New Media Fanboy

Check out Scobles presentation at Mediabistro’s Media Circus conference today. What are you missing out on?

ReadWriteWeb’s recent piece “Don’t Be So Naive: FriendFeed Adds to the Noise” writer Corvida tried to put to bed the ongoing argument of whether or not FriendFeed adds to the “noise” of the internet conversation or not.  RWW, while conceding that it added to the conversation, came firmly down on the side that it clearly was a noise polluter. 

From the RWW post:

There are dozens of ways that Friendfeed adds to the noise. For one, it pulls in one of the noisiest services out there: Twitter. At least 10% of Twitter streams have much to do about nothing and filtering out this noise is hard to do on FriendFeed. Secondly, for those that don’t entertain certain services that FriendFeed aggregates, that’s extra noise.

The Noise Argument Rests on One Key Assumption

This noise argument for sites like Twitter and FriendFeed are based on one (often unmentioned) tenant that the users of these services know what they are looking for on the Web.  The premise that users of Twitter or FriendFeed have a known result or conversation that they are searching for through the noise is implicit in the noise argument.  You must have a signal you’re trying to find in all of that noise for there to be a difference, right?

This is a flawed assumption.  I would argue that many of the users of FriendFeed and Twitter are not using it simply to keep track of the signal from their friends but also to learn and find what is not currently known to them.  They use it to cast a wider net on the conversation of the Web, to put out bigger receivers - to capture more information in hopes of finding what is interesting to them.  In this mode of searching for the unknown there is no distinction from signal and noise because that distinction is not made until the information is processed by the user.

To me the information flowing at me from FriendFeed and Twitter is not noise but opportunity to learn more, to learn something currently unknown to me, to be thrust further in to a conversation or experience or area of knowledge.  I cannot judge what is noise and what is signal because I have no reference point to the new and unknown information.

For Known Information the Opposite is True

The opposite remains true - that if you’re trying to follow a known conversation or track down known information or follow a known data stream it makes it harder to separate the noise from the signal; however the default argument should not rest on the premise that all users of the service are seeking out a known signal.

In the end it comes down to your vantage point - whether you’re in the “known” or “unknown” category - but arguments over whether the service creates more noise then become moot as each user’s mileage will vary based on the camp they fall in.

What do you think? 

Techcrunch posted an article yesterday about a subject that has been on my mind for the last week or so - Twitter spam.  The Social Times, CNET and others picked it up as well.  It hasn’t become a system-wide critical problem yet, but as more users get on board the Twitter wagon you can bet that there are people out there ready to shove any manner of obscene, money-making, weight-losing, fake watch-buying, viagra popping ads right to your Twitter feed.  And while that is definitely a concern the spam I’m worried about is the less-blatant type of spam from people you follow with interests.  Michael over at Profy.com raised a similar question: What’s considered spam on Twitter?  Well, here’s my take on it…

The difference between noisy and spammy

Some days I’m super-noisy on Twitter.  Maybe something has my attention, I’ve had too much coffee - whatever the case may be - I’m noisy for the day.  Then other days nothing stirs me and I’m quiet.  That’s being noisy.  I’m actually out there sharing links of interest, chatting it up and the like.  That’s noise.  If you don’t like the noise coming from me, stop following. Simple as that.  

Spammy is something entirely different than noise.  Noise implies that you are participating within the bounds of the ‘guidelines’ established by the Twitter community (albeit more exuberantly than others) while spam is a clearly a use of Twitter as a simple self-promotional broadcast signal of little to no-value.  Excellent examples of these are people that just blast off links about the product they manage or the startup they run or whatever item/service they have a vested interest in. They’ve basically replaced email blasts with Twitter blasts and the effects (and surely the results) are worse. 

If you hold the reigns on the Twitter account for a product or company use prudence!

If you’ve been put in charge of the Twitter account for your company, product or service realize you’re holding a powerful tool.  It’s not email, it’s more intimate than that.  People have invited you in to their conversation - it’s  big difference than being invited to a spot in their bulk mail folder.  Respect that intimacy.  Talk like a human being talks to other humans they are interested in.  Don’t use it as another way to “get mind share” or clicks or whatever you’re after.  Use it instead to build fans.

If you have a new release of your product send 1 update about it not 30 with every new feature that was just released.  1 might intrigue me to check out the new release, 30, well it might intrigue me to un-follow you as fast as I can get to it.  If you’ve got a press release or a new partnership share it with us - but don’t bash us over the head with it.  We’re in such close proximity that (trust me) I heard you, and if your offer or news item or release appeals to me (trust me) I’ll click and read it.

Don’t worry about the blatant spammers worry about those that you want to hear from that don’t get it.

The blatant spammers can be un-followed or blocked quickly.  An easy way to get rid of those folks from your list.  So let’s not worry about those.  Let’s worry about the people on Twitter who represent non-human things (products, services, etc.) who think of Twitter as a broadcast booth and not a conversation.  Let’s be sure that the word gets out that we don’t need your micro-radio station.  We want to hear from you only when we feel you really want to hear from us.  

If you feel like spamming, buy an email list.

So if you feel like some good ole’ fashioned interruption-based marketing, buy and email list and spam to your heart’s content.  But seriously, stay the f out of my Twitter feed.  Thank you.

Well that sure didn’t take long.  Yesterday I posted on how Jerry Yang would be in for a long week, and it started with a bang as one of Yahoo!’s biggest shareholders lambasted Yang for his weak gamble that has left shareholders high and dry.  It wasn’t hard to see coming. Silicon Alley Insider has all the details:

I’m extremely disappointed in Jerry Yang,” said Gordon Crawford, a portfolio manager at Capital Research Global Investors, which owns over 6% of Yahoo’s shares. “I think he overplayed a weak hand. And I’m even more disappointed in the independent directors who were not responsive to the needs of independent shareholders.”

It’s evident that most shareholders would have been perfectly happy with a transaction in the $34 range,” said Mr. Crawford. The concern owned over 16% of Yahoo’s shares according to the latest available regulatory filings, making it Yahoo’s largest shareholder.

Yahoo! has clearly shown that they didn’t really think the Microsoft deal was undervaluing the company but rather tried to game Microsoft for a bit more cash.  A move that in the end backfired.  Now trying to beat a hasty retreat and more importantly, SAVE HIS JOB, Jerry Yang is saying that if Microsoft has anything further to say he’s open to discussing it.

Sucks to get called on a bluff.

I am extremely angry at Jerry Yang and at the so-called independent board,” said Gordon Crawford, portfolio manager for Capital Research Global Investors…

Mr. Crawford questioned a statement from Mr. Bostock in which he said the company was pleased that so many shareholders had supported its position.

“I would love to know who these shareholders are,” Mr. Crawford said. “It’s none of the ones that I talked to today. Everybody I talked to would have sold their stock at $34.”

“I’m hoping that there is such an outpouring of outrage that the board is embarrassed into revisiting this thing,” Mr. Crawford added, “but I’m not optimistic about that.”

I posited yesterday that this deal would make or break Yang’s career and it clearly is not going well in the early stages.  If I was Microsoft I would think twice about coming back to the negotiating table and if I did I would be ruthless in exacting retribution for Yahoo!’s greedy attempt that ended up being nothing more than an empty bluff.

I think that Ballmer is better off for not doing this deal to begin with.  Yahoo! is a monolithic Web 1.0 company still stuck in the display advertising mode of their 1990’s birth and is poorly aligned to do much about it.  Now with a lame-duck board and CEO it is even more unlikely that company can achieve success after being the perennial also-ran.

Imagine you’re the CEO of a perennial Internet also-ran.  You head a company that on its best days is the bride’s maid.  You’re stock has languished in the low-to-mid 20’s for much of the year and you’re presented with an offer from a company that is offering a premium and has been willing to negotiate an extra $5 billion in to the deal to complete the purchase.  You say no.  How do you answer to the stock holders?

There has been plenty written about the aborted attempt of Microsoft to buy Yahoo! from both sides of the isle; but to me the real question is what does Jerry Yang say to the stockholders who are likely to see their value sink over the coming weeks as the realization that the clock has struck midnight and it’s back to the “Yahoo! Who?” mindset of those in the industry.

The CEO’s Job is to Create Shareholder Value

What does Yang know that the rest of us don’t?  The CEO’s number one job is to create shareholder value - period.  So Yang must be able to present a strong case that the company is aligned to create more value than the $33 offer that Microsoft put forward and I don’t personally see where that value comes from.  Yahoo! owns Flickr and del.icio.us which are great and Upcoming is, well, up and coming, but other than that they seem primarily stuck in the monolithic old-broadcast, impression-based advertising that has increasingly seen its sun set in this current Internet environment.  

So where does Yahoo! get its ‘mojo’ from to the point where shareholders will recoup the value lost for the inability of the board to close the Microsoft deal?

How Does Yang Explain that to the Shareholders?

How does Yang align a truly Web 1.0 enterprise in a way that shows the shareholders that they should keep the faith in the CEO and the board?  He will be under incredible pressure not only next week but throughout the remaining tenure as CEO and will be continually second-guessed by pundits inside the company, journalists, shareholders and board members.  This will define his career one way or another.  Do the shareholders think he’s betting right?

Some shareholders will certainly sue and call for Yang’s ouster which only time will tell if they are justified or not.  At the current point in time though I can’t see Yahoo!’s way out of the woods.  

So what do you think?  Will Yang be seen as the savior of Yahoo! or will he be ousted in infamy as botching the best opportunity the company had?

FriendFeed, the fun little social utility that aggregates all of your ’social’ activity in to one place and lets you share that mega-feed with your friends has relegated my Google Reader to the same status as junk mail and made Facebook like Ned Ryerson from my own personal Groundhog Day.  

Ned: Phil? Phil Connors? Phil Connors, I thought that was you! 
Phil: Hi, thanks for watching. 
[Starts to walk away] 
Ned: Hey now, don’t you tell me you don’t remember me ’cause I sure as heckfire remember you. 
Phil: Not a chance. 
Ned: Ned… Ryerson. “Needlenose Ned”? “Ned the Head”? C’mon, buddy. Case Western High. I did the whistling belly-button trick at the high school talent show? Bing. Ned Ryerson, got the shingles real bad senior year, almost didn’t graduate? Bing, again. Ned Ryerson, I dated your sister Mary Pat a couple of times until you told me not to anymore? Well? 
Phil: Ned Ryerson? 
Ned: BING! 
Phil: Bing. 

I feel bad, kind of, and I know I’m missing a lot of good information (especially on Google Reader); but the ease of FriendFeed (now integrated in to my Twhirl app) just makes it too easy to get information that I want from trusted sources.  For the better part of my daily social interaction FriendFeed has become the interface.

The Dusty Google Reader

My Google Reader, with my modest 150 feeds, has turned in to the TV or worse, junk mail.  I sift through it quickly when I feel like dealing with it - looking for the items of interest; but I find myself more-often-than-not being too exhausted by the thought of having to do all of that sifting by myself.  Call me lazy if you want, but I’d much rather know what others are finding interesting and use that as a sort of filter for the fire-hose that constantly comes out of my reader.  

So now I deal with Reader like I deal with mail.  I grab my mail, look for the the usual suspects (like my Economist, New Yorker, bills, checks, etc.) and then stack the rest for digestion later.  I open my Reader, check a few of the blogs that I respect, read a few items, and let the rest sit in a big pile of unread items that will most likely fade in to uselessness as I spend more time following the interesting items of my friends on FriendFeed.

Facebook Who?

FriendFeed has also relegated Facebook to an also-ran as I spend less time on the site and more time enjoying the news and information passed to me through Twitter and FriendFeed.  Why deal with SuperWalls, Growing gifts and other obnoxious Facebook “flair” when I can get the information I want and interact with the people I choose direct through whichever manner they choose to publish it?

FriendFeed is Charming

The fact that I can respond to a twitter, or comment on a blog post, or see the comments a person has left on another blog (through Disqus) or comment on a Flickr photo or learn of an Upcoming event all in one place and integrated with Twhirl means that I get exactly the information from the people I want no matter how they choose to share it.  I no longer have to remember to go to a zillion web pages, login, try to follow disjointed conversations and all of that nonsense.  I just use FriendFeed.

If You’re Not on FriendFeed You’re Missing Out

If you’re not there you’re not part of the evolving conversation.  I’m not active anywhere else right now because I don’t need to be.  If you’re interested in keeping up with your friends who leverage the power of social media online you’re sorely lacking without following them on FriendFeed.  

That’s the question I was asked today via, wait for it, Twitter by one of my blogosphere friends Chris.  I answered the right ratio is one-to-one.  One follower for every person you’re following.  Now, I’m not sure I’m sold on that argument.  I tend to favor Scoble’s take on Twitter more.  

My original thinking was it seems that balance - equilibrium - is a state favored by all systems; and so intuitively it makes sense that in order to be a contributing part of the Twitter community you’re somewhere near a balance between the people you follow and those that follow you.

But Scoble believes that the true power of Twitter is in the following - not the followers.  From his post on The secret to Twitter:

But what does following a lot of people say?

1. You’re trying to learn more.
2. You’re trying to meet more people.
3. You’re trying to be a better listener.
4. You’re communicating to the world that you’d like to be listened to (golden rule: treat people how you’d like to be treated).
5. You’re trying to find out about more stuff. More events. More stories.

Now, who would you rather hang out with? A person who only talks and doesn’t listen? Or a person who listens to as many people as he can?

All great points.  I decided long-ago that I was going to determine what was important in the world and no longer let the networks, movie studios and record labels dictate what I should and shouldn’t know, listen to, read and enjoy.  Twitter is a wonderful manifestation of this ‘power to the individual’ shift that is the hallmark of Web 2.0 (and to be evolved further in VRM).  

In following I decide what about the world is important to me - what part of the conversation I want to tap in to.  Whose opinion do I value, who do I want to hear from?  What filter do I want to put on the information that bombards us each and every day?  This is the power of following.  I control my interface to the conversation.

Why tune in to CNBC, CNN or anywhere else, when I can dictate and define the flow of information to me in a much more authentic, real-time and organic manner that I can disengage and engage with as I choose - without losing my place?

That, to me, is the power of Twitter - and it is accentuated by following people that will enhance my interface with the conversation.

Can you be following too many people?

Scoble follows 20,000+ folks every day - and receives more than a ‘tweet’ a second.  How can this type of information flow be beneficial to anyone?  And how is it a filter?  This argument has been made by people who think Scoble’s argument doesn’t hold water - those that think of Twitter as a publishing platform rather than a community/conversation.  

Of course, a tweet a second is an impossible pace to keep up with and makes the filter I discussed earlier about as thin as it gets; but at this level of follower I liken it less to a filter and interface choice to the cyber version of people watching.

Lots of people love to people watch.  I like to sit at a street-side cafe or bar and watch folks walking by, engaged in their own lives just to do it.  People are interesting and I think that by having a large mass of followers you are essentially people watching on a grand scale.  

You can still engage and disengage as you please - but you now have the ability to stop and watch a massive conversation taking place - much like pulling up a chair outside a busy JFK terminal.  People constantly going back and forth; and the volume isn’t overwhelming, because by making the choice to put yourself in that situation you can pick and choose when to engage and what to pay attention to.

You can’t follow too many people

How many you follow obviously comes down to your purpose for using Twitter.  And if you’re using it as a way to keep tabs on the ongoing cacophony of the Web then you can’t follow too many folks.  The more I follow the more interested I become in what is going on out there.  I learn more about new tools and technologies and great articles through Twitter than through anywhere else.  It is an interface with millions of ongoing conversations, mixed with the ability to engage and disengage at will, that makes following people on Twitter the more interesting proposition than simply amassing followers. 

That’s me.  I’m a new media fan boy.  I love all the alpha and beta releases, I love Facebook, Qik, Web 2.0 and blogging.  I’ve been blogging for over a year now - just on an entirely different subject.  Now that I’m back in the online marketing world (as opposed to the more archaic lead-gen marketing world) I’ll be using NMFB to show my adoration for the Web services that bring us all together, one way or another.

Stick around if you like this stuff - I promise not to disappoint (entirely).

And to get us started friend me up (thx GaryVee) on:

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Pownce
• FriendFeed
• Digg
• StumbleUpon
• del.icio.us
• Qik
• LinkedIn

I look forward to talking with you about the stuff I love.