Category: food for thought

The invisible rule of proportionate attention in online communication (and why social technologies are not magical)

4027006557_983abab28e_o.jpegI send a lot of emails. I post a lot of messages on my blog or on Facebook.

One thing I have noticed over the years: there is an invisible rule that seems to reign on the online world, regardless of the medium: the more care you put in a message, the more chance there is it generates an answer (email) or interaction (social networks).

Take email. When you send a newsletter, if you get 50% of people opening your message (as we do at Lift) you can be pretty satisfied. The industry standard is more around 20%. That is what you get for sending messages that have not been specifically written for the recipient. They feel that, and have no pressure to answer whatsoever as it has been sent to thousands of people.

In a typical one to one communication, answer rate is probably closer to 95% as long as you write to people you know, and who are at the same “level” than you.

Now for my editorial job at Lift, I get to invite pretty busy people as we try to convince them to join us for the conference. We don’t always succeed in having them, but at least I get around 80% of answers to my messages, positive or negative. I get this answering rate by carefully crafting my messages to make the recipient feel I value him or her, as I invest a lot of my time in reaching out. If I send a quick message, it is likely I will not get an answer. If I take time to research the person I am contacting, find out what their recent projects are, add a few personal sentences about the city they live in, the chances for a response get much higher.

My point here is that it seems that electronic communication is not totally deprived of context. When you talk to someone, your body language gives hints of how you feel, and influences the answers you get. In electronic form, these implicit messages can also be conveyed. I care about the discussion we’re having, I’m willing to invest time in reaching out to you. That matters.

I noticed the same happens on my blog and on Facebook. On the blog, articles where I simply pass a link (as I often do to set them aside for my personal archive) receive little feedback, while longer and more personal articles generate more comments. On Facebook, I have an even more tangible proof. For a long time, the Lift page was managed manually. I would replicate each article carefully, adding a custom message different from the title of the news I was pushing to the community. As soon as we installed an automatic app (RSS graffiti) to republish articles automatically, the number of interactions almost halved. It was the same content, but our followers felt we were not putting as much energy in the process of pushing the information to them. They felt less engaged, maybe less cared for, and the number of interactions dropped.

That’s why social technologies will never be magical. They promise us more personalized interactions with followers, as we know who they are. Truth is, mass updates will always have a different feeling from a message written specifically for a recipient. Nobody can escape the time consuming task of writing personal messages. And if you have 10’000 fans, that will take a while.

Generation Y vs Baby boomers

The tradition of western societies is that older generations always deny younger generation the right to their own culture and behaviors, in the name of things like “we worked harder than you ever will, our times were much harder”. Now what happens if things go the other way around, if the older generation leaves the younger folks with a world close to bankrupcy? Which way will the blame go?

Check this op-ed by David Brooks in the NYT, he nails it, and reflects on the challenges facing those graduating this year:

But, especially this year, one is conscious of the many ways in which this year’s graduating class has been ill served by their elders. They enter a bad job market, the hangover from decades of excessive borrowing. They inherit a ruinous federal debt.

More important, their lives have been perversely structured. This year’s graduates are members of the most supervised generation in American history. Through their childhoods and teenage years, they have been monitored, tutored, coached and honed to an unprecedented degree.

Yet upon graduation they will enter a world that is unprecedentedly wide open and unstructured.

Link

Evolution of empathy over a medical career

I recently watched Bridget Duffy’s talk at the GEL conference, where she presents her work as “Chief Empathy Officer”. She mentions at one point the evolution of doctor’s empathy over a career, and I find it pretty fascinating to see this key skill evolve with time. Doctors start by being idealistic, then lose empathy after their study, probably confronted with the reality of a job that can be tough, and where it is easy to treat people as numbers when you face the constraints of a modern health system. Then life kicks in and teaches a few lessons, bringing empathy back to the picture. Pretty much summarizes the evolution we all go through isn’t it?

The evolution of empathy over a medical career, and Bridget Duffy at GEL 2008.

Online, quality beats quantity

Online used to be a world of “the more the better”. Search engines would brag about indexing X zillion of pages, the race for LinkedIn contacts was raging between users, and even professional sites like Alibaba would base their communication on the fact they allowed to reach thousands of suppliers in one click.

For early adopters, every single piece of information published on the network was a small victory. Each page indexed by Altavista was one more step towards the society of information that we were trying to build.

This was the old world of megabytes. Not the world of 2011, measured in exabytes. Tons of information have now created noise when we increasingly need relevance. From a world whose problem was to add information, we now enter a world where the problem is to find which one can be ignored, hidden, or deleted. Let’s take the three examples again:

  • Do you really care if Google indexes one or two more billion pages? No, you care about the top 10 results. The challenge is not to index 90 million pages containing the word “bank”, it is to hide the 89.99M that are not relevant to the current context.
  • Users are coming back from the “more friends is more fun” mantra. I see people remove or hide friends, some now cap the number of contacts to a “few” hundred. But the key is advertising: once social advertising happens (whatever it’s form), more friends will likely mean more ads. “De-Friendization” will then accelerate. And what is the point anyway, when we all lost the followers race to Lady Gaga anyway ;)
  • If you have to find a supplier, would you rather have a lot of offers, or the right ones? Sites like needeo work with selected suppliers, not “all the world’s suppliers”, and in that case quality and trust will always beat quantity.

Another sign this trend is here to stay can be found in services like Path which, in their DNA, embed the fact that you can not keep in touch with more than 50 people. Also Beluga (acquired by Facebook), Brizzly, the trend is now to launch closed group apps, to capitalize on the fact that it will be easier to monetize systems based on quality relationships than on a lof of relationships. The data mining will be easier (less data to make sense of), the social ads will be more effective (users are more likely to click on a recommendation coming from a close friend than from an acquaintance), and it will be possible to create real trust between the users and the system, with no fear of privacy boundaries being crossed.

From a world of quantity, we now live in a world of quality. The key is not to have a lot of signals, but to have the right ones. Social networks make it possible as long as they don’t encourage us to have lots of friends, just the right ones. Do you now better understand the 75b$ valuations of Facebook?

Recreating serendipity in social networks

Social networks started on the past (classmates), moved to the present (Facebook), then the future (dopplr). Social networks used to be on people you knew (classmates), people you know more or less (Facebook), people you do not know (dating websites), they will soon also be about people you do not necessarily want to know.

At Lift Asia 09 we welcomed Jin-Ho Hur, CEO of Neowiz, a social network/gaming platform whose fundamental concept is that everybody can hide behind an avatar. Why? Because not knowing who the other users are is a feature! If you spend hours playing online games from the office, do you really want to share that with your network? And what about meeting people randomly like what happens at bars? This is not really covered by existing networks, hence the success of something like chatroulette that “generates one-on-one Webcam connections between you and another randomly chosen user” (NYT link).

I believe this is a trend, not only because it corresponds to a need, but because it is the only place where social networks can innovate under the current framework, where each positions itself along the past/present/future and friends/acquaintances/strangers dimensions.

Framework small

The red bubble is where we have the less players at the moment. I expect to see many new services in the coming months, reproducing a phenomena that is omnipresent in our lives but mostly absent of online life: serendipity.

The fact these services are used & created by teenagers is also not very surprising. After all this generation seems to have lost many of the opportunities we had to connect randomly: the arcades have been replaced by Playstations, the rave parties have been forbidden, dating happens online rather than in bars, etc etc.

Moon water

 ”I’m here today to tell you that indeed, yes, we found water [on the moon]”
Link

What is refreshing is to see us rejoice again over the simple presence of water. Exploration reboots expectations – nobody care about having a Facebook account out there. To all those who wonder, this could be a reason to always seek new frontiers to cross.

Flesh eating robots

Are we one step closer to abandoning this planet to robots? Maybe. But don’t worry, that thing can “determine whether material that it ingested was animal, vegetable or mineral. [...] There are certain signatures form different kinds of materials that would distinguish vegetative biomass from other material.”

The question is: before or after it catches a piece of food?

‘Flesh-eating robot’ is actually a vegetarian, say inventors

The machine’s inventors say that the Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot – known as Eatr for short – does indeed power its “biomass engine” by digesting organic material, but that it is not intended to chomp its way through battlefields of fallen soldiers. [...]

“We are focused on demonstrating that our engines can create usable, green power from plentiful, renewable plant matter. The commercial applications alone for this earth-friendly energy solution are enormous.”

Link (thanks Steve)

Reminds me of James Auger’s fly eating robots he showed at Lift09.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/3043922/james_auger_what_role_can_designers_play_lift09_en.swf" width="400" height="345" wmode="transparent" /]

“No man that has been thunderstruck by Carla Bruni is ever in command of events”

Bruce Sterling gave Lift’s opening keynote in 2008. He answered our invitation to predict what the year ahead would have for us.

His talk was widely commented at the time (see Ewan Mcintosh, Hannes Gassert, David Roessli, Stephanie Booth), and as I was stuck in a train for six hours earlier this week (thanks Easyjet for canceling my flight!) I decided to watch it again.

Back in 2008, Bruce’s talk had left a weird impression on me, a mix of wonder – as I knew he was touching on critical issues – and misunderstanding. I was, like several other Lifters (see here), wondering why Bruce talked for so long about Carla Bruni, the wife (and artist, and copyright holder…) of French president Nicolas Sarkozy. He used her as an example of a black swan, defined by wikipedia as a “high-impact, hard-to-predict, and rare events beyond the realm of normal expectations”.

Now that the French government has passed an internet law from another age, now that Carla Bruni’s influence is getting more and more clear, I see Bruce’s point, how one single person can weight on a nation, in a very unexpected way.

Bruce gets an A+ for his science of predicting who and what will influence the future, and I am not even talking about the other points he raised (2008 will be a “crappy year”, the markets will go down, etc) that were also true.

Watch that talk again, it is worth 25 minutes of your time.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-3435379578423653610" width="500" height="407" wmode="transparent" /]

Here is a transcript of the talk, in case you are not as familiar with Texan accent as you should be:

Thanks for showing up for the first keynote, my short, punchy, focused first keynote. I was asked by the organizers to talk about last year, or maybe the forthcoming year, this wasn’t entirely clear, maybe 2007 or 2008, because you know I am a science fiction writer, futurist, and I’ve been known to do things like that in the past. And I wanted to do that in a short, focused, punchy way, because I think it’s very much in Lift’s spirit.

What’s the punchiest possible thing you could say about the past year? And I’m like. That’s the way it was, now get after it. As per predicting the future – something I’ve been known to do in the past – the basic reason to do that is motivational, it’s moral boosting. The main reason people prosper is because they’re willing to get out of bed. Showing up is 90% of the job, really. It’s hardly ever because they have some kind of brilliant, lucid, accurate idea of what the year holds for them. That just does not happen. Showing up, persisting, doing it, going up out of bed, that’s what really counts.

What you want to be told by futurists are things that help you get up in the morning, like why this is gonna be a crucial year, these are really revolutionary times, everything hinges on the decisions that we make this month, only the bold deserve the fares, great fortunes are waiting and so forth. And I know how to do that. Really. Cause I’ve seen it done maybe a hundred times.

But this is a Lift audience, this is not the Silicon Valley, there are Europeans here. European being people who have a sense of historical continuity, actually see a little farther than just like last year, just next year, and really, frankly, for all kind of obvious reasons, 2008 is not gonna be a pivotal, revolutionary year. It’s not impossible that something really important happens in 2008, but really, that’s just not very plausible.

It’s a crap year, 2008.

We got this economic downturn waiting, everybody knows it’s coming. [...] It’s election year in the US, they will be extremely preoccupied. China is having an Olympic which is nice, then they’re gonna be doing at least some of their incredible heaps of dirty laundry in 2008. India is doing great but they are completely surrounded by crazy Mujaheddin lunatics, they kind of have their hands full. And Europe is kind of doing pretty well, but Europe tends to do things slowly. I mean surely but slowly. Like a vast European python that eats five, or ten countries at a time, and then digests them. Slowly but surely. The worst problem that Europe has now – global warming – is like a 200 years old problem. It’s a slow problem, it’s a problem that we can say with great certainty our grand children will worry about. It’s not gonna be solved in 2008. That is not an issue, global warming is a way of life.

Even in the tech world which I love for it’s fast paced, it’s bull, it’s recklessness, is it really exciting to watch Microsoft eat Yahoo? Is there anybody, even inside Yahoo or Microsoft, who really thinks that’s the way forward? Is that an innovation? It’s not an innovation, that is a profoundly retrograde moving, that’s an aging monopoly shoring up it’s position by feeding on the week. Microsoft is boring. Gates left it was so boring. Gates would rather cure Malaria – which is 15 different kinds of impossible – rather than pretend that Microsoft is the road ahead. It’s that bad.

Given that these are the facts on the ground, and they are, I wanted to offer you something that was really focused and specific, a piece of futuristic prophecy, a flat out prediction, facts and figures that I’m sure that as Europeans you can use in 2008. Something that you can take from Lift and that will give you a valuable insight and genuinely brighten your life. Really punchy, focused, so let me explain to you how you can deal with a phenomena that you are certain to be confronting during the entirety of 2008. It is something that came out of nowhere, and it achieved fantastic press attention. It is defining the very character of our times, especially in Europe, and you have already seen a lot of it, more than you ever wanted to see, more than you expected to see, and you’re going to see more, and more, and more of it. And it’s a practical certainty that you will see it, and if you’re not prepared for this, if you don’t have the proper analytical tools, you will be overwhelmed by it, confused, sickened, bewildered.

Whereas if you do understand what’s going on, with an ability to anticipate developments there, you will be like an American that has been taught the rules of soccer. You’ll probably still won’t like it very much, but you’ll understand why it matters to people, and you’ll be able to put it in useful perspective, and get on with your life. And as I’m sure, you’ve guessed, I am referring to Carla Bruni. Madame Carla Sarkozy, the first lady of France. And you may ask why I bring up her name and her career – I mean exciting career – at a tech conference like Lift. That’s because Carla Bruni has become the first lady of France because of a tech conference. First time that Carla Bruni ever met Nicolas Sarkozy was at a little tech summit that the president of France threw for the recording artists. President Sarkozy does not like to see French artists suffer from piracy loses, and he’s especially irritated by internet zealots who declare that French music ought to be free when he knows that somebody somewhere is paying for it.

So president Sarkozy therefore has created a policy to civilize the internet, civilize the internet from a French perspective, and the first order of operation in his plan is to repress peer to peer networks on French soil. And since artists, like Carla, and copyright holders, like Carla, and backbone operators – which Carla is not yet – they all hate p2p networks and p2p networks gave a dime to president’s Sarkozy campaign or anybody else. His scheme is to make himself the European equivalent of Steve Jobs.

So Monsieur et Madame Sarkozy are the products of an Internet policy romance. Carla isn’t here at Lift, Carla has a whole lot of reasons to be here at Lift. Carla Sarkozy is what futurists refer to as a black swan. A black swan is a historical event which is significant and important, but so far fetched that it’s unpredictable even in principle. The attack on the world trade center was a black swan. Even if you know that Al Quaeda does not like crusaders, there was no sensible way to anticipate that. Similarly even if you know that politicians often have girlfriends, you can not know that one is suddenly going to become the Madame Dubarry of a French digital renaissance. But you know, black swans can be good as well as bad. Swans are beautiful creatures. And Carla Sarkozy is gorgeous. She’s a transnational European aristocrat who loves poetry, music and philosophy.

Sarkozy is like a politician who got a sour lemon, and then made some lemonade, and then he married the heiress of an entire italian lemon orchard. Carla took a bad situation – no Madame Sarkozy – and she turned it into a situation where there is a Madame Sarkozy who is extremely weird. With Carla on board he has more lemons than you and I can ever imagine, he’s like a lemon mogul. And it’s not like this was some pre-calculated master scheme, because no man that has been thunderstruck by Carla Bruni is ever in command of events. But he has multiplied his options radically. Cecilia bitterly resonated, just because he sent her alone into a hostile, terrorist country to rescue some hostages, which she did. Whereas Carla by contrast, is clearly capable of anything. She’s a charismatic, poetic, wealthy, sophisticated, profoundly promiscuous European aristocrat who is completely untroubled by bourgeois morality.

Now a story like that practically writes itself. There isn’t one journalist in this world who can’t write a Carla Sarkozy story in his or her sleep, which is why you will certainly be inundated by recurring title waves of Carla Bruni stories. In Europe in 2008 these are two adventurers, radicals, a decadent aristocrat married to a self made man and now they’re in power. They’re simply the most interesting story there is. Ok, that given. And it is given. Because you don’t get any choice about a black swan.

How does one get over this? This calls for some futurist scenarios. So let’s delimit the possibilities, shall we. What really matters in this situation? What are the two most important driving forces? I’d say there are 2: ambition and publicity. We got one axis which is ambition – Carla’s ambition – because a politicians is always ambitious. It’s a given, not a variable.

The other axis is publicity. Carla and president Sarkozy are notorious. They can not possibly turn the publicity faucet off. That is not within their power. But they can turn the faucet up. They can not make the press go away, they can feed it. And they have already both done that repeatedly and skillfully, either together or apart so we know this matters to them. So for these two axis we can form a quadrant of future possibilities, the four possible future worlds in 2008 of Monsieur et Madame Sarkozy.

They are four combinations. Low ambition high publicity. Low ambition low publicity. High ambition low publicity. And the last possibility, high ambition and high publicity. That’s all the two of them can do, they can do bold things loudly or bold things quietly, or mild things loudly, or mild things quietly. When they are in bed together, talking about their strategy, weeping, chuckling, consoling each other, whatever newly weds do, that’s pretty it.

So what will happen in 2008? Well we can not guess this, but we can describe it. First scenario: low ambition and low publicity. This is the “ends in tears” scenario. Carla has never been married before, she’s certainly never been a politician’s wife, that’s boring. The forces of conventionality overwhelm her. It’s just too much for her. She retreats from the public scene. She’s in depression, Cecilia was right about everything, Nicolas is too much for any woman to handle. He’s full of himself, he’s burning her out, the manic romance switched over to a depression. Divorce looms. They try not to say anything about it. Another public divorce would be unthinkable. They go to earth, they really try to hide. It has ended in tears.

Scenario number two. High publicity, low ambition. We can call this one the “first diva of France” scenario. Carla is happy to be the first lady of France, it’s a big honor. Respectability goes to her head. Meetings at the UN, the G7, [...] she’s in Vogue, and womens wear daily, but never in the Economist or the New York Times. She records a new pop album, it sells pretty well, French population becomes proud of her, they don’t call her the Italian eyed green witch anymore. The first lady is pretty and talented, she’s a patroness of culture, she makes all the other first ladies of countries look like potato sacks. What French citizen can’t like that prospect? It has turned out pretty well as far as the population of France is concerned. The first diva of France scenario. So now, scenario number three.

Low publicity, high ambition. We can call this one the “power behind the throne” scenario. Carla Sarkozy has had a taste for famous men, famous men in power, now she’s finally gotten one at the very top of the heap. She only became a pop musician because she was bored. She was the mistress of musicians and she saw how easy it was to lead that life. The Bruni-Teddeschi family though are aristocrats, and they are not feeble in bread weak aristocrats, they are European industrial aristocrats. People with factories. People who make rubber tires, Carla is already richer than Sarkozy is, she’s six times richer than Sarkozy.

Carla wants to make industrial policy. That was why she courted Sarkozy in the first place. He’s a jittery, hyperactive politician, in need of an intimate counselor he will trust for that question. There will be his years as president, then he retires and take over the CEO of a major league recording company, then they really cash in. They are Carla incorporated, they are Carla Sarl. Maybe a baby while she’s first lady. Then they’ll have an industrial dynasty! The power behind the throne scenario.

And then the final scenario. High publicity, high ambition. They say than in any proper set of four futurist scenarios, there are three that are the Goldy Locks versions, you know that fairy tale, Goldy Locks and the three bears, it’s like three bowls of porridge, one is too hot, one is too cold, then one bowl of porridge is just right. So there are commonly four futurist scenarios, one is too cold, one is too hot, and one is just right. And then there is the fourth one. The weird one. And the weird one is commonly the most useful scenario, because the future tends to be weird.

High publicity, high ambition is the weird scenario. We’ll call this scenario “empress of Europe”. Nicolas is busy making his friend Tony Blair into the first president of Europe right now, not because he really likes Tony. Tony is a british leftist, and he speaks terrible French. But because Nicolas himself expects to have that job someday, after Tony Blair has turned that empty post into a real job with some power, then Sarkozy can become president of Europe. Tony is a gentleman, he will get out of the way, and as the kingmaker for the previous incumbent, not to mention being president of France, Sarkozy has a rather good shot at this job.

Now the last French leader who survived a divorce in office was emperor Napoleon. And if you were a student of French history, you might know that the outlines of contemporary Europe are similar to those of Napoleon’s empire at its greatest extent.  As the emperor took too many risks, it ended in silence and exile for him, but at least he abolished the holy roman empire and invented code Napoleon and rid Europe of a lot of annoying mediaeval clutter, which is clearly what Nicolas Sarkozy wants to do. They call him the “bling bling president”. The emperor Napoleon did not exactly lack for bling bling.

Glamour has its uses. Glamour can be a weapon. On the field of battle the morale is to the material as three is to one. So in this scenario we see things coming out of imperial Europe, 21st century Europe, that we haven’t seen coming out of Europe for maybe 2 or 300 years. We see world sweeping, aggressive Carla Sarkozy charm offenses. She’s a pop star with the power of a state behind her, she’s bigger than Bono, she’s bigger than the Rolling Stones. The two of them have cooked up a weird media art and culture intervention which is meant to wake the French population from its slumbers.

When Sarkozy says that he wants to lead a French renaissance, he’s in his deadly earnest. And since it can not be military, since it can not be economic, it’s pretty much got to be political and cultural. They are living in a hurricane of madness as Carla puts it her poetic way. And they are methodically steering the hurricane. This star couple’s intent is not only to conquer France, that would be too easy. Everybody else thinks the publicity firestorm will embarrass them, that they will have to sit down and shut up and stop bothering peop le with tabloid headlines but no. In the empress of Europe scenario the fire-born are at home in fire. A supermodel and a statesman can never get enough publicity, or enough power. They conquer France and they plan their assault on Europe, and you’ll be lucky if they stop there.

So, now we have our four future worlds. You don’t have to feel surprised or offended by this advent any longer. It’s not like you can predict the future. Carla and Nicolas, I promise you, they don’t know the future any better than you do. But it has become a spectator sport. You can amuse yourself by placing out odds on those different scenarios, and now I myself will judge it this way.

Ends in tears: 40% probability
First diva of France: 15% of probability.
Power behind the throne: 10%.
And Empress of Europe I would give a whopping, optimistic, caffeinated 35%. Because I’m a journalist, and although I know that fairier is always most likely, fantastic success is a much better story. There are those who claim the two of them have already gone too far. The muslim are offended, the hindus are offended, the pope was offended, elderly French catholics are offended by their behavior. Even for the British royal family who are not exactly noted for propriety, their romantic behavior seems a little at sea. Who can not cheer on a couple who can do all that?

If they get away with this, an entire generation of politicians around Europe will be liberated to have the same personal life all the rest of us do. In the 21st century they are not any major political figure who actually observes any victorian sexual propriety. They just cynically exploit sexual values, politics as a weapon against the population and against each other. You can ask any alluded gay in the republican party how well that kind works. That kind of tactics works but it’s evil. Bad for us.

Now I would not want to claim that Carla and Sarkozy are all that happens in 2008, even if they make themselves big news in that year. I can guarantee you that Carla has won herself a place in the history books. In 2028, journalists, historians will say “Carla Bruni” and people will say “wow, that sounds so early 21st century”.

Carla Bruni is not the only black swan that graces our world. The internet was a black swan too. In her younger days, internet, taken the street, has gotten pretty big. Big enough that Carla and Nicolas go to it. And they found each other there. And they get married. Instead of the industry going to Nicolas and Carla to politely ask them for political favors and some cultural content, the internet does not need political favors now, because it can make or break politicians. And it is full of content, most of it swiped or involuntary shared from the likes of Carla Bruni.

Now I don’t have time up here to run a similar futuristic scenario about the internet’s adventures in 2008, but I can tell you stories. Really. I can tell you stories about the future. When you have a good story about futurity you can smell it. You can smell taking on shape. You never guess the details – you never can – bvut you can smell the futurity coming through. Boy that will get you out of bed in the morning, it’s like coffee and bacon in another room.

90% of success, the way to survive this next year or any year, showing up when you succeed in reaching the future, it means than you survived long enough to see it. You survived long enough to become it. As a human being you can become the future, you can embody it. You can live it, and the future can be guessed at. But life is best enjoyed. So enjoy your conference ladies and gentlemen, thank you for having me.