Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Wendy Waters
by Wendy Waters
Mon Oct 5th 2009 at 9:19am UTC

Evolving Etiquette of Social and Mobile Technologies

Monday, October 5th, 2009

Social media, communications technologies, and more flexible workplace attitudes have been driving changes to the way we view our personal and professional lives.

A recent Knowledge at Wharton article examines the evolving etiquette as well as challenges surrounding the rise of mobile technologies, such as the Blackberry, as well as social media websites like Facebook and LinkedIn.

As Facebook, Twitter and 24-hour Blackberry access blur the lines between business and personal lives, managers and employees are struggling to develop new social norms to guide them through the ongoing evolution of communications technology. Wharton faculty and other experts say the process of creating rules to cope with the ever-expanding reach of modern communications has just begun, but will be shaped largely by individuals and organizations, not top-down decrees from a digital Emily Post. Generational differences in the approach to openness on the Internet will also be a factor in coming to common understandings of how and when it is appropriate to contact colleagues, superiors or clients.

The article then details some dilemmas – where do you stand?

1.  First, is there a time when “work” should stop and “personal life” should take over?  From the Wharton article:

For example, a Blackberry can allow parents to attend their childrens’ soccer games while remaining in contact with colleagues at the office in case an emergency comes up. But, [Nancy Rothbard] adds, “you have your Blackberry at your kid’s soccer game. That’s another … line you may be crossing.”

2.  Is it healthy to blur your personal self and professional self ?

…says Wharton marketing professor Patricia Williams, “There is the self we are for our friends, a self for our family [and] a professional self. What’s interesting is the degree to which we are comfortable playing all of those ’selves’ at one time.”

“I’ve heard people say that Facebook is for personal friends and LinkedIn is for professional contacts,” Williams notes. “But many of my Facebook friends are my colleagues – people who work just down the hall – and I don’t have a problem with that. I do, however, have some discomfort being ‘Facebook friends’ with my students, because it gives them access to my personal self that’s not normally available to them.”

3. Are younger people, today’s children up through college students, growing up with no separation between these different “selves”?  And what will this mean for the way we work?

Typically, business norms evolve through official policy disseminated by organizations and by “reality” that bubbles up from the organization’s grassroots. [Wharton Professor Monica McGrath] asks “The question is: How accessible do you want to be? [Today,] young people want to be very accessible, and in an international corporation you are expected to be available [around the clock]. Time zones mean nothing. The norms will continue to develop based upon generational leadership.”

To sum up, I expect that the line between personal and professional will become increasingly blurred. First, knowledge work is highly collaborative and it’s hard to work with people who you don’t like – therefore, people will forge friends through collaboration at work. Second, younger generations will have grown up with limited separation between their different personas.

How do mobile and social media technologies enhance or detract from your personal and professional life?

CCE Editor
by CCE Editor
Tue Sep 15th 2009 at 12:22pm UTC

Best Twitter Feeds for Business Students

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

Richard Florida’s Twitter feed has been named on the list of “100 Best Twitter Feeds for Savvy Business Students” by AssociateDegree.org.

Follow Richard on Twitter at Richard_Florida!

Who are your favorites to follow on Twitter?

Michael Wells
by Michael Wells
Tue Jun 30th 2009 at 8:01pm UTC

The Wikipedia Revolution

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

I recently read The Wikipedia Revolution by Andrew Lih. The story of Wikipedia is a microcosm for looking at at least three things:

  1. How the Internet and Web are changing almost everything, destroying old models but with inherent weaknesses of their own.
  2. How collaborative group efforts can be greater than the sum of their parts.
  3. The human desire to have all knowledge.

1. Wikipedia is a perfect symbol of the Internet. It exists in a virtual reality, with a mass of contributors who don’t know each other. It has almost totally undercut older encyclopedias like Britannica and World Book, but depends entirely on the goodwill of its contributors. It has no stable means of support, and at the end of the book (published this year) Wikipedia was moving its headquarters to San Francisco, expanding staff and becoming much more expensive to operate in a leap of faith.

2. Wikipedia’s model of using a large number of contributors isn’t new, although the lack of professional editing is. The Oxford English Dictionary was originally built the same way, using file cards in cubbyholes in the 1800s, a fascinating story told in The Professor and the Madman. Wikipedia’s strength is its self-correcting and self-regulating nature. Its weakness is that unless someone knowledgeable about a field contributes, the articles will be weak.

In 2005, Nature magazine famously did a comparison of Wikipedia and Britannica’s science articles and found their accuracy comparable. However, when I first saw Wikipedia a couple of years ago I looked up two things I knew something about: grantwriting, which is my field, and BKS Iyengar, who is my wife’s teacher. Both were weak – not inaccurate, but sorely lacking. I checked recently and the Iyengar articles are much improved, but grants articles are still marginal (I’ve resolved to fix them when I get some time). If these two quick checks are representative, there are probably many other weak areas (in fairness, Britannica Online doesn’t have seem to have articles on either topic.)

3. People have been trying to capture the world’s knowledge for millennia. The first modern encyclopedia was probably Diderot’s French Encyclopédie, although Lih’s book says the first major attempt may have been by Pliny the Elder in the first century. But since knowledge is incomplete and constantly expanding and changing, the print versions were outdated within years. Wikipedia corrects this, but at the expense of a central editor or editors.

The larger question is about knowledge itself, which is famously growing faster than anyone can keep up. It has also been destroyed or lost in massive amounts, like the burning of the great library of Alexandria, the book burning in China’s Quin dynasty, or the medieval witch burnings which eliminated knowledge of folk medicine. In Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy, the Encyclopedists are trying to preserve human knowledge in advance of a total breakdown of civilization (apparently the books are going to be made into a movie next year). (Funny thing about old science fiction. Spaceships leap across the universe, but computers are still the size of houses and books are still published on paper.)

Obviously, things are changing very fast. Wikipedia could drive print encyclopedias out of business then fail itself. The wiki model is very democratic, but like many very open systems subject to error and manipulation. Stay tuned.

Richard Florida
by Richard Florida
Tue Jun 30th 2009 at 10:54am UTC

Free, or Not…

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

Chris Anderson’s new book Free argues that with the rise of digital marketplace business can profit more from giving information and content away than by charging for it.

Malcolm Gladwell, reviewing the book for the New Yorker, says not so fast.

There are four strands of argument here: a technological claim (digital infrastructure is effectively Free), a psychological claim (consumers love Free), a procedural claim (Free means never having to make a judgment), and a commercial claim (the market created by the technological Free and the psychological Free can make you a lot of money). The only problem is that in the middle of laying out what he sees as the new business model of the digital age Anderson is forced to admit that one of his main case studies, YouTube, “has so far failed to make any money for Google.”

Why is that? Because of the very principles of Free that Anderson so energetically celebrates. When you let people upload and download as many videos as they want, lots of them will take you up on the offer. That’s the magic of Free psychology: an estimated seventy-five billion videos will be served up by YouTube this year. Although the magic of Free technology means that the cost of serving up each video is “close enough to free to round down,” “close enough to free” multiplied by seventy-five billion is still a very large number. A recent report by Credit Suisse estimates that YouTube’s bandwidth costs in 2009 will be three hundred and sixty million dollars. In the case of YouTube, the effects of technological Free and psychological Free work against each other.

So how does YouTube bring in revenue? Well, it tries to sell advertisements alongside its videos. The problem is that the videos attracted by psychological Free—pirated material, cat videos, and other forms of user-generated content—are not the sort of thing that advertisers want to be associated with. In order to sell advertising, YouTube has had to buy the rights to professionally produced content, such as television shows and movies. Credit Suisse put the cost of those licenses in 2009 at roughly two hundred and sixty million dollars. For Anderson, YouTube illustrates the principle that Free removes the necessity of aesthetic judgment. (As he puts it, YouTube proves that “crap is in the eye of the beholder.”) But, in order to make money, YouTube has been obliged to pay for programs that aren’t crap. To recap: YouTube is a great example of Free, except that Free technology ends up not being Free because of the way consumers respond to Free, fatally compromising YouTube’s ability to make money around Free, and forcing it to retreat from the “abundance thinking” that lies at the heart of Free. Credit Suisse estimates that YouTube will lose close to half a billion dollars this year. If it were a bank, it would be eligible for TARP funds …

And there’s plenty of other information out there that has chosen to run in the opposite direction from Free. The Times gives away its content on its Web site. But the Wall Street Journal has found that more than a million subscribers are quite happy to pay for the privilege of reading online. Broadcast television—the original practitioner of Free—is struggling. But premium cable, with its stiff monthly charges for specialty content, is doing just fine. Apple may soon make more money selling iPhone downloads (ideas) than it does from the iPhone itself (stuff). The company could one day give away the iPhone to boost downloads; it could give away the downloads to boost iPhone sales; or it could continue to do what it does now, and charge for both. Who knows? The only iron law here is the one too obvious to write a book about, which is that the digital age has so transformed the ways in which things are made and sold that there are no iron laws.

Richard Florida
by Richard Florida
Fri Jun 19th 2009 at 11:23am UTC

Friday Funny

Friday, June 19th, 2009

Book Flack, Larry Hughes on things he’d “like to see on C-Span Book TV:”

8:00 pm: The State of American Publishing
Authors Nevada Barr, Richard Florida, Gary Indiana, and J. California Cooper compete in skeet shooting, track & field events, and Greco-Roman wrestling to determine who will claim this coveted title

CCE Editor
by CCE Editor
Wed Jun 17th 2009 at 8:27am UTC

Richard Florida Appearing on ABC’s 20/20 June 19

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

Richard Florida will appear on ABC’s 20/20 speaking with Dan Harris on the economic crisis and the “New Normal.” The interview will air June 19.

Below are two photos of the taping in the show’s Manhattan studio.

Tune in and tell us what you think of the interview!

CCE Editor
by CCE Editor
Fri Jun 12th 2009 at 8:52am UTC

Ryan Seacrest Plugs “Who’s Your City?” Singles Map

Friday, June 12th, 2009

On the What’s Happening section of the blog on RyanSeacrest.com, Richard Florida’s singles map from Who’s Your City? is front and center. Ryan Tweeted about it as well.

What do you consider the best city for singles?


Richard Florida
by Richard Florida
Mon May 18th 2009 at 8:08am UTC

Daily Dishing This Week

Monday, May 18th, 2009

I’m part of the team filling in this week for the amazing Andrew Sullivan over at the Daily Dish at The Atlantic Online. Here’s what Andrew has to say:

I’m due for a break from the web for a week. Aides de blog Patrick Appel and Chris Bodenner will keep the Dish al dente in my absence. I’m working on an essay for the magazine and catching up on some reading – things I cannot seem to get done when I’m blogging twelve hours a day. Atlantic Correspondents Richard Posner, Richard Florida, and Lane Wallace have also agreed to contribute this coming week. Usually when I try to take a breather, some epic events occur – popes die, icons are shot, etc – so look busy.

I’m grateful to Andrew and my Atlantic online editor Bob Cohn for the opportunity, and humbled to be in such esteemed company. I want to thank my online CCE editor Elizabeth McGolerick and my MPI and CCG teams, especially Patrick Adler and Charlotta Mellander, for supporting my blogging.

Come visit here.

Creative Class Exchange will continue life as usual. My posts for the The Daily Dish and otherwise, along with my Twitter feed, will continue to appear here. And our other bloggers will be posting usual.

Richard Florida
by Richard Florida
Thu Apr 30th 2009 at 11:19am UTC

Atlantic Blogging

Thursday, April 30th, 2009

Next week, I’ll begin blogging as one of a dozen new Atlantic Monthly correspondents, alongside lumnaries like Judge Richard Posner. I am a huge fan of The Atlantic and have published several essays there. I’ll be linking to and cross-posting those posts here.

CCE Editor
by CCE Editor
Tue Apr 21st 2009 at 9:54am UTC

Update: Appearance at NAB Show

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

Richard Florida will present at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Show Monday, April 20, in Las Vegas.

“The broadcasting industry has a truly unique opportunity to demonstrate the transformational capacity of creativity in business,” said Florida. “I am honored and thrilled to participate in the NAB Show, and look forward to talking with attendees about how the industry can grow significantly through innovations in content creation, distribution, and interactivity.”

The NAB Show is the world’s largest electronic media show covering filmed entertainment and the development, management, and delivery of the next generation of audio, video, and filmed content across multiple platforms – from televisions, radios, and computers to phones, the big screen, and beyond.

From iPhones to flat-screens, what’s your latest favorite gadget?

Update: Richard gave the keynote address at the NAB Show following Mary Tyler Moore’s acceptance of a Lifetime Service Award. Here are a few photos: