Wikinomics took all of these concepts, tied them up in a nice bow, and demonstrated how these technologies are leading to a world that fosters mass collaboration. Virtual worlds, as described by Julian Dibbell in Play Money, have the potential of taking mass collaboration to a whole new level, one that could possibly have a viable and sustainable economy that maybe one day is looked at as a good investment option.    

This week’s reading, Play Money, looks at how gamers are making money in virtual worlds such as Ultima Online and Second Life.  The book is narrated by Julian Dibbell and describes in detail how he moved from freelance writer to viral loot broker.  Not being much of a gamer, I had a hard time fathoming how someone sets out to make money buying and selling fake goods. Additionally, I was floored that someone would even think of creating an offshore sweatshop employing people as professional gamers.  

I was intrigued at how these gamers got so into the virtual world.  Buying, selling and stealing to get whatever they needed. The world played much like the real word.  People wanted to do whatever they could to be the best and have the best.  This is demonstrated when Dibbell talks about the status symbols of the different houses saying “I remembered John Dugger looking at the biggest houses in the game, the towers and castles, and wondering about the people who lived in them—who are they? How do they live? How do they get their money?,” ( p. 69).  I also found it interesting how they took it upon themselves to start selling fake money for real money.  But when you think about it is the money fake after all if you are buying something with it maybe it is real. 

Dibbell takes his readers through a first hand account of what it is like to be living in two worlds at the same time.  In reality Dibbell is a writer trying a little experiment, while his alter ego is looking to become a millionaire selling items that in reality do not exist.  I found myself glued to certain chapters of the book almost believing the world he played in was real.  

In a time when more and more people are communicating via social networking sites and through text messages I wonder if there will come a day when virtual worlds are where and how we communicate.  Take for instance a person who works at home.  He or she could participate in meet-ups via a virtual world, really taking part in the world of mass collaboration as described in Wikinomics.  Companies can create virtual stores with virtual sales associates that can answer questions in real time, people can invest there savings in virtual economies with the expectation of making money.  

I wonder what economic implications virtual worlds will have on the real economy. Will the future be one of businesses operating in both the real world and Second Life, a virtual world created by those who live there?  Will financial analysts be reporting on how the Linden dollar, Second Life’s currency, is doing in comparison to the U.S. dollar?  The thought is somewhat weird but is it that off from reality?  I guess only time will tell.  In the meantime, a lot can be learned from those paying online games.  While the idea of being walled up in a small room doing nothing but playing on a computer may seem strange to some these gamers, with their business instincts, could one day be the next Donald Trumps of the world.

The World of Mass Collaboration 

According to Wikinomics’ authors Tapscott and Williams, there are four principals to Wikinomics: openness, peering, sharing, and acting globally (p. 215).  These principals contribute to innovation through an open and collaborative environment. 

 Tapscott and Williams, in Chapter 6 of Wikinomics, demonstrate how information sharing has been around since the time of the Alexandrian Greeks who shared knowledge by storing works of literature in a centralized location. They go on to explain how scientists today, much like the Alexandrian Greeks, are sharing information not by storing documents in a building but by digitally collaborating.  This open collaboration according to Tapscott and Williams, will “forever change the way scientists publish, manage data, and collaborate across institutional boundaries,” (p.157).  In addition to creating scientific wonders, collaboration also lends itself to profitability.  By collaborating with other corporations or outside venders, companies can significantly increase their profits.  

The concept of profit making through global collaboration is explored by Tapscott and Williams in chapter 7. I found this chapter fascinating especially the information on Amazon.com. Amazon has a revenue-sharing business model, which allows people to become co-developers of the Amazon platform. The way Tapscott and Williams describe the Amazon business model, made me think of the Google business model as described by John Battelle in The Search.  Basically I am wondering; is Amazon the Google of the retail world? Or will Amazon’s willingness to be so open eventually hurt them in the end? In my opinion, Amazon’s acceptance of applications created by numerous developers will only help them.  The way links transform a static Web site into a virtual conversation or blog is the way these applications transform Amazon into a global marketplace.  Collaboration is at the heart of Amazon’s success. 

The final chapters of Wikinomics, reinforces the importance and highlights numerous successes of collaboration.  From the manufacturing plants of BMW and Boeing, who collaborate with other companies, to the employees of Best Buy’s Geek Squad who use Wikis and other technologies to collaborate in the workplace; collaboration continuously fosters innovation and success.  Additionally, collaboration has allowed the workplace to transform from being one of having a centralized corporate headquarters to one of employees working from home and other locations using collaboration tools, such as wikis, as a means of communication.  The true future of the workplace is yet to be seen.  Will offices exist or will the majority of employees work from home and if so, will this foster innovation or will creativeness be stifled because employees are isolated with only computerized interaction?  Additionally, as companies become more open will their competitive edge diminish, eventually leading to a decrease in profits due to the openness of their product?  

While Wikinomics demonstrates how Web 2.0 has turned our society into one without geographic limitations, it also shows the world is really not as big as one may have thought.  The world is actually one of many small groups looking for particular niche goods, which the Internet has now made available.  This concept is addressed by Chris Anderson in The Long Tail.

Moving From Selling Many Hits to Targeting Niche Markets 

Throughout the semester we have moved from studying the broad history of communication and technology to examining finite details of communicating and how technology has allowed us increased choices.  In the Long Tail, Anderson describes how many small purchases can be more lucrative than selling millions of one item. Web sites such as Netflix, Amazon and iTunes are able to carry a lot more inventory attracting small niche markets, where as their retail counterparts don’t have the space to carry anything other than what they know will sell to the masses. Therefore, these online retailers are able to tap into a market that traditional retailers can not afford to target, simply because their brick and mortar spaces drives up their cost of doing business and provides limitations as to how much inventory can be stored; where as online retailers are able to carry a lot more with lower overhead costs and storage is generally not an issue.   

The concept of the Long Tail provides a visualization of how the Web has created a marketplace for those seeking specialized goods.  From personalized items and old songs, to rare books, users are given many more choices and they are making these choices.  I was amazed by Anderson’s statistic of how all of Rhapsody’s songs are streamed at least once a month. Additionally, the fastest-growing part of businesses, such as Rhapsody and Amazon, “is sales of products that aren’t available in traditional retail stores,” (p. 24).  While, online retailers have been the leaders in targeting niche markets traditional retailers are starting to create virtual Web spaces in addition to their retail stores.  Many of these sites offer sales not available in the stores.  Examples of companies that have created online stores are Barns and Noble and Borders.   The Long Tail is not going away. As the Web becomes larger more niche markets are created.   

Search provides us with a means to find what we want, and online retailers and auction Web sites provide us with the goods we seek.  I wonder if in the future if stores will eventually move the majority of their business to the Web.  Also, will small niche businesses start opening stores targeting those who seek their products?  I think for certain goods such as books, movies and music, the Web is going to remain the leader in providing unique goods but for items such as apparel and furniture, a store will remain the sales leader because those are the types of items people want to see and touch before buying.   

The need and want for customization is not going away.  From creating our donuts at the local Fractured Prune to designing T shirts and shoes consumers are demanding products that are different from what the masses have.  Personalization makes customers happy and these niche markets allow the Long Tail to continually grow.

Peer Production

An important concept threaded throughout the first half of Wikinomics is that of peer production.  According to Tapscott and Williams, peer production or peering, as they sometimes refer to it as, is “what happens when masses of people and firms collaborate openly to drive innovation and growth in their industries,” (p. 11). Examples of sites where peers contribute are Wikipedia, Myspace, Facebook, Flicker, and the numerous blogs out there on the Web.  Additionally, Open Source software is also created through peer production. 

According to Tapscott and Williams, peer production is done through online collaboration or in the case of those highlighted in Smart Mobs, mobile collaboration. These peer production communities, many of which consist of volunteers, work together to create something of value. 

Tapscott and Williams in chapter 1, highlights how businesses such as Proctor and Gamble, use peer production and open source methodology in their research and development process.  Through the InnoCentive network, Proctor and Gamble challenges scientists from around the world help the company to drive innovation. Some may say this idea of engaging people from outside the workforce to help develop future products is innovative in itself, but others may view it as a potential hazard to the scientific profession… after all, can scientists live off of incentives alone?  I wonder if more companies move to this model will scientific jobs start to decline and as a result will scientists revolt the way the music industry did when companies like Napster caused their profits to dwindle.  Will scientists let big business get richer by outsourcing work to communities of volunteers or low cost workers?  Or will scientists prefer working in Ideagoras, or global marketplaces as Tapscott and Williams describe them in chapter 4, where they can participate in multiple science programs and not be tied to one employer.  In a sense it is freelancing for scientists.

Collaborating…Here, There, and Everywhere

Wikinomics in chapter 2 explains how Web 2.0 technology creates a worldwide “coffeehouse” where people can share, obtain and organize information.  Using tools such as tagging and RSS (really simple syndication), users can both organize and collect information that is important to them.  I really liked how Tapscott and Williams likened RSS to TiVo saying “RSS turns the Web into something like TiVo—a flowing stream of entertainment and news choices that individual users have asked for, perhaps stripped of commercial messages,” (p. 40). When I read this I instantly thought of Smart Mobs.

Howard Rheingold in chapter 7 of Smart Mobs, talks about a service called Upoc.  Upoc allows users, regardless of cell service provider, to join social networking communities that communicate using text messaging.  Members join the groups they want to communicate with; if you think about this it is sort of RSS for your phone, after all the member is receiving a flowing stream of information he or she selected.  I still wonder if text messaging communities will skyrocket the way Web social networking and blogs did in the United States.  As a user, I am still skeptical of communicating via text message to anyone other than my trusted network of friends.  My skepticism comes from reading news stories that address text spam and the cost of receiving numerous text messages.  In my opinion, I think text costs will have to come down, before Americans chose mobile phones over personal commuters as their primary way to socially communicate.

In addition to collaborating among social networks, Rheingold addresses in both chapters 7 and 8 this idea of citizen telejournalists.  These are everyday people, who through the help of mobile phones and wearable computers are able to capture and publish news instantly.  I got chills when I first read this and instantly thought of my right to privacy and journalist ethics.  If a journalist, no matter where he or she is, is constantly recording and publishing how are we as a public protected?  After all, an image could be interpreted wrongly by the viewer and in an instant a person’s reputation is tarnished forever.  Additionally, when I was an undergrad I was taught in my journalism class the importance of having multiple sources; I am somewhat perplexed about how in the environment described by Rheingold there are creditable sources.  I also wonder if we move to this type of journalism if the concept of hard factual news will be something of the past and if our newscasts will be more like a reality show with commentary than reliable news.

Collaboration is everywhere from the Ideagoras as described by Tapscott and Williams in chapter 4 to the virtual world of Second life, which they address in Chapter 5.  These communities foster conversation and innovation. Take for instance Second Life, some may view this as an online fantasy game where users can create parallel lives that are either like the ones they have or build a life that is far from the ones they live in reality.  According to Tapscott and Williams, there are a select group of Second Life participants who make a decent amount of money in this online marketplace. Second Life is really an open source game where users create everything from stores, to homes, to the cloths they wear.  It really is quite fascinating.

What will the Future Hold?

From Second Life and home grown news to computers physically becoming a part of us, as described in the final chapter of Smart Mobs, the possibilities are endless.  I am having a really hard time getting my arms around what the future will look like.  I wonder if when the radio was developed if our grandparents and great-grandparents were as  nervous about TV as I am about surveillance and cyborg and nanobots.  I have to say reading Smart Mobs was like reading a really scary sci-fi novel except the possibility of this book becoming a reality is hitting too close to home for comfort. 

As for Second Life, blogs, and social networking I think, when not used for evil, they are great.  Given that NetGen is starting to become an intergral part of the workplace think about the posiabilites.  Marketers can start attending virtual tradeshows in Second Life, Global companies can cut costs by particpating in online collaboriation rather than face-to-face meettings…the possiabilites are really exciting.  While most people will use these innovations for good, there are always a few that are not so nice.  Take for instance an MSNBC article that talks about Web radicalization.  The article addresses how terrorist groups use the Web to create virtual communities that promote terrorism.  The article also talks about Internet censorship.  I leave you with this thought: If governments feel threatened by people using the Web as a way to promote terrorism and other criminal acts should the Web be censored and if so, will honest business people and those seeking social interaction be punished by not being able to use the technology to its fullest potential?    

To Text or Talk

In chapter one Rheingold looks at how different cultures use text messaging as a means to communicate in social networks.  In these communities people play games, develop friendships and even date via text message.  I do use my blackberry to exchange e-mails and my cell phone to send text messages to my friends and family, but using my cell phone as a tracking device or texting as a primary communication method is foreign to me. 

According to Rheingold, this trend has not taken off in America primarily because of the cost associated with text messaging. Rheingold talks about a price model that he says “rules out early adopters,” (p. 22).  I find it interesting that in Europe cell phone users can send messages to anyone regardless of their cell phone company.  In the U.S., depending on the provider, there is sometimes a charge to send to other providers, although, in  recent years, cell phone providers have been offering plans which have unlimited texting for a set rate. Even with the lower costs I have not witnessed texting in the way described by Rheingold.  Maybe this is because I am not an avid gamer, or the fact that I use my computer for social networking instead of my cell phone.  Since Rheingold’s book was written in 2002 and may not have the most up to date information, I decided to see what I can find using Google and apparently cell phone social marketing is taking off here; much to my surprise.

According to an Oct. 22 San Francisco Chronicle article, Cross MySpace, cell phones – mobile social networking taking off, people are using their cell phones to post to mobile social networking sites such as Radar.  Additionally, MySpace, Facebook and Google are all getting into mobile social networking.  This new development leads me to wonder if in a few years we will be using the Web as a social networking device or will cell phones and PDAs be our primary communication tool.

Peer-To-Peer… A Different Kind of Search

In chapter three Rheingold talked about peer-to-peer file sharing.  Reading this chapter brought me back to days of Napster, my first experience with file sharing.  According to Rheingold, Napster was the “killer app” of file sharing, meaning it was the application that brought peer-to-peer technology mainstream. 

Peer-to-Peer uses search as a way to find and share files. This search does not craw the Internet, but it craws shared files of other members in the file sharing community.  The most popular of these sites during my time in college was Napster; but according to Rheingold, Napster was not the first. Rheingold gave numerous examples of peer-to-peer sites and projects including SETI@home where users search for messages from Aliens.  Rheingold reinforces how these sites would not work if it was not for the community that uses and shares within the site.  While social networking was not a buzz word at the time, Napster, in essence was a social networking site. People formed a trusted relationship with the site and its users allowing others to download files from their personal computer and vice versa.

What I always found interesting about Napster was how when it became a paid service members stopped using the site.  I wonder why that is. Could it be because people were mad that they had to pay for what was once free?  Did they feel like Napster’s founder sold out to corporate America?  Another question I have is why we are willing to pay for iTunes but not Napster; is it because iTunes was always a paid service?  Maybe we prefer iTunes because our peer’s use the site and it is socially acceptable to pay for music on iTunes where as it was not on Napster.  I think this is a question that may never really be answered.  

The world of Open Source

In The Cathedral and the Bazaar Eric Raymond looks at the benefits of Open Source technology. He examines the technology from two different angels the cathedrals which he describes as being “carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation, with no beta to be released before its time,” or the bazaar, a word he used to describe Linux open source technology. Linux is an operating system which anyone can work on.

A common theme in both The Cathedral and the Bazaar and Smart Mobs is the need for users.  These users, whether it is a member of a text messaging community or an open source contributor, are an integral part of making these systems work.  Open Source is really just another example of social networking.  In order to have a successful open source project there needs to be a network of developers willing to work on the project.

 When reading The Cathedral and the Bazaar I kept thinking about the possible risks associated with developing something in an Open Source environment such as can someone sabotage your project? I am not really sure that I know the answer to that since I am just learning about Open Source.  My guess is that these developers are passionate about what they are working on and therefore become trusted friends in a network of virtual colleagues. 

Networks of Many

All of the readings thus far share a common theme of expressing the importance of online interaction.  Dan Gillmor’s book, We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, For the People, gave a history of the evolution of media and looked at how the new media of today is influencing journalism. Gillmor, talks about the importance of citizen journalism and blogging.  As we learned from both Gillmor and Robert Scoble and Shel Israel, an important part of blogging and what makes blogs different from static Web sites is the blogs ability to create conversation by linking to other Web content.  Rheingold takes the idea of interaction one step further by showing how most technologies today relay on social networks.  From texting to virtual reality, these interactive tools would not be successful if there was not many-to-many, or at least one-to-one participation. After reading Smart Mobs I am left thinking what is next… will computers start thinking for me?  I also wonder how virtual reality and Web sites like Second Life are going to impact the way we live in the real world.  Will there be a time when the lines between the real world and the virtual world are so blurred that they will almost appear to be one in the same?  I guess only time will tell.

To Google or not to Google a question many may be asking after reading chapter eight of The Search.  Battelle addresses how Google, while being a lifesaver when it comes to meeting our search needs, also tracks our every move creating a massive database of everything we search.  A database, which if called upon by the government can be made available at the drop of a hat thanks to the Patriot Act.  On page 203 Battelle criticizes Google’s privacy policy, which allows Google to share clicksteam information with law enforcement if needed.  Battelle criticizes their policy basically saying it contradicts their “don’t be evil” motto because of the language used which allows Google to make the decision to share user’s search information instead of being forced to by law enforcement.  He feels Google will do what is best for Google.  I do not agree with Battelle I don’t think that Google sharing information with the government makes them evil.  If users are not doing something wrong then why should they care who Google shares their information with.  If Google is able to provide law enforcement with information that could convict a criminal and chose not to, based on principle wouldn’t that be evil?

Battelle attacks Google’s “don’t be evil” motto again when talking about Google’s relationship with China. Google chose to give into Chinese censorship rules by censoring its news site.  According to Battelle, “by working with China to omit certain sites, Google had seemingly become an accessory to evil,” (p. 206).   I do not agree with him.  By following Chinese laws Google is able to provide the best search service possible within China to the Chinese people.  If Google had not followed the Chinese laws Google would have been banned which would have been a loose loose for both China and Google.  I feel like Battelle takes Google’s “don’t be evil” motto to extremes. After all Google, first and foremost, is a business and the goal of a business is provide the best service possible to its customers and to generate profit for the company’s shareholders.

 The Future and Economy of Search 

Google, in the short time it has been around, has shot up to become the leader in search.  The word Google is not only the name of a company but is used by many as an adjective to describe search.  In the first half of his book Battelle provides a brief history of search, which surprisingly was not invented by Google.  AltaVista was a popular search engine back in the early days of search and for many reading this AltaVista probably is not the first site you think of when someone mentions search. With that being said, what does the future hold for Google…will Google always be the leader in search?

In Chapter 11 Battelle touches on what the future of search could look like.  According to Battelle, search will be everywhere from phones to cars to our stereos.  Anything digital will have the ability to search. So does that mean; Google will have its hand in everything digital?  Will Google be the largest company ever, providing search capability to all things digital?  Or will another company come in and create a better search capability that is more in sync with the search needs of non-PC based machines.  Could Google be dethroned and only thought of as the leader of early search?

In addition to the future of search Battelle also looks at the financial impact of search, not only on companies such as Google and Yahoo, but also on the business owner; especially small Internet-based companies.  Battelle really examines the impact the Google search engine has on how these companies rank based on certain words entered by the user. Battelle provides examples of how simple changes in the Google search engine can ruin a business that relied on shoppers finding their site via Google.  One such owner who had a business that sold shoes for people with large feet got really upset when he had to buy adwords because he was no longer in the top Google results.  I can understand why the owner would get upset after all being in the organic results provides a much better chance of receiving clicks than paid advertisements.  As a user, I trust organic results over paid advertisements any day.  Google on the other hand was only updating its system to protect against people who were wrongly using search engine optimization to get to the top of Google’s list. 

I wonder with companies like Google getting involved with so many things from search to advertising if the concept of organic search will be gone from future search environments.  If Google takes over the search world, providing a perfect search experience where what I want is waiting for me without me really even having to ask Google, will Google also be targeting me with unwanted advertisements?  How will I know what is a legitimate search result or an advertisement?  Will the lines be as clear in the new search world; I am not so sure.  I think the more personalized the Web becomes the creative advertisers will be. I also think we will be hit with more advertisements then ever before.   

 Connecting the dots 

As I stated in my post last week, search is what connects everything together; essentially the backbone of the Internet.  Gillmor, through his explanations of blogs and their implications on journalism and the current state of the media, along with Scoble and Israel and their views on why businesses should blog, demonstrated the media world we live in.  What other time in history have everyday people been able to question large media outlets, such as the New York Times, on why they have not embraced a new technology?  What other time in history have we been able to participate in conversations about everything from politics to the implications of new technologies?  Search provides us with the ability to find these conversations, media outlets and whatever else we desire.  Without search would blogs really work?  How would we be able to find these conversations if we could not search for them?  Without search the Internet would not be what it is today.  It will be interesting to see if Google remains on top or if some other young Stanford grad develops a new innovative search tool that is beyond our wildest dreams. 

John Battelle in his book, The Search, examines how the Internet search engine was developed, created its own way of doing business, and transformed the way we search for information. It is hard to really think of a time when the Internet was not a dominating information force, but it was not that long ago that we used Encyclopedia Britannica instead of Wikipedia and we went to libraries to conduct research instead of logging onto the net. 

The search box is something I take for granted; all I need to do is type www.google.com or www.Yahoo.com, type a few keys words and wala everything I ever wanted to know magically appears.  It is heaven.  I truly wonder how people worked before the Internet.  But as I learned from Battelle, that magic does not instantly happen.  There has to be three key elements in place to have a successful search:

A Crawler– which “ resides on its own server sending out requests to Internet pages, the requests brings back Web pages, which the crawler hands off to the index,” (p. 20).

The index – The results collected by the crawler. “When the index is more complete the search results pages (SERPs) that are returned for a particular query have a greater chance of being relevant” (p. 20).

System or query processor – “The interface and related software that connects a   user’s queries to the index. It also manages the questions of relevance and ranking,” (p. 20)

These three things together are what help to create a successful search.

According to Battelle, Google, while being innovative, did not solely invent the search engine, search engines had been around for years but Google was unique in how it conducted its search.  Battelle goes into some detail about how the different search engines work etc… but for layman’s sake and the fact I do not really understand computer science lets just say while other search engines focused on the key words Google ranked sites based on links.  Does this sound familiar, well it should because, as we learned from Gillmor and Scoble and Israel, links are what make a blog an interactive conversation tool and helps drive prominence on the Google search engine.  Another distinguishing Google trait is the company focuses on search where as other companies, such as Yahoo, are more portal based sites with search capability.

In addition to providing over 100 pages on the history of search, Battelle touches on an interesting concept — the database of intentions.  According to Battelle, the database of intentions is “the aggregate results of every search ever entered, every result list ever tendered, and every path taken as a result,” (p. 6). Battelle devotes a whole chapter to this idea that the Google search engine is able to show what is popular in today’s culture and what searchers are looking for as far as information. Battelle had this realization while looking at the first issue of Zeitgeist (now called Hot Trends,), a document published by Google that shows the most popular search terms for a given period of time.  The Zeitgeist, according to Battelle, “provides a fascinating summary of what our culture is looking for or finds interesting, and, conversely, what was once popular that is losing cultural momentum,” (p. 2).  In essence the Zeitgeist provides us with a snapshot of what is important to us now, or a snapshot of the current update to the world’s culture version of the database of intentions.

Google gives an interesting look at what is important to us and what questions we seek answers to. While I agree that Google provides an intriguing look at what some may view as important information, I do not think it provides a complete look into everything everyone wants to know or why they want to know it. Some people might be searching because they have nothing better to do and therefore have no real want or need for the information they are seeking.  Additionally, others may not use the Google search engine they may use another tool for their search needs.  Also, who is to say that Google searchers are a representative sample of the population as a whole? I think Battelle gives Google a little too much credit; he presents Google as if they are the main tracking device of pop culture.

After reading the history of search I have come to the conclusion that search really is the backbone of the Internet. It is how we navigate though the Web to find relevant information. Battelle makes an interesting observation when he talks about the evolution of search and how it has become something we expect.  It is remarkable to think about how the search function has evolved, almost every Web site I can think of has a search capability, I take for granted that I can easily and quickly get to the information I need by simply doing a key word search.  But what if search had not taken off the way it did, would we be only using the Internet for e-mail?  Would everyone be as plugged into the online world?  Is search really the driving force providing us with the information we want from the World Wide Web?

Shortly I will start to read the second half of The Search.  My hope is that the second half of the book focuses less on history and more on the Google business model and culture. In the first half of the book Battelle touches on the Google culture along with their, business model or lack there of one.  One aspect of Google I find interesting is their “Don’t be Evil” attitude.  In my opinion, Google is a friendly brand one everyone seems to love, how I could I ever think of Google as being evil.  With that being said, since Google seems to be the search king, at least for now, could they face the same fate as Microsoft being viewed as not playing well with others, trying to take over the world or will their fun attitude and positive PR strategy help Google stay on top and remain everyone’s friend? 

 According to Scoble and Israel, unless you are a bad person or work for a company dealing with sensitive information, such as a defense contractor, you should allow blogging. Scoble and Israel put blogs up on a communication pedestal making it appear that blogs are the number one way of communicating with customers.  I disagree with this.  While I think blogs are an important communications tool, they are just that a tool of many.  I have issues with the way Scoble and Israel present blogging.   

The first issue I have is how the authors praise Microsoft for their blogging efforts but criticizes Google because for their lack of linking to outside sources (p. 166).  Do Microsoft’s blogs engage customers or contribute to increased sales more than Google’s blog because of their outside links?  Can the Microsoft blogs really be compared to Google given most of them are unofficial employee blogs? 

A second issue I have is that Scoble and Israel mostly use tech companies as reinforcing examples of successful employee blogging.  Companies such as Microsoft, Intel and Sun Microsystems should allow employees to blog, after all their product is technology driven and therefore, they would have technology savvy customers wanting to engage in virtual conversations about the latest and greatest the company has to offer. Additionally, their leaders have an understanding of the technology allowing them do it right and eliminating the fear, uncertainty and doubt or FUD (p. 140) that can often surround new technologies or corporate procedures.  

Additionally, Scoble and Israel fail to address the importance of identifying the target audience before considering blogging. Depending on the company, communicating through the Web may not be the best solution. In my opinion, a company needs to look at its target audience before considering a jump into the blogosphere.  A company whose primary target audience is people over the age of 70 may not want to blog considering that a 2006 Pew Internet and American Life Project study looking at online activity by generations found that “only 26 percent of Americans age 70-75 and 17 percent of Americans age 76 or older go online.” Where as a company targeting customers in their twenties would want to consider multiple types of Web communications since the same study found that 84 percent of Americans ages 18-28 go online.  A company needs to research their primary target audience before taking on such a time commitment, because as we have learned throughout the semester, having an inactive blog could be considered as bad as not blogging at all.

I also have an issue with the gray line drawn by the authors on the subject of allowing employee blogs.  Scoble and Israel say that companies should have a liberal policy that allows employees to talk openly about a company and its product so long as the employee does not publish sensitive information, such as trade secrets.  What is not always clear, unless you read closely, is that many of these blogs are not official.  Take Microsoft for example, the only official blog the company has is Channel 9 yet they have numerous employees blogging about their product creating the open and honest conversation Scoble and Israel say most companies should be engaging in.  If everyone should be open and honest then why not make employee blogs official blogs? Wouldn’t an official open and honest employee blog have more creditability than an open and honest non-official employee blog?   I think so. Scoble and Israel should add “make employee blogs official” to their list of how to blog right.  

 PR and the Digital World 

The digital world has open many doors for communicators. Engaging the blogosphere is more than having CEOs blog and encouraging employee blogging; it is being an active participant in the virtual conversations occurring around the business’ interests.  While maintaining blogs may not be the best strategy for all companies, being aware of the blogosphere and the conversations about your company is important for all. This is demonstrated by Scoble and Israel through their example of Kryptonite bike locks. 

According to Scoble and Israel, the story of how to pick a Kryptonite bike lock with a Bic pen spread through the blogosphere like wild fire and it took the company over 10 days to respond in the traditional matter (p. 159).  Had Kryptonite engaged the blogosphere would the outcome have been different or would the end result been the same, Kryptonite exchanging thousands of locks.  Would the only difference for Kryptonite be that their story is an example of what to do instead of what not to do?  I am not sure if we will ever know.  One possible outcome is if Kryptonite had engaged the online world earlier they may have been able to change the conversation from Kryptonite does not care to Kryptonite cares about their customers and admits error, one they are going to fix. Additionally, the negative conversation may not have gone on for as long as it did.

A lesson learned through the Kryptonite crisis is that Public Relations professionals should monitor, contribute to valuable conversations, and engage bloggers if the situation is right.  Bloggers should be considered part media mix, after all this is a technology that is not going away, Web.20 and the future Web 3.0 are going to continue to affect the way we do business, especially as communicators.

While blogs may not be a tool you want to use in everyday business creating a blog is something everyone should consider when developing a crisis communication plan.  Blogs allow companies to engage in the conversation and disseminate information quickly.  Additionally, depending on the crisis, companies can link to valuable resources and news stories addressing the incident. This can be very helpful when trying to dispel rumors and untruths.  Although, in my opinion, blogs should not be the only tool, TV and radio will more than likely reach a larger audience. Additionally, in a situation where not much information can be released a company may want to wait on posting the blog since the company would not have much to add to the conversation other than no comment at this time.  

The future of blogging is not 100 percent clear but the possibilities are endless.  Blogs could potentially outnumber static Web sites. Public Relations professionals may start to create interactive press release blogs instead of distributing them through wire services.  Through links, comments, and insightful posts the Internet could become corporate American’s most valuable communication vehicle.     

 Starting a Conversation

Scoble and Israel show how by allowing and encouraging blogging companies are able to open a dialog with their customers.  Using the example of Microsoft, Scoble and Israel demonstrate how a company, which is viewed by some as being the root of all evil, uses  blogs to create a dialog with both supporters and critics.  Additionally, employees in the company have been continually blogging. Microsoft’s blogs include everything from traditional blogs to Channel 9, the company’s video and according to Scoble and Israel, only official blog.  While legal may have been nervous about the blogs at first so far the company has gone without a blogging policy in place. 

In addition to Microsoft’s blogging adventures, there have been numerous other companies, both large and small, that have used blogs as a way to engage customers and start conversations.  One such blog that I found interesting is the story of the Savile Row tailor Thomas Mahon.  According to Scoble and Israel, Mahon created his blog, English Cut, not as a sales tactic but as a way to talk about his interest and love for being a tailor.  He explained the art and time it takes to create such an expensive suite.  In turn his blogging dramatically increased his business. People began to know and trust him through reading his entries.  Blogging gave him global visibility at a fraction of what regular advertising would cost.

Another company I found interesting is Stoneyfield Farm.  What I found interesting about this company is how they really understood their audiences.  Instead of creating a one size fits all blog the company created five different ones targeting specific niche markets.  I think this is a really interesting tactic because it allows the company to develop personal relationships and have targeted conversations with the different populations who consume their product.

Collaboration tool

In addition to being a great way to engage customers, blogs can also be used as collaboration tool.  In chapter five Scoble and Israel discuss the collaboration capabilities blogs bring to the table. Blogs are often used in the corporate word as an internal communication tool for both executives to communicate and employees to collaborate.  According to Scoble and Israel, “private collaboration makes up a significant portion of business blogging,” (p. 61).  I know within my own company we have blogs which are used as way for teams to share knowledge.  Team members post everything from meeting notes to proposing questions.  They provide an outlet where teams can work together regardless of geographic location.  Additionally, the blogs provide a central repository for storing information.

Elements of a Successful Blog

What I took from the first half Naked Conversations is that no matter what type of blog a company is creating there are several elements that need to be present in order for a blog to be successful.  These elements include but are not limited to: maintaining a central focus, write about your passions, keep your audience in mind when writing, create posts that are interesting and relevant to your target audience, and be genuine. 

Blogs, according Gillmor and Scoble and Israel, are meant to be a conversational tool and readers want to be engaged.  Readers do not want to be given a sales pitch; they want to know why you love your product or why you love your job.  They want to be engaged and enter into a trusted network or relationship with the writer.  Additionally, a blogger needs to be open to criticism.  Not everyone is going to like the blogger or his or her company at all times and the blogger needs know how to respond when appropriate. Blogging is essentially a give and take relationship between the blogger and his or her readers therefore, before starting to blog companies, in my opinion, should be prepared with how they are going to address the tough questions by being open and honest.  In order for a blog to be a successful part of the marketing mix the blogger needs to develop a following of readers who trust and want to share his or her blog with their friends.

There are many unanswered questions when looking at the future of business blogging questions such as: if blogging becomes the corporate norm will readers trust the blogs or will they view them as another public relations spin tactic?  Will blogs eventually replace newsletters and other customer relations collateral? Does blogging help to maintain a company’s reputation and brand? It will be interesting to see what the future holds for this many-to-many communication tool.

The first part of this week’s reading expanded upon last week’s reading by looking at blogs and their influence on journalism.  Gillmor examines blogs and how they provide an outlet for the everyday person to share thoughts and ideas on any given subject.  Additionally, Gillmor looks at how these non-traditional journalists or citizen journalists report on important issues that are sometimes missed in the mainstream press. The ending of New York Times Select is, in my opinion, a good current example this. 

Bloggers of the world have done a good job in creating a conversation on the Times Select topic while I saw little reporting on it in the mainstream press. Bloggers such as Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0, Jay Rosen of The Huffington Post and Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine  wrote interesting stories that delved into the topic of paying for online content and received some thought provoking feedback.  Mathew Ingram left a comment on Scott Karp’s linking to Mathew’s blog where he wrote his view of Times Select and asked “will the Wall Street Journal be next?” An interesting question…leads one to think about the future of online content and will it remain free of charge or will we move to subscription based services?    

Another topic I found of particular interest discussed how bloggers are using a grassroots approach in funding their independent news organizations. Christopher Allbritton’s Back to Iraq  blog is a good example provided by Gillmor.  Allbritton, a former Associated Press and New York Daily News’ reporter, solicited readers of his blog for donations in order to fund his trip. This concept of having readers send you to a location versus the news organization deciding what’s reported is fascinating.  This shows how Web 2.0 is creating an environment where the general public is more than just consumers of news; we can be creators, and benefactors of news.

Blogs also provide a forum for civic engagement.  In chapter eight Gillmor discusses how blogs can provide a place for people to engage, discuss and create support around civic issues.  This is interesting and true.  Take for instance the recent case of Madeleine McCann whose father maintains a blog following the search for his daughter or the numerous blogs addressing the war in Iraq.  Blogs can gain momentum and a following of international proportions, with that being said could the next anti-war movement or other civil focused movement be conducted solely in a virtual environment?

The Internet and the technical advances that have developed as a result have provided us with the ability to communicate globally.  Gillmor uses the example of the Persian bloggers who communicated messages that would not be allowed in Iranian newspapers. These bloggers were able to communicate openly and freely in an environment where such freedoms do not exist.  An open environment where, regardless of geographic location, everyone can freely communicate makes regulators and certain governments uneasy.  Because of this, the future Internet may be one of zones.

Zoning is described by Gillmor as when individuals visit certain Web sites the information displayed will be dependent upon where they viewing the site from (p. 212).  These Zones allow the user to only see what is permitted by their location.  For example the CNN Web site seen in America may be very different than the one seen in Iraq. In my opinion this should not be allowed.  The Internet is a great information and communication source and by limiting the Internet’s capabilities we are stifling its ability to foster and host open global communication. 

In addition to zoning, the Internet and other technological advancements face other innovation hurdles because of copyright and regulatory issues.  Gillmor addresses an important issue with many of the current or proposed digital laws and that is the right to fair use or “the ability to use a small portion of another’s work as a part of new work (Gillmor, p. 213).”  According to Gillmor, these laws threaten the rights we already have and future innovation.  A lot of these initiatives have come out of the fear of piracy that resulted from the Napsters of the world. For example, if someone is reading a digital book, depending on the copyright, he or she may not be able to quote the book, at least not legally.  In addition to these copyright barriers, Internet providers, many of whom are owned by big media, could create barriers that would allow you to more easily access their sites in comparison to sites not owned by them.  I feel as though this should not be allowed.  If I am paying for an Internet service I want to be able to access all content in a fast and timely manner, no matter who owns the content.  It is bad enough that the SPAMERS of the word inundate us with unwanted messages, why should corporate America’s agenda be pushed on us also when we are paying for the service. 

The Internet of today is continually growing into a robust and global communication tool.  Given its global capability it will be interesting to see if agendas of various governments and Big Business hinder the true extent to which the Internet can allow us to communicate, create and consume news.

Throughout history technology has driven how we receive news.  With the advent of home computers, printing devices, and the Internet amateurs are able to contribute to the creation and dissemination of news.

The majority of the first half of Gillmor’s book looks closely at the implication of the Internet, specifically blogs, on journalism.  Gillmor reminds us that the true intent of the Internet is to not only read content but to create and write content. According to Gillmor, blogs have done a good job of reporting non-mainstream news and delving into a story with greater detail.  An example of how blogs can provide greater details is in political campaigns.  Gillmor in chapter five discusses how mainstream news generally only covers an issue or two, but the Internet and Web 2.0 technology provides the ability to create issue specific blogs igniting a conversation that goes beyond a few news articles.  

The issue I have with blogs is the writer’s ability or need to be fair and balanced.  There are not necessary standards that bloggers follow. This is demonstrated in Essential Blogging, by Cory Doctorow, Shelley Powers, J. Scott Johnson, Rael Dornfest, Benjamin Trott, in a passage that reads “Boing Boing is an eclectic mix of personal rambling, technical discussion, social commentary, literary news, and current-events. It’s a soap box where my co-editors and I post whatever we feel like, without having to pitch it to an editor, run it past a legal department, or concern ourselves with anyone else’s notion of newsworthiness.”  Blogs are essentially a device that allows everyone to be an opinion writer not necessarily a journalist. 

While blogs are opinion oriented and conversational in nature, they can be a medium used by person or organization to tell their side of the story.  An example of this is the celebrity blog.  According to Gillmor, celebrities use blogs to dispel rumors and disclose the truth.  Gillmor demonstrates this by referencing former Star Trek: The Next Generation star Wil Wheaton’s blog. Wheaton, according to Gillmor, uses his blog to not only tell his side of the story but also to branch into another career as a writer.

From Wikis and blogs to static Web sites the Internet has revolutionized how we create and consume news.  These technologies will no doubt continuously change how we communicate both within organizations and through the media.  The future of how news is created, consumed and disseminated is yet to be seen, but one thing that is clear the Internet will be key in communicating in a new world without geographic boundaries and where everyone can be a newsmaker.