Twitter, A.M. Turing & The Brain in the Vat (the new Google?)

Sometimes it's good to go back in time before we can move forward.

The way the semantic web (artificial intelligence) and The Cloud are shaping up is rapidly calling into question our individual and collective positions in the digital universe, and ultimately, the real world. We've touched upon topics in earlier posts such as sensory marketing and how we put our social personalities into application, but now we are seeing a profound shift in how we aggregate our intelligence... and the prospective methods we will use to mine it, cultivate it and optimize it.

This week's announcement that Facebook acquired FriendFeed (a real-time social search & aggregation platform) brought to light a very alarming truth: our souls are beginning to show.

Think about it: the emotional self is loud and often illustrious. The spiritual self is quiet and often unwavering. In between is the layer of our existence that is almost entirely subject to interpretation, yet one that is almost readily identifiable - and in some ways, predictable - in patterns. Granted, these patterns constantly change, but nonetheless they tell a story about who we are, both as individuals and as whole tribes of people.

So back to the possibilities.

My guess is that as Google looks under its own hood (as it has been for a while) its algorithmic next step is to provide us with a solid, qualitative and quantitative look at this 'intermediary layer'.

Of Google's current algorithm, A.M. Turing predicted it outright: that a purely logistical view of mathematics is inadequate. He also talked frequently in his essays about the problems of word association in compact or niche groups. The point is that probability on the web - which, in conversation, shows a categorical emphasis and proximity to activation - is not entirely an extraction of content, but rather the combination of content and its interpretation and all the variants (or sub-variants) in between.

Here's where Twitter fits in. And where Google may benefit.

Twitter never claimed to be a content aggregator. Twitter is a true microblog - a conversation engine - that has served its purpose, and continues to serve this purpose, as a relatively straight-forward measuring stick for sentiment and topical evaluation (among other things). Google is refining is indexing methodology to include not only the extractions mentioned above, but the variants used to determine adoption and sentiments amongst users and tribes of users.

So the relationship is simple: Facebook/FriendFeed control the ebb-and-flow of content aggregation, and Google ala Twitter facilitate the perception management of these offerings into more finite and digestible bits... those that are more organized and more scalable.

fixed patterns > | new semantic layers | < infinite variables

We must remember that people do not fundamentally change, technologies do, so ultimately, where we go and how we get there is determined by our own doing.

As for the brain in the vat, well, you're in it right now, so only time will tell...

Have We Forgotten How To Listen? (Or Maybe We Just Never Learned...)

(special thanks to Kneale Mann for sending over this image...)

While having breakfast with my two friends, colleagues and blogmates - Ezra Cooperstein and Thor Clark - it dawned upon us that the mad dash for connectivity and conversation within social media has been roadblocked by one simple, undeniable fact: we don't really know how to listen.

Take Twitter for example. 

When you sign up for a Twitter account, you get the 20-person hit list of celebs that they suggest you should follow. Why? First of all, I don't give a shit about Ashton Kutcher (maybe because I'm 36 years old and straight - certainly no offense to my gay peeps). Secondly, most of these people don't actually listen or have substantive two-way conversations with their fan base. Ezra describes it as a "really loud chamber effect"... essentially, these people shout out relatively inane blurbs about God-knows-what, and to no one in particular. Third, if you look at the "subscriber funnel", you also find that the 90/10 rule which applies - in which 10% of the Twitter population generates 90% of the tweets - ignores the entire mid-tail of folks who actually have something of value to say.

Now, don't get me wrong - I find Twitter to be incredibly powerful and I use it often and with the best of intentions - but this really calls into question the social dynamics around how we listen, and why we should listen more carefully.

I think part of the problem, as articulated poorly in my previous post (sorry, that was a bit of mental masturbation...), is the fact that we're collectively still taking sides and operating in cliques. Let's face it, it ain't easy breaking into the Twitter mix, or to become a member of the "Twitterati" for that matter. 

The other issue is the sheer amount of content that is being slung around - creating a sensory overload of sorts. How can any of us listen, if we're too busy just trying to be heard?

Here are some considerations for improving this cultural deficiency:

- Listening more means learning more (duh...).

- We need to distinguish between what we hear and what has been said (don't dwell on the response before the statement is even finished - we are all guilty of this).

- Sit with your question(s); take the time to understand what is being said before you respond.

- Take the time to really get to know someone, even if it's virtual - do you want a relationship with a person, or a bot?

- Turn off the noise inside your head; interacting socially, even online, is somewhat of a meditative process - we need to be clear and authentic in our communication streams.

- Listening is more powerful than speaking. Really. 

I'm done talking. Say something, damnit.

Crowdsoothing (Who Am I, Who Are You, Why Are We?)

I've decided after many sleepless nights, apishly grooming myself in bed while the blue glare of the television screen loops random images across my imperious face, that I am a cross between William Safire and Andy Rooney. 

Professionally, I call myself a "Digital Brand Strategist", which really means that I reposition phenomenae with what I think are somewhat interesting labels and ascribe to them what I think are fairly quirky, sometimes serious and/or humorous aspects of human behavior. Oh, and then, where appropriate, I sprinkle in a neurotic dose of technological knowledge to make things a little more compelling. In a nutshell, all this mumbo jumbo often times produces results for my clients, at which point I let out an exasporated sigh, say to myself "How the fuck did I do that?", take a day or two off, and then decide to get back on the merry-go-round for another ride.

Why do I do this? Well, I suppose I do this for a few primary reasons:

- No one really knows shit anyway, so why not try to make sense of all this shit? The operative word here is "try".

- Human behavior never ceases to amaze, especially when there's technology behind it. Automate us monkeys. Turn us into robots with feelings. Make that brand talk back to me (or dirty to me). Simply fascinating stuff.

- One of these days (hopefully before a nuclear holocaust), we're all going to call each other's bluff and go back to wearing pelts anyway, wielding clubs over our shoulders. At this point, I'll be out of a job and all the crazy platforms I've helped build will be obsolete. And hopefully I'll still be with my wife-to-be... if she hasn't been dragged into a cave by some other dude.

So what does this all mean?

It means that it's time we formally made a return to the truth. It's happening anyway, albeit at a clip that tends to blindside us. All the hype around digital next, and behavioral that, and cloud thinking over there is a train wreck of assumption and often surprising pieces of the obvious. But what we don't know how to do is obviate the need for these obsessions. 

Welcome to "Crowdsoothing", a way of calling into question, and answering, the who am I, who are you, why are we of our media-consuming existence. Let's face it: we are a culture saddled by fear, so we need a little consoling, a little soothing in our consumption. The experience is sorta like the movie studio exec in Barton Fink - I'd like some milk with my whiskey, please.

Crowdsourcing, a phenomenon brilliantly identified and formalized by Jeff Howe (yes, we follow each other on Twitter, thank you very much...), talks about how virtual communities have formed out of shared interest. As remarkable and inspirational as this groundswell is, an interesting thing often arises when we actually witness or participate in the wisdom of crowds, a "yang" if you will: we pull back or shut down altogether. 

Gary King, a social scientist and statician at Harvard University (yes, we also follow each other on Twitter, thank you very much) talks about unifying statistical analysis, vetting out partisan symmetry and establishing conflict causality in his white papers as things that are ultimately products of human behavior that are largely predetermined and heightened by an inherent need for rational and practical explanation. A common theme throughout (excuse my layman's interpretation) is the idea that our decisions, particularly within groups, are predicated on individual identities that shift when we are observed or take part in observation.

So let's apply this to social media. In a recent data-point analysis conducted by HubSpot on the usage of Twitter, it was discovered that only 24% of people actually put a bio description on their page, down from 80% a year ago. It was also discovered that...

79.79% failed to provide a homepage URL

68.68% have not specified a location

55.50% are not following anyone

54.88% have never tweeted

52.71% have no followers

This is simply alarming. All this shared interest and potential currency, yet there is a blatant lack of commitment to any sort of formal relationship with the crowd. Further, the ambiguity new microbloggers employ suggests that they want to be a part of the conversation, but fear they will somehow not be accepted. 

Now let's come full circle. The reason why I shared with you a truthful and self-deprecating account of who I am at the top of the post was to illustrate a point: aside from exchanging information and experiences, it is imperative that we offer up pieces of ourselves. Technologies themselves don't cause us to become disconnected or disenfranchised, it is our perception of who we are and why we are in relation to those technologies that does.

So let's ask the questions and soothe the mode of consumption so that we can create a background of relatedness:

Who Am I? The discourse or continued action of my role as it pertains to you, my functions, my role, my importance and relevance to you.

Who Are You? The discourse or continued action of your role as it pertains to me, to others, those functions, newly discovered roles and the importance of spreading commonality as well as trust in the form of currency.

Why Are We? The discourse and continued action of our collective conscience; desired needs, wants and passions, observations sourced through shared wisdom, and personalized or internalized as to cyclically affect individual thought and/or action.

If we now apply these queries to a profile, it might look something like this: 

Name John Doe

Location Somewhere in Particular

Web http://www.realurl.orpersonalurl.com

Bio Professional Description, colorful character description, several descriptors evoking a sense of personality and interest to engage with others, along with a higher purpose proposition.

And if we summarize what this person's posts might look like or do, they would:

- Share interesting information endemic to a trade

- Share interesting experiences endemic to local culture

- Generate insights about the world at large

- Offer guidance in the explanation or use of relevant technology

- Show humility, not hubris, in these observations

- Be aspirational in nature

- Invite people, even those with very different backgrounds, into the conversation

Crowdsoothing is mere theory, but can very easily be indoctrinated into the daily flow of our digital, or even real-world, interaction. We have something special - many things that are special - within our new channels of communication. Let's not fuck it up by allowing history to constantly repeat itself... or at least dictate how we think or feel.

SMADHD (Social Media Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder) A.K.A. "The Hyper Tweeter"

Ok, so I have become somewhat of a social media junkie; I constantly update my Facebook, Twitter and FriendFeed accounts and always look forward to seeing if I've connected with new followers. It's kinda like crack - I've never actually smoked crack, but I get the feeling that the jonesing process is somewhat similar. 

Despite this, I also find myself looping in and out of reality. Fact is, I'm not really interested in giving people the up-to-the-minute, play-by-play of my every move. 

"Hey - taking a sh-- in Rockefeller Plaza."

"Scratching my nuts in Central Park."

"Receiving an award and shaking some important person's hand."

"Surfing at third point - oh, sh-- just dropped my iPhone in the water."

These types of correspondence (if you can actually label them as such), are really where microblogging has taken on a highly narcissistic front. Worse, if people aren't expressing the need to be into themselves, they are expressing the need to be wired... all day, all night, and at all times.

Welcome to the phenomenon known as SMADHD, or "Social Media Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder", or, what some have come to know or be as a "Hyper Tweeter". Just when you thought humping like a siwwy waaahbbit was bad, now those like the carnally unskilled are transferring a bad habit into their PDAs and anything else they "input" on. 

Granted, we live at a time where technology is moving at a clip far faster than us mortals can keep pace with, but we really do need to be more grounded in reality. I mean, isn't the whole point of connecting digitally intended to get us people developing stronger relationships in the physical world?

Here are some ideas for shaking the habit:

- Form a local "Tweeters Anonymous" group - and no, you can't do this via a tweet-up.

- Spend some time outside; maybe walk a little more, get to know your dog, and make sure both hands are being utilized as to stave off the urge to thumb the 'ole keypad.

- Try a phone call, or perhaps even an in-person exchange, before deferring to the screen.

- Spend some more time, quality time, with yourself; no talking allowed or gazing into the mirror.

- Help the underprivileged; chances are they don't have any devices, just a fundamental need to be loved and accepted.

- Read a lot more - real books are preferred, but if you must use your Kindle, well, I guess we can make an exception.

Good luck, and if you need to talk to someone just call 1-800-NO-TWEET - counselors are standing by...

The Adaptive Ad Model (Just-In-Time Advertising)

Steve Rubel, Edelman's guru strategist, wrote an article in AdAge a year or so ago talking about 3 digital ad models that would become the staple for brand marketers around the globe; the first was advertiser-supported advertising (we all know what that is), the second was advertiser subsidized devices, and the third was what he coined as "Just-In-Time Advertising". In looking at the current landscape (the one as of right now, not yesterday ;), I thought the latter two have taken on some new meaning as of late, especially as a hybrid concept.

Think of Dell's Ideastorm, essentially a dynamic repository for ideas coming from "superusers" to collaborate with Dell employees on developing new product, as a great example - and potential "supercandidate" - for this. I realize I've chosen a pretty popular and much debated example, but, in all fairness, Dell has done a lot of things right, and they seem primed to capitalize even further on the Rubel-inspired concept. So let's dig in, and call it "The Adaptive Ad Model".

Ideastorm, wisely, has a pretty robust presence on microblogs like Twitter. Their blog content - when you run a search on blog and brand monitoring tools - has a healthy presence across syndicated forums and bookmarking sites. Their assimilation into desired categories such as Healthcare and Life Sciences seems to be fairly seamless, and generating a considerable amount of participation and "spread". It seems that the real issue with its porting of information is that there is too much of it, and ironically, it may even be too democratic in the way it is developed and shared. 

Here's where things can take an interesting turn with the "adaptive" approach. If we use the advertising medium - in this case, your standard IAB banners - and were to create units that would only port relevant headline information, precisely targeted and dynamically updated in the environments where users or superusers sought information specifically relevant to that category, we may have an experience that takes on new life. 

Here's a theoretical user case.

You run a search on healthcare reform. You scan several results either on a Google page or Google-indexed portal landing page (an affiliate), and choose one, a medical portal. The page is customized to only run relevant text to your search parameters (keywords). This means that you only see exactly what you've requested - no text links, snapshots or preview panels - and you have the option of finding out more (link). You choose this option. The leaderboard unit dynamically populates the Ideastorm Twitter feed of relevant conversations, and suggests 3-4 topics to read, which may or may not reside on the Ideastorm portal itself. Without having to leave the page, you choose one or all of those options and can find the exact information you want, or, search for more. Any new keywords repopulate the page and the content within ad unit. If you decide to click on the unit, great, if not, the brand's utility is has left a positive effect on your experience and you will likely visit the Ideastorm site again to run other searches.

Now comes the part about devices. Ideastorm takes Kindle, or a like app, and bundles its relevant information for the user, and more importantly, adds a feature in which that user's posts and other contributions are indexed in real-time. Co-promotion, affiliate marketing, whatever you want to call it, the brands support and enable the user experience to new heights. A superuser might even have the opportunity to get paid for content that is repopulated and retargeted in units that are deployed in relevant environments, sort of an AdSense model in reverse. 

These are rather crude examples, but you can see where this is going: use the ad as a directory with "pull" potential, as opposed to a piece of real estate pushing messages at you. And this doesn't require anything flashy, just a little strategic foresight to optimize pages and pull relevant communities together.

In my humble opinion, with search indices as flooded as they are, it would behoove category experts and respective communities to band together to optimize consumer experiences. The idea here is that if you expand the marketplace, everybody's share of the pie is that much bigger.

It will be very interesting to see what comes of the new Twitter-enabled ad model; we know that TwitAd and the much scorned MagPie have already taken their lumps. But if we can think of advertising as a savior in all of this, as opposed to a culprit, we may really be onto something. Just as Mr. Rubel had predicted.

Twitter, Local Search, and Social Relevancy

Twitter is inherently local, relevant, and social. They’ve organically created a powerful mix of content and relationships, and there are a couple of simple things that they can do to unlock more value, and that local businesses can do to leverage the platform.

Twitter has a great opportunity here to further develop a system that adds true social and geographic relevance to search. There’s much more to say about that, and this discussion is meant to focus on some specific UI changes that uncover more of the value in Twitter search from a social and geo standpoint. In the short term, it would be great to see an indication of social relevance: maybe a graphic bug that indicates how “close” the tweet is to me in my Twitter social network. Geographically, I like what they’ve done with the “near:” option in the search query, and for travelers or people that don’t read the manual, maybe a “show me results near me” checkbox could be a simpler solution.

As Twitter volume and usage grows, what are the opportunities in this area for local businesses?

Here’s an example I just took a look at. Lou On Vine is a local restaurant in Los Angeles that we really enjoy. The owner has an interesting and offbeat wine cellar, and their food is sourced from small farms locally and across the US. The menu changes regularly. They’ve gotten some good press, and are a little off the beaten path in terms of location. If they were up on Twitter, I’d certainly follow them if they announced new wines, menu changes, weekday specials, and so on. I might even RT if I saw something I was particularly enthusiastic about.

For the local business owner, this is simple, quick, and effective. Local businesses do not always have the time and attention required to create a full-fledged email program - maintaining lists, designing emails, writing paragraphs of content, and so on. This small effort brings them into a huge mass of potential customers that are already grouped – very generally – by common interests and social ties. If I re-tweet a LouOnVine message, it’s going to my followers – a group that is likely at least a little more interested in this type of restaurant than the general population.

And when someone searches on Twitter for “Lou on Vine” they’ll see that menu change or new wine, or my re-tweet. When someone I follow is in LA and searches for “good restaurants” and checks the “select results near me,” maybe they’ll see a tweet of mine referencing Lou On Vine , and that I’m very close to them on the social graph.

If you run a local business, don’t wait: start a business account on Twitter. It literally takes 2 minutes. Then at least once a week post relevant messages that are useful to customers and potential customers. Follow people in the area that are passionate about, or at least interested in, the types of services or products you provide. Twitter is a great way to get more out of your valuable relationships and content.

Other thoughts on Twitter and Local Search? Let me know on Twitter! http://www.twitter.com/thorclark

Time to "Twiggle"

Ok, so it seems that not only is Google running contextually-based ads (check out the Turbo Tax example), but there are the talks that Google will be acquiring Twitter to the tune of $250M. A few posts back we examined the possibilities of what Google's search prospects would be, considering the flood of queries that are now indexed by social media sites and related content. To no surprise of us all, Google is making a play, one way or another.

We can draw speculation all day on the value of a potential deal, but let's re-examine for a moment what this means for the purity of a microblog like Twitter, and consequently, for search engines.

First, are Twitter searches going to be mostly populated with sponsored links?

Second, are Google searches going to mostly index "favorable" Twitter keywords?

Third, is cross-linking via bookmarks going to be "strong-armed" by the Google index?

Lastly, if all indices are subject to query domination in this way, is this the pawn strike for the search giant to wipe out it's competition for good?

Let me just qualify this by saying that I am a Google fan, and have seen the company and its founders do some great things, not just for technology, but for humanity. It seems we've only scratched the surface on where its ties to social media and microblogging go. I just hope for the sake of all of us that Google doesn't lose site of its altruism in the quest to innovate.

Monetizing the Microblog

Today's article in AdAge about Twitter's new push to derive revenue from search leaves me with some pretty mixed feelings. I'm all about finding ways to support services and utilities of great value, but this a very tricky challenge, especially when you consider the integrity of these platforms. 

Since YouTube's player was used as an example in the article, let's examine its use of search for a moment. Naturally, YouTube content is going to dominate search queries, after all, it's owned by Google and YouTube has the biggest captive network of users (including TV) arguably on the planet. As such, filtration and targeting remains partial. Take for example the latest Pizza Hut virals. If you watch this content on a YouTube player, you'll notice two things. First, the Google ads that overlay on the bottom third run Dominos text first in the rotation (or at least they did the last time I checked). Second, when you run a search for relevant content, Domino's mostly populates this field. Granted, Dominos likely has way more content that is available and indexed, but the point is that YouTube seems to be showing favor to the brand with most paid keywords, not necessarily the brand whose content we're seeking. 

So how does this affect a utility like Twitter or Plurk? Well, filtration and content management, which includes the quality and efficacy of searches, has been a hot-button issue amongst the Twitterati and microblogging community at large. The fact is that we need the improvements in this area, especially for those who have amassed a substantial following. The problem we face here is that if we monetize these improvements - which have been largely facilitated through open source tools like Twhirl and TweetDeck - we are potentially going against the grain of net neutrality. For one thing, paid search will inevitably control the ebb and flow of queries. For another, indexing will make it increasingly more difficult for individuals and smaller businesses to meta tag (or microtag) their content, whether it's text or video.

Much in the same way Facebook has endured harsh criticism from its user communities for plans to monetize data and ad-supported content, utilities like Twitter better tread lightly in charting this new course. One possible solution might be to focus on affiliate partnerships that capitalize on levering outreach programs, as opposed to focusing on the default mechanisms of search. This means that the platform itself should not be optimized for search, but rather the ways it can optimize other search efforts through things like interface customization or indexing exchanges within specific environments like blogs or forums.

We'll just have to see where this goes, but one thing's for sure, we've got a pretty powerful tool we can use to speak out about it...