LeWeb'13: Guy Kawasaki [en]

Note: this is a discussion with Loïc — I’m not that good at blogging discussions.

LeWeb'13, Guy Kawasaki

If you look at the past, you have to say it’s impossible to predict the future. Is MySpace the OS of the internet? Nah, not happened. Nobody really could have predicted the success of Facebook and Twitter. (Yay, Guy agrees with me. Or do I agree with him? I read The Black Swan too closely.)

BitCoin: getting away from Wall Street? Good thing. With a lot of these technologies, some is good, some is bad, but it’s still better than not having them at all.

“I don’t want any more friends.” — Not using social media to make connections, but as a marketing tool, a means to an end. steph-note: how I understand that! Guy is the person who will literally not say a word to you on a 10-hour flight if he doesn’t know you. (He says all this in a very nice way).

Guy is his brand. He loves Buffer, links everything.

steph-note: I’m seeing a difference in Guy and Loïc’s approach here. Seems that Loïc is more about the connecting than Guy who is more about content and results.

Guy’s model: earn the right to promote by providing great content. Like NPR. Other people than him do post to his account, but when he replies it’s always him. Most of his tweets go up 4 times 8 hours apart (not everyone is awake all the time, people don’t scroll back through all his tweets either).

“If you’re not pissing people off on social media, you’re probably not using it hard enough.”

“The most important thing an entrepreneur can do is make a prototype.” If you build a prototype and people like it, you may never have to create a pitch, make a forecast, a buiness plan, etc. Let’s face it, most pitches are BS. Most powerful thing you can show an investor is a prototype that is already being used.

Second piece of advice, for people outside the US: create something that is so great that the people in Silicon Valley want to copy.

“You’re so French, you just took that completely wrong!”

Third piece of advice: never ask anybody to do something you wouldn’t do (employees, customers, vendors…). steph-note: yay.

other steph-note: Guy is kinda cheeky.

Advice for finding ideas? Ideas ripped off from Sequoia Capital guy: richest vein = two guys/gals in a garage building a product they want to use. That’s very different from listening to 50+ white men in a conference telling you stuff. Create the product you want to use and hope like hell you’re not the only two people in the world who want to use it.

Guy advises more than he invests. Believes investing is more of a local phenomenon.

Intellectual property? Valuable for you if a very large company wants to buy you for your intellectual property. But otherwise… Building a model on patents is laughable. If you want to impress investors: “we have a patent pending but we don’t believe it’s a key part of our defensibility; … [insert other things that make you solid here]”. You won’t get funded with a business model which is we’re going to create technology, patent it, get copied by a large company and sue them.

Guy likes to lose money (=invest) in things he understands and uses. (Evernote, Buffer…)

Can you always identify a need for a tech startup? The answer is no. Often the need appears afterwards. Apple got that really well. Key part of entrepreneurship.

Sure, there is a demonstrated need for better batteries, and 500 companies are certainly working on it now. Not really interesting for Guy to invest or get involved in. Wants to fall in love with the thing — Google Plus. He didn’t need it but fell in love with it. Loïc: “That doesn’t make any sense, Guy ;-)”

Question to Guy: if a prospective investor asks a startup to move where the fund is, what would you do? Answer: he’d look for another investor. If you are from SF and you fall in love here in Paris, you’re not going to say “I’ll continue our relationship if you move to where I am”. Maybe a middle ground? Keep the programmers in Paris and headquarters on the West coast?

Another question on investing abroad (South Africa). Guy’s saying yes, lost opportunities. Issues: distance, doesn’t know how the country laws work, can you give options, IPO, etc. Adding speed bumps to the deal. Entrepreneur needs to make it easier for the entrepreneur to write the check. But yes, lost opportunities. The next Google could be brewing in South Africa and the American investor won’t see it.

All hail Halley Suitt Tucker, the mother of APE! (Grab a card that Guy has brought, you’ll get the book for free.)

LeWeb'13: Fred Wilson [en]

Three macro-trends (from a behavioural point of view: not big data or mobile, but what are people doing?)

First, the transition from bureaucratic hierarchies to collaborative networks, what Here Comes Everybody talks about — technology lowers the transaction costs for collaborative action.

LeWeb'13, Fred Wilson

For example, a network like Twitter is starting to replace the newspaper (a bureaucratic hierarchy ;-)). YouTube is making everyone a video creator, good stuff surfaces, etc. Soundcloud is another one of these. Anybody creates audio or music, you don’t need a record label, don’t need to get signed, you get found by the crowd and become popular.

This trend was first visible in the entertainment industry, it’s now moving to the hotel industry (AirBnB), funding (Kickstarter), learning.

Second trend: unbundling. Has to do with how services are packaged and taken to market. Packaging and taking to market is much more efficient now, so you can buy bits and pieces now when before you needed to get the whole big thing. Newspaper vs getting your news/info from the internet. People focus on being the best at sports, or at classified, rather than doing everything.

Example: banking. Expensive to open a branch, fill it with people to serve customers. So banks did everything: mortgage, savings… So now we have things like Lending Club, Funding Circle — very specialised. Another industry that’s being unbundled is education. It was expensive to put a bunch of students in a room and have a professor stand before them in a building. Not necessary anymore, for example, Fred’s talk right now is being live streamed and probably watched by more people online than in this room. And research! Science Exchange uses a network-based model to allow researches all over the world to collaborate by using each other’s equipment for example. Entertainment is the obvious one. You used to pay your cable bill and get everything in there. Now: Netflix, Hulu, Spotify — we mix and match how we like, on our phone, the big screen, where we want it.

The third big trend is that we’re all nodes on the network because of our phones/computers. If you could keep either your smartphone or your computer, what would you keep? Most people would keep their phone. (I’d still keep my computer, I rely on it too much to type.)

Examples: Uber… impacting the taxi, rental car, and delivery businesses. Changing the world we live in! Square etc for payment: wallet on your phone. Dating: Tinder.

Summary: networks and hierarchies, everything is going to be unbundled, you are a node on the network.

Four sectors to look at.

1. Money.

Because of BitCoin, not because of BitCoin the hype thing, but because it’s a protocol. Money is going to flow on the internet the same way as content flows on the internet. It will not be controlled by any company, be it PayPal, Visa or Mastercard.

2. Health and wellness.

Not healthcare. What keeps you out of the healthcare system. Wearing devices that can report to us and others our vital signs. Fitbit, Jawbone UP and other Pebbles.

3. Data leakage

When the industrial revolution came along, we polluted a lot but waited a long time to start cleaning up. With the information age, our pollution is data leakage, organisations spying on us, etc.

4. Trust and identity.

We’ve allowed Google etc. to be our identity. But we’re giving them access to everything we do. At some point a protocol will emerge to allow us to do the same thing without the drawbacks.

Interesting: fertility app which will pay for IVF if you can’t get pregnant after a year using the app.

LeWeb'13: The Future is Usually the Present [en]

[fr] Quand on parle du futur, on parle en fait uniquement du présent. Toutes ces technologies existent déjà! Ce qui n'ôte rien au fait que c'est super intéressant 🙂

The theme of LeWeb this year is “The Next 10 Years”. I have to admit I’m always a bit skeptical about all this “future” talk. We always end up talking about the present, when we talk about the future. All this exciting technology is already here, but not evenly distributed, as William Gibson might say. Your future is my present. My future is already somebody else’s present. See what I mean?

That being said, all the stuff that Loïc is talking about on stage right now (intelligent homes, robots, 3D-printed houses, the quantified self, drones, fun new apps…) is very much in my current zone of interest. I’m a geek who loves new toys, even though you wouldn’t guess that if you want through my stuff at home. It’s one of the things that drew me to the web at the end of the 90s: extraordinary exciting things were happening there, and only a comparatively small number of people knew that and were a part of it. I jumped in.

I’ve probably mentioned a few times recently that I feel like I lost a part of myself along the way these last years. I haven’t been feeding my inner geek. I’m hoping to be inspired these next three days.

I'm at LeWeb'13 [en]

[fr] Articles en direct de la conférence-festival Le Web (je peux pas appeler ça un "salon" comme les français).

There we are. I feel strangely relaxed compared to the last five years or so. Nothing to worry about but myself and my blog!

Ricardo took a bunch of us official bloggers around the venue yesterday evening. I was happy to see everyone I knew, and even managed to recognise Frédéric Pereira (quite a feat given how bad I am with faces). Arne and Fred were there of course, my old friends Erno, Myriam, Adam, and the incredible Halley, who danced for everybody in the party bus that drove us around Paris afterwards.

I loved the idea of a party bus — for people who like partying. Not my case unfortunately, and I have a really hard time with loud environments, like most people with hearing loss. I guess my cup of tea would be a “tea bar bus” with soft music I can’t hear, comfy sofas, tea and cake. But I’m aware I’m a special snowflake in that respect and I wouldn’t want to impose my quirks on everybody else.

You want photos?

LeWeb'13
Fred Pereira in action

LeWeb'13-15

LeWeb'13-16
Checking out the venue before it’s ready!

LeWeb'13-17
What’s this car?

LeWeb'13-18
A peek inside

LeWeb'13-19
Desks for bloggers, and other typing people, on the side of the stage this year (we’ll see how that goes!)

LeWeb'13-20
The stage, with the expected 3D printer

LeWeb'13-21
Charbax checking out the gear in the Blogger Lounge

LeWeb'13-22
A better view of the Blogger Lounge

LeWeb'13-23
Halley, feeling camera shy

LeWeb'13-24
I approve of the colour scheme

LeWeb'13-25
The aforementioned gear

LeWeb'13-26

LeWeb'13-27
The Googley place in the other building

LeWeb'13-28
And the party bus!

And now it’s starting! Note the TV-like stage, at the same height as the public. Barriers breaking down! (Ooh, exciting: meditation session in the plenary room. Interested to see what that will be like.)

LeWeb'13 29

Echapper aux notifications Facebook des conversations groupées [fr]

[en] How to mute a facebook chat with lots of people in it. Sometimes those notifications get a bit out of hand, don't they?

Si vous utilisez Facebook autant que moi, vous vous retrouvez probablement de temps en temps dans des chats “à plusieurs”. Voire “à beaucoup”. Et comme vous avez activé les notifications en cas de message privé, à chaque fois que quelqu’un dit un mot dans le gros chat commun, votre téléphone s’affole ou votre ordinateur bipe.

La solution radicale: quitter la conversation. Quasi tout le monde sait faire ça. Mais des fois on ne veut pas quitter la conversation. On veut rester dedans, mais on ne veut pas être prévenu en super-priorité quand quelqu’un dit “:-)”.

Sachez, mesdames et messieurs, qu’on peut couper le son à la conversation. En anglais, c’est “mute conversation” — quelqu’un me dit ce que c’est en français? C’est dans le menu “roue dentée” juste au-dessus de “quitter la conversation”. Oui, je vous fais un dessin:

Mon%20chat%20m'a%20domestiqu%C3%A9(e).%20Et%20j'aime%20%C3%A7a.

Voilà, en espérant que ce sera utile à certains!

Retour au cinéma [fr]

[en] Been going back to the cinema recently.

J’adore le cinéma. Quand j’étais petite, on y allait rarement, mais j’aimais déjà. C’était une occasion spéciale. De l’exceptionnel. Trente ans plus tard, j’ai toujours ce même sentiment magique quand je m’installe dans mon fauteuil pour voir un film. J’ai été beaucoup au cinéma durant mon adolescence, et aussi durant une bonne partie de ma vie d’adulte. C’est une de mes “sorties” préférées.

Depuis un an ou deux (ou est-ce plus?) je peine à trouver le temps (ou m’organiser) pour y aller. J’ai laissé expirer deux cartes Pathé “5 places prix réduit, valable 6 mois” avec encore des places dessus.

Le cinéma, plus j’y vais, plus j’y vais: je vois les lancements, je me dis “oh faut pas que je rate ça”, et la machine et lancée. A l’inverse, quand je n’y vais pas, peu de choses m’y tirent, sauf une vague envie “d’aller au cinéma”. Durant mes périodes sans cinéma, je ne sais même pas ce qui passe.

Récemment, j’ai recommencé à fréquenter les salles obscures. Voici les derniers films que j’ai vus et ce que j’en ai pensé, sachant tout de même que je suis “public facile” 🙂

  • En solitaire: super film de voile et de mer, avec de l’action, du suspense, de l’émotion…
  • The Butler: contente de ne pas l’avoir raté; j’ai entre autre adoré voir ces différents acteurs célèbres incarner une succession de présidents des Etats-Unis; et même si les films sont une piètre source pour apprendre l’Histoire, ça m’a quand même éclairée sur un volet de la culture américaine de ce siècle dont je suis passablement ignorante.
  • Les Grandes Ondes: film suisse et super! Vraiment! Dire que je ne savais même pas ce qu’était la Révolution des Œillets avant de voir ce film… honte à moi.
  • Gravity: comment, vous ne l’avez pas encore vu? J’ai adoré. 3D of course (et du coup j’ai appris que les séances 3D le dimanche matin chez Pathé sont au prix normal…)
  • About Time: très jolie histoire qui m’a fait penser à Love Actually, et pas pour rien (même réalisateur). De ces films qui font aimer la vie et les gens, et pleurer un peu, bien entendu.
  • Prisoners: du thriller assez dur mais bien fichu. Prévoir un verre après.

 

Des entreprises qui utilisent bien les médias sociaux [fr]

[en] A round-up of some companies which use social media well. Follow the links... (Most of them are in English.)

La semaine dernière, à la conférence 200 Ideas (super, faut que je vous en parle, pas là, allez voir le site, il y a toutes les vidéos et les slides), je rencontre Christian, qui me pose une question très pertinente.

On est en mode “réseautage”, couleur “faut vraiment que je bosse sur mon pitch et je vais t’en faire la démo”.

Alors il me fait: “Médias sociaux. Hmm. Alors qui sont les entreprises qui utilisent bien les médias sociaux?” (je cite de mémoire).

Et moi: “.” (Comme dans les BDs Achille Talon.)

Suivi de “Euh… ouais, je devrais être capable de répondre à cette question, hein?”

Lui: “Oui…”

Bref. Je lui ai promis un e-mail, et en faisant un peu de recherche pour l’e-mail en question, je me suis dit que ça pouvait faire un billet de blog. Que voici.

Déjà, en préambule, disons que “bien utiliser les médias sociaux”, c’est vaste. On peut utiliser les médias sociaux pour beaucoup de choses (qui ont tendance à se mélanger, mais séparons quand même):

  • marketing
  • service client
  • communication
  • comm interne
  • PR
  • gestion de crise
  • veille stratégique

Tout ceci n’est pas forcément visible. Comment savoir si une boîte utilise super bien les médias sociaux pour leur communication interne? Ou ce qu’ils font côté veille? Et la stratégie? Je veux dire, comment réfléchissent-ils à ce qu’ils font? Dur de savoir tout ça sans accès insider.

Après, il y a les outils. Une boîte peut être géniale sur Twitter et catastrophique sur son blog. Ou bien utiliser Vine super bien mais pas Facebook.

Sans plus attendre, quelques exemples d’entreprises qui utilisent bien les médias sociaux. C’est pas exhaustif, c’est un peu en vrac, c’est même pas forcément les meilleurs (qui suis-je pour juger?), mais c’est un début. De quoi vous inspirer en tous cas! Suivez les liens…

Whole Foods

Le magasin bio américain (aussi surnommé par certains “Whole Paycheck”, parce que oui, c’est plus cher), se débrouille plutôt pas mal en matière de médias sociaux. Vous pouvez lire un case study sur slideshare, une interview avec leur “Interactive Art Director”, une petite analyse de leur utilisation de quelques gros réseaux, ou encore une brève présentation de leur utilisation de Twitter (où on parle aussi de Best Buy et Southwest). Ils ont un blog, “Whole Story”, bien sûr.

Best Buy

Champions du service client sur les médias sociaux.

Southwest

La compagnie d’aviation a un blog exemplaire, Nuts About Southwest. Voici un article sur 5 leçons marketing à tirer de leur présence médias sociaux.

CGN

Plus près de nous et à une autre échelle, j’aime bien ce que fait la CGN sur Facebook.

Blogs

Côté blogs, eh bien, il y a à lire! Quelques articles-listes pour démarrer:

Le blog d’entreprise (ou en entreprise) est loin d’être mort! Plongez dans ces listes, vous en ressortirez certainement quelque chose.

Old Spice

Leur campagne-réponses sur YouTube était mythique. Voici un case-study parmi des centaines d’autres.

La fête sur Twitter

Quand on est confortable avec l’outil et sa culture, ça peut donner ce genre de délire. Ça commence avec Tesco Mobile, ça continue avec Yorkshire Tea, et ça finit par inclure des dizaines d’autres marques.

Vine

Vous connaissez Vine? Oui, ça s’utilise en marketing.

Et encore?

Dans mes explorations, je tombe sur un article présentant 5 bons exemples d’utilisation de médias sociaux dans le “retail”. Google est notre amis à tous…

A part ça, il faut bien sûr mentionner Zappos et QoQa. Et LEGO! Il y a certainement d’autres boîtes incontournables qui font du bon boulot sur les médias sociaux… à vous de les présenter dans les commentaires!

 

 

I'll Be Attending LeWeb'13 in Paris in a Few Weeks [en]

[fr] Dans quelques semaines, je serai à la conférence LeWeb à Paris, cette fois en tant que "simple" blogueuse officielle!

For the first time in many years, I’ll be in Paris in December for LeWeb as a “simple” Official Blogger. After five years of setting up and managing the Official Blogger Programme, first alone, then with Fred and Arne (and always with Géraldine!), I’m really looking forward spending a few “relaxed” days at LeWeb.

Yes, I actually used the word “relaxed” in the same sentence as “LeWeb”. Given how huge and fast-paced the mega-conference-festival is, it’s surprising, but I can tell you that “not being in charge of anything” makes it feel like a picnic.

Lift and LeWeb are the two conferences I have attended consistently since 2006, the year I quit my job as a teacher and became a full-time “social web” freelancer.

So, what’s in store? The theme this year is forward-looking, and in addition to attending the sessions (some of the speakers blew me away last year), I will be catching up with old friends (if I can catch them) and hanging out in the startup/demo areas on the lookout for cool tech.

Initiative de l'UDC contre les familles [fr]

[en] Swiss politics. I'm against the UDC so-called "for families" initiative, and you should be too. OMG I can't believe I'm writing a political post.

Sans rentrer dans les détails, j’ai réalisé qu’il n’allait pas de soi pour tout le monde qu’il fallait voter contre la soi-disant “initiative pour les familles” de l’UDC. Alors hop, moi qui me tiens généralement bien à l’écart de tout ce qui sent la politique, je vais sauter les deux pieds dedans.

Un peu de contexte: je ne suis affiliée à aucun parti, vu que ça me fait vite mal à la tête, toute cette politique, mais je suis clairement de sensibilité gauche-verte, avec toutefois quelques idées un peu plus de droite parsemées ici et là, probablement parce que je traine trop dans le milieu du business et de l’entrepreneuriat.

Un peu de contexte concernant l’initiative. C’est une initiative de l’UDC, et les autres partis se sont alliés pour lutter contre. Ça, si on ne partage pas de façon général les vues de l’UDC, ça devrait déjà être un gros drapeau rouge. Certes, l’initiative semble séduisante (qui ne voudrait pas soutenir les familles?), mais n’oublions pas que l’UDC sont les as du marketing politique et de la communication, qu’ils ont de gros moyens et qu’ils sont extrêmement efficaces.

Oui, ce serait super si on pouvait valoriser d’une façon ou d’une autre le travail des parents qui renoncent à travailler (tout ou partiellement) pour s’occuper de leurs enfants. Ou bien le travail des enfants qui ont à charge leurs parents âgés, au détriment de leur carrière. Mais l’initiative de l’UDC ne fait pas ça.

Déconstruisons un peu.

Si je travaille et que je fais garder mon enfant, j’ai des frais de garde, et je peux déduire une partie de ceux-ci lors du calcul de mes impôts. La logique de la chose telle que je la comprends, c’est que ces frais sont en quelque sorte des frais d’acquisition du revenu: pour pouvoir travailler, gagner plus, et donc payer plus d’impôts, je dois dépenser de l’argent. Donc le calcul de l’imposition en tient compte, de la même manière qu’on peut déduire des frais d’entretien d’immeuble si on est proprio. (Vous me corrigez si je dis des bêtises, mais je crois que le parallèle est bon.)

Si je ne travaille pas et que je n’ai pas de frais de garde, je n’ai pas non plus de salaire (le ménage a moins de revenus et je paie moins d’impôts).

N’oublions pas que les revenus modestes paient déjà peu d’impôts. Un ménage qui tourne avec un seul salaire médian, ça lui fera probablement une belle jambe qu’on puisse déduire encore quelque chose.

Ensuite, il y a toute la problématique “féministe”. Là aussi, je reste généralement loin du débat, mais c’est clair pour moi qu’une initiative comme celle-ci favorise un modèle familial où la femme reste à la maison pour s’occuper des enfants. Et ça, c’est inacceptable en 2013. Je ne dis pas que je désapprouve des femmes qui font le choix de s’arrêter de travailler pour s’occuper de leurs enfants. Mais la société devrait faire en sorte que le choix entre carrière et famille soit un vrai choix. Alors qu’on sait que les femmes sont toujours moins payées que les hommes, que dans le monde du business les qualités qu’on apprécie chez les hommes sont perçues comme des tares chez les femmes, inscrire dans la constitution quelque chose qui valorise la femme au foyer au détriment de la femme professionnelle, c’est tellement rétrograde que ça me met en rage.

Je reprends: il n’y a rien de mal à élever ses enfants. Mais il n’y a rien de mal non plus à vouloir une carrière, et ça fait des générations que les femmes se battent pour que nous ayons un vrai choix là-dessus. Ce n’est pas le moment de revenir en arrière.

Ensuite, imaginons que l’initiative passe. Certaines familles (aisées, à deux parents dont un seul travaille) paieront moins d’impôts. Pour le canton de Neuchâtel, par exemple, un trou de 40 à 80 millions. Un trou qu’il faudra bien combler d’une façon ou d’une autre. Plus d’économies (et on sait qu’on économise sur le social et l’éducation), et probablement simplement une réduction des déductions de frais de garde, pour tout le monde. La super initiative pour soutenir les familles aurait donc pour effet de péjorer la situation des familles qui dépendent de structures d’accueil pour pouvoir assurer un revenu suffisant pour le ménage.

Si l’initiative était appelée “pour la suppression des déductions pour frais de garde”, je pense pas qu’elle aurait autant de succès, mais en pratique, c’est à ça qu’elle aboutit: si j’ai des frais pour faire garder mes enfants afin de maintenir mon activité professionnelle, je ne pourrai pas déduire plus que si je n’ai pas de frais. Vous voyez le problème?

Oui, c’est complexe, et compliqué. Je vous ai dit que ça me faisait mal à la tête, la politique. Et c’est là qu’ils sont forts, l’UDC: ils simplifient. Rendent simpliste, même.

L’enjeu de cette initiative, ce n’est pas de soutenir ou non les familles et de valoriser les parents (=les mères) qui font le choix de ne pas travailler.

L’enjeu de cette initiative, c’est:

  • promouvoir un modèle familial où la femme ne travaille pas
  • réduire les déductions pour frais de garde pour les ménages où les deux parents travaillent
  • réduire les déductions pour frais de garde pour les familles monoparentales
  • donner des déductions fiscales à ceux qui ont un revenu confortable, sans améliorer la situation de ceux qui peinent à joindre les deux bouts.

De plus, comme cette initiative parvient à séduire même des personnes habituellement de gauche, j’y vois un véritable risque d’UDCisation de la Suisse (on est déjà bien en chemin). Est-ce la Suisse de l’UDC que vous désirez soutenir? Parce que si cette initiative passe, si vous votez pour alors que vous ne soutenez pas les idées de l’UDC en général, vous êtes en train de faire un pas dans leur direction. Ça, c’est l’argument méta-idéologique.

Mais revenons à l’initiative: prenez le temps de réfléchir aux réelles conséquences et implications de cette initiative dont les avantages sont présentés de façon simpliste par ses partisans. Ne soyez pas dupe. Soutenir les petites gens n’a jamais été dans le programme de l’UDC.

Si on cherche une solution pour soutenir les familles, le RBI (revenu de base inconditionnel) qui se retrouvera prochainement sur nos bulletins de vote est une solution beaucoup plus intéressante — et réaliste, contrairement à ce qu’on pourrait croire de premier abord. Ça sera d’ailleurs le sujet d’un de mes prochains articles.

En attendant, n’oubliez pas de voter. Même moi je vais y penser, pour le coup.

Edit: lisez cet excellent résumé de la situation par Samuel Bendahan.

Our Relationship To Technology: Is Your Smartphone In Charge, Or You? [en]

[fr] Une réflexion sur notre relation à la technologie. C'est pas aussi simple que "addiction! addiction! au secours!".

Today’s post, again, brought to you by an article of Loïc Le Meur’s: Why are we checking our smartphones 150x a day? (Remember when Loïc was a blogger?) He links to a video with the catchy title “After I saw this, I put down my phone and didn’t pick it up for the rest of the day”.

I have mixed feelings about this kind of discussion.

  • On the one hand, I think we need to strive to be those in charge of our use of devices, and not victims of the operant conditioning of modern technology.
  • On the other hand, I think that framing the issue of our relationship with technology as addiction is counter-productive, as it puts the blame on technology and removes responsibility from users.

It’s also not a new conversation, and it pops up every now and again as “today’s big problem”. Hey, I was afraid I had “internet addiction” back in 1998. I read Silicon Snake Oil and The Psychology of Cyberspace, headed off to my chalet for a week, and stopped worrying.

As far as I’m concerned, I’m online a lot, both on my computer and on my phone, but I still perceive being on your phone when in human company as “impolite”. I try not to do it too much. So, usually, when I’m with other people, I won’t be on my phone, unless:

  • we’re playing with our phones: taking photos, looking at stuff together, etc.
  • there is something I need to attend to (I apologize and try and be quick)
  • I’m looking something up to help us solve a problem or get information we need
  • we’re spending quite some time together and are both having “phone-time”

I’m aware this doesn’t mean much: with the same description I could be glued to my phone all the time. How do you define “something I need to attend to”?

So, some context.

My phone is in silent mode, and I have very few notifications set (same on my computer). It usually lives at the bottom of my bag. When I’m working, there are chances it’s next to me on my desk. It’s often charging or abandoned in another room when I’m at home.

I’ll check it somewhat compulsively when I’m on the bus, or when I’m using it “as a computer” to hang out online. If I’m with other people, as I said, I don’t take it out too much (though they’ll be the best judges about how much — I do take it out).

I suffer from FOMO like almost everyone who is connected today, I guess. But I don’t feel that I’m a slave to it. I read The Paradox of Choice many years ago and it really opened my eyes: today’s world is so full of possibilities. If you don’t want to succumb to the anxiety of too much choice and too many options, you need to be aware of what’s going on, and accept you’ll miss out. I try to be selective. I still struggle, but I know I’m going to miss out and it’s not the end of the world. (It’s in my social media survival kit, by the way.)

Why do we end up compulsively checking our phones and stuff? I think there are many reasons, and that’s why saying it’s an “addiction” is a way to frame the problem in a way that makes it difficult to address.

  • FOMO: with the internet, we have access to everything that is going on, all the time, everywhere. If we want to be “part of it”, hang out with the cool kids, or share the video that’ll get us 20 likes, we feel a pressure to “not miss” what is going on in the real-time stream. So we overload ourselves on the input side. We think we need to consume everything.
  • Operant conditioning: I’m clicker-training one of my cats, Tounsi. He knows that a click means a reward is coming. When I’m reinforcing a behaviour, I use an intermittent reinforcement schedule: he doesn’t get a reward with each click.
    See how this fits with digital interfaces, and even more strongly, social media? I think Kevin Marks is the first one who first pointed out this phenomenon to me, when I was having trouble taking breaks from my computer even though I had bad RSI.
    Suw Charman-Anderson wrote about how it applies to e-mail back in 2008. We check our mail, there might be some candy in there. We check Facebook, there might be a like or a comment. Nothing? It only makes the urge to check again more compelling: the next time could be rewarded!
    Yeah, dopamine plays a role in there. Understand how your brain works so you’re not a slave to your hormones and neurotransmitters.
  • Validation: we want to be loved and appreciated, and some of what we’re looking for online is just that. Oh, somebody responded to my post. Oh, somebody sent me a nice e-mail. Ooh. But people who thinks that this is the only thing in play round down our issue with technology to an “ego problem” (very fashionable). It doesn’t help. But yeah, if you feel that your drive for franticly checking your phone when you’re having dinner with a friend is just that, maybe it’s worth addressing.
  • Work: the other time when I ran off to my chalet to find some peace was in 2008, and it was not to escape technology. It was to escape work. Our relationships to work and technology are very much entwined. Often, when people say they’re “addicted to their email”, and you take the trouble to dig a bit, you realise the problem is not “email” but “work”. They can’t pull away from work. They work during the week-ends, the evenings, their holidays. This is, I believe, a bigger issue than technology. Our relationship to work, as a society, is unhealthy. (And: Americans, you have a way bigger problem here than us Swissies.)
  • Not engaging: people often look at “not engaging” as a consequence of excessive use of technology. It’s the message conveyed by the video Loïc linked to in his post. I think that’s missing the point that “not engaging” can be the objective here. Relationships are difficult. Being present is difficult. Being with oneself is difficult. Being present to life is difficult. We do many things to avoid doing all this. We veg’ in front of the TV. We talk about unimportant stuff to avoid dealing with what matters in our relationship. And, increasingly, we dive into our phones.
    In the past, I used my camera a lot to “find my place” in social gatherings that would otherwise make me feel awkward. If I’m the person taking photos, I have a place. I have a pretext for interacting with others. I can remove myself from what is going on to be the observer snapping pics. It’s much more difficult to find my place and be with others if I’m just me, with no escape.
    So when we look at somebody who has his nose in his phone during a dinner party, I’d also ask “what is he avoiding by not being present?”

I think I have a reasonably healthy relationship to technology — and work. I have my drinking completely under control 😉

So, a wrap-up:

  • I check my phone in the evening before going to bed, and it sleeps on my bedside table, on but mute, and it never wakes me up (except when I ask Siri to do so).
  • I generally keep my phone muted and in my bag and my notifications off (also on my computer!)
  • I understand how FOMO and operant conditioning work, I’m aware of my need for validation and how I react to the infinity of choices in the world around me.
  • I stop working at the end of the day, and on week-ends, and I take holidays. Real holidays, not work-holidays.
  • I “switch off” a couple of times a year, taking a week or a few days off somewhere with no internet, where I don’t work and use my computer mainly for writing and having fun with my photos. This helps me remember what it is like to live more slowly, and makes me want to bring some of that back into my “normal” life.
  • I try and give priority of my attention to the people I’m with offline, without being religious about it. If I do need to attend to my phone or online stuff when in company, I try not to “disconnect” from the person I’m with offline.
  • I consider that I am the one in charge of my relationship with technology, and strive for a healthy balance between my ability to spend time totally immersed and connected and multitasking, and my ability to be completely (as completely as possible) present to the “offline”, be it a book, a person, an activity, or myself.
  • Like so many things in life, it’s about having healthy boundaries.

When I shared Loïc’s post on Facebook, he commented that we seemed to have similar points of interest these days. For some time, I’ve found what Loïc is writing about much more interesting to me. It’s more personal. Less about business, more about life. Life has always been the thing that interests me the most. My interest for the internet and social media comes from my interest in how people connect and relate to each other.

Interestingly, this is also the kind of stuff I’ve decided to shift my work focus to. Labelling myself as a “social media” person doesn’t fit with what I really do and want to do, specially in the Swiss context where “social media = digital marketing”, something I have very little interest in and want to stay the hell away of. So I’m moving towards “I help you use technology better”. Helping people have a healthy relationship with tech, use it to do their work or whatever it is they need to get done better. Some of social media fits in there too, of course. But also stuff like (yes, still in 2013), learning to use and manage email properly. (I’m actually preparing a training proposal for a client on just that these very days.)

So, how’s your relationship to technology? Who is in charge, you or the compulsion to check if there is something more exciting going on?

Note: I wrote this article in one sitting, getting up once to go to the loo (!) and checking my phone’s lock screen on the way back (it’s charging in another room) to see if I had a message from my neighbour, as we had been exchanging messages earlier and made a vague plan yesterday to maybe hang out together and look at cat photos this morning.