Kevin Kellys New Old Book

Kevin Kelly is republishing New Rules for the New Economy – Radical Strategies for a Connected World  as a blog to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the book-publication.

Reading it in 1999 was fun – there were many strategic books around, dealing with business, content, businesses. Most of them were already old when you had time to read them. And the message they delivered to beginners, scepticists or your bosses at that time was – if they liked it or not -: This internet-insanity will be over soon; it’s not going to work and it’s not worth bothering about it.

In 2000 I left the printmedia-publishing house I worked for then and joined the online business. My first job was doing contentmanagement for a big portal targeting german speaking europe (as a first step; multiple languages were von the roadmap) with every kind of content you can imagine, a big shopping mall and a big community in chats and discussion boards. That strategy survived three months…

We built the portal anyway and learned a lot about new rules, new economy and radical strategies…

Who is the Boss in the Media-Biz?

I’ve worked with many media companies in the print, online, and tv-business, and I’ve worked in media related positions in many companies from other branches.
There is still one question I can not really answer: Who is actually the boss in the media business (ok, it’s not the only question; probably I’m just in the right age to worry about that…).
Are there strategists who are really the big guys, who tell you were to go and what will happen in the next years? Actually I hardly met any strategists in commercial environments. There were a few who had a similar job title, but most of them where either vain outlaws who more or less sacrificed their job for the title (because it always proved to be a dead end road), very ambitious youngsters who disappeared as quick as they had risen, or some old and actually jobless friends of the CEO or the editor in chief or the CMO, who needed a job with a cool title and not too much work.
So should it be the marketing guys? Media marketing people are great in extending relationships, driving reputation and drawing nice pictures in consumers minds – and there is often a big gap if it comes to realization. I hate to say that they usually dont have a cue, but that’s actually the truth. And in most cases, they don’t care – because it’s not there job. If it’s just marketing, then it’s just making people think that something is great, it’s not making things great.
And what about the sales department? They are the guys who bring the money, we all want money, so shouldn’t we listen to them? That takes us very quickly to a very simple view of the business: It needs to be sold. And once it’s sold: Who cares? Advertisers wont get their money back, a few complaints can be handled. and if there is really some trouble – there are enough advertisers as potential new customers. If you remind them of what they actually sold or what plans have been made for the further development of the media, they either don’t remember or they ask you why it has not been done yet. And anyway: they won’t have time, because the have to be out there and sell something.
So there are the creatives left, the designers, the writers. For sure they have a lot of ideas, they know the product and they can realize what they planned; they are the ones who have to do it anyway. But do they know the commercial terms of the business? Have you ever met a designer who can really calculate his business?

The famous media persons are generally the creative ones, usually close to the editors, or some have formerly been editors.
The rich ones are rather from the business side.
That’s no so much astonishing, what bothers me more, is that there are still single persons around, we are still acting as if Mr. F in person had founded this daily newspaper or as of Mr. B. did really have anything to do with the TV Channels he owns, but we know, that it’s simply not possible to combine all this smartness…

That’s another reason why I switched more to online media, and to the more functional part of the media business. Do you know the big names? And do you have an idea of what they are actually doing?
I have the impression that – with highly movable and flexible media – our perception shifts from big guys to big things: We don’t bother what HE does, we think about what features IT provides.
Probably back in the days when everybody was just publishing newspapers, you had to invest a lot in vanity and you had top think about how to stand out personally. Now, there is more space to focus on your product: Make it be something special (that’s the creative part) and make people understand that it’s something special (that’s the sales and marketing challenge). – But still, you can stick with the product, you don’t have to worry so much about yourself.
Why bother? It’s not only that there are no clear paths and visions for your career, there are also no best practices. In a lot of companies I left, the people who stayed are now the big guys. Just because they stayed. In other companies, there were more almost-retiree-strategists than developers. And then, some companies consider you as their hero, if you can do everything: writing, programming, handling Xpress or Indesign, talk with the system admins and talk the business lingo – just because there is nobody else who can keep up with you.

Conclusion: Just keep on doing what you like. The rest is’nt woth bothering in our business. If you really want to question if you’re successful with what you’re doing – keep on doing it and ask again in five years. I think that’s a pretty average time period that should malke you notice some differences…

 

What ails media business models?

Media Business News Spun out of Control

John Batelle: You’re in the Media Business Now

Uphoff: Fixing Microsoft’s Media Business

One Google-search or one hour of light?

Last saturday I had a chat with one of the McKinsey Risk Managers. We were talking about our weekly travel schedules, waste of time and energy and about were we would expect first real impacts of the financial crisis, when he mentioned very interesting thoughts Mc Kinsey uses in their risk assessments: what’s the environmental cost of using online applications? We don’t have to pay directly for a search in Google, but somebody has to pay for it, so somehow the costs will come back to us…
The average energy consumption for a search is said to be the same amount a low energy lightbulb needs in an hour. And the white screen uses much more power then a black or darker screen would need.
And a Second Life-Avatar (I did not think of Second Life for almost a year now…) is said to consume more energy per day then an average real life human.

I’m not quite sure what to do with these figures, but they definitely make me think.

Mash ups and the single page

It’s great to just casually collect information, bookmark something here and there, add a few tags. Highlight things in your Google Reader, add a note on Netvibes, store it on Secondbrain, read a few lines, open some more links and just continue.

That brings a lot of information, it really helps to create a big picture and it is a lot of work.

It actually meets many requirements we have in daily work (flexibility, global orientation, speed, always being ready for an alternative) and it fits to your working style if you are collecting requirements, shaping products, evaluating solution scenarios or doing other rather creative work.

Once you’re used to that style of working it gets really hard to forget the always growing always open network attitude and to focus on one idea on one piece of paper.

• First of all it is hard, because you have to exclude so many things. You can not touch on this perspective or that point of view – focus on one thread and try to make it understandable.

• The second reason why it is hard is because we also have to focus on one targetgroup. To whom are you talking, which of your many ideas and what part of that one idea is it that might be really interesting for them? You have to decide, you have to exclude the rest and you can not just start somewhere and wait for comments.

• A third source of trouble is: We have to get it done. We actually really have to finalize it. We can not start it, leave it open for discussion, add a few links and hope for people to use it as a starting point for their own thoughts. We are expected to tell a fully flavoured story, and we are expected to sell something. Most audience want to have a clear proposition and the end: what am I supposed to do now, what can I get.

A clear, compelling and competitive vision, neatly designed and written on one piece of paper – that’s what is expected in most senior management meetings.

If you can not deliver your idea in that shape – then it’s either you or your idea who is probably not worth listening to.

But are our products like that? Do we have a onedimensional linear backbone in our ideas that can be easily followed and tells everything?

Should we have that?

Is actually our reality still like that, is there anything we can describe in a distinct, not misunderstandable way?

And (here comes my alltime favourite question): Does it matter?

Does the grade of reality of what we describe as reality matter? Does it matter if everything is covered by what we say? And how do we want to know if the reallity we want to describe is also the reality that our counterpart is able and willing to understand?

We don’t know and we can’t control it; we probably only talk of the same thing when we say nothing at all. – Ok, that’s pretty philosophical.

I’m convinced that open, unclean, unfinished mashups describe way better what we are up to and what happens out there. But I’m also positive that it are the very simple stories that sell – they are the only thing you can buy; everything ellse is so undefined that you can not even attach a price tag to it.

So again: It does not matter. Don’t try to reduce complexity in your thoughts or in the way you look at things.

But find a single and simple storyline that tells a good story. That can be reused in many different ways. Tha can be understood by several audiences.

If it’s a really great story, it seems to address only a very limited part of your idea. But you can reuse it in every way you need and as often as you need it.

That’s economic, far more economic then one sheet of paper.

And it leaves enough space, spirit and energy for what you really want to care about.

Early adopters – that’s not us

Some ten to fifteen years ago when tech- and ebusiness-journalism evolved also in Austria we were frantically writing about new eras, great technologies and killer applications.
Well, the beginning was more moderated; the main topics were curiosity, content and communication.
As business pressure started to rise and advertising customers wanted to sell something (I still believe that they did not know what they wanted to sell, but they tried anyway), we also had to sell something in our stories.
In 1997 Bertelsmann started a digital tv project – we hyped interactive tv, ecommerce merged with soap operas and a revolution on the living room sofas. Nothing happened; just some boring technical tests. In 1999, the 3G-umts-licenses were auctioned in Europe. Telco companies paid tremendous money, we wrote stories on location based services, mobile tv, mobile commerce, mobile dating services and video conferencing. Nothing at all happened. In 2000, Telekom Austria and ORF closed a deal that did not mean anything – just some vague cooperation. And againg, nothing at all happened.
We were doing some more stories, were heavy users of some pilot applications (I especially enjoyed the mobile public toilet finder for London and Paris) and then got bored and went to something new.

Yesterday my wife who does not care at all about technology, told me that she will buy a new n-Generation 3G mobile phone, because she wants to use the gps navigation tool, use the phone as a mobile video camera and because she wants to use the mobile shopping guide features: “It doesnt matter in which city I am, it can always tell me the address of the next drugstore and show me a way with some satellite-pictures.”

I had not spent a thought on these services for years. I’m a heavy user of mobile email, sometimes I’m quickly browsing the mobile web for exchange rates, travel schedules or footballl results, but I don’t spend any money in the mobile world.
I’ve just been making up my story. And it seems to be up to others to live it. – No problem; Im always finding new stories. We just should not forget that what seems like looking back may be a great outlook in the future: Ok, we invented the stuff, we’ve been there, done that. But others live it. And they tell us, if it works, if what we’ve made up makes sense.

And it’s been a while since she has been asking for the ip-based tv-service of Telekom Austria, which finally had come out in 2006 (without much ORF-participation). Fortunately, it still does not work outside of big cities.

Centralized vs. Decentralized Intranets

The challenge I have to face currently, is to convince senior management (board level) that their own ideas are right. They are in fact: They want to harmonize their current intranets and replace these homegrown 10 year old solutions through a new state of the art platform.
Sounds simple: replace ten times operating and development costs through one, harmonize ten scattered editorial processes into one, gain efficiency, control, power, quality and security.

Maybe too simple: Nobody dares to really decide this issue. We are spending weeks and months in discussions, considerations, alternatives, business cases and evaluations.

There are tons of measurable advantages for intranets, ROI calculation is not an issue. But business cases for online media are never a matter of figures only – they are also a matter of belief. I never saw a business case that could not be torn into pieces using quite the same facts, but different assumptions.
How to measure efficiency in terms of fast and straight ahead publication, how to make sure that all relevant facts are considered, how to exclude known excuses?
That are just the common problems in creating business cases, but I feel that they are extremely annoying and especially their solution is becoming actually counter-productive if it deals with so obvious issues such as centralized vs. decentralized intranets?
Or can somebody please tell me something else?

What are intranets actually good for? ( they are your identity)

What is an intranet actually good for? – Well besides the fact that it is an invaluable tool, often the only or the most reliable source of information and a very cheap and efficient media, what – this is a very fashionable question, what problems does it solve for the enterprise?

• It is cheap and fast
• it provides many possibilities for control (if you really want to act out on that):who may see what when, who has read what when, when will what informationbe spread etc.
• its your voice – and if its done smart, it is the company voice – nobody else can talk to that wide range of employees.

The whole thing influences the image, the idea your employees have of your company – its not only the content, its rather the processes, the roles- and permission-management, the authoring policies that shape your employees perception.
so its not only a business tool (actually most intranets are not – they are just heading there), but it is the best communication media to deliver your vision and mission, your internal brand, the real company identity you have in your mind

I dont think these topics are important to determine whether you should have an intranet or not (does anybody seriously want to ask that question?). But it may help to keep them in mind, if youre considering how to do your intranet, how to address certain issues.

You cant tell people that your company is open minded and visionary, if your intranet is centrally run, publishes strictly business information only and spreads the look and feel and the usability on an early 1990s prototype.
You cant asko people to relate the fancy ads you are running to their everyday work life, if their daily work environment is so not fancy at all.
And you cant expect people to participate in anythoing, if you dont build your intranet for openness, communication, interactivity. This has to be done very dilitgently – you really need to know what you are doing and you need to invest a lot of thought in the processes in order to create a good experience for your people.

Get some experts, listen to their recommendations and let them go ahead. Dont try to follow the Ive read there something approach – your intranet is too valuable for that. It is your identity.