Editors Need to Work the Fry Station Too

Wonderful homage to editors by Greg Hadfield at TheMediaBrief.com -- with a bit of a tweak at the end. Hadfield praises the editors of past for being the "Manager of the football club," (if he were American, no doubt he would have likened them to the quarterback.) In any event -- the editors of lore inherently "got it" -- they knew the news that the audience wanted -- and getting the story and the edition right consumed them. They got it because they lived and breathed it.

But that isn't yet the editor of the digital age. Yes, they "get" the importance -- but they haven't yet gotten the medium as it relates to their audience. Hadfield chides them for not worrrying about the Home page -- as they did the Front page. And no wonder. Our top editors of today haven't yet come up through the ranks having worked the fry station.

Eighteen months ago I challenged CEOs and Publishers for exactly this same issue. Unlike editors, publishers and CEOs of past, today's top executives were well into their career when along came the Internet. They can wax poetic about waxing copy, remember their hands grimy with ink, but since they didn't spend their formative years clicking, tweeting and commenting -- they are merely fans -- and not the quarterback of today's media groups. And it shows.

It's why the bloggers are so far ahead in many ways than the traditional media. They have programmed their pages, figured out how to manipulate HTML, stay on top of new widgets and discovered how to get an audience -- and engage with that audience. They live and breath their blog -- they imbue passion.

I've said it before and I will say it again: McDonald's won't allow you to become a manager if you haven't worked the fry station. Today's editors, publishers & CEOs need to know that without these rudimentary skills -- they aren't fit for the job.

Bob Abel: The Father of the "Interactive Experience'

Robert “Bob” Abel is largely an unknown name in the world of interactivity. Which is unfortunate because he easily could be known as the Father of the Interactive Experience – and the originator of the Mashup. For me, Abel was the inspiration for my career -- which was to connect reporting -- with storytelling.

An Emmy and Golden-Globe winning film producer, a 33-time Clio-award winning advertising executive, Abel is considered a seminal figure in the world of computer animation and special effects in commercials and motion pictures (using computer-controlled cameras). So what do you get when you cross a creator, a curator, a curiosity for computing power and an insatiable drive to connect with audiences? You get Bob Abel, interactive producer.

Back in the late ‘80s, Apple introduced a unique technology called the HyperCard. It combined database capabilities with a graphical, flexible, user-modifiable interface and was the first consumer product that introduced the concept of “hyperlinking,” being able to access external information with a single link. Abel realized the potential of the technology and set about creating a very ambitious production called “Guernica.”

Inspired by the anti-war painting by surrealist Pablo Picasso, Abel wanted others to be able to witness and explore that chaotic time period. Using HyperCard and videodisc technologies, Abel let users explore Picasso’s interpretation of the mayhem and tragedy following the aerial massacres of Basque civilians in Guernica, Spain, a cultural bastion of art and history during the Spanish Civil War. Picasso’s imagery is of course symbolic in and of itself with its strewn body parts and dying animals – and Abel enriches these symbols by providing access to archived interviews, footage and news coverage by different witnesses to history.

By choosing from an array of “witness” tools, users could click on various portions of the painting – the horse, the bull’s tail (a plume of flames and smoke), the women – and glean different types of information about the painting, the artist, the economy at that time -- or the war itself. Each tool allowed the user to obtain different types of information embedded in the painting – for the richest possible user experience.

Abel saw the potential of mashing-up disparate types of information around a narrative. While a person may skim right past the 2D painting hanging on a wall in a museum or printed on the page, Abel believed that they would stop and interact if it was embedded with information. In fact, Abel saw titles like "Guernica" as the ultimate educational tool – self-paced and self-directed.

This archtype of interactivity that was lauded by many, sniffed at by some who couldn’t fathom the huge price tag, didn’t actually deliver on all promises. Abel’s ambition outpaced the storage capacity of the videodisc, and while the experience should have been seamless, the tools of that time were primitive. The interface (necessarily) had so many windows and drop downs – and screens (NTSC interlocking on computer screens was not available yet, so video would open a window on a second monitor) it was hard to get your bearings. I believe Jonathan Gibson was the interface designer -- and while it was a kluge – it was utterly brilliant.

In truth, Abel was years ahead of the technologies out there, and his death in 2001 cut short his ability to see how user-driven experiences would become the Holy Grail for media companies. Although, I can’t help but believe, that this artist/executive/visionary would be disappointed in the convergence efforts by the media in general. Bloggers have keenly understood that assets are enriched when accompanied by links -- but the media still seems obsessed by the linear flow.

When given a chance to present complex information in this method of self-paced exploration, at best they create a list of links out to archives (at worst, they do nothing). Worse still, they have yet to truly harness the power of computing – the power of perspective.

Abel knew that to pique curiosity you need a narrative. And while media and news companies have the very archives that Abel’s videodisc called out to – I have yet to see one attempt to mashup information in the way that Abel managed to do with both Guernica -- and another effort, underwritten by IBM, to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the voyage of Columbus to America. Abel titled it: "Columbus: Encounter, Discovery, and Beyond" (a multicultural experience). Massive in scope, it drew from 2,300 articles and had 400,000 soft links. A whopping 180 hours of instruction.

As today’s media struggle to find their relevance, perhaps what they are really missing is the consummate storyteller, the producer – who can weave together all of these loose threads of information into a rich tapestry of the likes of "Guernica."

Even 'Techies' May Just Not Get It

I’ve been involved in the technology world for over 15 years. And one thing I can say with certainty is there is no such thing as a technical person who “gets it all.” Technology, like any discipline, has many facets and segments. Folks that understand networking will know nothing at all about web services. People that are experts on search won’t have a clue about how encryption works. Database gurus can be imbeciles when it comes to managing wireless networks.

The challenge is that all of are guilty of painting all technologists with a broad brush. “He’s a techy so he’ll understand.” This creates two problems: 1) technical people tend to speak in the patois that is unique to their discipline – and never learn to speak in metaphors to ensure clarity, and, 2) we defer to the technical person in a company to make critical decisions – thinking s/he is getting it – when in fact, s/he might be as in the dark as we are, or worse!

Why do I mention this? It has to do with effective communication – or lack thereof by people who sell technical things/ideas/services to technical and non-technical people. And by communication I mean the human kind – not the networking type. The importance of this cuts on both sides of the fence.

If you assume everyone in the room understands the nuances of your technology you are potentially taking your product right out of the game. Let me show you how:

Company A has 3 professionals in the room. A “technical” domain manager – who is supposed to be the domain expert, a business one – who knows the business needs, and a higher level technical manager – who will actually sign the check. By only effectively communicating to the domain expert you have essentially eliminated the other two from the decision making process. If the domain expert doesn’t “get it” – or feels threatened by the new technology – you don’t have a snow-balls shot of making the sale.

If, on the other hand, you can effectively communicate with all three professionals – with metaphors, anecdotes and statistics – one person’s bias can be overridden by the other two.

So tips to communicating your technical product to a mixed crowd:

Assume everyone is not as technical as you are
This doesn’t mean speak in a condescending way – but enlighten with stories as you explain. People may have a rudimentary knowledge of your technology – but unless they are involved in the bits and bytes – probably are not going to be aware of the nuances. Use metaphors to make your points. A colleague and I both use “chocolate” as a metaphor for XML. Many people will never grasp the details of XML – but they can understand the concept of how melted chocolate can take on the characteristics of a mold – just like text in XML can be poured into a template.

Stop speaking in your patois
A Microsoft Word document cannot be understood in a WordPerfect application – unless it is saved in a neutral format. Do the same when you speak. Words like “shred,” “transform,” “hash” are technical concepts – that may mean slightly different things to people whom are technical – and may mean nothing at all to people whom are not. And technical people are the last people to ask for a definition. If they don’t understand what you are trying to convey, chances are they’ll just boot you. Instead define jargon and offer examples.

It’s About the Benefits, Stupid
Features are usually only of interest to Product Managers – and those clients whom have requested them. Benefits are what piques interest – and makes sales. But benefits are in the eye of the beholder. Technical people may look for speed, scale, ease of deployment. Business people will value increased efficiencies, minimal disruption to current workflows. Investors want to know how the product will hold up against competition. Analysts want you to pander to their language.

Former German Chancellor Willi Brandt once said, "If I'm selling to you, I speak your language. If I'm buying, dann mussen Sie Deutsch sprechen." You might find that by speaking the language your customers understands, translates to more sales.

The Role of Journalism Within the Press

The decade-long introspection of “the future of publishing” has twisted pubishing executives into Gordian knots. “Information wants to be free,” “Content can not be free.” “The Wall Street Journal charges,” “The WSJ has unique urgent business news – paid for with corporate expense accounts, not consumer ones,” so sayeth the pundits.

Pay-wall or no paywall, from mono-channel to multi, publishing has been forced by the disruption of the Internet, to evolve or perish. But should the burden of change be solely on the medium? Or should the creators of content be looked at as change agents – actively looking to revise the product? The challenge is the content creators have, in large part, been journalists. And as a group, they abhor change.

Publishing and journalism have been inextricably linked since the advent of the printing press, and journalism, throughout the world, is often understood to be a bulwark of democracy.

Indeed, when New York Weekly Journal editorial writer James Alexander lampooned New York's Royal Governor William Cosby for terminating New York's Chief Justice after the judge had ruled against the sovereign appointee. Governor Cosby had been appointed by King George II, to head the young colonial province in 1731. A vindictive and aristocratic ruler, Cosby had tried to justify the sacking in the Journal -- but the editorial page fought back. Finally, Cosby sued the paper's publisher, Peter Zenger for seditious libel. At the time, English law protected government against critics. In what has stood as a landmark ruling, Zenger's attorney, Alexander Hamilton, passionately defended the publisher and established that truth is an absolute defense against libel.

That victory for truth was a victory for democracy, and thereby elevated journalism, journalists and the press to be referred to as the fourth estate as well as the fourth branch of government. Keeping a watchful eye on democracy required being unfettered from the influences of commerce; hence the firewall between the newsroom and advertising had been inviolable. And with this sacrosantness -- came absolute power. Nary anything could be added or subtracted from the paper -- without the blessing of the newsroom.

However, in a world where publishing has been stood on its head by the disrupter of all disrupters, the Internet, forcing a rapid evolution of the medium, the sovereignty of the newsroom is at stake. If digital newspapers cannot survive – is it because the business model is bad – or because the product has not adapted to the needs of the people?

Early-stage investor Charlie O’Donnell asserts that people will pay for content if the product (and the payment model) are right, and cites products that are perfectly relevant to people’s lives. Outsell Analyst David Worlock concurs that an evolution is needed. He observes that “our customers have turned from a content-sharing and information-sharing environment to one that wants us to solve a problem.” Which may explain the rapid adoption of apps that help us find restaurants in cities, sales in malls, and sitters in NY.

But will people pay for that which journalists create? I am not debating the value of journalism to society. Journalism is often described as the (factual) reporting of trends, news and events, while the definition of the fourth branch of government was any group that supplied checks and balances on the government. For years the press held the edge of being sole watchdog of democracy. But in the new media, bloggers have assumed that role as well. That doesn’t mean that watchdog journalism needs to go away, but the press can’t stand on its laurels of thinking it is the only arbiter of the truth. As such, the value of watchdog journalism, like good parenting or nutritious food, is often lost on its benefactors -- until it is absent.

Will tomorrow's journalist morph into an oracle of answers to problems poised? It is possible. As journalists have more access to and comfort with technology, they will begin to mine the rich resources of their audiences to create news stories, including voices found in tweets and comments, and maybe some will be set up as experts in given areas. Some will also begin to lose some of their objectivity and proffer analysis along with their news, a trend seen recently in The New York Times, and commented on by its new Public Editor Arthur Brisbane.

But the real change will be in the hierarchy of the press. While we should continue to expect a veracity of our journalists, no longer should they have veto power over new technologies, new services, new sources of revenue for the entire organization. Keeping journalism at its best means freeing it from the shackles of holding the monopoly on content creation.

'Human Metadata' Shapes Experiences

I haven't had a chance to read Guy Deutscher's book “Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages,” being published this month by Metropolitan Books, but I read a fascinating excerpt in today's The New York Timess' Sunday Magazine.

Deutscher, an honorary research fellow at the School of Languages, Linguistics and Cultures at the University of Manchester, looks at different languages to examine whether they impose different contexts for its speakers. He cites for example how English speakers can be inexact about the gender in the following sentence: A friend came over last night., while in most other languages we would know whether that "friend" was male or female. (Totally unscholarly aside: might the English language ability to obfuscate gender allow us to create nonsensical laws like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and influence perceptions of homosexuality around the globe?)

Most languages required the individual to store gender with objects, (although not uniformly: the German bridge is feminine —the Spanish is masculine), whereas others use a mind-expanding geospatial method. Native Americans and indigenous Islanders apparently use N, S, E, W coordinates to relay location, whereas English and European languages use an egocentric method — in front, behind, etc. More interestingly, that "geospatial data" is actually stored in human memory!

Language apparently forces us to store a type of human metadata with every memory that shapes experiences, connotations and denotations. It is easy to infer how publishers providing mashups that rely on multiple types of metadata would enrich the experience to those who may think differently than the way the media originally thought they would.

6 Things About Unstructured Content You Need to Know

Unstructured data. As a writer I hate that term. I remember the first time I heard reference to it: sitting in a meeting and technical people were talking about all the unstructured content that publishers produce. How could they be speaking about articles as unstructured? If anyone has made it through kindergarten they have learned that they must follow a linguistic pattern or structure in order to communicate effectively. But in the lexicon of geekdom, any article, picture, powerpoint, video, song, user-generated content -- your kids' text messages -- are all: unstructured. Any "data" that does not fit nicely into a column or a row -- is considered unstructured.

Now, as much as I hate the term, there is a logic that places all content that didn't fall neatly into a table to be called unstructured versus structured. It was evident when classifieds first went online. Dumped from mainframes where customers paid by the character, people created their own short-hand to say 4BR House 4 Sale. Turns out though, that all that unstructure (which I prefer to say as free-form)  makes it very hard to search on. Don't believe me? Go to Craig's List -- which tries to impose structure on advertisements by putting it under broad categories and locations. Other than that -- it is pretty freestyle. Nannies are caregivers are sitters (baby or otherwise) -- and plural or otherwise. And search on one of those terms at the peril of not finding it under the other.

On the flip side are the sites that allow only structure: information fits neatly in a row or a table and has descriptive titles like Type of residence, # of Bedrooms, Siding, Price, MLS # etc. Having that structure makes it easy to query or search on that information. You probably have heard of SQL -- which is the acronym for Structured Query Language. Relational databases use SQL to find content -- by looking in the appropriate fields. Which is all well and good for content like financial information, inventories, human resources stuff. But what about the rest of the content that floats around a corporation? The memos, sales presentations, business plans, schematics, Web sites -- the stuff we sometimes refer to as: Knowledge - and which in geekdom is called unstructured content, are the digital assets we need to carefully manage.

So here's 6 Things You Need to Know About Unstructured Content.

1. It's everywhere. Analysts, pundits and people in the know estimate that more than 80% of content produced in an enterprise is unstructured
2. Content is containerized. Unstructured content resides in containers like .doc, .ppt, .tiff -- and you must have the right software application to read or edit it.
3. Managing unstructured content is hard. Because content resides in containers it is hard to know what it is in each one. 
4. XML is crucial for reuse and sharing. Sometimes called atomic or neutral format, XML is a language used to transmit content -- without burden of the container. Neutral content can be then "poured" into any template (Word, Web, PDF -- mobile apps!!!) for easier repurposing. If you have unstructured content (and most likely you have lots of it) it should be stored in an XML format.
5. Good metadata is essential. Once content is in an XML format, enrich it with semantic metadata. This is critical to letting knowledge workers find out what each asset is about
6. Native XML databases provide agility & efficiencies. Relational databases (RDBMS) are great for organizing and querying structured data -- while XML databases rock for unstructured content. You can make an RDBMS work with XML, but you will lose a lot in database performance (upwards of 30% is estimated by Forrester). ) -- Heck I will use a knife to tighten a screw -- but sometimes I need to go and get the Philips head.

Now let's look briefly at what all this means. You have tons of content that doesn't fit into tables and rows. Storing content in their original containers of powerpoints, word docs and PDFs makes it extraordinarily hard to share and repurpose this content -- since it's hard to search it -- and cutting and pasting becomes the only alternative. And when we are talking about sharing and repurposing, remember all the great mash-up apps that your content might be perfect for -- if only it were in a neutral format.

Look, I don't like the term Unstructured Content -- but the acronym of CTDFWICAR (Content that doesn't fit well in columns and rows) is hardly memorable -- and way too long. Semi-structured content (because XML actually follows schemas -- which makes it semi-structured, but that's for another day) is only half as horrible as unstructured. In any event, while it may be free-form -- this type of content is the lifeblood of any organization -- and deserves its own special database to help keep it valuable.

No Net Neutrality? The Ultimate Tax on Businesses & Society

Wanna watch conservative and libertarian eyes twitch: tell 'em we need more government oversight. No doubt they would point to the all-but-impotent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as yet another example of how government mucks things up. And they would be right, with only themselves (and Congress) to blame.

Set up in 1934 to "ensure that the American people have available -- at reasonable costs and without discrimination -- rapid, efficient, nation- and world-wide communications services," the FCC has been loaded with commissioners more concerned with areola than meaningful access. And the laws they have made (1996) deregulating the telcos but not dealing with the last mile until nearly a decade later, increased competition - but only to a point. The "last mile" is the euphemism for the customer -- and every long-distance new competitor that emerged in the 1990s -- had to pay the incumbent Bells a "toll" to bring the long-distance wire to the customer. Fast forward another 10 years, and through roll-ups, the FCC managed to pave the way to a new unregulated monopoly -- Verizon.

Which brings us to today's topic Net Neutrality -- or rather, Verizuhn'sNet, or as my favorite curmudgeon Jeff Jarvis decries: The Schminternet. Google and Verizon cobbled together a self-serving policy. Per the FCC edict: there would be no discrimination -- on wired services. But wireless and managed services? New ballgame. In fact, the business model already exists: it's called cable -- and you can only get your HBO if you pay for the mega movie package. Telco and Internet Law Professor Susan Crawford calls this a "science-fiction-quality loophole."

That Google has decided to cross the line and work with Verizon to end the Net-Neutrality stalemate is because the FCC created a blackhole instead of policies -- not that the courts have helped. None of the adults decided to man up -- so the corporations are. Funny, the libertarians and conservatives don't trust government -- but they want to trust the folks most likely to profit from any policy changes. Fox. Henhouse. Anyone?

So while the FCC is impotent and will remain so if the commissioners -- and Congress -- who pass insipid bills who are too busy fundraising rather than studying up on the subjects on which they are making laws,  perhaps we can rouse that other slightly older federal agency the FTC, who is supposed to be worried about trade and commerce, consumer protections and anti-competitive monopolies to see that what this mumbo-jumbo really is: a tax on small businesses and individuals. If they can't afford to pay, they won't be able to play. This regressive tax would unlevel the playing field -- stifling job creation and innovation by blocking those too small to ante from Schminternet services.

Oh and just in case there is any, ahem,  (no doubt) unintended discrimination, according to the GooVer proposal, one can file a complaint. A $2m penalty would be incurred by anyone in violation (see loopholes above to see if you have a snow-balls chance of winning).

And of course if the FTC won't step, we can always pray to the folks at FaceBook to do the opposite of whatever Google wants.