Revisiting the Long Tail

When we were out shopping recently, I found a copy of The Long Tail by Chris Anderson in the discount bin of audiobooks and picked it up.  The Long Tail had a profound effect on my thinking when I first read it, and it seemed time to revisit this book again.  So this morning, while out and about, I started listening, and thinking about how the reduction of information from physical form- books, albums, CD’s, DVD’s and more- into digital form- downloads of audio, text and more onto portable digital devices- is a huge factor in not only how we distribute knowledge, but how we value it and the “sweat equity” it takes to create something.

For example, Chris Brogan wrote a post about A Perfect Dichotomy, in his search to find a logo.  In a nutshell, Chris went to a site that business people love- because they can get great work inexpensively, and designers hate, because they think it cheapens the work they do.  The problem here is essentially that as a business-side person, we know we want something, but we have no idea whatsoever what the process of creating that something is.  We have no easily accessible yardstick that tells us how much education, labor, passion, experience or more goes into one design over another- we’re only interested in the end product and pricepoint.  And at times, things like design, art and other important, yet less physically tangible goods and services can seem equivalent from a seasoned professional and a beginner, and the purchaser has no clear way to understand the difference between cheap and expensive.  (The ethics of buying work on spec is important, but you can’t eat ethics, so that argument alone will only get you so far.)

When you look at a car, for example, you can see lots of parts.  Heck, my Toyota Highlander has so many buttons and nobs it feels like I’m driving the space shuttle.  It looks complicated, and I can’t put the thing together myself, so I must be prepared to pay not only for the cost of materials that went into making the thing, but the designers, and workers who riveted the thing together, and the computer nerds who make the thing operate, and probably a share of that purchase price also goes into the marketing that made me want the thing in the first place.  There is obvious value on display, and we feel like we’re making an exchange of cash for value add that’s clearly tangible.  Likewise,when I buy shoes or clothing, I know that I am exchanging money for physical items I can’t make myself.  The same with food at the supermarket.  The value held in the physical items seems real.

When an author has their book in their hands, it feels like all your ideas and thoughts are now real.  My book on Public Assembly Facility Law (yes, esoteric and boring, to be sure…) sits proudly on my shelf, a reminder and a memento of hard work and writing.  It stores that value.   But take the unpublished book projects that sit on my hard drive.  They have value in terms of my time, my passion and more, but as long as they sit “in the drawer” they have no value to anyone other than me.  Even if I put them in PDF format and make them available to everyone, where is the value exchange?  Does anyone appreciate what went into that writing, or do they even care?  If I put a tip jar on the site, is the value of the work based on the money I receive?  What if I get none?  Does that mean I wasted all my time?

What I’m trying to say here is that as we start to digitize information, information that has some value, even if dictated by arbitrary price points on Amazon and iTunes, I think we start to value it a little less than we did when it was harder to access.  The intellectual work is the same whether the book itself is printed on paper or is merely bits and bytes, but the printing, distribution, marketing and other middle man expenses seem to act as a value filter and as a value add to make only the “best work” to make it into print.

Or at least that’s what I think our monkey brains believe, because that’s what has been true up until this point.  Only a select few got to write for a living, and got paid for it, so therefore, if you were an author, that meant something.  Just like being a journalist meant something special, and why the editor of the local paper was someone to be revered and even feared- he was the gatekeeper to the community’s sense of importance.  I don’t think we’ve really figured out how to value the digital information we get, because we get so much of it.  While some is fantastic, much of it is unimportant, so the general supply of information and ease of access overwhelms demand, and price plummets.

Bill Gates once said that Open Source was the enemy because it was essentially relying on people doing things for free and while it was creating value, it wasn’t distributing any.  He felt this meant that sooner or later, people would stop contributing to open source, because in the real world, there is still rent to pay and kids to feed.  (I’m clearly paraphrasing here.)  Yet Open Source and blogs and more exist because people want to express themselves.  This need will never go away.   There may be no more HUGE hits the way there once were, because people can find and feed their niche tastes, and the choices are close to infinite.  We no longer have restricted choice, dictated to us by what only a few people running the three major networks thought we should see, like when I grew up.  (Except, maybe for Law & Order, but even that franchise may be reaching its end.)

All of this choice sometimes means we get overwhelmed and decide to make no choice, rather than risk making the wrong one.  It means we can’t always see, know or appreciate the difference between an original designer purse and the knock-off that’s “good enough” sold on the street corner.  The ubiquitous nature of choice makes it more and more difficult to determine actual value, and as a result we either make no choice or make choice based on reputation, convenience and price.  This means if you are choosing someone to work with on something largely intangible like design, logos, even consulting work, you are forced to vet them by reputation, and then by judging whether the value they add to the project or the relationship you gain is worth the premium you pay as a result.

(Just as an example, there are a gazillion people who call themselves social media experts on twitter,  but you can probably sort out the wheat from the chaff not just by followers, but by checking the date they started using the service, and those with more experience are probably more valuable to you than the folks who joined up yesterday.)

It also means from someone working in an “intangible” digital arena, you’ve got to make your value proposition real.  You have to be able to explain why your work, your company or your stuff is so much better and deserves premium compensation.  You have to have a track record, and you have to master those relationship skills that make working with you so simple and so enjoyable, people will come because you constantly exceed their expectation.

This is what Chris Penn refers to as “You have to not suck” or as I would say simply- The first rule of business is to be the best at what you do, and to be the exception, not the rule.  Otherwise, you do end up being one of the multiple choices out in the long tail, with only a few hits of business over time, and probably not enough to sustain yourself long term.  Independent musicians know this, actors know this, and now other people in creative fields are learning this: When you do something artistic, you have to find an outside source that values you and will support you through good times and bad, just like Michelangelo and Da Vinci had the de Medici family.  You need to offer them something they cannot do themselves, and makes their life or reputation richer in the process.   Otherwise, you are merely a struggling and starving artist, and will still need to wait tables to eat.

Finding your value and articulating it, unambiguously, for all to see is the challenge everyone faces is a world of infinite choice.  I’m working on this for myself- are you?

Tags: chris anderson, chris brogan, chris penn, digital information, law & order, the long tail, value

Judging Risk

I’ve been thinking about risk, and how we make the decision about the cost/benefit of our actions.

Having gone to law school, I think and act like a lawyer in much of my life, and that can drive some people crazy.  You think you’re asking a simple question, and I give you a balanced assessment, and then let you choose the path you want to take.  Yes, people want to be told what to do.  Sometimes the path forward is crystal clear and being definitive is easy. Other times, multiple paths are available, but each has its own upsides and downsides, and as long as you are prepared for the downsides, each path is viable, reasonable and worth pursuing.

Sometimes, folks think I am risk adverse.  The opposite is actually true.  I’m happy to take chances.  I’m happy to roll the dice.  But when I do take a risk, I will fully admit I’ve almost always considered the consequences first.  I’m risk aware.  I’m not afraid, but instead, I realize that there’s always downstream rewards and potential consequences  for choices you make, and I go into situations aware of as many of those as I can be.

Seth Godin has been talking about this sort of thing recently, in his posts on Surfing as a New Career and Are You An Elite? where its clear that taking chances is no longer optional but required.  The point, of course, is to take risks, and not spend too much time in the worry or flailing stages, and instead get on to the doing and shipping stages of a project.  You have to figure out when it’s a good time to bet the farm, and when it’s a good time to diversify your holdings, so to speak.  I’ll always be surprised, from time to time, when the upside far exceeds my expectations, or circumstances make the downside a little more painful that we predicted.  But 9 times out of 10, results come within spec.

So while I always want to know a chunk of the risks associated with, say, a new medication or surgery, I understand the math enough to know when to play the odds.  Sometimes, people will focus on a quoted risk of 5% of extreme downside, ie. death, dismemberment, etc. and decide not to do something.  But if you understand the math, often you find that the real attributable risk to you is so far below that, spending time worrying about it is not even worth the energy to consider the question in the first place.

Knowing and acknowledging risk can make some people to afraid to act.  For me, it emboldens me to take the jump.  I’m an optimist, and once I know what I’m facing, I take the challenge head on, and have confidence I can win.  Even with odds stacked against me, I’d rather swing for the fences than never try at all.

We all know that “no good battle plan survives contact with the enemy”, which means we’re always going to have to improvise and tweek things along the way.  There’s always something that changes, but by acknowledging that upfront, and having thought the plan through at the outset, improv off the planned path is so much easier- you rarely get totally lost in the rough with no map out.

Planning and thinking something through isn’t everyone’s style.  It can seem plodding from time to time.  It can seem boring.  But I promise it’s rarely wasted time.  Just like a business plan or a book proposal lays out the pathway for the finished product, thinking things through and acknowledging risk up front makes all the flying by the seat of your pants less panic inducing.  However, if you love panic and adrenalin, by all means, please ignore this post and have a great day.

Tags: advice, attorney, balance, chris penn, decisions, risk, seth godin

When is an Unconference not an Unconference

A friend forwarded me this link to a new Unconference, PR Camp , taking place in New York on Friday, November 20, a day after the Web 2.0 Expo concludes in NYC.  Given that I will be in New York, since the Podcamp Foundation is helping to organize the Open Unconference  sessions at the Web 2.0 Expo, I was initially intrigued.  I love Unconferences, and as Director of Operations for the Podcamp Foundation, I love to see how other people put them on.

Now, I have gotten into many interesting debates with people over what exactly constitutes an Unconference, and where the line between conference and unconference lies.  We talk about scale, what elements are crucial to success, and which ones have some flex in them.

For me, the heart of the Unconference is the sharing.  It’s speakers coming to educate, and to learn themselves, to be participants as much as leaders and educators.  The essence to me is about learning and sharing, and that everyone has something to say and teach someone else.

The rules about “The Law of Two Feet” and being able to leave any sessions, to create your own experience, is important.  The rules about “no pitches” and encouraging people to walk out of any session that becomes an infomercial is important to maintain the community spirit of the event.    The rules about “No Rockstars- everyone is an equal” is important too, as is the fact that anyone can sign up to lead a session, which tend to be more discussion and questions and answer based, rather than lectures.

Barcamps tend to adhere pretty strictly to the rule that anyone can present, and the schedule is created that day- people can sign up for rooms and to lead sessions the morning of, not in advance.  At Podcamp, we bend this rule a bit, and while we maintain open space where people can create content on the fly and in the moment, a good portion of the content, sessions and scheduling are set within a week or two of the event.  Why did we make this choice?

After Podcamp NYC, where we had over 1,000 people sign up for the event and over 100 sessions in rooms of vastly different sizes in which to place these people, we decided that having people sign up for sessions in advance was crucial, as was organizing the sessions into some rough tracks, just to make the event logistics a bit easier for everyone.  For example, one room night have great content about online video, while another focused on Search Engine optimization, and another on marketing your projects on the web.  We found that Unconferences can scale, but logistics and fire codes are still important factors to consider!

The advance scheduling of sessions has had another interesting effect-people who typically might be a bit nervous about this Unconference thing attend, because they know a bit about what to expect in advance.  They come and participate, and many have what I would call a conversion experience, where the differences in what they get out of an unconference compared to a traditional conference changes their minds completely about what a conference can be.

One of the things we say frequently about Podcamp is that at traditional conferences, the hallways and social events can be the best part of the event, and we try to turn the whole conference into the hallway.  Chris Penn often says that we provide the canvas paint and brushes, but the experience and art you take away at the end of the day is up to you- you structure your experience to get the most out of it, rather than having it dictated for you.

So let’s take a look at PR Camp.  It’s one day, limited to 200 people.  So far, so good.   The tickets range from $199 to $295, depending on when you sign up.  That’s way out of the league of the charge of most unconferences, many of which are free.  In fact, Podcamp Philly charges $20, but that money goes not to cover conference costs but to a local community charity, to help further support our community- this year was Covenant House.  Likewise, Podcamp Boston charges $50, some of which covers operation expenses not covered by sponsors, and helps cover things like lunch, with any extra funds going to the Boston Foodbank.  I have a hard time, even knowing what it costs to put on an event in NYC, how this pricing structure is in the Community-based, non-profit realm, which is also at the heart of most unconferences.  Strike One.

The confirmed list of discussion speakers is a list of PR Professionals, but there seems to be no room for anyone in the community to sign up and lead a session.  Strike Two.

I see a lot of people I know and who I know know unconferences participating, so I have some hopes that there will be some “unconference” in this event, but from the outside, it looks pretty much like a regular old conference to me.

I know that there are things the Unconference movement can bring to make any old conference better and more productive.  But if you are going to call yourself a “camp”, if you are going to adopt the name unconference, particularly if you are in Public Relations, you have got to realize you are treading in shark-infested waters.  Your PR brethren may not understand the difference, but there are legions of geeks who do who also consult to marketing and PR firms about the social web, and this is pretty much a poor PR move if ever there was one.

And if I think this use of the terms Camp and Unconference is over the line and not appropriate for this conference, being the poster child of the Hybrid Conference myself and constantly getting heat from Barcamp folks about it, all I can say is: batten down the hatches and good luck.  It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

Tags: barcamp, chris penn, christopher Penn, podcamp, PR Camp, unconference

Trust Agents

I’ve spent the weekend reading through Trust Agents, by my friends, Chris Brogan and Julien Smith.

Trust Agents, at its heart, explains how the currency and language of the web is based on trust.  Relationships online, for business or social reasons, require that both parties trust each other immensely.  You can’t always seal every deal with a handshake over dinner anymore, and whether money changes hands or not, there’s a great deal of social capital invested between people, and they rely on the other party dealing with them fairly.

As an attorney by education and trade, I can look at the relationships people develop online as a social contract.  Each party agrees that even in the most basic “friend” relationship on social networks like Twitter or Facebook, that certain rules will be respected.  There is often a quid pro quo, where people reciprocate the friendship outreach.  Let’s break this down further-

Mary decides to join Twitter. She goes out and “follow” a bunch of people, hoping these people will reciprocate.  This “following” is like an offer of friendship or relationship, which may prove to be valuable, or it may be a burden, but just like any offer to purchase goods or interact with someone, no one has to reciprocate- it’s an offer, that’s all.  If Jim reciprocates, a relationship, however tentative, has been formed.  The offer has been accepted.  This is the basis of a basic contract, with the “consideration” that binds the contract measured in willing to spend your attention and information with Mary.  Now, if  Mary decides the ongoing trading of information and links through tweets needs to take a turn towards a constant barrage of what might be considered “spam”, she may violate this social contract, causing Jim to simply rescind the conract and unfollow her.  Jim’s opted out of Mary’s friendship, breaking their contract to connect and exchange the currency of ideas.

This social contract is the basis of online relationships.  Basic friendship relationships on social networks have led to many real world opportunities for me, ranging from personal tours of Barcelona, to speaking engagements, to meeting Richard Simmons and beyond.  There is a real store of value being built up in these social relationships that can be leveraged and translated into actual dollars and cents, and this is a large part of what Julien and Chris discuss in Trust Agents.

The point of being a Trust Agent is, of course, not to take advantage of all your friends and seeing them as walking wallets and opportunities.  Being a Trust Agent requires that you have built a network of relationships, just like the guy with a great rolodex, long before you actually need it.  As Chris Penn says, you need to bring the awesome all the time, and the the relationship currency will follow.  Then, when someone is looking for a consultant, someone to hire, a speaker- you will automatically be the first person on the list, or at least on the list of people to consider, where those who do not help others and deliver value will long be forgotten.

This is a bit of a blue ocean, bread on the water strategy.  It requires you to save -delivering value and building relationships, long before you get to spend- getting hired, or even asking some one to do a favor for you.  The more value you have stored in these relationships, the “closer” your relationships, the more durable that bond is, just like any real world relationship.

If you want to better understand the concept of how relationships work online, and how you can become a Trust Agent yourself, run out and get a copy of Trust Agents.  It’s going to be a classic guide to help people negotiate this world of online relationships, while helping you to understand the culture, and how you can leverage these relationships for success, just like Chris and Julien have done so well.

Tags: chris brogan, chris penn, chris pinchen, julien smith, podcamp barcelona, trust agents

Things to know about Podcamp

This year, we seem to be getting lots of questions and confusion about the difference between Podcamps and Barcamps. So I thought I’d do a brief post here so everyone is clear.

1.Podcamp is Not Barcamp. This is a biggie.  Barcamp veterans often write me and say that they think Podcamp is not a “true” unconference because we have altered the format to be a bit more of a bridge between a Barcamp Unconference and a regular old conference.  To be honest, this seems like a silly debate to me.  The decisions on how a Podcamp differs from a Barcamp, which I’ll discuss below, were made to help make the events accessible and comfortable for people who are used to regular conferences, while maintaining the community feel and the basic rules of Unconferences.

2. The Podcamp Rules (Click here to read Chris Penn’s Excellent Blog post on this subject)

Here are the Six Rules of PodCamp:

1. All attendees must be treated equally. Everyone is a rockstar.
2. All content created must be released under a Creative Commons license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
3. All attendees must be allowed to participate. (subject to limitations of physical space, of course)
4. All sessions must obey the Law of 2 Feet – if you’re not getting what you want out of the session, you can and should walk out and do something else. It’s not like you have to get your money’s worth!
5. The event must be new media/digital media focused – blogging, podcasting, video on the net, social networks, etc.
6. The financials of a PodCamp must be fully disclosed in an open ledger, except for any donor/sponsor who wishes to remain anonymous.

3.  The way we do Session Planning.

For most Podcamps, we set up a wiki or Google Form where people can sign up to speak in advance- once the spots are filled, they are filled.  We also attempt to leave at least one set of rooms open for people choosing to add content the day of the event, Bar-Camp Style, or to extend conversation sstarted in sessions.

The reason we allow pre-planned sessions is that it gives people an idea of what to expect at an event, and whether they should sign up or not.  Surprisingly, many people don’t want to commit to attending an event where they don’t know who is speaking, or on what topic!   This tweak has actually been shown to help boost attendance at Podcamps, and aids the organizers immensely when planning for any swag or amenities they might provide.  It also helps potential sponsors have a better idea of what Podcamp is about and thus make a more informed decision about their sponsorship investment in the community.

4. We don’t “vote” on sessions to decide whether or not they should be presented. While some events, like South by Southwest take suggestions or submissions for sessions and then let the community vote for what they want to see, we don’t.  As a result, Podcamp is not a popularity contest, but if you want to present, it’s always prudent to register as a speaker and submit your session as early as possible.

Venues do not have infinite space, and we have a limited number of sessions available over the course of a weekend.  Sessions are usually 30 to 45 minutes long rather than rapid fire, five minute presentations.  So with limited physical space and limited time, we can’t always accomodate everyone who wants to speak.  This can lead to disappointment for people who don’t feel they were warned that sessions spaces were getting tight, but the lesson here is that the early bird gets the worm and those who procrastinate may lose out on opportunities.

5. Unlike Barcamp, we don’t use the “morning of” sign up for sessions. As discussed above, many podcamps, but not all, have moved away from the day of sign up for sessions.  Often, this is to avoid the chaos of hundreds of people gathered around a whiteboard, or problems caused by being unable to access an online schedule.  Because our attendees are computer and internet afficianados, their ability to crash and slow internet connectivity is close to legendary.  All of these folks  in one spot often leads to connectivity issues, even with robust wi-fi systems.

6. Some Podcamps charge an admissions fee. Podcamp started out as a free to attend conference like Barcamp.  But after we found that only about half on the people signing up to attend Podcamp were showing up, several Podcamps, including Podcamp Boston and Podcamp Philly have instituted a nominal fee.  This has raised attendance rates to well over 80%, making planning for space and for events much easier and much more predictable.  The admissions fees are used, typically, either to pay for event-related expenses like facility rental and insurance, or some have donated the admissions fees to charitable causes.  In either case, the fees are well below typical conference fees and we have yet to have people question the value proposition.

I understand that Podcamp is not everyone’s idea of an unconference, and some of the community-organized features can frustrate those expecting more of a professional conference experience.  I look at Podcamp as being partly a laboratory, we are not only are learning from each other during the event, but with each version, we try new things and make improvements to try to do better each and every time.

The Organizers are volunteers, and do this for the love of the community and their belief in the experience that Podcamp delivers.  It is not a profit making enterprise, but seeks to run budget neutral for each event.  The organizers from each community conference live in the community and the surrounding area, and while the Podcamp Foundation has set forth the rules for what constitutes a Podcamp and what does not, the formal affiliation between events remains largely in name and spirit only.

While the Directors of the Foundation, including myself, Chris Penn and Chris Brogan, strive to provide advice and guidance for any Podcamp or potential Podcamp organizer, we are not directly involved in producing Podcamps outside of those we have always been associated with at this point in time.  I’m happy to help anyone start a Podcamp in their area, and we are currently working on an e-book in our “free” time to try to make this process easier.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions about Podcamp I can answer in the comments, and I look forward to seeing you at Podcamp Boston and/or Podcamp Philly.

Tags: barcamp, chris brogan, chris penn, podcamp, podcamp philly, unconference