Embracing the networked age

It’s December again and there’s the usual stream of forecasts for the new year.  I find many of them to be interesting, a few more than others. Goodness knows they seem to be latched onto by many people. Otherwise hide-bound by the stack of work in front of them, the new year is a time fro reflection and contemplation for many. But 12-month forecasts are of limited value. What of the underlying drivers of social and economic change over the longer-term? Not so much is heard about them, even though they are so much more powerful.  So this posting is my contribution to the longer-term view, and what actions are more likely to be sustaining value over time.

Readers of this blog may well be familiar with the drivers of change that I’ll cover here. Those in businesses and in government who have adopted practices that embrace collaboration and co-creation  are already on message. So this posting is intended for others who are looking for a path forward in the networked age. So please share.

The Old Institutional Power Elites Will Adapt or Fade Away

By far the most powerful message is to those who cling on to institutional power.  I have some questions for you. Judging by your actions to date, what prospects are there for you to redress climate change and other, pressing environmental degradation? With the loss of confidence in financial markets and the efficient markets hypothesis, what policies do you have to renew economic and social well-being? Do you know the difference between innovation and competition? What faith do you have in resolving religious, cultural, social and economic divides? What do you think your legacy will be to future generations?

I raise those questions because of my concern that too many digital migrants are trapped in institutional mindsets that they find hard to break-away from. The thing is, there are too many divides, too many entrenched views held by people in inward-looking institutions, views that are left unchallenged by open and transparent challenge. For institutional power is being re-balanced with the networked power of the social web. Innovation, creativity and new forms of value now flow from networked publics formed on the social web. Not so much from stand-alone businesses.

The power of the social web is from people connecting to others, expressing themselves and sharing. Compare those things with institutional life, where the dominant features are siloed hierarchies, conformity to rules and to dominant actors, and hoarding information. Institutions tend to fence-off and shut down innovation, creativity and new perspectives.

The Rise of Digital Generations

Evidence of just how different those people born to the digital age are is very obviously in communications. Mobile phones, particularly smartphones with internet connectivity, are the dominant device used by young people for communicating with friends, for self-expression, finding, sharing or generating information, or for organising and managing activities. Digital generations seek out like-minded people and peer-groups to share stuff, to learn, and to create new things. Digital generations do things for themselves. They are far less reliant on institutions than their parents are.

In social networks online, they learn to take responsibility, and to collaborate with others, for economic, environmental and social benefits. They do not seek permission, but give themselves permission to build relationships, reputation and trust between themselves. They can do that because interacting online gives them the experience, the know-how and the power to act. Placing more trust in their own networks than with family or institutions, there is a re-balancing of power relationships in society.

Politicians, the media and brands are all finding it necessary to reach out to digital generations. They compete for their time and for their attention. Governments are finding that there are knowledgeable and informed stakeholders in the public who can and do contribute ideas and options for new policies and programs through interacting online. There is a new dawn for citizen engagement, empowered by the unprecedented ease of participation that the social web affords. That will lead to a re-balancing of power between representative democracy and more direct forms of citizen participation in decision-making.

The core competencies in interacting online are openness, transparency and collaboration. The new competitive advantages are to be found from collaborating across institutional boundaries through trusted relationships. But as I say, the scale of openness, transparency and collaboration online is unprecedented. Change has been so rapid, there are few models to guide people. So the digital generation has developed their own literacy, their own peer relationships and their own networks to operate in the networked age. They do so because of their interactions, and relationships and trust come out of interactions.

What a contrast

Oh, how different is the networked society that from the 20th century, where big business and big government dominated relatively passive consumers and passive citizens. Educated in prescribed syllabus schools, living in disconnected suburban communities, employed in specialised and meaningless work, consuming one-size fits all news and information and standardised government services, with families split by globalisation… baby boomer and Gen X lives have been controlled by others to a large degree. The old power elites controlled the generation and distribution of information; controlled the allocation of scarce resources; oversaw the degradation of ecosystems; and created artificial scarcity (such as in the supply of money and restrictions on the exchange of goods and services). Within their institutions, they ruled the day.

But that time is up.

For the enduring characteristics of social existence are in connections, self-expression and sharing. They also happen to be the underpinning values of the digital generation. Information is no longer scarce. Connectivity is no longer scarce. Bottlenecks have broken down. What was scarce is now abundant. It’s no contest folks.

Solving environmental and economic crises, resolving cultural conflicts and social divides will not be easy. But I have optimism that the networked age will find sustainable solutions.  In contrast, the old power elites just continue to show how inept their institutional frameworks are. A re-balancing is coming…are you on board?

Take action

If you and/or your organisation are inward-looking, independent and not already networked online, then get started. Experiment by reaching out to others. Learn what others are saying about you. Learn digital media literacy. Learn by doing. It’s OK. You can do it.

Sure, you will make mistakes. No one is perfect. The know-how will come to you. You will get better. You will get rewards.

So, get on to Twitter. Join Facebook, Sign-up to LinkedIn. Experiment with Ning. Create a blog. Subscribe to others’ blogs. Participate with your colleagues on Yammer. See what others are viewing on YouTube. Get on to Google Wave to see what real-time collaboration can do. Reach out. And above all, participate – get yourself engaged online.

Best wishes for 2010

Government 2.0 Taskforce draft report – a centralised response to decentralised action

The Government 2.0 Taskforce draft report released earlier this week more than delivers against their terms of reference. They have exceeded expectations. I’m really pleased! There has been international interest in the draft report. From the U.K. Glyn Moody said that the report is  an inspiring document. Those who have been participating in the deliberations are pleased. Stephen Collins put it this way “The release earlier this week of the draft report of the Government 2.0 Taskforce has the potential to be a watershed moment in the management and delivery of government and its services to the people of Australia”.  Nat Boehm is  really impressed, really excited.

So there is much to get enthusiastic about. But as others have indicated, the hard yards lie ahead. Stephen Collins tempered his expectations by raising concerns- quite rightly in my view – about the ongoing momentum once the final report is handed in on 31 December 2009. I agree with Stephen – it would be a shame to lose the momentum achieved so far. Craig Thomler has been open about the challenges ahead in implementing Gov2.0. Indeed, the Taskforce report is right up front in stating that “the greatest barrier to Government 2.0 is cultural” (page ix).

It’s fair to say that the rapid rise of social media and social networking over the last few years has left many people in organisations with business models, management systems and ways of working that are not only difficult to adapt to the networked society of 2009 – they are just too slow to keep up with the ongoing state of flux and change. Just to be clear, that applies to many in the private sector as well as in government.

But these developments that are so challenging for industrial-age institutions and practices are not are fad, they are not ephemeral. It’s what people want.  Indeed, the changes going on are all about the people. Self-expression, connecting with others and sharing are basic social needs. They are not going to go away. The underpinning technologies of broadband infrastructure, protocols and standards have generated innovative applications and services that internet users around the world have embraced like a duck takes to water.

Process wise, there has been a strong congruence in the work of the Taskforce with the philosophy and the practice of openness, transparency and participation. There has been many opportunities for citizens to contribute to the work of the Taskforce. I have been particularly impressed with the high quality of interaction on the  Taskforce blog. Sure, I’ve said some things could have been done better bur really I’m not fussed about that. There is time still to influence the final report by commenting on the draft. The way the Taskforce has worked has been so different to the way that the machinery of government usually works. That is a signal message in itself.

All well and good. But that brings me to my one remaining area of concern. The Taskforce proposes that a lead agency take responsibility for Government 2.0 policy and provide leadership, guidance and support to agencies and public servants. The agency would consult with relevant agencies through a Government 2.0 Steering Group. In other words, form a committee. Now that is classic public service stuff and would almost ensure that the momentum collapses.

However, developments in the networked society will not wait for guidance from a government committee. I’m enough of a realist to know that a lead agency and steering group are likely actions assuming the Government runs with the recommendations. But those actions need not defer ongoing agency progress in adapting to networked ways of working.  Like the revised APSC guidance on the use of social media, which I see as being permissive and encouraging, I say there is scope for the Taskforce to recommend that agencies start taken action now, or go further than they have so far, in leading the transformation to Government 2.0. Such permissive action is entirely consistent with Web 2.0. People do not need permission to express themselves and to be innovative on the Web. So to with government agencies. Sure, it means taking responsibility for actions that are taken. But then, internet users expect other users to take responsibility for their actions online. So let’s get some more action happening here. Sure, agencies can be guided by centralised processes. But in the end, it will be people in the agencies and their networks online – decentralised networks and ways of working – that will be the change agents over time.

Network Literacy

Howard Rheingold has put up the first video in what will hopefully be a series of talks about networked literacy. Drawing on the insights of some eminent people (David Reed, Lawrence Lessig, Manuel Castells, Duncan Watts, Yochai Benkler as well as himself) Rheingold spoke of what I feel is a very important view: that understanding how networks work – in a social and economic sense as well as technically – can influence how much freedom, wealth & participation might be experienced in the 21st century. I agree with that.

From a technical perspective, understanding the end-to-end principle is important to know why & how the architecture of the internet was designed so that content can flow from one end point to another without centralised permission or control. Understanding the social drivers behind the formation of human networks and their ability to self-organise  – drivers that go back to ancient human history – is necessary to get a feel for why the internet is such a powerful participative tool. It’s why the web has been so transformative. It’s why we now life in a networked society. Understanding the difference between individual freedoms enabled by the internet vs. institutional control is at the heart of appreciating why the 20th century power elites find the web to be so disruptive, why they now battle for control, and why others strive to maintain internet freedoms. Some see the transformative web as a threat, others see it as an opportunity. Those that achieve network literacy are more likely to see, and to grasp, the opportunities and generate new forms of value.

Understanding any of these social, economic and technical spheres individually is a challenge. Understanding them all – especially in relation to one another – is overwhelmingly the greatest challenge. It’s a challenge that exceeds the capabilities of any one discipline, department, value-chain or service/product line. It’s a challenge that Howard Rheingold appears to have grasped, and I commend him for it.

However, there are others at work on this issue beyound those that Howard is currently drawing from. A couple of weeks prior to viewing Howard’s video, I was pleased to see that danah boyd and co at the Digital Youth Project have released Hanging Out, Messing Around, And Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media. They write about youth-driven peer-based learning. They say there is “an opportunity to define, in partnership with youth, the shape of online participation and expression and new networked, institutional structures of peer-based learning”.  In other words, the task is to adapt to the web – to new forms of interconnection and expression – by participating in the process. I now see that these insights are an example of network literacy in action; of seeing where the opportunities are to generate new value.

So I feel that networked literacy is a competency necessary to grasp the opportunities lying ahead. Networked literacy is a competency necessary to gain comparative advantage. But most importantly, networked literacy is necessary to know what to promote and what to safeguard against, in order to make the most of the transformative web.

The return of social capital, part 1

Henry Jenkin’s blog of his interview with S. Craig Watkins resonated with my own passion about the role that social media is playing in restoring social capital in everyday lives. I will post a few blogs on this and related topics over the next few weeks. In future postings I’ll also be expressing my views on the role sociology has in gaining a better understanding and clarity about all of this.

The main thrust of this posting is to contrast the destructive role that TV has played in regard to social capital, with the role that social media is playing in generating social capital.

To begin with allow me to clarity what I mean when using the term ’social capital’. I’m sure there are any number of interpretations but for me what get’s my juices flowing is the quality and ease of connections that bind people and communities together. I’m referring to the ability of people to connect with others, to share things and to express themselves. The social glue that’s forged is based on mutual trust and reciprocity.

While the 20th century was an age of transformative technological and economic change and a  rise in corporate institutional power over people in developed and developing countries, it was also a time of a great winding back of the social ties that bind friends and families together. Now, there are a whole bunch of factors behind that such as suburbanisation and geo-physical division between home and work, household and family and play and civic activities; both parents in the workforce; the diaspora associated with globalisation and the relative ease and low cost of travel… and the role of the media. With the separation of home from work and shopping and so on, there have been far fewer opportunities for neighborliness, the forging of mutual trust and reciprocity that comes from regular social interaction. Social dislocation lies behind some of the feelings of distrust and loose relationships between employees and employers and in the political process and the everyday lives of people. There other factors too but that’s enough to paint the picture.

The role that media has played in the weakening of social capital has been through reducing people to passive, socially isolated consumers of content. Watkins spoke of sociologist Robert Putnam’s findings about TV watching, in particular that it “comes at the expense of nearly every social activity outside the home, resulting in the erosion of social capital”. That is not always the case of course. Major sporting events televised live are often shared with groups of people. But the isolating nature of TV that I refer to makes up the bulk of viewing time.

And so to the clarity that Watkins brings to understanding what attracts so many people to computer and mobile screens in the 21st century. A common perception among digital immigrants is that time spent with small digital screens is unsocial. Watkins found that time on digital screens is “first and foremost a social activity”.  Instead of “screen time” being a social dislocation, computing screen time is, increasingly, time to connect with others, share things and to express yourself. Time spent connecting via a mobile or social network site is time spent in expression and sharing. Time spent on mobiles and online is time spend creating, shaping and influencing content.

Watkins suggest that “…if network TV is to have a meaningful future it will have to permit its audience to not only access content across multiple platforms but also encourage audiences to shape and influence content, too”. The operative action here is being permissive.  That means letting go of control and going with the flow. Letting go of control brings new challenges to maintain the relationship…like forging mutual trust and reciprocity. TV must go social to survive. I suspect there are similar challenges for other 20th century institutions.

Government 2.0: no change without culture shift

Australian Government 2.0 Taskforce member Martin Stewart-Weeks has put up a really good posting on the culture shift necessary to thrive in the Web 2.0 world. Martin’s posting revealed a deep knowledge of the societal issues involved in online engagement, issues that are far more challenging than designing or selecting Web 2.0 tools.

The challenges and opportunities outlined in Martin’s posting are challenges and opportunities for citizens and lobbyists as well as for public servants and policy makers. Here is a taste of what he had to say:

“As governments and the public sector start to do the same [get value from Web 2.0], they will encounter the same challenge as others have, which is that these new tools don’t just change structures and processes, they change behaviour as well. In order to thrive in this kind of world – connected, contingent, collaborative – you have to adopt a certain set of behaviours that are similarly open, interactive and engaged. The obvious conclusion is simple, but demanding – no change without culture shift.

This is the big challenge underlying the ability for governments to make the most of this new way of working and these new tools for democratic conversation. If they want to use them to improve the design of public services, to empower citizens to use information to create new services themselves or to harness more powerful combinations of knowledge and expertise for better policy, then they have to embrace the consequent shift of culture and behaviour too.

As it turns out, this is much harder than it sounds in the public sector, although it’s true that it’s turned out to be much harder in the corporate sector too (even though they might not always admit it). As the Issues Paper points out, we’ve spent quite some time defining what it is that constitutes the requisite behaviour from a public servant, including things like impartiality, balance, fairness and the absence of partisan political advocacy.

The problem, though, is that these definitions were shaped in a world fundamentally different to the one which ‘government 2.0’ is ushering in, including especially the speed with which issues emerge and change, the level of transparency about government thinking and activity and the complexity of the ideas and inputs now clamouring not just to be heard but to be influential.

Somehow we have to find a way for public servants to be able to engage with this world on terms that are both satisfying and safe. Assuming that the twin extremes of prohibition and unfettered licence are unlikely to work, we have to set about finding some new territory somewhere along that spectrum that is fit for purpose.

I have no idea where that point on the spectrum is. My inclination is to be more permissive than not. But perhaps more useful than any single attempt to pick the new sweet spot is to encourage a process of active and energetic experimentation that will get us closer to that outcome, and more quickly, than simply sitting around talking about it.”

Martin went on to say that “For the public sector too, the rising demand for innovation in policy development, program design and delivery and organisational practice is enabled, and sometimes accelerated, by the new tools themselves. In that sense, the rapid spread of use and influence by social networking technologies, and the habits of mind and culture that they reflect and reinforce, is becoming an inescapable feature of public innovation in its own right.”

I found Martin’s description of Web 2.0 to be a good supplement the Issues Paper released by the Taskforce earlier this month. Although the paper provided a good overview of the aim and benefits of Government 2.0, there was one sticking point for me. To say that “The central theme of Web 2.0 is moving away from point to point communications and towards many to many communication and collaboration” just does not sit right with me. For a start the term ‘point to point’ is a technical one and not explained in the paper. Point to point communication is defined by some as direct communication between two end points not using the internet (such as a two-way telephone call). And by others it is used in a broadcasting sense, say like radio communication between two fixed stations. As for me, the central theme of Web 2.0 is participation & interaction. Pure and simple.

Biodiversity and water scarcity – what role for social media?

I participated in a sustainability forum hosted by Melbourne consultancy group Futureye yesterday. This posting provides a brief overview of the issues and notes the role that ICT’s play – and might play even more –  in the process.

Guest speaker was Dr Megan Clark, CEO, CSIRO. The theme of Dr Clark’s presentation was on the coming together of three tempests: the global financial crisis, climate change and the greatest migration of humankind to urban areas in the world’s history that may mark a fundamental turning point in the evolution of the world’s economy. In meeting the ensuing challenges, Dr Clark believes that society needs to move from a paradigm of resource exploitation to one where ecosystems and their services are properly valued. This is starting to occur in terms of the increasing commoditisation of water and carbon. She suggests that the same will inevitably need to happen with the biodiverisity and ecosystems that provide our food and amenity values.

The new scarcities in society are water and biodiversity. If ecosystems were to be valued on Australia’s balance sheet they would show as diminishing assets – although Australia has a comparatively rich biodiversity to other countries apparently. On the liability side of such a balance sheet would be carbon – too much carbon in the air that is. Even though our knowledge of biodiversity is relatively low, making it difficult to value, increasing scarcity awareness has given rise to venture capitalists buying rights to biodiverse land. Thinking of reviewing superannuation plans anyone?

In comparison, Australia knows more about water and the value of it – an outcome that the CSIRO has contributed significantly to. In developing and continuing to build on our knowledge about water, the CSIRO has developed a Water Resources Observation Network (WRON).  In developing WRON, the CSIRO use sensor networks in rivers, web robots in its distributed ICT network, and platforms such as Google Maps to monitor and record rainfall events and monitor dam levels. “Web-based reporting tools can be delivered to suit the individual needs of various end-users, and raw data, forecasts and predictions processed by sophisticated computer models can be used to support and justify informed management decisions” (extract from WRON website).

While I feel that the CSIRO is showing great leadership, I wondered what greater role communications and media might play, not only in monitoring and reporting on the state of play with regards to water and biodiversity, but in building awareness and motivating action. In response to my question along those lines, Dr Clark said that the CSIRO are still learning how to utilise these tools to much greater effect. That’s good – let’s watch this space. At this stage though, I can’t help but feel that  communications and media has a greater role to play – particularly social media – in building awareness, in contributing data, and in creating valuations for our scarce resources. For there is one significant difference between the early 21st century and the prior history of humankind: we know have information abundance together with the potential for massively networked social action. Powerful forces indeed that could be harnessed to help meet the challenges of the three tempests.

Government 2.0 Taskforce is off to a great start

I was one of those who were impressed with the Australian Government’s decision to launch the Government 2.0 Taskforce (#gov2au) on 22 June 2009. The announcement came from Lindsay Tanner, Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Minister Tanner drew some leverage from another high quality gov2 initiative – the second PublicSphere held in Canberra on the same day.

My expectations

As someone with project leadership roles in participative consultation, can I say I’ve had many expectations. Oh yes, when it comes to drawing on multiple perspectives and values (tapping into the broad knowledge base of large groups of people, forging new awareness, better understanding, creative vision and pragmatic action) it all lies ‘out there’ in the crowd. I have known intuitively and know from experience that tapping into the wisdom of an organisation lies in cross-organisational coordination, co-operation and (when it really sings) collaboration.

The magic of Web 2.0 (interacting, sharing, innovating, creating and massive networking) makes organising the wisdom of the crowd much easier… and a much more powerful force. Potentially powerful enough to sit alongside the power institutions of the 20th century – Government and industry.

I’m also very aware that expectations among participants in public policy processes are diverse. The gov2au will be no different as is already evident in the postings and comments on the taskforce blog. Some see the taskforce as a vehicle to set government data free, others to improve e-services and e-accessibility. I too hope that the taskforce meets those expectations.

Some, including the Chair, Nicholas Gruen, see the taskforce as having a transformative role where the business of government is gone about in new ways. It’s that expectation that gets me really excited about the potential of this taskforce. For, despite the tranformative potential of Web 2.0 (and other cultural, social and economic drivers of change – it’s not all about Web 2.0) to change the way people work and how organisations function, the most fundamental change is cultural. Cultural change that embraces facilitation, transparency and shared outcomes. Change of that nature calls for the agencies of government to go about their internal and inter-agency practices in new ways.

btw, it’s great to see four of the taskforce members having already posted to the gov2au blog. The quality of comments to the postings are rich signals of the type of change I really hope the taskforce will become known for driving, more than anything else. For if the taskforce achieves that goal, all other expectations will be met over time.

Largest increase in expressing capability in history

Clay Shirky’s latest presentation is inspirational.

How cellphones, Twitter, Facebook can make history

What is changing is that the people formally known as the audience (in broadcasting terms) or the user (in telecommunications terms) can connect to one-another to talk and ‘do media’. It’s these networks of inter-personal connections that is the driver of change.

The ‘Telecommunications Age’ was one of one-to-one communication. The ‘Broadcasting Age’ was one of ‘one-to-many’ content distribution. The ‘Networks of Inter-Personal Connections Age is ‘many-to-many’.

Those institutions that were in control are no longer. They can convene groups of networked people but cannot control them. Adapting to that change involves a mature realisation of that social phenomenon.

Radio business models, attention and hyper-influence

For some reason there was a bunch of news about radio matters yesterday, traversing the UK, USA and Australia. This was too much for me to resist. So this is a longer posting than usual, but hopefully of  interest.

Digital Britain

Firstly there is news from the Digital Britain Forum (having an online forum is at least something that Digital Britain has got right). In the latest posting, given the dominance of analogue radio over digital radio and the growth of radio content online (speech and music) a question is posed “Is there a case for broadcast Digital Radio?” It seems the Digital Britain final report to be released later this month will provide some sort of response to this question.

The comments in response to the posting make for interesting reading too. One was steadfastly a broadcast radio enthusiast (there is no viable alternative to radio for mass audience listening). Another from an internet enthusiast (people are moving to more personalised forms of entertainment). East is East and West is West, never the twain shall meet. Personally, my substitutes for radio are my iPod, early morning news on TV, digital radio on Foxtel and the Internet.

Why NPR is the future of mainstream media

The subject heading of this section is from yesterday’s Mashable . NPR (National Public Radio) is a non-commercial broadcaster in the USA. NPR seems to do a great job in sourcing and creating content for localised radio stations, helping to fill a growing local news and information void as traditional newspapers and broadcasters cut costs or exit the industry. Hyperlocal content is targeted a relatively small and discreet geographic spaces (eg. neighbourhoods, small communities). Hyperlocal news and information services could be sponsored by advertising that is highly relevant to local information users.

NPR is chasing social media. Their nprpolitics Twitter account has over 793,000 followers ranking it in the top 25 Twitter profiles. Their Facebook page has over 400,000 fans. NPR puts out podcasts, mobile phone applications and blogs and their own social network.

So NPR’s value proposition is allowing people to access content on their own terms. Of course being non-commercial seems to lend itself to being more risk-taking in terms of digital media than commercial media. Nonetheless, all media need to go where the attention is.

Comparing the Regulatory Models of Net-Radio with Traditional Radio

Andrea Baker (Monash University) has had an article with the subject as above published in the International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society. In the introduction Baker notes that traditional radio is a linear system of mass communication that is domestic in scope, whereas net-radio (streaming over the internet) is a non-linear system of digital-networked information technologies that is international in scope. I support Baker’s emphasis on the globalised reach of net-radio as an important distinction, particularly given expectations around hyper-localism.

In terms of net-radio, Baker makes a distinction between online radio (regulated, traditional radio that have incorporated the internet into their business models) and net-only radio which webcasts exclusively over the internet and is generally unregulated. There are some interesting statistics on the net-radio reach with the USA accounting for over 42% of online radio stations in 2006. Australia hardly registers, although that is not to say Australian’s are not listening to USA-based or other international online radio. In comparison with net-only radio, well it was reported that there were about 5,000 net-only radio stations internationally by 2009 (still with the majority in the USA). That’s a significant difference to online radio.

Baker has an interesting section on regulatory pressures, including extensive reference to Australian regulation. Amongst other things there seems to be a realisation that the internet is adding substantially to competition and diversity and provides increased flexibility. Recognising the fast and unpredictable nature of change, Baker concludes by coming out in support of designing regulations that are flexible: “policies should be flexible enough to compete with new technologies and cope in the modern business environment”.

Observations

Defining and measuring ‘influence’ in the digital/networked economy has become complex. The shift from mass media to personalised media is real. The shift from one-to-many to many-to-many is real. Media has become social and there are a whole bunch of new influencers. At the same time, media creation and distribution is both hyperlocal and hyper-distributed, depending on the user context (their location, activity, connectivity & social networks) and what they are paying attention to. In other words, information is likely be targeted by geography and context in order to get user attention. Media diversity considerations may go the same way, i.e not by platform (TV, radio, newspaper – or even by mobile or some other device) but by location and context.

In my view local will continue to be important, but the influence of highly distributed groups – where geography does not matter – is also expected to rise. Distributed groups define what is of interest to them. That’s why mainstream media outfits and internet start-ups are chasing social networks.

Participation Divide

I gave a presentation on the social web to a professional services firm yesterday. My two key messages to them were about:

• the fast pace of change; and that
• massive networking changes everything

On the first point I looked back to the early 1990’s – before the public internet and in the days where the few people that had mobile phones carried around what looked like bricks.  Today, there are over 1.6 billion people connected to the Internet and over 4 billion mobile phone users. And we are on the threshold of fundamental change in how people communicate, work and how organisations operate. With the “Participative Web” (Web 2.0) now mature we are moving toward the “Personalised Web” (Web 3.0) where context rather than content is more likely to be king.

The mobile internet space is growing rapidly. Take iPhone for example, with over 1 billion applications downloaded in the last nine months. As I recall, the Skype app is the most popular, helping to spur the Skype user base past 400 million. Such is the ubiquity and potential utility of smart phones, some expect that 80% of Internet connectivity will be through mobile devices.

There are now over 5 million Australians using Facebook at least once a month, half of them using Facebook everyday. Internationally there are over 200 million people on Facebook with 500,000 people joining every week. Then there is MySpace, Bebo, Orkut, Goofy2 and many other social networks and bulletin boards around the world. Part of my presentation yesterday was The Conversation by Brian Solis that shows how many apps there are and their diverse use, all based around that very human activity of conversations. Twitter growth has been just amazing over the last quarter. FriendFeed appears to be on a winner with the introduction of real-time multiple person conversations. During my presentation I spoke about the benefits of the social web to productivity. I spoke about a re-balancing of power between institutions and distributed groups of people.

Now, I had a mixed reception to my presentation. Most of the younger people present were nodding their heads. Some of the older people just shook their heads. They have choosen not to participate, perhaps just regarding the social web as a fad, preferring to assume it will not make much difference to them. Perhaps they just don’t realise that having conversations – that very real and powerful human activity – is happening online as well as offline. It is better to integrate the two, far better, than to assume online conversations are not hear to stay.

Now that is a serious issue. This participaton gap may well be looked upon as a productivity gap, and sooner rather than later.