Lift10 Online Communities: The Revolution is Most Definitely Mobilized – Mobiles in Democratic Participation. Debunking Hype and Assessing Reality (Katrin Verclas) [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is The Revolution is Most Definitely Mobilized – Mobiles in Democratic Participation. Debunking Hype and Assessing Reality (Katrin Verclas), part of the Online Communities session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

Lift10 Katrin Verclas

She’s an activist. Not really techy. 5 billion mobile subscribers in 2010. Wants to debunk some myths about how people participate. Only 1.8 billion people online. *steph-note: not sure about that figure, might have misunderstood.*

The hype cycle, with the trough of disillusionment. How mobiles are being used in political participation. *steph-note: political? I think I’m tired. Examples are about HIV information.*

Lift10 Arm Circumference

*steph-note: OK, that was a series of examples of mobile use for health stuff, and now we’re back to politics.*

Protests in Thailand. “Sousveillance” (citizens recording and denouncing abuses like police brutality). Myth of twittering during iranian demonstrations: the mobile network was cut off!!

Election monitoring is a long-standing practice.

Citizen reporting, unlike election monitoring: stuff people submit via web, Twitter, etc. Source of reports seem to show that Mexican NGOs prefer reporting through web/Twitter rather than SMS.

Budget monitoring. Budget tracking tool you can query by SMS.

Obama campaign: I’m voting because… I don’t want zombies to take over the world!

*steph-note: sorry, the live-blogging machine has clearly broken down here :-(*

Lift10 Online Communities: YouTube’s Unfolding History (Jean Burgess) [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is YouTube’s Unfolding History (Jean Burgess), part of the Online Communities session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

Lift10 Jean Burgess

YouTube’s competing futures, also! Participatory culture. Hype and counter-hype. “Person of the year = YOU” vs. Andrew Keen, Cult of the Amateur.

There has to be something more to this. YouTube as an object of study, as a cultural system. It’s five years old. 2005, your online video repository. First video: Jawed at the zoo. YouTube was undetermined. Now it’s huge. It was co-created.

Two YouTubes.

Vernacular creativity (the bedroom!!) and also a social network. The videoblog predates YouTube.

The most subscribed channels have emerged as part as the social network (not “brand” channels for example).

Other side: “traditional media content”. Pretty clear separation between TV shows and movies, etc, and the other messy activities of the social network inhabitants.

A global living-room, and online archive. A huge museum curated by the community. It has public value but it’s not a public institution.

YouTube, parodies, copyright violations. Commenting of news by others than the professional media (less mollycoddling).

Competing futures:

Lift10 YouTube Competing Futures

YouTube’s architecture does not promote the creation of community, actually fights against it.

Lift10 Online Communities: The Transition from Broadcast to Multiplatform for a public service broadcaster: getting attention and measuring success (Alice Taylor) [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is The Transition from Broadcast to Multiplatform for a public service broadcaster: getting attention and measuring success (Alice Taylor), part of the Online Communities session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

Alice is specialized in games, works for Channel4. Just over two years ago. Head of education wanted to do sth different. Annual budget of about $1 moi £ for educational television shows to reach teenagers, mostly through teachers *steph-note: I think I’m jumbling things up a bit here*.

TV wasn’t working for education. Start spending where teenagers are: the internet. Self-described tribes (which change from year to year).

Lift10 Online Communities 1

Teenagers haven’t changed much, they’re just growing up with this stuff. What’s changed for us is trying to get their attention.

What’s changed is the time people have to spend on “stuff”. There are still only 24h in a day. She doesn’t buy that multitasking gives you longer days. *steph-note: I don’t either*

Digital budget pretty big, because they have TV-sized budgets to work with 🙂

Everything was created for Channel 4 by outside agencies. Trying to do something not in a curriculum.

4 things:

  • games
  • tv
  • tv with tools
  • *steph-note: didn’t get the 4th one*

Smokescreengame.

Rather than lecture them when they mess up, let them play through scenarios.

How do you approach DNA in an engaging way? Catch a killer… Casual games.

Other example: science of scams.

Metrics: number of teens reached + feedback from interested parties + feedback from critics… and divide by cost. (Qualitative and quantitative, blended.)

Games are a fantastic way of reaching kids.

Spikes in traffic from things like TV ads, or SXSW win.

In some situations, TV is the best media — telling people’s stories for example.

Super Me Videos: they gain points when they watch videos.

Perennial topics: sex, drugs, alcohol, relationships, health… but also money and other new topics.

Sex education game: Privates (great way to reach boys — will be live in June)

The Curfew, political game.

*steph-note: all this looks really great, though I’m having trouble following some of the explanations*

“Afterlife” — death & belief MiniMO.

Facebook games were the big surprise because they don’t come from the gaming industry. They are at the heart of “playing with friends”, and go even deeper (you “help” John with his farm, role-playing dimension).

Lift10 Generations: How and why are the current generation staying connected? (Julian Zbar) [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is How and why are the current generation staying connected? (Julian Zbar), part of the Generations and Technologies session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments. After the workshop with real live teenagers 2 years ago, a real live young man comes to be the witness of his generation.

Julian is 20, his name isn’t on his first slide. Largely based on personal experience. How technology is affecting his generation. Very similar to other generations. True and false preconceptions about them. We are the same human beings. Two arms, two legs, etc.

Lift10 Julian Zbar

Part of the internet as it is a part of them. Just as cost-conscious as older generations, except they expect everything to be free. Whatever you do now, you need to be connected to the internet. Devices are disposable.

There is no opportunity cost for being online. Once you pay the monthly fee, you’re not giving up anything to be on it. Nobody pays, cares, feels guilty (music, software). Used to receiving a lot and giving back nothing in return.

No such thing as a free lunch but the internet is serving us all the free lunches that our hard drive stomachs can handle.

Accustomed to constant connection, constant changes, instantaneous results. Much less effort to get news online than going out and buying the paper => cheapens the information consumed. No effort, less value. No need to make a conscious choice. Discard things they don’t like rather than picking what they do like. Choosing takes too much time.

Filling empty space in the day by doing something, always something to do. The internet is everywhere. Pick it up, take it wherever you go. We are never doing nothing. Not an exponential growth in productivity. Very easy to fill every moment with some sort of activity.

Facebook. A few years ago there was a small facebook resistance, but now pretty much everyone he knows has a facebook account. Being social is no longer an active thing. It’s the default. Paparazzi magazine of everyone you have ever met. Loss of the beauty of meeting somebody. You know first name, last name, and everything about them. You feel you’ve met people that you’ve never physically met. Is there a necessity to meet them in real life? Facebook changes the way you act, even when you’re not using it (during your disconnect time).

Social acts are trivialized. Judging, commenting, liking, etc. Negative or positive things you receive do not have the same impact as offline. Emotionally charged stuff on facebook because it’s easier without the physical person in front of you. Parallels with road rage. (*steph-note: flame wars, same phenomenon. Flipside of the coin: easier to say difficult things, but also easier to be damageable.*)

Privacy. People don’t worry. You can restrict access but there is always a way of finding stuff out (through a friend, etc.)

Very easy to post things, make things public. But the internet doesn’t help you curate, sort through all the data. Always something new, but what’s important? Mimics the creatures that we are. Easy to post, easy to consume. Quick and easy for everybody, and that’s what they want.

Q: Addiction? Doesn’t feel like he needs to be connected all the time, everybody is doing it (almost), it’s normal to be connected all the time. It’s how things are.

Doesn’t see the point of Twitter if you have Facebook. *steph-note: the big big difference is that the social network on Twitter is asymmetrical.*

People act online the same way they would offline. People don’t change when they’re on the internet, maybe just a little less inhibited.

Social networks like facebook make you think (privacy). You don’t throw around photos when you know 600 people have access to it and can show it to your friends, in the same way you’d do it in person.

Because you’re on Facebook doesn’t mean you’re constantly speaking to people you haven’t seen in 3 years. You’re just doing the same things you’d normally do. Easy way to invite people to stuff without sending out 10 e-mails, etc. etc.

Everybody has their own criteria for adding friends. Julian, for example, will accept incoming requests if he’s exchanged more than a few sentences with the person.

Lift10 Generations: Doomed to be forever young? A social archaeology of the 'digital natives' (Antonio Casilli) [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is Doomed to be forever young? A social archaeology of the ‘digital natives’ (Antonio Casilli), part of the Generations and Technologies session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

The myth of the digital native. *steph-note: YAY!!!!*

Lift10 Antonio's cousin

Antonio’s cousin’s MySpace page. His grandma is on YouTube. Different generations, different ways of being online. How “young” are those digital natives?

Lift10 Antonio's Grandma

There is no empirical evidence. No facts to support this myth. Not all children are computer-savvy. As with maths or linguistic skills, their computer skills vary. And the situation is changing quickly. However, increase in broadband access changed the most over the last 5 years for people over 50.

Lift10 Digital Native Myth

Before “digital natives” (2006) we had “internet children” (1999) and “computer kids” (1982)

To debunk the myth, we need to do some social archeology.

Two social dynamics:

  • Computers have changed the space. Reterritorialization.
  • Miniaturization.

Computers have gone from military bases to factories to offices to houses. (This is where the kids come in the picture.)

In the eighties, the child/youth becomes the main protagonist for the computer. Dismissal of adulthood visible in computer names (childhood names, pet names, fruit names… the computer is shrinking). The worst performers have adult/glamour names (vixen, orchidée, dragon…)

Why did the child become the main user of the computer? 3 reasons, but the best is the economic reason. Differences in uses of ICT, and younger generations buy high-added value services, so it makes sense to target them more aggressive marketing campaigns.

Second point, cultural reasons. Natives vs. immigrants, echo of the way we started thinking of technology. Before the eighties, technology is threatening (Big Brother). After, futuristic optimism. Positive attitude also towards the passing of time, insistance on real time, quick delivery.

Third reason: political. Mirrors social exclusion that has existed offline between younger and older generations while accessing technology. Young generations are overrepresented online. Around 55-63 the trend inverts, and older people are underrepresented online. This is also an offline issue. Senior citizens are generally excluded from mainstream society course and innovations.

Actually, digital natives never existed. Economic, cultural and political factors account for the creation of this myth. 2 bio humans online: perception evolves. Increasing participation of older generations => dents in the myth.

Older generations are catching up way more than the younger ones!

Q: how can you work as a sociologist if you can’t categorize people? *steph-note: didn’t get the answer*

Big misunderstanding: the seperation of “online” and “real life”. That’s not how we experience it. People are also aging in cyberspace.

Other stereotype: boys are good with computers, not girls. Military caste stereotype (computers were initially military). But in the 50s and 60s, a lot of female computer experts.

Lift10 Generations: Prospects for defeating aging altogether (Aubrey de Grey) [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is Prospects for defeating aging altogether (Aubrey de Grey), part of the Generations and Technologies session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

SENS.org. Doesn’t work on longevity. Works on ageing. *steph-note: did I get that right? this makes me think of the RadioLab show on mortality, and the story of the worms a scientist manages to make live longer.*

Lift10 Aging

Regenerative medicine. Many people don’t like his work, which is why he specifies that he doesn’t work on longevity. People think of the impact of longevity. But actually, it’s about the impact on health. Keeping people healthy. When we’re really good at keeping people healthy, they’ll live longer, but that’s a side-effect.

About 90% of the USA population dies of “ageing”. We’re talking of combating aging, which is all the causes that mainly kill older people. Nobody wants to get Alzheimer’s. And even if it’s not about getting rid of diseases, life is more fun when you’re healthy, and it costs less. $200 billion/year to provide medical care to aging people.

People don’t like thinking of ageing, because it’s a terrible thing, and it hasn’t happened to most of us (here) yet, but it’s going to happen. We keep ghastly ideas like ageing and death out of our minds most of the time. A big part of the problem is this rational denial.

Aging: accumulation of damage. Metabolism ongoingly causes “damage”. Eventually that damage causes pathology.

Two approaches to aging:

  • geriatric approach (do something about the consequences of damage of old age — losing battle)
  • gerontologic: prevention is better than cure (try to figure out how to have less damage or clean it up)

But metabolism is really complicated. We can’t really succeed in making it create less damage. There might also be side-effects if we fix something somewhere. System is too complex.

So, rather than that, maintenance. We don’t try to slow down the creation of damage or the consequences, but we try to repair the damage, so it doesn’t get to a pathologic level. A third, more promising approach.

Only 7 types of deadly damage:

  • junk in cells
  • junk outside cells
  • too few cells
  • too many cells
  • mutations (chromosomes)
  • mutations (mitochondria)
  • protein crosslinks

We’re pretty confident about this list (been the same since 1982).

How do we fix these things?

Lift10: Robust Human Rejuvenation

All these therapies will be applied to people who are already in middle-age. Question: at what rate do we need to apply these therapies in order to stay a step ahead of the problem.

Audrey wrote a book about this: Ending Aging. Scientifically thorough but written for the non-specialist.

Audrey is confident that we will succeed in this at some point. Optimal age is not that important, because as with all repairs (think “car”) you can actually, by repairing well enough, “age” backwards. Any potential problems we might create by making people live longer and healthier (and we don’t know what it will be like!) must be weighed against the current problems we have supporting aging in our society.

Lift10 Politics: Greenpeace social media strategy and on-line campaigns (Claudia Sommer) [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is Greenpeace social media strategy and on-line campaigns (Claudia Sommer), part of the Politics session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

Changes that have a huge impact on Greenpeace campaigning. (*steph-note: first talk in English for @csommer, she says!*)

*video*

Open campaigning. Direct communication with the people. In Germany, some environmental issues have been solved, but some huge ones remain. Need to push those in the spotlight. Need to create pressure on politics and create peer pressure. Get in touch with people who are already active and can mobilize others. Young people are motivated — it’s their future!

Lift10 Claudia Sommer

Greenpeace is present on many social networks and also have their own social network, Green Action.

Building a campaign community:

  • involve the public
  • go where people are active
  • young people are online
  • diverse range of internet users => diverse ideas

GreenaAction to provide a variety of solutions, push industry/politics to implement them, wide public support, and media independant counter-movement. (*steph-note: reminds me of conclusion of workshop this morning, brands need to become their own media*) The platform is completely independant, no advertising, no political parties involved, no companies. Open campaigning initially for Greenpeace, but now open to other environmental campaigns.

Visualise individual commitment, combine strength and wisdom of many, give power and protection (sometimes there are legal issues, it helps if Greenpeace has your back).

After 8 months, over 6K users, many below 25, 15-20% launching campaigns. Individuals, campaigners, and organisations like Bund, Campact…

How do people use GreenAction? Strong offline focus, mashup campaigns, activists actively in touch with each other and other communities, low number of ToS violations, participants involved in improving the platform.

Nestlé KitKat/Killer campaign. Twitter wall instead of Greenpeace banner on Nestle building.

Case study: Gorleben, nuclear waste. Political or geological decision? => access to source documentation from the seventies, so everybody can access and make their mind up.

Lift10 Claudia Sommer & Laurent Haug Q: what should Nestlé have done? *Claudia says it’s not for her to talk about ;-)* They had the wrong kind of attitude towards the customers. Would have been smart to talk to people when the campaign started, rather than just press release (people don’t care about press releases).

Q: concentrating too much on digital natives? Double strategy, online and off in parallel.

*steph-note: didn’t get all the questions, sorry!*

Lift10 Politics: The Technological and Social Trends Impacting Politics (Rahaf Harfoush) [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is The Technological and Social Trends Impacting Politics (Rahaf Harfoush), part of the Politics session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

Lift10 Rahaf Harfoush

Rahaf is a social media strategist. How are social networks changing the way we are implementing governments and political campaigns.

The past: 2008. Feels like decades in internet time. The Obama campaign was the first example of how much impact technology could have on a campaign. What did they do that was so different?

MyBO changed the way people organized. The candidates ability to outreach is not limited to the physical resources he has. Scaling. Millions of volunteers who are empowered to self-organize. Ability to reach every corner of America without the real financial ressources to do so.

2 Mio profiles, 35K volunteer groups (Dungeons&Dragons supporters for Obama!), 400K blog posts, 200K offline events.

Redefined the relationship between political candidates and supporters. Not only TV, news, but also Facebook, Myspace, YouTube, Twitter (*steph-note: imho that makes the candidate a more real and approachable human being*). The man behind the image. Once you feel you know him, you feel personally invested and motivated. Turn supporters into friends.

Change of fundraising strategy. Raised more than double of McCain.

Somebody made a comment about how she thought that community organisation couldn’t be that powerful. (*steph-note: missed who that was*)

September 2008 had raised $150 mio (two-thirds from online!) Total $750 mio.

Changed people’s perceptions of their possible political involvement. Not just for the people, but with the people.

The present (2010). What’s going on now? Breaking down walls (open data and transparency). The supportive community wasn’t just going to go away after the election!

The Sunlight Foundation. Data.gov. Recovery.gov. Government showing what they’re doing with the money.

Google Government Requests. 42 data requests for Switzerland, less than 10 removal requests.

Ushahidi.org (Swahili for testimony/witness). Report instances of fraud, abuse, harrassment, etc. Made open to the world something that was not normally spoken about.

Iran protests. Government tried to shut down communication and contain it. Shut down SMS, banned international websites, blocked international calls, confined journalists, raided broadcasters… The people used social media to get the word out. (*steph-note: I know I’ve read criticism about this interpretation of what happened, need to dig a bit more*) Green avatar campaign on Twitter. Killing of Neda Agha and subsequent viral YouTube video.

Future? Visions of utopian and dystopian worlds, of course.

Evolving digital activism. We the people. As people become more familiar with technology, for example the UnCaucus. Citizens looking for a new mayor. Rethinking the political process, job description. From voter to hiring manager. Need to find the right person for the job.

Onion rings and prime ministers in Canada. Outrage, Vote campaign. So unhappy that they said “onion ring can get more fans than him”. Group on Facebook! 176K fans, 31K for the actual Stephen Harper. Not huge numbers, but with more sophisticated tools, this kind of protest operation could reach much more people.

Canadians against proroguing Parliament. 200K members. Protests, etc. Self-organizing through FB.

As we’re interacting more and getting more involved, governments are starting to take notice and respond. Policies and regulations. Good way to understand the future: look at legislations being proposed.

The #FreeVenezuela hashtag got so much media attention that Chavez responded saying Twitter was a tool of terror, and considered banning it from the country. We’ll see more and more of this.

Mexico, Los Twitteros, social networks used by drug addicts etc, to pass information around. Used to break the law.

Cybernetic police force. Their job will be monitoring what is said and shared on social networks. Also consider banning Twitter.

Great firewall of China.

How are governments going to use the tools to further their geopolitical agenda?

Russia. All your tweets are belong to Putin.

New role of corporations: now the product of a company (Facebook, Gmail) has a huge impact on people’s lives, so you see corporations starting discussions with governments. Google victim of cyber-attack. Sino-Google relations. Company taking a bit of a political stand.

Final thoughts: we’re in a time of ongoing battles and creating precedents. We need to pay attention to what laws are being passed, where the opportunities and threats are. If we’re not careful, we’ll end up with legislation that severely limits people’s access/use of the internet around the world. What happens in one country impacts people in others. Risks of slacktivism. Don’t get used to just clicking a button to show your support or outrage. There is more to protesting and getting involved. We need to take care of both online and offline worlds.

Q: what happens when everybody starts using social media campaign techniques? did Obama benefit from being the first to do it? — Wouldn’t recommend replicating what the Obama campaign did because the internet moves so fast that these techniques become antiquated really fast. It’s about listening.

Q: lot of data online, government in Iran using Twitter to locate protesters… — Continuous battle between good and evil. Government bans one hashtag, another one appears, China blocks one site, another one pops up… There’s no turning back. Funny story: campus police trolling facebook and busting parties. They set up a fake party, the police came down, and everybody was quietly playing games.

We’re going to see more and more sites with political agendas.

Q: hijacking

Howard Dean tried, was the first, and failed. But if he hadn’t failed, Obama wouldn’t have been able to come along after and learn from his mistakes. *steph-note: would be nice to hear which ones*

Lift10 Workshop: From virtual to real world value — Collective Intelligence as an alternate source of media power [en]

These are my running notes of the Lift conference (Workshop: From virtual to real world value — Collective Intelligence as an alternate source of media power). May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Lift10 Workshop day 2

Collective intelligence: gathering to put bits and pieces of the story together.

Obama campaign. Radiohead In Rainbows (in addition to the “pay what you like” promo they sold over 100K box sets at $80).

Massing old media companies are now in trouble. Well-crafted, manicured message. Different from the grassroots culture. Jenkins: media producer and media consumer interact in unpredictable ways.

New media: no barrier to entry as long as you have the technology (phone, internet connection, camera…)

Media convergence surrounds us. Participatory culture and collective intelligence prevail.

Convergence is not about a big black device that will do everything. Different sources/tools coming together, gathering. Industrialized process, cultures, social communication, etc — everything is changing in the convergence world. (It’s happening now!)

Scary process for some (media organizations in particular). Confusion in the marketplace. New media does not stop old media, but forces it to reinvent itself or find a new place. All these things can exist side-by-side, but the power is shifting.

We now have the ability to participate in the creation on culture — and we do it every day. (On Facebook, for example!)

Convergence is about how people use the devices — not the devices themselves. The platform is just a delivery mechanism. When media consumption occurs within social interactions, it becomes collective.

Some facts:

  • 11M e-readers to be sold by end of 2010 (Kindle $1 billion worth of sales)
  • Nintendo, MS and Sony are in a video console war. Wii 67 M units, DS (simple device!) 127 M units worldwide. If something is device-independant, the important thing is delivery. Nintendo have made the rules in this war, all the competitors are trying to implement motion-control.
  • iPad: 1M in one month (another example of a device where its limitations are also its strength)
  • 65M users accessing Facebook through mobile (and these people spend twice as much time on Facebook as anybody else)

Convergence world jargon fest.

Lift10 Convergence World Jargon Fest

Media actives comment on media, etc.

This is not a Western cultural shift. It’s worldwide. Fan fiction (Revelations, Star Wars, 45 minutes) which horrifies franchise holders (let’s go out and get the fans who built this!)

The cost of producing media has diminished dramatically. HD camera for $99.

Video game franchises: great way of stamping our logo on something and expanding over other media channels. Star Wars Galaxies is an interesting case study of this. Consumers have a stake in the survival of the franchise/community.

Like in WoW, you end up with people focusing more on secondary characteristics of the world, e.g. having dance parties instead of blowing up planets.

Sony got it wrong: don’t try and battle with your grassroots fan base… They alienated everybody who loved the game.

Harry Potter fan fiction. Publishing story coming down on fans. (Oh, and the Church. The Studio is promoting “satanic worship”.)

We’re all storytellers (maybe not good ones). We tell our stories on Facebook all the time.

Copyright laws are antiquated… *steph-note: if you read a bit of French, my take on that*

Photojournalism is dead. Clearly, the profession is under attack. Long live photojournalism!

Huff Post. Of course journalism is not dead. These things exist side-by-side. Burn Magazine (run by a Magnum photographer). Verve Photo. Photojournale (John Horniblow‘s baby): content aggregation, editorial work, community behind it (over 400 professional photographers).

Print on demand publishing (Lulu, Blurb — for high quality photography, Amazon Creative Space, Lightening Press).

With less analog stuff around, it’s intrinsec value will finally go up. Not everybody can do it exceptionally well. *steph-note: cf. Hugh‘s prints, for example.*

Now listening to Jay Z (some mashup). Soundcloud: producers and writers come together. Fairtilizer, Last.fm, Spotify… *steph-note: I need to get into Spotify, looks really exciting — damn, not available in Switzerland*

Important thing: corporations now need to be media entities themselves. Brands are forced into content production. How do they deal with that? And with the grassroots, and the shareholders?

Brands example: Cokestudios. Virtual world (music, games, digital economy, etc.). Coke as facilitator rather than message.

Other example: Being Girl. P&G. Choice of brand for feminine sanitary products => stick to it their whole life. Worth catching teens immediately. The site/community is not about tampons, but about the life experiences of teenage girls. Not about the brand, but about the girls. *steph-note: bugs me that I’m force-redirected to my country site, though, I’d like to see what the .com site looks like.* => P&G are now competing with the classic teen girl’s magazine on the stand. Business model: narrow audience => advertising on the magazine. P&G are shifting their money from advertising in magazines to their own. *steph-note: the question of independance of advertising and editorial, taken from the other end… food for thought here*

Pour tout vous dire. Another of these brand-driven magazines. Originally: all about the brand. *steph-note: hey, this reminds me of the origins of soap operas — designed so housewives would watch them so that they could place soap ads.*

Starbucks. My Starbucks idea. You tell us how to fix our corporate problem. Let us know what we should do and where we went wrong. Interesting stuff on Facebook too.

Harley Davidson: people’s stories, it’s all about the experience.

Nestlé: Creating Shared Value. How about that for a very traditional and controlled corporation?

Remain local but communicate in a global context.

Lift10, The Old New Media: Reinvent Capitalism (Mercedes Bunz) [en]

Here are my running notes of the Lift conference in Geneva. This is Mercedes Bunz’s Reinvent Capitalism, part of the Old New Media session. May contain errors, omissions, things that aren’t quite right, etc. I do my best but I’m just a human live-blogging machine.

Found other good posts about this session? Link to them in the comments.

Lift10 Mercedes Bunz

What’s going on? Algorithms analyzing text, but also writing it. Algorithms can now search online for information and facts and present them in formal journalistic style. *steph-note: did I get that right? I have trouble following.*

Example, Guardian Zeitgeist — chooses articles by itself.

*steph-note: total fail on note-taking here, combination of reading/audio quality/voice pitch/my deafness*

Public: category that is always changing. Communications used to be private, but as they move online, they become increasingly public and available for use.

Michel Foucault, structure of power (in The History of Sexuality).

Need to stop pushing society into a fear of society. Digitization is new business.