Jonothan Stribling

I have a few memories of Amy Winehouse.

One is in Norway, which is an awful coincidence given the terrible shootings there this weekend. It was at a recovery BBQ for a Wedding, the weather was warm, the party attendees nicely drunk or hungover when “I don’t wanna go to rehab” came on the ipod mix. My brother-in-law, who has long struggled with his own demons, jumped up and said they’re playing my song  and started to dance; wildly, crazy, and free. The more senior members of the party looked at the ground or studied their wine glasses. The younger, more inebriated of us just laughed.

My other memories are purely tabloid. Amy drunk. Amy sad. Amy drug-fucked. Amy OK. Amy not OK

That Winehouse died alone (I’m guessing) after 10 years being a poster-girl for wasted youth, and a spectacle eagerly consumed by tabloids is a tragedy.  A look at Winehouse’s twitter page is instructive. One of the similar users is tabloid disgrace Perez Hilton.

Winehouse was the same age as my sister, who also died alone, a victim of addiction and destructive  hedonism. My sister’s battles were largely personal, unshared with her family and friends. Winehouse’s battles were a public spiral into the gutter which sold a lot of magazines. The end result is the same. Another life wasted because of drugs, alcohol, and desire.

Our society doesn’t tolerate wastedness very well except at mandated public events – Christmas, New Years, Melbourne Cup, and if you’re under 30, every Friday night. Being wasted on a Monday morning is to gaze into the Nietzschean void and loudly declare, “Fuck you all. Fuck corporations. Fuck your God!” To do it on a Friday is to be a joiner, a team player, or great bloke. The fissure between the two modes of behaviour is almost non-existent. A Friday drinking can turn into a wasted Monday for someone with poor support structures, depression, or a baggage too painful to bear alone.

The death of Amy Winehouse forces us to remember those who’ve also died too early, alone, and a victim of a Nietzschean rage at the world and themselves.

We should be able to do better for them.

Photo credit: Crikey

When I was a university student I loved French Philosopher, Gilles Deleuze for his complex and almost impregnable ideas which busted open the traditional pillars of western thought.

Deleuze approached philosophy as an outsider.

“What got me by during that period was conceiving of the history of philosophy as a kind of ass-fuck, or, what amounts to the same thing, an immaculate conception. I imagined myself approaching an author from behind and giving him a child that would indeed be his but would nonetheless be monstrous.”

There is a lot to learn from this kind of approach to life. Rather than accepting life as it meanders along from study to work to marriage to retirement, you can make the rules and break the rules. We should embrace the schizophrenic, the multiple, and the edge of the limit over the awful and doddering established truth.

Deleuze and his collaborator Felix Guattari wrote a magnificent book called Capitalism & Shizophrenia where they introduced the concept of the rhizome. The rhizome is the Internet imagined before the Internet. They write:

Let us summarize the principal characteristics of a rhizome: unlike trees or their roots, the rhizome connects any point to any other point, and its traits are not necessarily linked to traits of the same nature; it brings into play very different regimes of signs, and even nonsign states. The rhizome is reducible to neither the One or the multiple. It is not the One that becomes Two or even directly three, four, five etc….It has neither beginning nor end, but always a middle (milieu) from which it grows and which it overspills. It constitutes linear multiplicities with n dimensions having neither subject nor object, which can be laid out on a plane of consistency, and from which the one is always subtracted (n-1). When a multiplicity of this kind changes dimension, it necessairly changes in nature as well, undergoes a metamorphisis. Unlike a structure, which is defined by a set of points and positions, the rhizome is made only of lines; lines of segmentarity and stratification as its dimensions, and the line of flight or deterritorialization as the maximum dimension after which the multiplicity undergoes metamorphosis, changes in nature.

Comparing the rhizome in relation to the transformational possibilities of the Internet is very useful. Just as the rhizome is neither the One or the multiple, the Internet is a non-linear series of inter-connected networks which grows, changes in nature, and is subject to multiple dimensions. Whilst the Internet may have become inherently commercial and an abject expression of the lonely desires of billions searching for meaning on facebook, ebay, and Google+, it remains a fragile place easily disrupted. Pre-Internet commerce was interrupted by natural disasters, 747s dropping out the sky and bombs blowing up in pubs. Now a malevolent 14 year old can bring down a billion dollar business with a script.

The terrifying possibility of the Internet’s metamorphosis was recently demonstrated by the erudite, talented, and scary hackers from @LULZSec. After their June 2011 campaign of terror they wrote:

For the past 50 days we’ve been disrupting and exposing corporations, governments, often the general population itself, and quite possibly everything in between, just because we could. All to selflessly entertain others – vanity, fame, recognition, all of these things are shadowed by our desire for that which we all love. The raw, uninterrupted, chaotic thrill of entertainment and anarchy. It’s what we all crave, even the seemingly lifeless politicians and emotionless, middle-aged self-titled failures. You are not failures. You have not blown away. You can get what you want and you are worth having it, believe in yourself.

Now if that’s not shizophrenic, I don’t know what is. Deleuze would have been proud.

This morning I noticed that GoDaddy and NetRegistry had almost identical facebook posts.

First GoDaddy posted:

Then a few hours later NetRegistry posted:

Is it just the domain registrar Zeitgeist or is there some copycat marketing going on? .xxx is a curly issue for many in the industry so there is a chance that some market probing (sorry) is underway by both GoDaddy and NetRegistry. However, I have my suspicions that NetRegistry was scratching for relevant content for their Facebook page and were inspired by the big Daddy.

Malcom Gladwell must be wondering what went wrong.

In October 2010 the award winning New Yorker writer penned a piece that tried to address the hyperbole about so-called twitter revolutions and suddenly he was the most hated man on twitter.

The response was spectacular. Twitter erupted into outrage, Biz Stone co-founder of twitter responded with a thoughtful but dense piece in The Atlantic Monthly that promoted twitter as a force for fostering relationships and creating meaningful change. For Stone the power of twitter lies in its ability to empower people through communication. He finishes his defence with:

Rudimentary communication among individuals in real time allows many to move together as one–suddenly uniting everyone in a common goal.

Now the idea of “rudimentary communication” happening in “real time” seems to me to be no different from me having a conversation with a stranger whilst waiting for my morning coffee, but I think I know what Stone was getting at – there is power is connecting heterogeneous conversations and rapidly distributing information. This is after all one of the revolutionary aspects of the Internet.

Interestingly, as far as I can tell, the Zuck and the gang at Facebook were too busy making money to respond.

What interests me about this is how thin-skinned the twitter fans appear to be. Gladwell was the subject of many vitriolic and hateful tweets that accused him of being part of old-media player and a right bastard. The debate was reminiscent of many techno-religious debates like Apple vs. PC or. NET vs PHP. Now the reductive fissure is social media vs. history, or twitter vs. Facebook.

Gladwell’s piece is problematic. He deliberately collapses issues with tools so as to be controversial saying:

Where activists were once defined by their causes, they are now defined by their tools.

I don’t think anyone could have easily missed what the activists in Egypt were rallying for or defined them merely assuming Facebook fans. It just so happened that Facebook was the most useful tool for communicating and organising the revolutionaries. In fact the only one defining activists by their tools is Gladwell.
Gladwell also takes issue with the claim by the US State department that cyber-activists are “the best hope for us all” dismissing the role of social media in the Moldovian and Iranian protests.

It is important to note that The New Yorker article was published in October 2011, well before the Egyptian or Tunisian revolutions.

Gladwell was right that about soneof the grandiose statements being made about how social media was enabling dissidents to protest in new ways. Whilst acknowledging that twitter was not the magic bullet against dictators, Time Magazine breathlessly proclaimed

But there’s no question that it has emboldened the protesters, reinforced their conviction that they are not alone and engaged populations outside Iran in an emotional, immediate way that was never possible before.

Wow. Little old twitter did all that? How’s this comment about a post in techmeme:

If Twitter stumbles, dictators, totalitarians and other thugs the world over will rejoice. The losers will be the people under their thumbs.

Clearly there was some hyperbole about twitter and social media that spurned Gladwell to write his slightly antagonistic piece.

Gladwell’s basic thesis is that social media creates what he calls weak ties. He did this after conveniently setting up the concept of social activism being dependent on what he called strong ties. He builds a lovely binary opposition of social activism = strong ties vs. social media = weak ties. Therefore social media is not a useful tool for activism.

That social activism is a dangerous activity involving much personal risk that requires courageous feats is not in dispute here. What is wrong with Gladwell’s approach is the overly simplistic and reductive dualism of real world vs Internet world. For Gladwell the Internet is a transient, temporary place whereas the physical world is real, robust and trusted. He seems to ignore that the Internet exists and is a reflection of the “real world”.

As a journalist Gladwell is blinded to the politics of information. For him politics is big boy stuff where information is controlled and disseminated by journalists, academics, politicians, and judges. Information is something formal which is produced and passively consumes. The idea of a heterogeneous sphere where information is distributed at the speed of light and old-world models of producer-consumer are obliterated are an anathema for a journalist whose strong ties have built an influential career.

Information, like power is always local. We are all subject to it and entwined within its grip. It can be distributed in multiple heterogeneous ways like a whisper on the street, by a bloke with a placard, by a blog, by a newspaper, by a teacher, or by an angry mob protesting against a repressive regime. Technology like the phone, the Internet, twitter, facebook, and mobiles can transform how information is distributed and transform structures of power.

I do feel to Gladwell, he has become the pinup boy for ludittes everywhere who bemoan the democraticisation of the distribution of information as being an irritating leach on corporate profits and political control. However, he really only has himself to blame, as he has acted the genius contrary clown in order to prove himself an original thinker. A debate on the true transformative and revolutionary impacts of technologies deserves better.

Photo credit

The other day I had a healthy argument with an old school marketing guy about uneducated consumers in a commiditised market.

His contention was that uneducated consumers still exist online.  Like marks in an old style side show they wander blindly through the buying process and good businesses make good margin from them.

This worried me a little.  I think that the Internet has made it so much easier to find information about products and pricing that novice Internet users can become very well informed consumers very quickly. The newbie might not be a gun online marketer but they have a very clear understanding about what constitutes good value and the Internet makes it easy to them to make a comparison.

Also,  I hate the idea of thinking consumers are stupid. It is too easy and doesn’t help you market to them.

I reached out to twitter for feedback and the feedback was that there are more and more newbie consumers online which I reckon proves my point.

@thelostagency noted that targeting these users with a different user experience can drive massive increases in conversion. He also commented that:

@jonstribling problem is that business is not usually tailored and even optimised for that newbie experience

@monkeytypist disagreed tweeting

@jonstribling if you define “educated” to mean “aware there’s a better value option always”, then that’s plainly rubbish.

I think that understanding the consumers  better means understanding them intimately, their concerns, their values, the pain-points, their buying behaviour. And once you do this you patronise them by thinking of them as uneducated. Once they become ‘real’ you can then target them better using all sorts of online marketing strategies including search.  Ultimately they will compare the value you’re providing with your competitors online. Your chances of retaining them as a customer may depend on you understanding them better.

What do you think?

Photo credit

I was surprised that I got married.  It wasn’t that I was really against it,  I had a girlfriend I adored and had a lot of fun with.  It was more the permanency and establishment vibe that said,  “I am a joiner”.

I was a little anti-establishment in my twenties.

I had a choice to get married or stay blissfully de-facto. It is a disgrace that my gay and lesbian friends do not.

Two days ago the happily unmarried Julia Gillard outed herself as a social conservative saying she had a “pro-union, pro-Labor upbringing in a quite conservative family, in the sense of personal values”.

For Julia this expresses itself neatly into her view of same sex marriage as she said,  “the Marriage Act and marriage being between a man and a woman has a special status”.

That this is a transparent pitch to the conservative voters of Sydney and Queensland is blindingly obvious.  For me this is the last straw – Gillard is a bitter disappointment.  I expected Rudd to be opposed to same sex marriage given he is a God botherer,  but the left wing Gillard.  No way.

What I don’t understand is all the fuss and bother concocted by right wing radio hosts driving policy making.  My reading is that most Australians do not care about same sex marriage or at least they didn’t until they were whipped into a frothy outrage by the christian lobby. The Australian Christian Lobby even went as far to describe those calling for equality as “rights fundamentalists”.

Now that is kind of ironic and demonstrates that organised religion is not always a force for good in our society.

There is a rally in Melbourne this weekend,  26th March at 1pm outside the State Library.  I intend to go with my children because I want them to grow up in a world where everyone is respected and equal.

I was reading in The New York Times about how Google is now a media company and it struck me that the Internet gives every business the opportunity to be a media business or at least think like a media company.

Firstly, what is a media company?  A media company is a business engaged in the production or distribution of media.  Most sales,  leads,  and opportunities result from their media activities.

News Ltd is an obvious example of an old style media company trying to make it in a digital world. 

Google can be seen as a new style of media business as can telcos like Telstra who increasingly depend on the distribution of digital content to lock in subscribers.

So how can any business be a media company?

Get a website

If you have a website you need to produce great content to delight your visitors, rank in search engines, and build fans. If the content is good enough then people will link to it increasing your popularity.

Get a twitter account

As you know Twitter is a great way to communicate with existing and potential customers. To build fans you can’t be all business though,  you need to entertain,  amuse, or inform. When you get this right you are well on your way to being a media company.

Get a Facebook page

With 500 million users Facebook offers an easy way to reach people and let them connect with your brand.  As with twitter there needs to be a good reason for people to be interested.  Hold a competition, build a game,  get customers to send photos or videos of them using your products, or ask questions.

Make a video

YouTube is an amazing place to discover Justin Beiber or that new chick,  watch a monkey fall over,  or discover how to build a retaining wall.  Making a video of how to do something related to your product,  introducing your business,  or doing something crazy to delight your customers. It is easier than you think and doesn’t need Hollywood production values.

With an audience of billions the web makes it easy to extend your reach with simple but high quality media and content. In a competitive marketplace it could be what elevates you above your competitors. Start to see yourself as a media business and the rest will follow.

Some time ago I wrote that Facebook was doomed because the business model relied on erecting billboards in parks.

People were there to play, not be sold to.

Since then, Facebook  has become bigger than many medium-sized countries and has been valued at more than $50 billion by investment bankers.

Oh and my Dad who is 74, is now on Facebook.

So if Facebook is bigger than most countries and worth a lot of money, how can I be right? 

The answer is in comparing Facebook to Google.  Google has become uber-successful by opening advertising to the masses. Anyone with a credit card and a website can advertise to qualified buyers fast. Google make it really easy by giving away advertising vouchers so anyone can try before they buy. The results are instantaneous and infinitely measurable.

Facebook on the other hand provides a weak value proposition for advertisers. The Facebook audience is not shopping for a gift for Aunt Rhonda in Ohio, they are looking to see what their BFF is up to, or to LOL at a chimpanzee eating its own poo. Or perhaps they are planning a revolution as recent events in Egypt demonstrate.

Whereas Google is a community of buyers and shoppers, Facebook is a community of thrill-seekers, bored adolescents, peeping toms, and horny perverts. They are very disengaged consumers.

U.K. Facebook exec Stephen Gained sees a future where company websites are made obsolete by Facebook. His argument is that Facebook offers more ways for consumers to engage with brands through devices like the Like button, and that visit times to Facebook average 28 minutes – much longer than most company websites.

The metrics make for a compelling argument but Facebook is still a sad, closed, blue world offering low clicks and ROI.

Building a list of fans is a great way to promote your brand, model but it is a poor way to sell product. Most of the commerce success stories are just hyperbole, the social media community are so desperate to demonstrate value they promote small and meaningless examples of why Facebook will dominate the Internet.

So I agree that Facebook is a great place to recruit a graduate, promote a new shampoo, or run a competition to build brand awareness. But if it is engagement and revenue you’re after then search is the clear winner.

The focus on the short tail is not exactly what makes Facebook another MySpace and not another Google. My completely unprofessional advice to Facebook investors beguiled by the $60 Billion valuation is to get the out now.

Take a profit and wait for the bubble to pop.

I was talking to a mate the other day and he told me about his idea of leverage.

Osca is a