To achieve success, in order for collaboration in an Internet venture to get from point A to point B, often it is decided to go directly to point C.  This is because vital information is flowing from many directions or many users, which can bypass the initial intended layout.  Howard Rheingold (2002) suggests in Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution that this flow of data comes by way of networks with countless people in the mix.  In the end, the process does not matter, the result is what counts.  Nevertheless, Tapscott and Williams point out that the true cost is not on the business entity, but to the contributor.  The authors ask, “…Should open-platform orchestrators compensate the people and organizations that add value to their platforms?” (2006, p. 205).  Tapscott and Williams answer that contributors ought to reap the most financial rewards as possible.  However, I wonder how the contributors are somewhat taking away the possibilities from the regular employee.  Money is plentiful in the digital age.  Are all the tech-savvy employees getting their fair share of compensation?  Better yet, are the Internet-forward companies hiring at a rate deemed necessary to cover the presenting workload?  I suppose this is a catch-22.  Businesses that use Internet tools for its livelihood must strategize how to stay afloat financially.  Maybe this works best mostly through opinion and participation of users rather than employ more hands to build that profitable design.  Collaboration is a form of outsourcing and that process has had negative connotations attached in the traditional business model (i.e., moving American jobs overseas); however, the digital age has no lines of demarcation and essentially the overall final product trumps the concern of job security in any sector.  Anderson acknowledges, “…the Internet absorbs each industry it touches, becoming store, theater, and broadcaster at a fraction of the traditional cost (2006, p. 6).  Chiefly, the redeeming factor is that being number one is not the only way to make it to the top.

References

Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more. NY: Hyperion.

Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart Mobs: The next social revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Tapscott, D. & Williams, A. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Penguin Group.

The connecting theme of the authors is the benefit of collaboration, cooperation, and participation of business-to-business and business-to-customer.  Eric S. Raymond (1999) contends in The Cathedral and the Bazaar how the collaboration of the Linux open-source created a kinship, a group of people working towards the same goal.  Tapscott and Williams also highlight the open-source operations of BiOS and Marketocracy.  I agree with Tapscott and Williams, Rheingold, and Raymond that collaboration is central in inter- and intra-groups, nevertheless, the inter-group has by far the most transitions to make.  Despite the advantages from collaboration, many businesses will keep the blinders on in the hope that this form of teamwork will phase out like the dotcom era.

Cooperation may be a better term to describe the dichotomy of the closed-source business compared to an open-source operation.  Often cooperation suggests that one may not like the idea of working together; nonetheless, he or she is willing to comply to hammer the problem out on the basis of the good that could emanate from working together.

Last, participation is freely chosen.  The modes of citizen journalism via blogs, YouTube, and flickr are classic examples of voluntary ways for one to present news from an independent standpoint.  Tapscott and Williams sum it up this way, “Whether people are creating, sharing, or socializing, the new Web is principally about participating rather than passively receiving information” (2006, p. 37).  Mainstream (closed-source) companies that have not jumped on the bandwagon should take this to heart and open the door to active participation within their borders regardless of the “prosumption dilemma”, in order to truly reap the benefits, albeit the customer may not always be right.

References

Raymond, E. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar (pp. 21-63). In the Cathedral and the bazaar. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.

Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart Mobs: The next social revolution. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Tapscott, D. & Williams, A. (2006). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. New York: Penguin Group.

During a visit to Toronto, Ontario two years ago, I searched high and low for an ATM that would accept my check card so that I could withdraw some much needed Canadian money. I simply had to find an ATM that had the same bank system symbols (e.g., Star, Plus) as my own credit union. If only I had had a hand-held computer or some other technical tool at the time, I would have saved precious moments during my short vacation by finding the right bank machine to fit my need much sooner. This is one of the many benefits of the digital age that Howard Rheingold (2002) discussed in Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution.  Moreover, Rheingold shared how in the greater scheme of things, technology should be a tool to not only make one’s life easier (not lazier), but to be better connected with each other. This connection ultimately comes through a continual offering of information from one to another. As law professor Lawrence Lessigdeclared, “The value of the Internet came from no single institution or company, but from the collective innovations of millions of contributors” (Rheingold, 2002, p. 54). Eric S. Raymond (1999) examined a similar concept in The Cathedral and the Bazaar, on in his reflections on Linux.

In the classroom, from secondary schooling through higher learning, teachers often assemble students together to work on a group project. Some students like this setup because it affords them a chance to socialize with their peers, including getting acquainted with someone that they may not know well. Still, some other students recognize that the group atmosphere is a prime opportunity to get to know something that their classmates may have more insight, knowledge, or ideas on. Raymond (1999) pointed out that the open-source aspect of Linus Torvald’s Linux software “…was not technical by sociological” in nature. In other words, when working on any group project, such as software technology development, the exposure to the human side of the project or research is a vital component. During the exchange of information a level of trust grows within the group or from one individual to the other, along with a desire to complete the task as thoroughly as possible. Richard Stallman also professed the philosophy of group effort and coined the moniker “copyleft” to signify that it is best when everyone is free to contribute to the progress of technology. In this case, Stallman’s initial open-source GNU’S Not Unix software (Rheingold, 2002).

So what does all of this mean to the portion of society that is not participating directly to the open-source software development, yet is active in the by-product (e.g., email, e-commerce, etc.)? Nonetheless, an active user of the by-product has an influence on the open-source. The online user’s behavior confirms the acceptance or the rejection of a particular resulting feature (e.g., webinars) of the open-source, and therefore directs the next phase of the development for the open-source creators. I agree with Rheingold that a good reputation of the open-source process and the product is chief. Open-source technology is like a democracy, where one freely shares his or her ideas in the hope to benefit everyone in the end. As a result, the general technology user can have some assurance that the open-source model has a checks and balances in play. No one person has the authority to assume full control of the operation. However, glitches in open-source sharing and other give-and-take systems can arise. For instance, an issue that concerns Lessig is how cable companies (i.e., Comcast) can potentially manipulate the open-source system by prohibiting online collaborative efforts, thus impeding future progress of this system (Rheingold, 2002).

References

Raymond, E. S. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar (pp. 21-63). In The cathedral and the bazaar. Sebastopol, CA:  O’Reilly Media.

Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs: The next social revolution (pp. 1-132). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Numerous Broadway plays come to life before excited an audience everyday.  Each play has its own theme or topic, but what bridges them all together are the basic yet essential components of a good script, some include: the story, the plot, the conflict, and the climax.  However, other elements are just as important to make a play a reality: a producer, a stage manager, the set designers, the actors, and a director.  From chapter seven and onward of The Search, John Battelle narrates the scenes of search, possibly with these factors in mind.   In this search production each position fills up quickly.  First, the producer is Google, and other such entities, to create the search engine.  Second, the Web is the stage manager, allowing the flow of Internet traffic to the search engine.  Third, AdWords are the set designers, grabbing the search words of Internet users to make Web ads look appealing, thus gaining attention and sales for businesses.  Next, the actors are the search terms that are illustrating the intent of the Internet user.  Last, the online user is the director because of his or her choice of what to search, yet at the same time he or she is the audience.  Similar to the play, Shear Madness, where the audience is polled on how the play should end; the online user chooses what to search and then anticipates what will turn up.  Oftentimes the results are a disappointment. 

This is why Battelle contends that the search production team is imperfect.  One area specifically is with AdWords.  Although AdWords has the potential to give businesses success because of the “intent attachment,” this the advantage to the company with the most funds to acquire and maintain this tool, hence, the issue of trademark surfaces.  Small wonder why some from the old school of business are somewhat distant from Internet services such as this.  Traditional business has been tried; theories have been made and practiced with typical expected results.  On the other hand, the Internet business paradigm is a continuous work in progress.  When trademark issues spring up in the traditional business model, the law is set and the final decision is much clearer.  Conversely, in the online business market, the rules are opaque.  This brings to the picture the aspect of ethics and online marketing.  Is it fair for Google and other search engine companies to simply play as the middleman, claiming to want to maintain all access to word choices available to the public via this tool, and then attempt to weasel out of any responsibility for selling a company’s business name to Joe Smoe?  Fair is fair.  Google and other search engine providers tirelessly pursue to improve their craft.  Google has stated that they do not sell the company names or terms as AdWords of businesses, that chooses to oppose it. This offer is a tug-of-war that places them on the side with the greater load to win.  Albeit, lawsuits are potentially on the other side, nonetheless, Google somehow manages to stay on top in the end because the business that complains about a trademark incident is told to duke it out with the other party.  As Robert Scoble and Shel Israel discussed in Naked Conversations, “Google is one of the world’s most successful, respected, and trusted companies …”, perchance this why Google is able to skate by with their solution for now (2008, p. 166). 

References

Battelle, J. (2005). The search.  New York: Penguin Group.

Israel, S. & Scoble, R. (2006). Naked conversations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

In his chronicle, Battelle traced how the Internet search began as an academic cataloging of research, meaning the product in demand was scholarly documents.  As the product search changed, various tech companies (e.g., AltaVista, Lycos, and Excite) tried their hand at the search monopoly, and then the focus shifted from primarily collegiate scholarship to potential consumer marketing.   Bill Gross’s genesis in the Web advertising industry paved the way for Google, who later perfected his model.  To the two things that are inevitable in life, death and taxes, add Internet advertising.  These online ads are inescapable and the online user has no choice for the most part.  Gross managed to figure out that to decrease spam, the advertisers would pay a fee, hence the original GoTo.com (Battelle, 2005).  And yes, the pop-up blocker is a strategy to combat these uninvited guests; however, this defense can inhibit other general computer features such as opening or downloading a PDF document (or looking up an email address in a Yahoo account to send a message).  Such an inconvenience may seem miniscule, but if a user does not know the pop-blocker is the problem it can be quite frustrating.  Could there be another way for businesses to frugally advertise online?  At this moment a solution is not available, yet I do recall a phrase that my best friend’s father has often said, “cheapness is a crime.”  At least the co-founders of Google recognized the true cost to the consumer when they declared in their inaugural essay for the new company, “…advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers (Battelle, 2005, p. 92).  Unfortunately, the co-founders were not able to keep this idea alive and later resorted to the same idea as Bill Gross.

Another more crucial cost to online search users is privacy.  Because we are in a “clickstream” era, as Battelle reported, online privacy is even more farfetched than ever before.  Let alone the Privacy Act that was introduced after 9/11, and for good cause, nonetheless marketing and public relations practitioners have a great advantage with this lack of privacy.  Case in point, Google Zeitgeist is a goldmine for the marketing and pr industries.  This kind of survey provides an overall view of what online users are doing on the web and nothing is necessarily wrong with that.  How this data carries over into other areas is a concern.  Suppose one is doing an online search on a topic that is not socially accepted (e.g., pornography) for legitimate scholarly work?  It would be awkward to then get marketing emails for such, as well as to be listed in companies’ search data based on those kinds of results.  This may be an extreme example but it is simply an illustration to note that absolutely nothing online is immune from disclosure.  It is a public domain.  So, like fishermen, online marketing, pr, and advertising professionals fish for the intent of the online user.  Thus, Google Zeitgeist and other such devices becomes the bait at the end of the fish hook that gathers and compiles the largest catch possible via all online users’ search queries.

References

Battelle, J. (2005). The search. New York: Penguin Group.

Gillmore, D. (2004). We the media. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.

Today, we are living in a society that sues for just about any and everything.  For example, in 2007 there was the case of Roy Pearson (who by the way is a judge) that sued a dry cleaners business for millions of dollars for misplacing a pair of his slacks, an item apparently near and dear to his heart.  So, I understand the general cautiousness of a company to introduce blogging because when folks are suing for millions over a piece of clothing, who knows how much they will demand for something that is seriously detrimental.  Nevertheless, too much wariness of “how will the consumers react” or “what if the boss finds fault” if x, y, or z is expressed can stall growth.  With respect to business blogging, risk-taking is advantageous for several reasons.  Taking a risk as a corporate blogger demonstrates both to the company and to the consumer that you (the employee) have their overall interests at the forefront.  The business deal is on the table.  The consumer knows that his or her patronage is the goal, yet the company wants the customer to view them as munificent.  This means if a customer is in the right, the company’s error in the matter should be revealed openly via a blog post.  And if the customer is wrong, he or she should receive a careful clarification, not an in-your-face reply because the company would like a return visit to their blog or, better yet, their store.

Like Scoble and Israel (2006) suggested, for effective results, business blogs must allow their customers to air their comments, not doing so is synonymous to when one is on a cell phone conversation and the connection drops with the person on the other end no longer hearing anything, yet the initiator of the call keeps rambling away, not realizing that he is talking to himself.  For instance, The Boeing Company’s Randy Baseler blog, Randy’s Journal, originally shut out visitor comments, a one-way dialogue at its best.  The reasoning was because his work itinerary was full (p. 163).  To date, this aspect has reversed.  Randy’s Journal, which is currently managed by Randy Tinseth, now welcomes comments.  Perhaps Naked Conversations had something to do with it or maybe people began to write on other blogs at how foolish Boeing was for not accepting comments.  In any case, the company has joined the blog wagon and I’m sure Scoble, Israel, and Dan Gillmor are cheering this change.  In short, permitting remarks from customers is indeed a risk; however, this risk can help to set a tone of confidence instead of cowardice.  Consumers prefer to link with businesses that prepare for both the ups and the downs, even when it means admitting to another company’s strength (Scoble & Israel, 2006).  At least confessing this on a blog is somewhat easier than in person.

This brings to light the other topic of face-to-face networking that Scoble and Israel mentioned.  The net is a mask for many on-line users.  Albeit the web introduces people to each other, a disconnection still exists because of the limitation of a full connection that is otherwise gleaned from an in-person experience.  For this I argue that some business bloggers become complacent in simply writing blog posts instead of taking the additional initiative in having an open house of the company (where applicable) or attending one of those networking conferences that the authors talked about in Naked Conversations.  At some point, people get tired of the Internet babble and rather chat with someone live, in person.  As more and more dishonesty surfaces on the Internet business people will prefer an old fashioned face-to-face meeting rather than a net affair.  Overall, a blog serves its purpose, nonetheless, balancing the use of this tool with physical meetings will close the disconnect gap and harvest the real and complete person behind the blog.To sum up, risk-taking and face-to-face networking concepts are two areas that corporate bloggers can benefit from.  Unfortunately, no exact formula exists to get perfect results each time, but with continued use better results are possible, therefore improving relations with consumers and solidifying a positive company image.

Reference

Scoble, R. & Israel, S. (2006). Naked conversations: How blogs

     are changing the way businesses talk with  

     customers. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Scoble and Israel illustrated this new design of communication with each business case study featured in their book.  Like Dan Gillmor, who exhorted in We the Media for everyone to participate in the blogosphere, the authors’ also behooved businesses to hop into the “blog wagon” or get left behind on a trail to a dead end.  I agree with these authors’ reasoning.  They argued that the “corpspeak” of the traditional communication model has lost its flavor.  Adults are like children in that grownups also need business concepts explained to them in language they can understand, and adults’ attention spans do wane, especially by the authoritative tone gleaned from a CEO’s press release.  Blogs help to correct the problem of misunderstandings because of corporate language barriers.  Moreover, blogs also babysit the attention of the consumer with fresh discussions that are posed to them or that they initiate.  In short, to get the customer to comprehend the standpoint of a company and to keep his or her attention is the ideal.  Scoble and Israel highlighted similar points in addition to other positive aspects of business blogs.

A blog is a virtual classroom.  Unlike a traditional classroom where an instructor teaches from a lesson plan so the students may learn about a subject, the blog classroom is a learning process for both the business blogger and the consumer.  In this virtual classroom, the businessperson does not always have the correct responses; nevertheless, this does not constitute a failing grade.  This is the business’s opportunity to seek the answers from their customers.  How can a company please its customers without knowing why they are unhappy in the first place?  Why are some businesses disregarding the chance to correct such concerns as expeditiously as possible through blogs?  In this case, as Scoble and Israel posited, fear of the unknown or change are some some of the issues at hand.

In the United States, the reason for the apprehension of the blog and business partnership is on a different scale than in other nations such as China.  Some businesses in the United States are simply afraid of losing customers.  On the other hand, the Chinese government is most likely fearful of losing the control of its citizens and therefore discourages this online learning environment between the company and the consumer.  Ironically millions of people produce personal blogs, as Isaac Mao contended in Naked Conversations.  Why would the Chinese government be more concerned with personal blogging than commercial blogging?  Albeit the Chinese government openly monitors the content of these blogs, personal blogging could eventually garner more alarm if the bloggers learn how to write in a fashion where their thoughts and opinions aren’t easily obvious, such as writing in some form of code.  This idea isn’t far fetched.  When people get fed up with a rule or a standard they’ll break it by any means.

An evolving issue is with the outreach opportunities communities can foster in publishing grassroots works.  For example, Gillmor illustrated how people, particularly youth and elder adults, have been able to take part in using the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Silver Stringer program through the Net, to publish their articles, moreover, their bright ideas.  Both impressed and refreshed by the creativity of these youth, and the initiative of the seniors to try something new, I conclude that the Internet can foster more than just effective communication, but life skills of collaboration, compromise, and camaraderie, when tools such as what MIT provided is available.  I hold that Gillmor would also agree with this assessment.   This formula would be advantageous for more schools and retirement centers, with the proper funding of course; still an evolving issue.

Despite this and other glowing accounts of the Internet, other dilemmas hang over as dark clouds waiting to rain on any progress of the digital age.  Gillmor explained the minor and major problems surrounding the Internet:  at any level of use be sure the article and the photography within the prose is authentic.  For example, the convenience of “cutting and pasting” can purposely or innocently frame a person, or misconstrue a story because a portion of the article did or did not paste.  One solution that some web sites take regarding this is the inability to copy and paste items of prose or pictures from their site.  For instance, the online version of The Virgin Islands Daily News prohibits the copy and paste feature.  However, such an entity has the clout to have a mechanism like this in place.  At this time, it is not clear whether citizen writers or even freelance professional journalists can use this option.  Most likely money would be an overriding issue.

Finally, Gilmore ended his book hopeful for the future of the Internet when he contended that, “The Internet is the most important medium since the printing press,” (2004, p. 236).  This medium is producing a new way in which society can operate on local, national, and international levels.  The Internet is constantly giving birth to new thoughts via weblogs and web sites, allowing for ongoing debate and discussion.  In addition, these opportunities allow one to make better informed decisions from various view points.  The Internet also aids in making life more expedient in such areas as ecommerce.  In the overall picture, people are the ones responsible for the making the Internet as it should be, fair and free.  Blaming the Internet and its functions for such atrocities as online predators, identity theft, and libel is not the answer, for these negative outcomes existed before the Internet.  As Gilmore underscored, we the people must get involved to work the kinks out of this technological wonder.

Gillmor did more than just surmise on the contribution that on-line tools such as weblogs and wikis have made to journalism, organizations, and businesses; he compelled the reader with examples that individual communication, whether written by an expert or a layman, is a critical aspect for sharing beneficial information today.  For instance, Gillmor highlighted “niche blogging” with the acclaim of Janet McLaughlin’s expertise on baby strollers, supplying valuable information for moms-to-be. In comparison, Doctrow et al. also praised the benefits of information sharing via blogs especially in getting the message out to the audience faster than the traditional means.  Doctrow et al. cited several areas of what to do and not to do on a blog through cases from their own blog. 

Gillmor’s careful examination of the blogosphere left me with little to disagree with.  For example, his chronological listing of the tools used by writers from years past to define “personal journalism” (e.g., Benjamin Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette) was a springboard to justify why we all — writer or reader — must participate via this technology.  Blogging provides the opportunity for everyone to keep a temporary, an infrequent or an on-going dialogue.  There are some risks to this form of communication because the globe has access to want is online.  This brings me to another point that both Gillmor and Doctrow et al. underscored: fact-checking.

I appreciate the candid instance where Doctrow et al. emphasized their own error in not getting all the facts straight for a past blog entry.  This proves that all writers still need to take the time to proof the evidence in their writing, even if it’s just informal writing.  No one wants to be perceived as incredible.  Unveiling the truth is imperative in good writing and messaging.  Case in point, Gillmor’s mention of Microsoft’s web page trouble in September of 2002, where the company misrepresented a picture of a woman as their new customer who decided she had had enough of Apple computers.  The truth leaked and the consumer learned of this indiscretion.  I suppose then the public relations gurus came to Microsoft’s rescue.  On-line (i.e., blogs, web pages), no one is immune from being exposed by the public when an error like this is made.  In fact, I gather this is when individuals and groups are probably targeted the most like in any other medium (e.g., radio, television). 

Pitching in blogging is another area that interested me in both of Gillmor and Doctrow et al.’s book chapters.  As Gillmor stated, a blog gives way to where one can talk about a particular issue while concurrently pitching his or her expertise to garner personal business.  Cory Doctrow (from Doctrow et al.) did this on his blog to expose an upcoming novel.