MESHin’ in the recession: highlights from the 2012 MESH Conference in Toronto
Posted: May 30, 2012 Filed under: content, marketing, Social networks 2 Comments »
The 2012 edition of MESH, Toronto’s highest-flying Internet conference, looked like it had had its wings clipped. Attendance appeared to be down significantly from last year, and the conference model seemed to have been adjusted to accommodate lower-than-expected turnout. Breakout sessions were offered in just two time slots on the afternoon of the second day; for the majority of the conference, all the attendees (seated, inexplicably, at round tables) watched presentations and “conversations” delivered from a spotlit stage at the front of a cavernous, dark auditorium. Without the usual breaks and movement between sessions, the conference lost some of its energy, which is a shame, because this year’s MESH included some excellent speakers on important topics. For me, there were three big themes that stood out.
Big Data
MESH12 offered a couple of sessions on “big data,” the hot topic du jour in the business press. Former LinkedIn data honcho DJ Patil kicked off the conference with a presentation describing how new ways of harnessing data have the potential to transform business, health care, and individual productivity and well-being. In all of his examples, Patil emphasized that no matter how impressive your data set, the real value comes from knowing what to do with it. LinkedIn’s “people you may know” spotlight is powered by good data and smart algorithms, but it wouldn’t exist if one of their developers hadn’t found a way to use it to drive clickthroughs and deeper user engagement with the site. The killer skill set: combining proficiency in data analysis with deep insights into user behaviour and a strategic outlook.
Content Marketing
Last fall’s MESH Marketing conference was all abuzz about content marketing thanks to a galvanizing presentation from Marcus Sheridan, and MESH 2012 kept the topic front-and-centre. Even the “big data” talks gave a nod to content marketing, citing cases where companies have been able to use intriguing or titillating insights gleaned from their data as the basis of successful blog posts or media releases. (Max Shron of OK Cupid talked about the publicity and traffic the site generated with a post about how your choice of smartphone correlates to the number of sexual partners you’re likely to have.) HubSpot’s Brian Halligan gave a cogent overview of the state-of-the-art in content marketing (create “remarkable” content; keep producing, don’t just dabble; focus on “relevance and authenticity”) – mostly truisms, but well-phrased and worth repeating.
Authority & Truth in the Internet Age
Maybe it’s the dark economic times, maybe it was the perpetual darkness of the auditorium, but the dominant theme that emerged at this year’s MESH was epistemologically heavy: how do we adapt to the Internet’s disruption of our models of knowledge, truth, and authority? Traditional media are struggling to find a revenue model in a world of instantaneous, barrier-free publication and distribution. If everyone is a reporter/publisher, and if our traditional gatekeepers and curators disappear, who do we listen to, and what do we believe? David Weinberger’s conversation with Matthew Ingram tackled this topic directly, and several other compelling presentations touched on it in one way or another:
- Clay Johnson made an analogy between the obesity epidemic and levels of “junk” media consumption, arguing that we need to put ourselves on an “information diet” to ensure we’re taking in balanced reporting about important issues.
- Rebecca MacKinnon outlined the ways repressive regimes around the world control their populations’ access to the Internet, while Michael Geist gave an update on the state of Internet freedom in Canada.
- Matthew Ingram engaged a delightfully contrarian David Winer in a wide-ranging conversation about (among other things) whether Twitter should buy the New York Times and the pernicious trend of website personalization, which prevents us from knowing what we don’t know.
- The conference wrapped up with Andy Carvin‘s stories about using information gathered on social media sites to report on the Arab Spring movement. Verifying crowd-sourced information and engaging in “real-time network analysis” to identify sources and their credibility: a new form of journalism – and techniques that maybe everyone needs to learn.
Facebook is boring
Posted: February 12, 2012 Filed under: Social networks Leave a comment »
I found myself thinking about Facebook – a $100-billion IPO does draw attention – and my thought was, “Meh.” Is it just me? Of course, I have a Facebook account, and I sign in several times a week, but my engagement with the site is not what it once was.
Looking at the contents of my Facebook newsfeed, I had a revelation: Facebook is the new email. Back in the late 1990s, everyone started using email for leisure as well as work, and inboxes overflowed with forwarded jokes, heartwarming stories, petitions, health advice, brainteasers, scams, warnings about scams, and cute pictures. You could easily spot this type of message thanks to the string of “forwards” in the subject line:
“Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: The difference between cat people and dog people (funny!)”
“Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Important! Share with the women in your life!”
This genre of email wasn’t spam; they were forwarded by someone you knew – someone who (all too often) was reflexively forwarding to their entire address book. You would end up getting the same email from multiple sources, and they would come in cycles. (“Oh, the warning about the Nigerian banking scam is making the rounds again”; “Tis the season for the ASCII art picture of Santa’s head…”)
And now this kind of activity has migrated onto Facebook. A few people are sharing real details about their own lives through personal status updates and photos. But a lot of us are doing the equivalent of email forwarding: we re-post photos, videos, links, and messages we’ve seen in other people’s newsfeeds. Cute animal! Hilarious celebrity blooper! Outrageous political incident! Cause that needs your support! And of course, as a corollary to the email scam alerts, warnings about the medium itself.
Don’t get me wrong – some of this stuff is pure gold: entertaining, bizarre, LOL-worthy, occasionally even important. But for that kind of online distraction and edification, I can go to Reddit, BuzzFeed, major media sites, or that other social network. And I won’t have to wade through posts from Farmville, a reminder that Friend X is playing Slotomania!, and the other schlock that makes Facebook occasionally cringe-worthy.
Facebook used to be more fun. In the early days, there were more personal status updates, and I felt like I was staying in touch with friends and family members I didn’t see or talk to every day. But composing a personal post involves more effort (and more risk, if you’re worried about privacy) than posting a link or – even easier – re-posting the link your friend has already shared. Frictionless sharing, where an app automatically lets you know that I’m reading “Top 10 Celebrity Photoshop Transformations,” only increases the volume of this type of passive, impersonal content.
So if Facebook is boring and Google+ is creepy, where on the social web do I hang out? If it isn’t already obvious, I heart Twitter. I’ll write about why in an upcoming post.
The ick factor of Google+
Posted: December 4, 2011 Filed under: Social networks 1 Comment »Dear Google,
I didn’t expect you to become the creepy uncle of the Internet. Sure, you were getting more and more involved in my life, but you seemed to be doing it in a purely disinterested and helpful way…until I signed up for Google+. Even now, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute your creep factor to an Aspergers-y lack of social graces rather than evil intentions. But let’s look at where you went wrong.
Gmail integration
I understand you need to build up the network to compete with Facebook, but nudging me to “add to my circles” every person I’ve ever contacted since I began using Gmail in 2005 is a bad idea. Couldn’t you have used an algorithm to pull up only the contacts I’ve emailed more than, say, ten times? It’s bad enough to be prompted to add exes and dead people, but you could at least have filtered out the people who responded to my Craigslist ad for a used laptop bag three years ago.
True, this isn’t nearly as bad as when you launched Google Buzz within Gmail and completely freaked everyone out by sharing their contacts. But you still seem a little tone-deaf to how people use email and how they feel about their contact lists. I don’t want a social service that’s so tightly linked to my personal email account.
The circles of strangers
Which leads me to another point. There’s something unpleasant about having complete strangers add me to their circles. I’ve been trying to analyze why this feels more invasive than having a stranger follow me on Twitter, which I don’t mind at all. I know, I know: I can control who sees the things I share, and having someone add me to a circle doesn’t give them access to any additional information about me, but it still feels weird. Maybe it’s because Google+ feels more like Facebook than Twitter, so being “circled” seems like getting a friend request that you can’t ignore or decline. Maybe it’s the Gmail connection: because Google+ is linked to my Gmail account (and, as noted above, email = private, private, private!), I don’t like the idea of strangers connecting to me through Google+. Or maybe the “circle” metaphor is a poor choice (at least for someone like me who’s hyper-sensitive to semantic nuances) – to be circled is to be drawn in, enclosed, circumscribed, encompassed…ACK!
Bad synergy
The Gmail integration in Google+ is an abiding source of discomfort, but the most jarring moments I’ve experienced so far occurred when I was prompted to share content I’d created using other Google-owned services. Yes, I have set up a couple of Blogger blogs and a few Picasa albums over the years, and yes, I suppose they are associated with my Gmail address, but ohmygod why are they suddenly showing up in my Google+ profile? One of them was work-related, one of them was something I was doing for a friend, and most importantly, they are several years old! Google hadn’t even bought Blogger and Picasa yet at the time I started using them. Google, it seems like you’re buying up pieces of my online experience and trying to force me to bundle them all together and give up the anonymity I had previously taken for granted. All I can say is: ugh, bleah, ew.
I haven’t given up my Google+ account yet, but after so many “ick” moments, I can’t say I’m tempted to use it. Maybe I’ll drop off and then re-register with a different Gmail address. But that would only be worthwhile if it looks like Google+ is going to take off – and if other people are feeling as creeped out as I am, that won’t happen any time soon. Google, you need to work on your social skills.
