Social Media for Government Conference, Toronto

Thank you to the organisers of the Social Media for Government Conference in Toronto this week for inviting me to kick things off by leading a three hour workshop.  Thanks also to the folks who attended.  Here are my slides:

It was an interesting challenge to lead an “Introduction” to Social Media. Two years ago when I led a similar workshop in Ottawa, 90% of the room would have had mostly fear and virtually no personal exposure in using social media. This morning, only 10% of the room would have fit this description, yet feedback was that the definitions and strategic frameworks that we went through together were still useful in helping participants process their experiences and adjust their traditional notions of brand and communications for the network era.

For the last 30 minutes we went through this “map” that was developed by Jody Radzik at the Institute for the Future. I did not set out to deliver a full understanding of each of the 13 trends in Government 2.0 that are highlighted during this time (impossible) but this piece is the best that I have seen that encapsulates the overall context of changes shaping up. I asked participants to share a project that they are envisioning or initiative that they have read about that prompted them to decide to come to a conference like this. While this map is a projection out to 2020, we were able to quickly establish that in all of these areas, the future is already here, it is just unevenly distributed.

Collaborative Consumption by Rachel Botsman & Roo Rogers

Entertaining video here and their Booktracker campaign is an interesting memetic approach.

New Section on Internet and Social Capital at Social Capital Gateway

Fabio has launched an new section that highlights only papers that focus on the Internet and Social Capital.

Most of this work has been done over the last few years.

This a great resouce:

http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/internet.html

Once again, if anyone would like to read and write a review for www.socialcapitalvalueadd.com of any of the papers that you find there, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Crowd Building: 2020 Media Future @ OCAD

Thanks to Walter Derzko for inviting me to join yesterday’s 2020 Media Futures Workshop at the s-Lab (Strategic Innovation Lab) at OCADSuzanne Stein and Greg Van Alstyne did a great job of moderating and facilitating a fairly free wheeling group of thinkers.

It looks like I was the only one using twitter during the workshop or maybe I had the wrong tag? Here are a few thoughts that emerged that could each be turned into a blog post:

  • We think about discontinuity as a threat but the new global success stories will have discontinuity at the heart of a new approach.  Are the incremental gains achieved through “baby steps” and the “go slow”, “fast follower” practices of Canadian business enough to maintain Canada’s position in the world moving forward?  At the moment many are quick to heap praise on the stability of our financial sector.  I remember a few observers noting that growth in Nova Scotia was not effected by the global downturn.  Hmmm. When achieving global success requires embracing discontinuity, what design approaches should we advocate and adopt?
  • How do digital connections qualify/disqualify people for precious face to face time?  Many of us have now experienced the little thrill of having connected with someone online via twitter or a blog exchange and then met them in real life.  As we become more connected, how will the productivity of our face to face time be impacted.  Is it a sign of disrespect if you have not bothered to “google” someone before attending a scheduled meeting with them?
  • Does copyright transform into “identity right”?  Copyright was established to protect the investment and intellectual property of creators for a reasonable time period.  Online is “busting through to reality” (pick up Jesse Schell’s talk on the Future of Gaming at the 10:56mark).  Is the final produced piece of art or software code the point where we need these protections?  When our life stream is “sensed” and iterative design is key to progress, do we need an entirely different set of rights to ensure that individuals have the ability to profit from the digital footprints that they cast off or in other words, how they direct their lives?
  • We must integrate consumers into design & production.  This generalizes to “crowd sourcing” or making sure that we make corporate decisions, not based upon the smartest person sitting at the table at that moment, but based upon having the smartest thinking anywhere available at the table for the moment of the decision.  It is the kind of motive behind the idea for a Seedling Prediction Market that initially drew me into MDes’ (i.e. Masters of Design in Strategic Foresight and Innovation) orbit. This is not really a question for 2020.  I think it is a question that we need to be answering right now to maintain Ontario/Canada’s position in the world.
  • So some “Crowd Building” related design thinking …
  • MIT Tech TV

SCVA in Government: The Value Proposition for Gov 2.0

While SCVA is a corporate valuation and management method, its principals equally apply to government, health care, education and beyond.  All of our traditional institutions are being re-architected around broadband empowered individuals.

Last week I hosted a discussion about how to advocate for the adoption of more productive government that utilizes the full potential of the internet at GovCamp Toronto.  Thank you to Julia Stowell, Omar Rashid and Mark Kuznicki for inviting about 125 of us across the community to come together.

There was great representation from the City of TorontoHere is a shot of city CIO Dave Wallace sitting beside me while I invited participants to join in my discussion thread:

The Value Proposition for Gov 2.0: Outsourcing Risk

The description:

Governments are risk averse . Traditionally there has been very little upside potential for those involved in public service to attack something out of the ordinary. Change is methodical, reactionary – made by attrition. This is the world of late adoptors.

This is a difficult mode for coping with the complex problems of our times and rapid change required to embrace Gov 2.0 (if we would would like to, for example, take advantage of moments of change to maintain or improve Canada’s position in the world).

Perhaps there is an appeal in the prospect of open data?

Governments are the custodians and regulators and third parties are the innovators and risk takers. Whatever works governments can follow and the essential experiments that turn out to be learning experiences will be played out with the investment of third parties, not tax payers.

Are any of these assumptions true? What is the right language to frame these dynamics in terms acceptable to everyone involved?

The session was an opportunity to continue the conversation along these lines that have evolved as a consistent theme for me since the first ChangeCamp.

I had great exchanges with about a dozen different open gov enthusiasts from across government.  I feel comfortable in reporting that yes, this notion that embracing Gov 2.0 as a risk averse strategy, has the potential to resonate within bureaucratic and political circles.  It could be part of messaging that will appeal to late adopters and perhaps get those first trials off of the ground.

What’s next? Was the question that we bounced around the room to wrap up the three hour unconference.

Here are the additional thoughts that emerged at our table:

1. “We have a full plate.” or “We just do not have resources to try that.” These are likely the number one kind of objection that you will hear across departments.  Listen carefully.

Gov 2.0 offers the promise of solutions that share and scale.  Most often, Gov 2.0 is not about adding new lines of service, it is about doing the same things in different, more productive ways.  In most cases, it would be a waste of resources to roll out another year of doing the same old thing without looking for ways to incorporate the internet into routines.

What you may be hearing is code for, “We don’t know how.”, “That sounds risky.”, “We don’t get rewarded for taking on things that are new.”.

2. In his opening comments David Eaves pointed out, there is a long history and many cases where governments have committed to a policy of transparency and/or public reporting in Canada.  Perhaps the #govcamp community can make an effort to examine the decisions that were made to release data and become more transparent in the past, note the reasons why and look for opportunities to apply that rationale to convince governments to apply it in new areas.

3. Tabling an ill considered RFP can be a public relations disaster for government.  Opening up the development of the RFP can help reduce this risk and lead to more progressive ideas being incorporated into governments’ competitive processes.

4. A few times our discussion came back to the need for boiler plate policy and guidelines that can be adopted across government.  We talked about why it is unlikely that anything like Obama’s Memorandum on Transparency will materialize in Canada in the immediate future and there was some enthusiasm that the #govcamp community could lead the development of expectations through the creation of open source guidelines, similar to the resources developed in corporate American by the Social Media Business Council.

Social Capital Value Add in Health Care: Mom’s Losing Battle with Cancer

The principals of Social Capital Value Add have wide application and I think that the health care sector, due to a combination of necessity and opportunity, is going to experience some remarkable changes.

As many close to me know, I dedicated as much time as possible last year to support my Mother (and my Dad) through her losing battle with lung cancer.

It was an eye opening experience.

(Side note: It was also the reason why blogging here was scarce & my personal investment in the development of SCVA has been put on the back burner.)

How little we really know.

How, despite noble intentions, the health care system we experienced ultimately leaves the patient and family responsible for managing care or at least they need to be their own champions in the positioning for limited resources and attention to detail.

I am sure that you can imagine how I felt about the inefficiencies of simple information sharing across nursing shifts.  Now consider this against the backdrop of governments banning use of social media in the workplace and more critically, the possibility of having real time, universal authorized access to all patient information across several hospitals, doctors’ offices, diagnostic and treatment centres.

In truth, outcomes for my Mother would not likely have been dramatically different.  We do not have a cure for cancer.  Through a lot of old fashioned community support, everyone pulled together and I feel she received excellent treatment.  For that I am very grateful to everyone involved.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that as the we try to attend to more people with limited resources there are going to be completely new methods or increasingly gaping failures of our health care system.

I would encourage everyone to take time out to watch this video of Canada’s perennial tech talk master, Don Tapscott.  It was my Mom who way back when gave me Don’s first book, Paradigm Shift as a Christmas gift and in a way turned me on to all this “junk”.  It is the first time that he presented the key ideas from his forthcoming book, “MacroWikinomics“.

In particular, I suggest that those of you who are interested in learning more about the change unfolding within the health care sector pick up Don’s talk at the 52:00 mark.  He opens by describing the health care system as the number three killer in the United States.  He then goes on to describe a collaborative health care system. He finishes with health care at 59:50.

It is an eight minute vision of how health care is going to change.  Must change.

Key elements:

1. Patients get to engage in rich communities related to their health. Isolation is a risk factor.

For more insight on this you should check out Dr. Nicholas Christakis’ 2010 TedTalk on how social networks shape our lives or his book Connected.

2. Idea whose time has come: When you are born the system opens up a web page for you that is sort of like a Facebook for healthcare … half healthcare file and half social network.

3. These health care networks will generate massive amounts of new data to aid the advancement of science and treatment.

4. Healthcare workers (doctors & nurses) engage in communities in a new way.  Less parochial.  To enable this you would need to solve the threat of litigation.  Patients become active and accountable for their health care and they will be very willing to do so.  Being involved is part of getting better.

The example that Don gives: http://www.patientslikeme.com.

The example that I have mentioned while teaching classes or leading workshops is Upopolis at Sick Kids Hospital.

Intel Fellow Eric Dishman has another great health care TedTalk that is well worth watching here.

Introducing Dr. Dima Dimitrova

In February, Dr. Barry Wellman introduced me to a colleague from his Netlab at the University of Toronto.

Dr. Dimitrina (Dima) Dimitrova has extensive research experience, which includes evaluation research and project management engagements.

Her areas of expertise are social networks, workplace and technology. She was the Principal investigator of the NetMap consulting project, which examined the social network and collaboration practices of researchers and partners of the Canadian Water Network. Here is one of her presentations on this work:

Her doctoral research “The Telework Mosaic (University of Toronto, 2002)” focused on the social implications of new technologies for social networks and new forms of workplace arrangements.  As well, she has conducted research in the areas of diversity, health care, and industrial relations.

She is active at scholarly conferences, presenting and organizing several sessions, peer review work, and in community research. Her latest publication is a co-authored chapter on Virtual Communities of Practice. Other research findings have been published, as co-author or independently written work, in the US, Austria, Britain, Norway, Italy, Russia, and Bulgaria.

Dima is currently teaching at York University and working on a paper on the use of social capital in collaborative research. She is a member of NetLab, a social network group at the University of Toronto led by Barry, who is a leading authority in social network research and theory and a founder of the International Network of Social Network Analysts.

In the weeks since meeting, Dima and I have met several times.  At the second meeting she showed up with a printed copy of my ebook that had so many highlighter marks and post it notes attached to it, I needed to pull out a copy myself just to remember how to answer all of her diligent, expert questions.

While the ebook has been viewed well over 10,000 times now, downloaded more than 1,500 times, featured by Scribd, marked as a favourite by about 60 Scribd users, “liked” by about 30 more and Olav Sorenson has given it a thorough read … I am quite confident at this point that there is no one who has given Social Capital Value Add more thorough, qualified consideration than Dima.

We have crafted a proposal to test the Social Capital Value Add approach in a precedent set of Fortune 100 companies.  If your company would like participate in this research & development program or financially support the design phase of the program please contact me.

This will be an initiative that will help define corporate management methods designed for the network era on a scale equal to similar work by MIT and IBM.


IBM MIT Virtuous Cycle IBM MIT Virtuous Cycle Michael Cayley IBM is working with MIT to define management methods designed for the network era. In the past we have not been able to see how these kinds of efforts have a direct impact investor’s perception.

SCVA research & development program is a similar opportunity for 3 to 5 companies.

Memo to the CEO: Why we need an annual report for technology

This lead into an article in The McKinsey Quarterly caught my attention:

“Memo to the CEO: Why we need an annual report for technology

Although most companies realize that business units and the technology organization must be much more integrated, many don’t know how to make this happen. Business leaders sometimes have only a vague sense of technology’s value, while technology executives often fail to address issues in terms that businesspeople find meaningful. In a hypothetical memo to a CEO, a chief technology officer proposes a solution: an annual report for technology, analogous to the annual report for investors and the broader market.”

The article goes on to succinctly capture a point that I think is true for IT and, as I have been trying to point out, even more of an issue for those evangelizing the adoption of social media and other manifestations of the broadband networked era we are moving into …

“The basic problem is a lack of shared understanding. Our business unit leaders … just see bits and pieces and don’t seem to grasp the interdependencies. It’s understandable that they get upset when things go wrong, but it’s less understandable that they hesitate to invest time and energy to sponsor solutions. Our technology leaders, for their part, often fail to address issues in ways that businesspeople find meaningful and therefore lack credibility … “

Well, the idea of an “annual report” is dead.  We would be looking for something that can be updated frequently or reported in real time.  And, despite a good effort to tackle a major problem, McKinsey’s language still highlights the chasm in thinking.  Taking a org chart and process approach to management instead of a network view leads to compartmentalization instead of integration.  Increasingly, the “value the technology organization delivers” is not somehow distinct from the value that the entire organization is delivering.

In any event, their point is spot on.  There is a need for tighter integration between day to day business and the technology that is already available.

As we have completed the Design Phase proposal of a research and development program that will test Social Capital Value Add in three to five Fortune 100 companies, I have had a chance to talk in depth with others for the first time about some of the far reaching implications of the method.

Social Capital Value Add does not try to measure all of the social capital of a company.  It zeros in on this new form of scaled up social capital that is attributable to broadband empowered individuals.  In this way, it is a leading indicator of how corporations are integrating broadband and the associated applications into their operations to postion themselves to maintain stable earnings and achieve breakthroughs in productivity and innovation.

Craig Newmark – Hilton sisters, Hot or Not? CluetrainPlus10

Okay, so do you find Craig Newmark and the Hilton sisters hot or not?

Hilton Sisters, Hot or Not

This post is my contribution to the CluetrainPlus10 project, in which 95 bloggers are commemorating the 10-year anniversary of the Cluetrain Manifesto by reflecting on the 95 theses of this seminal social media marketing work.

thesis #70. If you don’t impress us, your investors are going to take a bath. Don’t they understand this? If they did, they wouldn’t let you talk that way.

Corporations (for profit) are a pretty incredible form of human organization don’t you think?  It seems to me that they were originally formed to enable groups of people to take actions together in ways that were previously not common.  The corporate form let groups enter into contracts, own things and most importantly it enabled people to treat risk differently.  Leverage.  Scale.  Risk is a big part of innovation.  It is related to rewards.  It is how we get ahead, isn’t it?

This form of organization has proven to be very effective at creating wealth.  It is responsible for lifting more people out of poverty than any other approach.  Even still, eventually we end up asking how is this wealth creating form of organization accountable to the rest of us?

The call for regulation is getting attention these days.  Does anyone think that any group of policy wonks is going to get in front of a mammoth like Google and many corporations like it that are way around the curve on investing in and understanding the power of data and networks?  Regulation is important but don’t you think it addresses practices after giant shifts have occurred and there is a new status quo to code into the system?  I think a more important and achievable check at the early stages of new practices is developing greater accountability to markets.

Being accountable to customers is one form of market accountability.  But all boats rise in a flood.  If a company is fortunate enough to be doing enough of the right things and it is connected to the context of an inexorable global trend they can grow like crazy and ignore their customers.  Or they can completely disregard all of their potential customers and new streams of revenue and just hang onto the ones that come easily. Nice little business.  Everybody is happy, except the folks at Tribune.

It could be worse, one could be totally free of direct responsibility for production of product or service and still able to live off of the spoils of corporately created wealth and the attention and power that access to capital affords (are they hot if they are not heiresses?).

In any event, some people at the top of Tribune, the banks and a lot of other major corporations lost the plot recently, but does anyone feel like these corporations are not accountable to the market?  They seem to be getting hammered by the market the last time I checked.

Looking back over the last ten years and reflecting on thesis #70, we now have many examples that investors suffer when companies do not adjust to the network era.  But do investors fully understand this and reflect it in their analysis of the future prospects of a company?  I think the answer is no.

I think this is a big part of the problem at the heart of the #smfail thread that recently evolved out the of the Business of Community Networking  conference in Boston and Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco.

Howard Lindzon has part of the answer. He says, “it’s time for some Venture Capitalist’s and founders with balls to take some real chances and lead change.”

For whatever reasons, folks like Bill Gates and Clark/Andreesen and Jeff Bezos engaged with public markets, became poster children for embracing change for all of us, created a lot of wealth for a lot of people, scaled to the global challenge/opportunity and they changed what investors look for in a company in the process.

A Twitter, Facebook or Craigslist IPO would have similar effects IMHO.

But I don’t think that the real answer is “out there” with other people.  It is not the responsibility of a few to provide leadership for the rest of us anymore.

Any so-called social media expert can help stop the Web 2.0 Swan Song.

1.  Stop selling social media as a cheap alternative to television advertising.  If something is better it is worth more.  If a television campaign is worth $1-million then doing social media right is worth $1.2-million.  Go after those deals and you will quickly find your self sitting across the table from senior executives, rather than junior managers. (Real quote within last month, from real director level employee in Canadian operations of a brand you know and trust: “We are not adopting social media, and if we were that decision would not be made here, it would have to come from a senior level executive in the US office.)

2. Stop waiting and advocating for some sort of “executive buy in”.  Yes, leadership from the top will help, but it will be the little success stories or implementations that start small but spread memetically that draw in the senior execs as champions.  Who is hosting corporate changecamp in NYC?

3. When you do get into the CEO suite, don’t propagate the “Giving Up Control” myth.  Telling a middle-aged executive who has fought half of their life to get where they are that they need to give up control is quite the “conversation” killer.  Worse – it is not the truth.

4. Let’s put an end to the arrogance of looking down on the way corporate types speak.  Excessive PR is one thing but let’s recognize that if we want investors to understand the imperatives of the new economic model, we need to make the effort to convert our “conversation” into terms and language that they can act upon.

The shift to common perception shaped by broadband empowered social networks is accelerating and the dominant source of shared perceived value for the last 50 years, broadcast media, is in rapid decline.

Ultimately the ability to maintain margins is dependent on a shared perception of sustainable difference in value between price and costs.  That means that brand value, around 50% of big company corporate valuation, is at risk of evaporating.

Broadband connectivity is set to triple every six months and it is the key driver.  The broadband trend, along with mobile communications & GPS integration is eliminating the boundary between the virtual worlds & the so-called real world, establishing the link between broadband empowered people and stable future earnings.

Should the “conversation” go something like that?

Part of the problem is that a cross-disciplinary solution is required.  It really takes collective input from a variety of experts to arrive at a satisfactory answer.

With a seed investor and a few precedent setting corporations we could all get involved in an open source approach to making the business case to investors in a meaningful way.  Call me if you have $200K and want to get started.  I will send you the proposal.

Read the other posts in the CluetrainPlus10 project.

1. Markets are conversations. Christopher Locke, Mystic BourgeoisieEntropy Gradient Reversals, @clockerb

2. Markets consist of human beings, not demographic sectors. Simon Kendrick, Curiously Persistent@curiouslyp

3. Conversations among human beings sound human. They are conducted in a human voice.Keith McArthur, Rogers Communications, keithmcarthur.ca @keithmcarthur

4. Whether delivering information, opinions, perspectives, dissenting arguments or humorous asides, the human voice is typically open, natural, uncontrived. Shel Holtz, A Shel of my Former Self, @shel

5. People recognize each other as such from the sound of this voice. Dave Fleet, Davefleet.com, @davefleet

6. The Internet is enabling conversations among human beings that were simply not possible in the era of mass media. Jose Leal, wikiDOMO Blog, @jaleal

7. Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy. Chris Brogan, Chrisbrogan.com, @chrisbrogan

8. In both internetworked markets and among intranetworked employees, people are speaking to each other in a powerful new way. Mitch Joel, Six Pixels of Separation, @mitchjoel

9. These networked conversations are enabling powerful new forms of social organization and knowledge exchange to emerge. Neville Hobson, nevillehobson.com, @jangles

10. As a result, markets are getting smarter, more informed, more organized. Participation in a networked market changes people fundamentally. Ed Lee, Blogging Me, Blogging You, @edlee

11. People in networked markets have figured out that they get far better information and support from one another than from vendors. So much for corporate rhetoric about adding value to commoditized products. Andy Beal, Marketing Pilgram, @andybeal

12. There are no secrets. The networked market knows more than companies do about their own products. And whether the news is good or bad, they tell everyone. Dan York, Disruptive Conversations, @danyork

13. What’s happening to markets is also happening among employees. A metaphysical construct called “The Company” is the only thing standing between the two. Lauren’s Library Blog @laurenpressley

14. Corporations do not speak in the same voice as these new networked conversations. To their intended online audiences, companies sound hollow, flat, literally inhuman.  C.C. Chapman, CC-Chapman.com, @CC_Chapman

15. In just a few more years, the current homogenized “voice” of business—the sound of mission statements and brochures—will seem as contrived and artificial as the language of the 18th century French court. Tom Ewing, Freaky Trigger, @tomewing

16. Already, companies that speak in the language of the pitch, the dog-and-pony show, are no longer speaking to anyone. Steve Dodd, B2B Selling with Social Media Technniques, @steve_dodd

17. Companies that assume online markets are the same markets that used to watch their ads on television are kidding themselves. – Jason Griffey, Pattern  Recognition, @griffey

18. Companies that don’t realize their markets are now networked person-to-person, getting smarter as a result and deeply joined in conversation are missing their best opportunity. Ivan Croxford, The Fumoir, @croxy

19. Companies can now communicate with their markets directly. If they blow it, it could be their last chance. Kyle McInnes, BlackBerryCool.com, @blackberrycool

20. Companies need to realize their markets are often laughing. At them.Tom Nixon@tomnixon

21. Companies need to lighten up and take themselves less seriously. They need to get a sense of humor. Jay Moonah from Wild Apricot, Media Driving, @jmoonah

22. Getting a sense of humor does not mean putting some jokes on the corporate web site. Rather, it requires big values, a little humility, straight talk, and a genuine point of view. Colin McKay | Canuckflack | @canuckflack

23. Companies attempting to “position” themselves need to take a position. Optimally, it should relate to something their market actually cares about. tamera kremer, (3i), @tamera

24. Bombastic boasts—”We are positioned to become the preeminent provider of XYZ”—do not constitute a position. Anthony Power, Power Points, @apowerpoint, Post here.

25. Companies need to come down from their Ivory Towers and talk to the people with whom they hope to create relationships. @sclapp, Sharon Clapp, librarywebhead

26. Public Relations does not relate to the public. Companies are deeply afraid of their markets.  Heather Yaxleygreenbanana, @greenbanana Post: http://greenbanana.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/public-relations-does-not-relate-to-the-public-companies-are-deeply-afraid-of-their-markets/

27. By speaking in language that is distant, uninviting, arrogant, they build walls to keep markets at bay. Karen Russell, Teaching PR, @KarenRussell

28. Most marketing programs are based on the fear that the market might see what’s really going on inside the company. Brenna Flynn, com.motion, @b2therenna, Post: http://www.causeacommotion.com/2009/04/cluetrainplus10-project-most-marketing.html

29. Elvis said it best: “We can’t go on together with suspicious minds.” Post: Elvis was right Pete Burden, www.peteburden.com, @peteburden

30. Brand loyalty is the corporate version of going steady, but the breakup is inevitable—and coming fast. Because they are networked, smart markets are able to renegotiate relationships with blinding speed. Kevin MacKenzie, mack-musings.blogspot.com. @mackenstuff

31. Networked markets can change suppliers overnight. Networked knowledge workers can change employers over lunch. Your own “downsizing initiatives” taught us to ask the question: “Loyalty? What’s that?” Blake Medulan, blakedot.blogspot.com @thebdot

32. Smart markets will find suppliers who speak their own language.@debworks http://debworks.blogspot.com/2009/04/cluetrain10-number-32.html

33. Learning to speak with a human voice is not a parlor trick. It can’t be “picked up” at some tony conference. Bob LeDrew, Flacklife @bobledrew

34. To speak with a human voice, companies must share the concerns of their communities. Keith Burtis, keithburtis.com@keithburtis

35. But first, they must belong to a community. @LizStrauss – Successful-Blog.com

36. Companies must ask themselves where their corporate cultures end. Matt Moore engineerwithoutfears @innotecture happy endings

37. If their cultures end before the community begins, they will have no market. Farah Qasemi, The Burgundy Rants, @efcue

38. Human communities are based on discourse—on human speech about human concerns. Mathew Ingram, http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2009/04/28/cluetrain-human-speech-human-concerns/ @mathewi

39. The community of discourse is the market. Tim Walker, hooversbiz.com, @Twalk

40. Companies that do not belong to a community of discourse will die. Toby Greenwalt, theanalogdivide.com, @theanalogdivide

41. Companies make a religion of security, but this is largely a red herring. Most are protecting less against competitors than against their own market and workforce. Maddie Grant

@maddiegrant  [post coming soon]

42. As with networked markets, people are also talking to each other directly inside the company—and not just about rules and regulations, boardroom directives, bottom lines.

43. Such conversations are taking place today on corporate intranets. But only when the conditions are right.

44. Companies typically install intranets top-down to distribute HR policies and other corporate information that workers are doing their best to ignore. Nancy Dowd, The ‘M’ Word.

45. Intranets naturally tend to route around boredom. The best are built bottom-up by engaged individuals cooperating to construct something far more valuable: an intranetworked corporate conversation.

46. A healthy intranet organizes workers in many meanings of the word. Its effect is more radical than the agenda of any union. Connie Crosby Intranet Apocalypso http://crosbygroup.ca/blog@conniecrosby

47. While this scares companies witless, they also depend heavily on open intranets to generate and share critical knowledge. They need to resist the urge to “improve” or control these networked conversations.

48. When corporate intranets are not constrained by fear and legalistic rules, the type of conversation they encourage sounds remarkably like the conversation of the networked marketplace.

49. Org charts worked in an older economy where plans could be fully understood from atop steep management pyramids and detailed work orders could be handed down from on high. Mark Federman What is the (Next)  Message?

50. Today, the org chart is hyperlinked, not hierarchical. Respect for hands-on knowledge wins over respect for abstract authority. Michael Stephens, tametheweb.com, @mstephens7 http://tametheweb.com/2009/04/28/hyperlinked-libraries-org-charts-the-human-voice-ten-years-of-the-cluetrain-manifesto/

51. Command-and-control management styles both derive from and reinforce bureaucracy, power tripping and an overall culture of paranoia. Omar Ha-Redeye, LawIsCool, @OmarHaRedeye

52. Paranoia kills conversation. That’s its point. But lack of open conversation kills companies. Malcolm Bastien, Open Mode, @MalcolmBastien

53. There are two conversations going on. One inside the company. One with the market.    http://bit.ly/CluetrainWizard – “CluetrainPlus10 and The Wizard of Oz”, John V Willshire, @willsh

54. In most cases, neither conversation is going very well. Almost invariably, the cause of failure can be traced to obsolete notions of command and control Michael Karesh @TrueDelta

55. As policy, these notions are poisonous. As tools, they are broken. Command and control are met with hostility by intranetworked knowledge workers and generate distrust in internetworked markets.

56. These two conversations want to talk to each other. They are speaking the same language. They recognize each other’s voices.

57. Smart companies will get out of the way and help the inevitable to happen sooner. – Mike Russell, PlanetRussell.net/blog, @planetrussell

58. If willingness to get out of the way is taken as a measure of IQ, then very few companies have yet wised up.  Helene Blowers, LibraryBytes – The secret is in letting go @hblowers

59. However subliminally at the moment, millions of people now online perceive companies as little more than quaint legal fictions that are actively preventing these conversations from intersecting. Andrew Goodman, Traffick.com & Page Zero Media, @andrew_goodman

60. This is suicidal. Markets want to talk to companies. Danny Whatmough @dannywhatmough

61. Sadly, the part of the company a networked market wants to talk to is usually hidden behind a smokescreen of hucksterism, of language that rings false—and often is. Nancy White @nancywhite

62. Markets do not want to talk to flacks and hucksters. They want to participate in the conversations going on behind the corporate firewall. Andrew Cherwenka, Trapeze, @andrewcherwenka

63. De-cloaking, getting personal: We are those markets. We want to talk to you. Ian Capstick, MeidaStyle.ca, @iancapstick

64. We want access to your corporate information, to your plans and strategies, your best thinking, your genuine knowledge. We will not settle for the 4-color brochure, for web sites chock-a-block with eye candy but lacking any substance. Aerin Guy @aeringuy

65. We’re also the workers who make your companies go. We want to talk to customers directly in our own voices, not in platitudes written into a script. Kate Trgovac mynameiskate.ca @mynameiskate

66. As markets, as workers, both of us are sick to death of getting our information by remote control. Why do we need faceless annual reports and third-hand market research studies to introduce us to each other? Tom Demers WordStream Blog @tomdemers

67. As markets, as workers, we wonder why you’re not listening. You seem to be speaking a different language. monica levy. http://www.monicaonmarketing.blogspot.com. @mjlevy

68. The inflated self-important jargon you sling around—in the press, at your conferences—what’s that got to do with us? San Antonio Byline Blog @clgoodman

69. Maybe you’re impressing your investors. Maybe you’re impressing Wall Street. You’re not impressing us. Tony Goodson www.tonygoodson.com @tgtips

70. If you don’t impress us, your investors are going to take a bath. Don’t they understand this? If they did, they wouldn’t let you talk that way. Michael Cayley www.socialcapitalvalueadd.com @memeticbrand Craig Newmark – Hilton sisters, Hot or Not? CluetrainPlus10

71. Your tired notions of “the market” make our eyes glaze over. We don’t recognize ourselves in your projections—perhaps because we know we’re already elsewhere. Doc Searls @dsearls

72. We like this new marketplace much better. In fact, we are creating it. Joe Kraus, @jokrausdu, http://www.nuthingbut.net/2009/04/we-like-this-new-marketplace-much.html.

73. You’re invited, but it’s our world. Take your shoes off at the door. If you want to barter with us, get down off that camel! mr heretic, @mrheretic

74. We are immune to advertising. Just forget it. Jane Shkolnik @jshko www.blurtheline.ca

75. If you want us to talk to you, tell us something. Make it something interesting for a change. Duane Brown, Creative Traction, @duanebrown

76. We’ve got some ideas for you too: some new tools we need, some better service. Stuff we’d be willing to pay for. Got a minute? Michelle Sullivan, Michelle Sullivan Communications, @msullivan

77. You’re too busy “doing business” to answer our email? Oh gosh, sorry, gee, we’ll come back later. Maybe. Gina Lijoi, http://wordondigital.blogspot.com, @ginalijoi

78. You want us to pay? We want you to pay attention. Eden Spodek, Bargainista, @EdenSpodek

79. We want you to drop your trip, come out of your neurotic self-involvement, join the party. Sarah Prevette, @sarahprevette

80. Don’t worry, you can still make money. That is, as long as it’s not the only thing onyour mind. Beth Robinson, Inventing Elephants, @bethrobinson Response posted at http://www.inventingelephants.com/beyondmoney.html

81. Have you noticed that, in itself, money is kind of one-dimensional and boring? What else can we talk about? Rebecca Leaman, Wild Apricot, @rjleaman

82. Your product broke. Why? We’d like to ask the guy who made it. Your corporate strategy makes no sense. We’d like to have a chat with your CEO. What do you mean she’s not in? Michael O’Connor Clarke, Uninstalled, @michaelocc

83. We want you to take 50 million of us as seriously as you take one reporter from The Wall Street Journal. Ged Carroll (@r_c, renaissance chambara) posted here and here

84. We know some people from your company. They’re pretty cool online. Do you have any more like that you’re hiding? Can they come out and play? Dan Wilson, @wilsondan wilsondan.co.uk

85. When we have questions we turn to each other for answers. If you didn’t have such a tight rein on “your people” maybe they’d be among the people we’d turn to. Reid Givens @reidgivens reidgivens.com

86. When we’re not busy being your “target market,” many of us are your people. We’d rather be talking to friends online than watching the clock. That would get your name around better than your entire million dollar web site. But you tell us speaking to the market is Marketing’s job. Danny Brown, danny brown – social media pr and marketing for the conversation age@dannybrown. Post now live: “We’re Your People Too”.

87. We’d like it if you got what’s going on here. That’d be real nice. But it would be a big mistake to think we’re holding our breath. Joe Buhler, buhlerworks, @jebworks Post live on Marketing on the Smart Web

88. We have better things to do than worry about whether you’ll change in time to get our business. Business is only a part of our lives. It seems to be all of yours. Think about it: who needs whom? Nick Gadsby @nickbjorn of Lawes Consulting READ MY ENTRY @ Dark London

89. We have real power and we know it. If you don’t quite see the light, some other outfit will come along that’s more attentive, more interesting, more fun to play with. http://hessiej.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/cluetrainplus-10-thesis-89-we-have-real-power-and-we-know-it-if-you-dont-quite-see-the-light-some-other-outfit-will-come-along-thats-more-attentive-more-interesting-more-fun-to-play-with/, http://twitter.com/hessiej

90. Even at its worst, our newfound conversation is more interesting than most trade shows, more entertaining than any TV sitcom, and certainly more true-to-life than the corporate web sites we’ve been seeing. David Berkowitz, Inside the Marketers Studio, @dberkowitz

91. Our allegiance is to ourselves—our friends, our new allies and acquaintances, even our sparring partners. Companies that have no part in this world, also have no future. Kurt Cagle, Metaphorical Web, @kurt_cagle

92. Companies are spending billions of dollars on Y2K. Why can’t they hear this market timebomb ticking? The stakes are even higher.  Sally Falkow Proactive http://falkow.blogsite.com Now live http://falkow.blogsite.com/public/item/231350

93. We’re both inside companies and outside them. The boundaries that separate our conversations look like the Berlin Wall today, but they’re really just an annoyance. We know they’re coming down. We’re going to work from both sides to take them down. Morten Blaabjerg, When The Garden Walls Come Crumbling Down Kaplak Blog

94. To traditional corporations, networked conversations may appear confused, may sound confusing. But we are organizing faster than they are. We have better tools, more new ideas, no rules to slow us down. Robin Hastings@webgoddess

95. We are waking up and linking to each other. We are watching. But we are not waiting.  Leigh Himel, http://leighhimel.blogspot.com/2009/04/cluetrainplus-10-thesis-95.html – @leighh

The “Giving Up Control” Myth in Social Media

I have articulated this thought during my presentations at conferences and corporate speaking engagements recently, and it just came up again in a phone call with Jenny Ambrozek.

Aside: We were discussing an action plan to gather together a few folks to exchange ideas on how to address the “What’s Wrong with Corporate Social Media” thread that we covered at the Business of Community Networking Conference in Boston, was the theme of a panel yesterday at Web 2.0 Expo and is the challenge ahead for the Enterprise 2.0 movement.  More on that later …

I have used Ron Burt’s structural holes theory to depict the shift from broadcast to social media in this short slide show which I have shown on this blog before & is linked into the “Introducing Social Capital Value Add” ebook.

(insert into page 35) SCVAviaStructuralHolesFig11-15

(Uses Burt’s structural holes theory to illustrate shifts taking place in media, brand and power.)

I think Burt’s insight debunks the “loss of control” myth that most corporations suffer from when they think about social media & web 2.0.  Even social media experts who are advocating adoption of social media talk about how a corporation needs to “give up control”.

That is bull. Broadband penetration, mobility and integration of GPS and RFID are trends that corporations do not have control over. They urgently need to adopt management methods that enable them to deliver value (sustain and develop control or at least earning power) in the context of these trends. They have lost control. The question now is how to get back on top of these trends.

Secondly, I think that Burt’s innovation coming along roughly 20 years in the wake of Granovetter’s Strength of Weak Ties arguement is a model for understanding the relationship between the idea of brand valuation and Social Capital Value Add.

They are related, they describe different facets of similar structural value drivers.  Both deliver required, complimentary insight.