups we have today only the invitation comes electronically. So what motivates us to organize? In Here Comes Everybody, Clay Shirky defined three ingredients to a successful self-organized group. A plausible promise, something big enough to mean somthing, but not too big that we can’t picture ourselves achieving it; the tools to connect us (i.e. social media); and and finally, an acceptable bargain for all participants that settles the tension between personal desires and group goals. For De Tocqueville the terms of that bargain is dictated by something he dubbed “self-interest rightly understood”. See, because we live in societies with other people, we all have to get along with one another, so it’s in our slef-interest for everyone else to also have their self-interests fulfilled.  “[Americans show with complacency how an enlightened regard for themselves constantly prompts them to assist each other and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property to the welfare of the state.”

What we’re seeing isn’t a “new socialism”. What we’re seeing is old school, made in the USA, enlightened capitalism where we help ourselves by helping others. Social media has simply heightened our awareness of this principle.