Entertaining People: Where Apple Might Be Right

Apple isn't known for its social network prowess. Ping is marginal as a social network at best. It functions like a network, but doesn't feel like one.

But there is something that Apple is doing right, when compared to the rush of Google+, Facebook, and Twitter to generalize the point of being all things to all people.

And that is, for the most part, simplifying things to a singular or primary purpose. We see it in how it treats apps; and the same concept works for niche social networks.

iTunes Festival 2011 London solidifies broadcast-digital convergence.

Downloading the iTunes Festival 2011 London for review was almost a no-brainer. And if you ask me or the reviewer, it's not perfect but nonetheless brilliant.

It also has a primary purpose. You can watch a festival concert streamed live or (since most are in the afternoon) after work.

Applied to television networks, it could potentially give people the ability to watch a television program on the first run or automatically have it waiting for them. And depending on how networks want to play it, they could provide a permanent collection or limited-time viewing opportunities with the option to purchase an episode or series for download.

There may even be some potential non-intrusive revenue models beyond selling the program. For iTunes, the buy button only appears before and after the concert or anytime you pause it. It's clean. A television broadcaster might include related merchandise and/or sponsors just as easily, and (although it ought to be reflected in the price point) embedded commercials.

The real bonus in terms of the iTunes Festival 2011 London, of course, is that it truly makes the concept of any device, anywhere, anytime a reality. You can play it on your phone, on your tablet, or on your television. And, depending on how cloud services come along, you won't have to worry about storage or (hopefully) safety.

Our reviewer also considered that a social networking function might be welcome too. It could be fun, he concluded, to chat with people who check-in with a live streaming performance. The function could be optional, of course. (Sometimes it's nice to skip the socialization of everything.) Or perhaps a network/app feature could open up afterwards, allowing viewers to chat about the show.

But what I especially like about the festival and apps in general is that they keep online experiences tied to how we perceive offline experiences. If you are in the iTunes Festival 2011 London app, you are at a concert. And any behavior, even if you are watching from home, is indicative of a concert hall.

Why apps and niche social networks will have a longer lasting life.

You won't find that on increasingly bloated social networks. You might want to share an article, but your friend wants you to join a video chat. You might want to post a picture, but then get caught up in a barrage of instant messages. You might want to share something funny, but then an associate will send you Farmville requests. And brands, well, they're even worse.

This is quickly becoming one of the problems with bloated social networks. As much as you can dictate your own experience, your friends (and any brands you follow) are being given more and more power to dictate what you will do. (Heck, they are even spilling into search relevance, no thanks to +1.)

But all this stands to reason. Big big open generalized networks are like giant rooms with everything going on at the same time and no walls to distinguish anything. The stereo is playing, the television is on, and ten people are trying to perform.

The result is chaos, something I'm always prepared for when I sign on to any of them. One person is talking politics. Another is telling jokes. Some are watching television. Others are playing games. And half of them are screaming "look at me" or "look at my wall."

An app or well-defined niche network, in contrast, is exactly the opposite. If you sign in, you have a reason to be there and everybody else who might be signed on is there for mostly the same purpose too. It feels more than right. It feels like life.

Developing Networks: Google+, Facebook, Twitter, Mordor, Etc.

With everyone else reviewing social networks — spurred on by the introduction of Google+ — I'll pass on any specifics. Suffice to say that Google+ is a crisper version of Facebook with some added features like video chat.

The added features aren't likely to remain exclusive for long. Facebook might already be working on a solution to add it. (Hat tip: Jamie Sanford by way of Ike Pigott). It won't be long before Twitter starts barking up the same tree. And that's what inspired this post, along with a conversation fragment with Geoff Livingston, Dane Morgan, and Tony Berkman.

How Many General Social Networks Can One Endure?

My guess, ultimately, is one to none. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are moving in a peculiar direction. Specifically, it looks like they are moving forward but they are really moving backward. People don't want one social network to do everything. Do they?

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...

Rings and circles. I can't really trust them, even if I like them. They might be easier than Facebook groups (and less annoying). They might attract much less spam than Twitter, even if that will change as the population explodes. But at the end of the day, Google, Facebook, Twitter and a half a dozen others are looking for the One Ring. And if anyone gets it again, it will end badly.

Again? Yes, again. The original welder was America Online. We just didn't think to call it that at the time, but it was a social network that for several years meant all things to all people (still does, for some, if you can imagine).

Ironically, it was Google, Yahoo, and other search engines that cut the One Ring from the finger of those service providers after Apple relinquished eWorld and the online experience descended into the darkness of Sauron Case. The world was a better place without it, much more colorful and diverse. So why on earth would anyone want a repeat?

As humans, we can't really help it. All of nature is predisposed toward order. We thrive on it, making bigger and bigger systems until the weight of it becomes unsustainable. History is littered with the rise and demise of such empires. And, we often forget, Internet is too.

MyBlogLog and Technorati come to mind. One collapsed and another was greatly diminished as each of them began the quest to operate beyond their spheres. In part, it's because as prone as humans are to order, they are equally prone to seek freedom and the wonderful chaos that accompanies it.

Niche Networks Tend To Better Define Environments.

Much like the historical and fantastical empires, it seems to me that generalized networks become unsustainable. People like to confine their activities to the definitions of their environments: they act one way at work and another way at a concert; this way at a church and that way at a bar; this way on one social network and that way on another.

Follow the same group of people from the bachelor party to the ceremony to the reception to the after-reception party to the gift opening, and the social norms will change. Same people; different behaviors.

Major networks, on the other hand, provide the same environment and then ask you to behave differently based on the people in the room. It's backwards, mostly because any social behavior is established by the first person who blinks but only because we're all grasping at straws.

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky, Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone ...

Maybe it's because human sociology and adaptability isn't attached to groups of people as much as the environment. We almost can't help it.

This might also explain the primary reasons Facebook (originally a college network) was fast and loose on the front end and slowly became more formal as family members and future employers asked to connect. It's the likely reason quick exchange conversations have taken a back seat to link sharing on Twitter. And it's probably the reason Google Buzz crashed when it failed to establish a culture of what to do there. It wasn't just a matter of who was there, but the purpose of the space.

One of several projects my team is working on right now is a social network of sorts (social network is the closest definition without giving up details). For the last three months, I've been working as one of the principal developers while the board seeks out about $3.5 million in initial funding. (Once we have funding, I'll be allowed to share some alpha invites for a few people.)

What we are doing differently is focusing considerable attention on the environment. And, given it will have a much narrower purpose (with no incentive to pine away your hours looking for conversations to establish presence, eyeballs, or gratuitous activity), it won't compete with any existing network. Instead, it will feel more personal, important, and purposeful — someplace you go for special occasions as opposed to the daily grind.

In some ways, it is what the big networks ought to have been thinking about. Google had some semblance of authority, Facebook had some semblance of social casual, and Twitter eventually became (and then abandoned) a modern version of an AOL chat room.

So does anybody else have it right? There are a few developers who seem like they are on the right track. Of the biggest, it seems to me Apple is one of them. If you want to know why, drop by on Friday when I intend to flesh out why the iTunes Festival 2011 London App represents the future of entertainment.

Writing Independence: How To Write A Social Contract

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." — Declaration of Independence.

While the Fourth of July is a largely American affair, the document that laid the foundation of what would become the United States made a statement that exceeded the confines of a handful of colonies. It set forth a declaration that the governed could alter or abolish any government that usurped the unalienable rights of the people — an idea that was not confined to the colonies but born, in part, from the thinking of John Locke, who believed in a limited government bound by a social contract.

Locke, an English philosopher and physician, was one of the most influential contributors to the Age of Enlightenment, a cultural movement in 18th century Europe that sought to promote reason and advance knowledge. Locke was not alone. Baruch Spinoza (Dutch Republic), Pierre Bayle (France), François-Marie Arouet a.k.a Voltaire (France), and Isaac Newton (United Kingdom) had advanced elements of the thinking behind it.

Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and other founding fathers were only a few of the people influenced. The intellectual reasoning had spread across Europe, notably England, Scotland, the German states, the Netherlands, Russia, Italy, Austria, and Spain. It's also why the American Declaration of Independence had a profound impact in the world — concisely articulating the statement before outlining a list of grievances against its government (which was the majority of English Parliament despite the document citing the King of England as the primary culprit).

Writing The Declaration Of Independence.

A few years ago, Stephen Lucas wrote The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence, which discusses its literary qualities and its rhetorical power. Among the properties that Lucas points out, the most prominent ten include:

• Clarity. The entire piece uses the most simple and direct language of the time.
• Concise. The document does in 202 words (The Preamble) what it took Locke thousands to do.
• Flow. Not only does every sentence flow into the next, but each word follows another.
• Rhythm. Every sentence is carefully balanced, with significance placed on alliteration (the ear).
• Structure The piece is carefully crafted to deliver a powerful sense of structural unity.
• Objectiveness. The focus on empirical reality rather than interpretations of reality.
• Imagery. The infusion of descriptive words that show the reader rather than merely tell them.
• Emotional. The ability to be human, making an argument for not only the head, but the heart.
• Ambiguity. Each grievance presented is tied to specific events, but names and places are omitted.
• Conclusion. In the conclusion sentence, it reinforces a trilogy of things worth fighting for.

Rarely do politicians employ such literary purpose in their propositions today. And neither do most writers when they set out to make a case on any number of subjects worth writing about. Incidentally, all of them brush up against the five elements of writing to include within any piece of prose or content: clear, concise, accurate, human, and conspicuous.

Are We Due For A Second Age Of Enlightenment?

One of the most profound details of the Declaration of Independence (that I learned a few years ago), was a significant edit made by Franklin. Originally, Jefferson had borrowed from the more popular trilogy spoke of during the day — life, liberty, and property. It was Franklin who struck down property and inserted the less tangible pursuit of happiness.

While some see the edit as a minor nuisance to provide for more intangible and higher cause, I sometimes wonder if Franklin also intended to avoid the trappings of tangible goods being assigned to government. We can read as much in the Bill of Rights, which was created as a condition to the U.S. Constitution (1787), insisted upon by men who wanted to preserve the influence from the Age of Enlightenment well into the future of the country. With property comes the power to move toward tyranny.

We might even see the problem with some governments' increased focus on property today as opposed to providing for the security of life (protection from aggressors), liberty (freedom), and pursuit of happiness (a free marketplace of ideas). As governments borrow against the assets of the people and/or regulate individual financial prowess, it positions such governments not only to enslave a people, but also promises to enslave their descendants as slaves to such debt, thereby making it nearly impossible to pursue happiness, or perhaps enlightenment as intended, without a mountain of preexisting shackles of constraint.

At least, that is what I intend to ask my children consider when they are older. While there are those who believe the happiness of the many outweighs that of the few; there are also those who believe that the insistence any individual — endowed with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — be forced to relinquish such rights is nothing more than the embodiment of mass selfishness.

And it seems to me that the founding fathers belonged to the latter grouping, shedding obligation from its sovereign, who had apparently forgotten that any government derive their rights from the free people they govern and not the other way around. Leadership, for example, is not the prize for a despot who can override a nation's social contract, but rather an honor to protect and preserve that very social contract that grants that honor. At least, I think so. Good night and good luck.

Have a happy and safe Fourth of July, with at least a sliver of time in between the barbecues and fireworks to contemplate its meaning. And for all my non-American friends, take a moment to consider that while our celebration is American, the foundation of this celebration is truly the collective result of enlightened people across Europe spanning hundreds of years.

Treading Water: There Is No Fail

Social media adopted the vernacular — FAIL or #FAIL or FAIL! — as a one word sum up on the most heinous communication and customer service gaffes worth sharing. Everyone knows what it means. And everyone wants to avoid it.

In fact, many people want to avoid it so much that they are sometimes paralyzed from pursuing their own dreams, ambitions, and opportunities. What if I fail?

Those are the words that might sputter from between their lips behind the scenes or among casual confidences. And for all those folks who are holding off on trying anything for the fear of failure, I have very good news. You've already FAILED.

Every day you don't do something because you might fail is the only day you do FAIL.

A social media program that does not exist is a failed social media program. A great book that will never be written is a failed book. And a company that never even sees the outline of a business plan is a failed business.

Ergo, just because it never happened doesn't exempt you from the reality of the FAIL. The only saving grace, I suppose, is the number of people who know it.

If you want another term for the phenomenon, call it reckless obscurity. Nobody will ever know you failed, but nobody will ever know you either.

Two years ago, Adam McCaffrey conducted a study on the fear of failure and procrastination. And what he found was people who exhibited traits of autonomy, competence, relatedness, and vitality tended to be less prone to fear of failure and procrastination.

Timothy A. Pychyl, Ph.D., who wrote the aforementioned sum up of the study, suggested one important question might be "how do we foster that sense of competence in our lives that is so essential to our well-being?" And the answer might be easier than you think.

Give yourself permission to fail at smaller tasks so you can learn failure doesn't matter.

A small company starting a blog will eventually learn one failed post isn't the end of the world. One short story that doesn't resonate with friends might provide the backdrop for a better story. One "side project" or solo activity might not lead to a successful business, but it could give you the experience you need for the next project that will.

All the while, keep the original lesson in mind. Do you have a social media program, book, or business before you start? No. That means starting anything, more or less, is assured to be an outcome that is break even or win. There is no fail.

Funding Education: Price Tags Mean Nothing

According to government spending on public education, New York spends more per pupil than any other state ($18,126 per student). Utah spends the least ($6,356 per student).

Among fourth grade students, Utah scores 240 in math, 221 in reading, and 155 in science. Among fourth grade students, New York scores 241 in math, 224 in reading, and doesn't test for science.

Those test scores are provided by the National Center of Education Statistics. I'll include some numbers for Nevada in a minute.

Money Doesn't Buy Results, Effectiveness, Or Creativity.

It's one of the most difficult notions to grasp, even in communication. When I used to enter, support, or judge creative award competitions, the conversations were always the same. Some people in the field would take a sweeping glance at the winning entries and declare: Of course so-and-so won, they had a bigger budget. They had a better client. They this or that.

You can debate the point with someone who has that mindset all you want. They will never change their minds despite the truth. Campaign budgets have very little to do with successful communication. Sometimes I think big budgets might even hinder them, spurring on the first knee jerk idea that a limited budget could never fund.

In fact, when you have a budget big enough to do anything, sometimes that's the last thing you ought to do. Here's one example that proves the point.


States do the same thing with education. Those without funding claim that funding is the issue. This is the case made ad nauseum in Nevada.

Yet, the Nevada Policy Research Institute says Nevada spends as much as $13,000 per student. Any discrepancy in reporting, it seems, comes from the state only counting its funding without consideration of the funding paid by local taxes and other funding sources. So technically, Nevada is somewhere is the high middle on education spending or more.

But even if per student spending was comparable to Utah, it still doesn't explain test scores. Nevada scores 235 in math, 211 in reading, and 140 in science. Every score is lower than Utah. That's a rotten investment at almost twice the expense.

A Pencil, Paper, And Four Leaves.

I've set some education time aside for my children, ages 12 and 5, this summer. The other day, they went out into the yard and picked up four or five leaves. When they came back in, I showed them how to freehand draw the leaves in a pattern, with the older child also instructed to tutor the younger one (in addition to doing his own).

It's a rudimentary exercise, but lays the foundation for a program. From this exercise, they will learn some basic drawing skills. The next exercise will add in shading for the purposes of tone and texture. The one after that will include two colored pencils (light and dark) to allow for light. The entire program is a variant of a free downloadable drawing class found on iTunes from Harvard (but they aren't watching the videos). There are nine lessons in all.

For my purposes, art won't be the only instruction. As they continue to work with the leaves, I'll be adding in some other subjects. One will include biology. Another history. Another art history. Another math. And certainly, the younger one will learn how to spell leaf. (If I wanted to, I could add a section on business management as well. Not that I want to.)

The entire program is going to cost me about one dollar for paper; maybe a few cents more for pencil lead.

Education doesn't have to be expensive. And neither do campaigns. The bulk of the investment ought to be the time of talent, creating something impactful and memorable. Because frankly, it doesn't matter what you teach as much as it matters what the students learn. And likewise, it doesn't matter how much you spend on a commercial as much as what people might remember about it.

Buying Skype Headaches: Microsoft

Microsoft is buying more than Skype for $9 billion. It's also buying a headache of sorts, one that it didn't make but will eventually have to face as a public relations road bump or two or worse.

The initial rub up with a story penned by former employee Yee Lee, who describes Silver Lake as a bunch of rat bastards, is only one piece of the problem.

In case you missed it, Lee says he's been cheated because his contract gave Silver Lake the right to “repurchase” any vested shares for anyone who leaves the company voluntarily or is terminated with cause. It renders the options relatively worthless. Business Insider Henry Blodget provides a different take on the case.

On its own, this would be a little bit of trouble, but not much. Many people would say Lee was certainly silly to "assume" his contract was of the boiler plate variety. Other people would say it seems odd that "vested" options aren't really vested at all. And everyone would forget about it in about seven weeks.

But the Lee story is only one among several that smack of stock and contract monkey business with Silver Lake. There was also the decision to let some senior executives go, meaning that they aren't likely to get as much as those who stay on through the transition. And just today, Reuters revealed there may be two more oddities ahead.

Microsoft may not look good in the months to come.

While Andrea Petrou speculates that the executives were sacked at Skype early to make Microsoft look good, it really won't work that way given those other stories are coming to light. "Skype employees get screwed" is a sticky message.

The reason it will become Microsoft's trouble is because buyers almost always host their own round of housecleaning after an acquisition. It only makes sense. Not every good fit for Skype will be a good fit for Microsoft.

But with the complex web of credibility gaps created by Silver Lake, Microsoft will look bad no matter what it does. Even if you dismiss the early firings, the claw back on people like Lee, the other employees who were let go for cause (whatever that cause may be), and what Reuters called a special Cayman partnership created "to avoid the possible application of employee-favorable laws in California and Luxembourg," the collective bad message — employees get screwed — sticks better than any number of complex defenses being forwarded by Silver Lake.

So, when Microsoft inherits Skype and starts calling the shots, any missteps will read as Skype employees get screwed again. And again. And again. (As applicable.) Given Microsoft already has a poor track record on mergers and acquisitions, it's likely there will be problems. And sentiment suggests most Skype users are less than excited.

Many of them expect Microsoft to destroy what is working. And Skype employees are likely feeling uncertain about the future.

The only silver lining is that Microsoft intends to keep Skype as its own operational division. But anyone following these events have to wonder how long that will that last. They also have to wonder how long it will take to forget that Silver Lake set these problems in motion and placed all the blame on Microsoft, for better or worse, deserved or undeserved. Case study ahead.