Elizabeth’s Introduction to the Digital Age

In Wikinomics, authors Don Tapscott and Anthony Williams ask a series of thought-provoking questions: …Wouldn’t businesses be more productive if they could reach outside their walls to harness the insights and energies of a vast network of peers that converge around shared interests and goals. If so, how would the traditional corporation change? And what new business models could be built on this new collaborative approach to producing goods and services? Having worked for an international news corporation several years ago, I thought of how these questions pertain to major media conglomerates, specifically news outlets.

Today, journalists play an important role in society, as they have done for hundreds of years. In the 1700’s, authors of the Federalist Papers advocated the ratification of the Constitution. Even today, the Papers serve as the primary source of interpretation for the document that is studied in classrooms and is abided by our president and members of the government. The strife of slavery can be best captured in the letters slaves wrote to members of their families, detailing their unthinkable living conditions and their hopeful thoughts of freedom. In 1972, one of the most monumental moments in journalistic history occurred, as Richard Nixon stepped down as the president of the United States. Nixon was forced to resign after Washington Post reporters, Robert Woodward and Carl Bernstein revealed that Nixon’s staff broke into the Watergate Hotel to retrieve illegal documents.

Writers have captured the crucial moments American history. They’ve created the foundation of which our country is built around—stories. However, it seems that journalists are no longer the only storytellers. Implementing the advice of Tapscott and Williams, news organizations have now turned to their audiences to report on the stories. On CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, viewers are able to submit raw video, pictures, and audio sound bytes of the news as they see it occurring. On CNN, you can find stories covering a variety of subjects including the erratic Midwest weather, raising a child with autism, and Washington, DC’s cherry blossom festival. On Fox News.com, individuals can actually select which show under which they want to submit their videos. Some telecasts have devoted the last block of time to playing viewer stories. MSNBC has a Web site tab called “First Person.” The current highlighted feature includes funny travel photos from family vacations, honeymoons, and business trips.

Scoble and Israel would praise this approach to journalism. “Open the doors, let the public in!” they would say. And while it seems sensible have the story tellers be those who see the story happen, what kind of impact will this first-person reporting have on journalism? Will the Walter Cronkites of the world soon disappear? How reliable will information be when individuals are no longer held accountable? Will news outlets that are seen as biased or unreliable regain a positive reputation?

Last night my mom, a teacher, told me about the failure of high school summer reading assignments. The boring titles that the fifty-year-old teachers were selecting for their adolescent pupils were not resonating with the audience, and students were spending more time discovering ways they could avoid reading the book while still getting an “A” on the assignment. They’d spend hours of their time Googling the book’s title, reviewing different Web sites that mentioned their assigned reading and determining whether these landing pages were legit.

Several months ago, a group of teachers at the school in which my mom works got together to brainstorm ways in which the summer reading assignments would actually be read by students .Because their same old ideas were no longer working, the teachers invited a group of students to the meeting. As the instructors began launching into diatribes about the importance of reading classics like Huckleberry Finn and Upton Sinclair’s, The Jungle, the teenagers started nodding off, some even resting their heads on the desk.

Finally, in an attempt to be somewhat productive, one teacher asked the group of students, “What would make you actually read the summer books?”

One student scrunched his eyebrows and blurted out, “Why can’t we be the ones picking the books?”

The teachers, clad in their button down shirts and jean jumpers, sat stunned. Why had no one ever thought of this solution? Perhaps it would be wise for those doing the reading to have some say in the assignment.

Before the meeting adjourned, the group decided that the student committee would make a list of 10 books that they would enjoy reading over the summer vacation. The books had to be somewhat enlightening and had to meet a minimum page requirement. The students were told to select a novel that was appropriate for classroom discussions. Bart Simpson’s Guide to Life wouldn’t fly.

Within weeks, the students developed a list of books that the teachers split up among themselves. One teacher remarked in a follow-up meeting, “I actually enjoyed what I read. It reminded me a lot of the students who I teach.”

Like, duh.

What these teachers realized was that students were much more responsive and enthusiastic when presented with an opportunity to participate in their education. These individuals just wanted to have some say in what they were being forced to read.

Mass collaboration anyone?

Although Tapscott and Williams were the first of those authors in our readings who defined this concept, they weren’t the only ones who’ve discovered it. Throughout this semester, we’ve been reading selections from authors who advocate this same phenomenon. From Naked Conversations to Smart Mobs to The Search. All of these individuals are essentially screaming, “HEY PEOPLE, LOOK WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE ALL WORK TOGETHER ON SOMETHING?”

The results are impressive. Internet companies like ebay, Wikipedia, and YouTube all include content that is created by the site’s denizens. How expensive does this cost those who are hosting these pages? Zippo. How much of a role does users’ participation play in determining the success of a World Wide Web page? A whole heckofa lot.

As is evident from the anecdotal example provided above, the positive results of mass collaboration are not limited to internet companies or Web sites. Imagine if a company was developing a vacation policy and instead of charging the head honchos with this task, they asked representatives from different department to work collaboratively on designing a policy that would actually work for employees? Or why doesn’t the administrator of a nursing home ask the residents for suggestions when planning the monthly menu instead of depending on ideas from state health departments and recycling old options that have been proven unfavorable? How much of an effect would this phenomenon have our on society at large if more people practiced mass collaboration?

The pictures bombard our everyday lives. 

 Britney Spears driving her car. Britney Spears shopping in Los Angeles. Britney Spears eating dinner with her father. Britney Spears entering a dance studio. Britney Spears walking on the sidewalk with her mother.

No one can escape the mundane details of this pop star’s everyday life.

In his book, Smart Mobs, Howard Rheingold explains this social phenomenon and provides examples of how smart mobs have evolved; the effectiveness of smart mobs; and the benefits and perils of this group of citizens. While examining his examples, I couldn’t help but feel that he’d neglected to include an extremely intrusive, technologically sophisticated smart mob—the paparazzi.

With the advent of technology and the accessibility of online communication, smart mobs are more empowered than ever. “The same convergence of technologies that opens new vistas of communication also makes possible a universal surveillance economy and empowers the bloodthirsty as well as the altruistic” (p. XVIII).

If there’s one profession that almost solely relies on the information embedded in text messages, it’s photographers. Their income depends on the frequency and reliability of this form of communication. Depending on what their “sources” tell them in the body of a message, these individuals will position themselves outside of restaurants, clubs, grocery stores, Starbucks, and airports.

The hordes of photographers are in competition with one other. They’re pushing each other out of the way in order to capture the perfect shot. The celebrity is the prize. With the exception of acting rationally, photographers perfectly depict the Game Theory, which Rheingold discusses. “Game theory is based on several assumptions: that the players are in conflict, that they must take action, that the result of the action will determine which player wins according to definite rules, and that all players are expected to act “rationally” by choosing the strategy that will maximize their gain regardless of the consequences to others” (p. 41).

The prize for these coveted pictures is nothing to scoff at. According to Jossip.com, Us Weekly and People are willing to pay over $100,000 for pictures of Kate Hudson and Owen Wilson holding hands in Miami. According to Thomas Hobbes, “Humans are so competitive that the only way we can cooperate is for a more powerful competitor to impose a truce” (p. 34).

Hence the wheeling and dealing that these photogs attempt to do with celebrity friends and family. Photographers have given their phone numbers to close friends of the couple in hopes that they’ll tip them off to the whereabouts of Hollywood’s hottest commodity. However, the members of this smart mob must be discerning when intercepting text messages from their trusted “sources.” Smart mobs can be pitted against smart mobs—inaccurate text messages can also be disseminated to deter these bloodhounds from following the every step of this new couple.

As John Battelle discussed in his book, The Search, these same photographers that sell their pictures to tabloid magazines also utilize the infamous search to track down other outlets interested in purchasing their goods. MrPaparazzi.com provides up-to-the-minute text messages with the latest celebrity news. According to their Web site, you can join the Mr. Paparazzi celeb tracker and “you’ll get regular text alerts on the whereabouts of the hottest celebrities.”

The most recent example of how paparazzi can negatively impact those subjects who they are covering involves an individual who I referred to earlier on—Britney Spears. The trouble singer’s sad downward spiral was discussed on evening news programs and newspapers alike. The mobs which captured the every detail of this girl’s life were able to do so because of text messages they’d received from Sam Lufti, a Spears friend. According to Maxim magazine, “There’s one paparazzi agency that’s emerged as having the inside track on Britney all the time - they’re the ones who know where she is, where she’s going… It’s called X17. “One of the owners of X17 told me that last year she began getting messages from lots of people with funny names; we know that Sam, in the past, has used a lot of pseudonyms. “After that she said one day out of the blue, Sam Lutfi called and introduced himself by name, then he started calling more and more often. “By the time I was with the paparazzi, they were sitting there getting text messages from him at regular intervals telling them where she was, where she was gonna go.”

If we look at old Hollywood, we rarely see pictures of make-up-less Marilyn Monroe exiting her boyfriend’s home. We aren’t flooded with images of a drunk Frank Sinatra slouched over a blond bombshell at a New York club. Why not? Is it because photographers were only informed of public photo opportunities? How has this access to celebrity lives impacted our perception of reality? How has this “smart” mob repositioned our priorities as a society?

The other day I was babysitting for a friend of mine, helping her third grade son with his homework, when he asked me how much I knew about the Roman Colosseum. Although I’d studied in Rome for a semester while an undergrad, I was embarrassed to admit that aside from providing him with directions to the closest bar to the Colosseum, there wasn’t much I could tell him to further his research for a report that was due the following week. He shrugged his shoulders and replied, “I’ll just Google it.”

I sat there for a second and had my first, “I’m old” moment, for when I was a third grader back in the day, my mom would send me upstairs to the study to sift through the encyclopedias when I needed information. After I came back downstairs and reported my findings, she would sit down, call in my dad, and the two of them would share any additional information they knew about the subject I was searching for. Often the topic would have some relevance to a relative or friend of the family and it wasn’t unusual when my mom recommended that I call my grandma to ask her about the Civil War or get in touch with my sister to ask her a question about biology (she loved science). It was a search that required hard work and dedication, and was often enriched by a personal story (from my grandma or anyone else I was forced to call at 8 pm on a Wednesday night). Although I could summarize the second half of Battelle’s book in great detail, I’d like to reflect on a point that Martin Shore, a California-based real-estate developer mentioned in Chapter 7: Information has replaced relationships.

 This past Sunday, an article appeared in The New York Times, which discussed teens’ reliance on technology and the division this semi-obsession creates among children and parents. The article provided an example of a teenage girl who was riding in a car driven by her dad and sitting with her friends in the backseat. At one point, her dad noticed her frantically texting away and reminded her of how rude that behavior was, especially when she had guests sitting right next to her. This teenage daughter informed her father that he was like so out of it, and that she was totally texting her posse who were sitting in the back seat for her. The article went on to say that technology, including the computer, along with the Internet, “has given even very young children virtual lives distinctly separate from those of their parents and siblings.” How has technology impacted our relationships with members of our own family? How has it inhibited our efforts to make face-to-face contact with each other? What implications will this reliance have on future generations?  Unfortunately, these lackadaisical communication habits are not only done on the phone. In addition to being able to send each other messages instantaneously through social networking sites and instant messenger services, the search component of the Internet also makes information retrieval much easier. Instead of executing extensive research on an obscure topic, students are now able to simply type in a couple of key words and have the needed information within a matter of milliseconds. Individuals no longer have to work hard to seek out information. Why is having all of the necessary information at our fingertips perceived as a positive thing? What are individuals missing out on when they locate information online versus through history books and personal interviews? Additionally, this ability to locate information at the click of a mouse often leads to security concerns which Batetelle discussed. According to an article on MSNBC, 61% of child bloggers provide their full contact information on the Internet. Although Scoble and Israel might promote these open lines of communication, such exposure can be dangerous for children. Even more concerning is that over 1/3 of children have blogs, and only 5% of parents know about them. The MSNBC article recommends that parents utilize the search to locate what information is being made public about their children. It’s a bit ironic to think that the search now becomes a powerful navigational tool for parents, but the same search bar that is helping them locate their children’s information is the same one that countless individuals who are up to no good could have clicked on.  

Individuals’ ability to easily access information via the search function is not  only diminishing the importance of relationships–it’s replacing them. And all those lessons learned from hard work have been thrown out the window with ‘em.

In his book, The Search, John Battelle talks about the history of the search and Google’s fairytale rise to fame. Battelle begins profiling the who, what, where, why, when, and how (much) of the search. According to Pew research, nearly 84% of people have conducted at least one search. “Pew also found that the younger you are or the higher your educational attainment is, the more you search” (p. 26).

Google ZeitGeist takes a look at some of the most searched questions and words that people are looking for online.  “Nearly 50 percent of all searches use two or three words, and 20 percent use just one. Just 5 percent of all searches use more than six words” (p. 27). According to Battelle, the Long Tail of Search Queries proves that no matter what word you search for, there’s most likely a result that contains it. He also provides a statistic I found interesting (perhaps because I’m included in this percentage): 40 percent of us have done a vanity search

85% of searchers use one of the big four portals (Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, or AOL) to conduct their searches. Why do they conduct these searches? The answer to that question is a bit more complex. Although it sounds a bit obvious, people search to find information. According to Battelle, not only are we searching for what we know, but we’re also searching for the answers to that which we don’t know.  

I know it’s hard to believe, but Google was not the first actual search engine! Before our lives changed with the advent of Google, AltaVista was the engine where people their searches. AltaVista had several problems, the main one being that the founders were not prepared for the amount of activity that the search database would generate. Before AltaVista’s time (there was a time before the time before Google!) search engines Archie and Veronica provided a database of search results, although they included titles of documents but not the full text of article. Not too helpful. But alas, in the summer of 1997, an academic paper was written that introduced Google to the world. Halleluiah!  

Being the academics that they were, Larry Page and Sergey Brin developed an algorithm after the citation process used for academic papers. “Papers are judged not only one their original thinking and the rigor of their citations, but also by the number of papers they cite, the number of pages that subsequently cite them back, and the perceived importance of each citation” (p. 70). Hence the birth of PageRank, which lead to a ranking system that “rewarded links that came from sources that were important, and penalized those that did not” (p. 75). The algorithm that the duo created managed to take into account the “number of links to a particular site, and the number of links into each of the linking sites” (p. 75).

Although Page and Brin thought their algorithm was revolutionary, they had a hard time selling it to newly formed web search engines. Because they couldn’t convince anyone else, they decided to start their own search engine and implement the algorithm. Think of all those web search engine execs out there who are thinking, ‘If I only would have…”

 But back to PageRank. I want to return to this algorithm because I find it a bit faulty. I know these guys have accomplished quite a bit in their lifetimes, but what gives them the right to judge everyone else’s web pages? According to Wikipedia, “Google assigns a numeric weighting from 0-10 for each webpage on the Internet; this PageRank denotes a site’s importance in the eyes of Google.” How do these “eyes of Google” represent the eyes of the hundreds of millions of searchers out there? How does Google assess sites in order to determine their numerical value? Isn’t it impossible for small Web sites that specialize in particular areas to become “credible” in the eyes of Google if no one else is linking to them? Another PageRank problem that Google has also encountered is that it’s considered fairly easy to manipulate the system. Some web hosts sell sites with high PageRank values to people who are willing to pay more for a higher ranking. Although Google admonishes this practice and says that people who participate in it will be reprimanded, how can they possibly police the entire transaction process and get all of the bad guys out there? According to their blog, Google is constantly finding ways to improve their algorithm by looking at data from individual searches and asking themselves important questions about search tendencies.  “What results do people click on? How does their behavior change when we change aspects of our algorithm? Using data in the logs, we can compare how well we’re doing now at finding useful information for you to how we did a year ago. If we don’t keep a history, we have no good way to evaluate our progress and make improvements.”  

One thing that I find particularly impressive about Google is that they use their own results to fuel future initiatives. In the 2007 yearend Zeitgeist report, 3 of the 10 questions under the “What is” category pertain to health. It’s no coincidence that Google’s newest project is to develop a health database. It’s also no coincidence that this site is being launched during a political season where healthcare is the number one issue for the majority of voters. 

 After officially announcing the project on their blog, Google said that, “Google Health aims to solve an urgent need that dovetails with our overall mission of organizing patient information and making it accessible and useful. Through our health offering, our users will be empowered to collect, store, and manage their own medical records online.” This sounds like a fascinating project and one that could be beneficial to millions of Americans. Are they hiring?!?!?!?!? The only way that Google will be beat in the world of technology is if more executives like Richard Branson begin to launch search engines that capitalize on their specialty. Branson will be launching a vertical search launcher that “promises to revolutionize high-end corporate travel and last minute luxury travel.”  Although Google has the technology, Branson has his reputation and the means. Others should take heed to Branson’s newest business venture.  

My 2008 prediction for Google: According to ZeitGeist, a majority of search queries deal with religion, lifestyle (dieting and cooking), and psychology. By the time we ring in 2009, Google will have developed search engines that concentrate on all these areas.

I must admit that as I was reading Scoble and Israel’s book, I felt as though I was taken back to my middle school days, standing outside the boys’ locker room with my ear pressed to the door, giggling with my girlfriends and hoping to hear a salacious secret. A crush revealed, a disguised compliment about yours truly, or even an inside glimpse of the coveted weekend agenda.

No such luck.

Instead, we’d wait and wait, hoping to steal a tidbit of information to take back to the rest of our posse. We’d start fidgeting, reposition our organized configuration, buy some fruit snacks, take a seat, and roll our eyes.

“Man, did you see Fee (a tackler) sack Sweeney (the quarterback) today?” one would ask the other.

“That’s gotta suck,” the observer would respond so eloquently. “He kicked the crap out of him.”

The mumbling would continue. They’d dissect each play, talk about how awesome the sport was, and how lucky they were to be part of such an exclusive clique.

Kind of like how Scoble and Israel talk about blogging.

I should have known that if there are fanatic football players in the world, there are inevitably fanatic bloggers out there as well. And while I realize that I may be giving the partners in blogging too hard of a time, I can’t help but draw the parallel when they talk all about the “blogging world” and “de facto” rules.

Allow me to present some of their finer points and provide some feedback of my own.

  S&I Claim #1: 

Countries and Companies with blogs will be seen as more open-minded and trustworthy.  

In addition, companies that intend on victimizing customers and supporter and people with terrible communication skills (including those prone to hyperboles) shouldn’t blog.  

I can’t help but think that Scoble and Israel sound a bit like sore losers when they make these arguments. It’s sort of like saying, “Everyone should play football—except those individuals who are completely uncoordinated, terrible team players and have bad attitudes.”

In essence, the authors are saying that every country and company should blog aside from those that shouldn’t even be in existence. What type of successful company victimizes customers and treats their employees poorly? A person with poor communication skills who indulges in frequent exaggerations shouldn’t speak in public, let alone blog. Duh!

How about those companies that treat their customers and employees extremely well but just feel that there are other ways to express their messages? Can you fault a company for not blogging when instead they choose to hold face-to-face meetings like shareholder conferences and town hall discussions?  Why is blogging so superior to these other means of communicating with customers and employees?

If you sift through Technorati or other blog search engines, you don’t find results for blogs of Starbucks employees. However, Starbucks has a national reputation for valuing their employees and providing them with impressive wages and expansive health care plans. But wait, they don’t blog. Forget health care and wages. Starbucks stinks! Ok, ok, Scroble and Israel do mention those small town successful companies that prosper despite their lack of blogs (they just happen to do so in a brief paragraph in the last part of the chapter).

 “There are still local merchants who reach all of the customers they need through non-technically assisted conversations, and in some businesses the majority of the customers do not use computers” (p. 137). 

Guys, I hate to break it to you. There are also “wonderful” companies out there whose customers do use computers who choose not to blog. It’s not only those merchants in Podunk Ohio.

 S&I Claim #2:  

Saddam Hussein should not blog. 

I don’t disagree. I don’t think anyone wants to hear from Saddam Hussein more than they need to. But how about those people who don’t have enough time to devote to a blog? Scoble and Israel later explain how much of a time commitment blogging actually is and say that people must be passionate and consistent in their blogging. Unfortunately, not everyone has an extended amount of time that they can devote to establishing a blog. If these two bloggers want to build up this form of communication, they shouldn’t sell it to every Tom, Dick, and Harry. They also shouldn’t underestimate the amount of time and energy that goes into producing a successful blog.  

S&I Claim #3: 

Company managers should not be concerned about employee misbehavior because it has rarely happened in the past. Company managers should also not be concerned with inaccurate facts because other bloggers will correct them. 

Scoble and Israel completely rely on past precedent when establishing these arguments. “The point is that the risk of employee misbehavior is so remote, based on what has actually occurred so far, that it seems safe to assume blogging’s benefits outweigh its risks” (p 145).

I’d be curious to know what company manager has found that explanation sufficient. As a student, I’m thinking of selling my teacher on the following argument: There’s no need to monitor students while taking tests. Cheating has never occurred in your classroom so if you leave them alone, I can pretty much guarantee that it won’t occur in the future.

How about Martin– the disgruntled employee– who sat in on his publicly traded company’s earning talks this past quarter. Let’s say Martin (who also publishes a widely read blog) gets fed up with his boss one day and thinks that payback is the best revenge. Martin proceeds to leak information discussed in that meeting on his blog. This information is immediately read by shareholders who think it wise to sell their stocks quickly. Within 12 hours, the company has lost millions of dollars, employees (including Martin) have lost their jobs, and there is a major public relations crisis on the executive’s hands. The boss (who was reluctant about blogging to begin with), scratches his head and thinks, ‘Scoble and Israel didn’t prepare me for this.’

I understand what these guys are saying. But I also think that they are looking at the blogosphere through rose colored glasses and they have every reason to do so—they’ve not yet encountered major problems. But some people might. What happens when they do? What happens when bloggers do not correct misinformation and a story that’s told on a blog is perceived as fact? How should companies act then? How can companies avoid a catastrophe that may be triggered by blogging?

 S&I Claim #4:  

It’s OK to publish contact information because Scoble did and nothing bad happened (except for the two crank calls). 

Let’s look at their supporting data:“Our experience tells us the risks of publishing your contact information are exaggerated. Scoble’s phone number has been posed for years, and so far, he’s received only two crank calls. But because he’s made himself accessible, he’s enjoyed friendships and taken advantage of opportunities that might otherwise have been missed” (p. 177) Scoble’s been lucky. A blog that I frequently read talks about the experiences of a young girl living in New York City. She frequently writes about her job, her weekend excursions, and embarrassing blind dates. This blogger chooses not to publish her contact information and I think she is wise to do so. People can communicate with bloggers by posting comments on the site. Unfortunately, we do not live in a day and age where you can trust everyone in cyberspace. People must be careful. A new blog is developed every minute and some of those blogs are being written by teenagers and other young kids. It’s wrong to tell these individuals that it’s safe to post contact information on the Internet. Not only is it incorrect, but it’s also ignorant.  S&I

Claim #5:  Keep it simple. Keep it focused

One of the things I like best about blogs is that they’re conversational and light reading. It’s also one of the things I like best about reading US Magazine. However, The New York Times readers might feel differently. They might think that US is a bit too simplified, trashy and not intellectual enough for their taste. The same should be said for those who read blogs. I understand the authors’ argument but I don’t necessarily agree with it. They argue that blogs should be an outlet of expression. That’s precisely why I think individuals should have the freedom to write how they chose to.    

Time to take it easy… 

Having said that all, I must also admit that Scoble and Israel raise some very valid points in their book. Companies that plan on launching new projects can benefit from setting up a blog where they can receive customer feedback and field questions. Pandora.com, a free online radio station, effectively does this. Pandora’s CEO blogs regularly. However, he also sends personal emails to listeners and is currently embarking on a cross-country travel to meet and speak with individuals about Pandora. There’s a lot of things that he’s doing right, and blogging is most definitely one of those efforts that should be mentioned.

I do think that it’s extremely important for companies to establish blogging policies before encouraging employees to blog. By doing so, executives and employees are aware of the expectations and repercussions should an individual violate any of the rules. I also think it’s important for individuals to realize that blogging is not for everyone. Blogging is an activity that requires a significant investment of time.

I think that the readers of Naked Conversations could have benefitted from hearing more about these points (and hearing multidimensional arguments). But then again, bloggers are passionate people. And you can call these guys a lot of things, but you can’t say they aren’t passionate.

It wasn’t too long ago that Microsoft was viewed as the evil technology conglomerate by the majority of consumers, both in America and abroad. “Often perceived as predatory and heartless, Microsoft has a reputation for ruthlessly rolling over competitors, wrestling in courtrooms against government prosecutors, and exposing its customers to security flaws and frustrating glitches” (Scoble and Israel, page 9). In an effort to correct those views, Microsoft launched several initiatives, one of which was to have their employees begin blogging. In their book, Naked Conversations, Robert Scoble and Shel Israel talked about how this effort put the company back in peoples’ good graces and benefitted Microsoft in immeasurable ways.

Because Microsoft was viewed as cold and impersonal, blogging about the company made it appear more personal and trusting. Consumers weren’t the only ones who responded positively to this new form of communication. “Perhaps more significant, [Alan] thinks, has been the impact on employee morale and the company’s ability to attract new talent” (p. 13). Scoble and Israel addressed the concerns of company executives who thought that blogs would be the demise of a corporation and employees will reveal deep, dark secrets to the general public. Alan recognized those worries, but pointed out that those employees who disliked the company to that degree would have probably left the company by now and if not, they would make their opinions known to consumers whether or not management allowed them to. He also added that the improved relationship with customers is well worth the risk. “ …Microsoft has hard evidence: surveys showing that customers viewing the company in more trusting terms” (page 11).

In one of their community blogs, Mark Russinovich, a Microsoft employee, talks about improvements made to Windows Vista SP1. After reading Russinovich’s blog, I have to ask who these blogs appeal to. Are all consumers attracted to company blogs or just those who have a high level of digital literacy? The information seems extremely technical and the majority of it was lost to me.

Since word of mouth is the most effective marketing tool, Scoble and Israel argue that blogs are some of the most effective forms of communication. The authors discuss several trends in communication and draw a linear comparison to phone books, websites, and blogs. They are the next logical step. Benefits of blogs, including the fact that they are low cost and easily accessible as well as conversational and informal are also highlighted in the reading.

In the article, Essential Blogging, by Corey Doctrow, how the more informal tone of blogs resonates with readers is also discussed. Doctrow mentioned the wide array of topics that he was able to discuss on his own blog—from company news to family announcements. Unlike Scoble and Israel, Gillmor argued that blogs are a time-intensive undertaking. Although I don’t disagree with Scoble’s and Israel’s claims that blogs are an effective medium of communication, I do think they sell them as an easy project that anyone can contribute to. I also think that the authors portray blogging as the all encompassing solution for Microsoft. It should be noted that Microsoft employed several different strategies—Scoble and Israel chose to highlight blogging. “Since the end of the anti-trust trial, Microsoft has been on a massive charm offensive. It has methodically settled lawsuit after lawsuit with rivals and governments. It reached out to all sorts of constituencies. Bill Gates himself has become calmer, less publicly combative, since leaving the CEO post. His charitable foundation has taken off in a very public way. And the company has allowed numerous employees to show a human face by blogging. All of this has improved their image” (p. 10)

One question that I would ask Scoble and Israel is this: How does a company know which blogs to respond to and which to write off as irrelevant? I can already anticipate their response, “You shouldn’t write off any blog as irrelevant,” they’d tell me. In an ideal world, you wouldn’t. However, in today’s work culture, it would be difficult to devote enough time to scanning every blog that mentions a particular company (there are over 700,000 blogs that mention Microsoft). To which blogs should a company devote their time and resources? The authors also mentioned a fact that was brushed over a bit too quickly:   “While as many as one-third of all blogs started may be abandoned within a year” (p. 25). Why are blogs abandoned? Could it be argued that although blogs are more informal and personal, they aren’t taken as seriously as other forms of media because peoples’ lack of commitment to their blog?

For the first time in modern history, the user is truly in charge, as a consumer and as a producer” (p. 137). Dan Gillmor discusses how this statement has been and can be both beneficial and detrimental to the past and future of blogging. As he did in chapters 1-6, Gillmor once again reiterates that many individuals still fail to see blogs as legitimate sources of information. He provides several examples of when this has been proven untrue including the case of a man named Zeyad who provided an insider’s perspective to the situation in Iraq in 2003. Zeyad soon became the go-to guy for many people who were seeking some sort of personal insight into the crisis in the Middle East. “Zeyad’s reporting was just one more example of how the grassroots have emerged, in ways the professional media largely still fail to comprehend, as a genuine force in journalism” (p. 136).

A familiar phrase in the world of news—off the record—no longer has the same implications that it once did. Gillmor recounted a time when President Bush hosted several businessmen at the White House for a meeting. No members of the media were invited to attend, but what the president (and those advising him) failed to recognize was that one of the individuals sitting in the room was a blogger. The meeting soon became public knowledge.

Although blogging about a semi-secretive meeting with the president may seem taboo, Gillmor claims that it’s often those kind of topics that individuals are more inclined to write about. On Persianblog.com, authors talked about subjects that were considered inappropriate in their own community—sex, religion and politics are just a couple examples of things that were discussed. In a similar way, many women are drawn to the site www.ivillage.com because it provides them with an outlet to talk about things that aren’t always conducive to carpool conversation. Some of the most popular blogs on Ivillage focus on sex and relationships. One hundred years ago, women would never feel comfortable sharing their marital strives with anyone other than their closest friends; today it’s much easier to reveal through blogging those aspects of your life that you deem private. Some knock the reputability of blogging because a lot of the individuals discussing these topics choose to be anonymous. Shouldn’t everyone be accountable for the material they post on blogs? Gillmor argues that individuals shouldn’t feel that need to hide behind firewalls. Gillmor also thinks anonymous blogs are not as reliable as those blogs where the authors identify themselves.

(more…)