Yep, a post about the old school art of emailing…

According to a recent post on Techcrunch around 13% of users are sharing content over email, second only to Facebook. (Published 16^th Feb, 2010)

Furthermore a recent study by the Pew Institute titled “Understanding the Participatory News Consumer” reports that 75% of news consumers had experienced receiving news via email. (Published 1^st March, 2010)

Why?

Last month the New York Times published an article titled “Will You Be E-Mailing This Column? It’s Awesome”. The article reveals details of an extensive study which focuses on what content is most frequently emailed from the New York Times site via a partnership with  researchers at the University of Pennsylvania (Reported: 8^th Feb, 2010). While clearly a bit of a thin share on the New York Times part (commercially protected findings), they do disclose a few gems…

Essentially people were likely to share hot content (20% from the home page), and that they are more likely to share positive content over negative. By contrast 30% of the content that was shared during their six month study was from the science section.

In short, it is thought articles that changed or challenged the sharers view of the world around them was more likely to be shared because people are seeking an emotional communication when they share articles. Apparently awe and anxiety are great motivators for wanting a shared experience. #contentstrategy

Introducing an email share tracking tool

Recently, at work we stumbled upon Tynt Tracer via copying and pasting. It’s a service and analytics tool which appends an article / page’s url to whatever the user copy and pastes. It makes sharing so much easier for emailers, bloggers and IM users to name a few. It also supplies site owners with analytics around how many copies have taken place and how many visitors actually click through on those specific shares (via copy & paste actions). When the receiver of a Tynt enhanced link clicks on an attribution link they will also see the original text highlighted in page and in context. Genius!

Network share of the share

A few days ago another outstanding piece of share statistical intrigue hit the rounds:

Five New Studies Show Facebook A Marketing Powerhouse, from the Social Media Examiner highlights Facebook’s  impressive dominance on all data accounts.

The question however, remains…

Which social networking sites (or email shares) are the most affective in terms of traffic outcomes (click throughs, not only shares)?

Which sites/ activities deliver the most page impressions after arrival (quality of traffic)?

Which sites/ activities deliver the most time on site once users visit via a social network (engagement).

Can someone do this bit of work for me?

Have you been thinking about the email share? Or is it a forgotten art of the share?

Oh, and please send your suggestions – I’m always on the look out.

On The Media
Website | iTunes
For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of “making media,” especially news media, because it’s through that lens that we literally see the world and the world sees us. | Published: Monday’s EST time, WNYC, USA

The Moth
Website | iTunes
Open mic unscripted story telling. Usually 15 – 20 minutes,  amazingly well told personal stories. | Published: Tuesday’s EST time, Non-for-profit, New York

Future Tense
Website | iTunes
Exploring the social, cultural, political and economic fault lines arising from rapid change. | Aired: Thursday 8.30am repeated Friday 12.30am | Published: Thursday’s, Radio National, ABC

Media Talk USA
Website | iTunes
Jeff Jarvis and a regular panel of media commentators analyse the latest developments in the US media and tech worlds. | Published: Monthly, The Guardian

This American Life
Website | iTunes
This American Life exploring a different theme, every week by telling the stories of everyday people. | Published: Monday’s EST, Chicago Public Radio

The Punch is primarily presented in a blog format which I always think is much more ‘new media’ than the traditional online newspaper format which dictates what editors think you should be reading about, rather than what is just in, most viewed, or most commented on – all formats which lend to an event based or audience driven information hierarchy.

This effort has left me very curious about News Ltd’s broader strategy. They link to their competitors, twitter and even go as far as presenting some of their harshest critics in the “Sites We Like – our web survival guide.” Perhaps someone over there actually gets this web thing!?

Then sigh, I read they will be considering a subscription model down the track.

And I hear – they are not paying contributors. Ho hum. Could it be that big corp got sold on the idea that this awesome new media format could open up opportunities to advertise all over free contributions? Equaling low cost (hopefully), high profits (hopefully) and all off the backs of other people’s good will? This is the primary lash back or concern being talked about today – and rightly so.

So, what are the other traditional players doing? Hmmm…  Now, I know there are some really smart people at News, but I also know it is harder to get those agendas up the reporting lines. So, well done.

At any rate it’s very interesting that they have decided to build a more collaborate offering off their traditional platform, although I know not user groups will see News Ltd as a trustworthy source to such a service. So, what are people saying about it on twitter?

What others are saying:
Punch no Knockout for Journalism

Crickey Counterpoint: two verdicts

@uxrob: News launches http://www.thepunch.com.au/ “Australia’s best conversation”. Nice idea but feels like a flame war waiting to happen.

@mpesce Quoth Crikey: Opinion is not journalism.” I call bullshit. Journalism has always been opinion. Sooner we face that, the better.

Totally agree – controversial launch…  I’m sure the debate will be hot and agendas will be transparent. I’m going to watch and read more. The idea is good, the murdoch aspect is one more agenda among many in this rapidly changing media landscape of survival during the death of print and the vocal control this industry once had. Another addition to conversation is always good by me…

Really keen to learn more about this:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/

Self explains that Obama knew he was never going to raise money for his campaign in the traditional way.

“What Obama did,” Self says “was to gather 10,000 people together at a rally and ask each and every one of them to use their mobile phones to sms a number and pledge five bucks”. Certainly not a big ask but there you have it – $50,000 in 50 seconds.

This sort of activity is a great example of how Obama focused on a grass roots campaign rather than doing the traditional fancy dinner party for maximum donations of $2300.

Self says that once voters consider pledging $5 it is easier for them to consider stepping it up to $10 and $20. By lowering the barrier to entry and asking voters to pledge an amount they could afford, they generated an enormous amount of good will into the campaign. Voters now had a greater vested interest in the candidate they had reached into their pocket to support. These voters were more likely to remain informed, speak about the campaign to friends, neighbors and colleagues.

The focus of any campaign is on money, message and mobilization. By valuing small contributions the Obama campaign knew that this would have an incredible impact on mobilizing their message. During the campaign US$770 million was raised, and 35% of that was online. 68 million Americans door knocked or made phone calls to encourage votes for Obama. The campaign generated 1800 videos online with over some 50 million views and 6 million email subscribers were acquired by promising those people they would be the first to know who Obama elected as Vice President.

Other media assets Blue State Digital were responsible for during the campaign were:
Personal fundraising pages:  http://my.barackobama.com/

Fight the Smear – a website dedicated to fighting rumors during the campaign (rather than rely on traditional media to fight the smears for you): http://www.fightthesmears.com/

Seven tips to building relationships online:

1. Don’t ask for too much at once
   Relationships aren’t that different online as offline, Self explains. You wouldn’t ask someone to marry you on the first date, so don’t go for the full hog off the bat online either.
2. Make the best use of timing
   During the campaign the most amount of money was donated the day after Sarah Palin’s first speech in which she flamed community organisations.
3. Be authentic
   For example, emails are personal. Make it real. A real person wrote it, so get them to sign their name.
4. Transparency
   For example, Blue State Digital created hundreds of video journals from Obama, to campaign managers chatting about how it was all going.
5. Lower your barrier to entry
   Give people multiple options for how they want to be involved so that they can elect an activity that is meaningful and accessible to them.
6. Raise your expectations
   Begin with asking users for something simple, like a sign up, then you might ask them to perform an action such as refer a friend. Later, ask them to write a blog post or by a product. You get the idea.
7. Measure everything
   Measurement is really important so that you can know what worked and what didn’t. Test and refine along the way.

And with that, Self ends by explaining how savvy audiences are. He encourages building relationships with your user base from a good, genuine and passionate place. Otherwise, it will not work.

There are many ways for users to consume content online, begins Pickard. They consume, react, curate and create. Unfortunately we spend most of our time and efforts engaging them to consume and not enough engaging users to react, curate or create.

UCG or user generated content is considered a pretty dry term by Meg, she’d prefer to think of it as users expressing themselves about stuff they are passionate about.

People also tend to get social media and social networking confused. To often the media tends to provide social media tools in a separate environment to the content, rather than having that engagement interacting with the content.

Meg  encourages that we consider social media as an activity that should be rapped around the content. Moving forward Meg would like us to think not of content as king but context instead.

Another common misconception says Meg, is that social media should be social. Sometimes, it is quite anti-social. For example, a path exists through the forest because many people have walked it over time. This doesn’t mean these people have forged the path together, but more so that they have tracked down it one at a time. However, it is the fact that the path exists that is important because previous interactions with it define the best way to go for future travelers. Having said that – the herd isn’t always right and even if they are you need to figure out where they are going and if that is right for you? Or – if forging your own direction is right for you.

Meg also encourages online media junkies to play where people are already playing. She gives the example of the Guardian’s Message for Obama project which they set up on Flickr. http://www.flickr.com/groups/messageforobama/pool/ In this example, the Guardian observed no confusion as to whose project it actually was. They monitored the online chatter and were pleased with the amount of good will this project generated with their readership. Meg advises, “Do what you do well and go else where for what you don’t”

Also, sites need to think about how to encourage participation and reward their passionate users. Being a host isn’t just about being a bouncer and sending your users to the naughty step, says Meg. What we want to do is find a way to engage our more proactive users.

Guardian user cycle = casual > connected > committed > catalyst

…on, developments at the guardian.co.uk, how to receive user feedback and designing for your mum.

Life at the Guardian

Meg jokingly calls her self an ‘insultant’ for the Guardian (internal consultant), but in all seriousness highlights the value of having someone responsible for focusing on the user agenda, constantly asking ‘why are we doing this?’ and ‘why would people want that?’. If you don’t know what your really asking of your users, then they most certainly won’t get it either.

Meg describes her job as understanding cultures and spotting patterns of which her background in anthropology is proving useful.

Innovation

The web has changed and now there is a much greater desire to be “of the web and not just on it.”

Some of the things Meg and the Guardian team have been thinking a lot is new ways for streams of information to talk to one another.

For example, how can we combine content and data to provide new and interesting information (data journalism). Or, how can a news article not only reference the past, but also have points to referencing the future. How do we turn one click into two? So that we are thinking of content discovery in terms of how did I get here and where would I like to go next.

Meg emphasizes that publication is no longer the end of the authors relationship with their content as it was in the newspaper print days, but only the beginning.

One solution The Guardian is working on to address challenges in terms of resourcing online curation, is by looking at how keywords can be harnessed to direct traffic around your site. Meg discusses the need to go beyond individual keywords as an effective solution. A typical example we use at work is Paris Hilton, because Paris is a person and a place, however, it could also be that you not only want to know about Paris the place, but also cookery there. To try and assist users to find the very specific content that addresses their needs the Guardian have begun working on a project that looks at constellations of keywords.

Later in the year they will be launching rich keyword pages. These keyword URLs will look something like this: www.guardian.co.uk/keywords/paris+cookery+class allowing users to string keywords together and get tailored results and then grab an RSS feed for it.

Meg’s objectives are to reach the power users, not just the lowest common denominator as these users are the ones who pull the others forward. A User Experience design shouldn’t be about designing so that your mum can use it, but so that it is engaging and relevant for the future. Such thinking breads innovative ideas from the team at the Guardian, as they focus on the needs of niche communities – not just churning stuff out for the masses.

… Looking at how we consume, not just where.

Typically the majority of property listing sites or travel sights requires users to enter a location to begin their search for information. What Meg has found is that many users don’t think about their holidays or where they would like to live in this way. Rather, they think of it in terms of a set of requirements and much greater flexibility in the location. “I’d like to go somewhere sunny, for under a $2000, near the beach or with a pool.” Another good example of a property site offering something different in the market is http://www.propertysnake.co.uk a site that lists properties which are dropping in price. This concept acknowledges peoples flexibility in looking for something they can afford.

A Note on Accessibility…

Don’t just think of it as an issue for audiences with impermanent – but as accessibility in terms of everyone everywhere. So we are designing for ability and devices as well.

Managing User Feedback

We all know people don’t like change… Meg says that this hasn’t only been true in her own experience, but among her colleagues as well. A friend at Flickr noted that their users get really angry when new features are added, accusing the development team of polluting the product and within 2 months it is a feature they can’t live with out it.

So how do we manage which feedback is useful?

Ignore all user feedback for the first 48 hours.

Over the following 2 weeks, write down the complaints and then ignore it. If after that ikf users are still complaining about the same issue go back to your notes and look at the issues raised.

Tips for in House User Experience Teams

Meg recommends user experience teams developing their own labs and proof of concepts. Don’t wait for the boss to take notice! She also acknowledges the need to illustrate your business analysis skills by having an internal blog.

Meg also told us all to look at http://www.pluck.com for affordable widgets to encourage user involvement on our sites.

Now is the age of free. People expect not to pay.

Newspapers need to do more than repackage their content for online purposes.

Successful journalism on the web depends on:

1. Multimedia Story telling
   We now have more tools, but that doesn’t mean we should use all of them all the time, ask yourself “What is the best way to tell a story?” It may still be text.
   • Users at the Guardian have shown they will be willing to scroll through 100 photos; even on a slow connection.
   • Little show the broadcast of the plane that crashed into the Hudson as a good example of multimedia story telling.
   • Guardian now has 8 video studios in London. It cost $300,00 per hour for live television, but only $140 for live streaming on the net.
2. Database journalism
   Access public databases for rich statistics. Can be harnessed to add depth to a story or utalised in interactive news media content.
3. Reader engagement
   Post.com was the first to put comments on their articles
4. Distribution
   Learn to think of your self as a curator. What happens to the story after it is published, where else will it appear and how will people share it.

There isn’t alot new. But lets take a look… Which are the features we notice right away…?

• The interface doesn’t say “Profile” anymore… its my name!
• Introduced in page tabbed navigation to deal with the long scrolling page issue
• I have to navigate to status updates… sort of liked the random ones.
• Photo news feed – see more photos than before…
• Interesting stuff like My Flickr, Delicious links, RSS Feeds are hidden

Check out:

• State of the media 2008
• Politics 2.0
• Futureofjournalism.org.au

The world is in a frenzy. They’re all discussing UGC or UCC. (yep another acronym to further alienate us – user generated content and user contributed content). More and more we’re hearing people talk about citizen journalism. By definition citizen journalism involves public participation in the generation of news content.

So! The common people are expressing views, creating content and sharing it.

The common people are playing an active role. Hmmmm….

What I find intensely problematic about the notion (or labeling) of citizen journalism is the explicit connotations of qualified and the unqualified, the legitamised and illegitimate, the endorsed (by brand) and the unbacked.

Now, I am in no way at any point playing down the craft of journalism. I appreciate a person dedicating their days to researching, writing and publishing news and information in papers, magazines, online and in broadcast. What I’m saying is that it is all legitimate.

What I am saying is that if you need to discuss any kind of content generation in an us vs them narrative by using terms like citizen journalists… well then. You just don’t get it!

Of course, those of us who are 100% pro user driven content and contribution are also usually opensource lovers, democratic media thinkers and free speech supporters. We’re engaged in the world around us, we want to participate and we often question the validity of the dominate voice. Something that I believe should be taught in schools along with comprehension topics. How about teaching students to be discerning?

We speak and discuss the possibilities of user generated content online quite differently to traditional media publishers, their producers and the journalists they employ. These players are on the most part cautious, slightly inspired, but mostly concerned.

The publishers are talking about quality, trust and not just content! Oh, no. Compelling content as though they are the best qualified to do that. The publishers are talking about trust. Trust in them because of the brands they have built. What I’m hearing are the sounds of a big business and a venerable industry clutching on and being protectionists. What they’re really saying is that the future is here – we can’t delay it much longer but we have a value proposition for you.

We’ll be the ones you can trust.
We’ll be the ones who do the quality control.
We’ll vet your information.
We’ll only show what is important.
And we’ll tell you how it really is.

Quality control, vetting information, organizing information and quality publishing are totally required, I agree. But as you can see on newsvine, provided with a good engine, we’re all perfectly capable of doing that for ourselves. Journalists and common people together.

But!

Leave the trust bit up to me thanks.

Citizens haven’t always been that great at being discerning with media, but I think in this changing landscape they are quickly learning for themselves that they have too.

Until now, we’ve trusted the highly emotive and partisan views of mass media outlets.

Until now, my physical reality networks have digested carefully crafted scripts about a legitimate War on Terror because if your not with Bush then your part of the Axis of Evil. (title case on purpose) We’ve been listening to mass media scripts that describe the tragic deaths of women and children in Iraq as “collateral damage” or rather, accidentally whoopsies so that we don’t have to think about it or take responsibility. Now days many outlets are prepared to talk about “casualties”, because the war hasn’t really worked out too well and they have stopped investing their supporting in the former Prime Minister John Howard. We must note that this shift in language is a highly divisive and manipulative form of communication.

What is important about this example is that the media failed to question the government until it was too late. And, at large, we failed to question the media.

The future looks different. Everyone knows there is a shift that’s been taking place for quite sometime from passive consumption to active participation collaboration and contribution.

Users can decide what is newsworthy. Users can decide what is legitimate. We will discuss and debate what a legitimate view of the world is, or what is not.

Users on newsvine, current_tv and the Noise Festival, to name a few are already engaging in community driven content where citizens (journalists too) push the content they choose is compelling, they rate, vote, comment and debate.

We are choosing what is legitimate, what we trust and are fully capable of being discerning about the information we receive. Thank you very much.

Any less is as corrupt as saying – we’ll endorse free speech, but not yours, only ours. Which, we just might just be doing with big money business controlling the memes and sitting in government pockets.

So. If you talk about citizen journalism you don’t get it. Because you just can’t hold on to us and them thinking for long. The lunatics really are running the asylum.

Watch out for my next post titled – “We’re all specialists” or “Not just eyeballs”… vote now. :]