Social Networks right now are merely dumps of nearly infinite connections, powered by XML and RSS. If the robot even thinks there’s a connection, it is programmed to go ahead and make it, hoping that you, the human, will sort it out later. This works for the most part, but it also creates a flat landscape where there is no intelligence save your own driving how those connections work. Making and breaking connections is a manual process, sometimes leading to potentially awkward un-friending – a scenario that was hard to imagine 5 years ago outside of Junior High.

What about relevance? Do you think your Mother in Law really wants to hear your latest Tweet about long-form depreciation from that conference? Do your work friends want to see pics of your 5-year-old’s birthday cake? Some might, but handling that kind of relevance is a manual task, using lists, accounts or other means to fight the heavy hand of “connectedness” so prevalent today. Its all so meta that it makes your head hurt.

Think about this present state as a plane in space, flat, with connections among people on the surface being only poorly managed manually, if at all.

Now, the next phase is coming, and part of me loves it- and part doesn’t.

Relevance:

What if Facebook and all social networks had the ability to know how relevant various connections are to you, and why? What if Flickr knew to prioritize photos from members of your family as you browse? What about that super important job lead you met last week? Don’t you want to see EVERY tweet that guy posts? Right now it might not know your mother’s connection to you, or that you want to avoid that one dude from the fraternity- ‘cause of that thing.. You know… That one.

At the most recent Social Fresh Portland conference, I had my eyes opened to this new dimension to the social space. Relevance is in the air, as various speakers express their take on how this new data will change everything. What’s coming is real relevance, driven by real data. It’s becoming possible to track and log connections, and then make data-driven judgments about relevance. High-school friends that you only “friend” once will drop to the edges, and tweets from constant companions, co-workers and family members will drift to the center of your attention-span. This will be done in part through the data-gathering ability of near-field RFID devices to help us make, and log connections. This means the flat plane of Facebook will become peaky, with hills and valleys of relevance.

The most vibrant speaker, Peter Shankman (@skydiver) spoke for over an hour nearly extemporaneously on the coming 24-36 months in this space. He also handed out a few Poken Wikipedia as trinkets. These look like goofy USB drives, but they contain this near-field technology. Just a tap tow pokens together and we share contact data. If we do this more than a few times, the system can really begin to learn and gather real data about how we connect as individuals. Yes Poken are a bit crude, and they look silly, but they mark a new step in making a relevant social space out of a mass of otherwise undifferentiated XML connections. Future developments of this concept might have cel phones making these connections automatically. In retail, supermarkets will be able to log our entry, and as we walk out with a bag of goods, send us the bill to be settled via PayPal. (Of course, they’ll know everything you bought, and that you lingered by the ice cream for longer than average…) We won’t have to tweet about it anymore.

Take a minute and consider this new space. With the more complex, machine derived data… Will it be a good thing that the virtual social world we inhabit be like the inner space of our mind? It will get that way as it watches us connect long enough.

I would venture to guess that its been a very long time… if perhaps never for many of us.

How often to we cringe to see two talking heads spouting their own agendas at each other while their actual dialog is nonexistent? How much time have we wasted in “meetings” and “Webinars” when we don’t even hear what is being said? We often sit there with our laptops open, paying only half-attention as a voice drones on somewhere in the nether regions of our consciousness. Is that time well-spent?

Enter “Notes on Dialogue” by Stringfellow Barr, former President of Saint John’s College, which is best known for its unusual curriculum, the Great Books Program, based on discussion of works from the Western philosophic, scientific and literary canon. Students at the college are responsible for their own education. Tutors are there only to guide, cajole and redirect as necessary. There are no “lectures” but the main process of learning takes place in a seminar format, that relies on discussion as outlined below.

“Notes on Dialogue” is a short treatise that lays out the groundwork for Seminar behavior at the college, and is a shining example of true education at its best. It provides profound support for the group, the individual, and the collective consciousness that can be developed through mutual respect and consideration. I submit here that the guidelines presented within this document are well worth considering in professional settings in addition to this academic environment. The true sharing of ideas and of valuable collaboration are dependent on how close we can get to this ideal.

I strongly suggest you read the entire document, but to whet your appetite, here are a few digested guidelines from the document.

• Brevity stimulates dialectic – the effort to be too complete is often self-defeating.
• The imaginative and the unexpected are frequent ingredients of Socrates’ style, and Irony can go farther in making a point than long-winded explanations.
• Interrupting a speaker is forbidden, but a quick question can help redirect conversation
• The will of “self insistence” gives way to the will to learn over time.
• In dialectic, “participational democracy” consists in everyone listening intently; it does not consist in “equal time”. (for speaking)
• It does not matter who’s mouth gets used by the dialectical process, provided all are listening intently.
• The name of the game is not instructing one’s fellows, or even persuading them, but thinking with them and trusting the argument to lead to understanding.
• When free minds seek together for greater understanding, they tend to move, as the mind of Socrates so characteristically moved – with playfulness and a sense of the comic.
• The truly relevant jest is never out of order so long as we can pursue our dialogue with high seriousness and with relevant playfulness.

Everyone is talking Social Media, but what about companies with a more traditional profile? What are the true ramifications of web 2.0 technologies and modes of thinking to “traditional” clients? What are the avenues for innovation? What opportunities exist using the social web, and web 2.0 technologies this year?

TNG built a presentation that outlines some of the major themes that come up as part of a Web 2.0 discussion, which became a discussion of opportunity.  

Section 1:  Modes of Social Interaction Over Time

The Village:

In the early stages of culture, the village market was the focus of trade and social interaction. The market was an open system, guided by culture, and constrained geographically. Face to face interaction required a high degree of accountability, and the quality of a product was directly associated with a producer. There was a high degree of market visibility, as everything could be seen across the market space. A new caravan entering with news or products would have an effect on price and on the social activity within the space.

The Messenger:

As technology for travel increased (navigation, ship building etc.) the market for information and trade becomes less geographically constrained. Its possible to interact with people that one doesn’t know, through the messenger. Infrastructure for doing this trade becomes held by fewer parties, and the kind of market awareness in the Village becomes impossible, as geography strains the boundaries of communication. There is a high degree of trust necessary,  as one might wait a year to get information or value back from certain locations.

The Producer:

The Industrial age brought a new form of information sharing, as the ability to broadcast messages and value became industrialized. The infrastructure to broadcast is concentrated in the hands of a few, and information and value travels one way, from the producer, to a mass of consumers. Brand became abstracted from value to help consumers distinguish among competing ideas and products. The producers have little contact with consumers: (Henry Ford didn’t personally know most of the people who bought his cars, nor did Hearst know who read his papers)

The Aggregator:

The Internet begins to influence mass communication, and ideas and information begin to be aggregated. 24 hour network news, portal websites all begin to repeat ideas instead of generate original ones. The infrastructure to aggregate is still held by a few, but with greatly increased sharing and commenting by consumers, these media outlets begin to respond to, and cater to user-generated opinions. Economics drive production overseas, and aggregators like WalMart bring vast power to the marketplace, influencing product development and price points.

The Integrated Marketplace:

We reach a point in the present where the influence of the web has arguably outstripped mass media. Traditional media outlets are searching for viable business models, as consumers and producers become one in the same. Blogs, Twitter, self-publishing of books and media all compete for attention. We trade online, sending each other value via PayPal, and Etsy.com has made producers of us all.

We have come full circle, as the model is identical to the Village, except for the geographical constraints.

Aberration?

Looking at this model, it becomes possible to pose the questions:

• Was the industrial age of communication an aberration?
• Did the advent of technology for distribution, making newspapers and broadcast the norm, distort the communication landscape for a period of time?
• Are we back to a new “normal”?
• What does the future hold for companies who are in the business of manufacturing and distribution of ideas and objects?

Section 2:  Opportunities in Web 2.0

Opportunities abound within the web 2.0 environment for those who are willing to study and extract the basic principles that Web 2.0 supports. The second section of the presentation is an investigation into these concepts, and some case studies, looking into how groups have leveraged these principles to drive business value and monetization.

Web 2.0 is the nickname for a collection of technologies and thought processes that support these major aspects of interaction:

• The web as a platform for
  • delivery of business functionality
  • development
  • internal workflow and logistics
  • monetization
• User-participation
  • Community
  • Syndication
  • Collaboration
  • Sharing/Mashups

• Flexibility: Anytime/Anywhere
  • Interoperability
  • Portability
  • Rich Media Applications

We round out the presentation with some high-level studies of notable business models within the industry:

Case Studies:

• Amazon vs Netflix – evolving business categories and infrastructure as a profit model
• The iPhone – a rich ecosystem for user experience and monetization
• YouTube vs Hulu – we’re still doing it wrong: the broadcast model
• Google AdWords, iTunes and AppStore – revolutionary on-demand delivery platforms for commerce

–Tom Bennett @tom_bennett  is a 20 year Digital Marketing Veteran working as a Digital Strategist at The New Group, a Portland OR based Digital Marketing Agency.  More on Tom

Powered by Twitter Tools.