Consumer Centric

Bloggers are more social and interactive in live twittering than are techies/new media gurus.  At least that’s what we see comparing Twitter activity during a Charlene Li SXSWi 09 session with Twitter activity during a Chris Brogan /Julien Smith keynote session at SOBCon09.

The debate continues about live Twittering during presentations. Too distracting or valuable collaboration?  Waste of time or productive?  No matter your POV or behavior, it’s hard to argue a new ettiquette for this technology is trying to emerge.  More on that in another post…

To add real data to the debate, here is another installment in our review of what actually happens at live conferences with Twitter. 

In April we captured 686 tweets during the Charlene Li presentation at SXSWi in Austin.  In May we snatched 330 tweets generated while Brogan and Smith were delivering their 45-minute presentation in launching their book, Trust Agents, at SOBCon09.

If you don’t know about SOBCon, get more detail on what an SOB is? Basically, it’s Successful and Outstanding Bloggers who get together and talk shop. Their latest gathering was in May.

Compared to the interactive, media, and tech types following Charlene Li’s delivery at SXSWi, bloggers RTed each other at twice the rate and referenced specific @usernames at three-times the rate during the Brogan/Julien session.

One in five “live tweets ” during Brogan’s presentation was a RT of someone else’s comment or idea.  Nearly 80% of all tweets during the delivery referenced a specific @username.

So… bloggers at SOBCon made it a point to connect and spread ideas and people.  SXSWi twitterers seem to have been more focused on the ideas and less on individuals.

Looking at what was actually shared in tweets, the bloggers wander and ponder aloud off-topic at a higher rate than do those at SXSWi.  But, in the content, we find further evidence of this more social behavior:   higher frequency of ”play-by-play” color commentary on the presentation, coordinating how/where to connect with others, and making a new connection during the live session.

Those at SXSWi, in contrast, were more focused on the topic, offered more discussion regarding the ideas presented, and were more likely to announce to everyone else where they’re at right now.

In short, bloggers are better at promoting and playing with each other via live Twittering (RT and @ use); but, they stray off topic more frequently in the process.  SXSWers use Twitter more for capturing and pushing their own reactions to ideas shared, and rarely stray off topic. 

Both, however, show that the bulk of live tweeting is on-topic interaction with very little slamming of the speaker or ideas presented. 

The real question is what does this behavior mean to the tweeple, the presenter, and other attendees in the session? How do we better leverage the benefits of this live twittering without degrading the experience of all participating in a conference session?

There is more work to be done to give a credible answer. But the content being produced is worth its real-time creation. Attendees, presenters, and colleagues would do well to figure out how to capitalize on this backchannel resource to extend the reach of your mind, ideas, and experience.

RSS feeds, Twitter, email alerts, IM, Skype, Facebook, LinkedIn, Naymz, Plaxo, Mint, apps, phone, satellite radio, podcasts, audiobooks, Google, Google Analytics, WordPress, etc., etc. ….

Too many distractions… or tools to help focus?  Both.

I’m more certain it’s both after taking focused energy to read Sam Anderson’s well thought out piece in the New York Magazine about today’s distraction-filled digital world.  The article came out a few weeks ago, but I just happened upon it today.  

Anderson’s main point seems to be technology today can deliver extremes in both distraction and focus.  Both can be bad.  Both can be good.  But, balanced and channeled, distraction feeds focus, while focus enables distraction.  Together they can lead to a sharp and creative mind.

The truly wise mind will harness, rather than abandon, the power of distraction. 

It’s possible that we’re all evolving toward a new techno-cognitive nomadism, a rapidly shifting environment in which restlessness will be an advantage again. 

My disappearing act from keeping up with the “distractions” of Twitter and the blogosphere over the past few weeks was both due to extreme distractions that are a reality in life (sickness, new biz launch, huge project deliveries, end of school year with four kids and a zillion end of year concert thingys, first season with our pool and joy of busted lines, etc., etc.) combined with periods of paralyzing focus (working through the to-do list to the point that there’s no time to do anything!).  

So what is better?  When life hits and you do your best to push through it all–build better focused attention to get things done OR follow distractions as they come up?

Obviously, both have their benefits and drawbacks.  The solution seems to be building enough mental cues to sharpen focus enough to allow distractions to take your thoughts and abilities to a totally different level, and to capture new meaning.

Again, back to Anderson:

I keep returning to the parable of Einstein and Lennon—the great historical geniuses hypothetically ruined by modern distraction. What made both men’s achievements so groundbreaking, though, was that they did something modern technology is getting increasingly better at allowing us to do: They very powerfully linked and synthesized things that had previously been unlinked—Newtonian gravity and particle physics, rock and blues and folk and doo-wop and bubblegum pop and psychedelia. If Einstein and Lennon were growing up today, their natural genius might be so pumped up on the possibilities of the new technology they’d be doing even more dazzling things. Surely Lennon would find a way to manipulate his BlackBerry to his own ends, just like he did with all the new technology of the sixties—he’d harvest spam and text messages and web snippets and build them into a new kind of absurd poetry.

I love this.  It tells us we need to be comfortable in chaos, thrive in diversity, and work our way through adversity.  It means we have to train our mind to be able to focus, but with the goal of being able to play “choose your own adventure” with the distractions that come along the journey.  

Ben Malbon (@malbonnington) and Heidi Hackemer (@uberblond) share their own dilemma with distraction in reading Anderson’s article in their recent BBH Labs Post entitled Getting comfortable with chaos.  The behavior both expressed, however, resulted in linking together multiple ideas around the topics raised by Anderson–a product of digging down different trains of thought, but always returning to the central idea.

There’s another dimension to this I found interesting from another music example that Malbon found in David Allen’s article on the same topic recently in Wired.  Allen talks of Evan Taubenfield, a guitarist, song-writer and leader of a band.

He was telling me how he’s learned to produce an album most effectively. Some of the best ideas for his songs happen while he and his band are working on another one. Now he has a whiteboard in the studio. They’ll be in the middle of one thing, suddenly get inspired about something else, and stop to capture it. Evan said it’s chaotic, but once the band got used to it and trusted the process, they were way more productive and more creative than ever. Before he realised the power of capturing thoughts as they occur, and building in just the kind of structures that he needed to foster and support the process, he experienced lots of wasted and frustrated energy, with much less output. Trying to exert the “discipline” of staying focused on one song at a time stifled his creativity. The coolest thing about the new process, he said, was that making music was fun again.

Allen argues Taubenfeld’s experience shows the benefit of capturing meaning in the moment of distraction for later connection and use to create something new.

The trick may be to harness what happens when you’re there. One of the most valuable lessons I’ve learned in my quasi-scientific approach to sustained laziness is the value of storing thoughts in appropriate places, as soon as I have them. That means parking them where I will later evaluate their merit (or lack thereof) and dispose of them accordingly. Having a thought once is what the mind is for; having the same thought twice, in the same way, for the same reason, is a waste of time and energy. I also found out that having a place for good ideas produced more of them, and more often.  The new skill the next generation may bring forward is how to deal with meaning, tactically. Not “meaning” in the philosophical or spiritual sense, but rather in the harvesting of it in our ordinary lives, day to day. 

If we focus too much, we can push out the ability to capture meaning from random distractions.  If we allow distractions to meander too far we miss the original destination entirely.

Instead, we need to define priorities for what is most important, build in cues to help us see where we’re headed, and enjoy finding meaning in the moments of distraction that come along the way.

This balance of focused distraction yields productive creativity.  

The next question I have is how do we apply this reality of life to the way we engage with people through brands, products, and marketing?

UPDATE:  A few other interesting commentary and ideas on this topic in NY Times and Louis Gray (back in 8/08 but good ideas) and Dan York’s Disruptive Conversations blog and Patricia-Anne Rutledge’s The Web-Savvy Writer, among others.  Just some good reading and ideas I’ve found recently.

Since the 2008 Zuckerberg interview, SXSW has to be one of the largest scale laboratories for using Twitter while at a conference.  Many saw how that particular “interview” rapidly took a nosedive, spurred by backchannel twitter chatter live during the event.

So… is Twitter helpful or hurtful when it comes to conference participation? For the speaker? For the attendee? For colleagues not there? There are many points of view being shared. It’s either the biggest waste of time and expressly forbidden (as was my experience in how CTAM directed its conference recently in DC www.ctam.com), or it is fully embraced and publicly lauded as in SXSW. Kate Neiderhoffer recently explored same ideas in a recent post in her blog Social Abacus. Some comments to Peter Kim’s post summing-up SXSW lament the intensity of its use.

I don’t know the answer. But my colleagues and I are trying to dive into some analysis in our spare time to see what actual use is like and what we can learn from that. We’re not done by any stretch–but take a look and share your POV.

SXSW Charlene Li “The Future of Social Networks”: 686 Twitter Feeds

Armano TwitPic post at Li presentation

 

 

So far, we’ve loaded 686 tweets during the Charlene Li “Future of Social Networking” presentation at SXSW. The tweets included the #sxswfsn or cited her name AND were published within the start/stop timeline of the live panel so as to narrow our inquiry to live use of Twitter during the presentation.  Of course, Charlene started hers introducing the # and a backchannel–so we’re talking a case in which the speaker encouraged use of Twitter from the beginning.

Individual Use — Very Little RT

First, it’s clear most of the activity was original tweeting (91.4%)–only 8.6% were re-tweets of others’ ideas or comments. It seems the interchange online and/or the speed of review of ideas being shared live create a context of people offering their ideas and not spending a lot of time spreading the verbatim ideas of others.  

This doesn’t mean there wasn’t direct exchange and interaction.  Nearly 10% of the tweets during the live presentation included direct references to others Twitter IDs as the source of a quote, object of a reply or debate, or a person of interest to the tweeter. 

So… point one is Twitter during a live panel is predominantly my “megaphone” or my “note-taking device”.  Most of the listening, reviewing, reading and/or sharing what is tweeted by others seems to comes later.  Hmmm… good or bad?

Dominant Content = Quotes, Ideas, Discussion

To the naysayers who claim only garbage flows by those tweeting during a live speaker presentation or panel, the stats show differently.  In reality, 75% of the 686 tweets were directly quoting the speaker/commenter/questioner OR commenting on the topic/issue OR passing along added value links for relevant content.  In other words, most of the chatter was directly germane to the topic being discussed live in the moment.

The next largest block of tweets were for “alerting others where I’m at” (13.6%) and/or arranging how to connect, meetup, or discuss ideas in person (6%).  I explore this a bit later.  

Five percent (5.1%) of tweets were brown-nosing suck-ups or genuinely impressed people sharing their praise for Charlene Li and her commentary.

And–get this–only 4.4% were tweets random, or seemingly random, off-topic comments not directly contributing to the debate.  But–even this is debatable as one of the tweets coded in this bucket does contribute to the “feel” of the room in a funny way:

     Lots of trust issues in this crowd, come see me for a hug. #sxswfsn 

Another was quite functional… I wonder if those sunglasses were ever reunited with an owner?

     I just found a pair of sun glasses in Ballroom A where @charleneli spoke. If you know who’s missing them let me know. #sxsw #sxswfsn 

So… point two, so far, is Twitter activity live to the event seems mostly to facilitate distribution of ideas directly tied to the topic.  We’ll find out by comparing with other sessions we’re pulling whether this is due to the high-interest nature of the topic and content being shared.  But, most of the chatter is on-topic and seemingly furthering the debate.

Constructive Uses — Maybe???

Digging deeper into specific tweets you can see some a number of uses with, potentially, real value. Some seem to be more useful after the fact. Others, however, are only relevant due to the live nature of their delivery. What do you think?

Sound Bites.  The obvious is sharing compelling ideas, quotes, thoughts whether you agree or disagree with them.  This seems either to be to spur thought or a sort of note-taking for you and/or others in your network. This is also most likely to be RT of the relatively few that are.

     “they dont think of this as a social strategy. they think of it as a corporate strategy and they will need help”– charlene li #sxswfsn

     What will get everyone to open up and work together? Money, money, money #sxswfsn

     RT @faris: distribution not destination #sxswfsn (So you can never leave or arrive again…)

Play-by-Play.  Several take the form of almost a narrative setting up the event, some with pictures (see Armano picture I posted up top, loaded live during the session, that had 890 views — but, of what???). These feel like play-by-play commentary offering their own John Madden spin.  

     Going to live broadcast the first 30 of charlene li, the future of social networks” follow me for URL. #sxsw

     Liking the idea of putting the customer into the org chart. this is getting better #sxswfsn 

     so, heres precisely my issue with FBC, no standardization…social web needs to be based on standards..a standardized data web #sxswfsn 

     already getting bored…not to sound like a douche, but none of this is new to me re: portable graphs, social touchpoints #sxswfsn

The play-by-play can also be entertainment of sorts.

     favorite intro ever – question from “low persuasion marketer” #sxswfsn 

     Finally got the required crazy rambling conference questioner that never made a point. #sxsw #sxswfsn

     Ballroom A wifi is pretty sucky, at least for me. #sxswfsn 

     #sxswi #sxsw Technical diffs plague even the most commanding speakers ike Charlene Li. Makes me feel better bou t my own ppt foibles.

Yeah, right!  Another use is to challenge what is being said. Some offer their own insight. Others just like to attack.

     too bad @charleneli didn’t touch on the potential of “social networks as air” (aka the social web) is to realize VRM #sxswfsn 

     I disagree with Charlene Li. If I’m a fan of something I don’t mind my pic appearing with an ad. If I like it, I like it. #sxswfsn

Sometimes this is an attempt to call someone on violating protocol.

     Totally, ask a question not an adv. RT @bud_caddell “Hashrocket and potlabs… False advertising. #sxswfsn”

Connections / Associations.  Among the most useful tweets I see are those that associate an idea with another–although not likely used until after the event.  Many even add direct links for additional content, including the slides being shared live by Li on the stage. No doubt some of these are going to be self-serving for “my content” or “my product”.  In this case, many seem to genuinely point to useful material toward the topic.

     Reminds me of John Pickering’s High Performing Organization model. Google HPO and University of Virginia for more info #sxswfsn 

     For a look at what a local government is doing is social media, go to www.roundrocktexas.gov/cc #sxswfsn 

     Media6 looks very interesting for site owners #sxswfsn http://bit.ly/aJ2vN 

Requests.  Several tweets suggest topics they either would like to have discussed or they are anticipating will be discussed in the session.  Of course, for these to be useful there must be some mechanism for sharing with the speaker delivering content in a manageable way.

     At the @charleneli #sxsw presentation about the Future of Social Networks – hoping to hear more about Activity Stream innovation #sxswfsn

Follow-Ups.  A particular useful tweet practice are those pointing to things that should be followed up on based on what was heard or discussed. 

     love the idea of social algorithm making privacy and permissions easier to manage #sxswfsn

     @rnadworny spoke briefly with Charlene Li after her presentation. Will e-mail her tonight to find out more for next steps. 

Musings.   Debatable as to how useful these are, but some tweets are individual musings on what is being said with varying degrees of insight and/or entertainment.

     #sxswfsn Interesting that folks talk about the death of email in the face of social networks, but think about how you login to each – email!

Logistics Coordination.  The most practical or functional use are those who simply used tweets to connect with colleagues or with new people they met or would like to meet as a direct tie-in to the content being discussed at the panel.

     So many people I follow from twitter at this Charlene Li talk. Would be nice to find them and meet them. #sxsw

     @amyrsward meeting up with @carribugbee after session in front of room, audience-left. RIght by video camera. #sxswfsn 

     @cvelis hey – are you in the #sxswfsn panel? me too! i’m on the right side, half way back

These next two were actually in response to each other… a connection apparently made.

     Li: Talking about gov’t and social media. Again, if people have ideas about this and want to talk, please get in touch. #sxswfsn 

     @AndrewPWilson I, too, want to talk about soc media for govt. Let’s meet in ctr of room b/w 1st & 2nd sections after panel #sxswfsn #gov20

So, What?

This is just one look into a hot-topic issue at a Twitter-heavy conference event. Twitter is a distraction, especially if you don’t use it or don’t see any real value in those who are–so in that way, it’s clearly distracting to others in attendance. But, to those patched into it, the tool seemed to be predominantly used in this situation as furthering discussion and, therefore, committing to memory (as Kate references in her musings on the topic) the ideas being discussed.

Beyond that, there seems to be a lasting benefit beyond the moment of capturing spur of the moment thoughts and additional content to be referenced later… but, is it referenced later?  Or is is only entered in the moment and never referred back to in the future?  Can we provide some mechanism for assisting the access to these insights later when there is more time to think, ponder, and review?

A huge win in terms of Twitter relevance in the moment has to be the connection in real life based upon ideas being shared in the moment via an online platform.  How else can you break down the social protocols and impossibility of direct interaction with a large number of those in attendance to filter through whether that person has something of interest to you? Pre-Twitter you could do that via the person sitting next to you, the person asking questions, or you could be a crazed biz card socialite and query almost everyone in the crowd. A few tweets create much more precise serendipitous encounters!

Finally, however we look at this, it seems clear this question must be considered differently from the perspective of all parties in attendance in the moment:  the speaker, twitterers, non-twitterers, and observers from afar.

What do you think? Twitter use valuable or waste of time at a conference? What does this analysis tell you?