Social Software Explored

Netflix has the best streaming video service hands down. That includes (IMHO) all of the “OnDemand” services currently being offered by the big cable and satellite companies. Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon (and others) have a great service but, I believe that all of them lack a few valuable things that video on demand must have:

1) Recommendation engine: without a truly interactive experience the concept of choice comes right out of video on demand
2) Series based show management: watching an episode from a TV series and being asked at the end if you would like to watch the next episode is genius. It’s like the “repeat if desired” on all shampoo packaging. It drives more use.
3) Watch anywhere concept: I know this is difficult to grasp but watching quality video over the Internet is very possible. Being forced to watch videos/movies/tv through a set top box is limiting. (I believe Verizon is the first company advertising the ability to start the movie on your laptop, continue on your tablet and finish on your TV – sorry Direct TV’s “Any TV in your house just doesn’t cut it today)

Does TV belong on your television?

So you have to ask yourself: “should quality video content viewing be limited to your television?”. Hopefully you realize that the answer to this is no.

Why then is Netflix messing with their foothold in the market for quality web streaming of video content? I think it’s exactly what they are doing when it comes to the new deal to be the sole distributor for a new Kevin Spacey television show (coming in late 2012). This announcement came as a big surprise to me.

Content providers like ESPN, MLB and NBA have begun to offer web based streaming of their content. Currently I subscribe to the lower end NBA League Pass Broadband (the one where you pick 7 teams) and I spend more on that in the 6 months of the regular season then I do for an entire year of Netflix. The quality of the video on the NBA LP is watchable. Period.

Be good at what you do

Netflix gets it. The have it down. Why not lease their technology, servers, connection and services? Why not be the YouTube of streaming movies (that sounds funny but it’s actually true – YouTube is very far away from being the leader in full feature film and tv streaming – and it shouldn’t be – but that’s another story). Why not help ESPN 3 become what it can truly become instead of just some experiment in live sports streaming (kudos to ESPN though as I rate their offering as the current leader in this space).

To someone that currently doesn’t use a set top box to access content at home, it is surprising to me that Netflix would enter into a space that it has little experience in when the few things that they are good at are so far beyond the competitive market. Leave the content production to the people that do that best and figure out a way to lease your services to Hulu or to bring every network not affiliated with Hulu into the future of streaming media.

Only time will tell but my impression is that Netflix will not succeed in becoming a big time content producer in the near to distant future and the divide in direction may hurt them as much as selling videos in a store hurt blockbuster.

Every morning this week I open my hotel room door and step over the USA Today Newspaper that has been so kindly placed on the floor. Sure I glance at the headline. But each evening when I return I find that same paper I stepped over in a pile on the table right inside my room.

Today is Thursday and by the time I leave tomorrow the count of papers in that pile will have reached 4. Dust them for prints and I guarantee you won’t find mine on any of them. However, USA Today counts my papers in their circulation numbers to advertisers. Now think of all of the other people in the US that do the same thing I do. And u know what advertisers know this.

This isn’t new news to many but I can’t help but get angry at how ridiculous this is (not to mention the amount of paper that’s being wasted).

I understand (well not really) that a large portion of our society has an attachment to physical newspapers. But I honestly can’t wait to hear this:

“Grandpa, tell us again how you used to get news and information on paper delivered to your house every morning. And tell us again how you and your friend Ryan would get up at 5:30 AM on Sundays to put together the Sunday Journal and drive around in the rain an snow and deliver these papers for like $8 a week”

When I first got started on the web I was pretty good with photoshop.  I worked for a small local ISP in Wakefield, RI.  We started by offering dial-up internet access in 1996 and by 1998 we were heavy into website development.  I was the only developer for the company for the first few years and built some pretty awesome websites (which never made a dime).

I wasn’t a real graphics designer but I knew how to use software and I was pretty creative. At the time Adobe sold Photoshop and Illustrator as separate products and it was way before the Macromedia merger and years before the concept of Creative Suite. I don’t know the exact cost of Photoshop back then but I have to guess that it was a few hundred dollars.  Without Photoshop, our web development team would have never been successful.

Contributors were developers back then

In the early stages of the web successful developers were usually either really savvy technical people with a bit of creativity or full on designers that had taken courses in college on digital development.  We have come a long way since then.  Now almost everyone is a creator.  Almost every computer you buy comes with some sort of content creation suite (Apple obviously leads this charge with their “iLife” series).  If you are savvy developer and you have ever used these “out of the box” applications you can see their limitations pretty quickly.  iWeb is no Dreamweaver.

Contributors are not developers anymore

The major issue with Creative Suite is that Adobe does a great job selling to large corporate companies that have many “talented” content contributors but doesn’t really offer a lot of options for the growing general community of contributors like Stella.  She maintains a Lego Indiana Jones walk-through site called BrickRaiders.net (along with a few other similar sites).  As you can see, she spends a lot of time and does a really good job organizing and styling her content.  She says she’s “… considered Adobe Creative Suite and other similar programs, but to be honest, I just can’t afford them.”

Nick Bilton quotes Sarah Rotman Epps from Forester, in the NY Times article entitled “Where Does Adobe Go From Here”:

“Adobe’s main business comes from its enterprise software and its massive sales to corporations,” Ms. Rotman Epps said. “They might have to offer a less expensive and stripped down set of software for standard consumers.”

Opportunity knocks

I agree with Sarah.  Content contributors are everywhere and they are getting more savvy and are starting to expect more from the software they use.  Especially, when it comes to publishing their content to the web.  If Adobe (and others) want to make it in the next stages of the Internet growth, they must consider the general consumer as an opportunity and learn how to address their needs.

I just signed up for NBA broadband. I know expensive. But without cable or satellite I won’t be able to see any NBA games until they start showing up on Sundays. Which doesn’t start until October 27th. I can choose 7 teams that I want to watch. However, when I go to their account management section there is no indication of that on their site.

It got me thinking. If I was a digital information designer that was out of work, I would totally take a site, microsite or even a page and modify it to make it better. It would kind of go like this:

1) as you use the web start thinking about how you knew what to click or how to accomplish a series of tasks. I am not necessarily thinking about using the web to learn about lifes information. Start with the sites that have real tasks like:
- manage my account
- add content to a site (facebook,twitter,YouTube etc…)

2) fix what’s broken. Does something take too many clicks? Is it confusing on what button to press? Are u struggling to find an important piece of information?

Take matters into your own hands. Make the changes that are necessary. Heck, spruce it up a little bit.

3) send me a link. I will review it with you and then post my review here on my blog. If you want you can tag the link with #iknowweb.

If you are seriously looking to be employed in this space this will be a great addition to your resume.

Why isn’t anyone talking about how stupid this is. Who cares about Cleveland, their fans or their owner. Cleveland sucked before Lebron (minus a few good Mark Price years) an they will suck after Lebron.

This is stupid because it doesn’t really make sense. Lebron in Miami? 3 players does not a team make. The “Big Three” in Boston became the “The Big Four + amazing bench + coach” and still couldn’t get past the lakers.

Only person I feel worse for than any mark price fan is Byron Scott. Seriously, that dude is fucked.

If Miami doesn’t average 112 PTs a game next year they won’t win and lebrons hour long special will prove how far from being “the king” lebron truly is.

Name anyone on the Miami bench who is capable of scoring 10 points and grabing 8 rebounds during an NBA finals series?

Better yet, who are the other 2 players starting for Miami.

Better still, who is their sixth man? You know the one that leads the offense in the middle of the second and third quarters (a la Odom)

Maybe the idea of NOT being the center of attention suits lebron just fine. The biggest notSuperstar ever.

Miami just sold out every home game through 2012. (not technically possible, but can u imagine what courtside seats will coat for game 7 of the 2011 eastern conference finals?)

IF, lebron wins a ring he has done nothing to improve his spot in history as one of the greatest.

Comparing this to the Bird, McHale and Parish years is despicable. The celtics of the 80′s had:
- bench, bench and more bench
- history, history and more history (you don’t think that helps win championships? Think again)
- Eric Spoelstra vs. K.C. Jones (take ur pick)

Do the matchup with the current NBA Champions:
- Lebron vs. Kobe – toss up but you have to give the edge to Kobe since he has 5 rings
- Dwayne vs. Farmar/Fisher/Blake – together they need to focus on defense but scoring edge goes to wade obviously
- Bosh vs. Gasol/Bynum/Odom – scorng wise Bosh and Gasol are equal. Add youth of Bynum (should he remain healthy) and championship experience of Gasol and it’s clear that the Lakers have the edge
- ??? vs. Artest
- Spolestra vs. Jackson – really?? Really? He had trouble coaching one superstar let alone three. Jackson took two of the beat players in the league and not only made them win he made them build respect for each other. Jackson is to coaching as dahli lama is to Buddhism.
- ??? vs. Bench – farmar, vujacik, Walton all have won 2 championships.

At best what lebron has done can only be compared to what the Denver nuggets did when they acquired iverson. And they had one of the best coaches in NBA history.

We have recently hired a new consultant who for reasons that I will not go into is taking a leave of absence from his current employer.  The employer happens to be a client of ours (they use CommonSpot).  We hired the consultant on to our Professional Services team because he has experience with our product and therefore brings instant value to our organization.

It is not uncommon for developers today to be highly specialized (and often certified) with a particular piece of software.  In some cases, it might be the only software package that developer works with.  For some developers this can be a double edged sword.  If the software package presents enough challenges and allows the developer to be creative on daily basis then their work can be rewarding enough to keep them interested.  And while there may also be some level of job security present with being so closely tied to that software it also can get boring.  Working in the same software day in and day out.

Enter the “Vendor Sabatical” Concept

The idea itself is rather simple, a developer at company who is closely tied to a particular software package takes an unspecified break from the organization (possibly a paid leave).  During the break the developer joins one of the vendors team and works for that vendor directly.  In our case we hired the developer to join our Professional Services team and I think this makes the most amount of sense.

Our Professional Services team essentially uses our product just like a customer would so it made a lot of sense to put him to work there.  He has intimate knowledge of the product and understands first hand what our other customers might be interested in doing with the product.

So, why should everyone do this? It makes a ton of sense.  Here are the benefits to the developer:

1.)  Get a break from the mundane tasks that they are accustomed to within their environment
2.) Interact with other developers and learn new development techniques related (or unrelated) to their current work
3.) Intimate knowledge of other cultural work environments

Here is the benefit to both the developer and the client

1.) Learn new implementation or development techniques that could be beneficial internally
2.) Become more knowledgeable about the product
3.) Build a better relationship with the vendor

And of course the vendor benefits:

1.) Increased relationship with client
2.) Augment internal staff member work and increase profit

I think this type of engagement could be so beneficial for the organization that they would continue to pay the developer and the vendor would gain the use of this employee free of charge.  (Well maybe that last part was kind of more hopeful than possible :)

Recently my mom not only asked me to join her on Facebook (or maybe more likely she asked to join me on Facebook) she also created a Twitter account and posted “@notronwest I lost your number can you call me?” (as her first post ever) She recently took down her Twitter account when I told her not to follow me there cause she wouldn’t understand a word I said but, I think she is pretty serious about Facebook.

Facebook and Mom - matched made in ??

Not unfamiliar territory for most of us but I thought it would be a good idea to talk about the expectations a mother should have should one of her offspring decide to connect on social media sites (like Facebook)

1.) Don’t expect to understand everything that your offspring says. We are in a different world now and for some of us the language is different. I am not talking about words like “wicked” or “phat” or other social slang – I am talking about Doppelganger, Pandora, Hipster … words that have real connotation but are best described to those that don’t understand with a role of the eyes.

2.) Don’t pretend to understand everything that your offspring says. Nothing worse than a “hip” mother sharing their favorite 60′s Pandora radio station link on your Facebook wall.

3.) Don’t take anything that your offspring says or does personally. What you get on Facebook is sometimes easily taken out of context. This is a relatively new medium for most of us and we ourselves are trying to figure out the right way to use it. We may (and often do) say something that isn’t quite politically correct or goes against the morals you taught us. Remember that sometimes we drink before we update Facebook and therefore can’t be held completely responsible for our actions. Unconditional love – right?

4.) Keep your distance. Let it come to you (and it will). Eventually, over time, you will understand that less is more. Again you are gaining a unique view into your offspring’s life. One that you were never afforded before. Imagine what you would have thought should you have bugged the bedroom when I was 10 and had my friends over for a sleepover or gasp when I was 16 and my girlfriend and I … well you get the picture.

5.) Get involved but don’t offer advice (not online anyways). We are past that stage in our lives (most of us anyways) where we don’t want your advice. We get it – your smart – you’ve been there and done that. Most of us don’t want our friends to see that we are still attached at the hip – I mean were in our 30′s for goodness sake – if we can’t demonstrate that we have figured it out by now we will never make it.

6.) Don’t be surprised if we call less and post more. We are creatures of the net. Our jobs and home life have equal parts human contact and digital contact. If we feel we can get our point across or have our questions answered online – that’s where it will happen. It doesn’t mean we won’t call – ever – just not as much.

7.) This is a huge opportunity – don’t blow it.

Oh – and by the way – we love you!

I am very fortunate in many ways but, one of the fortunate things I get to do is to meet cool people. All of the people that I meet add a lot to my life and the combination of their knowledge feeds my own thoughts on a daily basis. I share with you today a conversation that I had on Twitter with a very intelligent marketing person at Seton Hall (Rob Brosnan – @brosnaro).

He posted the following:

Facebook Showing Worth?

Being that I don’t know a ton about marketing I replied (ignore the “tweet so rarely” dig – just trying to get more frequent posts out of him :)

What is 18 30d?

And the answer is:

First Click from Facebook is more valuable than same source Google view

Essentially, what Rob is saying is that you can’t always count on “same session” information to tell you the story about a conversion and that what he concludes is that Facebook as a lead in or introductory source, is becoming more successful.

Do you count “30d first click” information on your conversion rates? What are you seeing?

Take a few minutes (3 minutes and 13 seconds to be exact) and watch the following video. While watching it take note of the ease in which both characters select content and move it around to make it easier to view and work with.

Now think about the iPad. The single reason why I think that the iPad will work (and why other previous inventions similar to the iPad failed) will work is because we are ready. The iPad represents the closest representation to the Minority Report UI that we have seen. Yes – there have been touch screen devices but I think the “multi-touch” approach is going to separate the iPad from its predecessors pretty quickly.

Whenever someone makes good on science fiction and can bring a product to market that meets the expectations of the general public – it works. Bringing the truth out of science fiction is ultimately why we will see a shift in technology use in the year 2010.

Bill Gates is on Twitter (http://www.twitter.com/billgates) . Yay! (really?) I find it quite amusing that in the first 3 hours he demonstrated the real power of Twitter – Open Connections in a Real Time World.  Take a look at his second post:

RT @RyanSeacrest: Just got a call from cnn. here are the final numbers raised from last nights show.. for unicef + american red cross $8 … about 6 hours ago from web

RT @RyanSeacrest: here are the final numbers raised from last nights show for unicef + american red cross $8,944,956

RT @RyanSeacrest: here are the final numbers raised from last nights show for unicef + american red cross $8,944,956 [double it - call me]