5 Thoughts on the Future of Media

As a former agent at UTA, Barrett Garese has better insight into the future of media than most of us do, and he's blogged a fascinating essay about where he thinks film, TV and web content is headed. (In a nutshell, he believes the key is to capitalize on the inherent differences of each platform, rather than insisting on convergence.)

While reading his essay, I realized my own response would be longer than appropriate for his comment column, so I've posted it here. My thoughts will make more sense if you've read Barrett's essay as a primer, but I think these points stand on their own as well.

I'll Stop the World and Converge With You...

The convergence of film, TV and web is happening, but that doesn't dilute the power of each individual experience -- film is still film, TV is still TV, web is still web, etc. What this DOES create is a NEW experience format: the convergent format, in which content is specifically designed to either:

A) feel different across all platforms (in which your viewing experience is specifically engineered to suit the screen size or format, possibly going as far as editing with different shots or angles, depending upon the delivery method), or

B) be different across all platforms (i.e., the web version of a show is completely different, while still complementary in theme, to the film version, etc.).

Your Home Theater is Not Actually a Theater. Discuss.

Audiences anticipate different experiences depending on the distribution method. We expect to immerse ourselves in a film experience (minus the live distractions), while we expect to be distracted from the TV experience (because we're at home). Thus, we're already anticipating a different kind of content to be shared across those variant platforms -- and when the end result doesn't match our expectations, our engagement with that content may suffer. (Or, it may surprise us.)

We also expect a difference in on-screen quality relative to the effort it takes to obtain the image (i.e., driving to a theater at 7 PM should reward me with a higher quality experience than watching something on my phone at 3 AM). And we expect the content to connect with us on differing levels dependent upon our applied attention -- mindblowing films can't be processed in 5 minute increments via stolen wi-fi during your lunch break, whereas 3 hours in a theater had better provide you with a deeper and more profound experience than 30 consecutive episodes of Tiki Bar TV (which, it should be said, I love).

LOOK AT ME.

The biggest expense for online content should be promotions. You can create an amazing show for $5, but you're releasing it into a medium that A) not enough people are paying attention to, yet which is B) paradoxically flooded with crap (which may explain A).

If I were to produce a new web series (after concluding Something to Be Desired), I'd be sure that the promotional plan was in place before the first episode ever hit the web; the days of "throwing it out there and seeing what happens" are best left to people experimenting in their own free time, not people who are expecting to gain the necessary traction to validate (both artistically AND financially) their investment of time, money and effort into a web property.

Whither the Studios?

Eventually, existing corporate studio behemoths will become distribution companies that happen to have (presumably exclusive) contracts with production houses. Rather than focusing on producing AND distributing their own in-house content, they'll profit from their primary assets (reach and volume) and leave the creative aspects to the producers -- who will in turn be grateful to not have to worry about being both creative and ubiquitous at the same time.

That said, there will always be exceptions. In the long run, it's still cheaper for Verizon to produce its own web shows than it is for them to subcontract with a production company, and it's still more profitable for an indie prodco to bootstrap their way into self-distribution than it is for them to produce their own content but only keep a percentage of those eventual revenues.

A Soap Opera Without the Soap Had Better Be a Damn Good Opera

Content producers need to rely less on advertising and more on the inherent value of the content itself. Gone are the days when content is produced as a lure to hook viewers into sitting through commercials -- nor can content *be* produced under a presumed business model that eyeballs = advertising opportunities = profit. Cut out that middleman and what are you left with?

You're left with an audience who'll pay you directly for what you create -- or for the experience it creates in them -- rather than a vessel with holes waiting to be plugged by commercials.

This also impacts media being produced for traditionally large-scale distribution. Just because a show isn't pulling in the millions of eyeballs it needs to validate its TV time slot, it doesn't mean that show couldn't be profitable at a lower operating cost with web-based distribution. If I were the producers of a canceled darling like Pushing Daisies (and if I still owned the rights to that property), I would shrink the budget, post 15-20 minute episodes (or segments) online, and invite the fans to pre-pay for next season's DVD in advance; that initial influx of cash could be used to fund part of the upcoming season, which means the prodco isn't scrambling to line up sponsors now and then waiting for a year-end DVD windfall to break even.

Thoughts?

Image by perreira.

Hating Twitter Is Like Hating a Hammer

There's been a lot of social media hate thrown around lately, mainly by people who hear about services like Twitter in the mainstream press and then, once they poke around a bit, reject it immediately and with much gusto.

The bitter invective comes from all sides, including Jon Stewart, Gawker, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and this amusing cartoon.

And they all miss the point.

I Would Rather Eat Live Children in a Barrel Than Use a Power Drill

Twitter, like all social media, is a tool. It can be used to entertain, to share, to self-promote, to inform or to educate. Unfortunately, casual observers rarely see the breadth of its use because the bulk of its users aim low, and use the service in inane ("OMG drinking tea cuz I'm sooooo tired lol") ways. Thus, they conclude that these are the only ways the service can be used, and they choose to decry the service (and ALL of its users) as the worst humans on the planet while simultaneously distancing themselves from anything associated with it.

Explaining to these people that Twitter has also been used to exonerate innocents from jail, unite outsiders during a tragedy and raise life-saving donations doesn't always help. If anything, it only seems to exasperate them further -- as though they wonder, "If you CAN do all that stuff with Twitter, why DOESN'T everyone?"

But asking that question is like asking why every building isn't as gorgeous as the Taj Mahal. Trust me: it isn't the hammer's fault.

Image by Being Yogendra.

We Need More Trolls

Here's a paradox: most web services don't reach their full financial potential until they've attracted users who don't even appreciate the service in the first place.

Consider Facebook: sure, it was all the rage among the social media set a few years ago. But it couldn't be taken seriously by the mainstream until the people it was never intended for decided that they needed to use it. So, paradoxically, the service that was initially designed as an exclusive connection service for college students can only be considered to have "arrived" now that your grandmother can use it to stalk you.

This method of "acceptance" (and, therefore, acceptable financial risk for investors) is not limited to the web. If you've studied film history, you know there was a time before Star Wars, The Godfather and Jaws, in which a film was considered "a success" if it made more than $30 million and / or garnered a few awards. Now King Kong can become one of the biggest-grossing movies of the year and still be considered a financial flop. Expectations for mainstream success state that a film is only "a hit" if people who have no reason seeing it in the first place are somehow motivated to do so -- and budgets are based upon *those* projections, not the more realistic concept of actually attracting your intended audience.

This translates directly to YouTube, where numbers are all that matters. And no video that's garnered more than 60,000 views has done so without attracting both "the choir" (who simply parrot the video's merits in the comments) and "the trolls" (who believe everything is worthless). Only then can someone say their YouTube video was "a success."

One of the many ironies inherent in this arrangement is that a service, tool or medium can only succeed if the rule-breakers, innovators and trend-setters adopt it early enough to make it interesting -- and then that interest must be borne out by attracting the bulk of society, who couldn't care less about the original reason the service, tool or medium was invented in the first place. Only then, once the original intent has been polluted, the initial audience driven away and whatever magic made the experience remarkable in the first place has finally been expunged, can the world at large finally admit that the entire venture has been a worthwhile success.

By that rationale, anyone with a new business idea should find the shortest distance between themselves and the mass attraction of trolls. Because, ugly and destructive as they may be, trolls are also a harbinger of something else: an IPO.

Image by flisspix.

Even Prostitutes Get Paid

Last week, Gary Vaynerchuk told the audience at SocComm that FOX, CNN, The New York Times, etc., were all "dead" because any one of us can use the internet to become a media mogul tomorrow, without anyone's help.

I disagree.

Not because I think FOX, etc., are thriving right now, but because I don't believe the problem is a matter of content control. It's a matter of distribution and awareness, and those are two areas where the multinational corporations have such a head start over the little guy that it isn't funny. (And I won't even get into the trust gap between well-funded, well-researched news sources and a guy with a blog in the middle of nowhere.)

So what's an independent media creator to do?

For starters, here's one way social media can start to level the playing field between "us" and "them":

Stop Putting Your Videos Everywhere That Videos Can Possibly Go

Quick - where's the best place to find web video? YouTube? Veoh? Blip? Vimeo? Viddler? No matter your answer, you're still right, and here's why: because they all show the exact same thing.

Imagine if traditional TV were to suddenly adopt that model, in which you could watch CSI: Miami on any channel, at any time of the day, in multiple formats and resolutions. Well, that's great... but why would we need 500+ channels?

We wouldn't. And we don't need 50+ video distribution channels, which continually pollute the already-impossible-to-navigate web video world with ever-more duplicated content.

Divided, We Stand

TV stays alive because each channel has a stable of shows that can't be seen anywhere else (until they hit syndication). Web TV hasn't made that connection yet because it doesn't believe in its own quality or validity. It's so desperate to be seen, it's willing to give itself away for free across dozens of websites, and then it complains privately that it isn't making any money or being taken seriously.

Here's a hint: if people can get you for free anytime, any place, they'll never consider paying for you at your own convenience.

Someday in the very near future, Blip TV (or one of their competitors) will step up and tell their top 20 shows, "Hey, here's some money. Keep producing one new show a week for the next year -- and DON'T cross-post anyplace else (besides your own homepage) -- and we'll take care of the rest." Then we'll finally see Web TV reach a valid adolescence, where audiences will pay for ease of reliable access to quality content, and show creators will begin to earn what they're worth.

Until then, if you want to see quality web video, just spin the Google bottle because the kisses are all the same -- free, wet and desperate.

Image by slowburn.

The Brogan Effect

Last week, I witnessed the direct impact of a referral from Chris Brogan on my blog traffic, and I thought it was significant enough to share.

After having not blogged since December, I finally got back in the blogging habit last week. One of those posts, about the reasons people don't talk to each other at social events, grabbed a lot of attention on Twitter -- and the bulk of that attention was driven by a single re-tweet from Brogan:

My friend @justinkownacki doesn't want to meet you - http://is.gd/jihd

True to the form of a verified thought leader, Brogan's acolytes ignored his warning and swarmed my blog in huge numbers. (Huge for me, anyway.)

By the Numbers

* According to Lijit, my normal weekday traffic (as measured by their service) hovers somewhere between 30 and 40 hits per day.

* On Thursday of last week -- the day of the blog post mentioned by Brogan -- my traffic jumped to 769 views. (That's 21 times my normal traffic.)

* I have over 2,000 followers on Twitter; Chris Brogan has over 40,000 followers. That means Chris has approximately 20 times the reach I have on Twitter.

* That one retweet by Chris of my initial blog post announcement was then retweeted at least 6 times by Chris Brogan's followers.

* My Friday traffic also jumped to 224 views, which is 7 times my normal traffic.

* I gained over 100 Twitters followers on the day that blog post hit; most of whom were already following Chris, but not me.

Admittedly, Some Other Things to Keep in Mind...

* The blog post itself was titled "I Don't Want to Meet You." It doesn't take Copyblogger to tell you that contentious blog titles often elicit clicks and rewteets.

* In point of fact, my own mentions of this post on Twitter were retweeted at least 7 times all by themselves.

* Influence is disparate. Fellow Twitterer Lily Hill also drove new traffic here, with her followers retweeting her mention of my post another 2 or 3 times.

* Despite the influx of new readers (and commenters), my RSS subscriptions only jumped by 6 people.

So What's It All Mean?

* It's currently impossible to track EXACTLY how much traffic was driven by any one of the mentions of my blog post on Twitter, so all traffic estimates are just that -- educated guesses.

* It's often hard to tell which retweets come from where, since people often paraphrase the original in order to fit within the 140 characters while also hopefully giving proper attribution to where they found it.

* Either most blog readers still aren't using RSS subscription tools, or the new readers who came here via Chris and Lily decided that the *rest* of my blog output wasn't worth subscribing to.

And, of course, the one undeniable truth:

* In the aftermath of a huge awareness spike, I now feel the need to be INCREDIBLY RELEVANT to anyone who stumbled across my blog and now expects pearls of Brogan-approved wisdom on a daily basis.

Or, as Randy (one of Brogan's followers) put it:

Glad @ChrisBrogan yelled it out, he's rarely wrong, if ever

So if I think *I* have pressure meeting people's expectations, something tells me Chris's followers' expectations for *him* are almost Neo-like. (Somehow, I doubt that makes either of us sleep any easier at night.)

Photo by m0xie.

10 Things I Learned at SocComm

I spent yesterday driving to and from New York City to attend the first Social Communications Summit, a meeting of the new media minds organized by Jeff Pulver. Amid the flurry of driving, schmoozing and driving again, I gleaned a few bits of wisdom. Here, in no particular order, are ten of them:

* Social media has become a haven for people who like to talk loudly, and at length, about what they think they know.

* When it's barely 10 AM and the audience Q&A has already forced one speaker to restate the scientific definition of "reality," I become acutely aware that the buffet table is only offering decaf.

* We need new demonstrable criteria for what defines anyone as an "expert" in any field -- especially something as subjective as communications.

* I disagree with part of Gary Vee's assertion that "FOX is dead. The New York Times, CNN, all of them: dead." Most people seem to confuse the distribution mechanisms, the content and the companies. The physicality of the daily newspaper is in decline, but the New York Times is not dead; people still require information. The Times (and every other news / entertainment company) has the resources, reach and ability to place that information in the possession of those who desire it, for a price. The way it reaches them may change, but by no means does a shift in the distribution mechanism mean that a whole company or medium is "dead;" nor does it mean that the power has shifted to the content creators, who still -- like it or not -- require some variation of a trusted "gatekeeper" to ensure that their content is seen by the maximum number of people. (Although, I will concede that it's possible to now include "yourself" in that list of gatekeepers who are keeping your work from being seen.)

* Privacy and property law are going to be HUGE issues for these media in the coming years; Pulver's right to be training everyone's attention on the policy discussions surrounding what we can and can't do (yet / now / for a little while longer).

* Lots of rhetoric from 2005 (i.e., mass media is dead, each of us can become a mogul, etc.) still being tossed around, but the core issues (money, innovation, proliferation) still involve much grasping and posturing, and few verifiable answers.

* It's quite awkward to watch the people who hover around Chris Brogan, Jeff Pulver or Gary Vee, waiting for the opportunity to introduce themselves and slip immediately into "the pitch." These three get immense pleasure from having the power to connect people, bring disparate personalities together, and generally act as "hubs" for disruptive thinking. And yet, for a medium that's allegedly built around being social, too many people seem to be confusing "social" with "sales."

* That said, I've realized that I don't have it in me to "work the room." I'm more content to chat with a few people, and (ideally) have an enlightening conversation or two, than to make the casual acquaintance of an eventual stack of business cards. Either I haven't distilled my essence into the proper elevator pitch, or I just don't feel the driving need to impress people. (I'll let my razor-sharp wit and rampant douchebaggery do that for me...)

* Amber Naslund = thank god for real people.

* Lots of the top minds in these overlapping fields (mobile technology, content creation, marketing, law, etc.) are saying the same things privately and making the same predictions and proclamations, but using slightly different terminology. Methinks the next shift in fishbowl consciousness is upon us; look for it to trickle down into easily-quoted memes by the end of the year. (Keyword hint: "reputation", not "brand".)

* The staff at the 3LD Art & Technology Center were friendly, helpful and generally seemed to be on the ball about most of the event's logistical needs. However, they -- like most first-time "new media" hosts -- were woefully underprepared, wifi-wise, resulting in lots of people not being able to connect. Oddly enough, instead of forcing attendees to actually pay attention to the presentations, the absence of wifi somehow seemed to destroy everyone's ability to focus. This resulted in a day-long plethora of bite-sized hallway conversations, which may be proof that the social media crowd has now been programmed toward distraction, regardless of availability.

* Driving in New York for the first time? Not as hard as I thought it would be. But driving in New York for the first time and tangling with a duplicitous Google map, unmarked road construction, throngs of pedestrians militantly dedicated to walking slowly and a bladder so full to the point of rupture that I actually contemplated the physics of peeing upward into an empty water bottle while in motion? Slightly more difficult than it should be. (Indeed, you're welcome for my $10 "donation," Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel...)

Thanks to Jeff, 3LD and everyone else involved in organizing and executing the event. I suspect it'll be fuel for a number of conversations over the coming days, and hopefully some of these nagging questions about the future of social media will begin to find their answers -- preferably without the disapproving eye of The Law.

Image by Michael Lewkowitz.

Post-PodCamp Pittsburgh 3: 5 Ways to Gauge an Event's Success

First off, thanks to everyone who attended PodCamp Pittsburgh 3 this past weekend. Although we haven't tallied the final check-in numbers yet, all practical indications (like perpetually running out of food) point to this being our largest and most well-attended event yet. (Either that, or everyone got a free tapeworm in their swag bags...)

Also, as one of the event's primary organizers, I can never thank my fellow organizers enough. I know how much work went into planning PCPGH3, and even though things never run 100% smoothly at any event -- much less one involving technology -- I'm exceedingly proud of how well things came together this year. Everyone did a great job and I'll be very happy to work with all of you again next year... after we all hibernate for a few months.

However...

After throwing a huge event, I think there's a temptation on the part of the organizers to pat themselves on the back and say, "well done." But when it comes to social media events like PCPGH3, we won't *really* know how well we did at organizing the event until several months from now, because the long-term impact of education-based events like this can't be measured immediately. We have to see what people DO with the information they learned here.

So, in the meantime, here are 5 Ways I'll Be Gauging the Success of PCPGH3:

1. Attendance -- Although we had our largest number ever of pre-registered attendees, we'll need to tally the final head count before we know if our active numbers are actually increasing or remaining stable. The good news is, I didn't recognize about half of this year's attendees, which means we're definitely bringing NEW people in. (Also, weather plays a factor in attendance, so don't judge a summer event straight-up against a winter event, etc.)

2. Press Coverage -- If your event is a success in the eyes of the attendees, they'll talk about it afterward -- in our case, via blogs, Flickr, Twitter, etc. The more we see, the more we'll know that the PCPGH3 experience was share-worthy, and that's always a good thing.

3. Who Follows Up? -- We're holding a smaller, informal gathering on Wednesday, November 19 @ 7 PM at the Firehouse Lounge in the Strip District. Our goal is to support the conversation (and the community) that coalesces every year at PCPGH, but then seems to recede as the months intervene between events. Knowing that people want to keep the discussion (and the activity) alive beyond an annual clip is a good indicator that the ideas they encountered at PCPGH3 have traction.

4. Who Takes Action? -- Since PCPGH is an event designed to help people learn more about creating web media, it follows that we like to see our attendees creating newer, better things all the time. The long-standing content creators here in town won't be fading out anytime soon, but for the dozens of attendees who don't yet blog or podcast, who among them will start experimenting and reaching out for help when they need it?

(One great way to stay involved is to join the newly-created OMGPittsburgh blog, launched for us by Bostonian weekend-expat Chris Brogan live at PCPGH3.)

5. Who (or What) Will Become Next Year's Success Story? -- A year ago, none of our attendees had been a finalist for major web awards like the Bloggies or the Yahoo Video Awards, but this year, that (twice) changed. So did the idea that you can't invent a new word and have the public take notice (bacn, anyone?).

So will someone else take the lessons they learned (and the relationships they built) at PodCamp Pittsburgh 3 and use them to build the next killer app, the next red-hot web series or blog, or even expand their business? If they do, then the concept of PodCamp Pittsburgh as a reliable incubator of game-changing ideas will live on.

How do YOU think we did at PodCamp Pittsburgh 3?

Photo by Locobone, who would have made this available under Creative Commons License if he'd thought about it... ;)

Broadcasting to an Audience of... None?

Yesterday, I was invited to speak about Something to Be Desired (the web series I produce) at Point Park University. One of their broadcasting classes likes to invite local media creators to chat with the students during an informal luncheon, and help them understand what "working in the field" is really like. Since they thought STBD was a good example of a web success story, I was happy to share what I know (and admit what I don't).

The students were friendly and inquisitive, and lobbed several tough questions (beyond the obligatory "how do you make money" and "why are you still in Pittsburgh?"). I and STBD actor Will Guffey (Leo) gave them all the information we could, bored them with endless anecdotes about our "process," and did our best to demonstrate that our six year-old web media series is just as viable a communications option as... well, as a paying job...

Interestingly, when I asked the students what web TV shows they currently watch, or what podcasts they listen to, they told us they watch very little -- mostly existing TV shows that they didn't have time to watch during the week. None of them subscribed to any shows, and they didn't download them to watch on a mobile device, either -- even though several of them had video-enabled iPods.

Then one of the students asked if either of us blog, and then she asked why ANYONE would blog, or why anyone would take bloggers seriously. Admittedly, this is not an easily-answered question, especially in light of chicanery like the (false) CNN iReports of Steve Jobs's heart attack. But, more importantly, even asking this question proves that journalism and broadcast students (or their professors) are highly suspicious of "new" media -- and why shouldn't they be?

So... if the future broadcasters of America aren't watching web media... who is?

And... if web media is not being taught as a viable option in most broadcasting classes... why?

(I think I know, and it has to do with "credibility," "economy" and "job security." What are YOUR thoughts?)

Photo by digitalvisions.

Your Free 10-Step Social Media Diploma

I received an email from Full Sail University today, touting (among other things) their Master's Degree in Online Marketing.

Seriously?

Can an educational institution really offer a justifiable Master's Degree in a field that's barely five years old, with precious few documented and proven success stories?

Curious (if not incredulous), I read their program overview, whose 12 courses include:

* 1 class on New Media Marketing Analysis
* 1 class on Web Metrics and Analysis
* 3 classes on Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
* A Final Project and Thesis, "in which you’ll create and produce an Internet marketing campaign for a company that you’ll select as your subject of study"

And, perhaps most interestingly:

* An Internet Consumer and Behavior class, whose description begins:

What makes people motivated to search, research, and buy products on the Internet?

That's the kind of insight you'll be getting for a "Master's Degree" in Online Marketing? You'd think knowing what makes consumers tick would have been covered somewhere in undergrad, no? Or is the internet really all that different from reality?

That's what the accountants at Full Sail would have you believe, I'm sure. But all a course like this really does is flood the marketing field with inexperienced hacks who'll be able to charge their clients Master's Degree fees while outsourcing the actual work to people like me, who know how to do it.

(Side note: does Full Sail list the names and credentials of anyone who designed their Master's Degree courses? I didn't notice it on their site. You'd think most of us who create social media for a living would have heard of anyone Full Sail claims is worthy of bestowing Master's Degree-level knowledge, no?)

So if you were considering spending precious tuition money on a Master's Degree program in Online Marketing, Social Media or any other current buzzword that schools believe they can make a quick buck on, let me suggest this cost-effective alternative:

Your Free 10-Step Social Media Diploma

1. Read Blogs. It really doesn't matter who you're reading, so much as that you *are* reading. For marketing types, try the Ad Age Top 150. For anyone, read Chris Brogan; he's the equivalent of a walking Master's Degree in all things social media, and his blog is free.

Reading blogs helps you understand who's talking, what they're talking about, and why -- plus, how (and when) they're doing it.

2. Comment on Blogs. It's not a conversation unless you're talking, too. Be polite, be relevant, be brief. Above all, be yourself. (Unless yourself is an asshole; social media already has a lot of those, so you're not cornering much of a niche.)

3. Start Your Own Blog. Once you know how other people are doing it, start one yourself. Maybe it's about you, or your business, or your city or fields of interest. Maybe it's about all of those things. Start with one, find your voice and structure, and expand as necessary.

4. Subscribe to Blogs. Use Google Reader or another RSS aggregator to create your own daily reading list. Again, what you're subscribing to is less important than the act of *actually* subscribing in the first place, and understanding how it's done. You can't expect others to subscribe to your ideas if you don't make the effort of subscribing to theirs.

5. Design Your Own Blog. Maybe you're comfortable mucking around in code, and maybe you'd rather leave that to the people who do it better than you. Experiment with WordPress, Blogger or TypePad, or ask someone with design experience to set one up for you. Trade your expertise -- be it in marketing, recipes or landscaping -- for theirs. (If you can't barter, you can't sell.)

6. Use Twitter. If the web has a water cooler, it's Twitter. The chief current example of "microblogging," Twitter is an endless stream-of-consciousness discussion, the cultural zeitgeist in a bottle. Ever-changing, it forces you to think fast and be brief.

7. Listen to / Watch Podcasts. A podcast is the (poorly-conceived) name for any web audio or web video. It can be embedded on a webpage or downloaded to your hard drive / mobile device. It can be corporate or independent, entertaining or informative, serialized or stand-alone. iTunes has a wide variety of shows listed, while Blip TV, YouTube, Sclipo and Podanza each appeal to a different crowd. There are others; experiment.

8. Create a Podcast. It can be audio or video, short or long, interesting or dull, bad or good. No matter how it turns out, you'll learn something in the process of trying to explain yourself to a worldwide audience of complete strangers. And your next episode will be even better. And better. And better. (Authors allegedly start out by writing 1000 horrible pages; bloggers and podcasters get up to speed a bit faster, and without having to recycle all those trees.)

9. Check Your Stats. Creating media and not observing its life cycle is like dropping a baby into a jungle and hoping for the best. How are you supposed to know whether it stands a fighting chance? Use Google Analytics, Lijit and other stat-tracking tools to see who's finding your media, how they're getting there and what they're doing when they discover it. Then, once you have a handle on the whos and whys, you can better execute the hows -- as in, how to create media people want to see, and how to help them find it.

10. Get Out of the House. A computer is a tool, not a destination. Social media implies "people," as does marketing, which implies "market" (which, in most cases, is comprised of people). You may meet people online, but you don't know them until you're in a room with them -- and they don't know you, either. Join a Tweetup. Attend a PodCamp. Ask when your local chapter of Flickr photographers is getting together, and tag along. The connections you make in the real world only strengthen your relationships online, while providing the kind of interpersonal experiences that create trust, friendship and honest interest in what others (and you) are doing.

Navigate your way through these ten steps and you'll already know more about social media and online marketing than the graduates of most pricey online degrees -- and it won't have cost you a penny. Save your money; start a blog.

UPDATE: Chachi pointed out that I can't very well offer a Master's Degree without a printable diploma, so he graciously created one especially for you. Download your Online Marketing and Social Media Master's Degree diploma here.

Photo by m00by.

Social Media: The Problem With Being Free

One of the endless questions surrounding social media is: "How do I monetize?" Meaning: how does one person convince other people -- whether it's that person's actual audience, or advertisers eager to reach that person's audience -- to pay that person to do what he / she actually wants to do for a living?

Common Cents

In most cases, a person simply seeks out a job that other people already publicly admit is worth being paid for. Garbage collectors, graphic designers and accountants are all worth paying for a job well done, or so we believe. So why not bloggers, podcasters and other social media creators?

The catch: people have long been used to paying garbage collectors, graphic designers and accountants. They're also used to paying for records, movies and live entertainment. And they'll sit through commercials on TV as long as they get their shows for free.

But no one is used to paying for web content, because the web has always been "free."

"Free" Is in the Eye of the Beholder

In truth, we all know the web was never "free," so much as it was "subsidized." People were willing to spend their time and effort creating a network of information and entertainment, often for no financial gain, simply because they enjoyed it or saw value in the existence of such a network.

But no one can do that indefinitely, and people capable of producing professional quality work (or at least work that resonates with audiences of a size similar to those of the professionals) are not going to produce their work for free forever.

Parking Is Like Sex...

... or so goes the Seinfeld joke: Why should we pay for something that, with a little effort, we can get for free?

But that logic applies to everything in life. Why pay for CDs when you can download them for free on filesharing sites? Why pay a landscaper traditional wages when you can employ day laborers for far less?

No one is exploiting web content creators (yet) by *not* paying for their work, since few web content creators are currently charging a reasonable fee -- or any rate, for that matter -- to engage with their work. In that regard, web content creators are exploiting themselves by not attempting to charge for their work in the first place.

Having grown up using the internet, the concept of charging for information that's always been free could be seen as the death of the very ideals that the internet was founded on.

Or it could be seen as a very necessary step in the maturation of thousands of prospective artists and business owners, to realize that what we do is worth getting paid for.

If I Don't Like You, and YOU Don't Like You...

The bigger question -- WHO will pay for it -- can't be asked until each of us admits that what we're doing is worth something to someone, somewhere. Since most of us create content for free, we're used to it. We have the POV that even making a few hundred bucks a month is probably "more than we deserve," all things considered. After all, we know the cost involved in our work, and we've been willing to shoulder it ourselves for so long, it's become part of the process.

Wouldn't getting paid for what we do be equal to "selling out"?

How can we compare our work to the work of Hollywood, Madison Avenue, etc.?

What's our work actually *worth*?

The Short Stick Economy

Advertisers are leaving print publications in droves, leading to magazines and newspapers cutting costs and closing doors. But that ad revenue isn't being reassigned to the web, because the web doesn't charge the same amount for ads that print publications do.

That's because the web still prices itself as an inferior product, across the board, compared to every other mass medium.

As a result, those of us who create content for the web have horrible benchmarks to judge ourselves against. We can't aspire to earn as much as content creators in other media because our own medium gives itself the short end of the stick at all times.

Asking a web content creator to evaluate the value of his / her work is an impossible task, because we're trained to think that:

A) What we're doing MUST be free to be online,
B) What we're doing is online, and therefore amateur, and
C) What we're doing is being created for a medium that has yet to create a sustainable economy in the creative sector.

Therefore, all aspirations to get paid are pipe dreams until each of those realities changes.

And guess what: the sustainable economy that will provide realistic benchmarks for individual financial success among web content creators CAN'T be created until we get past those first two roadblocks -- and those are roadblocks we set up for ourselves.

Photo by Emdot

Social Media Fears Among Parents

During lunch yesterday, I overheard an exchange between a man and woman working together.

He: "Did you see the new ___ video yet?" (I forget the video name; it's irrelevant here.)

She: "No. Is it on YouTube?"

He: "Yeah."

She: "OH!" *Hand goes up in protest* "No YouTube in this house."

As she went on to explain, she has a ten year-old at home, and she wouldn't dream of exposing him / her to the evils of social media.

She: "Did you hear about that girl who hung herself because she was talking to a boy on MySpace?"

Me: "That wasn't actually a boy --"

She: "I KNOW, it was the PARENTS!"

So, yes, because of some truly asinine and despicable actions by a small group of people, at least one family (and probably thousands more) have decided to bar all forms of social media from entering their house.

Never mind that this selfsame ten year-old is probably, even now, surfing YouTube at school / a friend's house. (Kids won't be stopped from sniffing out taboos.) What's more interesting is that, instead of taking this opportunity to educate their child on the proper way to navigate a dicey situation -- meeting people online -- these parents have instead decided to write off a whole wide swath of the internet as evil.

I'm not a parent yet, so I'm probably out of bounds in commenting upon parenting techniques. But I am a child OF parents, so I have half the equation settled, and that means I CAN say this:

I would appreciate my parents much more for helping me understand the pros and cons, the dos and don'ts, of social media interaction (or anything else) than I would being told that "X group of people" are simply off-limits. (I might not realize the nuances of this difference until 10 years later, but it would happen.)

Sticking your head in the sand when something untoward happens may be a good short-term solution if you need to catch your breath, but it's a lousy long-term strategy for creative problem solving. And, unless I'm wrong, parenting seems like 100% creative problem solving.

Side note: Why do I suspect this same family, which bars their child from using YouTube, still allows him / her to watch traditional TV? (Notice she didn't say, "No *internet* in this house.) As though mainstream media is somehow "valid" content because it's produced by people with real jobs?

What Does Success Mean to You?

I've been creating Something to Be Desired for four years now. I consider us to be "successful" in that we've kept the show online and interesting despite numerous hurdles.

And yet, whenever someone asks me what my goals are... I realize I can't articulate them, because I haven't defined them for myself.

Things Are Changing

I've been having a lot of conversations lately with social media folks -- and reading a lot of blogs and Twitters -- that lead me to believe the bulk of the people in this space have a hard time defining what success means for them, and therefore understanding the steps they need to take in order to get there.

Last year, PodCamp Boston exceeded expectations because it had never been done. This year, although attendance was up, it was still about 50% of the registered total. Was that a "success"? It depends on whom you ask.

Most of the no-shows were people "outside the fishbowl" -- those interested parties who weren't yet creating content and therefore weren't 100% invested in having a conversation about it.

"How do we get those people involved?" was the question a lot of us have been asking for a long time, and there still aren't clear-cut answers.

Maybe that's because we're not demonstrating that social media is a "successful" investment of OUR time and resources yet, simply because so few of us know whether or not we ARE successful. It's hard to lead by example when you're not sure where you're headed.

What Constitutes Success For You?

Are you a creator? Does the thrill of making something from nothing give you an unequaled charge?

Are you a collaborator? Do you prefer working with others to make something greater than any of you could have done independently?

Are you seeking an audience? What kind of audience? Is it more important for you to have a wide, "mainstream" appeal in your work, or a smaller, highly-engaged readership / listenership / viewership?

Are you seeking investment? What kind of investment? How much money / resources? From whom? What would you do with it if you had it?

Are you seeking to make a living at what you're doing? To become profitable? What's your break-even point? Where will that money come from?

What do you want to be doing in a year? In three years?

Very few of us seem to know the answers to these questions, which therefore prevents us from being able to take the steps to accomplish them. As a result, I see a lot of rudderlessness throughout the medium. I see disinterest, worry, cynicism and frustration. (I should know - I'm the generator of a significant amount of it.)

So, if that's the case, why don't we refocus for a moment and ask ourselves, honestly: What does success mean to you?

And, to kick-start the conversation, I'll list my POV. To me, success would be:

* Being out of debt
* Making a comfortable living
* Having health insurance
* Working as a writer / director / producer
* Having STBD viewed by 10,000+ people per episode
* Earning enough money from STBD to pay the cast
* Seeing STBD become one of the top shows in modern media
* Collaborating with creative people from multiple fields
* Helping shepherd other people's ideas to fruition
* Investing in / growing other small businesses
* Being able to donate time / resources to charities
* Being able to travel

Yours?

Why Punk Rock *IS* the Blueprint for Social Media

I saw the documentary Punk's Not Dead at the Three Rivers Film Festival this week and it got me thinking about why punk is the model we social media creators SHOULD be following.

Major Similarities Between Punk and Social Media

Punk was a medium created by the disenfranchised youth who sought to rebel against the corruption and groupthought inherent in "the system."

Punk had a low barrier of entry -- most "musicians" had zero training or experience (or, often, talent), but their passion and presence is what made them noteworthy.

The punk scene relied on word-of-mouth, grassroots marketing and DIY production values.

Punks regularly refer to themselves as a family, bonded by a philosophy and shared experiences.

Punk, like social media, is primarily the playground of white men.

Major Differences Between Punk and Social Media

Social media requires more expensive equipment to create than punk rock does.

Social media relies upon digital distribution.

Social media can reach anyone, anywhere, at any time -- if they have a computer.

Social media is looking down the barrel of the "money vs. passion" argument much earlier, and much more publicly, than punk ever did.

About the Film

Punk's Not Dead is an insider's look at how and why punk has survived for 30 years. Director Susan Dynner grew up in DC during the birth of the punk scene and has been involved with it ever since. The interviews she conducted for the film mirror the kind of "passionate desperation" found in today's social media movement, and offer a LOT of correlations for our potential success.

Among them:

* Henry Rollins makes several great points about the hand-to-mouth lifestyle led by even the "top" bands. Everyone looked up to Black Flag as the epitome of punk success, but in reality, they were sleeping on fans' couches and floors and living out of their tour bus -- which, he insists, could never stop moving.

"We were like sharks," Rollins says. "If we stopped moving, we wouldn't eat."

* Ian MacKaye built the Dischord label from the ground up, based primarily on the reality that the mainstream recording industry saw no value (or marketability) in the punk scene. But instead of scheming to find ways to make the MSM notice them, the punks said "fuck it" and created their own labels to sustain their momentum.

(Dynner was on-hand at the 3RFF showing and, during the post-film Q&A, told stories about hanging out at Dischord in the early years, where she - and everyone else on-hand - taught themselves how to hand-package the records and ship them out, one by one.)

* To the people *in* the punk scene, the musicians were both larger-than-life and completely accessible. Casual fans could wander backstage and have a beer with Bad Religion or Sham 69 almost by accident. That kind of "peer" mentality involved the fans of the music in ways that MSM could never hope to achieve.

* Throughout the whole punk lifeline, the scene has consistently resembled a "family" or artists who distrust MSM intervention or any attempts to control or repackage their original intentions.

On the other hand, the nature of speaking truth to power, as punks often did, was seen as the most *mainstream* concept in the world -- far moreso than the antiseptic POV of the MSM.

* The seminal punk bands were (and still are) happy to play a room of 5 fans or 50. Numbers weren't the driving force; the need to be heard, and to meet new people who shared their POV, was.

* Again, from Rollins: "We were (metaphorically) standing outside, screaming [pantomimes a loud voice], but to the record labels, it was like [pantomimes tiny, muted voice]."

Until, of course, the "cool kids" noticed, and suddenly punk mutated into something marketable... but *ONLY* after the punk pioneers carved out their own (relative) success.

* To this day, bands like Subhuman, The Adicts and The U. K. Subs tour incessantly, sleeping in fans' houses and selling their own merch from tables and vans -- 30 years after they first took the stage.

Despite the fact that bands who have come along well after the forefathers started the scene are now enjoying exponential success, while the legends who lit the fire in the first place are still living hand-to-mouth, they carry on because they still derive so much pleasure from the endeavor that they couldn't imagine NOT doing it.

All of Which Makes Me Wonder...

Will social media have this kind of longevity?

Why are some of us so eager to model our work after MSM -- or to garner their attention in the first place -- rather than refining our specific brand or shade of originality?

Are modern media creators so passionate to have their voices heard that they're willing to push through all obstacles, sleep on floors and "tour" endlessly, just to ensure they're heard by the audience that's seeking them out?

What think you?

5 Reasons Social Media Makes Me Want to Claw YOUR Eyes Out

Once again, I must qualify this post with a disclaimer: I create social media. At times, what I create is quite good, and I enjoy the process. I also enjoy the community aspect of social media.

However.

There's a LOT of fluff and very little substance to social media (so far), and that extends to the way in which we frame our arguments. So, if at all possible, I'd be extremely pleased if I never had to hear the following statements again:

1. "___ is a rockstar."

Sooner or later, everyone who creates new media and impresses someone ELSE who creates new media is knighted on that other person's blog or Twitter as being "a rockstar."

Do you wonder why the idea of celebrity is dead? It's because a guy with a microphone in his attic is referred to as "a rockstar" by the 7 people who listen to him.

If the Sandwich Artist at your local Subway doesn't know who "___" is, that person is not a rockstar.

2. "Many people around the world are supporting ___ by doing ___ today."

In today's case, Beth Kanter (who does great and noble work, mind you) filled in the blanks with: "Many people around the world are supporting the Monks in Burma by wearing red t-shirts today."

Sorry folks, but supporting "X" means calling your senator, or volunteering with a charity, or taking to the streets in impassioned protest. It's not finding a red t-shirt in your laundry pile and walking to 7-11 for a Sprite.

Can we stop confusing the appearance of activity with activity itself?

3. "Scoble___"or "i___"

As the biggest rockstar of them all, it seems blogger Robert Scoble is capable of having nouns, verbs and adjectives ascribed to him. Robert may (or may not) be a nice guy, deserving of all the fanfare alloted him by his acolytes.

But whether he is or not is actually beside the point, which is (once again): if the person laying pickles on my veggie sub doesn't know who he is, I sincerely doubt they'll know if they've been "Scobleized" or not...

Likewise, every time you arbitrarily add an "i" in front of a common noun or verb, an angel falls screaming from heaven.

4. "The power of community..."

Yes, community is important. Yes, there is power in community. And yes, it's safe to say that very little in life has ever been accomplished without the combined efforts of multiple, dedicated people.

But if we who create social media keep deluding ourselves into believing that this phantom notion of "community" will somehow "save the day," we're sorely mistaken.

Community is fun. Community is free. Community is empowering and rewarding and comforting and enviable and safe. But community alone does not validate the existence of something when contrasted to The Bigger Picture. Community is a by-product or a means toward something successful, not an end unto itself.

Doubt me? Ask your audience to pay your rent this month.

Every month.

5. "I don't need to monetize ___ to justify it."

Yes. Yes you do.

If you're blogging, and thousands of people are reading, but you're not profiting from that, you're wasting your time.

If you're creating a podcast that has a rabid following and zero income, you're wasting your time.

If the creation of your podcast / blog / website / widget / etc. costs you even one penny more than it brings in, you're wasting your time.

I don't want to hear about how the "power of community" is justification enough. I don't want to hear about how "monetizing is missing the point." And I certainly don't want to hear ANYONE say, "I'm just going to tread water a little longer because I KNOW success is right around the corner."

Success doesn't find you; you find it. There are exceptions to that rule, but basing your financial, mental and emotional wellbeing on becoming an exception to a rule is possibly the least intelligent course of action you could take -- especially if the rule you're flouting is "make money to survive."

Until the vast majority of us who create social media, and who comprise the larger "community" associated with it, can get beyond the puppy love stage of attraction to this medium and begin producing content that both matters AND generates revenue, the fishbowl is in no danger of being assimilated.

Nor are we in danger of actually becoming rockstars...

TwitterAir Meets Cambodia

When Michael Bailey decided to try a group donation experiment to buy me an air conditioner (thanks again, Mike, Jim, Amy and everyone else who contributed), he based that idea off a similar concept: Beth Kanter's Cambodia Blogging Summit, in which she was seeking $4,000 from her readers to help fund an event that will give Cambodian students, workers and media sources the training and encouragement necessary to join the global social media movement.

This morning, I noticed via Twitter that Beth needed another $57 to meet her $4,000 goal. So I chipped in $65 (unsure if PayPal would keep some or not -- it didn't), putting her over the top. Now the event can move forward as planned, and Michael Bailey and Beth Kanter can BOTH sleep easy, knowing that the power of interpersonal fundraising is alive and well in the social media community.

I know $65 isn't the same as a new air conditioner, but I think it might have an even bigger impact in the long run, don't you?

Next?

Fishbowls and Treehouses

Quick: who's your audience?

Most of us know who our TARGET audience is. We know who we're EXPECTING to interact with our product / service / message ("PSM"). We may even have demographics that PROVE whom our audience actually IS...

What we're forgetting is everyone ELSE who may stumble across our PSM by accident... or through the back door... or on referral... or any of a million ways we didn't plan for.

Does your PSM "work" for the people OUTSIDE the fishbowl?

Even The Pros Get It Wrong

To wit, the photo above. How many of you noticed that "Vanilla" is misspelled on the Glade packaging? Apparently, no one at Glade did, either...*

Odds are, no one at Glade lost their job over that gaffe. The people who already buy Glade vanilla spray know what the canister looks like. They don't even stop to read the label.

But what about potential new users? Will they be dubious of a product from an industry leader who can't even spell the product's name right?

Industrial Shorthand

At my old job, I edited industrial safety videos. Due to time constraints, these videos are pumped out quickly, which means it's vital to get the information across as CLEARLY and QUICKLY (in regard to production time) as possible.

While on a recent visit to the old office, I realized just how UNCLEAR some of the information in these videos would be to anyone without a working foreknowledge of the subject covered.

With a few extra graphics, more explanatory video clips and some clarification of the actual script -- all very small investments in actual production time -- that video would be FAR more valuable as a learning tool.

But why make those changes? After all, their target audience is already paying for them as-is.

A Ladder to the Treehouse

Very often, we as creators of social media -- whether we're writing text, making graphics, shooting video or communicating in general -- make presumptions about our audience.

If we're proactive, we assume they know at least as much about our subject as we do.

If we're cynical, we presume the general public doesn't CARE about our subject as much as we do.

And if we're ignorant, we presume our audience will stick with us even when we sell them short, take them for granted or deliver less than our best.

In all cases, we don't take the trouble to make our conversations accessible beyond the immediate, expected audience -- our personal fishbowl.

We might therefore blame the audience when they can't follow our line of thinking. We might accuse them of being lazy, or having short attention spans, or simply bad taste.

What we're losing sight of is that our audience, by and large, WANTS to like what we do. People who stumble across us WANT to be entertained, WANT to be informed, WANT to be pleasantly surprised. If all we do is reinforce THEIR presumption -- that we're of a treehouse mentality, uninterested in admitting them because they're "not as cool" -- then we certainly can't complain when they don't take an interest in what we do... or tell their friends... or subscribe to our RSS feeds... or pay our bills.

Granted, your existing audience may love what you do despite -- or even BECAUSE OF -- the fishbowl you've created. But for everyone who blindly follows your lead because they've become complacent in your fishbowl, there's another person who actually knows how to spell "vanilla" -- and they'll do business with someone else who bothers to do the same.

* UPDATE: As has been mentioned to me off-blog, "vainilla" is a Spanish spelling of "vanilla," and "spray" translates bilingually as well. Fair enough. But, by that rationale, if "spray" translates bilingually, why doesn't "vanilla"?... Someone find me a bilingual French canister that says "chocolat spray," please...

We Need a Hero

For months now, Chris Brogan has been referring to the new media creators as "super-heroes" and "rockstars."

Just yesterday, Christopher Penn was musing about WHY, exactly, super-heroes seem to be so popular these days.

And then, today, I see on Technorati that Captain America is dead.

How ironic.

Setting the Stage

As anyone who follows comic books knows, the death of a character is rarely permanent. Whether due to fan appeal or lack of ingenuity on the part of the writers, a character's "death" usually has a life cycle of a few months to a few years. Even long-dead characters in the Marvel universe, like Bucky (dead since the '40s) and Captain Marvel (dead since the '80s) have recently returned, unofficially implying that no character death is irreversible.

But Marvel is going out of its way to proclaim Steve Rogers, at least -- the man who actually wore the costume of Captain America -- to be dead.

Considering the way he's killed -- by a sniper bullet (or, according to some "eyewitness accounts," multiple bullets from multiple sources, signifying a Kennedy-esque conspiracy) -- that may well be the case. Steve Rogers, like Bruce Wayne, is a human being; it's a wonder that Captain America and Batman could have ever survived this long in a world of gods, robots and aliens.

Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Quesada -- himself already responsible for some of the more questionable choices in recent comics history, like the decision to have Peter Parker divulge his secret identity as Spider-Man to the general public, or insisting that perpetual cigar-chomper Nick Fury cease smoking because one of Quesada's own relatives died of lung cancer -- is all too happy to talk about what the fallout of Captain America's death will mean to the Marvel universe. He muses over what implications this action will have for Rogers's family and friends -- and enemies. He also implies that the costume will be passed on to someone else -- because, after all, Marvel won't stop publishing one of its flagship titles just because the title character is dead.

Shameless Shill or Social Commentary?

Because this event occurs during the Civil War storyline, in which Marvel's heroes took ideological sides over whether or not the United States government should force superhumans to be registered with the state -- clearly an allegory for all of the post-9/11 paranoia -- there may be more to the story than a mere attempt to sell more comic books.

Marvel seems to be attempting to make a larger statement about the role of idealists in the modern world. Steve Rogers is an icon of American optimism, the eternal boy scout at war with an evil world. As times have changed, and the world at large has become ever-more cynical, Captain America came to represent an ever-more anachronistic vision of what America itself could be... or once was.

In the Civil War storyline, Cap even surprises the government by refusing to cooperate with the registration act -- a kind of government policing of his civil liberties which he refuses to tolerate.

Choices like this, which continually pit Rogers against the powers-that-be, indicate that Marvel is well-aware of their political stance. By taking action to silence Steve Rogers, one can only presume they're attempting to make a broad social commentary: that a true idealist can no longer survive in this modern world of gods, robots and aliens.

And, hey, if the death of idealism sells a few more comic books...

What Does All of This Mean for New Media?

We're a generation of fairly cynical voices. It starts with the baby boomers and shakes on down to the 14 year-olds who are coming of age in a world of limitless communication.

No one believes in tradition.

No one believes in simplicity.

No one believes in anything that seems to good to be true.

New media is a seismic jolt to the established boundaries of communication, and yet, by and large, it's being created by people who, in their hearts, have great trouble believing in the power of positive change. As far as we can tell, we're all caught in the downward slide of entropy, and the best we can do is comment upon it.

Perhaps that's why the Spider-Man and X-Men films -- as well as Children of Men and The Matrix -- dark and cynical as they may be, are also so popular: the anti-hero, dragged kicking and screaming into a world of action (instead of blissful cynical passivity), somehow finds the courage to do what he or she, in his or her heart, knows must be done to set things right again.

In the end, these imperfect people shake off their fear, doubt and limitations, and they take the actions necessary to ensure that good triumphs over evil for another day.

In the end, the good guys win.

Is that mentality still a fantasy? I don't think so. I think it just depends on how much effort we can muster to take the actions we need to set things right again.

How do we go BEYOND our cynicism? How do we create a dialogue that charts the places we CAN go, rather than the places we CAN'T?

What do YOU want to say?

The Value of NOT Getting It

Over at BuzzMachine, Jeff Jarvis has a great post about the litmus test a new spearheading team at The Economist is using to determine if their "outside-the-box" ideas for the next wave of change in their company is actually working:

"They say they will know they have succeeded when they present their big idea and get someone saying, 'I don’t get this at all.'"

The Timestream of "Getting It"

When I attended Video on the Net in Boston back in September, I was one of a few podcasters -- or "disruptors," as Jeff Pulver referred to us -- swimming in a sea of suits. I was one of the people creating the exact same media that people driving Mercedes were trying to wrap their heads around: What IS this? Why does it MATTER? What does it MEAN to me?

And, of course, "How do you MONETIZE?"

Surprisingly (to me), that was 6 months ago. I'll be speaking at Video on the Net in San Jose in two weeks, and I can tell you right now that the number of suits in that room who "get it" is ten times greater than it was in September. The world has changed, and the concept of user-generated content is no longer the head-scratcher it was to the CNNs and NBCs of the world. (They still may not understand exactly how to utilize it, but they definitely know it's there.)

Suddenly, the bar for the future has been raised -- and it's not enough to simply be one step ahead.

Worst-Case Scenario

Let's say the folks at The Economist spend six months of time and money developing new ideas to take their company where no other company has gone before, media-wise.

They walk into the boardroom, surrounded by suits who've been paid just as much money to ensure that the status quo has been maintained for those six months. They whip out their laptops, Power Point presentations, Second Life walkthroughs, and whatever other materials they need to get their point across to their colleagues.

And, at the end of the presentation, everyone else in the room looks around at one another and they all say, contendedly, "Yes, this makes absolute sense. We get it!"

The presenters' shoulders will drop and their smiles will crack, and rightfully so.

They will have failed.

Twice Removed

Being an innovator means seeing into the future, understanding what's possible, and then leaving a trail of bread crumbs behind you so the mass of humanity can catch up. It does not mean taking that same mass of humanity by the hand and shepherding them to the next plateau; it means calling down from the top of the mountain while sending carrier pigeons to the sherpas.

If your next great idea is easily graspable by people who only now have a vague understanding of new media -- or of whatever your current emerging industry "trend" is -- your idea is not the next great idea: it's the next logical idea. No one gets a promotion for having the next logical idea. No one writes front page articles about the next logical idea. And venture capitalists surely don't scour the earth looking for the next great logical idea.

You need to disrupt the status quo. And the only way to do that is by being at least two steps ahead.

Let's presume the folks at The Economist walk into their meeting in six months and do the same dog-and-pony show as mentioned before. This time, baffled looks of bewilderment cross the faces of the suits in the audience. One man coughs violently, a psychosomatic reaction to vaguely perceived threats.

Finally, the chairman stands up and, red-faced at having wasted six months of resources on these clinically insane people, says, "I don't get this at all."

Then the presenters can hold their heads high and rest assured that the money and time was well spent.

Separation Anxiety

Innovation is not a smooth process. It's not painless, stress-free and placid. It usually involves massive amounts of blood, sweat, tears and caffeine.

Mostly, it requires two teams: the advance team that scouts ahead and starts to build the new infrastructure, and the security team that's sent back to escort the old infrastructure to its new home.

As an innovator, you want to be on the team that sees what no one else sees. You want to understand not what's next, but what happens after that.

And then you need to send word back to the village that it's safe to proceed.

The biggest danger an innovator faces is in not being innovative enough. If the ideas you report back to the village are met without conflict and argument, then clearly you haven't seen far enough beyond the horizon.

The Middle Manager Test

Whenever you feel you've developed a sufficiently innovative idea, ask yourself the following question: if I presented this idea to the average middle manager in a company in my field -- a person whose job it is to maintain the status quo and ensure that the existing (and therefore, by definition, obsolete) machine is running smoothly -- would he or she grasp it immediately and sign off on it as a good idea?

If the answer is yes, you're not an innovator. You're on the security team, and you've just discovered the proper wording to motivate the village to follow you into the clearing.

Now you need to figure out what's beyond the clearing. Think bigger.

As an innovator, you need to be able to see farther into the future than everyone else. You need to identify a potential disruption in your market, see the possibilities that can grow out from that tidal wave, and then discern which ripples in the pool can start the wave toward rising.

Anyone can see the ripples. You need to see the wave.

BootCamp PGH Is Coming!

The world of new media can be exciting but daunting, particularly if you've just discovered its potential.

If you'd like to start blogging but aren't sure where to begin...

If you'd like to try podcasting but don't know the first thing about audio or video...

If your business is interested in exploring new media to find new ways to reach customers...

If you felt overwhelmed by PodCamp Pittsburgh because the conversations were a bit over your head...

Then BootCamp PGH is for you!

WHAT: A free one-day event consisting of entry-level / "how-to" information on blogging, podcasting, social networking and other new media (or, if you prefer, eMedia)

WHEN: Saturday, April 21 from 9 AM - 4 PM

WHERE: The Art Institute of Pittsburgh, 420 Boulevard of the Allies, Pittsburgh, PA 15219

WHO: Experienced bloggers, podcasters and new media creators, communications and PR people... and you!

WHY: To help all attendees understand the "bare basics" of new media, from concept to creation.

Oh, and BOOTCAMP PGH IS FREE TO ATTEND!

For more information, and to register, please visit the BootCamp PGH wiki. As the co-organizer of the event, I'll be sure to update key points leading up to the event here as well.