Consumer Centric

UK company FreshMinds Research recently ran a test by pulling social media commentary about Starbucks using several popular analytic tools offering automated sentiment analysis of the text gathered.  They found flipping a coin to determine the sentiment of each individual comment would have been more accurate than what the tools reported.

FreshMinds analyzed over 19,000 online conversations with tools from Alterian, Biz360, Brandwatch, Nielsen, Radian6, Scoutlabs and Sysomos.  All content was centered on Starbucks.

The good news is aggregate level reporting of sentiment (average overall) was between 60% and 80% in agreement with a manual coding by trained staff.  Not bad.  The bad news?  Only about a third of individual comments were accurately coded.

Somehow, the randomization of automation errors resulted in an aggregate number of coding all conversations that wasn’t off by much.  But, if you wanted to dig deeper into individual conversations either for more insight or to engage in the conversation, the likelihood of finding the right positive or negative comments is not very high at all.

Their report is an excellent overview of these seven tools and how they perform across geographies and content sources.  And, as a side note, it’s a great marketing effort to get you and me to pull down their paper in exchange for contact information.

It’s not surprising to me that these tools are still so far off.  It’s a micro-representation of a macro-level challenge facing most research firms, agencies, and marketers today:  putting things into context from a people-centric approach.  We have so much data today that making it both accurate and actionable requires a more concerted effort to put everything into context, mirroring the reality of human decision-making and behavior as much as possible.

I’m sure some combination of neural networks, complexity science, and/or agent-based simulation tools eventually will yield “smarter” sentiment analysis tools to speed up the process of sifting through thousands of lines of text-based data.  Those pursuing that dream need not lose sight of the biggest mystery to solve:  understanding the meaning of words within a human context.

The FreshMinds report is definitely worth the read.  I’m curious what the makers of these tools would have to say about their report.

Thanks to Research (the magazine) for the heads up on the white paper release.

Co-creation, social media, engagement, viral campaigns, etc. New tools for today’s marketers? Well, yes and no.  The digital side is new… the practice is not.

I’m reading the new book by Magic Johnson and Larry Bird and came across a piece of NBA trivia new to me about the 1979 draft that landed Magic at the LA Lakers.  Little did I know it involved a co-creation exercise with a viral component and a social media spin.

The result was the Bulls missed out on drafting Magic Johnson and, instead, picked up UCLA senior David Greenwood.  But they had engaged their fans in helping make the decision:  ”heads” instead of “tails” was the consensus.

Turns out the Bulls and Lakers were up for the first pick in the draft, and Magic was the expected first pick.  On June 25, 1979 the issue was resolved by a coin flip.  But the Bulls general manager, Rod Thorn, didn’t call it out on his own.  The Bulls ran a fan promotion in which the poll results showed more fans wanted Thorn to call “heads” and win the toss to pick up Magic.

As reported on a NJ Nets fan page:

“I’ll never forget that,” Rod Thorn recalled. “We had some sort of promotion with our fans, and we let them choose what we’d call. And Bill Sharman, the Lakers’ GM — he was on the line from L.A. — Bill was so gracious, he let me call it. Then I hear, ‘Tails, L.A. wins.’ I would have always called tails. It was always luckiest for me, but we did it for the fans.

“But it’s amazing and ironic how life works out, isn’t it? Had the Bulls gotten Magic, we never would have gotten Michael Jordan five years later. The Lakers won all those titles, but I’d say it worked out great for everybody.”

Fascinating concept:  engage your loyal fans to help win the prize on draft day.  So, was it good or bad for the fans given they ended up picking wrong?  Or did they?

Would it have been better to get Magic Johnson in 1979 and miss picking up Michael Jordan in 1984? Obviously, not a question you can answer… and not the point.

The real point is brands have been doing things to involve their customers for years.  Today’s tools make it so much easier, but the rules of needing to provide relevance and utility have only become more important today.

I think the Bulls’ actions show how brands have to be “all-in” to genuinely involve their customers in charting the future of their franchise.  And they have to be willing to risk that what you create together may not payoff in the short term.

Stick with it, though, and you just may find the next Michael Jordan in the process.

Who knew?  Sports, the NBA, social media, and co-creation… all 30 years ago.

Just as the SEC reversed course on its unrealistic ban of all social media by fans at SEC games, the NFL continues to take more steps toward restricting the use of Twitter and other tools to share content they want to “protect” for themselves.  Still sounds so much like the Napster scenario now being played out in the world of sports entertainment content rather than music.

As Adam Ostrow reported last month on Mashable, the SEC ultimately changed, or clarified, its policy to allow personal messages and posting.  But they are very clear about any video or footage intended to be used for commercial purposes as being outlaw.

“No Bearer may produce or disseminate in any form a “real-time” description or transmission of the Event (i) for commercial or business use, or (ii) in any manner that constitutes, or is intended to provide or is promoted or marketed as, a substitute for radio, television or video coverage of such Event. Personal messages and updates of scores or other brief descriptions of the competition throughout the Event are acceptable. If the SEC deems that a Bearer is producing a commercial or real-time description of the Event, the SEC reserves the right to pursue all available remedies against the Bearer.

Absent the prior written permission of the Southeastern Conference, game action videos of the Event may not be taken by Bearer. Photos of the Event may be taken by Bearer and distributed solely for personal use (and such photographs shall not be licensed, used, or sold commercially, or used for any commercial or business purpose).”

But the NFL took the opposite approach.  Some talk has been that in an effort to prevent Chad OchoCinco from flying in a fan to tweet during the game on his behalf, the NFL has officially banned social media starting 90 minutes before and during all NFL games.  According to Steve Raquel on the Bleacher Report, the restrictions put in place include:

• Twittering during a game by either the player themselves or someone on their behalf.
• Any social media activity within 90 minutes before and after the game.
• Restriction applies to not only players, but coaches, team personnel, and officials.
• Restrictions on play-by-play descriptions of NFL games (e.g. Twittering) to only authorized media.

Ok, so the idea of a player Tweeting in the end zone or on the sideline is a distraction and I get it, I guess.  But isn’t this about entertainment.  Doesn’t Twitter suddenly make the fanatic follower of a team feel he knows exactly what Chad OchoCinco is thinking at that very moment.  Doesn’t that make same said fanatic follower even more fanatic about following that team?

I love Adam Ostrow’s quote reported by Jennifer Van Grove, also in Mashable, in her very well written summary of the issue:

“Sure, these days someone could theoretically live stream a game from their camera phone. But a shaky, low resolution video from the upper deck of Yankee Stadium isn’t exactly the same as watching FOX’s telecast on your big screen TV. Social media should be viewed as a fantastic compliment to sports that is good for both fans and the TV networks, but at the moment, it seems that’s anything but how it’s being perceived.”

That’s the point.  Hello.  Just like the blackouts that force their content to not be shown in local markets if the stadium isn’t sold out… the NFL needs to think about the people who feed their empire.  Sure, so many of us love football to the point we watch even with this silliness… but how much more would we do if more efforts were made to connect with the fan.

I think a bigger issue is the concern the focus in on the player and not the team.  If Chad OchoCinco tweets on the field, it’s not helping the Bengals, perhaps, as much as it is Chad OchoCinco.  They can’t allow individual player brands to be established, shared, and extended.

But, teams can do the same thing, and in an even more powerful way because they have the content people want or need to be fanatics.

Consider what the NY Jets have done (all since losing Brett Favre, of course!).  In August they held a contest to give away tickets to games to followers of them on Twitter (@NY_Jets).  They now have 4,500+ followers on their official Twitter ID.  The contest was put on by the Jets, not by their fans… an important difference, and an indication of an organization trying to reach out.

But the Jets seem to get it.  Again this week they launched a promotion partnership with JetBlue with discount fares for games in Buffalo and Florida — all promoted, shared, and extended via social media connections as well.

The Jets efforts very well may be attributed to blogger, Twitterer, wine connoisseur and social-networking guru Gary Vaynerchuk.  Apparently, he has launched Vaynermedia and lists the NY Jets as one of his clients.

Compare this with the Dallas Cowboys.  I couldn’t find an “official” Twitter feed, but there are 20+ fan-created follower groups of “America’s Team”.  The most popular, @Cowboys, has 13,000+ followers.  Imagine what the team could do with an official feed offering content, access, and connections to fans.

Another argument against the use of Twitter at sports is sharing confidential information, like the recent ban by the US Open to restrict players using it.  Andy Roddick called it right in my view when he explained you’d have to be a moron to share “insider information” that would call into question the integrity of the game.

Ian Paul reported on other decisions by teams in the NFL regarding social media during training camps and in the preseason, apparently to protect their trade secrets (avoid the infamous video taping of signals fiasco):

The Dolphins allow the media to tweet as much as they like for the first 20 minutes or so of practice, but once team drills begin all electronic equipment including computers, cameras, and cell phones has to be turned off, according to a report by the Associated Press.

Dolphins fans, on the other hand, are forbidden to blog, tweet or even send SMS messages while watching their team practice. The Dolphins aren’t the only NFL team wary of new forms of communication either.

Teams like the New England Patriots, Buffalo Bills, Indianapolis Colts, New Orleans Saints, Denver Broncos, and Detroit Lions all have similar restrictions, while the Dallas Cowboys and Carolina Panthers are running tweet-friendly training camps.

I suggest, rather than being so focused on protecting trade secrets or trying to ban players from branding themselves or try to keep fans from distributing content that they own, the NFL, and other sports entertainment brands, should look to how these tools can enhance the relationship with their most important assets: their customer base.

Bring some fan on Twitter who keeps up with what’s going on to the primo seat for free, in exchange for his or her building, promoting, and living the essence of that team. Conduct press conferences for exclusive content that only goes to your followers on Twitter first.  Incentivize your players to get a following, create venues for them to get together with these people who love what they do.

Have a relationship.  Don’t try to enforce or create an “arranged marriage”… those don’t work so well in our world today.

Two recent experiences add to what I consider the good side of the technology behind social networks and communication tools that are constantly emerging.

This morning, I was jogging and came across a moleskine book on the side of the road. It was a little wet from the sprinklers, but it was obvious someone did not intend to “store” it there. I grabbed it and finished my run… in fact, I kept thinking a number of the people I saw along the way must have wondered why I felt compelled to jog with a notebook in my hand!

I saw the name inside the notebook. Got to my computer. The first place I turned to was Facebook to search for this guy. Sure enough, from his profile I could easily tell it was him. I clicked on “send ___ a message” and told him about the find.

Later today I’ll connect with him out near my home and get it back to him. Easy. Quick. Non-invasive. Benefit for the both of us… feels good to find something when you know what it feels like to lose something, plus he has his book back now.

Earlier this year I posted about a chance encounter I had on a flight home to Austin. I was so touched by my interaction with Dawn that I felt like I had to share the way she approached adversity with honor and commitment. She and two of her children are now serving in Iraq with the MN National Guard, leaving her husband and teenage daughter back home.

Just a few days after posting the story, I was surprised to see a post from Dawn’s husband, Todd.  Then several other people with family in the military shared their own experiences. Eventually, her young daughter, Meagan, even posted her feelings and gratitude to those who had shared support. Together, we were able to share thoughts and a common sense of respect for someone who would never promote it herself. And it isn’t about pointing a spotlight on Dawn, it is about expressing appreciation for goodness, honor, and respect.

This person captured my reactions, too:

Just a few weeks ago another comment to my post on Dawn came from a friend of hers from years ago.

Dawn’s husband, Todd, replied and explained Dawn had talked about her friend many times over the years. I assume they’ve since connected and she’s been able to send a care package to Dawn.

My point in sharing all of this? Ambient awareness through social networking tools has a good side. Used for uplifting purposes we can find good and honorable people, things, and experiences.

Likely, I will never meet Todd and Lois and others who have shared in this story. But I’m a better person knowing what they’ve shared. How cool is it that we can facilitate such connections today?

Sure, these tools have as many, if not more, negative sides.

But I appreciate the good that can come. In the end, authentic connections between people on issues that matter will drown out the self-interest and negative scheming via online social networks. In my world, these are two examples of what I mean…

In my last post I tossed out the question regarding etiquette for using Twitter to broadcast private conversations you happen to overhear. Good fun, or even good material for stand-up comedy, or just inappropriate?

This is the craze all over the professional world right now.  The NFL, the military, the scientific community, the theater/acting world, and college football are just some of those struggling with “… to Tweet, or not to Tweet.”

But the SEC (football conference, not the regulatory body) recent action takes the prize for crazed reaction without considering the consequences. I can just imagine the conversation: “I know, let’s just make it illegal for anyone to send anything about our games. That’ll work.”

Seriously, the SEC is expected to release today it’s formal ban on all social media during SEC games. Their ban extends to the average fan reporting on the game via Twitter.  It reads:

Ticketed fans can’t ‘produce or disseminate (or aid in producing or disseminating) any material or information about the Event, including, but not limited to, any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the Event.’

Why?  The SEC has a $3 billion deal with CBS for coverage rights of the games. Apparently, they think they should be the only ones to give access to what happens at football, basketball, and other events. And, what’s more, they believe they can keep anyone else from sharing anything to anyone else.

I couldn’t agree more with Adam Ostrow on Mashable:

For the moment, these policies seem a lot more grounded in fear than reality. Sure, these days someone could theoretically live stream a game from their camera phone. But a shaky, low resolution video from the upper deck of Yankee Stadium isn’t exactly the same as watching FOX’s telecast on your big screen TV. Social media should be viewed a fantastic compliment to sports that is good for both fans and the TV networks, but at the moment, it seems that’s anything but how it’s being perceived.

There are real issues for sure. The contract with CBS is huge, and its how people make a living. But their fear is driving them to a policy that will have much greater negative impact on that contract, and their bottom line, than had they done nothing.

Don’t try to control the world of social media. Find relevance. When you do, you add value to your enterprise. When you don’t, you hurt yourself more than you hurt.

Two weeks ago, the NFL started clamping down hard requiring its players to not text information and not to use Twitter as reported by the NY Times.

In that story, however, I loved comment in the NY Times by nose tackle Jason Ferguson. He’s weighing when it’s worth the fine. Hilarious.

I don’t have an account (Twitter). I was thinking about getting one until I got the information. O.K., won’t get it now. Can’t do it. I don’t want to get fined, not yet.

Consider the broad action by the NFL and some teams (like the Green Bay Packers) in contrast with what the NY Jets are doing.  It was reported today the NY Jets are actually encouraging their players to use Twitter.

We really made a conscious decision that we were going to embrace social networking because it’s an outgrowth of our motto that we talk about internally:  Remove the barriers.  Football, more than other sports, probably has more barriers that you have to overcome. With the helmet, you don’t really get to see players’ faces or expressions. twitter enables you to communicate with players directly, one-on-one.  Matt Higgins, EVP of business operations for the Jets

In my view, that is finding relevance.

It’s ironic to read ESPN’s reporting of the NY Jets actions given their own stated position acted on earlier this month.  ESPN has implemented a policy for all of its employees that amounts to only using Twitter if it benefits ESPN. You can see coverage here on Deadspin.com for latest and reactions.  The deal is their currency is news and information, so ESPN is grasping at whatever control it believes it has to require its employees to not use Twitter for anything related to sports.  The full memo is very strong in its constraints — you can see it here on Mediaite with the full memo at the bottom of the post.

Again, why not find relevance over asserting control in this way? ESPN’s personalities have a huge following on Twitter, and it is because of who they are, how they talk, and what they share. Trying to assert editing control over that audience of fans is directly contrary to why they follow in the first place:  unvetted access to the people they trust, like, or enjoy listening to.

There’s got to be a way to find relevance and drive greater loyalty to ESPN.

In some cases, Twitter’s open access has more obvious reasons to be shut off, or at least re-direct. I previously wrote about the banning of Twitter at certain scientific conferences in which confidentiality of material being presented is paramount to intellectual property rights issues at play (pick up more of that story here if interested).

The military is starting to do the same thing.  About the same time as the NFL made its announcement, the Marines declared a total ban on social media networks, including Twitter.  The Marines’ ban is said to last for one year while the military makes a full determination what to do.  They cite security concerns, of course.

But, even with the military, it’s interesting to note that Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has a Twitter account and over 5,800 followers.  So, it’s about finding relevance and not trying to assert total control, even in high-level security situations like these two. Cut and dry bans are just crazy and short-sighted in my view.

Finally, here is yet another interesting example to consider. Is it appropriate, or not, for a casting director to live-Tweet information and thoughts about the actors auditioning in a closed, private casting call?  The acting industry is now facing this very issue.

A story in the NY Times covers a recent controversy involving casting director Daryl Eisenberg and her comments shared about what she was seeing/hearing during a recent audition.  Eisenberg shared a few tweets like these:

If we wanted to hear it a different way, don’t worry, we’ll ask

If you are going to sing about getting on your knees, might as well do it and crawl towards us … right?

Eisenberg defended herself even before people got up in arms citing the “there is no rule” defense:

There is NO rule/guideline against Twitter/Facebook/MySpace/Friendster. Freedom of speech. Ever heard of it?

But, the Actors Guild, Actors’ Equity Association, and others got involved and she has since agreed to not use Twitter in the audition room.  The main argument made by the union folks is:

“It’s a very long road for an actor to get from seeing the casting notice to getting that audition. To have it mocked is unfair to the actors and to the other people who are working on the particular project. It’s very simply that there is an expected level of respect and professionalism, and these values were violated.”  Maria Somma of Actors’ Equity Association

Part of that defense strikes me as a bit too sensitive–I mean, these people are seeking a career that is very public, get some thicker skin than that. But, it points out the absolute need we have in these various dimensions of public and private life to define what is appropriate and what is not when it comes to using technology such as Twitter.

Personally, I don’t believe the answer is hurry up and ban Twitter–that’ll fix it!  Actually, it won’t. It will just cause bigger and different problems, long-term.

Early this morning (like 1AM) my colleague, Jim Wilkerson, pointed me to a bizarre (searching for right word here) and entertaining (sort of) live-tweeting going on by a guy on a plane narrating an argument between a couple apparently sitting next to, or near, him.  Jim was alerted of the exchange by Augie (August) Ray by this tweet to his 2,114 followers:

When you click on @jmatusin you can follow his mad rush to the gate at the MN airport, the help he got from a non-English-speaking gal who let him cut in line and who he then helped to her gate, the Traveler’s Insurance ad he spotted along the way to his gate, and… then this exchange he broadcasts to the Twitterverse between two people seated near him on his flight (read from bottom to top in case you’re not familiar with Twitter stream flow).

He closes out the experience with this observation on the whole thing.

So, aside from being entertaining, this version of live-tweeting raises a lot of issues. I’ve covered a number of posts on this blog about our analysis of live-tweeting at business conferences and events.  I’ve reviewed pros and cons… but this now opens a totally different realm of live-tweeting life, for entertainment value.

Suddenly, material for stand-up comedy is live broadcast to an audience whose limit or potential is hard to define. It’s funny because it’s real. But that’s why it’s weird, too.

Certainly, the couple was having a conversation between the two of them. But, we’ve all overheard such exchanges and privacy can’t be expected, especially when you listen to aspects of this drama.

So, what does this mean for ethics, protocol, and human interaction? Anything can be shared and likely will be shared if it has inherent pass-along value like this does. @jmatusin provided his protocol by using HIM and HER and not trying to convey anything that could identify people.  What other socially acceptable norms for this behavior will emerge?

I can see a new line of employment opportunities for college students or interns hired by authors, writers, and Hollywood types to work through their lives broadcasting the real-life sitcoms they encounter along the way.  What can be better than the real thing, right?

Interesting… this can’t be the first time someone’s done this?  Any other examples? Do share…

So I watched the Kevin Spacey piece on Letterman last night and had a good laugh like thousands of others (maybe millions).  The two of them covering off on an emergent technology like Twitter was hilarious to say the least.

But the moment that caught my intrigue was when Spacey (@KevinSpacey) pulled out his phone and typed a quick message into Twitter real time.

In just a few seconds his action created a moment of personal connection for any of the 829,000+ followers who track him.  Granted — the show isn’t live, so those people caught the update hours before it aired on TV.  But, still, if they watched the episode on TV and they follow Spacey I’m certain they checked his updates. And they felt somehow “in” on the action.

Today, Spacey paid off the obvious large number of replies he received: Glad you enjoyed Dave & my Twitter banter last night. Back shooting in New Orleans today. Hope all are feeling positive & sending good vibes.  Through a celebrity comment on a “live” TV program coupled with his tweet, Spacey created a sort of omni-present moment for his followers.  In a sense, they participated with him on Letterman.

This evening I came across a completely different example involving just two people.  Ivan Campuzano is a blogger focused on personal growth and development.  On Twitter he has a following of over 10,000 people (@IvanCampuzano).  His blog is full of video clips, words, phrases, quotes, and ideas about improving yourself.  His work clearly connects with people and makes a difference for many.

Today he shared an experience in which he was touring a coffee plant in Costa Rica, tweeted about the tour, and before it was over he was given a gift purchased online for him by someone from Alaska.  Turns out, the gift-giver is a Twitter follower who saw the tweet and took the time to find the plant’s online store, make a purchase, and request that it be delivered to Ivan in person before he left.  He tells the story in a recently posted video.

This experience shows how geographic limitations go away as a barrier to creating a moment for connection between two people.  The guy in Alaska wanted to express appreciation to Campuzano and found an immediate opportunity in which he could do just that.  Geography didn’t matter.  He didn’t have to be there physically to “be there” in the moment.

Finally, while writing this post, I saw the Best Buy “twelpforce” advertisement for the first time.  I enjoyed the ad.  But, more importantly… Best Buy’s effort makes it possible for thousands of passionate employees to be “omni-present” for questions of customers looking for solutions.  Location doesn’t matter. Personal connection or familiarity isn’t required.  Used this way, Twitter facilitates authentic moments between people in a way that provides genuine value.  Way to go!

In short, these three examples show how technology is breaking down barriers to real connections between people.  We almost can be omnipresent in certain aspects of the lives of other people without having to be there.  Sometimes that can just be cool (fans of Spacey who are also on Twitter), it can be meaningful and fulfilling (surprising a mentor with a live gift give-away), or it can help you make better purchase decisions (seeking input from thousands of Best Buy customers/prospects).

That is at the heart of consumer centricity.  

What omni-present moments have you had with any social media platform?

So this afternoon I just got a direct message on Twitter from someone I recently followed after being intrigued by some of his tweets.  Literally came about 10 minutes ago.

Since this is not the first message like this I’ve received, I guess the timing hit me to capture my reaction and share it.  I’m curious if I’m missing something or if others feel the same way as me.  And it made me realize an important separation between social networking tools that at least I employ in my use.

So, here’s the deal.  @Stefan_Berg I don’t know you.  In fact, I don’t know anything about you other than having reviewed your recent tweets.  I’m interested in what you have to say from what I saw, so I decided to follow you.  Over time, if you post way too much or content that offends, I’ll probably stop following you.  If you post great stuff, I’ll probably look more into whether you have a blog and what else I can learn about you.

But, @Stefan_Berg, I will not likely ever connect with you on Facebook without some direct, human, and, perhaps, face-to-face interaction.  If my interaction with you is only work related, I’ll not likely ever connect with you on Facebook.  If we do business together, or if you are connected in circles important toward my expanding my company (PURSUIT) then I’ll probably find you on LinkedIn and connect there.

My question:  why would I want to connect with you on Facebook based only upon my decision to follow you on Twitter?

Two words with different meaning:  connect suggests a binding of sorts, follow is more of look and see, listen and learn or watch.  I bind with friends and family.  I look at, watch, listen to, and learn from interesting people, sometimes friends and family, often strangers and human beings just living their lives.

I think it’s a real mistake to assume that Twitter is a way into someone’s Facebook account. Certainly, this vehicle is a way to share ideas and get attention from others.  But they’ll not become a fan or friend off the same criteria used to decide to follow you.

If others have a strong opinion how/why you disagree, I’d love to hear and learn.

To me, authenticity matters in real and in virtual social circles.  And that means there are boundaries and uses that vary, accordingly.  Twitter = listen and learn and find and share and follow.  Facebook = connect and stay in touch and share and keep track and reach out.  LinkedIn = network and promote and search and learn.  

Each social network platform I use is unique and plays a different role in the journey of my life.  I guess that’s why, @Stefan_Berg, your invitation seems so “not authentic” and/or presumptive.  You may be a very nice guy, but why would I want to connect with you?  Right now, I’m just interested in listening to what you have to say and seeing if you are interested in anything I have to say.

So much has been written about Michael Jackson in the last several days that the total storage space connected to the web must have doubled, at least.  That’s no surprise given the significant role he played in our society on so many levels… the King of Pop certainly had every aspect of social buzz in everything he did.

Obviously, much has been said about the spread of his death via Twitter and other social media tools in a way that traditional news media outlets couldn’t match.  Had the news turned out to be a rumor we’d all be having conversations about the terrible nature of these tools to spread falsehoods.  But, it didn’t and we aren’t.  Truth is it was fascinating to watch.

I found myself in the odd place of being near the home of the King of Rock and Roll when the death of the King of Pop was confirmed.  Changing planes, I checked twitter to see if confirmations had been made (I had picked up news immediately before my flight left DesMoines to Memphis) and then saw the airport TV screens with traditional outlets covering it.

My colleagues and I wanted to see a bit of the spread, or at least try to, by reaching out to the Twitterverse and asking when and how people first learned of the news.  You’d expect the answer to have been all Twitter given our audience, right?  Not so… the first two were radio and Instant Message.  

We didn’t have a huge sampling, but enough to see an interesting flow (some were duplicated times/channels so we’ve just shown specific times reported).  Check how fast this all goes down (all times pacific) … 12:21pm paramedics called to Jackson’s home, at 2:26pm he is officially pronounce dead, at 2:44pm TMZ reports his death.  Six minutes later our respondents (from all time zones in the US) first heard the news, starting with radio.

2:50pm Radio (but reported not confirmed)

3:00pm Instant Message from friend

3:01pm Twitter

3:04pm Tweet from Ashton Kutcher @aplusk

3:05pm Twitter

3:07pm Twitter

3:30pm Time Square rolling news reports

3:32pm NY Times app on iPhone

4:00pm Text message

4:30pm Twitter

Television was nowhere in this early mix, and nearly all were friends or social networks reporting the news within 14 to 24 minutes of the official word being pronounced by the coroner.  And so it spread across the world.

Twitter activity started with news of Jackson’s death at almost the same moment as TMZ made their announcement, preceded by news of the fact he was rushed to the hospital in cardiac arrest.  Some of the earliest I could find on Twitter via Twist:

1:46pm @BreakingNews BULLETIN — MICHAEL JACKSON TAKEN TO LOS ANGELES HOSPITAL IN CARDIAC ARREST, TMZ.COM REPORTS. 

1:58pm @tshore1023  God, please don’t let Michael Jackson have had a heart attack. I can’t take more bad news from Hollywood today- Farrah is enough xoxo

2:27pm @aplusk (Ashton Kutcher) Michael Jackson had a heart attack?

2:42pm @BreakingNews FLASH — LOS ANGELES — “KING OF POP” MICHAEL JACKSON HAS DIED.

2:45pm @japanberlynne  TMZ MICHEAL JACKSON DIED!

3:04pm @aplusk (Ashton Kutcher) Mike Jackson passed away today from a heart attack

The group composition of some of the earliest Twitterers of this news fascinates me:  @BreakingNews is BNOnews the breaking news wire across the globe.  As of today (7/3/09) they have 719,412 followers.  @tshore1023 is a self-described “slightly obsessed Madonna fan – my musings, rants, desires, and whatever else wants to spill out of this freakish mind into cyberspace!”  She lives in North Carolina and has 1,011 followers.  @aplusk is Ashton Kutcher, no intro needed, and he has 2,579,368 followers.  Finally, @japanberlynne is someone named Amber who lives in Williston, North Dakota (population 12,393) and has 25 followers.

The reporters:  a major news wire, global movie star and Twitter phenom, a Madonna fan, and a gal from a small town in North Dakota.  Across this crew, in a matter of minutes you have 3,299,816 people who had the possibility of seeing this news. Within seconds it spread dramatically wider. And here you see the fascinating reality of today’s world of information spread–you and I, celebrities, and news organizations have equal opportunity to spread to very wide audiences.  The debate, of course, now centers on whether this is good or bad mostly because of the confidence (or lack of confidence) in the truthfulness of the information shared.

Many of us participated in this activity like crazy.  In fact, by 3:30pm Michael Jackson references on Twitter reached above 20% of all Tweets.  News reports now suggest Twitter, Google, and Wikipedia all hit capacity at the same time. [As a side note, we're seeing similar activity on Sarah Palin's resignation as I wrap up this post].

Traditional news outlets reported on a different timeline.  The LA Times appears to be the first to confirm the death.  And it wasn’t until 3.27pm that the AP reported “a person with knowledge of the situation says Michael Jackson has died” and nearly an hour later, at 4.25pm, CNN reported Jackson died. [Special thanks to the UK's MailOnline for timeline and other resources.]

How will this social spread of information continue to change the way we look at the news and powerful news stories?  Clearly, gossip and irresponsible junk will always be there, it always has.  But, the other power we saw in the social spread tools is our ability as a “crowd” to quickly sniff out the lies.  As a result, it seems the method of vetting information for its accuracy actually spreads and evolves through the rapid spread of the masses, the news wires, and the celebrities at once.

Fascinating stuff.  Now let’s figure out what it all means in terms of new services emerge to leverage these tools and meet our daily interests and needs.

Hey… to help out… if you don’t mind:  When AND how did you first learn of Michael Jackson’s death?  And, what do you think this all means? Thanks! Happy 4th of July!

Combine technology, tools, and time and you eventually see dramatic paradigm shifts.  Obviously, social networking tools are shifting social norms around interaction, public and/or online.  An emerging area of “digital etiquette” that fascinates me is the use of Twitter and other micro-blogging tools while at a conference.

Why? First, because so many more people are doing it (Webber Shandwick study of top conference organizers puts it at 58%) and, second, because there are extremely passionate opinions on the pros and cons of live tweeting (check out interaction between Ira Basen and Joe Thornley from early 2009, or the banishing of live tweeting earlier this month in certain scientific conferences after Daniel Arthur’s coverage of a Biology of Genomes meeting; Martin Ebner also presents findings of a survey of attendees across five different conferences that demonstrate usage patterns).

Some say this behavior is both rude and a meaningless distraction, others swear by it and the new layer of interconnectivity these tools provide.  Clearly, it’s such a new dynamic we’re all just trying to figure how to best leverage it for greater creativity, productivity, and interaction.

I’ve been looking into this specific Twitter dynamic to learn and to push the conversation.  Analysis of live tweets generated during two very different conferences (Charlene Li session at SXSWi and Chris Brogan keynote at SOBCon09) showed most of those using Twitter were seeking to extend the reach and value of the event for themselves, others in the room, and those not in attendance.  Mike Edwards found similar activity in his analysis of tweets at the 2009 NonProfit Technology Conference–and he went further to identify the dynamic of “dominant hubs” in the form of two or three trusted Twitterers attending the conference.  

But, from a presenter’s perspective, the dynamic of having so many people heads down in a laptop (just like teaching a college course these days) while you’re presenting can be frustrating or distracting.  So, how do we harness the tools in a productive and creative way?

The more I look into this, the more I think it’s all about context.  When a conference presentation is prepared, set up, and delivered primarily for the benefit of the attendee and not the presenter, I think these tools become natural and integral to the experience.  Let me explain.

As creatures of habit, we learn appropriate behaviors for different situations.  Context matters.  If you don’t think so, try wearing your swimming suit to church next Sunday.  This demonstrates how the same behavior is both essential and offensive depending on when and where it is applied.  Duh.

A conference keynote–or even a breakout session–is a situation in which someone has prepared information to share with a large group of people.  Social norms put us in round tables (or lecture style rows) with attention focused on the speaker and visual aids (PowerPoint slides) on the screen.  Pulling out a laptop and connecting online feels odd and even disrespectful to the presenter.

Now, shift the context.  

For years in my career I’ve used various laptop-driven tools (WebIQ or ThinkTank or GroupSystems) for collaborative sessions with large or small groups.  This is a situation in which a large group of people are assembled in the same type of conference set-up, only this time the presenter becomes a facilitator and attendees become participants.  The person at the head of the room still has important information to share, but the laptops in front of most everyone in the room are set up with the express intention of capturing live reactions, ideas, and feedback.  Suddenly, in this context, having a laptop open and connected online is integral to the success of the meeting.

What if we took this approach to presenting at conferences?  From the outset, explain to the audience the intent is to share important ideas for the purpose of getting your reaction and pushing the thoughts and ideas to a new place.  Embracing this both in what you say and how you present can dramatically shift the context for the presentation and remove the social norms fussing about the guy next to you opening his computer right as the presentation starts.

Isn’t this the same as what we’re telling brands to do now in letting go of the control they believe they have in their communications?  As a presenter, wouldn’t both our material and our audience be better served if we were to cede some control and hand it back to those in the room?  How much more would you get out of a keynote session in which the presenter asked you to weigh in and help shape the ideas and thoughts moving forward?

Obviously, this is a paradigm shift that requires different skills and preparation to be successful.  But that’s the point of new technology, right?  Push us to a new, and hopefully better, place.  

Several smart, experienced folk offer ideas around this area.  

• Olivia Mitchell covers the benefits to the audience and the presenter of having live-Twittering, and she gives specific advice regarding how to set up a backchannel from the beginning and then monitor it during your presentation, including <gasp> Twitter breaks!  
• Charlene Li shares her strategies, including the idea of capturing key Tweet-Bites on a slide to make it easier for her key, pivotal points of the presentation to get picked up and shared.
• Doug Lacombe offers his personal experience and suggestions for presenters and attendees alike.  Cool idea from a Twitterer perspective is that he set up a separate account @DougLive that he now uses exclusively for live tweeting for the benefit of his followers.

And there are tons more.

The real breakthrough, though, will come when someone truly changes the context when presenting by acting like a facilitator rather than a speaker.  Just like we keep learning how to make better use of PowerPoint slides and/or other visuals when presenting… let’s see who can embrace micro-blogging tools like Twitter/FriendFeed to change the dynamic of conference presentations dramatically.

That’s a paradigm shift I’m looking forward to, both taking the challenge as a presenter/facilitator and, most important, as an attendee/participant at conferences that will, in this context, be a lot more creative and productive.

What do you think?