Things to consider: I have a feeling people working with net technologies and digtal communication are having fun these days. Companies are beginning to see social media as reality, just as the development of new web technologies in recent years seems to have paved the way for a new way of providing services etc. But if we are to take ourselves serious, what are we doing to prevent things from going dot-com 2.0? For every new breed of technologies and ways of doing things, hype builds and underground entrepreneurs and developers make it into mainstream. What do we think of our ‘industry’? Are we doing our best to provide real value? What are the odds that people won’t be writing books on the web 2.0 bubble in 5 years time. Will people smile when we mention ‘social software’ just as we do now when talking about mid-nineties ad agencies entering the world of the web?
I find too much buzz everywhere I look. And already, I’m spending a lot of time joking about a lot of the terms that reflect the things we are doing, just as I find myself explaining to clients that “this is not hot air” when they’re curious about some of the new ways of thinking. I’d like for everyone to think about what they say and write, how they portray their own field of work and how and what they sell.
Some things to keep in mind:
- Manifests should only be made, when there’s a revolution around the corner. This is a list.
- Words are important. Simplification equally so. but you don’t say ‘beta’ when you mean ‘agile’ — or ‘web 2.0′ when you mean ‘ajax’ — or ‘social software’ when you mean ‘community’, do you? Don’t worry about missing out on all the good buzz, your customers will thank you in the end.
- Words are important. Be careful with terms like ‘economy’, ‘revolution’ and ‘paradigm’. New opportunities don’t make a revolution, something involving money doesn’t constitute an economy. It sounds cool but these words have a meaning already. Maybe your customers get confused when they know the original one. Iook it up — and use with care.
- When pointing to technologies marking a new beginning, make sure you’re pointing to the actual one making the difference. Blogging might not mean shit — easy publishing in general might do.
- Show value. Telling customers that “it’s new”, “everyone else is doing it” and that they should “jump on the train” remind me of the early dot-com years. You’re selling hot air based on fear.
- Buzz is better than hype. Both, however, have a tendency to end up as selling points in their own right. They’re not. When you say “web 2.0″, do you know why you do it? Do you think it is a fitting container for a new way of doing things — or a clever marketing tool?
- That something’s ‘new’ isn’t a reason for anyone to do anything. To refer to the speed of which information travel and gets generated and to claim that ‘things are happening really fast now’ is to ignore how most civilizations evolve. I would be very surprised if things didn’t continue to develop this way from here to eternity. So that’s not the problem you should say you’re solving.
- What happens when all your customers have bought your services? Does your company name or profile imply that what they’re buying is just a way to ‘get up to speed’ or implement ‘that new thing’? Can your see yourself and your company in two year’s time? Are you honest about that you can’t?
- Is it clear from the way you’re communicating that you didn’t invent all the terms you’re using? Is it clear who did? And what it is you’re adding on top?
- Framing is important. In many ways, our core service is to enable people to use new technology and provide new ways of thinking about a lot of the things they would normally do by giving them a vocabulary; a way to think and talk about things that are new to them. Think hard about how you use terms. Are you drawing on known concepts to make things clearer where you should make a clear distinction? If you didn’t know what you know, would it make sense? Is there a risk your terms could obscure a good intention? Have you thought about metaphors lately?
- Networks are cool. Being in more than one is not bad. Is the foundation of your network based on values you’ve made an effort to explain — or is your profile ‘new’; hinting that this is the new black without further proof?
- When you explain the possibilities with technology and the ways we use it, do you attempt to transfer industry terms to a business environment uncritically? Are you confident that term x, known and debated within the industry, provides any real value to a corporate client — or would they be better off getting your take on some of the values?
-
Would you rather not worry about all this hippie-nonsense and force your customers to swallow the blue pill — as it is
good for them?
I might add to this list, i might not. That doesn’t mean it’s in beta. It just means that maybe i find some time and some more input — and maybe i don’t.
Update: Gunnar Langemark posts what I believe is a comment to this post. Some different views…and some of the same conclusions ;-)
When reading this, I am reminded why I quit the IT business. Thanks for that. Now, onwards and upwards.
Such a shame your feed is broken in bloglines, this is good stuff.
I agree with a lot of your points but some of them get in the way of other good points.
First of all — a lot of what you talk about here is so IT-centric. Your best bet is to not talk about IT at all. IT is rarely the point.
And in that regard I disagree with your warning about reusing old terms for new things. I think we should try to come up with much less new language and reuse the old wherever we can.
Nothing is more disorienting to the denizens of the hinternet than new language (and btw: this is not an assertion about ‘stupid users’ . We’re all stupid users most of the time these days)
’New’ is much less interesting than ‘better’.
Classy, you’re right. In a way I don’t like the whole ‘industry’ part myself; it gets in the way of allowing the concepts to be just that.
When I talk about new language / old language, what I mean is that, while I agree that the less new language we use in these areas the better, when old language doesn’t cut it (and sometimes it doesn’t), we should just try harder — otherwise we risk losing people. The desktop metaphor, for instance, might have made it easier for people to get the idea about what tasks are being done, but that doesn’t mean someone couldn’t have come up with something better, where you didn’t have to accept trashcans on your table… Just as I continue to meet people that feel their knowledge of community practice all of a sudden is worthless because everyone is talking about social software. It’s a fine line.
The funny thing is, that while definately talking to ‘the industry’, what I’m trying to do is to get this group of people to stop insisting that their customers are lost if they don’t buy into the concept of ‘beta’, ‘social software’ etc. They are not — and people tellimg them they are should take a hard think — there’s a good chance they are making everything more difficult for everyone.
(I’ll look into the feed issue — thanks for the heads up)
Regarding language, Thomas Madsen-Mygdal did a brilliant presentation at April’s CustomerMade: http://bootstrapping.net/2006/06/24/language-thinking-customermade/
Pollas -
Buzz is like cursing. The effect wears off if you do it too much.
Hype is like bragging. In the end people stop believing you.
Having said that. I don’t think we should be too nervous about it. It always happens. Someone always takes away what we’ve been doing and makes a lot more noise that we did. There will always be people who don’t quite “get it” — who get all the attention. It’s unfair in a way — sure, but it ‘s the way things are.
Sometimes it gets at me. I doubt myself and the things I’m doing. I see that only 1% of people I meet really get this. I see that almost noone actually DO it.
At Reboot 8 there was a workshop on diversity. I claimed that we — at the workshop and at Reboot — were all the same, and that there was no real diversity.
That was NOT the common understanding. But it is the truth!
We are all the same. And we discuss small narrow issues of definition.
The real impact of what we do — will show in 5–10 years time.
And we don’t know what it will actually be. Although we have some clues.…..
I’m not nervous, but disappointed. You’re right, things will be more clearer in 10 years time. My point is that we make sure that whatever people remember in 2016 are the right things. Yes, the buzz and hype effect will wear off in time, but I’ll be damned if the current state of hot air gives people that don’t ‘get it’ more traction as they won’t have to prove themselves, but just hook into a buzz word extravaganza — made and supported by people who actually do get it — but are chasing a quick buck. Also, I’m convinced that all the buzz make it into history. Yup, that dot-com effect ended up wearing off — but it’s still there, obscuring some underlying values that weren’t so bad.
I realize I’m coming across as a frightened purist, afraid that eveything will blow up if not ‘kept clean’. I’m not — and I’m not afraid. But a lot of things pisses me off — and a lot of things makes me wonder.
What I’m saying is: I don’t care how little effect something will have in the end. But if it’s bullshit, it’s bullshit — and should be avoided at all costs. If you sign up for something, make sure there are some well-communicated values in there. If you see hot air, call people on it.
I don’t eat shit, no matter how small the amount.
Pingback: pollas.dk [permanent meta] » Blog Archive » Business and sense 2.0
Interesting to read this right now. The last weeks I got some offers from different developers to earn some money from my blogging. It seems be a lot developing around blogs now.